HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0412 PECA
E
• 01 .- M, MMATMWI
April 12, 1993
Project Orientation/Brunch 10:45 a.m.
Site Visits 11:15 a.m.
Applicant: Anneliese Taylor
Planner: Shelly Mello
2:10 -
2. 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
East Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
0
El
2:20 - 2:30 p.m
3. A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American Ski
Exchange located at 225 all Street/Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert Lazier
PI.-.nner: Mike Mollica
2:30 - 2:40 p.m.
4 A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson Ice Arena,
located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation Distric!
PlQnner: Tim Devlin
r-'� BREA& 4:00 - 4:15 P.11,11.
LP
4:15 -5:15 p.m.
6. A request for a proposed SD D and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek
R.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Planner: Andy Knucltsen
:15-
. -30
7. A request for a wall height variance to allow for the construction of a hazard mitigation
wall located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Mike Grisanti
Planner: Jim Curnutte
& A request for a setback variance, a stream setback variance, and a density variance to
allow for an addition to the residence located at 2129-B Kel -Gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2,
Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Bryan and Sally Hobbs
Planner: Jim Curnutte
F,
9. A request for wall height variances in order to construct a driveway to a new
primary/secondary residence located at 2683 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob Borne
Planner: Tim Devlin
10. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a
CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates,
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED TO MAY 24,1993
11. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots
A-1 and A-2, a request for a variance from the subdivision road standards, and
variance from the wall height standards at Lions Ridge Subdivision/1 139 and 1109
Sandstone Drive.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co.
Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO APRIL 6, 1993
12. Approve minutes from March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting.
-A proposal to expand the existing equestrian facility at Berry Creek, Fifth Filing.
Planner: Mike Mollica
-A proposal for a "cremation-only" cemetery in the vicinity of the Shrine Mountain Inn.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I
I
'A
ALI",
•
•
U111121111IMPM
MINUTES
Starting at approximately 2:00 p.m., the Planning and Environmental Commission w
called to order for request for a work session for setback and site coverage variance
• allow for the construction • an addition and a garage located at 240• Chamonix
Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail clas Schone Filing No. 1. 1
Applicant: Anneliese Taylor
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo and summarized the zoning
analysis for this project.
Diana Donovan stated that the PEC is concerned with the site coverage variances
being requested.
April 12, 1993
The applicant replied that there would be no floor in the garage structure which would
create GRFA.
Dalton Williams stated that, given the steepness of the lot, there is justification for the
enclosed stairs. He suggested that maybe the roof could be made flatter by
decreasing the pitch. He felt the storage at the end of the entry could be removed.
III• U MI
Greg Amsden stated that the roof connection needed to be worked on with the focus
on design and he agreed with the previous comments.
Kristan Pritz stated that the impact of the structure on the street needed to be
minimized.
Bill Anderson stated that he had some concern with the site coverage overage, but
that, overall, he felt that this proposal was • positive addition to the site.
M-71 1 RATOWIR I ffiro I a I M IMMELOW91 0 a MUIR
JIMI&TILIMINIIINGIMMIA .
Diana Donovan stated that they were looking for • compromise on the roof pitch from
the applicant. She said the flat roof diminishes the impact on the street.
Greg Amsden stated that the area where the retaining wall is currently located could
be a possible area to work with in order to make this proposal work. He also
suggested that the stairwell could be built in such a way so that the storage area could
be located underneath.
Diana Donovan stated that a of the PEC board supported this request, but
that the applicant should try to tighten up the site coverage.
2. A request for • minor amendment to SDD No. 27 to relocate the private pedestrian
easement ("pool path") between Lots 5 and 6, Forest Glen Subdivision.
Applicant: RAD Five Limited Liability Company
Planner: Tim Devlin
Diana Donovan spoke on behalf of the PEC and stated that they supported the staf
decision to approve this request. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve th
request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 27 to relocate the private pedestrian
easement ("pool path") per the staff decision and the memo with Greg Amsden
seconding this motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote approved this request. I
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 April 12, 1993 2
1�1
3. 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
East Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner: Andy Knucltsen
After a brief review of the conditions of approval by Andy Knucltsen, Jeff Bowen mad
a motion to approve this request for a setback variance per the staff memo and the
conditions contained therein with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A unanimou
6-0 vote approved this request. Staff was directed to make sure that the Town recei
an agreement on the existing encroachments on Town of Vail property. I
-4. A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American S
Exchange located at 225 Wall Street/Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. i
Applicant: Robert Lazier
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the staff
was recommending approval of this request for a minor exterior alteration .
Erich Hill, the architect for this project, stated that two schemes were proposed with
this project. He said that he disagrees with the staff concerning their comment of to
much glass". Erich also stated that since the pedestrian approach to the American S;I
Exchange is either from the north • south, the glass is not that obvious.
Jeff Bowen stated that he does not have • problem with design Alternate t He
commented that he would like to see windows that were smaller and more'*' I
pane-
like"us•d. He also stated that a roof drain needs to be put in and that a window lattil
Im
ky'a I I #i • ra a WXO I %A Alm a fr. W.1r, i# MIN I I &10 ROA M
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she preferred Alternate A and Greg Amsden and Bill
Anderson concurred with this statement.
forgivolar,
Inv
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 April 12, 1993 3
Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request for an exterior alterati
per the staff memo and approving Alternate A and verified that the applicant was
willing to contribute into both the Town's Parking and Newspaper Funds. Greg
Amsden seconded the motion and a unanimous vote of 6-0 approved this requesti
5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson Ice Arena,
located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that the staff is
recommending approval of this conditional use permit with the condition that the
applicant provide a surface drainage plan and an access and construction parking p11I
prior to the issuance of a building permit in conjunction with this project. -1
Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned with the removal of the large aspen
and evergreen trees from this site.
David Peel, the architect for this project, stated that the Town Landscape Architect
requested a construction access and surface drainage plan prior to building permit an,'i
that the applicant does not have a problem with this condition • approval. He stated
that they have been to Town Council and DRB (conceptual) with this project.
Dalton Williams stated that he feels it is reasonable that the PEC ask that the trees
that are lost be replaced with similar sized trees.
Diana Donovan stated that she does not think that office space can increase without
increasing the parking requirement as well.
Rristan Pritz stated that parking was available in the evening at the parking lot adjacent
to the Vail Valley Medical Center and that the staff for VRD would not be increased per
Rob Robinson.
Tim Devlin stated that Rob Robinson, VRD Director, maintains that there will not be
additional employees hired ♦ a result of this addition and that the parking requireme
for the site will not incre;-�.se. I
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 4
E
r]
Diana Donovan stated that she voted against this request because she feels that the
parking requirement is being increased on the site.
6. Appeal of staff interpretation of the calculation of ridge height and staff review of DRB
application for the proposed primary unit on Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch
Filing #1/784 Potato Patch Drive.
Applicant: Loper Development
Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Andy Daly and Mr. and Mrs. Wiegers
Planner: Shelly Mello
Bill Loper, the applicant, stated that the Town Council has determined that the plans
can not be built and that he has withdrawn the plans.
Shelly Mello stated that the purpose • the appeal was to determine whether staff was
interpreting the zoning code correctly as it pertains to ridge height and that Art
Abplanalp (the representative for adjacent owners, the Weigers and Dalys) could
pursue this issue aside from Mr. Loper's present situation.
Larry Eskwith stated that there was also the issue referred to in the staff's
memorandum concerning the zoning check • the Loper project not being completei
prior to going in front of the DRB. Larry felt that this was a moot issue.
Diana Donovan stated that the PEC would focus on the issue of how the Town staff
calculates ridge height.
Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing how staff calculates
ridge height and went over the two examples shown in the memo pertaining to ridge
height calculations.
Bill Pierce stated that he felt that the appellant's interpretation of the ordinance was
"absurd" and that he feels that the ordinance is clear and the meaning of it is obvious.
Kristan Fritz stated that the zoning code has definitions addressing existing and
finished grades and that height is the distance measured vertically, according to th-11
code. She said that she was unclear as to what Mr. Abplanalp's concern was.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 5
Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Art Abplanalp to the extent that the wording of
the code could be clearer.
7. A request for a proposed SIDID and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Planner: Andy Knucltsen
Andy Knucltsen made a presentation per the staff memo concerning this request for 9
proposed SIDD and minor subdivision. He stated that staff is recommending approval
of this request with conditions, and that the applicant has said he is agreeable to the
recommendations contained within the staff memo. He noted that staff has not seen
all
• the plans for the upper development area as of this meeting.
Kristan Fritz presented a letter from Phillip Taylor, Montgomery and Larmoyeux
Attorneys, concerning the Architectural Review Board for Lionsridge Subdivision Filing
No. 2.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 6
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the plans for the upper development area need to
contain more information addressing slope and how this proposed SIDD will work since
the slope is excessive at this site. She also stated that the plans do not show how
parking is addressed or whether cars will have enough maneuverability, etc.
Dalton Williams stated that the project for the upper development area did not appear
to meet many Town standards. He said he would like to see detailed plans that show
how the project would function. He further stated that he feels that this site is not
buildable given the way the applicant is approaching the design.
Diana Donovan stated that the applicant needs to design a proposal for the upper
development area that will conform to Town standards so that variances are not
necessary with this project.
Jeff Bowen stated that he will not approve any proposal for the upper development
area with two units on it because he feels that this is contrary to the zoning code for
this area.
0 Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Jeff.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the retaining wall elevations for the
upper development area.
Tom Braun stated what changes in design had been made to Tract B. These include:
1) that there will be a total loss of eleven trees to this area; 2) that fill would range from
4 to 8 feet; 3) that off-site drainage had been provided for; 4) that hydrants had been
located per Fire Department standards; and 5) that six of the seven houses had been
reloc----
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 7
Bryan Doolen, an adjacent owner, stated that he is concerned with the additional mass
and bulk brought about by the garages. He stated that although the plans for this
40 project have changed substantially, they still do not address all of the concerns for this
site.
Sally Brainerd, an adjacent property owner, stated that this plan is an improvement
over the previous plan but that she would like to see clustering of the structures
because it goes along with the rest • the neighborhood.
Jeff Bowen stated the current plans are a great improvement over the plans from
January of this year but he would still like to see a reduction in asphalt and more of the
trees in this area saved. He said that the garages are critical and that he would like to
see some duplexes.
Building A to Building B:
13'
Building B to Building C:
19,
Building C to Building
luilding D to Building
'Iuilding E to Building F:
3VI
'W
tuilding F to Building G:
5r
Diana Donovan stated that she wants to see The Valley, Phase 11 work with what is
already in existence there, particularly in respect to materials.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she sees the upper and lower development areas of
this project as separate sites.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 8
E
County allows GRFA in excess of what the Town allows and that the County plan is
being amended according to the annexation ordinance. He would also like to see a
slight bend in the access road.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the asphalt coverage reduced and that
he is not in favor of shingles.
Bill Anderson compared the proposal to the development statistics listed for Residential
Cluster (RC) zoning.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see a commitment that Phase 11 utilizes
similar materials as that of Phase 1. She added that she would also like to see the
issue • snow storage addressed and more trees located between the proposal and
Grouse Glen.
Kathy Langenwalter said that building B must be redesigned, that the shingles must be
deleted, and that she would like to see the GRFA reduced in the upper development
area.
Dalton Williams inquired of staff whether it would be possible to separate the lower and
upper development areas into two separate projects.
Kristan Pritz stated that she is concerned with pulling the upper and lower development
areas apart and that the project, in its entirety, should be voted on in order to avoid
problems with development rights.
Jay Peterson inquired what the issues were that needed to be addressed so that they
would be prepared for the next meeting.
Andy Knucltsen stated that all of the outstanding issues were listed as conditions of
approval with the addition of the detailed drawings of the automobile access to the
upper development area.
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until April 26, 1993 to allow the
applicant to make additional revisions to the plans with Jeff Bowen seconding this
motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this request until the April 26, 1993 PEC Meeting.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 9
8. A request for a wall height variance to allow for the construction of a hazard mitigation
wall located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Mike Grisanti
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned about the big rock being removed from
the site.
Kurt Se•er•erg, the architect for this project, stated that the rock encroaches on the
area of the proposed mitigation wall and that it was the applicant's intent to save the
rock and as many trees as possible but the Town Engineer requested that the wall be
where it is shown on the plans.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that it would be necessary to raise the grade to get the w
• work at this site, which would most likely bury the rock anyway. I
Kurt Segerberg stated that it was his feeling that a 5-1/2 foot wall made more sense
than an 8 - 10 foot wall which is what was originally proposed.
Jim Curnutte stated that the Town Engineer required a 35 foot turning radius for tl-
cul-de-sac plus 8 feet for a shoulder and road maintenance purposes.
Jim Curnutte stated that snow is stored for the most part on Tract D, which is across
the street from the Grisanti residence.
Diana Donovan stated that there is currently a house located across the street and
west of Tract D.
Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo to approve this request for a wall heigh)
variance with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote
approved this request. Kathy Langenwalter added the addendum that the applicant try
to find a better solution concerning the removal of the large rock from this site.
9. A request for a setback variance, a stream setback variance, and a density variance to
allow for an addition to the residence located at 2129-B Kel-Gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2,
Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Bryan and Sally Hobbs
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 April 12, 1993 10
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff is
recommending denial of the setback variances and approval of the density variance
10 request. He stated that the density variance would not have a negative impact to
adjacent property owners.
Diana Donovan stated on behalf of the PEC that they were all in agreement that the
density variance should be approved.
The applicant, Bryan Hobbs stated that 56% • this lot is taken up by the stream and
associated setbacks. He said that if his request was approved, he would have an
additional 240 square feet living and kitchen area. He also stated that he had approval
from adjacent property owners to go forward with this request. At this point, Mr. Hobbs
supplied the PEC with copies of letters from six adjacent property owners.
Bill Anderson inquired of staff what the rule was concerning what percentage of total
deck area can encroach into a setback by right.
Kristan Pritz replied that a deck which is more than 5 feet off of the ground can
encroach 5 feet into a setback area without requiring a variance. Decks that encroach
beyond 5 feet into the setback would need to be approved by obtaining a variance.
Bryan Hobbs added that in response to staff's comment about reasons for having a
stream setback requirement, the proposed addition is on the 2nd level and the risk of
flooding would be minimal.
Dalton Williams stated that he felt that an extraordinary circumstance did exist at thd
site which constituted a hardship since 56% of the lot is taken up by the stream and
associated setbacks.
Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Dalton concerning the west it deck but she felt th
the width of the GRFA addition should be reduced to 7 feet. i
Diana Donovan stated that she felt that a 7 foot, instead of a 9 foot, addition could •
a solution for this situation. She also stated that she has no problem with the side
setback variance being requested for this site.
Planning and Environmental Commission
40 April 12, 1993 11
Kathy Langenwalter stated that a 7 foot addition was reasonable because it would
relate to the existing rock wall.
Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that enough of a hardship exists on the site that he was
willing to allow the entire 9 foot addition and the entire requested amount of the stream
setback variance.
Dalton Williams stated that the impact to Gore Creek would be increased with the
additional 2 feet and that the 7 foot stream addition was a good compromise for this
situation.
MEMUM. ............................... i ...... ; . ..... ii; ...... ...... .
Bill Anderson stated that he disagrees with Dalton, Kathy and Greg because he feels
that the issue is the same regardless of whether it is • 7 foot • a 9 foot addition and
that if this request is granted, it would not set a precedent because each future request
should be reviewed upon its unique circumstances.
Diana Donovan stated that whether it is 2, 3, or 4 feet is immaterial. t s a ow ng t e
encroachment to go out as far as the existing rock wall along with the fact that 56% o�
the site is unusable that would allow her to approve the variance request.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a 2-1/2 foot side setback
variance, a maximum 5 foot stream setback variance to allow for a 9 foot wide addition
and a density variance. Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 3-3 vote was taken.
Since there was no majority, the motion failed.
10. A request for wall height variances in order to construct a driveway to a new
primary/secondary residence located at 2683 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge-
Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob Borne
Planner: Tim Devlin
MOL
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 April 12, 1993 12
the applicant add 5 to 7 evergreen trees in order to screen the wall from view.
1101 Bill Anderson stated that he preferred a stone veneer wall to stucco on the proposed
retaining wall.
Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request for wall height variances
,#.er the staff memo with the additional condition that the lower retaining wall be
veneered with stone to match the building. Greg Amsden seconded this motion and a
5-0 unanimous vote approved this request.
11. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a
CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates,
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED TO MAY 24,1993
Kathy Langenwalter made ♦ motion to table this request until May 24, 1993 with Greg
Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item until May 24, 1993.
12. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots
A-1 and A-2, a request for a variance from the subdivision road standards, and
variance from the wall height standards at Lions Ridge Subdivision/1 139 and 1109
Sandstone Drive.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co.
Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO APRIL 26, 1993
ml I Lord &-gel I wwwol I Loll M I$ E III RE A 91[011011�-W*11 I - -- —,
13. Approve minutes from March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 13
Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 22, 1993 PEC
Meeting with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous 5-0 vote
approved the minutes from the March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting.
14. Discussion of Eagle County referrals:
-A proposal to expand the existing equestrian facility at Berry Creek, Fifth Filing.
Planner: Mike Mollica
-A proposal for a "cremation-only" cemetery in the vicinity of the Shrine Mountain Inn.
Planner: Andy Knucltsen
��# # Mliiliiii IN
16. Council follow-ull
A general discussion was held concerning the revocable right-of-way process and two
standards were addressed. The first standard pertained to encroaching on Town of
Vail land and the second standard pertained to encouraging public and private projects
to be in conformance with the Streetscape and Urban Guidelines.
17. Bill Anderson was appointed to the Environmental Task Force.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 12, 1993 14
18. Kristan Pritz informed the PEC that seven applications had been submitted for the
vacant PEC position and that interviews would be conducted by the Town Council on
April 13, 1993.
E
Planning and Environmental Commission
40 April 12, 1993 15
0
W4 MI
DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance in order to construct a driveway to a new
primary/secondary residence located at Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge/2683 Cortina
Lane.
Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob Borne
Planner: Tim Devlin
The 24,682 square foot lot has slopes which exceed 30% beneath the areas in which the
structure and paving is being proposed. Therefore, site coverage for this project is limited to
15% for structure and 10% for paving. The applicant is proposing 10.75% site coverage for
structure and 9.61% site coverage for paved areas. Aside from the requested wall height
variance, no other variances are being requested. Please see the attached drawings.
11. ZONING ANALYSIS
Lot Size: 24,682 square feet
am-MAMM,
=0 ,
aa*-I •
25'
15' (both sides)
110,
d) Parking: 5.0 spaces { re 'd. ) 5 spaces (4 encl., 1 surface)
e) Building Height: 33' 28' (maximum)
f) Wall Height:
Front Setback: 3' maximum 6' (n. driveway walls)*
4' (s. driveway wall)*
Others: 6' maximum 6'
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Cocill
the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested
variance based • the following factors: I
A. Consideration of Factors:
1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The staff does not believe that the proposed stucco retaining walls will have a
negative impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Due to the fact that the lot is in excess • 30% slope, the staff recognizes that
in order to access the residences with a driveway, retaining walls will be
needed. The parking requirement for the two units is 5 spaces.
0
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
♦ to attain the objectives • this title without grant of special
privilege.
The staff recognizes that the steepness of the lot makes access very difficult.
01 We believe that some relief from the strict interpretation of the code is
warranted, and for the reasons cited above feel that the variance request is
reasonable given the site constraints.
I The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The staff does not feel that the proposal as presented would have a substantial
adverse impact on any • the above items.
-61
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
I That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
9
E
E
I OARIN Im Isar, I go 6111102 1#10101 a m [aws I avyj I III a Is rK#1 W law" 41M •
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
The staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance, As discussed in
Section III of this memorandum, the staff supports the retaining wall height variances as
proposed by the applicant, with the condition that 5 to 7 additional evergreens be addleii
to the area between the driveway and Cortina Lane to aid in screening the retaining
walls.
The staff recognizes that the steep topography of the lot makes building on it difficult, and
feels that the retaining walls are necessary to support the proposed driveway. In summary,
the staff feels that the request for wall height variances meet Criteria IV B. 1, 2, and 3 (a, b,
and c) cited above.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval of
all variances shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of
issuance and diligently pursued to completion, • if the use for which the permit is granted is
not commenced within two years.
El
Hill
j7 � tw
.
6 • Z xr2 _
k
N
i r
., e _ . ` '-1 te' i �<�i . ..i —•.O ___1\ T,,'1, �;—.J -Lr- a I y C...
�7 L.
• r
n
.i r
f r.
i'
I
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• wo
WATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the
construction of a trash enclosure, located on Part of Lot A, Vail Village Seventh
Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner: Andy Knucltsen
FRIITHWD���
Lot size: 219,896.9 square feet
Proposed addition: 308 square feet
n
I
Allowed Existin
ELoposed
Setbacks:
North 20' 150'
150,
*East 20' 0'
4'
South 20' 240'
240'
West 20' 350'
350'
Stream Setback: 50' 94'
98,
Site Coverage: 120,943.3 sq. ft. 61,344.4
308 sq. ft.
Common Area: 46,18.4 sq. t 41,920.4 sq. ft. 236 sq. ft.
Height: 48 ft. approx. 36 ft.
10 ft.
GRFA: 131,938.2 sq. ft. 114,606.3 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft.
Required Parking: none required for common area
Variance required
Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal
Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the
requested variance based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
I
KI. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives • this title without grant of special
privilege.
B The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
ME= M
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
a
•
M-WIMITIMIM.
1 Prior to issuance of a TCO, the applicant shall plant a minimum of four 6 foot
spruce trees and five shrubs to be located between the proposed clumpster
40 enclosure and the pedestrian path.
LI
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a license agreement addressing the
retaining wall encroachment on the Town of Vail land shall be submitted to the
Town Attorney for his approval. Upon receiving approval from the Town, the
agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval sh
lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligentl
pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within
twR years. I
rd
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
Hill
DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a setback and site coverage variance to allow
for the construction of an addition and a garage located at 2409 Chamonix
Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail clas Schone Filing No. 1.
Applicant: Anneliese Taylor
Planner: Shelly Mello
Total Size Area: .2048 acres • 8,921 square feel
Zoning Primary with restricted Secondary
E
it ':,. #* �
Parking Proposed:
Enclosed: 2 spaces
Surface: 2 spaces (completely on-site)
UANNOrdF:Mnziriwiltkiiaii
The following are the criteria and findings that the Planning and Environmental
Commission should use to review the variance.
D37M I
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic faces, public faces and
utilities, and public safety.
K
Allowed Density:
One Primary with one restricted employee unit
Existing Density:
One Primary with one restricted employee unit
GRFA:
Allowed:
3,080 square feet
Existing:
2,814 square feet
Proposed:
3,074 square feet
E
it ':,. #* �
Parking Proposed:
Enclosed: 2 spaces
Surface: 2 spaces (completely on-site)
UANNOrdF:Mnziriwiltkiiaii
The following are the criteria and findings that the Planning and Environmental
Commission should use to review the variance.
D37M I
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic faces, public faces and
utilities, and public safety.
K
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following_ pdings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the publi*
ear 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 reasoq3l
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatior
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
Staff is concerned with the mass of the proposed garage structure in the front setback. We
suggest that the ridge of the garage be lowered to minimize the impact of the structure on the
street. The proposed building addition could also be decreased on the north side to reduce
the amount of site coverage. The staff feels that the garage addition should be minimized to
decrease the need for site coverage.
7
m
u
a
a
v
Z
a
J
ui
r
[Fj °®
�
t
Z
Q
O
F
r
i
ra
\
LBl
LL
w I
Pill
w
,
-4 EXISTI
�1 -'Sty! %.wyT G✓ :J
RE FORCE
XISTING CARPORT BE REMQyED
``
A
ASPHALT 2'$
�T�7 i W UC1 L-t) •U
of. •®
A
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
smmzm� =1
DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to SDID No. 27 to relocate the private
pedestrian easement ("pool path") between Lots 5 and 6, Forest Glen
Subdivision,
Applicant: RAD Five Limited Liability Company
Planner: Tim Devlin
1 10 ---
Section 18.40.100 (Amendment Procedures) of the Municipal Code stipulates the following for
minor amendments to Special Development Districts:
or amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria
outlined in Section 18.40.020B (attached) may be approved by the departmeni
of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a
completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted,
signed, dated and filed • the department • community development."
In addition, the Municipal Code also stipulates that the Community Development staff shall
Inform the PEC of the staff action on the request for a minor SDD amendment.
m
6
$* . $ k
F-,"'P`�eto
mWe
w"MIZO ART
Ass
. �a °80X 978' 9�24%9G;
0910 HOTTIHGHAH ROAD • • :41420'Y STREET'
s AYOK COIO. 81820 Ltd. IAKEM .Ca.O 8021 x
13031232 -0159 sne.t
13031948-5072
r
z .. -w x
EXHIBIT T lots °` "'t
7 t t a
.p
sit
x i
' 18,02 . s uare ' feet
" = .414 acres k�WNW, r�
as
VJO_�_ro' 'CON NO-
4445 19797.4 squaree�' 0.454 acres;�k ,
MET 14
is
y s �r,� s. t,� 4455)nzr
°G!,�'r ��,, "" ter a- 1-' �`� 3� a �.. "°. •+. �,, a �' �
a
�s W R !
.72 e'"it2t]� � "'.'... �° .�,�`,���o� ar
61410. � 1 : ` ` ", �'3yg3x 0
w `g � `"
7 �y %
mid+ 1 ! 6M
,.
/A..
4455
� a
VALAN
ply �qnny
R'j 9UlGDlNG �'
20,563.8 square feet �� m ,
0.472 acres
joy I
ASS snout r 7 t Rv
' C ` s s
Ir
WARM look "to–,
r
i i- N
A St-
° J
"fit l l���y�,a'"°7
€ ^® } s
a
x„
-4�i�"'
4xv, Af 1
root
t- 1 ri �xr y x
e
5
f P
ki
217
_. Yom" 4°.... 5,?�'tr'
a }'x
t
fi
0
tr r X ✓ S �'4'§£Nw'
s "s4ufi�i�,
is
s
r
t
S.
� r
t
}M
Engine'erxingLtd.
LWE,
esf
EXHIBI T t t
x
r
s
square
0.414 acres
#;.
e
5
f P
ki
217
_. Yom" 4°.... 5,?�'tr'
a }'x
t
fi
0
tr r X ✓ S �'4'§£Nw'
s "s4ufi�i�,
is
s
r
t
S.
� r
t
}M
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
us
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American
Ski Exchange located at 225 Wall Street/Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Aobert Lazier
101 'Trommargm,
space located immediately to the north, would be removed for GD increase Of 17 square feet
s Of floor area. The /\rneMCaO Ski Exchange would then expand into this lease area.
AdditiVOa||y. an 18 square foot bay window would be added VO the east e|Bv01iVn' matching
the existing bay windows that the American Ski Exchange constructed during the summer Qi
1992
III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
On September 10, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteration request for the American SI
Exchange which included the addition of 96 square feet of additional floor area, the relocatio
of the store entry, and the addition of bay windows. I
On December 16, 1991, the PEC approved an exterior alteration request for the Right Fit
Sports retail shop, which included a 15 square foot floor area expansion. The Right Fit retail
shop is located immediately to the south of the American Ski Exchange in the Wall Street
2) Lot Area: 7,318 square feet
E
11
3) Site Coverage:
Existing:
Proposed:
• RISMAIR •
V-
covered by the second floor of the building above.
• • 9 1 1 ; MOU:81
Iorg"Roull
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed changes to the American Ski Exchange retail
space would • in compliance with the Purpose Section of the Commercial Core I
Zone District as stated above. We also believe that the addition will not negatively
effect the scale of the building and should improve the overall quality of the pedestrian
space adjacent to the structure.
0
11
COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
i I I I I I I iii I ii I I I I iiii I I i I I ii I ill I I' ill I I ii I ill I ii I I I iiill
The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They
identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure new
development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the
following:
The proposed additional bay window will have limited, if any, impacts on the pedestrian
traffic flow because of its proposed location. The bay window will add interest to the
existing pedestrian area with an increase in window area transparency and increased
bility into the retail shop.
ROM
Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this
proposal.
C. Streetscape Framework:
a
I
0 G. Views and Focal Points:
The proposed bay window does not affect any of the Town's adopted view corridors.
In addition, the bay window will have no impact on the line-of-sight from either the top
or the bottom of Wall Street.
H. Service and Delivery:
61MTlR1H=
There will be no increase in the shadow patterns as a result of this addition as it is
located within the existing shade patterns of the building.
zupllffr x � I iiii ill
U11
The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan which are relevant
to this proposal:
Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic
health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.4 Objective:
Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity more
I . 1, 19 � -
The proposed bay window is consistent with established zoning and the existing uses in the
area. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed bay window will provide additional interest
and activity to the Wall Street area.
E
9
El
0 %,coPasolot Thw
• • •
��I f ( `�'
_ ._ !9
��1
��.
-
��
� i -- i��i�' , � j
I
i; � �� � � �
__ �
_ _ � _ _ -��
- � - --
•
El
uew r—Y
,i
0 LU
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District/Vail Avalanche, Inc.
Planner: Tim Devlin
In addition to providing office space for the new hockey club, the proposed locker room
facilities are intended to ease the burden on the limited existing facilities and are to be
dedicated to the Avalanche, thus freeing up the existing locker rooms for arena event use. It
has been expressed by the applicant that separate, private locker rooms will enhance the
recrung ability to attract a quality team to represent Vail.
The addition also includes approximately 500-600 square feet of area to be used as VRD
offices and arena management. The new offices are intended to lessen the demand on the
current VRD offices in the Vail Public Library and will also allow for the relocation of the
existing arena management office currently located by the main entry to the arena. Plans are
being explored to allow for potential future seating capacity expansion in the entry area.
E
11
• additional landscaping is being proposed, as the existing trees nearby are intended to
screen the addition from view.
• WE 0 =1 1=1 OEM ME al 01 11 E El III MWEI I ma
i
*1101 'It
3-m-11
The Dobson Ice Arena is located in the Public Use District (PUD), the purpose of which is the
following:
Public recreation facilities are allowed as conditional uses in the PUD per 18.36.030(1) of the
Vail Municipal Code.
Development Standards: Section .8 •. of the Municipal Code stipulates that prior to
acting on an application for • conditional use permit for any • the conditional uses prescribQ4
in Section 18.36.030, the planning commission shall prescribe development standards for
each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories:
Parking and Loading: Section 18.36.060 stipulates that off-street parking and loading
requirements shall be established by the planning commission and town council for each
project. No new parking is being proposed as part of this project. Please see section
A 3 of this memo for further explanation. I
4
E
locker room and office expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena as proposed based on the
following factors:
W-M •
Relationship and impact • the use on development objectives of the
Town.
The staff believes that the new hockey team will be a positive entertainment
option for visitors and local residents alike. Staff believes the proposed locker
room and office addition are consistent with the development objectives of the
Town, and are in response to upgrading the facility and to accommodate VRD
staff that are now in limited office space at the library.
2. The effect
• the use • light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public needs.
The staff feels that the addition will improve the Dobson Ice Arena as a
recreation facility, and responds to the need for space inside the facility for
more seating by removing the existing offices near the south entry.
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.
A(. Effect upon character • the area in which the proposed use is to •
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
the surrounding uses.
The staff believes that the proposed one-story addition is consistent in scale
and bulk, and compatible with the existing facility and the character of the area.
All exterior construction materials and finishes are proposed to match existing
materials and finishes.
K
0 B. Findings:
gr Ming a conditional us nit:
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 i)
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
The staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit for the addition to
the Dobson Ice Arena • proposed, as we believe all • the findings discussed in Section III B
• this memo have been met. No trees are proposed to be removed by this proposal, and
given the amount • adjacent trees, the staff does not feel that additional trees will be
necessary as part • this project.
In response to concerns raised by the town landscape architect, Todd Oppenheimer,
Community Development recommends the following condition of approval for the conditional
use permit: That the applicants be required to provide a surface drainage plan and an access
and construction parking plan for Public Works review before any building permits are issued
for the project.
Ell
m
OOL3SoN ICE
I In
LOT 4
J12.80'
ASPHALT SIAIE
. 8154.p4 8154.19
8153 ?1 8152.9Q
92
6154.30 x 6153.10 615284 (`�F15
6152 g152A4 8152.21
,ktr) F11
75
56.,.7
PA 7Y
5154.3
615 2
6.50
3
3, la, 50.65
S5-"G
47
3.44
81, 1 55.
144.80 1&, -------
19.34
0
6145.=
C C
TRA
?0�
.6- 149.4 .34 1 i
.0. 40
id
4611
5� 0
4
•
0 0
WIN
wffivr�
• •
r_�. _�
•
r . j
• • •
8.
i
111
��II
'':
�,'
L.e
i"
• • •.
� �� -r — , -�ar� -,_
� _ --- _ --
- --
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commissior
DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Appeal of staff interpretation of the calculation of ridge height and staff
review • DRB application for the proposed primary unit on Lot 15, Blo
1, Vail Potato Patch Filing #1/784 Potato Patch Drive. I
Applicant: Loper Development
Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Andy Daly and Mr. and Mrs. Wiegers
Planner: Shelly Mello
WN10111DW
The DRB decision to approve the project was appealed by the it and the Weigers. The
Town Council reviewed the DRB decision on April •th. They voted 4-1 to overturn the DRB's
approval based on Section 18.54.050 - (A),(B,1)(B,2)(l). (See attached guidelines.) The
appellant wishes to pursue the remaining appeals to the PEC for clarity to preserve future
rights of appeal.
All appeals of staff interpretations are reviewed by the PEC pursuant to Section 18.66.030(A)
Appeal of Administrative Actions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code which states: I
E
L� The following are the sections being appealed:
6-t� -V%#=; - -
"Height" means the distance measured vertically, from the existing grade or finished
grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof or
mansard roof • to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof.
For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed 30 feet. For
sloping roofs, the height of buildings shall not exceed 33 feet.
E
It is the intent of height calculations to control the height of buildings as they relate to the
specific topography of the site. In most cases, the most restrictive calculation is from the
highest point of the ridge to the existing grade. Our method complies with the zoning code's
definition of height. The intent of the regulations is to encourage the layout of the building to
follow the existing topography of the site.
4
L Ill. SECTION 18.54.0 40
E
0
J
fi-
li
m
M
i .. m r ° /J
A
Ki a
LI
i I 1 • : , 9 1
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance, a stream setback variance and a
density variance to allow for an addition to the residence located at
2129-B Kel -Gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Bryan and Sally Hobbs
Planner: Jim Curnutte
E
#)n the site (two) exceed what the current code allows. The code only allows two units on a
lot less than 15,000 square feet if the secondary unit is restricted for employee housing.
Because both units are separately owned and neither is deed restricted for employee housing,
z variance from the non-conforming section of the code is needed to allow for the use of the
remaining GRFA.
MEM
Allowed Density:
a # .i +� a
■ .i, a
a*
'Ojsjjlzjlmr�#
9
#
I MMMI
3,051 square feet
2.296 -ir
* 71
50 feet from the centerline of Gore Creek
20 feet from the front property line
15 feet from side and rear property lines
. = - - - M - =0
U 3m Pr, mr.-Im'M Am MR I I I III
Maximum Building Height Allowed:
Existing Building Height:
Proposed Building Height:
• I .t - - WAIRTF-XIN
Existing Landscaping:
Proposed Landscaping:
ME=
33 feet (for structures with a sloping roof)
30 feet
30 feet
A
M MMr,V.%Wff
LO
OJNMMIIWW".
E
41
E
2 The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
• to attain the objectives • this title without grant of special
privilege.
Staff believes that the history of this site makes it unique from other
properties with less than 15,000 square feet of lot area. Because the
structure was constructed as a two family residence prior to the Town's
regulations pertaining to lots less than 15,000 square feet, staff believes
it is reasonable to allow the structure to maintain its original
M
11
development potential. The zoning establishing the restrictive unit
requirement was adopted after the structure was approved by the Town
and creates a hardship for the property.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The proposed variance requests will not have a negative effect • any
of the above-referenced criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district,
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
----------- - ------
I
41. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
R
E
The planning staff recommends approval of the proposed density variance and denial of the
proposed side and stream setback variance requests. The required findings for granting the
proposed setback variances are not met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below:
The required findings necessary for granting the proposed density variance is met, in staff's
opinion, as discussed below:
Staff believes that granting approval of the density variance would not constitut-
• . • special privilege as the Town has approved similar variance requests.
Although previous situations may not be identical to this, they are similar in that
there was available, unused GRFA on the site.
2. Staff believes that approving the density variance will not • detrimental to the
public health safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
0
11
improvements in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed remodel is a
positive addition to the building and enhances its overall appearance, provided
the proposed remodel be limited to existing setback requirements .
Should the applicant desire to proceed with an addition to his building entirely within his
existing setback requirements, staff would recommend that the following condition be attachei
to the approval of the density variance request:
1 That the applicant add a cluster of three aspen trees (3 inch minimum caliper)
along the west property line in the general vicinity • the proposed addition
three evergreens • foot minimum height) on the north side of the proposed
addition.
0
�t ii g
�r.
. •.. � -sl / ��
��
I�
L��
J
.:. .�
INSULAMNG GL, j
FF
•
C
r
' A
I
INSULAMNG GL, j
FF
•
C
r
INSULAMNG GL, j
FF
•
C
f
i
�/ j ��• �� - / I INSUTA'T'Fp y /, - -- 1 I .i '�I
4Vh'S (FiXEC))
/ tiIZN3 w21J3
__
II I I
TI
13 I
• , I
W2N5 a
L( 1I I! EXPOSED CoNG. FNO
STAINED TO MATCH
. o WCY�L2 SIDILIG
C.
I I
,QrefVSPA WEST EL- -VArION
SCALE I /q" C -O'
i
I
I II jll ;
Ij�l �Ij�,l
� FIXED XED � i � '►
WINS WINS
I. I
! I II
► I I INS I INSULATING GL.(nAED)
II I ; II ' i i� -- r 1 -�I t— -iIJ-
If i II II I II I I I //
WINS I INSULATING 4L FIXED
I
I
I i
� I
I
-�_ _ - -- WSO68 -XO
-- - - WZN3
i
I I
I � I
�� is��hg _Ie1er�� eL2vRT't ®l�?
1
t�l O i1Tf� F [_ s V AT 10 N
r SCA 1.£ 1/4
ete
• S43 °17�18��E
45. 30' 95, 00
,1I
UTIt_ITY Q OftA!nAGE EASEMENT �
� I
C_ 6� gore, Grp
I �
3511 Sq. T. 8 CTW4Ew
I ! I
NQC'T.H FL. .�`- 60'SET��ICY. LINE '
3'PCGOE T�/AN E.43EME/JT� �� � -`s 3/'l2
__ -- o-e �r
' n
_ VJ,
I 5 PARCEL A I
PARCEL B N 0.I50 qc.i
. 1
o. Z7. Cn
X7.5' 11
Pf:OP^•SED.a.NDFLP. %DDI, ION
J; I mI_ nn. 3,
511�I1CT�C4, Nne 111 ,� I �..y..�iCt� l�.o'
'
N47'
1.Ir" 0304 "'vV I
II OCCK
Cz Fmr i I
Q I N47.0,504 "N/
IZ.9f' ..
. I
0.0'. 7 H2GE 5'7"O�Y �VGUO
I-, ,9 FRAMC QLOG.
I.o N ? N I
I
I 0 V1 5.0'
! I V'7 �
I
I
o�
I Q
�
WALLS
N h "J n` ,z.`J
N X6.0" � N 49.3•
w _:.NAIL- ,,- COtiKISO —'
a nJ�
•
SHEET 2 OF 2
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE
PARCEL B, RIVERA DUPLEX
A Resubdivision of Lot 13, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision
Eagle County, Colorado
0.
UTILITY It DRAINAGE t5M'T t`
\ RS
k
100' F'LooD. FLAIM
LOT I z \ Te A,
GoRE GREEK
$o' CSR< =BK SETBACK —Z.. \� �\ (DEErBST- c4"NEL)
D�
�p / 3 Tor ANK OF CKEEK
!V"�w t��C IT � a � -5' PEDESTRIAN ESM'T
�� Deck A*tp
N y
0.36 AG. ' h%Tt3 �lY11�WI �tdlk��rt
TIt,
MAPLEX
iE 1 12- DUPLEX
M
"TY WALL FOLLOWS ALONG
I- KoPERTY LINE
PARCEL A
S91,
41 PAVED DRIvr_
�oN
NORTH
N� SCALE 1" Ao'
ADDRESS: 512,9 KHL. -GAK LANE
2
T1 N 47 °08'04" W 3.91'
T2 S 42' 51'56" W 20.91' = 23506
T3 N 47 °08'04" W 12.91'
T4 S 42'51'56" W 7.30' F�•.. .•��Q�
T5 S 47' 08'04" E 2.33' `� /0 "'�• OS,��'�
T6 S 42' 51'56" W 4.00'
T7 N 47 °08'04" W 1.16'
Leland Lechner P.L.S. 23506 Box 3463, Vail, Co. (303) 949 -5387
A: -2!a 12.
MOSS IZO,'KJj
VENnl� 11
0
E
• :
TO: Larry Eskwith
FROM: Shelly Mello
DATE: April 1, 1993
SUBJECT: Loper property - Lot 15, Vail Potato Patch 1st Filing
The following is a chronological review of the approval process for the Loper project located
on Lot 15, Vail Potato Patch, 1st Filing.
-September 21, 1992 Loper Construction Services applied for design approval of a
three-story single family residence and corresponding site work
developed within the Primary/Secondary guidelines (with possible
future second residence).
A motion was made by George Lamb to approve the application
with conditions and recommendations. Sherry Dorward
abstained from voting as she was the Landscape Architect for
the project. There were four conditions of approval for the
application:
0 1 . That the application must comply with zoning;
4. That the applicant needed to obtain approval for gradi
from the adjacent property owner to the west, due to t
proximity of the driveway to the property line.
-November 17, 1992 A building permit was released for the secondary unit as
proposed and approved by the DRB. The GRFA for the building
was less than 40% and therefore, qualified as a secondary unit.
This had also been indicated in previous reviews.
I
-March 17, 1993 There were two items on this agenda relating to Lot 15. The first
was the review of the changes to the secondary unit under
construction and the second was the review of the proposed
primary unit.
9
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwiii Realty
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on
either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase 11 of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper
and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow:
In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a
minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family
homes on the upper development area only. It is the intention of the applicant to use the
single family subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual
houses as they are constructed.
0 Upper development area description
19 Tax-rill r#Tv ZVI M. mom
ri-mm
Buffer
Creek
fiftw4a0wi-MA
'MMM
I
Ll
9
IV, Zoning r
is
Zoning:
Residential Cluster
Lot Area:
Upper
40,740 sq. ft.
Lower
105,318 sq. ft.
Total
146,058 sq. ft.
April 12, 1993
Gensler Proposal
Dwelling Units
9
*GRFA
19,466 sq. ft.
Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. ft.
Setbacks 10' front
20' sides
!I
Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft
Lower:
Total: 73,009 sq. ft.**
January 11, 1993 Residential
Gensler Proposal Cluster
9
19,966 sq. ft.
11.3 % or 16,489 sq. ft.
20' on
all sides
Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards)
Asphalt coverage 9.5% • 13,892 sq.ft.*** 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. ft
Impervious surface 22.1 % or 32,228 sq.ft.*** 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. I
51
10
18,252 sq, ft.
25% or 36,514 sq. ft.
20' front
15' sides
n/a
n/a
11
OMEMMEal
7.3% or 10,742.3 sq. ft.
14% or 20,385.6 sq. ft.
LZ
ITIRT ImmWAR - - -
On January 11, 1993, the PEG reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that
meeting are attached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower
development area were:
.1
11
A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation
• the amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any
scarring on the back • sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be
added to the plat:
E
Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to
be designed • a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside.
A
E
TO � -* �
�* � L* P R-Wo
rA
Base Floor
Credit
GRFA
current overage which
Area
must be eliminated.
A.
1816
225
2041
16
B.
1816
225
2041
16
C.
1845
225
2070
-
D.
2148
225
2373
24
E.
1673
225
1898
3
F.
2157
225
2382
26
G.
1859
225
2084
21
Upper
development area:
A-1.
3252
225
3477
A-2.
2900
225
3125
�* � L* P R-Wo
rA
E
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.
11-11
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient an"t
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
All of the home sites in both the upper development and lower clevelopmen)
areas comply with the Town's parking requirements.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential
(MDR). As proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre.
MDR allows a range of 3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that
the proposal is consistent with The Vail Land Use Plan designation.
Identification and mitigation • natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and
attached to this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as
conditions of approval.
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.
Rl
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and off-site traffic circulation.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
?nd efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special
Development District.
The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional
and efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest
of The Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on-
site and off-site drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer has not received
HM
The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows:
Section 18.14,050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand
square feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable
area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be
of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each
site within its boundaries."
WIMEK!Us i i I
Staff believes that this project meets all the SIDID review criteria and is recommending
approval • the proposed development plan with the following conditions. Assuming
that the following changes can • incorporated into the drawings, staff recommends
that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved.
A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the
following changes must be incorporated into the drawings:
1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be
incorporated into the drawings, including proposed improvements as well
as easements;
2) The landscape plan must be amended so that the sod areas align with
the existing sod areas of Phase 11 and that the sod type matches Phase
11;
3) The landscaping plan must be amended to add 6 spruce trees and 6
aspen trees in the area between the proposed development and Phase
11.
4) The deck on Building A must be redesigned so that it provides a 5 foot
setback.
B Prior to scheduling a DRB hearing for any individual home, the applicant shall
provide documentation that:
2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the interna,-
hazard mitigation recommended • Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazar,*-'
analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993.
4) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following
chart; GRFA may not be transferred from one residence to another.
Base Floor Credit GRFA
Area
A. 1816
225
2041
B. 1816
225
2041
C. 1845
225
2070
D. 2148
225
2373
E. 1673
225
1898
F. 2157
225
2382
G. 1859
225
2084
WEIMI
A-1. 3252 225 3477
A-2. 2900 225 3125
04
E
11
5) The architectural design of Building B, must be redesigned so that it is
distinctly different from Buildings A or C, as determined by DRB;
6) The siding material, proposed as shingles, must be revised to siding
similar to that used on other buildings used in The Valley.
C. Prior to Town approval • the Single Family Subdivision for the lower
development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for thit
common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path;
D. The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SIDID receiving
final approval from Town Council,
im
BASIS OF ELEVATION
BASIS OF ELEVATION
al
x
0J, L u
nx.
4/0
ad o7.
S
—E,
al
x
0J, L u
nx.
4/0
ad o7.
S
A, :,��,
,
n
��; Mt
6 V "t" ro
box 1297
dillon.colorado
80435
303 4685871
'A
TOPOGRA—CAL MA)k
T A ^T 0. A PoRT OF >'-14 A
LLGII —GI
U
OF —L.
EAGLE CG-TL. —ORAGO
—E,
7-
oT
- - ------- - ------------- - --
A, :,��,
,
n
��; Mt
6 V "t" ro
box 1297
dillon.colorado
80435
303 4685871
'A
TOPOGRA—CAL MA)k
T A ^T 0. A PoRT OF >'-14 A
LLGII —GI
U
OF —L.
EAGLE CG-TL. —ORAGO
C 163I.�1'
a s <r zs'
a.59'
L 5c'.C3'
,
csc _.r
IJ
a /
z E �
L = 5 � '
Z 0' -id
box 1297
_ -
d,lbn.cobrado
a=
8,0435 5871
da #e
revised Nate
�� 4P.1 tF�Mt -f1 sx�CE 7 6 -id
O5a b S a�_S II 3'
n
__SEE
G ✓ i �'.2 G ]NtiL. ?J �
E
1 86 E 415.03
62c'
--- ------------
N
V
6 �_TRACT -A
10, 14 1—
84SIS Or ELCV4TION
8460
'A60
�44
lz
JON
o
,40
106RAPMCAL SURVEY
CT A
I-" I.- IS 11
box 1297
dilbn.cobrado
80435
303468-5871
issued datif,
iqq
E00:=
AL -2
(6)
b no-Z,
61 E-13j,
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
��� V1d5|NGERSOLLLANE
n��^ SILT, COLORADO 81652
p0387e-5400 (2*xounS)
January 22, 1993
Steven Gensler
Parkwood Realty
5299 ID 'T Blvd; #500
nglewood, CQ 801
RE: Tract A, Lion~s Ridge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Benslerx
I have been asked to clarify my position on the rockfall
mitigation I suggested in my previous letter. I believe that one
of two mitigation techniques is in order.
One
possibility is
to either scale or grout loose
rocks in
��he
low
outcrop directly
above
the sites; better is to
construct
the
��m rear
foundation wall
of the
buildings to protrude
at least
three
feet
above finished
grade
and to have no windows
in this interval
(from
ground level
to the
top of the stem wall).
This wall
should
have a strength
of
at least 300 pounds per
square foot.
This
wall would also
act to
protect the home in �he
event
snom
should
slide up against
the
home.
If there are further
questions
please contact �e.
Sinc r ly,
�
'
�
Nicholas Lampiris
�onsulting Geologist
'
�
Nicholas LaDODi[iS, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
n1nu|wsERaoLLLANE
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS)
September 18, 1992
Steven Gensler
Parkwood Realty
5299 DTC Blvd, #500
Englewood, CO 80111
RE: Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Gensler-,
I have reviewed the two sites as shown on the accompanying
map
for purposes of Rock Fall and Debris Flow review for the
Town of
Vail. The two sites have been chosen to be out of and to
the
the debris Van and channel' The driveway must enter
and
west of
roads, streets,
cross the fan, however.
or
The rock fall 'area is more severe further west than these
two
r— building sites and the low outcrops above these sites can
be
easily grouted or otherwise neutralized because they are
thin and
discontinuous. The more hazardous outcrops much higher on
the
hillside will shed mostly to the west. Although mitigation
at
the homesites is possible through walls or berming, it is
of
probably not warranted due to the low chance of rocks reaching
sites. If there are questions
the sites. Outcrop work prior to construction will bc
beneficial.
This is in a location wherc the ridge, containing the source 0f
potential falling rocks, is at such a low level with rssPect to
the sites that rocks will rarely reach the sites, and, if tmey
do, will have very little onergy. Few unstable rocks occur above
this site.
�»
The
construction of these
units will not increase the hazard
to
other
property or structures,
or to public rights-W-wuy`
buildings,
roads, streets,
easements, utilities or facilities
or
other
properties of any kind.
Let me rcstate that the sites
are
not
in the debris hazard areas.
Soils
engineering studies
are nccessary due to the steepneqs
of
the
sites. If there are questions
pleasz contact me.
Sinc a rel
Vol
Nicholas Lhmpiris
���
Consulting Geologist
Steven Gensler
Parkwood Realty
5299 DTC Blvd, 050(::,j
Engley5o& CO B0111
RE: Lion's
Dear Mr. Gensler:
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS)
September 18, 1992
Ridge Subdivision
I have rcviewed the seven sites as shown on the accompanying map
for purposes of Rock Fall and Debris Flow review for the Town of
Vail. The seven sites are out of the debris fan and channel.
All of the northernmost site and parts of the next two are within
the Modium Rock Fall Hazard (see accompanyinmg map).
,
The rock {all area is more severo further north than these
building sites on the other side of Tract A where it has been
reported in a contcmporaneous letter that thQy can be easily
grouted or otherwise neutralized because they are thin and
_ discontinuous, The more hazardous outcrops much higher on the
hillside will shed mostly to the west. Although mitigation at
the homesites is possible through walls or berming, it is not
warranted due to the low chance of rocks reaching the sites.
The construction of these units will not increase the hazard to
other property or structures, or to public rights-of-way,
buildings, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or
other properties of any kind. The other sites are not in either
\ of the hazard areas.
If there are questions please contact ma..
S�nc rely
�zc�o�as �ampzrzs
Consulting Goolzgist
E
Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion
,?nd a unanimous vote • 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993.
8. A request for a proposed SIDID and minor subdivision to allow for the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knucltsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the
code.
Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized th
the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further
research before the final hearing regarding that issue. i
IBM •
Neighborhood input was then requested# i the first speaker was it Doolan. He
requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and
come up with an alternative design.
Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County
approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr.
Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design.
O and Environmental Commission
January 11, 19♦ 3
Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a preparei.
report done by RKD, Inc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the
details of the drawings, specifically trying to understand the amount of fill that would be
located at the lower end of the proposed road.
Sherry Dorward was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC
require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of
The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new
:iesign.
Dalton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the
slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the major
issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the
two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved.
0 Gena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 11, 1•• 3
11
should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated
and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees
was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and
shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan.
Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved, He said that too
much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be i
character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildincl
into the hillside to make them look smaller.
E
Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that
the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that
issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and
the design improved before the PEC could support the plan.
Staff: Tim Devlin
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 11, 1993
JOHN W. DUNN
ARTHUR A. ASPLANALP, JR.
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUS
DIANE L. HERMAN
SPECIAL COUNSEL:
JERRY W. HANNAH
LAW OFFICES
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.0
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SUITE 300
108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
Town Council of the Town
and the Planning and
of the Town of Vail
Vail CO
HAND DELIVERED
#f Vail
Environmental Commission
Re: Application of Loper Construction Services, Inc.
Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch
TELEPHONE:
(303) 476-7552
TELECOPIER:
(303) 476-4765
The Vail Design Review Board considered the application •
Loper Construction Services, Inc., on the 17th • March. Some
administrative decisions were apparently made the day before that
hearing, but it is our understanding that no administrative
E
decisions were made regarding the current proposal prior to the
15th of March, which was the first working day after the current
plans were delivered to our clients. This appeal is, therefore,
being filed within ten days of any determination, whether by the
Vail Department • Community Development • the Vail Town Council.
At this time, the following facts are central to requirement
for the disapproval of the proposal and plans submitted by Loper
Construction services, Inc.:
Ll
p
Development and the Design Review Board have determined that the
'applicant need not conform the proposed second phase of the project
with that earlier representation made by the applicant, and that
determination is one decision from which this appeal is taken.
For a flat roof or a mansard roof, the height of buildings
shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof, the height
*f buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet.
At Section 18.04.170 the Vail Municipal Code describes the manner
in which the measurement is to occur as follows:
"Height" means the distance measured vertically, from the
existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more
restrictive), at any, aiven Doint to the top of a f lat roof, or
mansard roof or to the highest ridge line of a slo2ing roof.
(Emphasis added)
0
E
E
E
4. Absence of a Model. When the application for the
original dwelling was before the Design Review Board in the Fall of
1992, the applicant presented a model intended to illustrate the
intended construction. The Design Review Board relied upon the
model, as well as the plans establishing the intended building
0
E
18.54.05O.A.1 Structure shall be compatible with
possible, these existing features should be preserved and
reinforced by new construction. The objective is,to fit,the
f4uildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural land
forms and features intact, treating the buildings as an
integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at
*•ds with their surroundings.
0
ONE
N.
v
7. Other Objections. other objections which are contained i
the letters previously submitted, to the extent those objection
have been overruled by the staff of the Department of Communit
Development, are also the subject of this appeal, and thos
objections are incorporated by reference. I
E
The consideration by the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Town Council of the Town of Vail, of the objections of the
residents of the Potato Patch neighborhood, and the reversal of the
approval by the Department of Community Development and the Vail
Design Review Board, would be greatly appreciated by your
constituents, whose protection is, after all, the goal of the
zoning regulations and the design review process. I
AAA, j r
Enclosures
xc: Mr. and Mrs.
Mr. and Mrs.
George Wiege
Andy Daly I
N
M-rm
16
mmmsa��
•
vegetation or landscaping upon a site.
In the above-specified cases, the zoning admin-
istrator may review and approve the application,
approve the application with certain modifications,
or may refer any application to the design review
board for decision. All other applications shall be
referred to the design review board.
(Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) 1.)
18-54.050 Design guidelines.
Actions of the design review board shall be guided by the
objectives prescribed in Section 18.54.010, the Vail Village and
Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plans,
b all of the applicable ordinances of the Town of Vail, and by the
-01 ing design guidelines:
ial
I _6 ures shall be compatible with existing structures,
heir surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not
to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be
compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the
proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning,
landscaning- materials and colors- and compliance with
•
q to
Oi7.
en
I -
/� \ \ \� � � \ �� I445
454e
"Av
ZONING
f7:
Rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment, large
#,
vent stacks, elevator penthouses and similar features
z
should be avoided, however, if necessary, shall be de-
signed to be compatible with the overall design of the
kp,
structure or screened from view. Rooftop antennae shall
A
not be permitted unless as allowed under a conditional
Cyr
use review as specifd °thin the zoning code.
8.
Solar collectors shalt lie flat on pitched roofs, however,
when retrofitting an existing building with active solar the
collectors should be designed and placed in a manner
compatible with the overall design of the building.
1 -9
Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building
features that provide shelter from the elements are
encouraged.
Fenestration should be suitable for the climate and for the
k
orientation of the particular building elevation in which
" d
the fenestration occurs. The use of both passive and active
l
solar energy systems is strongly encouraged.
II`.
Exterior lighting shall be designed and located in a
manner to minimize impact of lighting upon living areas
r
within a proposed project and upon adjacent structures
.. ..,
and properties.
12.
In no instance shall a duplex structure be so constructed
as to result in each half of- the structure appearing
substantially similar or mirror image in design.
drainage/ erosion control.
' ;ALandscaping/
l"
Various natural vegetation zones exist within the Gore
Valley as a result of the form and aspects of the land itself.
_. _..
454E
(v,l 1 -8.91)
•
DESIGN REVIEW
V& ?ja1jL3 &V ub; wilca
designing a landscape plan. Final selection should be
based upon the soils and climate, case of establishment,
suitability for the specific use desired, and the level of
maintenance that can be provided. New planting shall use
plants that are indigenous to the Rocky Mountain alpine
and sub-alpine zones or as capable of being introduced
into these zones.
A list of plant materials indigenous to the V,-dl area is
on file with the department of community development.
,Also indicated on the list are ornamentals which are
suitable for planting within the Vail area. The minimum
sizes of landscape materials acceptable are as follows:
Required trees.
Deciduous - two inch caliper
Conifers - six foot
Required shrubs - "S gallon container
Foundation shrubs shall have a minimum height of
eighteen inches at time of planting.
2'. Landscape design shall be developed to locate new
planting in order to extend existing canopy edges or
454g
ZONING
planted in natural looking groups. Geometric plantings,
evenly spaced rows of trees, and other formal landscape
patterns shall be avoided.
u= 3.
P iul attention shall be given the landscape design of
off - street parking lots to reduce adverse impacts upon
living areas within the proposed development, upon
adjacent properties, and upon public spaces with regard
to noise, lights, and visual impact. Parking lots of fifteen
or more spaces shall comply with the landscape require-
ments found in Section 18.52.080(F.) of the Vail unici-
pal Codc.
4.
All landscaping shall be provided with a method of
=
irrigation suitable to ensure the continued maintenance of
p lanted materials.
5.
Whenever possible natural drainage patterns upon the
site shall not be modified. Negative drainage impacts
upon adjacent sites shall not be allowed.
.
Runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs and
pavement areas shall be directed to natural or improved
drainage channels or dispersed into shallow sloping
vegetated areas.
7.
Slope of cut and fill banks shall be determined by soil
characteristics for the specific site to avoid erosion, and
_
promote revegetation opportunities, but in any case shall
be limited t0 a maximum of 2:1 slope.
Measures shall be taken to retain all eroded soil material
Y
on site during construction, control both ground water
and surfact water runoff, and to permanently stabilize all
disturbed slopes and drainage features upon completion
-:
' 9 ®-
of constructions
All plants shall be planted in a good quality topsoil mix of
`
a type and amount recommended by the American
°; h
Landscape Contractor Association and the Colorado°
Nurseryman ®s Association.
h t
10.
All plantings must be mulched.
Paving near a tree to be saved must contain a plan fora
"tree vault" in order to ensure the ability of the roots to °
"°
receive air.
Fencing] walls.
;l :<
The placement of walls and fences shall respect existing
:-
v
Iand forms and fit into land massing rather than arbi•
454h
(Vail 11-1543)
U]
JE,
•
trarily follow site boundary lines. Fences shall not be
encouraged except to screen trash areas, utility equip-
'71
I-f
...
•
..., f ";
, rii''
• t �1
•. r`r a ° t . .. v
�ry.
Y J T..
t ,
;m
.t vow '� � ski $ z E.4.
... $ ..
1P i i{:...
� :x �4. fS:
.. i :,
DESIGN REVIEW
C.
•Z•.. r s:. - .... .•. •
may be designed t accommodate the development of
dwelling units r garages in more r. one
design structure if the board determines
constraints significant site on s e lot. The of
unified architectural and landscape design as outlined
in Section 18.54.050 Hj. shall be required for the
ME
I]
•
15
NO development. In addition, the design review board
may require that one or more of the following U
common design elements such as fences, walls,
patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape
elements, or other architectural features be incorpo-
rated to create unifled site development.
(Ord. 46(1991) §§ 2, 3: Ord. 12(1988) § 2: Ord. 24(1985) § 1: Ord.
9(1985) §§ 2, : rd.39(1983) § 1.)
ZONING
mortar and detailing should reflect concern for local
climatic conditions. '-o�-,—'
3. t
Pedestrian walks/ plazas 'X„
g L
a. Impervious surfacing' - may, he" used,-to7emphasiz6',,—`-
important features or pedestrian areas'. Natural
materials and colors are encouraged,- " they blenc in
well with wood, stone and plant materials.* Asphalt is
discouraged except when necessary`- for' bike paths
and parking areas.
1:3.
AC
V- In
454j-2b,
(Vail 1-3-91) .
•
W
I`-
ti
DATE: April 12, 1993
irUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance to allow for the construction of a 5-1/2 foot
geologic hazard mitigation wall to be placed within the front setback on Lot 16,
Vail Valley, 3rd ng/2039 Sunburst Drive.
Applicants: Mike Grisanti and Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Section 18.58,020(C) of the Vail Municipal Code (Fences, hedges, walls and screening) limits
walls located within the front setback area to a maximum height of 3 feet.
The setback variance request is to allow for a 5-1/2 foot tall geologic hazard mitigation
wall within the front setback area.
MCI.
The Town of Vail issued a building permit for this duplex in January of 1981. In 1982, the
Town adopted hazard regulations to provide certain requirements relative to the development
of subdivisions or building lots within areas of geologic sensitivity. No substantial
improvements have been made on the property since the building was completed in 1982.
a-01.
vu =--
I W.4 6-11 Ill$ 0 l 161 IVA
Allowed GRFA:
Existing GRFA:
Proposed GRFA:
Required Setbacks:
INN&JI111tor-I
JL�
IAV61711F'Iell I
Existing Parking:
Minimum Landscaping Required:
Existing Landscaping:
Proposed Landscaping:
ME
20 feet from front property line
15 feet from side & rear property lines
33 feet
30 feet (no change as a result of
proposed addition)
#
0
5 spaces (2.5 per unit)
4 spaces
6 spaces
*Although the existing buildings already exceed the maximum allowable GRFA allowed on the
lot, the proposed addition may be allowed through the Town's "250 square foot addition"
Ordinance.
K
E
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development recommends approval • the requested wall height variance. The
staff's recommendation for approval of the wall height variance request is based on the
following factors:
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
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or 4
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
0 Staff believes that the applicant's 5-1/2 foot tall avalanche and rockfall mitigation wall is
K
r-3
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of I
population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilitiel
and public safety.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
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.
BRIFF-MP-11=2 I MEMMMEM=
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifie*
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.
M
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.
The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed front setback variance request. The
required findings necessary for granting a variance are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed
below:
Staff feels that granting approval of the variance would not constitute a grant of
special privilege since the Town recognizes the need to mitigate geologic
hazards on one's property. The applicant is attempting to adequately mitigate
the geologic hazards which exist on the lot.
11
3MERMI =0
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the wall or garage/entryway
addition, the property owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized
affidavit certifying acknowledgement of receiving personal notice of the fact that
said building and structure are in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of
the studies conducted to date with regard thereto.
2. Additional landscaping should be provided at the east and west ends of the
new wall, especially in the area of the electrical switchgear box. The landscape
treatment behind the new gation wall must be installed in conformance with
the recommendations of the PEC and DRB.
I A revocable right-of-way permit will be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed addition in order to cover the proposed
gation wall and associated landscaping.
0
i
i
hfoTr: � f'K�r�'✓ -R(� � � i
IA
LoMP�KIGi fzEPal�l TTF�7 2f25�`l'� / / \ �UIz-N
uNrr a
�Gtutz�. �• o
t i \ \ : •''• � / �' ..151-0 .
\ i DCF� hG �RUGTURE ' -
f�KX�nlCt i� Kr. «HT •4 .
\\ � YF�Y bEFCa -ka Iw I
N • �•`� c rre+c 1N \v�- -TAT dG11
'� E'Xl�iitfIC,t
J� [i'• ?�D a Boom Gf I
ti4� E j FGR To SHT. 4
lob�oK
GVL•D�•�•C
t, orA 1oN o'r �Copal`-
f �/F L1 n�GH� t-w LL Lw�y
�KTH SITE PLAN_ ---T_
1- - io•-o- \
rl
M
a
CC M
Q
U
p��y
Vl -�
aui��a
s •
•
PLAN OF WALL
1/2'- V-0'
ELEVATION OF WALL
1/4' - l'-O"
SECTION THROUGH WAL
&
s t
GRISANTI REMODEL
AVALANCHE WALL
REVISION:
Job No.
Sheet:
wa:
: 4 8
P.C. aI.A,
•
•
mfl�M
W',
0
rn
f.
I
�W
500 BROADWAY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE, COLORADO 8 1631
FAX (303) 328-7207
File Number: ZC-256-93-Berry Creek, Filing 5, Equestrian Center
Adhga,Tame of Applicant: Hobby Horses, Lt
IWW' I
Location: Located in Edwards at the intersection of 1-70 and
the access road, directly east and south from the
eastbound access ramp.
Proposal: To amend the zone district designation in order to
improve and expand the existing equestrian
facility.
Eagle And Colorado Valley
Planning-Commission: May 5, 1993, beginning at
1:30 p.m., Commissioners Meeting Room, 500
Broadway, Eagle, Colorado.
MES39193915ME
ZTITM%���
May 11, 1993 beginning at
9:30 a.m., Commissioners Meeting Room, 50
Broadway, Eagle, Color ado. I
Your comments concerning this application are invited. For further
information, do not hesitate to contact this office at 328-8745 or P.O. Box
179, Eagle, CO 81631