The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-0712 PEC5. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to the Gondola Building to allow the construction of a wheelchair lift located on Lot 4, Block 1, V Lionshead 1st/600 West Lionshead Circle. 9. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: R parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79 °46'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06 026'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79 104'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62 052'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right -of -way line of Core Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27 013'37° W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line of Core Creek Road; thence N 89 029'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40 030'00" whose chord bears N 53 040'00° W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73 °55'00" W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85 °10'21°' W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02 118'00" W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45 °13'53° E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. Applicants Mail Athletic Club Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO JULY 26,1993 10. A request for a major exterior alteration in CCI, for an addition and exterior upgrades to the Cyranos wilding, located at 293 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, dock 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant. Margretta B. Parks Planners: Mike Mollica and Tim Devlin TABLED TO AUGUST 9,1993 11. A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicants Town of Vail Planner; Andy Knu tsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 3 12. A request fora work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and are amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 273 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A, B, , Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant- Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc. /Partners, Ltd. /argaritaville, Inc. Planners- Mike ollica/Tirn Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY 13. A request for proposed text amendments to Chapter 13.33, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 13.32 Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Jinn Curnutte and Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN 14. A request for a minor subdivision and rezoning from Greenbelt Natural Open Space to Hillside Residential for Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation Planner; Mike ollica/Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 15. Approve minutes from June 23, 1993 PFC meeting. 16. Council update, -Summary of enforcement meeting ®A & D Building conditional use appeal -Sima Run SDD -Revocable right-of-way process *Neon ordinance - second reading pen Lands -Par 3 discussion at Town Council on July 6, 1993 +PBC /Council discussion of SDD criteria - set date eFollow-up on John Lincoln workshop 17. Public Works Workshop on their Proposed Master Plan {Please see enclosed invitation }. 4 Y, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 12, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Diana, Donovan Dalton Williams Kristan Prig Jeff Bowen Greg Amsden Andy Knutsen Bill Anderson Shelly Mello Kathy Lan enwalter Jim Curnutte Allison Lassoe Tim Devlin This session of the PEC was called to order at approximately 1 :20 p.m. The PEC members decided to move forward on the agenda to the tabled items (items # - #12). 1 e A request for the establishment of an S D to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three Tye IV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, Mate of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: 046'00" Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79 Vilest along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract '°B`°; thence South 10 °14'00°° West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B "; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B "; thence North 79 146'00" west along the Southerly line of said Tract °'B'° a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 09 °10'07" west a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 66 °27'11" west a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27 013'37°° East a distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57 124'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jiro Curnutte TABLED TO JULY , 1 Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item until July 26, 1993 with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request until July 26, 1993. 2; A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows. Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79 046'00° w along the Northerly limo of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06 °26'52°° w a distance of 346.63 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at rage 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102976 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79 °04'06'° E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62 °52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County records, a distance of 66,76 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right -of -way line of Core Creek road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27 013'37'° W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right -of -way line of Core Creek road; thence N 69 °29'22'° W a distance of 12.60 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in rook 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in reception No. 102976 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the leis having a central angle of 40 °30'00" whose chord bears N 53 °40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73 °55'00" W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 65 °10'21'° W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Flaus Parcel; thence S 02 016'00°° W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of j 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45 113'53" E a distance of 36.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,466 square feet, more or less. Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO JULY 26,1993 Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item until July 26, 1993 with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A -0 vote tabled this request until July 26, 1993. 3. A request for a major exterior alteration in CCI, for an addition and exterior upgrade to the Cyranos Building, located at 293 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks Planners: Mike Mollica and Tilt Devlin TABLED TO AUGUST 9,1993 Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item until August 9, 1993 with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request until August 9, 1993. 4. A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY Diana Donovan fade a motion to table this item indefinitely with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely. 5. A request for a work I 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, 273 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./ Partners, Ltd./ argaritaville, Inc. Planners: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item indefinitely with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely. . A request for proposed text amendments to Chapter 16039, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 13.32 Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code, Applicant. Town of Vail j Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN 7. A request for a minor subdivision and rezoning from Greenbelt Natural Open Space to Hillside Residential for Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant® SBC Development Corporation Planner: Mike ollica/Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 8. Approve minutes from June 23, 1993 PEC meeting. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the minutes with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 4-0 vote approved the minutes from the June 23, 1993 PEC meeting. 9. Council updated -Summary of enforcement meeting Kristan Prim stated that she would do a write-up summarizing the Town Council enforcement meeting. She said that Council wants the Town of Vail to be stricter with people who repeatedly violate the zoning and building regulations. She stated that Council would like to see the dollar amount for fines increased as well ®A & D Building conditional use appeal Kristan Pritz stated that Vail Associates, Inc., the applicant for this request, may request to relocate the dwelling unit somewhere off - site; ®Simba Run SDD Kristan Pritz stated that the Simba Run SD (Savoy Villas) mould be coming back to the PEC because the Simba Run Condominium Association, which is an adjacent property owner to the current Simba Run SDD project, was not listed by the applicant as a party to be notified. evocable right -of -way process Kristan Pritz stated that this item was tabled at the July 6, 1993 Town Council meeting. Manning and Environmental Commission f July 12, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 7 Jim Curnutte stated that the Town Engineer has identified areas on West Forest Road where damage has been caused by snowcats, especially at the bottom of the Born Free ski run where the cats take a 900 turn to head up the hill. Diana Donovan stated that the roof of the original building and the addition needed to match. This is more important than the siding because it is more visible. Jeff Bowen stated that he feels this site needs to be adequately screened especially along the front. He asked Mail Associates to consider replacing the existing fence with a new wooden one. Allison Lassoe abstained from comment as mail Associates, Inc. is her employer. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see a parking analysis and a phasing plan completed. With regard to landscaping, she would like to see landscaping beyond the property line and on the berm. She said that the fencing needs to be repaired and painted. Kathy said that the loose storage on the site needed to be accommodated inside of the building. She stated that the applicants needed to discuss potential impacts to West Forest Road with Greg Fall. She said that the roofs needed to be the same. She added that she would like to see either vertical or horizontal siding used on the existing building as well as the addition, but that it needs to be specified in a phasing plan. Diana Donovan stated that although Greg Amsen' was net present for the meeting, he asked Diana, to express the fact that he was concerned with seeing the long -term Joint maintenance agreement for West Forest Road worked out. Al Hauser, the manager of the flail Spa, stated that he wants to see the employee parking and the snow cat parking locations moved to the west side of the building because of the noise and light associated with the snowcats corning and going during the night which disturbs the guests. Al was also concerned with the existing light at the end of the building. Jack Hunn stated that he would study whether switching the employee parking and the snowcat parking was feasible, and that he would also attempt to resolve the rest of Mr. Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 Kathy Langenwalter, the architect for this project, stated that the applicants currently park on the street which is Town of Vail property. She said that after this winter, the applicants desired to have on -site parking. Kathy said that this lot is 8,057 square feet in size and the house is 1,492 square feet. She said that the proposed garage size is twenty-four feet by twenty -four feet (exterior measurements). She said that she does not view the granting of this request as a grant of special privilege because she believes that the small lot size creates a physical hardship. She added that a hardship exists because the lot is smaller than what the zoning code calls for and that all of the allowable building requirements are calculated on a standard 15,000 square foot sized lot. Sallie Dean stated that the reason for the request was based in part to the trash storage problems that they have experienced recently (bears). Jeff Bowen stated that it was his feeling that this was an unusual situation given the small lot size and the steep slope of this site. Because of this, he said that he feels that this site does qualify as a physical hardship. He said that should the PEC approve the garage, it should be large enough to accommodate the purpose that the applicant has for it, i.e. parking, storage, trash enclosure, etc. Bill Anderson stated that he felt that the addition of a garage on this site is a positive improvement but that approving this request could set a precedent and that this was a concern. Allison Lassoe stated that she feels that the lot size and the steep slope can be considered physical hardships but she feels that the size of the proposed garage is excessive and that it should be reduced and that the storage space could be created elsewhere on the site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it would be difficult to decrease the size of the garage because if the garage was narrowed, it would be difficult to get in and out of a car. Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that the site created d physical hardship because the applicants purchased the lot knowing that the property was small and steep. She said that the hardship exists because the house is small. She suggested that since this site still has available GRFA, that the applicant could consider pushing the garage up against the house. Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that the site coverage would not be reduced by pushing the garage up against the house. She added that she felt that the size and steepness of the lot did create a physical hardship and that a strict and literal interpretation (criteria #l:2) was net fair to the applicant because the zoning regulations are based on a 15,000 square foot lot size and that other factors could be considered with this request such as the location of the large evergreen trees, the location of the house on the lot, etc. She stated that she felt that each variance presented to the PEC should be considered separately, but that there should be continuity in the decisions made by the FEC. Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 Diana Donovan stated that it was her feeling that there are reasons to find a hardship on this property and that the existing house could be construed as a hardship. general discussion was held concerning the physical hardships and the reasons for approving the requested site coverage and gall height variances on the site. Kristan Pritz summarized the findings for approval to be as follows: 1 that is v it le on the lot, and the ro er has not xc other development standards; r ) that the i the f e of the property be removed except in front of the r el ) that flat roof on the r e is designed to i i iz the uii i' impact on adjacent properties; 4) that the t r ® if trees need to be planted on the west side of the garage that i existing tree will be removed i this request; ) that the layout of this site s it xtr l y difficult to it the r elsewhere the r er ) that the lot size is extremely 11, making it difficult to r vi e for garage; ) that the two large tree to the the t make it possible to locate the gar it ctl y adjacent to the house. The applicant agreed to withdraw the request for a setback variance as all GRFA proposed would be eliminated from the front setback® Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the requests for site coverage and wall height variances per the findings summarized by Kristan Pritz and the following additional conditions: 1) that t l t side of the r r removed xc ti front of the garage; ) that the t r i if trees need to be planted the t side garage 1 existing tree will be removed i this request; Allison La soe seconded this request and a -0 -1 vote approved this request with Kathy Lanenwalter abstaining since she is the architect for this project: Planning and Environmental commission July 12, 1993 1 DANE: July 12, 1993 SUBJECT- A request for a proposed S ®U and a minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1490 13uffehr Creek Road. The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area n each envelope in the upper development area can be modified by 5 t t l r h t f e® a s ar a r a Vx V lu xa INIU112 o 13,314 for the lower development area (Tract a ) and 6,152 for the upper development area (rot ). Lower development area; Rase Floor Credit CRFA current garage Area overage credit A, 1816 225 2041 16 463 1816 225 2041 16 493 C, 1845 225 2070 -- 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 F. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F, 2157 225 2382 26 483 C. 1857 225 2082 21 476 total 13314 iJ er deueio ment area; I distinctly different from uildings A or C as determined by the ®! The PEC added that the architect should revise the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color so that these elements are distinctly different from either Building A or C. Diana Donovan then directed the PEC to focus on upper development area issues. ristan Pritz stated that staff would like the drawings revised prier to going in front of Town Council. She further stated that staff would like to try and avoid future variances on this site. Kathy Langenwalter commented that there appeared to be tremendous vertical out. Randy Hodges stated that a soils report had not been dole and consequently the depth of excavation had not been determined. Lana Donovan asked the PEC whether they felt that this project was doable without variances. Bill Anderson stated that it sounded like they needed more information. Dalton Williams agreed with Bill and said that he would like to sea a soils analysis. Greg sden stated that the PEC would see variances at this location due to the excessive slope. Diana Donovan stated that due to platting, the excessive slope would be a self- imposed hardship and that would not be grounds for granting a variance. Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see a soils analysis, garage, wall thicknesses, concrete grades and cuts. Randy Hodges stated that the relationship between the garage and the road would remain the same. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see future variances eliminated y documenting a solution at this tune. Jeff Bowen stated that Tract B presented no problems in his mind. Concerning Tract , he stated that it was his opinion that the scope of the project needs to be reduced I to one unit. Greg mden commented that a cut of to 30 feet seemed unfeasible. He said that he felt a soils analysis was necessary to determine whether the site was developable. He said that he wondered whether the site should have development even though the county has said that it is buildable. Planning and Environmental Commission Awn a 1993 8 Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see a ells analysis done and would also like structural engineer to look at the retainage necessary for the site. Lana Donovan wondered what the ramifications of the Eagle County approval were and whether it was possible to build the plans that the applicant was proposing (i.e. can they physically build what is roved). She asked the PEC beard whether the soils analysis and structural engineer's report would be adequate information for the P C to base their decision concerning the site's development potential and, if the reports were favorable, if the PEA would approve the project. Kathy Lan enwalter stated that the PEC needed to take a closer look at the site work, i.e. zoning restrictions on wall heights driveway grades, etc. Jeff Bowen stated that he had a real problem with Tract A and that he was not sure whether the site was buildable. ri Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner- Andy Knudtsen ... ........ ....... : : ......................... .............. . ........................ . ... ......... ... ................. .... ............. ............ .. .......................... * . . ....... ....... .... ..... . ... .... .......... ........... ....... ............. : ..... ....... .. . . I .... :X, . ...................... .................... ........... .......... ......... . ... I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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: 1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%; 2. A 10 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is required. 3. Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area which exceed the height limit by 1 foot; and 4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum buildable area for this zone district; 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 and distinguish the lower development area from the other phases of development in The Valley. The applicant will use the single family subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they are constructed. 1 l►l: 4kg Ana! sis _ 0 W, Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft Lower 105,318 sq. ft. Lower: 64,623 sq. ft. Total 146,058 sq. ft. Total: 73,009 sq. ft. " April 12, 1993 January 11, 1993 Residential June 3, 1980 Gensler Proposal Gensler Proposal Cluster County Approval _ Dwelling Units 9 9 10 15 °GRFA 19,466 sq. ft. 19,966 sq. ft. 18,252 sq. ft. 15,777.2 sq. ft. wa;_ oposed 19,466 sq. ft. is ally ,,.d Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. ft. 11.3 % or 16,489 sq. ft. 25% or 36,514 sq. ft, 6.9% or 10,209 sq. f . Setbacks 10' front 20' on 20' front 3' front 20' sides all sides 15' sides 22' side 5' rear Height 27' m 30' 33° 33' 30' Parking 35 spaces 36 spaces 10 x 2.5 = 25 spaces 22 spaces*** Landscaping 77.9% or 113,830 sq. ft. 77 %m or 113,1353 sq. ft. 60% or 87,634.6 sq, ft. 86 % or 125,673,3 °'' Retaining Walls 4° 6° 6' 4' _ 6` 'Size of Am1 0 sq. ft,** A -1 0 sq. ft.'s 8,000 n/a Buildable Area in A ®2 8386 sq. ft. A ®2 8386 sq. ft. ** Proposed Lots Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage 9.5% or 13,892 sq.ft. ° *" 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. ft. n/a 7.3% or 10,742.3 s t. Impervious surface 22.1% or 32,228 sq.ft. * *" 22.3 % or 32,624.6 sq, ft. n/a 14 % or 20,385.6 s( { *Deviates from Zoning Code standards *`Measured by staff — Assumes that only half of the full circle of parking is built 4 V. 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. road, staff believes it will be acceptable. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff understands that the applicant has redesigned the landscaping, shifting much of it around to the areas between the proposed development and the existing development in Grouse Glen. A minor point concerning the landscaping is to have the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and modify the type of sod to match the existing sod. 10 The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town Council is the approving authority for the SIDID. As a result, staff recommends that once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SIDID. 2) Buildings on Tracts -1 and -2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lam iris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993. 3) Buildings on Tract -2 shall be designed with a turn - around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope -. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. ) The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase 11 and that the sod type matches Phase II. 5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart. The GRIFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area and each v lei in e upper development area can be modified by care feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of 13,314 for the lower development area (Tract ) and ,1 for the upper development area (Tract Lower development drda: Ease door Credit CRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1316 225 2041 16 463 B . 1316 225 2041 16 493 C: 1345 225 2070 493 U. 2143 225 2373 24 436 E. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2332 26 433 G. 1357 225 2032 21 476 total 13314 Upper development area: A ®1. 3252 225 3477 600 A -2. 2900 225 3125 600 total 6152 C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path, 12 IT. A Q " to,, I box 1297 do VINSt 303-468-5871 r i0 U10i LE Out? Yl ----------------- tl box 1297 do VINSt 303-468-5871 r i0 U10i LE Out? ----------------- tl mwl� lim�=M Q D Nicholas Lampiri , Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 } 876 -5400 {24 HOURS} cJan L.lary 22, Steven Gensler Parkwood Realty 329 DTC Blvd, #500 Englewood, CD 80111 RE: Tract A, Lion ®o Ridge Subdivision Dear 1`'r. t.. d YmadsLert I have been asked to clarify mBy® position on the rockf aI 1. mitigation I suggested in my previc°us letter. I Le1.ieti,e that one of two mitigation techniques is in order. One possibility i':.:8 to either scale or grout loose rocks in I 't1 3 e � low C?ut°.C:rop directly above the Sites; batter is to ®DiCtY °ct the rear foundation wall of the buildings to protrude 4y iemrL three '. 1°f:'a::E: above fiitis§8:m'd grade and to have no windows in this interval (from ground level to the top of the sati° „'m This wall should have a strength o- at a C1a t 300 poL: d ✓ _ per sq e_' e w C L . This `al l would also act to protect the home i n the event snow should slide I_lp against the homes if there are further i?l.;a't°:iti9®!ns please r®L.71';am;itct. ,. o S00 033'56 "W 455,96 feet; thence along said centerline X100033'56 "E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW Pine of 1 -70; thence departing said ROW line N66 1153'25 "E 39,15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S31 °23'19`°E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.33 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49003'51" and a chord that bears S15057'45 "E 119.10 feet; thence 540032'10"E 3,00 feet, thence 6630 feet along the arc of a 77,21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49 012 °108' and a chord that bears S1 5®56'05"E 64.23 feet; thence S3040'00`°W 90,27 feet; thence N33 042'24" 224.55 feet; thence S7801 0'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant, MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauter ach Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25,1993 Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Balton Williams seconding the motion and a unanimous vote of 6 -0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993, $; A request for a proposed C3 and minor subdivision to allow for the B, The Valley, development of single family homes located on Tracts A and Phase 11/14$0 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant® Steve Gensler /Parkwoo Realty Planner: Andy Knudtser Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the code. Torn Braun,' representing the applicant® gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further res earch before t h e final hearing regarding that issue. public lhut Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian ®oolan® 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. '-an i -, E n slon f �Y5a 3d ddil� c�Zda.B �i3 °Jtr+.7aarnidel w.ua:aa�� v January 11, 1993 Nicholas L mpiris, Ph. D. { ` CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0165 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 61652 (303) 676.5400 (24 HOURS) ,`.36 ='Le si s®3+de'e l f':gal-ic,aoud Realty 5299 DTG Blvd, 050C) Englewood, CO 8011i RE: Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Gensler; 1 have reviewed the two °•d®�it '.t: Shown on m.➢3e accompanying map for purposes o..0 Rock Fall and isebr.t.'s /"low review for the i-ow°f Vail. The "a F:: sites s �' � ? ti chosen .v_. v_ and °t the • two C°s t ° have 1/ v _7 to °°: i°°a . tr �a out of west of the debris � ( and : i; ' _ r -'» driveway -_ _ enter and cross the +an, however. The rock r c .fall w 3'_ 1 is fC ° _ severe further f ' t L C r b s e than these Yi a L1 lC1 °g sites and the . tW :.: C" :J s ®7 J v® these ®C L_a can t'; b C »? easily $lrCBut(:®e_i or o°a:.hert°Jism neutralizad because they are °t..'8in and discontinuous. she iiSi.:i'-e hazardous z dim)us ou a'mt®:'..Sap much higher an the hillsido will shed fTOsti°t'l °;/ to the west. Although mitigation e "•.t the a soi:,d`9'= :E. tem.° is possible through walls or {s ''a'®ei i isg , it Un the probably ;'1 i ®a 7 warranted due '9". C.7 low chance of rocks ice° .a . C: )1 ? fl ; ®; the sites. Outcrop work prior to construction will CiG. beneficial. This is in a location wherm the ridge, t. tSy .9°1t z;7J i1,., tho source notential falling rocks, s at such : low , e e e a with respect to 1h, a._ i e . m P : that r o L i ' s w i l l e a e 9 _ a'! reach .. ° 1 !.- 9 e _ ° and, J . • Wet..: �L J 1 !l iae( n°pf .I _91: e .: ',e �1; _.� ::b1_ i..s occur ...tiJl.;eJa this sito. a l® a d- L% 3o ° of these r " a J 1 i; increase the hazard d 9.. a.9 f the, property i structures, or to public righ —o e. buildings, roads, streets, °_ ®;z;te , utilities ).es P.;"; ; e:c°°a....ia' ion or _ o .a.. c- properties eel f any kind. Let me e i:? 's'- _ "_-'s t a'i. �,� that the s :t i ®e ' a are not in the debris hazard ar2ms., sails engineering studies di C_ °®s are C: ca _9ary due to thie:. stmepneAs C.3•F the sites°'_,,® If °i.s`eri_, eot! "°c:.e qWStiOnS PIMS2 Cg naaS:_i: MCm -. 0 t Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared report done by RKID, Inc. The Manning 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 design. ena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development is Planning and Environmental Commission January t i, i5 Tea -1 TH —z . TRACT A -2 TRACT A -1 C 0 LEGEND., I N TOPSOIL 12/12 13/12 5 62/14. 64C =14,6 =15.4 DD DD =110 5 :' GRAVEL, sandy, clayey to very clayey, dense, moist, brown- reddish DL=109 - 200 =71 -200 =40 16/12 CLAY, sandy, occasional gravel, stiff to very stiff, moist, bra=n- reddish, gray 10 50/3 hC =15.5 10 DD=115 - 200 =72 BEDROCK, SANDSTONE, cemented, hard to very hard, slight moist, broi -M- reddish 21/12 15 50/5 WC= 14,3 DD=119 15 DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 13/12 indicates that 13 blows of a 140 and h <n po amer - 200 =76 were required to drive a 2e5 O.D. sampler 12 Inches, � to tab . t u5 � U. 50 /1 DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 62/10 indicates that 62 blows of a 140 pound hamner 20 50/3 . 20 z were required to drive a 2.0 O.D. sampler 12 inches. ua �t 50/0 � NOTES: 25 50/4 25 1. The P- ploratory Borings were drilled on June 9, 1993 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. No free ground water was measured at the time of drilling. 3. The Boring Logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions 30 30 as contained in this report. 4. Laboratory Test Results: �E - Indicates natural moisture content {g) DD - Indicates dry density (pcf) -200 - Indiaates percent passing the M. 200 sieve {gj 35 35 140 40 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Joe INO. 93 -60 FIG, 3 z WHITE RIVER !NATIONAL FOREST t Sample of SAND, vet clayey, gravelly GRAVEL 16 % SAND 44 From Boring Tai -1 at 4 feet SILT & CLAY 40 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN, 60 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN, 1 MIN. °200 °100 °50 °40 °30 °16 °10`8 °4 3/8" 3/4" 1 %x" 3° 5 °6" 8" 100 { { { 0 90 1 ° 10 80 { { { 20 70 30 O { { a ZZ 60 40 z 70 z 50 50 c 40 z { 60 n { { 30 70 20 { 80 10 a 90 { { { 0 z 50 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 99A 36.1 762 127 200 c' 50 �- 40 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS { 60 n Sample of SAND, vet clayey, gravelly GRAVEL 16 % SAND 44 From Boring Tai -1 at 4 feet SILT & CLAY 40 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. °200 '100 "50 "40 "30 °16 `10 °8 "4 318° 314° 1 1/2" 3° 5" 8° 100 1 1 1 ° 90 10 f 80 { 20 70 30 40 ? a z 50 c' 50 �- 40 { 60 n 1 I 30 170 20 I 80 10 1 90 ' 1 0 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.119 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 76.2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS MEMORANDUM WESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST 0 1 IL ZONING ANALYSIS Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Lot 14 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 15 1. Lot Area (Cross): 236,022 sq. ft. 277,500 sq. ft. 25,596 sq. ft. 34,116 sq. ft. 2. Contiguous Buildable Area: 47,920 sq. ft. 39,552 sq. ft. 23,120 sq. ft. 31,433 sq. ft. 3. Building Envelope Size: 22,943 sq. ft. 15,479 sq. ft. 7,279 sq. ft. 11,007 sq. ft. 4. Proposed CRFA Allowable *. 14,330 sq. ft. 13,904 sq. ft. 5,397 sq. ft. 5,323 sq. ft. 5. HR CRFA Allowed —: 13,416 sq. ft. 17,992 sq. ft. 5,397 sq. ft. 5,323 sq. ft. 6. Proposed Site Coverage Allowable * *: 10,000 sq. ft. 3,366 sq. ft. 3,339 sq. ft 4,973 sq. ft. 7. HR Site Coverage Allowed: 42,903 sq. ft. 41,625 sq. ft. 3,339 sq. ft. 5,113 sq. ft. * The applicant is requesting to shift 426 square feet of CRFA from Lot 14 to Lot 15. ** The applicant is requesting to shift 1,134 square feet of site coverage from Lot 14 to Lot 15. * ** CRFA includes 425 sq. ft. for caretaker plus 425 sq. ft. for primary unit. (HR) = Allowable per standard Hillside Residential zoning r $ DATE: July 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for site coverage, setback and wall height variances to allow for the construction of a garage and storage area, located at 2942 Bellflower/Lot 3, Fleck 39 Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Sally Dean and Larry Roush Planner: Tim Devlin .,, 0 1 0 Ifr® ZONING ANALYSIS Site Area: 8,058.6 square feet Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Existing (and proposed) Density: One Single Family dwelling Unit GRFA: Allowed: 2,440 square feet Existing: 1,492 square feet Proposed: 1,597 square feet Site Coverage: Allowed: 1,209 square feet (15 %) Existing: 796 square feet (9.9 %) Proposed: 1,496 square feet (18.56 %)* Setbacks: Front: Required: 20 feet Existing: 15.5 feet (existing house) Proposed: 16 feet (storage area connection)** Side east: Required: 15 feet Existing: 8 feet Proposed: 8 feet (unchanged) Side west Required: 15 feet Existing: 60 feet Proposed: 25 feet Rear; Required: 15 feet Existing: 44 feet Proposed: 44 feet (unchanged) Mali Height (front setback): Allowed: 3 foot Existing: none Proposed: 4 to 8 foot * ** Parking: Required: 2 spaces Existing: 3 spaces (surface, partially on- site)' Proposed: 4 spaces total: 2 spaces (enclosed, on- site); 2 spaces (surface, partially on -site) Requires site coverage variance * Requires front setback variance; existing house is legally non- conforming and the proposed garage is allowed to encroach into the front setback due to slopes exceeding 30 %. * ** Requires wall height variance 0 • BASS OF E1 EM 27aV., (Nor Smom) 70 NYM a V - 7 816.50 / 4VV aCV.- 7606.10 R I p • ,HER` ic pPA i I / ! k\ M $ GRAPHIC SCALE IFS 44 / / / nw -SrO?Y \ LOr 7 -A 'r r /�• NMxRAM£ fl / `FO // IlM'ALKIX/r �k. WW 6ASe4fNr \ Y 4. im ) CONRN/R WERVAL - 2 f£f r pfd ovo o 4i —840 SW A.D AL4sYMAl CAP 7846 ' S°i° LOT 5 LOT 8. BLOCK 8. b •\ A 059 6 SOVARE IECr / Q,&S ACRES: / �/ w' I' IM i 1 A� AlWr1NW CAP L 2 LS NQ JSW �p &OCK 6 \ /� d �j lk ✓ \ / / tor 5 55 \4 • TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP \ _ tor d scour 8, VAIL WERMOUNMIN OEI•ELoRMENr suvolV151om. _�• • BELL FL 0WE6 , DRl VE I �+J I* or ASPHALT rDGE PAN _ J� 552�y 1 ✓ <50> david mark peel, a. i.a. ngenwalter, a.ia. � t•�,'�1 fG—'� 1 I 2568 oroaa drive 303.476.4506 dots 6,Z4— �n1�f"`GIF— AIPd: >MoH portotlic.box,202 ve8,cc 81658 project G�+tzAGt�� d.avrn K� yol q. ! a 5�- rg,gcK A'9C - on�irr C/Y K9R <F _• - \ - - 340 --- - a TRtL �+J I* or ASPHALT rDGE PAN _ J� 552�y 1 ✓ <50> david mark peel, a. i.a. ngenwalter, a.ia. � t•�,'�1 fG—'� 1 I 2568 oroaa drive 303.476.4506 dots 6,Z4— �n1�f"`GIF— AIPd: >MoH portotlic.box,202 ve8,cc 81658 project G�+tzAGt�� d.avrn K� yol q. ! a 5�- rg,gcK • • • BEL L FL 0 WER , DRl VE (50 OF ASPHALT / EDGE — :o PAN -� - - - r CONCRETE g 94-00 GRAVEL OR11/EWA Y DN 2ND FLR WOOD DECK 51-40'44 ' 4 - 9n- Gi/Y wvr \ . � - - . L. III -ING �F � \. `UVDERDROL mss• I Dr 1 Bgsq�� qyF - - 340-- -Z --�_ - _ _ _ WOOD DECK - ' - -___, WALL I � 0 846-- �0- =- - -__ X8¢6 a Ia I I B`' �-56 0 C'� 8 2 cp�s.rFFT a I \ EASEMENT I/ ' DRAINAGE AND 94.11 LITILITY ID' david mark peel, kafhy lanpenwalfer,a.ia. v � ' Pall 2588 aroca drive 70]•176. 506 dal. (y.Zd po.l o(fic. box 1202 roil, co 81658 prawn I� PLAN drawn . rh «I 7jpf N T • ,1 y - g sr4lC-616 k(11! 4 L IN f, , , SE Tg,4r)E � imini I ICI i imlim �IzoNt ��up,�loti _ 2 •sl�� l:,�v�4r�oN -- - j++'dr david mark peel, a.i. a. kathy lonpenwalter, ai.a, 2588 aroso drive. 303.476.4506 .�►r ` �� ap ✓IIIO� Po,l alti- box 1202 -0, co 81658 Projscl VA- Cpl K dawn K L FR Community Development Department DATE: July 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the vehicle maintenance building at the Vail Associates, Inc., service yard located on an unlatted parcel of property, 243 South Frontage Road West. = 9.3 spaces = 52.7 spaces 62 spaces req. Lift Maintenance Building (3,148 square feet net floor area) Office area (15 %) = 472 sq. ft. 250 = 1.9 spaces Warehousing (85 %) = 2,767 sq. ft. - 1,000 = 2.7 spaces 4.6 or 5 spaces req. proposed shift schedule change will reduce the drawn -time percentage by 10 %. Down-time results in more frequent trips back to the service yard for maintenance and increased wage of West Forest Road. - Vail Associates intends to hire three additional maintenance technicians, which will also improve the maintenance quality and reduce down -time. The applicants have indicated that the additional parking demand resulting from the new maintenance technicians is more than offset by the relocation of the security personnel office , which is currently located in the shop /vehicle maintenance building but will be moved to the lionshead offices. Those employees currently showing u for work at the service yard (approximately ) will now be parking at the west day lot. The applicant has provided a summary chart of the number of tracked vehicle round trips made on West Forest Road in an average 24 hour period (see attached). The chart provides figures for the 1992/93 season versus the proposed schedule for the 1993/94 season. 5. Long Term Joint Main ten ance redrrrent for est Forest R ®ad - The Town is interested in opening discussions with Vail Associates, Inc. regarding a long term maintenance agreement for the continued use of West Forest Road. Town ordinances currently prohibit the use of unprotected track equipment on Town streets. The Town Engineer believes that snow cats have caused increased gear to the road and would liked to have a joint maintenance agreement in place to facilitate its continued use and maintenance. 0. Proposed uildin °sign and aterials - Those portions of the proposed building expansion on the north and east sides will essentially be extensions of the existing building and architecture. The proposed building expansion on the southwest side of the building will include a new gable roof to help shed snow away from bay doors. The applicant is aware that the existing plywood siding is not an approved building material in Vail and is therefore proposing cedar siding which will be painted to match the existing building. An anodized metal roof is proposed, which will match the color or the existing building roof, e I 0 IEITA.D®C Jul 93 EXHIBIT .AIL ASSOCIATES MAINTENANCE FACILITY Average number of personnel working per ciao Vehicle Maintenance Shop Summer - 0 Winter 10 Mountain Services Summer a 5 Winter - 11 Warehouse i Summer - 3 Winter 5 Purchasing Summer 3 Winner 3 i Security Summer ® 2 Winter - 3 Lift Maintenance Summer ® 30 Winter 4 4 l e I 0 IEITA.D®C Jul 93 TDAMEMORANDUM i --C3i.t aO Joe Macy, VA Tim Wyson , V I From: David Leahy, TDB ITr�P,:r fn7 „n .: VA Shops Expansion, access Considerations Date: July 21 199 i As requested, we have reviewed your proposed expansion of the Vail Shops maintenance building for any possible access permit consequences. The South Frontage Road site is served by two full movement access drives ® - one opposite Forest Road and a second easterly drive slightly offset from the Lions ead Circle west intersection. South Frontage Road is under th administrative jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. we understand your prof act does not propose any modification to the existing access drives. However, as with any change in land use, site traffic activity needs to be addressed t 9 see if access improvements, per the State Highway Access cede,! are called for. As spelled out in the access Code (2.10.3), sits: changes that could increase vehicle volume by 20%, or adding new turning movements, could trigger the need for access im rovements. This assessment addresses your proposal with these c nsiderations in mind. Purpose of Site Improvement The main purpose of extending your existing i .+ t ena ce building aDuUL 00 Z L Lu Ul t--a L Lri� tg }sUVLi= g aa vvl Ll aua10s= %,. exl.a111 Ly to provide thorough preventive maintenance o your mountain equipment, particularly the snow cats. These tracked vehicles are fueled, serviced and parked on this site', accessing the mountain via Forest Road. The added maintenance space will enable you to employ three more maintenance teFhnicians spread over your 7-day, 16-hour per day work week to ! mare thoroughly ! maintain snow cats as they are rotated through. Fifteen snow cats are based at this location currently. Snowcats deployed in mountain grooming worm from t pm until 2*0 wn, return for refueling,. and work on the mountain again from 3:00am until noon, again returning for refueling. Hence, prime site use of the Forest Road access drive occurs between 2;00 and am and noon to 1:00pm each day during ski season. �675 LarOWS1. Style onvoi, CO 80202 With improved aintenance capability you anti i at requiring (33)627907 fewer da nnow cat crossings South } particularly for five of the cats assigned to t e less rigorous M 11 1 93-07-08 16:54 303 479 4030 VPSI MTN OPS TO; Rin Curnutto FROM: Town Pfanner Fax #® 479-2452 DATE: July 8, 1993 11111 illialil�illilli�ll;,§,,�'!Il�ill��I 004 P01 Tim Wysong Manager, Fleet Maintenance 93-94 a3Qn Vehicles Shift # of vehklet;14 Grroomers AM I Groomers Food Haul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 1l. Winch Anchor 0 Total 4 hours Total 124 hours 26,3* Down-time: 20%; requiring 6 Down-time-, 10%; requiring 16 r irn to Shop Facility by return to Shop Facility by above above equipment c ment 36 Average scheduled vchiclos pex shift 1/2 this number. Indicates vehicies previously dispatched from Shop location, relocated to on mountain facility, Percentage trips provide for mainremce eveiT third shift to be performed in the, Shop Facility. Reduction in down-time percentage is due to a smaller AM shift thus expanding the service, window and greatly improving maintcnance quality. 'All Q m av ry v� a , µw esn nv u -�„ u k �- 5 o—c�r� r N f3k�1Ut'fti4 Y✓°+ -31LP ndL d^GPiT f6i1 �. � A'^£�.TR .q�ti9c A�.i �P-le TAi TO -��. r�imTY � c � AT 9 -� �' �.. w:.,k.w.,..�+. r� �. .__ �� ...�r.,...��''� is 4C 3K..d ,'�^� a+�^ 3t� ,,f�W>R lYr �;.. ., �� 1 � .0 .r. � � :� . , � � � . 7 ��"�" .. ' � Y � �� ... w.. w�.... ,. :�, gi .. �" „"esi.'�4�1K'�.. � �awx ��+:*a, v3i��y.� c � i _ }„ fs ! a yy�� 3Y!` � f n >`r c�u) r ,.� .. .� _. � - .� a st,r.i >TiN:.» Ov�NCami • � —.__ - -_ ,,A �i .,. A...�P ero✓ae.�,NH^L' c'oo� C'wPj ®f.fTEL NRta r'A� r'+a i- b ... � r ,�{ ... yPiJ.YOrt PtJILGf� -d4 6..�. t_t. r !.. M G.f9'I4'4 L�.S � �: � � 1.. � V .�, ice.➢ I f k �- 5 o—c�r� r N f3k�1Ut'fti4 Y✓°+ -31LP ndL d^GPiT f6i1 �. � A'^£�.TR .q�ti9c A�.i �P-le TAi TO -��. r�imTY � c � AT 9 -� �' r� �. .__ $j _......_ .__�.._. --•. 3 x c � i _ f n >`r c�u) r ,.� .. .� _. � - .� a st,r.i >TiN:.» Ov�NCami • � —.__ - -_ ,,A �i .,. A...�P ero✓ae.�,NH^L' c'oo� C'wPj ®f.fTEL NRta r'A� r'+a i- b ... � r ,�{ ... yPiJ.YOrt PtJILGf� -d4 6..�. t_t. r !.. M G.f9'I4'4 L�.S � �: � � 1.. � V .�, ice.➢ I f v ..� , Y. Ft a " .a. —p _. - Y r {i{ i YRtB®.9 Pp%iH TW.P O r'9,mYGaB 4a CYa C'~ TGIF -1 °Y� + "'BPov. Mir '?I1HQ� !q� 1 °Y� + "'BPov. Mir '?I1HQ� 9 AV.M pp u __,_m_. �fr..pr.+�,�c�.aaa �'f <.o°.%?�;.r�° a � I is �.c.r9a�• -ter �-.., .«, 1-+ CYC,r -7 � $. 4 F L L ys a P6 • 1 �'$ , � A .f f'" .sr # � g3�f� j GYffi.�Ad [.1e�9 G8_m0 tl'y COMES= tg-fr. r€ ;'f"YpKRmL •BJ i9TrHb p$ �W { MEMORANDUM • 0 • G'OM � moo. 8u i iv ►,jy - mil• tL a.Vo&.-r-o IZ SuNew RD L,c�z>4p_ S l T r` p�A44 uhl L �i o KS H E�.D -5-- 2+ --93 r: JUNE M3 WF5TfAN fi-YAW J-\ «ess AL4 #14044P LL Z1X5#r14D A,04,4 AlIZD/NG SCALE � Vail Associates, Inc. ltbe7W - -- a, ........ m, .. ........ ..l \'.ul .-'I (—V IA�.un. Z ro ti« wy,� r5. , VA MODEL NO WEIGHT MAX. LIFT HEIGHT "X^ PCDE -42 10501bs (476.28 kg) 42" (1.06m) 62" (1.57m) PCDE -60 1100lbs (498.96kg) 60" (1.52m) 80" (2.03m) PCDE -72 1200 Ibs (544.32 kg) 72" (1.83m) 92" (2.34m) PCDE -96 1400 Ibs (635.04 kg) 96" (2.44m) 118" (3.00m) PCDE -108 1500 lbs (680.50 kg) 108" (2.74m) 130" (3.30m) PCDE -120 1750 Ibs (793.80 kg) 120" (3.05m) 142" (3.61m) PCDE -144 1900 Ibs (861.84 kg) 144" (3.66m) 171" (4.34m) aI- , - 1 A A?r) IN] AT DUyllne 4Y,3/ Model PCDE The model PCDE is designed to encompass all the attributes of the CDE units, plus a touch of class has been added with the installation of either clear or smoked plexiglass. The PCDE comes standard with a plexiglass enclosure extending 42" (1066.8mm) above the upper landing to meet ANSI A17.1. An optional extension and dome can be added to make this unit suitable for the fanciest of applications. UPPER LANDING GATE NGUNTED IN FRANE UNLESS SPECIFIED 55 lit PLAN VIEW FRONT VIEW SIDE V /6• I 5 Model PCDE — — I H i°^-- 43 -1/2 --+q UPPER LANDING GATT MOUNTED IN FRAME UNLESS SPELffIED SHROUD CAN HE EITHER PLEXIGLASS D ❑N LOCATED R :DE i LEXIGI.ASS III 42 (E SHROUD i I o Erac1 sl�E =_it"T "iEIGNT + 42' � 1 � PLEXIGLAS'S 11 LOWE {; R aRNII]. i I T aX. 6_W DPI ick i � HtiGHT sf s ljEt 71 j # �s7A.:6N�@y I I t ;C rLK PLATE FRONT VIEW SION VIEW MEMORANDUM 0 v allowed height of 48 feet, and 2) a Commercial Core 11 exterior alterations 11® BACKGROUND 111. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for the Vail Athletic Club SDD proposal. ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Site Area: 40,367 sq. ft. 40,367 sq. ft. 40,367 sq. ft Setbacks: 10 ft. north: 65 ft. no change south: 43 ft. east: 24 ft. li west: 9.1 ft. Height 48 ft. 82 ft. max. 82 ft. max. CRFA: 32,293 sq. ft. (80 %) 18,009 sq. ft. AU + 13,426 AU + 8,374 DU = 602 excess common area 21,800 sq. ft. + = 18,611 sq. ft. 130 excess common = 21,930 sq. ft. Units: 25 units per acre 51 AU or 25.5 DU + 37 AU or 18.5 DU + 23 units 1 emp unit 4 DU (3 Lo) = 22.5 DU + 1 emp unit Employee Dwelling Units: -0- 1 (353 sq. ft.) 1 (353 sq. ft.) Common Area: 11,302 sq. ft. (35 %) 11,904 sq. ft. 11,432 sq. ft. Restaurant/Commercial: -0- 6,142 sq. ft. 6,142 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 30,275 ft. 6,752 sq. ft. 6,752 sq. ft. sq. Parking. 63.85 spaces 62.63 spaces Halls /Meth: -0- -0- Restaurant: 24.7 parking spaces 24.7 parking spaces AU: 38.15 parking spaces 27.93 parking spaces DU: -0- parking spaces 10 parking spaces Emp Units: 1 parking spaces 1 marking spa s Total Parking: 63.85 parking spaces 62.63 parking spaces ® APPLICABLE POLICIES IN THE VAIL COMPREHENSIVE ELAN Policy 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. Policy 3.2 The Village and Lionshead are the best locations for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. Policy .2 ` Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved due to implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Master Plan. 3 be developed and Mill meet the zoning standards. In 1939, the staff did support an application similar to this proposal which used dormers on this building to accommodate an increase in accommodation units. At that time, the staff also felt that it was difficult to justify a height variance, but believed that the increase in accommodation units was a benefit to the community as a whole which was supported by the Land Use Flan. While staff feels that this proposal would be a positive improvement to the building architecturally, we feel that it is important to recognize that the existing building is 34 feet over the allowed height. We find that it is inappropriate to allow a building to continue to increase to accommodate additional expansion which is not in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in respect to the need to preserve and improve lodging units and conference space. B. Fiogfin . There would be no change to the roofing. The materials will match the existing roof which is red tile. C. Facade Wall Structures. There will be no change to the building at the ground level. Only the facade of the fifth floor will be changed. The changes will consist of the addition of bay windows. The building will remain finished with stucco. D. Facade Transparency The transparency of the upper level will be increased with the addition of the dormers. Because this addition is at the fifth floor, this criteria is not applicable. This criteria addresses concerns with first floor retail areas. • The staff finds that there are no physical hardships associated with this application and that the granting of a variance for height would be a grant of special privilege. With ether projects that have received variances for expansions of this nature, additional accommodation units have been acquired for the community bed base. With this application, fourteen accommodation units will be removed and four dwelling units will be added. The applicant has not proposed to deed restrict these units per the condominium conversion regulations which require that the units be rented during certain periods of the year. The staff finds it difficult to support an application of this nature. However, the staff would suggest that the applicant consider pursuing a Special Development District zoning Due to the difference in review criteria, the staff would be better able to review the application based on its merits. With an SDD application, the staff would suggest that the applicant consider restricting the remainder of the accommodation units permanently to rental units and eliminate the possibility of condominium conversion for these units. We would also like to see additional employee units added to the project. Some or all of the dwelling units may be appropriate to deed restrict so that these units are required to be rented when the owners are not using their units during specific time periods, By taking this approach where there is a public benefit, the staff would better be able to consider an application which deviates from the height standards. 3. The effect of the requested variance light and air, distribution of population, tr i n and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, n lic The application will not have any major impact on any of the above criteria. B. The Planning and environmental orhmission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not 7 e VIX � J � t •fie � �: S ti r' Sd .� 7 -� d a h i C FROM: DATE- SUBJECT: \ TOP OF 73.2 � A - 5J'07'48" � �g 62.E 737 R 25 ®0 6a 3 �679 L = 2.3° 1 c 6.6 66.9 57,.3 5 8, 6 59.5 76.T 6.5, 6 7 .5 76.4 58.4 66.0 59.3 A = 2 t� rt ®'JO 65.6 76.1 R = 50. 00° i 74. L 54.21' 9.9 64.4 6 7.5.7 75:5 6J.9 63.0 q TOP OF WALL / 625 636 BOTTOM OF WALL �e \ A770R{° E822-QE UH f80-11-4(DROP 134 RIM ELEV= 8376.84 1NJV (S)= 6362.6.9 71VV (N) =6.364.06 L ®r V !, Duane t°ehringer, a duf}* regJsfered cared survey9r Jn the .State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the Survey shown hereon was done by me or under my direct supervlslon and the horizontal and vertieal measure are aCCUrata',PolJthe best my knowledge and belief. D e Fehringef E.:� ALS 26626 ®Q .26626 "9 :., RE WSIOM IMPROVEA71ENT LO A 77ON GER77FICA 7E p �° 9333ES LOT 6, BLOC 2, DPd � 6 J4 93 VA1L u1LLAGE> 714ELFTH RUNG �® D.D.F � ` I- = 20° M DF uA1L, EAGLE couNTY COLDRADo TOW T of r