HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0913 PEC.
A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 198, Block 9, Vail Intermountain/2854 Snowberry Drive.
Applicant: Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1
6.
A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant: Leo Payne
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
7.
A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the To ger Anderson residence
located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionrie 4th Filing01775 Sandstone Drive.
Applicant: Toger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Ja ar
Associates
Planner: Andy Knucltsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
8.
A request for an amendment to SDD #4, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen
Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 4, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
Loan
Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
.
A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Timothy Drisko
Planner: Any Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
10.
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 escribe as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Mail 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 line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.66 feet; thence S 06 026'52°° 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
being the True point of Beginning; thence S 79 104'06°' E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00
feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62 152'00" 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
Gore 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 Gore Creek Road; thence N 69 029'22" w a distance of 12.60 feet to
2
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
A request to amend the Golden Peak Ski Base development plan and a request for a
landscape variance for Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing/458 Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Diana Donovan wanted to know if the Town had any documents showing the
relationship of Vail Valley Drive, Mill Creek Circle, All Seasons Condominiums and the
Golden Beak Ski Base. She asked the applicant why the fire turnaround needed to be
widened.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993
Tom Allender responded that the fire trucks needed to be able to reach all parts of th
Golden Peak Ski Base area within 150 feet of a truck staging area.
Kristan Pritz provided an aerial photo to answer Diana's questions about the vicinibL
Diana Donovan stated that she felt there were problems with this proposal. She stated
that she felt that the proposed bus exit point had too many conflicts with existing drop-
off points. She stated that the loss of landscaping was a concern. She added that the
substantial increase in traffic
• an already congested area was a concern.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993 2
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993
9
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to be involved in the discussions that take
place before this item comes back before the PEC as a citizen and resident of this
area. She stated that she would like to see the buses give people the best drop-off at
this location in order to encourage the use of the bus system.
Bill Anderson, Greg Amsden and Jeff Bowen stated that they had no further
comments.
Dalton Williams inquired about the trash dumpster and whether Vail Associates plan to
clean up this area.
Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo. She stated that staff supports
this development plan with the conditions contained on Page 9 of the staff memo.
Jim Morter, representing Briar Patch Condominiums, stated that they agreed with the
staff on all of the conditions except for Condition #1 on Page 9 regarding Building Site
A access. He stated he would like to see the driveway remain an option.
Concerning the pedestrian path, he stated that the area where the staff is requesting
the pedestrian path is 40% to 50% slope and that the steepness of the slope presents
safety concerns. He said that they would like to relocate the pedestrian path to an
area with a less steep slope.
Kristan Pritz stated that the staff had left the location of the pedestrian path up to the
architect and that the area for the path had a slope less than 40% slope per the survey
submitted by the applicant.
Jim Morter stated that the staff memo contained a typographical area and that the
employee housing unit would be located in Unit C rather than Unit A.
Greg Amsden inquired of staff how the credits were determined for units with employee
housing units.
Shelly Mello explained that if each unit had an employee housing unit, that the total
credit would be 450 square feet for the two units. She emphasized that the employee
housing has to be present in the unit in order to get the credit.
Allison Lassoe inquired whether the employee housing unit would be restricted forever.
Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see Building Envelope C pulled back. He
stated that he did not want to see the decks overhang past the building envelope. He
stated that he did not want the decks to be overly visible. He stated that concerning
the pedestrian path, that he felt that the usage should dictate the location.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the on-grade decks stay within the
building envelope. She stated that she would like to see Building Envelope B pulled
back further. She said that she did not have a problem with Building Site A being
accessed by a driveway or bridge.
Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see additional landscaping. He stated that he
felt that it was important to eliminate the zoning that was in place for the original
zoning plan so that there is no question in the future what the density is.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see Building Envelope B pulled back.
Concerning the recreational path, he stated that he felt that this would be an asset to
the property and that it may need to be altered to accommodate the proposed building
envelopes.
Shelly Mello stated that the location of the recreation path will depend on the design of
the buildings. She stated that staff would like the opportunity to work with the applicant
is and staff to determine the location of the path and the necessary easements.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see additional landscaping along the
existing driveway. She stated that the decks needed to stay within the building
envelopes. She stated that the pedestrian path needs to be located on this site. She
stated that she does not feel that bridge access needed to be a requirement for
Building Site A access.
Bill Anderson stated that he did not feel that bridge access had to be required for
Building Site A access. He stated that he would like to see Building Envelope B pulled
4ack.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that either bridge access or a driveway was
acceptable for Building Site A access. She asked the applicant to clarify what he was
A-roposing concerning deck overhang.
Jim Morter stated that they would like to be able to have on-grade terrace development
on the units.
Shelly Mello stated that staff felt it was appropriate for this project be allowed to ha
an "at grade deck" and that these decks could not exceed 5 feet outside the build i nI
envelope.
Diana Donovan stated that she felt that decks should not be allowed to extend outside
of the envelopes on the south side • this project.
Shelly Mello stated that if Building Site B and C Envelopes are pulled back that this
would not be a concern and that buffering would not be needed.
Concerning the staff's conditions of approvals on Page 9 of the staff memo, Kathy
Langenwalter stated that (PEC'S comments and recommendations in bold text):
2. Buildina Site B and C EnygLo�es - Building Envelopes B and C shall be
pulled back from the ridge to a minimum of 5 feet. Please see the
attached site plans which indicate the staff's change.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993 6
3. jMpLo) yeeo�usi units - The staff would specify that the density for this
project be 9.66 units. This would allow for the possibility, in the future,
for any of the units to have Type IV employee housing units within them.
At this time, only one Type IV unit shall be required on Envelope A.
The PEC would like this to be a requirement for building envelope
C rather than building envelope A.
4. Minor Subdivision - The applicant shall submit prior to the release of any
building permit, a minor subdivision plat which shall contain the building
envelopes, development standards, drainage easement and pedestrian
--ccess easement.
!he PEC would like to see that the pedestrian path will be included
in the design and that an easement be obtained for the northern
property line and that the developer will not be responsible for
maintaining the pedestrian path.
P
MNMMi S !� f
The PEC made a recommendation that DRB require additional evergreen trees t
planted along the retaining wall.
Planning and Environmental Commission
(a September 1 3, 1993 7
Greg Amsden suggested that the pedestrian path easement be applied to the upper
portion of the path.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo with the PEC'S
corrections to the conditions of approval excluding the issue of the pedestrian
easement which will be tabled until September 27, 1993. Greg Amsden seconded fhm
motion and a 7-0 vote approved this request with the exception of the pedestrian path
easement issue which was tabled to September 27, 1993.
3. A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District,
a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an encroachment
into View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A,
Block 2 and Tract E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates,
Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Kathy Langenwalter stated that this worksession would focus on the changes that havd
been made to the proposal since the last worksession.
Mike Mollica made a brief presentation and stated that Craig Snowdon, the architect
for this project, would give an overview to the PEC of what changes have been made
to this proposal since the last PEC worksession of August 23, 1993.
Craig Snowdon reviewed the modifications that the applicants have made since the
last PEC worksession. These modifications pertained to the fourth floor roof (western
portion of building), the fourth floor GRFA, the architectural detailing of the third floor
and the fifth floor central area.
Diana Donovan, Greg Amsden, Jeff Bowen, Allison Lassoe and Dalton Will ams state
that they had no question's for the applicant.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired why the applicant was creating a vertical back wall on the
fourth floor instead of sloping it down.
Dalton Williams stated that he felt a flat wall at this location might look better.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 1 3, 1993 8
Bill Anderson stated that he felt that the applicant's had done a good job addressing
the PEC members' concerns with the west end of the building. He stated that he was
now prepared to support this project in this current configuration and that he was not
that concerned with the GRFA in the "overhang and deck" easement.
Diana Donovan stated that it could be argued that buildings that encroach into the view
corridor do not have to negatively impact the view corridor. She stated that the only
potential problem that she had with this project is putting GRFA in the easement. She
stated that she would like to see Vail Associates deed a portion of Tract E to the Town
of Vail.
Greg Amsden stated that he is impressed with what the applicant has done with the
shed roof on the west end of the building.
Jeff Bowen stated that the last time this item was in front of the PEC he was
completely opposed to this project. He stated that he is "flabbergasted" by the
changes that the applicant has made and is now in favor of this project.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the fifth floor changed and that she
would like to see the elevator shaft modified.
Craig Snowdon stated that he is hopeful that the Design Review Board can help them
improve the appearance of the elevator shaft.
Jeff Bowen stated that as the PEC's DRB representative, that the DRB did like to see
all the specific details of a project.
George Knox stated that the public feedback he has received for this project h--w
generally been favorable. He presented his informal survey to the PEC. I
Jim Lamont stated that he appreciated the work that the applicants had put into the
project. He stated that he was impressed with the artist's rendition of the finished
project. He stated that he was not in favor of setting a precedent with this project. Jirr,
stated that if there are trade-offs with this project, he would like to see new numbers of
employee housing units or new open space created.
e Gold
Gry Valentine, an ownr in the en Peak House, stated that he was astounde
Yo d
that the PEC finally was a
d t a stage where they could consider approving this project
an said that it was a tribute to the system actually working.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the next discussion would focus on the issues listed on
Pages 2 and 3 of the staff memo.
Mike Mollica reviewed Pages 2 and 3 of the staff memo which staff has identified as
issued or concerns. He explained how the staff has determined the incremental
increase of the number of employees that will be added as a result of this project.
Dalton Williams stated that he would like to review each item which is an issue or a
concern for separate consideration.
Craig Snowdon stated that they felt that the staff's employee numbers seem to be hi
with this project. He stated that they are actually decreasing the density of this proje
and that they feel that it may not be fair to throw the whole employee housing
requirement at the applicants.
Craig Snowdon stated that the proposed commercial spaces may add up to 2,000
square feet but that they would not require additional personnel.
George Knox stated that he thinks a lot of the confusion may arise from th-
•• .• ocated.
Mike Mollica stated that there is a net increase of 4,500 square feet of commercial
area as a result of this request. I
Dalton Williams stated that when he reads the ski magazines that rate Vail, he sees
that Vail consistently comes up lacking in the area of customer service. Due to this,
he feels that he has to insure that two, two-bedroom employee housing be provided.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agrees with Dalton's comments. She stated that ftm
requirement is a minimum and she feels that it needs to be provided.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 1 3, 1993 10
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993 11
Jim Lamont stated that the current access situation is a liability for Vail Associates.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor of pavers along the front of the
building. She said that she would like to see some sort of landscaping along the
western elevation.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993 1
13
Kathy Langenwalter inquired how many members of the PEC were in favor of a planter
along the western elevation. Kathy, Diana and Greg were in favor of a planter along
the western elevation.
Mike Mollica stated that the architectural detailing along the western elevation was a
concern. He stated that this could be addressed by additional landscaping and/or
windows, and that it just depended on what the applicant decided to do with the
western elevation.
George Knox stated that commercial visibility was desirable. He stated that a display
window would be nice.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that there needs to be some provision that if the Cyrano's
building on the east side changes somehow that the Golden Peak House will somehow
modify their elevation to match the Cyrano's modification.
Jim Lamont inquired how much of the GRFA overhangs onto the newly acquired piece
of property.
Dalton Williams stated that although he felt that the proposed additional GRFA for this
#roject was excessive, he stated that the applicants have reduced the mass and bulk
of this proposal to a point that he was comfortable with it.
Diana Donovan stated that she was comfortable with the GRFA as long as Vail
Associates dedicated some open space to the Town of Vail.
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 13, 1993 13
4. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an addition to Unit
2B, Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes/4718 Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Jerald and Mary Lou Kocak and John and Julie Mork
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27, 1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 27, 1993.
5. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 1 9, Vail Intermountain/2854 Snow berry Drive.
Applicant: Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
6. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 19 Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant: Leo Payne
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27, 1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 27, 1993.
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27, 1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 279 1993.
9. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Timothy Drisko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,191
10. 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:
Applicant: Vail Athletic Club
Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,191
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 139 1993 15
c;
MEMORANDUM
Building Site D and E would be accessed from Sandstone Drive, Building Site A would be
GRFA: 21,640 sq. ft.
26,283 sq. ft.
21,640 sq. ft.
+ 225 credit per unit
+ 225 credit for SFR
for SFR /Duplex/P /S
units only + 225 for EHU
+ garage credit
if built + garage credit
per unit
Density: 14 total units
6 units per buildable
9 total units
1 fourplex
acre or a total of
1 existing triplex
2 triplex
14 total units
5 single family homes
2 duplex
3 Type IV EHU's
The applicant is requesting two possible access points for Unit A. One would be a
bridge configuration directly off of Buffehr Creek Road. The other is a driveway access
which would require retaining walls. Both options would have parking in the front
setback which requires a variance in the RC zone district. The staff feels that the
driveway option would create substantial site disturbance and supports only the bridge
access.
* **Ml
A. Consideration of Factors-
1. relationship of the requested variance to her existing or
potential u tr c re in the vicinity.
Wall HeLqht
The staff feels that the proposed site planning and access allow for less site
disturbance than the existing approval. We fund that the available options due
to the slope of the lot are very limited. An 6 foot boulder retaining wall has
been proposed in conjunction with the access for Units B and C. The Town of
Vail Municipal Code requires that walls outside of the front setback be a
maximum of 6 feet high. The staff believes that the applicant's request is
reasonable. Building Envelope C will possibly screen the retaining walls. The
applicant has proposed landscaping in front of the retaining wall.
Construction in 40%/® slu
There is an isolated piece of 40% slope located in Building Envelope C.
Another portion of 40% is a result of the road cut on Sandstone Drive. The
applicant does not propose any construction in any other area designated with
slopes in excess of 40%. The development of these two isolated portions of
4% slope will not impact any other uses in this area.
Parking in the front setback
If the surface parking were located outside the front setback, additional
retaining walls would be necessary for envelopes A, D, and E. Because of the
possible site disturbance, the staff feels that it is appropriate to allow for this
parking. Parking in the front setback is not prohibited in the
Primary/Secondary, Single Family Residential and Duplex zone districts.
Parking in the front setback will be specific to building envelopes A, D and E.
This parking will not impact the uses in this area.
2. The degree i relief r strict and literal interpretation
enforcement and f a specified regulation is r achieve
compatibility if i ty of treatment among sites in vicinity
or to attain the ctiv this title without grant of special
rivil
Wall height
We recognize the limited ability to provide proper access as well as emergency
service turnaround on a site such as this and support the variance for an 8 foot
boulder retaining wall provided it is significantly screened. At this time, the staff
is not considering any other wall height variances. Any wall height variance
associated with the construction of the units would be reviewed individually at
the time that units are proposed.
6
Staff feels that the granting of this variance is not a grant of special privilege.
Due to the topography of the site, the staff finds that the relief from the strict
and literal interpretation of enforcement of the wall height regulations is
necessary in order to obtain a reasonable and acceptable solution for
emergency access to Building Envelopes B and C. The staff finds that the
proposed plan is sensitive to the surrounding area and that the proposed
landscaping as well as the location of Unit C will adequately mitigate the impact
of the 8 foot boulder retaining wall.
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
NORTN,
`'6�T '' -t.4G� }} � __ � (-7/ :1T4'f`( 6�P.[�6r1•T Erf�'C�� M
Z41 V-
I�Id Yl oL� —T ••
F1 11111•: ..
cbi 6YT �h1�'+PS�Y:
SITE PLAN /40% SLOPE ANALYSIS _o
1- - 40'
NORM
]6111\66.4
tOt1> � L
16-f6-�1< Wbr
10ti�[
iU1{ 6L [i[
]] R 61a
I�
]1.M0 66. R 64
T
a6111� OY
2.
]50 661 66t TOY
6 W ✓•
1 6sWw Ti[-[ ] s 3 - -60•
e16� Y�9 �P
b 6p6o6 � / Bill
J M1pa'I
•y�I1� -yl- 15 R �. � bw
�96� rum •
]k6 C6•s6 O6r04.e166
&:
uM
SI6 C—
A
F -
]9506
.R.
6
SiMk f6iN
3,670
R
C
FWMV
3,625
k.
O
& • F—
2,m0
. K
2,380
k
Ep Tr1 [
Thw F—T
6,300
K
6N
IM6
2] 306
R
Amvdnn
�f rj'D sEp 1 ® f r Pi
q�
•
0 •
ill � '� •
`\ \ f �..��� � � � � 11TLrP(WiMYiT CTih = R-wn.' +wi�o vi.Pa �gaa9Tlo` •.w�v.�.V
- T F.v. o6sleN Ise ' � Y
elf".
.P
��• fe'r+bb Wv. hula �e.efm N
lb wT
C
QL
J If11tily
r \yll`
�2 \
Ir
PARTIAL SITE PLAN
MOR1»
V �
0
e�
�O N
'Ir
y
O
V a
C�
as
a�
�y a
a�
ti
.o
M� 7.30.93
�cnn
oa
� ,� \ -_ - �- _ ��:.a „n• <,> �.�� cam
I•.
�� � � 11TLrlr fM.iryafir CTYP1
•
\� 44
-.r—Fri
> 1.r'�-
m
4t
J� \ q
SOON
2aM6
LQ
mu �`-
te
T1.ar. uN!
rn
rQ \ \\ \ Ss—
uL.
VWX 160 or \ \\ \ I 1. 1.12.93 KIM
7 .30.93
LANDSCAPE PLAN e
Noffrd
tjM IAAJSc6Ur vl .
I.I- iN
-
.iL
-rT—
oNF. -el..}
u.
-
PIRNr/1N6•.6r`'A.TP-M
k*"-Wl -
–'Rr --
br&^ . -
2L�fES- r4L- PPS-TUab6P n".4 - ►° FMvLrGJYRp ki/
–_ fWTNL `PhNJ.
uF�P+I -PIaHF .r a ut► orJ SWm.
" -aNri
•
\� 44
-.r—Fri
> 1.r'�-
m
4t
J� \ q
SOON
2aM6
LQ
mu �`-
te
T1.ar. uN!
rn
rQ \ \\ \ Ss—
uL.
VWX 160 or \ \\ \ I 1. 1.12.93 KIM
7 .30.93
LANDSCAPE PLAN e
Noffrd
tjM IAAJSc6Ur vl .
9.-
•
The turnaround area is designed so that the buses will drop off passengers in front of
the Gold Peak Base buildings. A new ramp located on the east side of the buildings
will be installed which meets A A access requirements, On the north side of the bus
stop will be a parking lot for Vail Associates supervisors. There will be twenty-one
spaces in this area. The supervisor parking area will be lined with jersey barriers on
the west and south sides. This will facilitate snow plowing as plow drivers will be able
to identify the edge of the parking lot. The other sides of the bus drop-off area and
parking lot will be identified with curb stops and bollards connected by rope. Though
not as efficient as jersey barriers, this delineation will occur at the edges of the lot
which are more visible to the public, Staff was concerned with the amount of jersey
barrier that will be used with this proposal and believes that pulling it away from the
perimeter is a reasonable compromise with Vail Associates,
There will be two new landscaping areas as part of this project. The planters will be
constructed out of timbers and will contain three spruce trees each. They will be
located on either side of the bus entrance to the turnaround area. Staff believes that if
this proposal is approved, that all of the temporary improvements should be removed
from the site no later than June 1, 1994. This would include the curb stops, the jersey
barriers, the timber planters and any other temporary improvement. The Town
believes that these types of improvements would detract from the appearance of this
area during the summer months.
Another important factor in the consideration of this proposal is the Vail Transportation
Master Plan. This Master Plan was adopted in January of 1993. On Page V, under
the short-term recommendations for the in -town shuttle, it states that the third priority is
to "relocate the turn - around at Gold Peak to separate auto /bus conflicts." On Page 53,
it says "in addition, new turnaround areas should be provided at the Gold Peak Area
as shown in Figure 12.°° This diagram is attached at the end of this memo. The
proposed plan is consistent with the diagram shown in the Transportation Master Plan.
As stated earlier, the proposed reconfi orations would be approved for the 1993-1994
ski season only. The approval would expire one year from the date of approval. If the
new alignment is successful in facilitating the in -town shuttle and improving the
children's ski school drop-off area, Vail Associates will proceed with a permanent
solution.
B. Parkin Plan
A second major component of this proposal is to enlarge the parking area. This would
be done by allowing people to park on the existing tennis courts during the winter an
resurfacing them next spring. Portions of the fence around the tennis court would be
removed. The fencing along the north and south sides would remain during the winter.
portion of the existing planter on the north side of the courts would be removed to
allow for an entry but a majority of the planter area would remain. The entrance into
this parking area would be significantly changed from the way it currently operates.
The entrance and exit to the lot would be shifted to the west end of the parking area.
In addition, there would be a 70 foot driveway from Vail Valley Drive into the parking
lot. This would allow approximately three to four cars to wait in line to get into the lot.
2
Staff believes that for this trial basis, the relationship of this proposed use to the
surrounding areas will be acceptable. Though larger, the parking lot will be
operated much the same as it has been in the past. If, in the future, Vail
Associates decides to make the improvements permanent, staff will require V. A.
to substantially screen the proposed uses and meet the landscape standards of
the zoning code. It will be particularly important to buffer this use from the
residences on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive. Staff received three
letters from neighbors and they are attached to the end of this memo.
2. The degree to hi relief from trio# and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary t achieve
compatibility ifr it of treatment i in the vicinity
or to i objectives i title it r n special
privilege.
Staff believes that there is not a grant of special privilege with this request since
it is limited in the duration it will be in effect. Given that Vail Associates will
need to provide permanent solutions in the future that meet the landscaping
standards, staff believes that it is reasonable to allow them to proceed on a one
year basis without meeting the standards.
3. The effect f the requested variance on light air, distribution
population, tr i i facilities, public facilities
utilities, and public safety.
Staff believes that there will be a positive impact on transportation and traffic
facilities if this project is approved. As discussed above, the delineation of
three different turnaround areas for three different purposes will enhance the
efficiency and safety of all three different types of uses.
B. The Planning and nvironrnental Cornmissi n shall make the full ®+wind fin rods
before ranting 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.
. 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.
7
t �'r
s
a.
����'�..�r��ri���
�
�«.�r+r'�`�f
�`^
�fi'�t: U�����•���
ti
1 't ��
�.wrn�tej. . 4y..
,{�.
w
f_
1
wiftih w
t
k
` �l
� y
III _
d
�
a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'PROPOSED'
(SOLOEW PEAKHOUSE'
t
ui
a
0
ui
(1)
M
00
w
< 0
LU -i
CL 0
Z
ui
a
T r,
'SITE: PLAk
Tl-
4-,LO H Ml* MOU4r
ui� rid
'PROPOSED'
(SOLOEW PEAKHOUSE'
t
ui
a
0
ui
(1)
M
00
w
< 0
LU -i
CL 0
Z
ui
a
T r,
'SITE: PLAk
Tl-
4-,LO H Ml* MOU4r
| |§
);
/!
\ /|
...
ui
ui
}
+}
LU -}
k ^(
+ � }
- -- -1- - -- - - --- - - --
� � , 7' - - - -- -- - - - - ---- - - ---- - - - -- - - -
°EXJSTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1.1
-r' -------'----
~
�
�
£
�
ul
o
ui
Ol
Lu
UJ
MI
3
O 03,
L [IOU
�7�LZ
-i L T
as Elevation existing
T711 0
'9-
South Elevation existing
0 110 1111 M0
r: :Immi FJI
Fi
L21,
[AL, ;,1111ilTIT-111- U 11 Li ' ' L11 El Li
—i
Uj
Q
LU
cc
LLJ
D
C>
0
CC-
LU
CA
0
CD.
>
A5
ui
__
®� r
C
qy
r ®�n ®� ® ®v ®®
®ems /�aY�
CC
ui
ui
a
w
;X r.
-
'
—
LU
C0
:)
0
ci
.x
a
he
<
0
LLJ
-i
CL
0
Z
ui
_j
0
w
k�
n
La
ui
cc
ui
CL io
a
o
i
i�
lip!
<�
e,b ^x -✓$. , ''. °' °e,y, 1 113 T
LU
SOUTRELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
uj
IX
uj
cc
�T J
I
ui
1
�
C
Nib R"TH _ vAT_ R N.
! r.58 ELEVATION
A13.1
K
Clark Willingham stated that the majority of this proposal would be imperceptible from the
Vail Transportation Center. He stated that the only square footage generated from this
proposal would occur from the addition of the fourth and fifth floors. He stated that he felt
that this proposal would make this area "more user friendly ". Pedestrian areas are
improved. He noted that Public Works did not want to see pavers in the "ski corridor" in
between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. He said that this proposal would
improve the ski base facility. He felt that this proposal did meet all of the criteria outlined
on Pages 1 - 20 of the staff memorandum. Concerning sun /shade, he felt that this
proposal did not negatively impact sun /shade, With regard to employee housing, he
stated that Vail Associates was planning for an additional two employees as a result of
this proposal but that no other new employees were being proposed in conjunction with
this development. In respect to the view corridor encroachment, he hoped that the PEC
would set a precedent so that people will be able to redevelop and improve the Village.
Clark stated that slivers of view would be removed on the east building because of
existing encroachments. He mentioned that the architectural detailing will be similar to
the Bell Tower Building.
Craig Snowdon showed the PEC members a number of drawings showing various aspects
of the Golden Peak House proposal
Allison Lassoe inquired what would happen to the rest of Tract E.
Clark Willingham stated that it would remain Tract E which is zoned Agricultural Open
Space and that he was unable to purchase the entire Tract E from Vail Associates.
Dalton Williams inquired of staff whether any of this project was outside their property line.
Kristan Pritz responded that there was 71 square feet in the easement area but that the
applicant will purchase this area from Vail Associates and make it part of the Golden Peak
property. She stated that the PC and staff had previously been concerned with projects
that purchase property merely to build more area into the easement but that this was not
the case with this request except for the 71 square feet.
Bill Anderson inquired whether any alternatives had been proposed where the proposed
elevator would be located (i.e. center of the building) in order to maintain the view of Riva
Ridge ski run.
Clark gave the background on how this area had been reduced.
Diana Donovan inquired whether there are any other substantial chimneys or mechanical
vents being proposed that are not shown on the drawings presented to the P C.
Craig Snowdon stated that there would be a restaurant fan for Los Amigos which is shown
on the elevation.
Bill Whiteford, on behalf of the owner of Cyrano's, inquired how the east end of the
Golden Peak House would be changed as a result of this proposal.
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 23, 1993 4
Craig Snowdon explained how the existing deck at that location was proposed to be
altered.
Jinn Lamont, East Mail Homeowners Association, stated that he was concerned that the
approval of this request by the PEC would be precedent setting in respect to the minor
subdivision and also expressed concern about the covenants.
Kristan Pritz stated that staff looked at these type of proposals on a case by case basis
and that they felt there were some distinctions with this proposal, such as the roof
overhang easement and existing encroachments which made it acceptable to allow for the
subdivision. She said that per the Town Attorney, staff is not responsible for enforcing
covenants in which the Town of Vail is not a party to and that staff had encouraged the
applicant to address any covenant issues before the project was finalized.
Jim Lamont stated that the response from the East Village Homeowners Association has
not been favorable towards the project. He said that they were opposed to any SIDID that
exceeded ghat the zoning provided for. He said that this was a key view corridor and that
he did not want to see only slivers of this view corridor remain. He said that the Golden
Peak House was already over its height limit and that it should not be allowed to increase
any higher. He said that commercial square footage is also a concern. Jim said that
these trade -offs of GRFA to get employee housing were not really adding anything. He
said that the streetscape improvements were not sufficient. He said that there was a lot
of private interest to improve Seibert Circle.
Greg Ams en inquired whether there have been past proposals to encroach into View
Corridor #1.
Kristen Pritz stated that the Red Lion Building had previously had an encroachment or in
this case an amendment to the view corridor but that this was prior to the current
ordinance being in place.
Greg sde commented that he does not have any problems with the east half of the
building. e said that he was concerned with the view corridor encroachment on the
western end of the building. e said that he would like to see the ridge line on thewest
end of the building minimized. He stated that as it was presently proposed, that it still
seemed massive.
Jim Curnutte gave a presentation of the staff memo for this worsession and explained
what the five attachments to the staff memorandum were. He explained to the PEC
members what the general purpose of the two proposed zone districts weld be.
NATURAL GREENBELT AND OPEN SPACE ZONE DISTRICT
vie Knott, a citizen of Vail, stated that she wanted the PEC to be cautious about the uses
that were allowed in the Natural Area Preservation District, due to the sensitivity of the
land.
Jim Lamont, representing the Fast Vail Homeowners Association, inquired what the main
purpose of the Natural Area Preservation District was to be. He inquired whether special
events utilizing hot and cold air balloons would be allowed in this zone district. He state
that he has received numerous calls from community members who are concerned ghat
the specific uses of this zone district would be. Jim asked if utilities would be allowed and
hat the minimum lot size in the district was.
Russ Forrest stated that special events may not be appropriate in the Natural Area
Preservation District.
Jim Curnutte stated that there is no minimum lot size for properties currently zoned
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District. He added that currently, there were not any
properties zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space that were privately owned.
Jim Lamont inquired what the criteria would be used to change the zoning of land to open
space.
Jim urnutte stated that the zone change process would address a change in the zoning
designation of land.
It should be noted that Allison Lassoe left the meeting at approximately 5-05 p.m.
Joe Macy, Vail Associates, Inc., stated that he was concerned with how this would effect
the land that is currently zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District that is located
by Chair 1 on Vail Mountain.
Jeff Bowen stated that, because this request is a change in the existing use to this zone,
districts, he stated that he felt that staff should add wording to grandfather the existing
uses.
Jim drnutte stated that the text changes that staff was proposing did not effect what Joe
Macy was talking about and that any ski base operations or ski runs in this area were '
probably preexisting, nonconforming conditions.
Joe Macy stated that he did not know if Vail Associates would agree to rezone their land
that was currently Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to something that did not provide
for ski base operations.
40
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 23, 1993
Kathy Lan enwalter stated that she would like to move the accessory uses to the list of
conditional uses in order to regulate the activities within the Natural Area Preservation
Zone District. Kathy suggested that we say "fish habitat" rather than "trout habitat's in the
purpose statement.
Jeff Bowen suggested that we list "paved" trails in the list of conditional uses.
Joe Macy stated that he was concerned with how the preexisting nonconforming uses
would be grandfathered into the zoning code. He asked about the use of snowcats and
snowmobiles in this district.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that "single family residential dwellings" was an
inappropriate use for the proposed Recreation and Open Space Zone District.
Jim Curnutte stated that staff also does not believe that "single family residential
dwellings" is an appropriate use in the Recreation and Open Space Zone District.
However, he needed to have further discussions with Tom Moorhead concerning the
legality of removing "single family residential dwellings" completely from the list of
permitted uses.
Joe Macy inquired about how skiing and mountain biking tied into the definitions for active
outdoor recreation and passive outdoor recreation. He suggested that ski area activities
be added to the definition of active outdoor recreation.
Art Ablanalp stated that he felt that the name of the zone district should be changed from
Recreation and Open Space Zone District to Recreational Open Space Zone District for
clarification. He stated that a main concern of his clients was that they did not want to
see high impact recreation in this zone district.
Diana Donovan inquired whether "open space objectives' have been defined.
ristan Pritz responded that the phrase is currently used in the zone district and is not a
new addition. However, the phrase is not defined.
Jeff Bowen stated that the wording concerning density was mutually exclusive an
confusing. Jeff suggested that wording be added to preclude buildings with flat roofs. He
also suggested that equestrian facilities be removed.
ristan Pritz stated that staff was currently looking into how to clarify the wording
concerning density.
Diana Donovan mentioned that in some instances flat roofs have less visual impact than
sloped roofs.
It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 239 1 993 1
Applicant: