HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0208 PEC
11
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 8, 1993
AGENDA
Seminar on Sustainable Development
by Daniel Chiras
(lunch provided) 11:00 A.M.
Site Visits 1:00 A.M.
Public Hearing 3:00 P.M.
Site Visits
1335 Westhaven Drive
Uptown Grill
Distelhorst
Police addition
Two Saabs - Tim and Jim are drivers
Public Hearing
1. A request for a joint work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Review Board for a conditional use permit for an addition to the
Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage
Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally
described below:
A part of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees
28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 114 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line of said Southeast
1 /4 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110,00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S.
Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line parallel
to said southerly right-of-way line 145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08 minutes 47 seconds East
78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50
seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110-00 feet northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence South 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South right
of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, and the Department of Highways, State of
Colorado by rule and order recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a Bed and Breakfast to be located at 1850 South Frontage Road
West/Lot 3, Alpine Creek Townhouse Subdivision.
Applicant: Dr. Richard Engle and Gertrude Olson
Planner: Shelly Mello
K
3. A request for a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Uptown Grill
Restaurant, located at 521 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead First
Filing.
Applicant: Joel Fritz and Richard N. Brown
Planner: Tim Devlin
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace 111, to
amend the approved development plan to allow for one single family residence and
one duplex located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said
Section 12 bears S00°38'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00°38'56"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70;
thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81123'19"E 165.42 feet to a point of
curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08'51" and a chord that
bears S1 515745"E 119.10 feet; thence S40132'1 WE 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the
right, having a central angle of 49°12'10" and a chord that bears S15°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00'W 90.27 feet; thence
N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence 578°10'32"W 101.44 feet to the faint of Beginning.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Jim Curnutte
5. A request for a work session for setback variances to allow an addition to the
residence located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision.
Applicant: Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst
Planner: Jim Curnutte
6. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I, and Chapter 18.26 Commercial
Core II of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alteration).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello
7. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge, to allow the construction of
a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595
Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY
8. A request for a major exterior alteration, site coverage variance, and landscape
variance to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge
Street/a part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Blanche Hill
Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1993
v
2
m 8
9. A request for a setback variance and site coverage variance to allow an addition and
garage for the residence located at 1886 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 50, Vail Village
West, Filing #2.
Applicant: Christopher Bartlett and Donna Mumma Bartlett
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1993
10. A request for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from Primary/Secondary
Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally
located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1 /2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5
South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE comer of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of
the SE 114 bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft, to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east fine of said SW 1/4 of the SE 114, a distance of 200,00
ft. to a point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft, distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the BE 1/4
to a point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point
of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1 /4 of said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1 /4 of the SE 1 /4 of said
Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of Section 11, being the point of beginning.
10 Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1993
11.. Discussion items:
PEC Retreat
Mission Statement/Town of Vail Code Reference to PEC Role, Responsibilities
and Procedure
E
3
C
PRESENT
FEBRUARY 3, 1993
MINUTES
Diana Donovan
Jeff Bowen
Greg Amsden
Chuck Crist
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whitten
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
ABSENT
Dalton Williams
STAFF
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Tim Devlin
Shelly Mello
Jim Curnutte
1. Starting at approximately 2:50 P.M., the Planning and Environmental Commission was
called to order for a joint work session with the Design Review Board-to discuss a
request by the Town of Vail for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Municipal
Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road West
(at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally described below:
A part of the Southeast 174 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees
28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 114 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line of said Southeast
114 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-o# way line ofU.S.
Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line parallel
to said southerly right-of-way line 145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 06 minutes 47 seconds East
78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50
seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence South 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South right
of way line 585.56 toot to The True Point of Beginning.
Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, and the Department of Highways, State of
Colorado by rule and order recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441,
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
10 Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993
Mike Mollica made a presentation, per the staff memo to the PEC, concerning the
proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department and outlined the issues that staff
was most concerned with. These issues included parking and architectural design.
With regard to parking, Mike reviewed the two methods staff used to assess the
parking requirements for Town employees and the public. The first method utilized the
Zoning Code standards. This method determined that the total number of parking
spaces required to meet this project's needs will be 97. The second method examined
the number of current Town employees and determined that 104 parking spaces will
be needed to meet the project's needs. 11
Kristan Pritz pointed out that a parking lot survey would be important to assess what
the public's parking needs are.
Mike Mollica stated that the Police Department is unique with regard to shift overlaps
and that the Department has 16 vehicles.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that parking at the Municipal site is currently "maxed out"
without any additional building and that adding more floor area will increase the parking
needs.
Ken Hughey stated that there was no money budgeted for all structured parking and
that the project will include some surface parking unless additional money is provided.
Chuck Crist then inquired about the spaces west of the Municipal Annex Building.
Mike Mollica responded that the area west of the Municipal Annex Building could hold
as many as 25 additional spaces.
Greg Amsden stated that full utilization of the parking spaces west of the Municipal
Annex Building would be a good way to help the parking situation.
Mike Mollica then summarized the architectural design of the proposed project. He
stated that the planting design and grading review was still at the conceptual stage.
With regard to the planting design, Sherry Dorward, the project Landscape Architect,
stated that the existing aspen trees could be transplanted and that a retaining wall
could be built to save the spruce on the east end of the parking lot, but that one
parking space might have to be given up to accomplish this. She stated that drainage
was still an issue. She also envisions a courtyard around the existing spruce tree at
the southwest corner of the addition and she hopes to use trees as a screen at the
back of the proposed building.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that with regard to the architectural design that she would
like to see a compromise between the "Vail look" and a more contemporary look.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 2
Mike Arnett, a DRB representative, stated that the design of the building needs to
"stand for itself without landscaping"
Jeff Sheppard, the project architect, stated that the cosmetics of the building can
certainly be changed and further inquired whether the overall scale was in the right
direction. The PEC agreed that the overall building's scale was now acceptable.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the eastern-most roof should be gabled in order to
shed snow in the opposite direction and not shed snow on the garage entrance.
2. A request for a Bed and Breakfast to be located at 1850 South Frontage Road
West/Lot 3, Alpine Creek Townhouse Subdivision.
Applicant: Dr. Richard Engle and Gertrude Olson
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello stated that staff supports this request.
Greg Amsden inquired whether there were 6 parking spaces offered by the
Homeowner's Association and noted that the bed and breakfast was a considerable
distance from the Town of Vail bus stop.
Shelly Mello responded that the applicant would use the 2 garage space and one on-
site parking space to meet the parking requirements.
Chuck Crist motioned to approve this request per staff memo with Gena Whitten
seconding the motion, with a unanimous vote 6-0 to approve this item.
3. A request for a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Uptown Grill
Restaurant, located at 521 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead First
Filing.
Applicant: Joel Fritz and Richard N. Brown
Planner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that this request is
consistent with Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guidelines and Guide Plan but that the
staff felt that the public should have complete access to the Bird of Paradise sculpture.
He stated that at the present time staff was recommending denial of the applicant's
request for a conditional use permit, but that the staff could support a modified version
of the deck as described in the memo.
Joel Fritz (the applicant) stated that he does not like the Bird of Paradise sculpture's
current location. He believes that a dining deck would make the area more active and
that he does not want to modify his plans. He stated that public access to the
sculpture would improve and that pedestrian problems in the area would improve and
not be hindered if his request were approved and the base of the Bird of Paradise was
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 3
moved towards the northeast corner of the deck. He also stated that if the boundary of
the deck was located 6 ft. from the elevator shaft he would be able to have a larger
deck without a fence, which would give the cart the needed visibility for a viable
business.
Diana Donovan inquired whether alcohol would be served from the deck and whether a
fence was needed.
Joel Fritz stated that alcohol would not be served.
Kristan Pritz stated that staff feels fencing is important to delineate deck boundaries
per the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Guidelines.
Diana Donovan then inquired whether the espresso cart would just be morning
operation.
Joel Fritz stated that the espresso cart would be primarily for morning business and
that the cart is self-contained and 79" wide. His idea is to serve breakfast foods such
as rolls and pastries from the cart. The customer would have to physically come on to
the deck to purchase coffee and food items.
Greg Amsden inquired what the status was with the Art in Public Places Committee
(AIPP) concerning the relocation of the Bird of Paradise.
Kristan Pritz responded that the relocation would be acceptable as long as the AIPP
and the Lionshead Merchant's Association supports the decision. She also stated that
Lionshead has a tot of private property ownership so it is more difficult to place pieces
on public land. For this reason, some pieces can be on private land with lease
agreements.
Kathy Langenwalter, the PEC representative to the AIPP board, stated that the
Merchant's Association is adamant about keeping the Bird of Paradise in this'general
area. She said that the AIPP feels that the sculpture must be accessible to the public
on all sides. She also stated that she likes the idea of the deck and cart, but that this
project needs to be kept away from the piece.
Joel Fritz then asked if it would be feasible to move the Bird of Paradise 8 or 9 ft. to
the east.
Kathy Langenwalter said that this would place the piece in the flow of pedestrian traffic.
She also stated that there needs to be enough space around the piece to allow public
access.
Jeff Bowen stated that the location of the Bird of Paradise is a problem for this
proposal. He believes that the Bird of Paradise is difficult to see presently because
there is no sunlight after the morning hours, and there is a lot of wind at that location.
He feels that this accounts for the large amount of trash located at the site.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 4
Chuck Crist stated that he would agree with the proposal if the Bird of Paradise was
moved.
Greg Amsden stated that if the sculpture was moved, the boundaries of the deck would
be provided by the existing building walls and sculpture. If the sculpture remains in its
present location, the cart should be placed to the west of the Bird of Paradise. He
further stated that the entry of the Krismar must be preserved and that the sculpture
could possibly be an entrance feature.
Kathy Langenwalter voiced her concern about how the cart will fit in the space.
Steve Stockman, owner of Krismar, stated his feeling that the deck a6d cart would be
an amenity to the Lionshead area.
Gena Whitten said that she does not see this proposal as an outdoor-dining deck. She
believes that an ordinance is needed addressing carts. She stated that a conditional
use for an outdoor dining deck is the wrong vehicle for approving an espresso cart.
With regard to the Bird of Paradise, she inquired whether the AIPP would pay for its
relocation.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the AIPP has been working on placing the piece
permanently for quite some time, and that money is available to move it.
Diana Donovan stated that the cart should not be the central attraction and that the
deck needs to be 6 ft. away from the Bird of Paradise.
Steve Stockman inquired about the feasibility of locating the cart under the portico
Kristan Pritz stated that staff also has concerns with the cart location under the portico
and how the deck was delineated.
Steve Stockman stated that the cart and tables would have the same umbrellas so that
they are tied together visually.
Kristan Pritz stated that staff feels that the deck must be delineated so that the
association with the restaurant is clear.
Gena Whitten said that it was her feeling that the deck being considered was not
primarily for dining but for the cart, and that they already had a deck.
Diana Donovan suggested that this item be tabled to give the applicants some time to
modify their request.
Greg Amsden stated that the Bird of Paradise issue needs to be resolved with the
Lionshead Merchant's Association and AIPP so that a solution concerning its location
can be found.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 5
Diana Donovan stated that the sculpture, if moved, needs to be even with the
entryways to Krismar and Colorado Insight, not out in front of the shops in the way of
pedestrian traffic.
Joel Fritz inquired about if the Bird of Paradise was gone, how far out can the clock
come.
A general discussion then took place regarding the size of the deck, and it was a
consensus that the deck and cart should not interfere with pedestrian traffic through
the area.
Greg Amsden stated that if the sculpture was removed then fencing would need to be
included in this project.
Diana reiterated her feeling that the cart needs to look incorporated into the deck. She
then inquired whether the applicant would consider tabling this item for two weeks in
order to look into getting the Bird of Paradise sculpture relocated.
Jeff Bowen stated that he was not completely against this proposal but he would like to
see modifications and dialogue with the Lionshead Merchant's Association and AIPP
concerning moving the sculpture.
C
A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by Chuck Grist to table the
request. A unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request until February 22, 1993.
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace 111, to
amend the approved development plan to allow for one single family residence and
one duplex located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/4, NE 114, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said
Section 12 bears SO0°38'56"W 455.06 foot; thence along said centerline N00°3856"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70;
thence departing said RAW line N66°5325'"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81°23'19 E 165A2 feet to a point of
curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08'51" and a chord that
bears S1 557'45"E 119.10 feet; thence 540132'1 WE 3.00 feat; thence 66.30 feet along the are of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the
right, having a central angle of 49112'10" and a chord that bears 815°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8640'00"W 90.27 feet; thence
N38142'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78110'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Applicant. Michael Lauterbach
Planner; Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that Mr.
Lauterbach has made changes to his proposal in response to the PEG's comments
from the January 25, 1993 PEC meeting. He then reiterated staff's concerns with
regard to this project.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993
6
The first staff concern discussed was the circulation system (Westhaven Drive). Jim
stated that Westhaven Drive would probably become a public road maintained by the
public and that Greg Hall was currently working on developing his recommendations
for improvements necessary to bring it up to Town standards. He further stated that
Mr. Lauterbach has agreed to contribute to the cost of bringing Westhaven Drive up to
Town's standards.
The second concern with regard to this project pertains to the functional and aesthetic
landscaping of this project. Jim said that this new proposal moves the buildings further
out of the Gore Creek riparian zone than the previous proposal showed, to within 1-112
ft. of the front property line. He stated that Mr. Lauterbach must state the limits of
what the disturbance will be with regard to construction activity. He further stated that
the applicant has no problem with a 10 ft. wide fishermen's access easement along
Gore Creek.
Jim Curnutte stated that staff was recommending approval of this request with certain
understandings between the Community Development staff and the applicant. The
understandings consist of: a physical construction activity line/barrier be placed on the
plans and on the ground prior to the issuance of a building permit, a fishermen's
access easement, additional landscaping on the north side of the recreation path, the
applicant will bring the portion of Westhaven Drive in front of his property up to Town
standards, the plans need to be corrected and the southern half of the single family
unit shall be shifted 3 to 5 ft. away from the road and the whole building shifted 5 ft. to
the north.
Mike Lauterbach stated that he is in agreement with staff's recommendations and that
he is willing to pay for road improvements in front of property prior to issuance of TCO
(see attachment).
Jim Curnutte inquired how the PEC wished to proceed with this item (i.e. approve or
table) with regard to the minor modifications that still had to be made.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether the corner stakes they viewed during the site visit
were at the maximum corners of the buildings.
Mr. Lauterbach responded that they were give or take 5 ft.
Greg Amsden inquired what kind of treatments and extensions were to be used off the
sliding glass doors off of the bedrooms.
Michael Lauterbach stated that there will be a couple of feet for a walkway but no deck
or patio. The deck that would be used by the residents would be off of the living room.
He said that snow storage for the south unit will drop off of the driveway. The west
unit will be away from the bikepath.
Kathy Langenwalter voiced her concerns regarding the architectural design. She
stated that she is displeased with Spruce Creek, the project Mr. Lauterbach is currently
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 7
involved with down valley and she is concerned with the quality for this project. She
also said that Mr. Lauterbach should consider putting a deck over the shed roof.
Mr. Lauterbach responded that the project down valley is not completed and that he
himself is not comfortable with it the way it looks right now either.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she is concerned with window treatments.
Jeff Bowen motioned for approval of this request in accordance with the findings in the
staff memo with the provision that the applicant work on the seven staff concerns
elucidated by Jim Curnutte. Chuck Grist seconded the motion. Jim asked the PEG to
consider approving this request with 6,450 sq. ft. of GRFA, calculated according to
today's definition, rather than as 6,050 sq. ft. of GRFA with a stair credit Jim felt this
would be preferable for consistency's sake so that no project would be calculated
differently than our new definition allows. Jeff Bowen amended his motion accordingly.
The motion was seconded by Chuck Grist. A unanimous vote of 6-0 approved this
request.
5. A request for a work session to discuss setback variances to allow for an addition to
the residence located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision.
Applicant: Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst
Planner: Jim Curnutte
i Jim Curnutte presented the staff memo and outlined the concerns that staff has with
this request. The first of these was the removal of the ft. diameter tree on the south
side of the building and the three trees on the east side of the building (25 ft., 25 ft.,
and 35 ft.). Staff feels that the applicant and PEC should consider a remodel to the
entryway of the building in order to save the group of 3 trees on the east side of the
building. The second concern pertains to a wetland encroachment of the proposed
deck. Staff feels that the encroachment can be avoided by cutting back the deck or
placing the deck on the east side of the proposed remodel. The third concern staff has
with this project is the proposed landscaping. Specifically, there is a net loss of trees
with this proposal and additional landscaping needs to be added.
Kyle Webb stated that he would like to ask for an entryway roof overhang setback
encroachment on the east side of the building. He then showed the PEC what he had
in mind.
Jeff Bowen then inquired why it was not possible to save the tree.
Kyle Webb stated that there was no room on the site to shift the plan around and
make functional rooms. He said that the placement of the sewer lines by previous
construction really limited the buildable area of the lot.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 8
Jim Curnutte stated that Russ Forest went to the site and agreed that the site did
contain wetlands. He said that Russ recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers come out and review the proposed encroachment.
Kristan Pritz stated that this was a difficult situation because we do npt technically
enforce wetland regulations. In the past, as a condition of approval of a request, we
have asked for a letter from the Corps prior to the issuance of a permit to avoid
problems for the applicant.
Chuck Crist stated that it was too bad that the trees would have to go. He suggested
that the applicant add a few more to the plan.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that this plan was a sensitive use of the site. She fees that
more integration between existing and new is needed but would make those comments
when the project goes to DRB. She asked if the applicant could mulch the trees on
the site.
Kyle Webb stated that he will agree to mulching the trees.
Diana Donovan stated that there do not appear to be problems with the variances for
this request. She told the applicant that he would need to come back before the PEC
for a final hearing in two weeks, February 22, 1993.
6. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core 1, and Chapter 18.26 Commercial
Core II of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alteration).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello
Chuck Crist motioned to request that Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I be amended
with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 6-0 approved
this request.
7. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge, to allow the construction of
a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595
Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY
Chuck Crist motioned to table this request with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A
unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request indefinitely.
8. A request for a major exterior alteration, site coverage variance, and landscape
variance to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge
Street/a part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 9
Applicant: Blanche Hill
Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1993
Chuck Crist motioned to table this request with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A
unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request until February 22, 1993.
9. A request for a setback variance and site coverage variance to allow an addition and
garage for the residence located at 1886 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 50, Vail Village
West, Filing #2.
Applicant: Christopher Bartlett and Donna Mumma Bartlett
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1993
Chuck Crist motioned to table this request with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A
unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request until February 22, 1993.
10. A request for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from Primary/Secondary
Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally
located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1 /2 of the South East 1 /4 of Section 11, 'township 5
South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1 /4 of the SE 1 /4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 114 of
the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 114 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00
ft, to a point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 114 of the SE 1/4
to a point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 114 of said Section 11, a distance of 200,00 ft. to the point
of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the 5E 1/4 of said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said
Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of Section 11, being the point of beginning.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1993
Chuck Crist motioned to table this request with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A
unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request until February 22, 1993.
11. Discussion:
PEC Retreat
Kristan Pritz stated that she thought a retreat might be helpful and informative for the
PEC. She then inquired what issues needed to be addressed.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 10
Greg Amsden stated that addressing better communication and approval from Town
Council would be helpful.
Kathy Langenwalter feels that a retreat with a goal of being part of the team and
getting together away from Council chambers is important.
Kristan Pritz stated that it is helpful to occasionally remove yourself from a formal
setting.
Chuck Crist stated that the PEC members needed to get together and decide on a
mission statement to plan for the future.
Kristan Pritz stated that the staff could go over the master plans of the larger projects
with the PEC so that they could see where its all going, i.e. 5treetscape and the Land
Use Plan, etc. She also stated that Larry Eskwith would draft general by-laws
regarding the PEC's mission.
13. Kathy Langenwalter motioned that the minutes of the PEC meeting of January 25,
1993 be approved with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. The minutes were then
approved.
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 8, 1993 11
n
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a joint work session with the Planning and Environmental
Commission and the Design Review Board, for a Conditional Use permit for an
addition to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located
at 75 South Frontage Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal
Building), and as legally described below:
A part of the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado,
more particularly described as follows Commencing at the Southeast
corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16
seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said
Section 6 72.75 the East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6
72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the
southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right
angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West
and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of-way line 145.50 feet to
The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08 minutes 47
seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29
seconds West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40
seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50
seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet
northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence South 79 degrees 46 minutes
11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South right of way line
585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of
Eagle County, and the Department of Highways, State of Colorado by
rule and order recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Moliica
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST
The Town of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use permit to allow for the expansion of
the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The property on
which the Municipal Building is located, (which includes the existing Vail Police
Department) is zoned Public Use District. Public buildings and public service facilities
are considered Conditional Uses within the District, pursuant to Chapter 13.36.030 of
the Town's Municipal Code. Because the proposed expansion to the Vail Police
Department is a modification to an existing use, a Conditional Use permit is required.
The Public Use District is fairly unique in that the development standards for the district
are specifically prescribed by the Planning Commission during the review of a
development proposal. This review is not unlike the Special Development District
process whereby setbacks, building height, density control, site coverage, landscaping
and the general site development are specifically tied to a development plan. The off-
street parking requirements are also established by the Planing and Environmental
Commission.
II. PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS
The proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department would be located immediately
to the east of the existing Police facility. The existing floor area (approximately 5,944
square feet) of the Police Department would continue to be utilized by the Police and
would be reconfigured and remodeled as a part of the project. A two-story building of
approximately 26,035 square feet of office space, including 34 structured parking
spaces, would be constructed. No underground parking is included in the
proposal. Architecturally, the proposed addition has been both internally, and
externally, redesigned to better facilitate the use of the existing Police area. The
overall layout (site planning) of the addition steps back from the South Frontage Road,
as viewed from west to east. This design solution, as recommended by the PEC and
the Design Review Board at previous work sessions, is intended to break up both the
overall mass and bulk of the structure, as well as the linear form of the building.
Please see the attached elevation drawings for further detail on the design.
The gross area of the structured parking would consist of approximately 10,530 square
feet. This includes areas dedicated to the sallyport, the vehicle impound and all
vehicular circulation corridors. The common areas of the building, which include stair
corridors, a pedestrian ramp (ADA requirements), the elevator core, storage rooms and
mechanical areas, total approximately 3,619 square feet. The gross area of the
entire project (office space, common areas and structured parking) would be
31,979 square feet. Please see the attached site plan and floor plans for more
specific information regarding the layout of the proposal.
2
a. Site Area:
The Municipal site consists of 89,132 square feet, on two parcels. The
Municipal Annex is on a separate parcel from the main Municipal Building,
however for zoning purposes, and per the DEC's suggestion, the entire site has
been analyzed as a whole.
b. Site Coveraae:
The existing site coverage for the Municipal Complex is approximately 16,265
square feet, or 18.2%.
The proposed site coverage of the Municipal Complex, with the new
Police addition, is approximately 30,165 square feet, or 33.8%.
C. Buildina Heiaht:
The maximum height of the existing Municipal Building is approximately 34 feet.
The maximum height of the proposed addition to the Police Building has been
designed so that it would not exceed the highest ridge of the existing Municipal
Building. In general, the main roof ridges of the proposed Police addition range
in height from 30 to 34 feet.
d. Parkina Analysis
The existing parking for the Municipal site is as follows:
47 spaces - east of Municipal Building
49 spaces - between the Municipal Building and the Municipal Annex
13 sraaces - west of the Municipal Annex
109 spaces - TOTAL
The existing surface parking which is located between the Municipal Building
and the Municipal Annex (49 spaces), and the parking spaces west of the
Municipal Annex (13 spaces) will be retained with the Police expansion. If the
We Recycle facility moves to another location (off-site), then an additional 10-11
parking spaces would become available for municipal use.
n
3
The proposed parking garage for the Police addition is designed to
accommodate 34 vehicles, (this includes one parking space in the vehicle
impound area, but does not include the two spaces in the sally port). In
addition, it is proposed that there be 13 exterior parking spaces. All of the
exterior spaces would be located immediately to the east of the new parking
garage. The surface parking spaces would be screened by the use of berming
and landscaping. The proposed structured parking (34 spaces), the
proposed new surface parking (13 spaces), and the existing surface
parking which will be retained after the Police addition is constructed (62
spaces), totals 109 spaces.
As presented, the new parking garage would be used as exclusively as secured
Police parking. The general public, and all the other Municipal employees who
work in the Municipal Complex, will be directed to the 49 surface parking
spaces located between the Municipal Building and the Municipal Annex, and to
the 13 spaces located west of the Municipal Annex.
The staff has reviewed the parking requirements for the Municipal Complex
using two methods:
a) Parking determination based upon the Zoning Code standards
(area calculations);
b) Parking determination based upon number of employees.
Both methods include parking for the six Town vehicles (non-Police vehicles)
which are stored on-site at the Municipal Complex.
a) Zonina Code standards (area calculations):
This method utilizes the standard Town of Vail parking
requirements listed in the Zoning Code, which are based on
square footage measurements. In addition to the Municipal
offices, the analysis also includes some office areas currently
occupied by the Police Department, which would be utilized for
other Municipal offices, once the Police move into the new
addition. Due to the unique nature of the Police Department's
staffing needs, and the shift overlaps, the parking requirement for
this department is based upon the "worst case" scenario of
numbers of employees and vehicles. Please see the attached
analysis of the Police Department's staffing needs.
Overall, the planning staff's analysis using this method indicates
that a total of 97 parking spaces will be required to meet the
project's needs. Since the proposed number of parking spaces
with the new Police addition is 109, there would be 12 spaces
available for use by the general public, using this method of
calculation.
4
0 b) Number of emolovees:
This method determines the parking requirement based upon the
number of current employees working on-site at the existing
Municipal Complex (including the proposed Police addition). This
calculation assumes a "worst case" situation where there is a full
Town staff and all employees have reported to work. It should
be noted that this scenario does not include any of the existing
conference spaces (including the Council Chambers), which
attributed 10.9 parking spaces to the "area calculation" method
as described above.
The staff's analysis using this method indicates that a total of
104 parking spaces will be required to meet the project's needs.
Since the proposed number of parking spaces available is 109,
there would be 5 spaces available for use by the general public,
using this method of calculation.
In summary, it is anticipated that there would be 5-12 parking spaces
available for use by the general public.
5
e. Setbacks:
The following table indicates the minimum building setbacks from all property
lines, (existing and proposed conditions):
Existing Proposed
North: 0.0' 0.0'
South: 7.6' 7.6'
East: 353.0' 190.0' - to building
106.0' - to surface parking
West: 116.0' 116,0'
f. Building Areas:
The following table outlines the different areas of the proposed Police addition:
Office {cross areas)
Lower
Level: 3,443 sq. ft.
Upper
Level: 14,387 sq. ft.
17,830 sq. ft.
Common-storage, Parking/Circulation
stairs, elevator, mechanical
2,188 sq. ft.
1,431 sq. ft.
3,619 sq. ft.
10,530 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft.
10,530 sq. ft.
Total grass area of new Police Department = 31,979 square feet
n
6
0 111, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS,
Because this is a work session, the staff will not address each of the review
criteria for the Conditional Use permit at this time. However, the following
criteria will be used at the final hearing to determine whether or not the project
should be approved or denied:
Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the
Town.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, school, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public needs.
3. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and
parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
the surrounding uses.
IV. REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES
1. Site Planning
a) Buildina footorint/general layout - The staff believes that the
overall site planning for the Police addition works well given the
narrowness of the project site. The proposed building has been
redesigned so that it steps back from the South Frontage Road,
as indicated in the southeast corner of the project. The building
continues to have a zero setback along the north property line,
and the staff feels that the reduced scale of the redesigned
building, coupled with a very strong landscape plan, can mitigate
the building's close proximity to the north, and the adjacent 1-70
eastbound off-ramp. It should also be noted that the edge of
asphalt for the South Frontage Road is located approximately 20
feet further south of the southern most property line of the
Municipal Complex. Hence, the "perceived south setback" would
be more in the range of 28-30 feet.
b) Vehicular access/CDOT access oermit/South Frontage Road
improvements - The vehicular entrance to the parking garage is
proposed to be located in approximately the same location as the
existing eastern-most parking lot entrance. The project
7
landscape architect, Sherry Dorward, has been communicating
with the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the
required State access permit. Additionally, the CDOT has
indicated that they would allow the placement of landscaping
within the State's right-of-way.
C) Pedestrian access (sidewalks. crosswalks, building entries) -
It is intended that the main pedestrian access to the new Police
addition will be via the existing Municipal Building. All public
parking is proposed to be located between the Municipal Annex
and the existing Municipal Building. It is intended that public
access to the Police addition will primarily be from the existing
western entrance to the Municipal Building, and secondarily, from
the new pedestrian entry, which would be adjacent to the
proposed elevator tower on the south side of the project.
To aid in pedestrian safety and access to the Municipal Complex,
a pedestrian crosswalk is proposed as a part of the Police
addition. The crosswalk is proposed to be located adjacent to
the Scorpio Condominiums and would direct pedestrians to the
new pedestian entry facing the South Frontage Road. A
proposed sidewalk would tie the new pedestrian entry with the
existing surface parking lot to the west of the Municipal Building.
d) Landscaoina and aradinq - At this time, a landscaping and
grading plan has not been submitted for this project. Sherry
Dorward has indicated that all the large evergreen trees, located
to the east of the existing Municipal Building, would remain with
this project.
2. Architectural Considerations
a) Mass and bulk/scale and comoatibility with the existing Municipal
Buildina and with the surrounding area - The staff believes that
the current design of the Police addition, which has been
completely redesigned to reduce the mass and bulk of the
project, achieves a scale that is very compatible with the existing
Municipal Building, and with adjacent structures in the area. We
believe that the design team's responsiveness to the comments
and concerns expressed by the PEC, the DRB and the staff is
very positive.
The staff believes that the facade modifications to the existing
Municipal Building, which are indicated on the elevation
drawings, should be a part of this project. These changes are
necessary to architecturally tie the new addition with the existing
8
structure. In addition, we also believe that modifications will
need to be made to the existing western entry to the Municipal
Building so that it is clear to the public that this is the primary
entry into the Municipal and Police Building.
b) Buildina materials - As proposed, the building materials for the
Police addition would be compatible with the existing Municipal
Building and with the alpine character of Vail.
3. Development Standards
a) Parkina. - The two methods of calculating the parking requirement
for the project, as indicated in the parking analysis above,
indicate a difference of seven parking spaces. The staff is
recommending that the PEG utilize the most conservative
approach when determining the parking requirement for the
proposed Police addition. We would recommend that the PEC
review the parking analysis utilizing the "number of employees"
approach, which would require a total of 104 parking spaces for
all the municipal functions on-site.
Using the "number of employees" method, the project would
1101 require a total of 109 spaces, and would provide 5 parking
spaces for use by the general public (at a minimum). Overall,
there would be exactly the same number of parking spaces
as currently exists on-site.
Although the overall number of Town employees is not proposed
to be increased beyond the existing level, it should be noted that
the proposal suggests that the new structured parking, and the
eastern-most surface parking lot, be used exclusively as secured
Police parking. The existing eastern-most surface parking lot is
currently utliliized by the Police, as well as by Town employees
who work in other departments within the Municipal Complex.
The staff has some concern about a potential parking shortage if
all non-Police Municipal employees, as well as the general
public, are required to park west of the Municipal Building. It
may be appropriate to designate some Town of Vail employees
to park in the eastern-most surface parking lot to utilize these
spaces as much as possible and to reduce parking congestion in
the other two parking lots.
b) Buildina height - OK
C) Setbacks - At this time, a landscape and grading plan has not
been submitted and the staff would like to wait to comment on
9
this information. Essentially, we believe that the proposed
setbacks are reasonable, with the understanding that a very
strong landscape plan will be submitted which will buffer and
soften the project.
d) Site coveraae - OK
e) Landscaoina - See Setbacks above.
f) Trash Facilities - The current proposal calls for the trash facility
to be located immediately to the west of the Police parking
entrance. The trash storage area would be completely enclosed
and truck access to this area appears workable.
4. Floor Plans
a) Comoatibility with the existina Municipal Buildina. - The staff
believes that the proposed floor layout of the Police addition will
be compatible with the existing Municipal Building, as the main
hallway through the existing Municipal Building will be at the
same elevation as the upper floor of the Police Building. The
main lobby for the Police Building is also proposed to be located
on the upper floor to facilitate public access.
b) Comoliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - An
elevator is proposed to be added to the Police addition and
would be located just southeast of the existing interior stairs in
the Municipal Building. The location of the new elevator is
situated such that both levels of the existing Municipal Building,
as well as both levels of the Police addition, will be completely
accessible to disabled persons.
5. Comprehensive Plan
a) Land Use Plan - The Town of Vail's Land Use Plan has identified
the Municipal Complex site as being in the land use category
entitled Public/Semi-Public. This category includes schools, post
offices, water and sewer storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal
facilities, and other public institutions.
The staff believes that the following goals and policies of the
Land Use Plan are applicable to the Municipal Complex and the
proposed Police addition:
6.1 -Services should keep pace with increased growth.
10
6.2 -The Town of Vail should play a role in future
development through balancing growth with
services.
6.3 -Services should be adjusted to keep pace with
the needs of peak periods.
b) Recreation Trails Plan - The Recreation Trails Master Plan
indicates that pedestrian crosswalks should be provided
immediately adjacent to the Municipal Complex. Additionally, the
Trails Plan indicates that a sidewalk should be located along the
south side of the South Frontage Road, from the Vail National
Bank east to the Alpine Standard Service Station.
6. Environmental
a) Noise/Exhaust fans from Darkina aaraae - The exhaust fans are
proposed to be located on the north elevation of the new Police
addition. At this time, a proposed north elevation has not been
submitted for review. However, any noise generated by the
exhaust fans will need to meet the Town of Vail's noise
standards.
9 pec\memoslpolice.208
n
11
r
?.: 1?2-
TOWN OF FAIL MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
MASTER PLAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING REQUIREMEN TS
Mid Day
' Swing
'l
DIVISION Watch 1 O'lap Watch 2 lap
O Watch 3 ap
O
Administration ,
Chief of Police
Staff
Staff Suooort
Lieutenant
Staff Sergeant
Records
Communications 2
CoAm. mr,& j ' ...
Ooerations
Patrol Lt. t ! I - . ?'
Investigation
Patrol. 5 __.. _.'
Investigations
Community Ser.
CKlme FtLiV1,rri01t
r
TOTALS
I
._ .
ximum Overlap ?j I
Ma a?3. 3? 12.
s
Parking Required at maximum overlap
Reserve/ Volunteers -- '°
Marked Police Cars 13
Unmarked Police Cars °- ?
Impound/ Others
TOTAL POLICE PARKING -- '? .
VISITOR PARKING .O
TOTAL PARKING --
•
v
??'871td
-N'"s e??cT i3
? J-
11 i?l
p
/ ® n
ry ? S?
t p
_ !y
t ?
9 0
4
E
y. ,
I IT
_ T?o _
?' ?: Nt Se6=r rJ ?n.tn ,o. ne ( °Gi/ Nmpcvc:-) H.V. ? ErNrP- P•??K/,UCy SELOW
s'sr. s?r• O
Oil
f I. I-? J V IF - J '_f ' J? J Ii sraa. sro`. "_ ,K
..+ . .. s l.'F G%R1771JEr ?
o! 1 _
ulC+sa?GS J?U:O.45T17.' _ J ( p ? k I o ???:? ! v?
so- In r cQ1iF- %I ?'r ° a'SnrslGff
I .' ?zexzY
{„?SP• -rECY-+x^I />c:F ?i ?f4-SGG15 7a65°
p 1 _ _ l ? ? ? Snltt- 4 cot?J'
Par g `j (f k mss-/-
?_ 9205; £XS?Xf/ t.??' . FcrP• D?.?
rao. ?
??KhTIGtVV / F?CGf'-a5
u(I
--1 Al
'+UNlC(fgL ?w?/sxs sTAt?
..o j.TJ ! t
J9 I
r ?
?"`;^r F/GCB
I
?rvnn:?
P•fP
2-1 7, . tkt}k 1111111
c.- ,t
?? 14t4 /92:f* r6?? 1 rC-of.- I
ILI
N ? ?r
0)
!s^t?C?1J!?? 1?.5C?4
•
•
a
•
• ?t
0 0 0
I
'
41
a ?
{f
i
r :. 1
? I i ,x ? x r? is t x .?
_? ? x=4r ? ? ?? - Y????? ?':?,?+.' ? '. ????/":I i:'?%j•i'%f: %-.`i 1 t?fJ/.: % :r;!. ?v!vr'i .
l--6VA1C- -791
1+??ir gC=? J A v
e a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast located in
the Residential Cluster Zone District, at 1850 South Frontage Road
West/Lot 3, Alpine Creek Townhouse Subdivision.
Applicant: Dr. Richard Engel and Gertrude Olson
Planner: Shelly Mello
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989
to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance
states:
"A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a
dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises
and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use."
The applicants have applied for a conditional use permit to allow them to use two
bedrooms in their home, which is located in the Residential Cluster zone district, for a
Bed and Breakfast rental. The area to be used for bed and breakfast contains a total
of 500 square feet. Two guests could stay in each bedroom for a total of 4 guests.
11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationshio and impact of the use on the development objectives of the
Town.
The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail
as a favorable type of lodging for tourists.
2. The effect of the use on liaht and air, distribution of oor)ulation.
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
Four guests can be accommodated at one time, and it is unlikely that
there would be more than two guest vehicles. There is a Town of Vail
bus stop in the vicinity. It is felt that the impact on the use of parks and
recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safetv and convenience, traffic flow and control, access.
maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parkina areas.
It is likely that there would be two additional vehicles driving to the
residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon
traffic.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, includina the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surroundina uses.
The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively
impacted by the addition of a Bed and Breakfast in this area. No
exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the
Bed and Breakfast.
5. Bed and Breakfast Operations may be allowed as a conditional use in
those zone districts as specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code
for Ordinance No. 31. Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Ooerations
shall be subiect to the followina requirements:
a. Offstreet designated parkina shall be reauired as follows:
One space for the owner/proprietor plus one space for the first
bedroom rented olus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom
rented.
The property contains two enclosed and one exterior parking
spaces. This is a single family residence so there is no
additional parking demand on the site.
b. Enclosed trash facilities and reaular garbaae removal service
shall be orovided.
There is regular trash pick-up for the project.
C. Removal of iandscapina for the provision of additional parkina is
stronaly discouraaed.
2
There will be no removal of landscaping.
d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential name
plate sign as defined and regulated by the Town of Vail Sian
Code.
A name plate has not been applied for at this time.
e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use orooerty or facilities
owned in common or jointly with other orooerty owners such as
parking spaces or a drivewav in duplex subdivisions by wav of
example and not limitation, the written approval of the other
property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall
be required to be submitted with the application for a conditional
use permit.
The applicant has obtained approval from the Homeowner's
Association for the project.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation:
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Ordinance.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this
application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds that all applicable review
criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met.
3
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an outdoor dining
deck for the Uptown Grill Restaurant, located at 521 East Lionshead
Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead, First Filing.
Applicant: Joel Fritz and Richard N. Brown
Planner: Tim Devlin
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is proposing to create an outdoor dining deck adjacent to the east entry of the
Uptown Grill Restaurant, in the area surrounding the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture. The
Uptown Grill is part of the Vail 21 Building, and the property is zoned Commercial Core 2
(CC2) District. Outdoor patios (dining decks) are allowed in CC2 as a conditional use per
section 16.26.030 of the Municipal Code. Please note that presently an outdoor dining deck
exists on the south side of the restaurant.
If approved, the outdoor dining deck seating will be available for year-round use and is
proposed to have an espresso cart located on it from which coffee products would be sold.
The staff considers service carts of the type proposed by the applicant to be a part of the
restaurant operation, thereby allowing it to be placed on an approved outdoor dining deck.
Once the dining deck is approved, the espresso cart will be subject to Design Review Board
approval. The dining deck is proposed to have approximately 10-12 tables with seating for
40-48 persons. A site plan is attached showing the location of the proposed deck.
It should be noted that the Art in Public Places committee has allocated funds to move the
"Bird of Paradise" approximately 36-40 inches to the east of its present location. The
boundary of the deck is proposed to be of the same type used to define the dining deck on
the south side of the restaurant, which is a lattice-type fence with planter boxes located on
top. Please refer to the attached site plan and photograph of the proposed fence.
11. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The Town of Vail zoning code does not stipulate the need for any additional parking spaces
for outdoor dining decks. None of the other zoning or development standards would be
affected with this proposal.
Ill. RELATED POLICIES OF THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND
URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed deck is consistent with the following Lionshead Design Considerations. There
are no Urban Design Sub-Area Concepts related to this area. The site is zoned Commercial
Core 2 and the following guidelines should be used in reviewing the proposal:
Decks and Patios:
Guidelines:
E.1. ,"Functional decks or patios primarily for dining are strong street life elements in
Lionshead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground or second floor
level.,"
Discussion:
"Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to
the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to
the liveliness of a busy street - making a richer pedestrian experience than if
those streets were empty."
Guidelines:
E.2. "Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
sun, wind, views, pedestrian activity, accessibility."
Discussion:
"A review of successful decks/patios in Lionshead reveals several common
characteristics: direct sunlight from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and protection from
wind increases use by many days per year; elevated 2 to 3 feet to give views
into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse); physical separation from
pedestrian walk of 2 to 6 feet (a planter is more effective than a wall);
overhang gives pedestrian scale/shelter."
Accent Elements:
F.1. "Judicious use of colorful accent elements, consistent with the existing
character of Lionshead are encouraged, such as: ...Awnings and canopies -
canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors; Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor
patios; Annual color flowers - in beds or planters, in balcony or window boxes;
Judicious use of bright colors to accent trim (pinstripe, scrollwork, etc.) will be
acceptable.,,
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Although the proposed dining deck is consistent with the Lionshead Design Considerations
discussed above, the staff feels that the deck should be located completely to the west of the
"Bird of Paradise" sculpture for the reasons discussed below. Therefore, upon review of
Section 13.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the zoning code, the Community Development
Department recommends denial of the conditional use permit for the dining deck as proposed
2
based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
The staff feels that an outdoor dining deck in this area would be a positive addition to
this area of Lionshead. The outdoor dining deck will add street activity and color to
this corridor if designed properly. However, the staff feels that the deck should be
located entirely to the west of the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture so as to not impede
pedestrian access to the sculpture or access through the space between Krismar and
Colorado Insight. The applicant maintains that the deck, and especially the espresso
cart, needs to extend to the east of the sculpture to give the business exposure and
visibility to pedestrians in the area. The staff feels that the dining deck should be in
close proximity to the Uptown Grill so that it is associated with the restaurant. The
staff feels that this association will occur most effectively if the deck is contained in the
area west of the "Bird of Paradise."
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
needs.
The staff feels that the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture should remain fully accessible to
the general public and should not be located within the confines of the proposed
outdoor dining deck. Further, the staff feels that the boundary of the deck should be
no closer than six feet from the sculpture to allow for unimpeded pedestrian access.
Aside from this concern, the staff does not feel that this proposal negatively effects the
other above listed criteria.
3. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and parking areas.
The staff believes that the deck as proposed will hinder access to the sculpture (as
discussed above) and will impede pedestrian traffic moving through the area between
the Lionshead Parking Structure and Lionshead. The Public Works Department has
also recommended that the deck be located entirely to the west of the sculpture to
minimize any negative effects on pedestrian traffic flow. Public Works has also
expressed concern that snow removal and snow storage for the area needs to be
addressed by the applicant.
4. Effect upon character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding
uses.
The staff believes an outdoor dining deck in this area would have a positive effect
upon the character of the immediate area. However, the staff feels that if the deck is
allowed to extend east of the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture, the sculpture would be less
3
accessible to the public and that pedestrian traffic flow through the area would be
negatively impacted. The staff feels that the proposed lattice fence and planter boxes
are attractive and recommends that the planter boxes be utilized in both the summer
(annual color flowers) and winter (i.e. evergreen boughs and lighting).
V. FINDINGS
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before
grantina a conditional use aermit.
1 a That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of
the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends denial of the request for a conditional use permit for the outdoor dining
deck as proposed, as we believe the request does not meet the findings in Section V as
described in this memo. The staff could support of a modified version of the proposed dining
deck if it were located entirely to the west of the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture for reasons
discussed in Section IV of this memo, and if the applicant is able to successfully address
Public Work's concerns regarding snow removal and snow storage. The staff feels that the
proposed lattice fence and planter boxes are attractive and recommends that the planter
boxes be utilized in both the summer (annual color flowers) and winter (i.e. evergreen boughs
and lights).
4
•
i
. i
EXHIBIT A
i .
J69 ! S MA (Z
p '
, ff???
ep
. J
?r'15?I?fZ ?N?'?l
I 1°
d Y
S
?f
X
6' )vrey
t 7. L)
•
w/m/ A4&,rtw ow rep
E
f ? v€
EXHIBIT A ?
mot. ,t PTQu!. t?t._. ? ! '`
1
leg!SMA(2.
?¢ rF
pt «
Pt
r x 1
?QtS?f? C"NTi?
_ ENt?Y
7.L)
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A,
Millrace III, 1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically
described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/e, NIE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of
said Section 12 bears S00138'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00138'56"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of
I-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81°23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point
of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the are of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49108'51" and a chord
that bears S15°57'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40°32'10"E 100 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the are of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the
right, having a central angle of 49°12'10" and a chord that bears S15°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence
N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet, thence S78110'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The applicant is seeking approval of a major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD No. #4,
Area A, Millrace III, in order to construct one duplex and one single family residence on the
.819 acre (35,676 sq. ft.) Millrace III site. Each unit is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. in size and
will have a two-car garage and a gas fireplace. The buildings will have a maximum building
height of approximately 35 feet and a total site coverage of 3,907 sq. ft. Since this property
is currently unplatted, the applicant must also receive approval of a minor subdivision prior to
the issuance of any building permits related to this project. Following the construction of the
residences, the applicant will file single family and duplex subdivision plats.
The Millrace III property is bounded by Westhaven Drive on the East, the South Frontage
Road right-of--way and the Westhaven Apartment property (the ruins) on the north, Gore
Creek on the south, and the Cascade Club tennis court property on the west. The property is
currently vacant with the exception of two paved parking areas, one unpaved parking area and
the paved recreation path. The former owner of this property has allowed the Millrace
Condominiums to maintain and use this property for parking for a number of years.
I
However, the Association does not have any legal right to use this property. It appears the
Millrace III property has been zoned SDD since the time it was annexed into the Town of
Vail in 1974. Access to this property will be from Westhaven Drive, which runs along the
eastern property line.
Il. BACKGROUND
In March of 1980, a development plan per the SDD was approved for this property by the
DRB. Under the approved plan, development was to occur in a single triplex building. The
total GRFA for the building was calculated at 5,660 sq. ft., according to the definition in
effect at the time. This figure equates to 6,355 sq. ft. of GRFA if calculated using today's
definition. The maximum height of this building was 36 feet and the total site coverage was
approximately 3,800 sq. ft. Approval of this plan has since expired.
In May of 1992, the applicant requested a work session with the PEC in order to receive
feedback on his conceptual plan to place three single familv dwellings on the property. Each
of these units was approximately 2,000 square feet in size with a combined site coverage of
approximately 3,800 square feet. Two of the units were proposed to be three levels high with
the last unit being limited to two levels.
At a PEC worksession on December 7, 1992, Mr. Lauterbach presented a new scenario for
developing the property. The conceptual site plan showed a duolex building near the southern
end of the site and a single familv residence at the northern portion of the site. Each of these
units was proposed to be approximately 2,225 sq. ft. in size and the combined site coverage
of the project was 5,570 sq. ft. The purpose of the December 7, 1992, worksession was to
receive direction from the PEC regarding a number of development parameters. The PEC
agreed that the single family/duplex approach would be acceptable as long as the building
sizes could be consolidated to reduce site coverage and overall lot disturbance. The Planning
Commission agreed not to count overlapping stairs as GRFA in the new development
scenario. Another item discussed by the PEC had to do with setback requirements from
Westhaven Drive and the recreation path. The PEC felt that a minimum setback of 8 ft.
would be desirable along Westhaven Drive with a 12 ft. setback from the recreation path.
The Planning Commission discussed abandonment of the existing recreation path easement
which does not line up with the actual location of the path. The Commission agreed to
abandonment of the easement provided that a new 15 ft. wide easement be platted directly
over the existing recreation path at the time of minor subdivision. The final comments from
the. Planning Commission at the December 7, 1992 meeting had to do with minimum distance
between buildings and the proposed building locations. The Planning Commission felt that
the two buildings could be as close as 12 ft. between building foundations, however the PEC
requested that the locations of the single family residence and the duplex be switched so that
the duplex is located on the north side of the lot.
At the January 25, 1993 PEC worksession, Mr. Lauterbach presented his new scheme for the
property which took into account many of the comments made by the PEC at their December
2
7, 1992 meeting. The plans submitted at this worksession were much more detailed than had
been previously provided (i.e. scaled floor plans, elevation drawings, landscape plan, etc.).
Upon review of these new detailed plans, the staff and the PEC suggested additional revisions
that the applicant should make prior to requesting final SDD Amendment approval. These
revisions involved the reduction of GRFA, site coverage and building heights from those
shown on the plans, preservation of the Gore Creek riparian zone, architectural changes to the
buildings, and Westhaven Drive improvements. With regard to protecting the Gore Creek
riparian zone the PEC agreed to allow Mr. Lauterbach to move his buildings closer the front
property line than the previously imposed 8 ft. setback limit. The PEC felt that the building
setback reduction would be acceptable in light of the distance between the front property line
and the edge of the Westhaven Drive pavement. The PEC felt that the trade off between
having the buildings so close to the road and protecting the Gore Creek natural area was
acceptable.
The applicant has addressed each of the recommendations raised at the January 25, 1993
meeting and now wishes to be considered for final SDD Amendment approval.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Each of the development parameters have been compared with the previous approval (1980
triplex) and the plan being proposed today.
Section 18.46.050 - Permitted Uses
Allowed:
The applicable uses permitted in Cascade Village at this location include
single family dwellings, two-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings.
Previous Approval:
One triplex building
Proposed:
One duplex and one single family residence.
Section 18.46.103 - Development Statistics for Area A (Millrace III)
Allowed:
Three dwelling units, 6,000 sq. ft. GRFA, six on-site parking spaces.
Previous Approval:
Three dwelling units (triplex) 5,660 sq. ft. of GRFA (calculated according to
the definition in place in 1980), 6,355 sq. ft. of GRFA (calculated according to
today's definition), 6,063 sq. ft. (calculated according to today's definition, not
including overlapping stairs), and three on-site enclosed parking spaces.
Proposed:
Three dwelling units, (1 duplex and 1 single family) 6,422 sq. ft. of GRFA
(calculated according to today's definition), 5,972 sq. ft. (not including
3
.7
overlapping stairs), and six on-site enclosed parking spaces.
Section 18.46.120 - Setbacks
Required:
The minimum required setback on the peApherv of all of Area A shall be not
less than 20 feet ... 50 foot stream setback from Core Creek ...
Previous Approval:
In 1980 when the triplex building was approved both the recreation path and
the northern property line did not exist. The building was setback 15 ft. from
the front property line and 30 ft. from the centerline of Core Creek.
Proposed:
The proposed plan shows that the duplex building is setback 15 ft. from the
north property line (adjacent to the ruins), 12 ft. from the recreation path, 53 ft.
from the centerline of Core Creek and 3 ft. from the front property line
adjacent to Westhaven Drive.
Section 18.46.140 - Height
Allowed: 48 feet
Previous Approval: 36 feet
Proposed: 31 feet (duplex) and 36 feet (single family)
E
Section 18.46.160 - Site Coverage
Allowed:
Previous Approval:
Proposed:
35% (12,486 sq. ft.)
10.710 (3,800 sq. ft.)
10.9% (3,907 sq. ft.)
Section 18.46.170 - Landscaping
Allowed: 50% (17,838 sq. ft. minimum)
Previous Approval: 82% (29,200 sq. ft.)
Proposed: 82'x/0 (29,400 sq. ft.)
Section 18.46.180 - Parking and Loading
Required:
75% of all required parking shall be located within the main building or
buildings, and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a
landscape berm.
Previous Approval:
50% of all required (2 spaces per unit) were located within the main building.
v
4
Proposed:
85%fl of all required parking spaces are located within the buildings. Each unit
has a two-car garage.
Section 18.46.190 - Recreation Amenities, Tax Assessed
Required: 25 cents per square foot of GRFA must be paid in conjunction
with construction but prior to the issuance of building permits.
Section 18.46.280 - Conservation and Pollution Controls
Required: Protective measures must be used to prevent soil erosion into
Gore Creek, both during and after construction.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District
(SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the
Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The applicant has made several revisions to his original building design and
site planning in order to respond to previous PEC worksession comments.
These revisions have resulted in a better utilization of the flat buildable area on
the north side of the lot, a reduction in building height from 43 ft. to 36 ft., a
change in the type of roof form from gable to hip, a reduction in GRFA and
site coverage, and an increase in the amount of landscaped area on the lot and
reduced impacts to the Gore Creek riparian zone.
Staff feels that the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation of the proposed
development have been designed compatibly and sensitively to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties. We would, however,
recommend certain minor revisions to the buildings' architecture and the
proposed site planning which we feel would improve the overall development
plan. Staff has visited the site to review the proposed staking of the building
locations and suggests that the southern half of the single family dwelling unit
be shifted 5 ft. toward the Creek and the entire building shifted north.
approximately 5 ft. We believe that this minor building location change will
improve the appearance of the project as viewed from Westhaven Drive.
5
Staff's concern is that the present location of the building may present a
significant unbroken plane along Westhaven Drive and this may be reduced
with the building shift.
Staff would suggest that the visual appearance of the north side of the single
family dwelling would be improved with the addition of windows and by
carrying the stone wall all the way to the end of the building.
Staff would suggest that the applicant consider revisions to the west elevation
of the duplex building to lessen the mirror image currently exhibited on this
side of the building.
Staff has observed certain minor discrepancies between the site plan, landscape
plan and floor plan drawings. None of these discrepancies are significant
enough to recommend tabling of the application at this time. However, staff
would like to see revisions made to the plans to remove these minor
discrepancies as soon as possible. An example of the differences are as
follows:
The deck on the west side of the southern duplex unit is not shown on
the site plan.
The covered entryways for both of the duplex units differs from that
drawn on the floor plans.
The floor plans do not reflect the large deck located on the west side of
the north duplex unit.
The building heights shown on the site plan do not match those
exhibited on the elevation drawings.
The driveway width to the southern duplex unit must be revised to be a
minimum of 12 ft. wide.
The landscape plan does not reflect the new driveway location being
proposed for the north duplex unit. The applicant has stated that a new
landscape plan will be revised after the Planning Commission meeting
in order to incorporate all of the recommended changes the PIC may
have. Some of the differences are due to the fact that the applicant has
tried to respond quickly to staff comments.
E
6
0 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The uses, activity and density being; proposed with this development plan
appear to be compatible with surrounding uses and activities. The location and
use of the existing bike path will be unaffected as a result of approval of this
plan. As mentioned previously, some residents of the Millrace Condominium
Association use a portion of this property for parking. The condominium
owners are aware that they do not have any legal right to continue using this
property for parking purposes. The applicant is not proposing any uses,
activities or densities different from that originally approved as a part of the
overall Area A development plan for Cascade Village, SDD No. 4. The staff
has not asked for employee housing because we believe the site is too
constrained to provide for more development. This SDD is also providing
housing in more appropriate locations within the SDD, i.e. - Westhaven,
Waterford, Cornerstone, and Glen Lyon. We are looking at the entire SDD in
respect to this issue.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
1.8.52.
Under Section 18.52 of the Vail Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less
than 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA has a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those
with over 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit. Two of the
three units (the single family and the north half of the duplex) within the
Millrace III project are under 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA and therefore require 2
parking spaces to be provided on-site. The parking requirement for the third
unit is 3 parking spaces, as its total GRFA is over the 2,000 sq. ft. threshold.
The proposed plan meets this requirement by providing attached two-car
garages with each unit, plus room for several more cars in front of each garage
door.
D. Confu. ...ity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
The applicable goals and objectives from the Town's Land Use Plan for this
area include:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural
resources should be protected as the Town grows.
0
7
0 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (in fill areas).
1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards affecting this property which
would require mitigation or restrict its development. The proposed buildings
do not encroach into the 100 year flood plain or the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback,
with the exception of a 1 ft. deck encroachment which is allowed pursuant to
Section 18.58.060 of the Vail Municipal Code.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
Staff believes that the proposed site design, building design, and location and
open space provisions do provide a functional development, responsible and
sensitive to the natural features, vegetation and overall set equality of the
community. As mentioned previously, however, we do have some concerns
with regard to lessening the overall construction impacts within the Gore Creek
riparian zone and offer specific recommendations at the end of this
memorandum.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
The on-site circulation system being proposed in conjunction with this
development plan is accomplished by way of three separate driveways
accessing the three dwelling units from Westhaven Drive. This plan has been
reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be acceptable. As mentioned.
previously, the recreation path location and use will be unaffected as a result of
approval of this development plan. There are some concerns with regard to
off-site circulation which have not been resolved at this time. Currently,
8
Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to Gore Creek Bridge, is not
a publicly dedicated and maintained road. The road is owned by MECM
Enterprises, Inc. and does not currently meet Town standards with regard to
grade, construction or minimum clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge
connecting the Cascade Club to the building to the south and other standards.
The Town is interested in working with Mr. Lauterbach as well as the
developers of the Cornerstone and Waterford projects (developments being
proposed at the upper end of Westhaven Drive) and other owners within the
SDD to bring the road up to Town standards and have it dedicated to the Town
for maintenance purposes. Staff does not feel that it would be equitable to
require Mr. Lauterbach to complete all of the road improvements necessary to
bring Westhaven Drive up to standard. Instead, we feel that Mr. Lauterbach
should only be required to bring that portion of the road directly in front of his
property up to Town standards. The applicant has agreed to complete this
work prior to the issuance of a TCO for the project.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
A significant portion of this site has been previously disturbed as a result of the
construction of the paved parking areas, paved bike path and installation of a
buried gas line. The applicant has attempted to locate the buildings as close to
Westhaven Drive as possible in order to optimize the most buildable area of
the site and preserve the remaining natural features, such as the heavily treed
Gore Creek riparian zone. The proposed building placement, within 1-t/2 ft. of
the front property line, makes the proposed landscape plan an especially
important element of the overall development plan. The applicant has
attempted to provide significant landscaping in the right-of-way in front of the
proposed dwelling units while at the same time maintaining the Town's
minimum site distance requirements.
In addition to providing a building setback of 12 ft. from the existing recreation
path, the applicant will be berming and heavily landscaping an area south of
the path to help buffer future residents from path users, and vice versa. The
applicant will be replatting the recreation path easement to conform with the
existing location of the recreation path and will dedicate that easement to the
public. Although the applicant has made several revisions to his plans in order
to lessen the overall impact to the Gore Creek riparian zone, the current plan
still calls for the removal of a significant number of trees and site disturbance
that will impact the creek vegetation on the west side of the property. Staff
believes that the applicant's proposed landscape plan goes along way toward
mitigating the impacts of his development plan, however, we would
recommend that additional landscape materials be added to the property.
Specifically, staff would recommend additional trees and shrubs be provided
11
9
0 along the north side of the recreation path.
Although the Town owns most of the tracts of land immediately adjacent to
Gore Creek throughout the Town of Vail, the river corridor through the
Cascade Village SDD is in private ownership. Staff recommends that a
fishermen's access easement be provided approximately 10 ft. from the high
water mark along the entire length of Gore Creek through this property.
In order to protect the Gore Creek riparian zone as much as possible, and as
specified in Section 18.46.28 (Conservation and Pollution Controls) of
Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, Cascade Village, staff recommends that
significant protective measures be used to prevent unnecessary damage and
destruction of vegetation and to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek, both
during and after construction. We would recommend that the plan be amended
to designate an allowable limit of construction activity and require that certain
physical barriers be in place on the ground prior to the issuance of a building
permit. It appears that the 50 ft. setback line would make a logical limit of
construction activity, with the exception of the southwest corner of the property
adjacent to the single family, where construction may be allowed to encroach
10 ft. into the 50 ft. setback line.
The development plan shows a significant distance, approximately 40 ft.,
40 between building foundations in order to provide a view corridor to the river
area through this development. Staff supports the idea of providing a break in
the line of buildings so that views of the Gore Creek natural area remain open.
L Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development districts
It is the applicant's intention to construct these units at the same time in the
Spring of 1993, therefore, no phasing plan has been submitted for staff review.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Millrace III major amendment to
SDD No. 4. As mentioned previously in this memorandum, there are still a
number of concerns which staff feels should be addressed and the applicant has
agreed to each of these concerns:
1. The site plan shall be amended to show a designated limit of
construction activity line. This line should follow the 50 ft. setback line
with the exception of the area behind the single family residence. The
n
10
purpose of this line is to ensure that construction activity be limited to
the area east of the line. A physical barrier along the limit of
construction activity line shall be in place prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the project. Staff will then make periodic
inspections to the property throughout the construction to assure that no
disturbance occurs west of the construction barrier. The barrier should
be of a design which not only delineates the limit of construction
activity, but also provides for the control of sedimentation into Gore
Creek. This barrier may be accomplished through a combination of
snow fencing, hay bales and fine mesh netting.
2. A 10 ft. pedestrian/fishermen's access easement shall be provided along
the shore of Gore Creek. This easement should extend approximately
10 ft. from the high water mark of the creek to allow fishermen access
up and down Gore Creek. This easement will be dedicated at the time
the minor subdivision is approved.
3. Additional landscaping shall be provided on the north side of the
existing recreation path. This vegetation in addition to that shown on
the landscape plan will help mitigate for the losses being proposed as a
result of the construction of the two buildings. At a minimum, 10
aspen or ash trees (3" cal. minimum) shall be provided along the path
along with 10 - 20 evergreen and deciduous shrubs.
4. Since this property is currently unplatted, a minor subdivision plat must
be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town prior to the issuance
of a building permit for the project.
5. The applicant agrees to provide the necessary improvements to that
portion of Westhaven Drive directly in front of his property line to
bring the road up to Town standards. These improvements may include,
but are not limited to, curb and gutter, drainage, and a new lift of
asphalt paving.
6. Certain minor modifications shall be made to the site plan, landscape
plan and floor plans so that features shown on any one of the three are
accurately reflected on all plans per the staff memo on page 6. These
changes shall be made before the project proceeds to first reading by
the Town Council.
7. The southern half of the single family residence shall be shifted 3 -5 ft.
away from the road and that the entire building be shifted
approximately 5 ft. further to the north.
E
11
"Ale W.
? fI
d ? 1 1 / f
r
0 .
i
/? f J
/ f
I l l ? ??/ t Ott
{
I? ?S1iri
? ' ?fl 111I
1 I10 ti{
? C?ifjI
•
040
,? ? ltd
W? o
N p
?av
1 0 ° j_ i -7
_ i
O p _
O
1 ;OD
?, - r ? I ?° E-j ? -
?? I I 1 I s° sI? R P44
i , ca
e--1 ty e-1
e ? ts, agla =
a4'•v - sSo So'.o too Is
Lower Entry Upper
0
!
-I _
North--
LEE7
?. i-11.4 III ? f ???
south -
=$:
LL
f
Nest
i.
I O'!
-East
H ?
N ?+
A
ce
aG
- txc. {s. Ian
1>?u.11. Yfls
_3
-mil
a Dd-
e c !?Ca1LGL ??
10
IiJ? 7
]o
no
1.r c 2f -6
Lower
a{??9. 44°4 9?0o W°.o
I? I
i a
`7 I
e
Ll o
h
. 1 Q Q-1
I?
O
p
0
w
al
a
9 0
H ?
ai
P4 ;4
0
cU3A?
.. taEC.ac.a'?
JhU t1, YNIa
r
?f
o1
- 9°•o I4'-?s
00 >1
I O _ 10 °a?
lid - -- .
q
9
L4 .
s®
as
&-6
b T1 ?
m
OcRvl
I 4p
•
s
a
zo
-till
Upper
,4'.0
•
f ?
South
44
?1L111
Ir
-NOT
i r txc tL Mq?t
if 1!
,,•?y,??f, J-0 lat,
. - r - wit kll fl zd
?as_
• • •
? -_
i°_
?? ? .
?.:
«..
_7
7
! ?-47
r / r? 5F,
® Al
PLI - 3 _ ' ' 1 ? ? ? ? _ ? ? /./ "yam r ? .? ?/ .--''?? / °°
• ?,1 4 ?? ? +,.? 'ii??° ? ! ? ::.-<? r? ?? / e?/ °? - dpi a?"
p
ca
ati &,4 ?w'p?--° !\ 4 ( ] < w ? v }wu. alu.vah.nwm-.-A wm KA.
? tl $bi.WVw7WOt.t.e..4LV*W*+C.41tar! W3
'N V '??? ? ! ? 5 - 6.tns..>wuic...9?ee+wsrw+?.prtrt ni?.Ke.?s.r:
4j
1 i d !/ ri 4? ' 'f I 4 Site /Iaandsa?ie
i
' hF
•
94f aC, - 'e-' °p -(e--- t r V! i 1 ?^
/ ?.. Q ? y v 4 r ab t ?c C G c ?d ?- ?a c? 44 7-t (/.
f t-4 v c S o.- d,
i- o to k-? ?Jl ftl 4 / r 1
V'I
R
4t 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss possible setback variances to allow for
the addition of an enclosed garage and additional GRFA to the duplex located
at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision.
Applicant: Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst and Kyle Webb
Planner: Jim Curnutte
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are requesting a work session to discuss possible setback variances to
allow for the addition of a two-car garage and additional GRFA within the front and
side setbacks on the east half, and the addition of GRFA in the side setback on the
west half, of the duplex located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst
Subdivision. The lot is currently zoned Two Family Residential (duplex) which has a
setback requirement of 20 ft. in the front and 15 ft. along the side and rear property
lines. The building currently encroaches into the front and west side setback areas.
The existing building encroachment into the front setback is approximately 15 ft., or to
within 5 ft. of the front property line. The extent of the building encroachment into the
west side setback is approximately 12 ft., or to within 3 ft. of the west property line.
Portions of the western half of this duplex are also currently located in a 20 ft. wide
sanitary sewer easement. The applicant has provided a letter from Fred Haslee,
Regulations Administrator for the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District,
which indicates that the District has reviewed the plans and is willing to grant an
"Encroachment Agreement" for those portions of the remodel proposed to be located
within the easement. Mr. Haslee has further indicated that the District will soon be
realigning the easement further to the west and south to cover portions of the sewer
line that are not in the easement.
The variances being proposed are a part of a major remodel to the duplex located on
Lot 1. The west unit currently has 1,220 sq. ft. of GRFA and the east unit has 562 sq.
ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition would result in a net GRFA gain of 5 sq. ft. on the
west side and 2,071 sq. ft. on the east side. The allowable GRFA on this lot is 5,028
sq. ft. After the remodel, 1,170 sq. ft, of GRFA will be available. The proposed
remodel to the west side of the duplex involves the expansion of the main level dining
room. This addition will be located directly above the existing storage shed/crawl
space access. Above this expansion will be loft area with three large windows to allow
for additional light into the living area.
The east side addition calls for a bedroom and storage rooms on the new lower level,
a new two car garage and expanded kitchen, living and dining rooms on the entry level
and three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the new upper level.
East side setback variance requests
Front and side setback variances are being requested to allow for the proposed
remodel to the east side of the duplex. That portion of the remodel which encroaches
into the front setback area involves the construction of a two car garage on the first
floor and a portion of two bedrooms and a balcony on the second floor, directly above
the garage. The proposed garage and bedrooms encroach a maximum of 7 ft. into the
front setback area and approximately 2-1/2 ft. into the east side setback area, however
the building's 8 ft. overhang on the east side encroaches approximately 5-1/2 ft. into
the side setback. Section 18.58.040 (Architectural Projections) of the Vail Municipal
Code allows roof overhangs to encroach up to 4 ft. into a required setback area.
However, since the building overhang in this particular location is approximately 5-1/2
ft. from the building, the last 1-1/2 ft. of this overhang must receive variance approval
in order to allow for its construction. As exhibited on the attached site plan, there are
certain building features located within the east side setback area (i.e. covered
entryway and associated support columns and access stairs to the deck), however,
these encroachments are allowed to project 4 ft. into the setback area without requiring
variances. The setback variances would allow for a 7 ft. encroachment into the
20 ft. front setback for the garage and second floor bedroom and a 1-1/2 ft.
encroachment, beyond the 4 ft. allowable, into the 15 ft. side setback for a roof
overhang.
West side variance request
The requested variances associated with the west half of the duplex are for the
addition of GRFA located at and above an existing storage shed on the west side of
the building. This shed is currently used for storage as well as access to the unit's
crawl space. The proposed remodel would not enlarge the horizontal dimensions of
the existing encroachment. However, this addition will be carried all the way up to the
building overhangs. It is this second and third story addition which is prompting the
need for obtaining a variance. It should be pointed out that the new second and third
level encroachment on the west side does not project further west than the existing
building overhang. The setback variance Is to allow for a 12 ft. encroachment into
the 15 ft. west side setback.
II. BACKGROUND
The Distelhorst duplex was built in 1967, in Eagle County, prior to annexation of this
2
area into the Town of Vail. The building is considered to be a pre-existing non-
conforming use. The applicant has stated that at the time of construction of the
building, Eagle County's setback requirements were 5 ft. and Streamside Circle had
not been widened to the full extent of its 50 ft. right-o-way.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning:
Total Site Area:
Allowed Density:
Existing and Proposed Density:
Two Family Residential (Duplex)
19,275 sq. ft.
Two dwelling units
Two dwelling units
Allowed GRFA:
Existing GRFA:
Proposed GRFA:
Maximum building height allowed:
Existing building height:
Proposed building height:
Allowed Site Coverage:
Existing Site Coverage:
Proposed Site Coverage:
Required Parking:
Proposed Parking:
Minimum Landscaping Required:
Existing Landscaping:
Proposed Landscaping:
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
5,028 sq. ft.
1,782 sq. ft.
3,858 sq. ft.
33 ft.
24 ft.
28 ft.
3,855 sq. ft. (20%)
1,240 sq. ft. ( 6%)
2,140 sq. ft. (11%)
4 spaces (currently located off-site)
5 spaces (3 spaces for the east half
located on-site and 2 existing
spaces for the west half located
off-site)
11,565 sq. ft. (60%)
17,125 sq. ft. (89%)
16,175 sq. ft. (84%)
The criteria and findings to be used to evaluate this proposal are set forth in Section
18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. The criteria and findings are as follows:
A. Variance Criteria:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
3
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safety.
B. Variance Findings:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exception or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owner's
of other properties in the same district.
V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Although staff feels that there is sufficient cause to support the specific variances being
requested by the applicants, we do have some reservations with regard to certain
aspects of the proposed remodel. Staff has requested that the applicants discuss
these issues at a work session in order to receive comments and specific direction
from the PEC. The areas of concern are as follows
Prooosed removal of existing trees
The proposed remodel involves the removal of several large trees currently located on
the east and south sides of the east unit. To the east is a group of three Engleman
spruce trees. These trees are approximately 25 ft., 25 ft. and 35 ft. high. To the south
is a 2 ft. diameter Engleman Spruce, which is approximately 50 ft. high, and a small
deciduous tree. The applicants have stated that although they have considered
4
various ways to save the trees, they are unable to do so and would like to remove
them. Although staff was specifically concerned about preserving the 50 ft. tall spruce
tree south of the building, it appears that it would be difficult and possibly require that
the building be relocated into the side setback to avoid the tree and wetlands. Todd
Oppenheimer, the Town of Vail Landscape architect, has indicated that in order to truly
"save" the tree, no portion of the building may be located within the tree's "drip line".
The drip line is the area below the tree canopy. The three trees on the east side of
the building, however, may be preserved with only minor modifications to the proposed
plans. Staff would recommend that the location of the proposed building walls nearest
these trees be pulled back several feet in order to preserve the trees. This will require
the redesign of the east unit entry.
Prooosed wetlands encroachment
The plan shows a proposed 12 ft. x 14 ft. deck located south of the expanded building.
Although the applicant has cantilevered the deck as much as possible, the support
columns are still encroaching into a wetland area. Also, even though the deck is
located approximately 7 ft. above grade, it appears that it will have a negative effect on
the existing willows in the wetland area. Staff suggests that the length of the deck be
reduced and the support columns be relocated out of the wetland area. Also, staff
would like the applicant to consider relocating the deck further east in order to lessen
the overall wetlands impact on this side of the building.
Additional landscaoina
The applicant has provided a very good landscape plan, however, it would not appear
that the amount of landscaping being proposed adequately compensates for the
amount of vegetation being lost as a result of the remodel. Staff requests that the
applicant add a cluster of 3 aspen trees (3" min. caliper) to the planting area in front of
the west unit and 3 additional spruce trees (8 ft. - 12 ft. min.) in the area east of the
proposed remodel. These trees may be placed on Lot 2 if deemed appropriate by the
PEG and the applicant, as the appliccant owns both lots.
Although staff generally recommends the addition of trees in the immediate area of a
variance request, we do not believe that the area between the west side addition and
the west property line is of adequate width to support additional plantings. This 3 ft.
wide strip provides the only available access to the rear of the west side property
without trespassing onto the adjacent lot.
5
e
?•-4MtW poi. hPu
r}f
i
i
I
EXPiTtt?C. cY?WL4p.?G.G
,f tntiux z'
b CLG.
- s aT?FwY
Gxi. L?U. mt..-- ?
t ?1
--
l? n,
r +
Cacr? ?W.
t_.e?,?4t-f LtvtL fL - ^t4
Kyle H. W bb
Desig-r
or.-, Y0S2
Vatt, Golwatlo
MST
303.679.9255
c
O
d
Q C O
0,00
ix wm
mw$
c
C.
i?
m ?U
o m
s v
was
O m
OWN
min
t9
A2
KYtn K W -bt%
Decignor
? r xM:lti r•-wrx_
pxP.2 W?lrrr
4EdF
4Nrtb ?+?
i
C fi
??" ??- serf-yaoa.
ad--?? I
DIrWE", 0 U
Y
a Ir ?
- 77`?4-
G
4
L m - /
Z
2.1.
omw" 1062
vwi, colac+do
Sass,
303A72.0'2"
Q 6
w
a = o
?U4Y
Qi N `o
p
? U
mom
?t
mE
..gym
m p a
C Tc?v
N
E
VA
1
1
If
9
_ E--e}? slr4-w
- 1f.'XIY'f? L.oTT 6XY+'t Lte}?n?f '
I
Lrv,ekt fM. EELOWT - !
( ? ?+rw W'w°°?r-3 t
:i 11 !!
I ? I I ? ?I ?4
17 0 L-7
0
H41tt
"7 7,
LNfR9m PH. 9?F?1 lr-; Li1{G OF }WOf ;Ede
K)Al H. Webb
D.ww,
Or- Im
V.Q. C.1.1WC
61657
303A79,M"
c
0
"" o
yD?
c
W K%0
x
LLIo
r
o_l
Da
~
)
L)
d m
a E
us m
?C, g
0 =w
Q1 '' 'n
w •
tll
G
-Ar
O..ig-
,
6l?" .as !'.. o„
,I
J
Pkaw.r 1082
Valf. Cokw"o
61667
701.474.0268
ii
9? It1 Ip? qt i O 1 1
.. ?. tt ..
m?8
IW
H
I
IV
?
4
.. m E
'23
Q y
f
7 -,T
.,.,? A5
_ s
w? rr V M T ref
v F
?t wre z'
ebr.r-- mow
\ M,?ari aurrl>,
Kyle H. Webb
Designer
---5 Drawer 1052
4all, Colorado
81657
303.479.0265
t1'?tl pG6 5XI.O TLOI.I},f. ben
It.,? ? SFbw ve,w+r
- ? ? 61 m+4Fa.IG6..
0
?hPr4r?T Pert lea v+P114?+T O a
oprwtial?rN, r...w.2 AMr1Y40, L.
v 00
oa ?
..-~ 48®l.t pub.
!a` Is
4 x
e a
r=xrmr4s ? ?.
Q m
r UI
J
_ ?- - - -- ---- - Q
t ? a6 L l
t '
Ars
.09,00
2.0 s
,
0/11),
/rv?`? STAIRS/LANDING L=47•
8x85.1'
Oa 1?? 8504.4'} (GROUND),
rV-1 (PEAK) `
,.?7 12.2
DECK 3
1
z STORY WOOD/STUCCO
1.5' SIDED DUPLEX
00 2 co
32
?fER MANHOLE I 2
J. .6' FOUND PIN & CAP
_ $476
?V. = 8469.7' F" 6.2 3.0 LS. No. 16844
r ELEVATIONS l ` DECK MAIN FLOOR EDGE OF PLG-iEf7
7-1
ELEV. = 8487.3' b DRIVE & S'f -K
f ! 78 8.2 ?° rn
76 7.0 W?
Sa` 10' y 3.0 STAIRS/LANDING 35.2
[t o 2357'45 /
1 f 31 16%-
PARKING AND DRIVEWAY / V
EASEMENT FOR I
LOTS 1 & 2 ADC
84 IF// 0.5'
1 4.4
2.0' Gi (jy
i
76. cn
FOUND PIN & CAP
p (A EDGE L.S. No. 16844
in
--- rn
SANITARY SEWER- LOT
EASEMENT 1
LOT r"I
s ?
___ ?hll'y?' ? ?A1e8rl?!<!ti'
r `mom. ,,?
?M YF: ft?4Mt? Ys . " ??
T ?1 r??y
f _ Yl?c?. IL 1'It M f N4 Ww
lob, ..
?rvs CI}?Gk.at?
r
\-I- /r`/
// - 41a'V : 4'o mL a**04, C04."O m it
,? tsw..a? ?I,,.?et. N>srrff
- X-il
1
?# t??:lexr?? .
_ V*pWS& *A*A ?
,,? ?.otKttLd "wtTld
C . „ 1052
Vats, Colorado
aim
J03A".0255
0
z
? CD
tc >
x O.
ar-
dv?.
IS "
Z5°
dam
p r rn
?JN
N
0
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 25, 1993
February 3, 1993 (All changes are in bold italic print.)
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and
Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core 11, of the Town of Vail zoning code (relating
to exterior alterations or modifications), and to amend the Vail Village Design
Considerations (Section 1) - Sun/Shade.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello
This request was last discussed during on January 25,1993 and during a series of three
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) worksessions held in 1992 . At those
meetings, the members of the PEC recommended that the Vail Village Design Considerations
(Section 1) Sun/Shade also be modified in conjunction with the CCI and CCII zone district
code changes. The Sun/Shade modifications would require applicants to submit a four-
season sun/shade analysis. The Vail Village Design Considerations were originally approved
on May 20, 1980 by Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980. Therefore, changes to the Vail Village
Design Considerations (Section 1) Sun-Shade must also be made by ordinance.
The Community Development Department staff proposes to modify the sections of the zoning
code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and
Commercial Core II. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October,
1991 Develooment Code Revision Reoort, Phase I. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I
Exterior Alteration or Modifications - Procedure will be discussed first, followed by a discussion
of the issues and the related zoning code modification recommendations for Section
18.26.045 Commercial Core II Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. The text
modifications proposed for the CCI and CCII zone districts are identical. The following is an
outline, followed by a detailed analysis of the list of issues, staff recommendations and related
zoning code modifications for CCI and CCII:
1. Commercial Core I and 11 Exterior Alterations Changes:
Exterior alteration submittal dates;
Minor exterior alterations;
60/90 day review process;
Exterior alteration submittal requirements;
Exterior alteration - owners signatures;
E
Roof line modifications;
Exterior alteration expiration;
Timing of the proposed changes;
Conditional use permit criteria.
IL Text Modifications to Commercial Gore 1 and 11 of the Zonina Code
Ill. Modifications to method of analvsis for Sun/Shade described in the Urban
Desion Guidelines
t. COMMERCIAL GORE I, SECTION 18.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR
MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURE
A. Issue - Exterior alteration submittal dates
The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of
the zoning code. However, the two semi-annual submittal dates do not allow
for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects.
Staff Recommendation
Move the submittal dates for major projects up two to three months, from the
fourth Monday in November and May, to the fourth Mondav in September and
Februarv respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project
reviews at an earlier date in the calendar year. This would allow project
construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski
season, and to finish up in the late fall, prior to the beginning of the ski season.
R. Issue - Minor exterior alterations
Applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an
enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at
any regularly scheduled PEG meeting. However, a single property owner is
limited to one such submission in any two year period.
Staff Recommendation
Staff believes that limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to
one proposal every two years is unnecessary and does not provide any
incentive to property owners who want to upgrade their properties. Staff
proposes that the code be modified to allow the review of additions or
redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner:
A single property owner who has not submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or
less within the last two years may submit a redevelopment proposal of
100 sq. ft. or less for review by the PEC, at any of the Commission's
regularly scheduled monthly meetings.
A single property owner who has submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or
less, within the last two years would have the opportunity to submit any
2
additional exterior alteration proposals which remove or enclose floor
area for review by the PEC on a semiannual basis on or before the
fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September.
No public hearings or work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled
regarding major exterior alterations or minor exterior alteration
applications which must be submitted on a semi-annual basis, prior to
the applicable semi-annual submittal date.
Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of
any enclosed area of 100 square feet or less shall be considered minor
alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any
enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a
maior exterior alteration.
C. Issue - 60/90 day review process
The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not
consistent with the manner in which applications are actually handled.
Staff Recommendation
Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be
determined by the PEC. In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily
dependent on the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period
established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be
amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the
Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and
Community Development Department receipt of all the required submittal
materials.
D. Issue - Exterior alteration submittal requirements
The code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior
alterations. While the staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials
must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to
occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code, so
that the applicant knows what is expected.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the code be modified to include a list of submittal
requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal
requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the
flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate,
depending upon the magnitude of the project.
E. Issue - Exterior alteration - owners signatures
The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration
application.
3
Staff Recommendation
Concern over who may submit an exterior alteration application has to do with
condominiumized projects. Under the SDD review process, all property owners
within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the
condominium by-laws give a condominium association representative (or officer)
the authority to submit an application with a majority vote of approval by its
members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into
this section of the code.
P. Issue - Outdoor dining decks - review criteria
Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area
is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site
development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks, are related to many
of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC.
Staff Recommendation
The addition of a new dining deck, or the modification of an existing dining
deck, should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the
exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expanded dining
decks require PEC review as a conditional use permit. While the conditional
use process addresses issues related to the use of an area, the exterior
alteration criteria are also appropriate criteria to evaluate the impact of this type
of development. This change will allow the PEC to consider the urban design
criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining
deck, in addition to the conditional use permit criteria. Outdoor patios and
dining decks will remain as Conditional Uses in Sections 18.24.020(C) 10 -
Permitted and Conditional Uses - Basement or Garden level, 18.24.030(C)7 -
Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street level, 18.24.040(6)9 -
Permitted and Conditional Uses - Second level and will be not be an accessory
use. We suggest the staff policy be that only one fee would be charged for the
two requests.
G. Issue - PEC/DRB review roles
The PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) both participate in the review of
exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly
defined.
Staff Recommendation
The PEC's responsibility is to review the siting, form, massing, landscaping,
circulation and other large-scale planning and urban design issues. The DRB's
responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural
considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design
Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board
should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code.
H. Issue - Roof line modifications
Alterations to the roof line of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under
4
the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact
sun/shade analysis, views and established view corridors, street enclosure,
streetscape framework, etc.
Staff Recommendation
Require all changes to the existing roof line of structures, located within the CCI
and CCII zone districts, to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria.
This type of request would be considered a minor exterior alteration, assuming
that the added floor area does not exceed 100 sq. ft.
1. Issue - Exterior alteration expiration
Currently, exterior alteration approvals do not lapse or expire. They are
effective indefinitely. Trying to evaluate future exterior alteration proposals on
adjacent structures based on exterior alteration approvals which may or may
not be constructed becomes complex. Further, all other zoning requests, such
as conditional use permits and variances, have a specified time period for the
approvals.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of any major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter
shall lapse and become void two vears following the date of approval of the
major or minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a
building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued
toward completion. Staff believes that two years for a major or minor exterior
alteration is an adequate approval period and would also be consistent with the
approval time for variances and conditional use permits. An exterior alteration
would need to be renewed after two years if the project is not constructed
when it is associated with an SDD.
J. Issue - Timing of the proposed changes
All proposed code changes shall become effective upon approval of the
changes by ordinance. To avoid scheduling problems for applicants during the
spring of 1993, staff is recommending that for 1993, there be three major
exterior alteration submission deadlines (May, September and November).
Beginning in 1994, there will again be only two major exterior alteration
submission deadlines (February and September).
Staff Recommendation
This approach should avoid creating scheduling problems for any applicant who
is considering a project submittal for 1993 using the previous deadlines.
K. Issue - Conditional Use Permit criteria
There is a great deal of overlap between the existing criteria and they do not
address all of the issues that should be considered when reviewing conditional
use requests in CCI. The existing criteria are as follows:
1. Effects on vehicular traffic on commercial core I district;
5
2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core I district;
3. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking;
4. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles;
5. Development of spaces for use by pedestrians;
6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public
uses in commercial core I district so as to maintain the existing
character of the area; and
7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and
landscape design in commercial core I district so as to maintain
the existing character of the area.
Staff Recommendation
Consolidate the criteria. Issues not covered by the existing criteria, but critical
to the character of the Village should be addressed by adding new criteria.
These issues include qualitative aspects such as streetlife, vitality, activity and
mixed uses. The staff would recommend the following criteria be used for
evaluating conditional use requests in the Village:
1 a The effects of vehicular traffic, off-street parking, loading and
delivery and service vehicles generated by the proposed use on
the pedestrianized area of CCI;
2. The ability of loading and delivery facilities to accommodate the
service and delivery of the proposed use without adversely
impacting the pedestrian character of the district;
3. The effect of the proposed use on streetlife, pedestrian activity,
and vitality of the established mixed use character of the area;
and
4. The effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the
quality of life and environment on the CCI district.
IL TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 18.24.065 W Commercial Core I
The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.24.065, which address the
Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above:
"Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of
an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedures:
v
6
A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which
adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building
which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition
of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining
deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows:
Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. An application for a major or minor exterior alteration shall include the
following:
a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list
shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the
legal description of the property owned by each, and a general
description of the property (including the name of the property, if
applicable), and the name and mailing address of the
condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said
names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax
records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirtv
days prior to the application submittal date;
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the
proposal complies with the Vail Villaae Urban Desian Guide Plan
and Vail Villaae Desian Considerations and any relevant sections
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan,
Streetscape Master Plan, etc.);
C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of
improvements, topography, and natural features;
d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other
encumbrances, including schedules A and B;
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 "= 10, a vicinity
plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project
location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan
at a scale of 1 "=10', a roof height plan and existing and
proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'. The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's
7
compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail
Villaae Urban Desian Guide Plan and Desian Considerations and
any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice
(December 21) at 1O:OOAM and 2:OOPM, unless it is
determined that the proposed addition has no impact on the
existing sun Ishade pattern. The following sun angles shall be
used when preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle
1 O:OOAM 42° East of South, 50° declination
2:OOPM 42° West of South, 50° declination
Winter Solstice
1 O:OOAM 30° East of South, 20° declination
2:OOPM 30° West of South, 20° declination
g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"-1' and a
square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses;
h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development.
Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements
on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as
determined by the Director of Community Development;
Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
properties, public spaces, and views per Chapter 18.73 of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code;
Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by
the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The
Director or PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain
submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements
are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable
urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban
Desian Guide Plan and Desian Considerations and any relevant
sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted
bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth
Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all
information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that
the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior
to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work
sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-
8
annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC
meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall
inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall
commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this
initial PEC meeting.
The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the
PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with
Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required
work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director
shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing,
and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent
property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration
Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. Following this
work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that
may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with
the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice.
a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration
(greater than one hundred square feet) in any year in which he
or she shall submit an application on the February or September
dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application
shall be termed a "major exterior alteration."
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of
an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area
of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter
the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor
dining decks and applications for modifications to existing
outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly
scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a
"minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor
exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All
enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of
an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing
structure.
C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be
submitted on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed
by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled
monthly meetings.
d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
9
feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration
application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted
for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or
September dates as set forth in this section of the code.
4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the
Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through
18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted,
approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the
application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town
Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council.
5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in
compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section
18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable
elements of the Vail Villaae Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape
Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal
does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood.
Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Villaae
Urban Desian Guide Plan and the Vail Villaae Desian Considerations, to
include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations.
pedestrian ization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street
enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and
sun/shade analysis;
6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall
constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to
include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass,
site improvements and landscaping.
7. Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this
Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date
of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless,
prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is
commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by
the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with
Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The DRB shall review the project to insure
that it complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition to the
design review criteria, the DRB shall review the proposed exterior alteration for
compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village
Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades,
balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service.
10
C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site
within CCI shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following
review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 -
Design Review:
Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter
18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the
Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter
18.54 - Design Review;
3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence before the DRB that the proposed building modification is
in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in
18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the
Vail Village Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood;
4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the
application with conditions or modifications; or, if the DRIB finds that the
applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the
application;
5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided
in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff approval. A decision of the zoning
administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRB for review.
I11. COMMERCIAL CORE 11, SECTION 18.26.045 .. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR
MODIFICATIONS e PROCEDURE
All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core 1, Section 18.24.065 -
Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, also apply to Commercial Core II, Section
18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. Staff recommends that all
modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to
the CCII Section 18.26.045.
L
11
IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 - Commercial Core II
The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the
Issues and Staff Recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These
changes are identical to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception
of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals.
"Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of
an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures:
A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which
adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building
which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition
of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining
deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows:
Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following:
a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list
shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the
legal description of the property owned by each, and a general
description of the property (including the name of the property, if
applicable), and the name and mailing address of the
condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said
names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax
records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty
days prior to the application submittal date;
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the
proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Desian Guide
Plan and Vail Lionshead Desian Considerations and any relevant
sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of
improvements, topography, and natural features;
d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other
encumbrances, including schedules A and B;
E
12
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 "= 10', a vicinity
plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project
location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan
at a scale of 1 "=10', a roof height plan and existing and
proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'. The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's
compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail
Lionshead Urban Desian Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Desian
Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan;
Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice
(December 21) at 1 O:OOAM and 2:OOPM, unless it is
determined that the proposed addition has no impact on the
existing sun Ishade pattern. The following sun angles shall be
used when preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fail Equinox Sun Angle
1 O:OOAM 42° East of South, 50° declination
2:OOPM 42° West of South, 50° declination
Winter Solstice
1 O:OOAM
2:OOPM 300 East of South, 20° declination
30° West of South
20° declination
,
9. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=l' and a
square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses;
h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development.
Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements
on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as
determined by the Director of Community Development;
Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 18.73
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code;
Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by
the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The
Director or the PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain
submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements
are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable
urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban
Desian Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Desian Considerations
and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
13
3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted
bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth
Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all
information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that
the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior
to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work
sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-
annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC
meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall
inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall
commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this
initial PEC meeting.
The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the
PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with
Subparagraphs 3{b-d} of this Section may be exempt from this required
work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director
shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing,
and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent
property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration
Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. Following this
work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that
may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with
the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice.
a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration
(greater than one hundred square feet) in any year in which he
or she shall submit an application on the February or September
dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application
shall be termed a "major exterior alteration."
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of
an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area
of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter
the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor
dining decks and applications for modifications to existing
outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly
scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a
"minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor
exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All
enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
Subparagraph 3{b} shall be physically and structurally a part of
an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing
structure.
C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be
14
0 submitted on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed
by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled
monthly meetings.
d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 109 square
feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration
application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted
for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or
September dates as set forth in this section of the code.
4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the
Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through
18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted,
approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the
application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town
Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council.
5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in
compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section
18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable
elements of the Vail Lionshead Urban Desian Guide Plan and the Vail
Lionshead Desian Considerations, or that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that
the proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan.
6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall
constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to
include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass,
site improvements and landscaping.
7. Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this
Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years one year following
the date of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the
PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and
construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by
the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with
Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The DRB shall review the same to insure that
it complies with the Lionshead Design Considerations. In addition to the design
review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior
alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the
Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs,
facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements
and service.
15
C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site
within CCII shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following
review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 -
Design Review:
1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter
18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the
Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter
18.54 - Design Review;
3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence before the DRB that the proposed building modification is
in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in
18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the
Vail Lionshead Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood;
4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the
application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review
Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden'of proof, it
may deny the application;
5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided
in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff approval. A decision of the zoning
administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRB for review.
V. THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (1)
SUN/SHADE
The Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun/Shade currently reads as follows:
"Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in
winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially
below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer
days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and
thereby negatively impact uses of those areas.
All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and
fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23) on adjacent properties or
the pubic R.O.W.
16
In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall
height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not
intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the
massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this
criteria.
Staff recommends the text be changed as follows:
All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the
spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) or winter solstice (December 21)
shadow patterns on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W.
In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall
height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not
intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the
massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this
criteria.
In order to determine the sun/shade impact of a project, applicants shall submit
a sun/shade analysis for 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM for the spring/fall equinox and
the winter solstice. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this
analysis:
Spring/Fail Equinox
1 O:OOAM
2:OOPM
Winter Solstice
10:OOAM
2:OOPM
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Sun Angie
420 East of South, 500 declination
42° West of South, 50° declination
30° East of South, 20° declination
30° West of South, 20° declination
Staff recommends approval of the code amendments described above. We believe that the
recommended amendments will clarify and improve the CCI and CCII sections of the zoning
code, as well as the Vail Village and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. The
PEC recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council in ordinance form for final approval.
Staff would like to emphasize that if the proposal is recommended for approved by the PEC,
certain code references and the specific language may be adjusted, due to legal
considerations, when the memo is placed into ordinance form.
n
17
.. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press contact: Sharon Jewett
Mail Symposium 476-0954
Citizens concerned about the environment are taking up
the call for new, sustainable lifestyles. What can a community
do to put into practice the principles of sustainable
development (development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs)? Dr. Dan Chiras will explore creative
practical ways we can apply principles of sustainability
to our modern life when he speaks at the next SYMPOSIUM
BREAKFAST SERIES on MONDAY, February 8th, at the Holiday
Inn, Nail.
The breakfast series is organized for and open to the
public and reservations may be made by calling 476-6954.
Cost is $15 per person and includes a buffet breakfast.
The buffet begins at 7:30 a.m. followed by an hour long
program.
Dan Chiras holds a Ph.D. in biology and teaches courses
on sustainability at the University of Denver and
University of Colorado, Denver campus. A leading advocate
of personal action and responsibility, Dr. Chiras cofounded
Friends of Curbside Recycling, a group that helped to
convince the city of Denver to begin its curbside recycling
program. Dr. Chiras is a member and recent past president
of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, a coalition of 40
statewide conservation/environmental groups. An avid
kayaker, bicyclist, organic gardener, and aquarist, Dr.
Chiras lives in a passive solar home in the foothills
with his wife and two sons where they strive to live by the
principles of sustainability.
(continued)
page 2 press release trail Symposium
Dr. Chiras plans to present a variety of sustainable
policies that could be useful in reshaping all sectors of
a community's development: transportation, housing,
industry and business, water, waste, energy, and food.
He will examine the dependence of human society on the
biological infrastructure and explore the concepts of
carrying capacity, social and ecological equity and the
extraordinary dependence of natural systems on our present
and future actions. He will also touch on the global
implications of local actions and on strategies that
address the root causes of environmental problems.
Dr. Chiras is a noted lecturer on sustainable futures
and author of many publications and books. In his recent
book, Lessons from mature; Learning to Live Sustainably
on the Earth, Dr. Chiras discusses the scope and causes of
our current crisis and examines key trends in population,
energy, pollution, biological diversity, solid waste
disposal, offering feasible, affordable suggestions to put
each back on a sustainable course. Chiras offers numerous
examples of positive actions on the part of individuals,
corporations, and governments throughout the United States
and the international community and, he sets a clear agenda
for additional action.
Dr. Chiras's talk on Monday is titled "Economics and
Ecology: Friends or Foes?" examining the principles,
policies and practices of sustainable development & showing
ways we can live and prosper without wrecking the planet.
His talk will be of interest to and is organized for the
general public.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department Staff
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Standards for the Planning and Environmental Commission
Recently, there haa, been some discussion about the standards for the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Staff has attached Section 2.24 of the Vail Municipal Code which
sets forth the standards for appointing members, removing them from office, selecting the
chairman, as well as stating the functions and duties. Chuck Crist has asked that this
information be distributed and staff hopes that it will help clarify the way the PEC operates.
El
11
Uj
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Chapter 2.24
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Stdions:
2.24.010 Creation.
2.24.020 Members--Appointment-Terms.
2.24.030 Removal from office.
214.040 Vacancies.
2.24.050 Officers--Meetings--Rules.
2 24.060 Function of the commission.
114.010 Creation.
There is created by the town council a "Planning and
Environmental Commission" in accordance with Section 8.3
and 8.4 of the Charter of the town, composed of seven
tnembers who shall act in accordance with the Charter, this
ter, the direction of the town council and the ordinances
20-1
(Vail 9-3-85)
I?
r
S?
ii
t 5
C
-n
Ar
rn n
c
f
1
z
11
PLANNING COMMISSION
of the town, and shall be appointed and serve as provided in
his chapter. (Ord. 10(1978) § 1 (part).)
2_14.020 Members--Appointments--Terms.
The planning and environmental commission shall have
ycvcn members appointed by the town council. All members
of the commission shall be residents, qualified electors of the
town, and if any member ceases to reside in the town,
mcmbership on the commission shall immediately terminate.
All members of the planning and environmental commission
"u of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter shall continue as members of the planning and
environmental commission until the expiration of their term,
their resignation, or removal. The terms of the members of
the planning and environmental commission shall be for two
_' }tars on an overlapping basis. (Ord. 29(1987) § 1: Ord. 10
119 8) § 1 (part): Ord. 37(1981) § 1 (part).)
2.:4.030 Removal from office.
Members appointed by the town council may be removed by
the town council for inefficiency, neglect of duty, failure to
attend meetings, or malfeasance in office. The notification of
trmoval from the town council shall state the reasons for such
ranoval. (Ord. 10(1978) § I (part).)
214.040 Vacancies.
Vacancies occurring on the planning and environmental
mmission by reason of expiration of the term of the member,
trmoval, termination by operation of law, or resignation, shall
to filled by a majority vote of the town council. (Ord. 10(1978)
I I (part).)
`-''t-050 Officers---Meetings-Rules.
The commission shall elect its chairman from among the
"Mbers and shall fill such other offices as it may determine.
f j ?-
j
1
z
rn
21
(Vail 12-I-87)
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
s
.., c?
The term of the chairman shall be for one year with eligibility
for reelection. The commission shall hold at least one regular
meeting each month. It shall adopt rules for transaction of
business and shall keel) a record of its resolutions, transactions,
findings and determinations, which record shall be a public
record kept in the office of the town clerk. (Ord. 10(197$) 1
(part).)
2.24.060 Function of the commission.
The planning and environmental commission shall have the
following functions and duties.
A. To make and adopt a master plan, for approval by the
town council, for the physical development of the town,
including any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the
approval of the legislative or governing body having
jurisdiction thereof, which in the commission's judgment
bear relation to the planning of the town. The plan, with
the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive
matter, shall show the commission's recommendations for
the development of the subject territory;
B. To review and recommend to the town council a zoning
ordinance with appropriate regulations, which may be
specifically provided or required by ordinance of the town;
C. To review and recommend to the town council subdivision
regulations as may be provided or required by ordinance of
the town;
D. To review and approve environmental impact reports and
n-litigation measures as they relate to the zoning ordinance,
codified in Title 18;
E. To review and comment on programs, studies of environ-
mental issues for the town and the Gore Valley;
F. To conduct research and appropriate studies of environ-
mental issues for the town and the Gore Valley;
G. To make recommendations to the town council for the
control of pollution and the protection of the environ-
ment;
H. When data is obtained indicating that state air and water
pollution standards have been violated, to advise the council
of the necessary and appropriate action;
(Vail 12-1-87)
22
J
a
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEF OF POLICE
To be concerned and involved with environmental issues for
the entire Gore Valley and to take the initiative to organize
and coordinate environmental studies and measures
necessary to protect the residents of Gore Valley and Eagle
County;
To consider any other matters pertaining to the commission
as provided by law, resolution, or ordinance, and to act in
an advisory capacity to the town council when so requested,
and to perform all other powers and duties authorized and
required by ordinance or state law.
Ord. 10(1978) § I (part).)
Chapter 2.28
*LICE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEF OFx POLICE7
;Cctions;
2.28.010 Department-Created.
2 .28.020 Chief-Appointment.
2 .28.030 Chief-Powers and duties.
2.28-040 Chief-Rule promulgation.
2 .28.050 Department-Duties.
228.060 Reserve police.
0 23 (Vail 9-15-78)
w
`m
cl?
rn ^M
c
i
{
_j
;j
f
is
How To Break The Deadlock When
Public involvement Worsens Disputes
by Dr. David Stiebel
C hies are finding that public involvement programs sometimes
fail to live up to their billing as panaceas for resolving stubborn
disputes and combating citizen alienation. In fact, some cities
have discovered that more involvement can worsen disputes, rein-
forcing each side's perception that the other party is impossible to
deal with. What steps can cities take so that public involvement pro-
motes agreement instead of stalemate?
The notice arrives in the mail: The
Planning Commission will consider a
request for a zoning variance to allow two
small houses at the end of the block to be
moved and replaced with a parking lot to
serve the adjacent commercial property. The
hearing is three weeks away.
Parking is a problem in this center-city
neighborhood. Most homes have no drive-
ways, so resident parking as well as space for
business patrons is on the street
Dr. David Stiebel of the University of
California, Berkeley, is a specialist in munic-
ipal dispute resolution based in Sunnyvale.
As an adviser, mediator, and negotiator, lhe
helps local officials design their next moves in
stubborn disputes. This article is excerpted
from the Second Edition of the handbook
Resolving Municipal Disputes from the
Association of Bay Area Governments in
4 Oakland.
But replacing those homes with asphalt
will destroy the residential character of the
street and remove muck-needed affordable
housing from the area. A few days before the
hearing, the city's planning staff recommends
against granting the variance.
The neighbors all have opinions, and all
are strong ones. Most oppose the parking lot.
And everyone shows up at the Planning
Commission hearing.
The group opposing the variance chooses
its first speaker.
7 know it won't do any good, coming here
to testify. I know you're all going to go along
with this landlord who wants to mess up our
neighborhood, because you're all in the pock-
ets of the developers. But here I am anyway,
doing my civic duty.
"We. don't want this eyesore in our
neighborhood. That stupid parking lot will
ruin the street.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
`And another thing. This guy who owns
this building on the corner was supposed to
put in enough parking the last time he got a
change in zoning and he never did it. I can't
find a place to park within a block of my
house. People are always parking across my
driveway and I have to call the police to have
the cars towed. Its a mess!"
Begoes on forfi}teen minutes, berating the
Commission, complaining about parking
and opposing the parking lot. So do ten other
neighborhood residents.
the property owner who had requested the
variance makes his case.
Two hours later the Commission votes.
Variance denied.
Back in the neighborhood, the residents
who opposed the variance gather on the
sidewalk.
"Those people don't care about the little
guy. All they care about is being big shots,"
says one man.
`7 hear the guy who owns the property is
going to take it to the City Council. They're
all in the developers' pockets. We don't stand
a chance. And we still have lousy parking,"
says another
And on it goes...
Continued
Citizens & Politics, Continued
C
6
And on it goes, in one California city after
another. Minor concerns blossom into polit-
ical crises. Public meetings intended to re-
solve disputes actually intensify them.
Citizens alienated from City Hall attack the
officials supposedly representing them.
Recalls, initiatives, or referendums begin cir-
culating. Harmful publicity results. Expen-
sive lawsuits - and appeals - cause delay.
Last year in Western City Richard
Harwood ("Citizens & Politics: A View
From Main Street", Parts I and 11,
September and October 1991) described
focus groups conducted in several cities
across the nation in which citizens
expressed frustration with local govern-
ment and loss of confidence in it. Some
people said they didn't know how to get
'`
S p e e dM E M O
To: ..._ w. ,.- C V Council
From: city Manaaer'''
cc: Finance Director
Citv Enaineer
tFbjt S ra for cur 9 lt?
Message:
How are we going to fund our operation
and maintenance requirements at the proper
service levels, and/or fund our capital
improvement projects over the next fiscal
year and beyond?
I recommend we take a hard look at our
cost of services and fee programs and work on
some creative financing alternatives to meet
our goals. A consulting firtri_-hat has real
expertise in this area i Y'I 0A*b% LTAWS, INC.
BSI offers f irahca a - i.. Saar ng an
management consulting services, and has
specialized in serving local governments since
1975. Some of the programs that can help cut
costs and raise revenues are operation and
Maintenance Benefit Assessment Districts, Cost
of Service Analysis, Development Impact Fees,
and Total Quality Management.
BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. would be glad to
conduct a presentation to better acquaint staff
and/or Council Members with these types of
programs. To contact BSI, call:
Jeff C,?6.r at (619)451-6100 or
vpmm?
Dennis Kingalhoferr at (51) $67-014,
ADVERTISEMENT
involved in decision making. Others com-
plained that when they did, they couldn't
persuade officials.
To restore public confidence in local gov-
ernment, officials must show citizens how
they can become involved in a way that fur-
thers their goals - and in a way construc-
tive for other interest groups and the city.
And many California cities have tried.
They've spent tens of thousands of
dollars for consultants and months
of staff time on innovative public involve-
ment techniques using newsletters, com-
puter graphics, and cable TV.
But sometimes these involvement pro-
grams have produced the same inter-
minable public meetings, tests of will, and
attacks on City Hall that they were sup-
posed to eliminate.
It's the Great Myth
of Communication.
People will agree if only
they understand each other,
so clarifying communication
always helps; when in doubt,
hold a meeting.
?
These poor outcomes are predictable.
While many involvement tools are so-
phisticated technologically, their use is
often naive strategically. Many agencies
assume that providing forums for citizen
communication will somehow cure a dif-
ficult dispute.
It's the Great Myth of Communication:
People will agree if only they understand
each other, so clarifying communication
always helps; when in doubt, hold a meet-
ing. Unfortunately, a public involvement
program can facilitate deadlock, by pro-
viding a better forum for people to fight
each other.
0 ne city provided such a forum when
it held a hearing to decide between
two neighborhoods for siting a fire
station. The meeting brought both neigh-
•
C
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
borhood leaders together for the first time,
and, with their constituents and reporters
present, they attacked each other and
swore never to negotiate. Lawsuits delayed
the fire station for five years.
As this city learned, clarifying communi-
cation does not erase self-interest, it
resolves only misunderstandings.
It is possible to succeed at improving
communication and yet fail at resolving
the dispute. In fact, more communication
can reinforce someone's opposition, as a
county discovered.
The county was planning to move a pro-
bation facility next to a shopping center
already plagued by crime. Merchants want-
ed reassurance they'd be safe. The county
thought they'd feel better knowing that no
rapists or murderers would be visiting the
probation facility.
So in the spirit of open communication,
the county distributed a list of offenders eli-
gible for probation. The list, which included
forgers and burglars, intensified opposition.
his county made the common mis-
take of assuming that the dispute
® was due to poor communication.
True, the parties were not communicating
well, but underlying that poor communica-
tion was a conflict in goals, i.e., a real dis-
pute. The merchants didn't want any crim-
inals in their neighborhood, not even those
trying to go straight.
Often a communication problem overlies
a real dispute. In such a case, improved
communication may alleviate the communi-
cation problem, but it won't eliminate the
underlying real dispute. The conflicting
goals will remain.
To distinguish a communication problem
from a real dispute, ask yourself. Mlould
this dispute disappear if you understood
each other better? If so, it's a communica-
tion problem, and talking could help. If not,
it's a real dispute, and improved communi-
cation alone wouldn't resolve it.
Better communication might have avert-
ed the citizen tirade against the planning
commission over the parking proposal.
That controversy was rooted in misunder-
standing. The citizens incorrectly assumed
that the commission was against them.
But the probation-facility move was a real
dispute. Unfortunately, the president of the
merchants association also tried to resolve
it by improving communication - and, like
the county, he made things worse. The
merchant asked supervisors to fire the pro-
bation department head, and when they
refused, he kept clarifying and elaborating
why she should be fired, until harried
supervisors finally refused to listen to him.
To break the deadlock, it was necessary
to elicit a constructive response from the
association president. Since I knew he want-
ed to be heard, I appealed to that need. I
asked him: "How can we get those supervi-
sors to listen?"
As hoped, the association president
responded by working with me to figure
out how to approach the supervisors so
they would listen to him. Instead of pres-
suring supervisors to fire the probation
head, he informed them he was willing to
explore any way of reducing shopping cen-
ter crime, if only they'd try to stop the open
drug dealing and shootings.
Continued
ALTERNATIVE REVENUE STRATEGIES
ISSUE: Cities throughout California are experiencing unprecedented=
revenue shortfall and fiscal instability caused by fundamental
changes in the political, legal and economic environment-
external to local government.
RESPONSE: MRC's Revenue Strategies Service enables cities to build
consensus for alternative revenue strategies that are fiscally
responsible, politically acceptable, and unique to each city.
RESOURCES: MRC's Revenue Strategies Service is provided by a multi-
discipline team of recognized experts led by Ted Gaebler,
Managing Director of MRC's Strategic Planning Group and co-
author of the current best seller Reinventing Government.
For additional information, without obligation, please call, write or FAX:
'01) r?O
M Z
R/? c
°i C .4
John Austin
MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
32107 West Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 233
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone 1-800-247-4406 FAX 1-818-991-5365
WOLk'jp/LANG/C ii.,tyxISTOPI LR
A..R- C IT CTS,INCIS
UI VIC i EDUCATIONAL . COM MEXC IAL
Cr 1< Y HALLS • CIVIC CEN t ERS • LIBRARIES
FIRE DEPARTMENTS • POLICE F'ACILt,nES
COMMUNn Y uhi% twKS - PERFORMING ARTS
CENTERS . MAINTENANCE FACILITES
SENIOR CENTERS • MASTER PLANNING
WOLFF/LANGJCHRISTOPHER ARCHITECTS, INC.
VIRGINA DARE TOWER SUITE
10470 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730-3154
714-387-0909 • FAX 714-9809580
7
li iii ii 1111 i 1111. 11111. it ii ii ii 1111 i 1111 i i? I lil ?? 11111 1111 ii ii iii I Ili 1111111 li 111111 lu i
WESTERN Cny, SEPTEMBER 1992
Citizens & Politics, Continued
PAOTER LAW CORPORATION
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ATTORNEYS
• Claims Filing ? Litigation
i Tax, Lien and Bond Enforcement
• Contract and Lease Enforcement
ORIGINALLY FOUNDED 1979
ACTIVE FOUNDER, RALPH G. PALTER, U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE (RET.)
SERVICING CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CLIENTS INCLUDE:
City of Sari Jacinto, City of Rialto
City of Palmdale, Orange County Transportation Authority
ADDRESS INQUIRIES TO:
P.O. Box 11300, Santa Ana, CA 92711
Phone; (714) 541-6072 Fax. (714) 541-6897
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE
FROM START TO FINISH
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PROJECT FINANCING ASSISTANCE
• Civil Engineering • Architecture
• Structural Engineering • Planning
• Mechanical Engineering • Mapping
• Electrical Enginering , Surveying
• Landscape Architecture • Photogrammetry
Whether your project requires one discipline or the added expertise
of a multidisciplinary project team, our staff of 170 proven professionals can
manage your needs from start to finish. All under one roof
2590 Venture Oaks Way
Sacramento, CA 95633-3286
(916) 925-5550 FAX: (916) 921-9274
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
That overture started a negotiation that
produced agreement: The merchants
accepted the probation facility when the
county agreed to put a sheriffs substation
at the shopping center.
But no improvement in communica-
tion could have broken this stalemate.
Indeed, clarifying communication had
backfired twice - first when the county
tried it and then when the association
president tried it.
Communication helps resolve a real dis-
pute only if it elicits a constructive response
from the other side. So before communicat-
ing, ask yourself: What specific response
do I want from the other person? Then
determine how to communicate to elicit the
response you want.
With the association president, the
desired response was for him to work with
me to create a more cooperative approach
to the supervisors. But that was just the
first response I sought.
To build agreement, each successive
step of a public involvement pro-
gram must elicit one constructive re-
sponse after another. Don't expect the other
person to reach agreement with you instant-
ly. Agreement usually comes step by step.
So don't hunt for the perfect response
to elicit, the one that will resolve all is-
sues simultaneously. Instead, elicit suc-
cessive responses that culminate in reso-
lution. Proceed incrementally, making it
easy for the person to take one realistic
step after another.
One activist was chanting slogans,
attacking the city at every council meeting.
She was hoping to stop a planned high-den-
sity housing project.
It was unrealistic to expect her to stop
her attacks on the council immediately, and
asking her to do so would only invite rejec-
tion. To break the deadlock, it was neces-
sary to elicit a more realistic response. She
was asked to predict what would happen if
she chanted at the next meeting.
She said she thought nobody would listen.
Then the city elicited a second response,
asking her to evaluate whether that out-
come furthered her goals.
,,Not really," she acknowledged.
In search of a third response, the city
asked for her ideas for better ways to
achieve her objectives.
"I don't know," she said. "Any sugges-
tions?" Thus, step by step, the activist and
the city proceeded toward agreement.
L
•
When you're creating each step of a
public involvement program, you must
show a citizen leader how to respond to
the conflict in a way that furthers his or
her goals. Each step must also be con-
structive for the city and the other parties a
involved. That's the key to designing an
involvement program that turns citizen
alienation into cooperation.
Unsophisticated, angry neighbors
often take an adversarial tack be-
cause the complexity and jargon of
local government (e.g. CUP, COP, R-1) can
seem designed to shut them out. That's
one reason they don't learn the city's deci-
sion-making process and work within it, as
many officials think they should.
To elicit one productive response after
another from this activist, the city had to
reach out to her proactively and design an
approach to involve her constructively in
decision making.
The city built agreement step by step,
focusing on one person at a time. It's tempt-
ing to gather- all the parties in one room
and try to agree on all the issues at once.
Sounds good. But it's generally impossible.
The parties have conflicting interests,
and when you say something to motivate
one person, you may alienate someone
else. The issues become tangled, and you
get bogged down.
If you're frustrated with the length of
time negotiation is taking, perhaps you're
trying to deal with too many people at
once. The more controversial the case,
the fewer issues and people you can han-
dle at once, as a parks and recreation de-
partment learned.
The department held a public meeting
on rules for bicyclists on trails. The session
turned chaotic, with bicyclists and hikers
attacking each other. So staff closed the
meeting and re-approached each key lead-
er individually, away from the mob atmo-
sphere. Staff built agreement with one per-
son at a time.
T he six steps below will help you
design your next move, to involve
people in reaching agreement:
t. Decide whether it's a communication
problem or a real dispute.
*2. If it's a real dispute, decide whether you
should negotiate. Disputes get worse
when citizens get conflicting messages.
If you aren't going to change your mind,
tell them now. They're certain to ask
you. And if you communicate indecision,
you'll encourage them to fight you for
the impossible.
3. Before holding a meeting, identify your
general purpose. Are you genuinely solic-
iting input with the intention of adapting
your plans to address citizens' concerns?
Are you holding hearings merely to gain
attention for an already complete pro-
gram? Are you negotiating with citizens
to satisfy them enough so they won't sue?
Once you identify your purpose, you can
plan how to accomplish it.
4. Decide whom to focus on. The person
you approach should be receptive or
influential, preferably both. If the neigh-
bors have already chosen a representa-
confinited
Ware Pleased to Announce
the FollowingAdditions
and Promotions in Our
Public Finance Department:
Rod Carter
Cathy Banda Ray Meador
Paul McDonnell John Stiepel
Directors of Public Finance
Stephen Pratt Erie Scriven
Assistant Vice Presidents
Mark Curran
Managing Director/Public Finance
San Francisco
(800) 652-1030 / (425) 445-8500
Los Angeles
(800) 252-9051 / (213) 362-3900
S3 V 1 R JFk0.
Investment Prafessio+wis Since r
Sutro & Co. is a subsidiary of John Hancock Freedom Securities, Member NYSE
and other US. securities exchanges. Member Sn'C.
9
WESTERN CrrY, SEPTEMBER 1992
r c.
Citizens & Politics, Continued
71
to
tive, you'll probably have to deal with
that person.
5. Identify the person's motivations. It's
hard to help a citizen leader accomplish
his or her goals unless you know what
they are.
6. Think of a response to elicit from the
other person. Then consider how you'll
elicit it. Your move to elicit it becomes
the next step of your public involve-
ment program.
Staffing Solutions for Governmental Agencies
The step might be to ask, "How can we
get those supervisors to listen?" Or "What
do you think the councilmembers will do if
you keep chanting?" The best response to
seek depends on the situation.
If the person responds negatively, con-
sider focusing on a different person or elic-
iting a more realistic response. Your
approach should adapt to the person's
behavior and unfold as events unfold.
Use the procedure above to develop one
Now accepting resumes from individuals seeking employment with
governmental agencies for a variety of positions including, but not limited to,
the following departments:
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT PLANNING
BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING REDEVELOPMENT
MAINTENANCE TRANSPORTATION
For information packet send resume to:
Employment Systems, Inc.
Attn: Recruiting Coordinator
11590 West Bernardo Court, Suite 211, San Diego, CA 92127
Phone (619 451-0040 F
? ax 619 451r2502.
f
step after another in your public involve-
ment program, until you reach agreement.
n a dispute, you can't predict someone's
responses several steps ahead. So you
don't know whether a public involve-
ment step you create now will promote res-
olution later when you must execute it. The
situation is too fluid.
If you commit to every step now, you
may feel public pressure later to follow a
step that is countc? v, eductive.
One supervisor felt public pressure to
hold a public hearing though he didn't
want to. When residents objected to plans
for moving a mental health clinic next
door, he promised a public hearing. He
hoped the meeting would satisfy their
need to be heard and that they'd stop com-
plaining. But as the date neared, he real-
ized that he was facing a real dispute, not a
communication problem. He saw that the
meeting would spark a shouting match
between residents who feared the mentally
ill and case workers who would defend
their clients. The supervisor couldn't can-
cel the meeting because of his promise,
and unfortunately, the hearing did intensify
the dispute.
If there's no dispute and you're involving
the public merely to make decision-making
more democratic, there may be no severe
repercussions to establishing the involve-
ment program in advance. If there's noth-
ing to fight about, people may not resist if
you need to modify the program as you
proceed. But in a conflict, a predetermined,
rigid plan can make things worse.
You must preserve your flexibility to
create the public involvement pro-
gram gne step at a time. That's often
key to resolving a volatile dispute. But you
can still help satisfy someone's curiosity
about the program.
liYou can identify the issue, and your
role, responsibility, and current objective:
"I'm a city planner. The owner of the park-
ing lot across the street wants to build
apartments on it. So she's asked the plan-
ning commission to rezone the lot. I've got
to make a recommendation to the commis-
sion, so I'm trying to learn the neighbor-
hood's parking needs. I'm asking people on
this block how many cars they have and
where they park them."
-You can discuss general goals you are
certain you'll pursue: "My initial goal is to
gather background information. I want to
learn about neighborhood parking needs
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
and about the owner's proposal. My second
goal will be to identify everyone's concerns
about the proposal. I'll want to understand
the neighbors' interests and those of the
owner. Then I'll begin working with inter-
ested parties on ways to satisfy everyone's
concerns. I'd like to have an agreement to
recommend to the planning commission,
so the people affected by this proposal can
shape the outcome. If there's no agreement
and the parties all lobby the commission-
ers, the commissioners will have to decide
the issue themselves."
*As you develop each step toward a
goal, you can specify details. You can dis-
cuss the agenda, format, and logistics of
your next meeting - after you've decided
what will best elicit a constructive response
from someone.
+ Avoid specifying steps until you're cer-
tain they'll build agreement. Don't promise
two months in advance that you'll hold a
public meeting August 5 at 5 p.m. in the
school gym to gain consensus on the
volatile parking controversy.
• Explain that the involvement program
must remain flexible enough to respond to
people's needs and changing conditions.
Sometimes a citizen will want to know all
the steps of the involvement program now
because the person doesn't trust you. In
that case, you must build your credibility, a
subject which needs to be addressed in
another article.
A bove all, each step of your involve-
ment program must achieve a pur-
pose. It must elicit a constructive
response from someone.
Many public involvement programs are
designed simply to involve people. There's
no other purpose. Nobody's thought about
how to elicit a constructive response
from anyone.
And often a purposeless program pro-
duces negative responses. Meetings be-
come maelstroms, as events whiz by --- out
of control. Citizens become angry that their
expectations for a satisfactory outcome
have been dashed. Its no surprise-they told
Harwood they are confused and frustrated
with political decision-making.
There are many involvement tech-
niques, including computer graphics,
newsletters, public meetings, and one-on-
one sessions--but unfortunately, none is
inherently effective. A technique will
work only if it elicits a constructive re-
sponse from someone.
Otherwise, an involvement method
may succeed at involving citizens-but
unconstructively, reinforcing the frustra-
tion with local government that Harwood
documented.
By focusing on your purpose, you will
create a better public involvement pro-
gram-one more likely to turn -alienation
into cooperation and resolve a stubborn
dispute. c01992 Dr. David Stiebel
mood ys Investors Service
Public =finance
The Source for Municipal Ratings
and Credit Analysis
• Over 160 analysts specializing in public finance
• Rating debt instruments in all market sectors
Working with issuers to fund projects through
creative financing approaches
Providing issuers with the broadest exposure to
investors in municipal debt
11
WESTERN CITY, SEPTEMBER 1992
New York San Francisco
(212) 553-0300 (415) 274-1700
sang
Va__?ces'
..1ll1gS
To resolve difficult municipal disputes, good in-
tentions rarely suffice. In fact, merely talk-
ing more can make things worse. To avoid /
hidden traps of conventional negotiation, you
need a better strategy. David Stiebel, Ph.D., a
specialist in municipal dispute resolution, ex-
plains practical steps that you can apply to by-
pass the pitfalls and reach agreement.
The cost of conflict in cities today is
rising. Dissatisfied interest groups can
escalate otherwise mundane concerns
into high-risk political contests resulting
in highly charged public meetings, ad-
verse publicity and expensive lawsuits.
A public official may emerge a bat-
tered victor, but no hero; the price of vic-
tory is too high. The true hero is the
diplomat who avoids battle by resolving
the dispute or preventing it, building al-
liances that strengthen the city.
But when talks prove frustrating or
counter-productive, as a public official,
you may feel trapped by undesirable
choices: sacrificing your objectives and
giving in, or reasserting your position
and risking the costs of combat.
n such a dilemma, some officials hire
teambuilders, organization develop-
ment consultants, or facilitators to
help the parties communicate. This ap-
proach works in conflicts rooted only in
misunderstanding.
But in difficult disputes, poor commu-
nication may be only a symptom of the
impasse, not its sole cause. People often
stop talking because they disauee.
Communicating with the other side
may clarify where the conflict lies, but the
task remains how to resolve it. That's not
a communication problem. It's a negotia-
tion problem. In fact, a facilitator who
treats a dispute as a communication prob-
lem can accidentally worsen it, because
A University of California, Berkeley, lec-
turer in business management, David
Stiebel. Ph.D,, is a specialist in municipal
dispute resolution. He limes in Pala Alto.
some methods to clarify com-
munication breed deadlock. {
Helping each side clearly ar-
Sri,
ticulate its bottom line can m- z .
advertently cause the two
parties to become so commit-
ted to their stances that they
refuse to budge.
For example, one facilita-
tor asked three cities to artic-
ulate their views to clarify a
regional land-use dispute. So
the cities told each other what they were
willing to accept.
Having clearly articulated their bottom
lines, they became more committed to
their positions than ever. One city man-
ager complained: "I can't budge now!
They'll think we're caving in!"
Communication didn't cause this prob-
lem, so talking more couldn't resolve it. In
fact, communication made things worse.
So what was the root of this dispute? It
was the negotiation procedure that the
parties were following. Consider the
stefls of this procedure:
1. People decide their stances unilaterally.
2• They meet to understand the other
side's position.
3. Once people announce their positions,
they're less willing to change them.
4• Somebody must give in for agreement
to occur.
S. If one side does give in, there's often
resentment or embarrassment.
6. If nobody gives in, a stalemate will
often ensue.
7.The working relationship often suffers.
V9
In a difficult dispute, the impulse is to
try harder. But it does no good to do the
same wrong thing with more intensity.
If you follow these seven steps with
better intentions and improved commu-
nication, you'll still reach deadlock. You'll
still be playing a lose-lose game to see
who can be stubborn longer.
To change the outcome, you must
change the negotiation game that the
parties are playing. The answer isn't bet-
ter communication. It's a better negotia-
tion strategy.
It's nice to have good intentions to try
harder and cooperate. But good inten-
tions alone don't break stalemate. Better
strategies do,
recently worked with a city in apply-
ing one innovative strategy, to resolve
an interagency dispute over revenue
sharing. The parties were deadlocked over
how much money each agency should
give to fund a public utility. Here are the
steps we followed.
1. Start with their motivations. We
told the parties that we were creating a
draft to address their needs, so we want-
ed to understand those needs thoroughly:
LFAGI'F OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
V A.:% 11
ix?e,;A
, C-.2
By David Stiebet Ph.D.
"I can't
--?°budge now!"
The agencies vowed to give no conces-
sions, but they saw little to lose by de-
scribing their concerns.
Both agencies wanted the utility to
have enough money, but one agency
worried that it would be forced into debt
by promising too much funding.
2. Discuss solutions later. Periodically
one party would seize on one solution for
satisfying a concern. Such insistence, if
reciprocated, could have exacerbated the
dispute.
We reminded everyone that we would
develop solutions later. Now, we were
identifying only the needs that a solution
would try to satisfy.
. Invite criticism. To make sure we
understood their concerns, we created a
rough draft of each party's needs and so-
licited corrections.
The drafts showed the agencies how
well we were hearing them. One agency
director remarked, 'You've stated our con-
cerns more persuasively than we have.'.
4. Develop possible solutions. Next
we wrote a rough draft of possible solu-
tions to satisfy their needs.
To address one agency's
budget worries, we wrote:
"Bach agency will provide its
share of funds for the utility;
unless the agency's financial.
condition is threatened.,"
If they didn't object to this
principle, then we could pre-
sent specific terms. But be-
fore doing that, we wanted to
verify that our draft was re-
sponding to their interests.
5. Ask for a focused cri-
6. Defer commitments. We clarified
that at this stage we were discussing only
possibilities. Nobody was making any
commitments. This rule enabled the par-
ties to generate suggestions without fear
that someone would interpret an idea as
willingness to give a concession.
7. Revise. We listened, revised the
text, asked for another focused critique,
then revised it again and again until we
could improve the draft no further.
8. Examine each side's unilateral op-
tions. Meanwhile, we asked each party
confidentially: "What might you do on
your own if you can't reach agreement
with the other side?"
We examined the attractiveness of
each option, as well as its likelihood of
success. Litigation looked attractive,
until one agency's attorney calculated the
odds of victory: five percent
tique. When presenting the
draft to each side, we did not
a k, "Which ideas will you
?
accept?" That would have
- encouraged them to take po-
sitions again.
' e asked:"Which. of your
W
concerns does this draft not
satisfy"
Thus, the parties were criticizing the
draft, not each other.lJnder the old negolia-
fions approach, the two agencies had been
exchanging charges and threats. Now they
were cooperating to improve the draft, build-
ing momentum for reaching agreement.
9. Consider the other side's options.
The agencies allowed us to share their strong
unilateral options with the other side, to
influence the other side's e-v,,i-tions.
Thus, the agencies learned how much
they could request of each other, before
the other side would say no or walk
away. This move averted a power strug-
gle to see who was tougher.
Then we helped each agency devise
more appealing proposals to achieve its
objectives. When the parties felt they
could improve their proposals no further,
they signed the contract.
Each agency agreed to an annual fund-
ing level which would' increase with each
agency's revenues. This allayed budget
concerns while guaranteeing money for
the utility's vital operations.
This outcome might not have been
possible with a conventional negotiation
procedure. The agencies would have
communicated their positions, then the
facilitator would have had to pressure
them to give up something. That wouldn't
have broken the deadlock.
This case challenges several other
assumptions about municipal
dispute resolution:
• Myth I: Cooperation requires compro-
mise. With our strategy the parties saw
the benefits they could obtain unilateral-
ly, and they didn't give up any of those
benefits to reach agreement.
• Myth 2: Negotiation requires prior
consent. We didn't ask the parties if they
wanted to negotiate. They might have
said no. Instead, we solicited their con-
cerns and critiques.
Of course, you can't resolve a complex
dispute with a cookbook. These nine
steps succeeded here because they were
designed to surmount the obstacles to
resolving this particular case.
You'll have to design a strategy to
overcome the barriers you face. But this
example shows that it is possible to
change the negotiation game, which is
the first step toward agreement.
WESTERN On, Ahlui,1990