The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-1122 PEC9 IM November 22, 1993 AGENDA Public Hqgfinq 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Gotthelf's/1 96 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, Block 5-C9 Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Paul Gotthelf Planner., Jim Curnutte 9. A request for a variance to allow a satellite dish to exceed the height limitations to be 4. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #5, Simba Run (Savoy Villas)/ An unplatted parcel located at 1100 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Simba Land Corp oration /Walid Said Planner: Mike Mollica 11 5. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO DECEMBER 13,1993 6. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz TABLED TO DECEMBER 13,1993 7. A request for a site coverage variance to allow the construction of a new garage and the conversion of an existing garage to an employee housing unit located at 1045 Homestake Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Valley Filing 1. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Andy Knucltsen/Mike Mollica TABLED INDEFINITELY 8. Update on bay window policy. 9. Approve minutes from November 8, 1993 P meeting. 10. Council Update: -Open Lands Plan 40 2 A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Gotthelf's/1 96 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Paul Gotthelf Planner: Jim Curnutte Applicant, Leo Payne Planner: Jim Curnutte It was decided that since Craig Snowdon, the architect for this project, had not yet arrived, that the PC would move on to Items #3 and #4. Upon review and action on items 3 and 4, the PC returned to reviewing the Payne applications. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 Jim Curnutte stated that since the area to which Craig was referring was not being dedicated to the public it did not necessarily have to be termed an easement and that calling it an open space and wetlands area was okay. Rohn Robbins, attorney for David Ransberg, stated that he was called at the gym and asked to attend this meeting so he has not yet had an opportunity to review the request in detail. He said that Mr. Ransberg is against this proposal as it would increase the density in this neighborhood. He added that this application may well be considered spot zoning. Mary Pownall, an adjacent property owner, she said that she opposes this project because it increases the density in the neighborhood. She acknowledged that her property was also involved in a resubdivision and rezoning in the neighborhood but pointed out that no increased density resulted. She said that she felt that this resubdivision and rezoning would be a bad precedent. Mary Pownall asked if an applicant just had to list the Town benefits of a proposal to get approval. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 2 Jim Curnutte stated that approval of this request was not based on how many benefits the proposal would give to the Town. He explained that the staff recommendation of approval of the project was based on whether specific resubdivision and rezoning criteria were met. Jeannie Bailey, inquired why a ten foot road maintenance easement had not been agreed upon at an earlier date. She wondered whether this was a deal that the applicant and the Town were making in order for this request to be approved. 'EFINIF11 ;ROWOWWUMIIWI��* 24, I= Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant has the right to request a resubdivision *n this site due to the size of the property. Rohn Robbins stated that it is possible to make a case that since the Town had maintained the road for many years in the past that the road maintenance easement may not be needed. Greg Amsden asked a question concerning the Zoning Analysis on Page 5 of the staff memo. He wanted to know how to interpret the figures for GRFA. V 4 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 229 1993 3 suggested that the applicant agree to allow public access across the property in order to reach the open space behind the lot. �liJiiii 111 IIIIIIIIJ J! 1 11 J iiiii Jill Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the applicant had met the criteria set forth in the staff memo. He said that he did not have a problem with the proposed open space and wetlands area line, or the roof overhang allowance which the applicant was proposing. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that the applicant had complied with all of the criteria, He said that if the neighbors were unhappy with this type of request that the rules would need to be changed, but that was not the request before the PEC today. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of leaving the roof overhang allowance and open space line as proposed by the applicant as a part of the proposal. Craig Snowdon stated that when you increase density that you do get additional square footage and garage credits. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the other PEC members comments. Hie sai that this proposal did seem to meet the requirements for resubdividing the lot. He sa that he felt caught between a rock and a hard place since he did not want to see an increase in density in this neighborhood. He said that Diana's suggestion 31 concerning two single family units could possibly be the best solution. Rohn Robbins stated that it sounded like the Board members were struggling with approving this request and told them that they did have the ability to deny the request J they did not approve of the resubdivision. isPlanning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 2 2, 1993 4 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that this request did meet the criteria for a minor subdivision and directed the BBC to refer to the P meeting minutes of October 11, 1993. She felt that the proposed secondary unit should be a restricted employee housing unit. Ms. Langmaid, concerned czen, presented the PEC with more peons, signed people all over town, objecting to the application and stated her own objection. I Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's comment that the secondary unit should be a restricted caretaker's unit. ROOM ;I'll I I I'll I R111 11 Diana Donovan stated that she would support this project if the third unit was a restricted caretaker's unit. Jay Peterson stated that he was involved with developing a duplex in this area and that if this sort of proposal was allowed that he would like to have the same opportunity to do this type of development. Jay was concerned about compatibility. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing per the staff memo with a modification to staff recommendations 2 and 3 to allow building overhangs to go beyond platted building envelope lines and to allow the western line of the open space and wetlands area to remain as shown on the plat. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Diana Donovan stated that she would vote against this request because the secondary unit on the primary secondary lot was not proposed to be restricted. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Diana's position. Diana Donovan suggested that the motion be amended to include the wording t at no construction site disturbance or tree removal may occur in the area between the Lot 1 - A building envelope and the western line ♦ the open space area. Jeff Bowen amended his motion accordingly and Greg Amsden amended his second to the motion. R111 Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a variance to allow a satellite dish to exceed the height limitations per the staff memo with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see future additions of this type painted black instead of brown. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC did not have a problem with the minor change in the building heights. F1101110111OW-M, Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 22, 7993 6 NOV 20 '93 11:22Atl G=RSUCH LIMITED V S v s P. I NOVEMBER 22,1993 L SION TOWN F VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD V � COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, U HAVE BEFORE TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE ALSO KNOWN 381 f CIRCLE, THE PURPOSE I LETTER IS TO INFORM THE, P COQ ISSI AT Y DECISION THE AT LW TI ,S F VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON EXISTING ANA IS UNACCEPTABLE, THE LI ' SIGNATURES TI LE DEMONSTRATE THAT A 4 E F PEOPLE WHO ARE EIT L T T .S S oFrm TOWN F VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR F THIS PROPOSAL ASK nfAT YOU IS CT THIS SINCERELY, PR T`5 TAT A XM Xr A tr A ro Adrian Marlene . Kearney 1460 Ridge. Lane i' 00 816 November 22, 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen,* You have before you today a request for 'subdivision of Lot 1', Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing also known as 381 Beaver Dam Circle® The purpose of this letter is to inform the Planning Commission that an3k decision that will allow additional dwelling its in the Town of Vail, or that will increase the square footage allowed under the existing or ,in ,noes is totally un- acceptable We deg not believe that altering ordinances and or statutes 11 -21 ®1993 1l :374A M FRON — o VF It. 22, 1993 PLANNING I ii COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SO M FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES kND GIUNTIS—NIEN, YOU HAVE YOU TODAY A I)E-ST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT l, r C :IC 4, VAIT, VT T CIF III ALSO 6 38113F—AVER DAIM CIRCLE. TFIE POSE OF THIS R IS TO INFORM O'-k I SIO AT ANY DECISION AT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING S IN THE TOWN OF vAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE SQUARE F TAE L PER THE EXISTENG ORDINANCU IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGMA ON THIS L. R DEMONSTPLATE THAT A NTJmBFR OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER F" OR PART TRYM RESIDENTS OF T14-E TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL D ASS THAT YOU RESPOND 10 THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS .,QUEST, SINCERELY, SIGN T l 9 c / k fvL ' E A m ,,. ..., �� $� .:� e 'd �n °� ",7r9 .. t NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL C ION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 51657 LADIES S U HAVE FO YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION GF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE FILING THIRD ALSO KNONVNAS 351 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETMR IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THKr ANY DECISI ®N AT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL L G UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE SQUARE THE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON S LE DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE T ARE EI p ° - OR PART TINM RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS -PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, VAIL I} I NA r �� _e 13 t TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ormMRS-07m ro=,m mu�� DATE: November 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of Gotthelf's Jewelers located at 196 East Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, and C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: a parking space, the current amount required for the pay-in-lieu fee would be $480.00 excluding the C. .I. increase which would be calculated at the time a building permit is requested. AVIAWAU� MMBM�� N the following: A. Pedestrian i zati on: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework; Due to the location of the proposed building alteration, beneath a third story cantilevered area, and the relatively small size of the proposed remodel, it is staff's opinion that the proposed addition will not have a negative impact on street enclosure. E. Street Edge: Staff believes that the addition of a bay window to Gotthelf Jewelers will have n* impact on the street edge along East Gore Creek Drive. ROME= 0 3 H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. There will be no increase in shadow patterns as a result of this addition as it is located within the existing shade patterns of the building. The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan which are relevant to this proposal: Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity more compatible with existing land uses. 2 MEM*RANDUM 70: Planning and Environmental Commissicl, MMMM�� DATE: November 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beavm Dam Circle from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts — ?and min subdivision to create two lots from the existing lot. I Applicant: Leo Payne Planner: Jim Curnutte 1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 1 a e 0 R B I acknowledged the fact that in the past, several lots have been resubdivided resulting in more GRFA on the lot than had previously been allowed prior to resubdivision. No unit increase was approved for these lots. However, it should be noted that in only one instance has a resubdivision of a lot in Vail resulted in an increased number of dwelling units on the property per staff's research to date. Staff feels that it would be helpful to the PEC to be aware of previous subdivision requests similar to the one currently being discussed, as well as some information regarding the potential for additional requests of this type. There have been five comparable proposals submitted to the PEC over the past eight or nine years to the best of staff's knowledge. These include the following: I 0 4 The staff memorandum prepared for the above-mentioned request for resubivision of IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis which provides a comparison between the development statistics of the existing Primary/Secondary zoned lot and the proposed Primary/Secondary zoned Lot (1-) and the Single Family zoned Lot (1- ). Existinq Lot Proposed Lots Nei Increase Lot Size: 37,771 square feet Lot 1-A: 24,771 square feet -0- Lot 1-B: 13,000 square feet Total: 37,771 square feet Density: 2 units Lot 1-A: 2 units 1 unit Lot 1-B: 1 unit Total: 3 units GRFA: 6,489 square feet Lot 1-A: 4,014 square feet 425 square feet Lot 1-B: 2,900 square feet Total: 6,914 square feet** Site Coverage: 7,554 square feet Lot 1-A: 4,954 square feet -0- Lot 1-B: 2,600 square feet Total: 7,554 square feet Garage Credit: 1,200 square feet Lot 1-A: 1,200 square feet 604 square feet Lot 1-B: 600 square feet Total: 1,800 square feet Setbacks: Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet -0- Side: 15 feet Side: 15 feet -0- Rear: 15 feet Rear: 15 feet -0- Building Height: 33 feet 33 feet -0- Landscaping: 60% or 22,663 square feet Lot 1-A: 14,863 square feet -0- Lot 1-B: 7,800 square feet Total: 22,663 square feet does not change substantially, staff feels that the proposed redevelopment will not prevent a convenient, workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives. I The Community Development Department feels that since the proposed rezoning meets the development standards for the proposed zone districts to be created on th'.' lot, as well as complying with the intent and purpose section of the subdivision regulations, the proposal does provide for the growth of an orderly viable community and creates no negative impacts or undesirable precedent for the community. The Vail Land Use Plan designates this area as suitable for Low Density Residential uses. Single family, primary/secondary and duplex construction are all considered acceptable building types within the definition of Low Density Residential. Other Municipal Objectives can be found in the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff has listed the relevant goals and objectives from the plan below: 1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balan between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitol and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 5.1- Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Staff believes that the requested rezoning is consistent with the above stated goals ani objectives of the Vail Land Use Plan. area, or areas in excess of 40% slope. Both of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirement and will be verified by the applicant's surveyor before the minor subdivision plat is signed. B. Frontage The Vail Municipal Code requires that any lot, in both the Primary/Secondary zone district and the Single Family zone district, have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Both of the proposed lots are able to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 feet. 0. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The applicant's proposed resubdivision will create lots of a size and shape which meet the 80 square foot area regulation. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations and are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. • 8 a 2e To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of 10 buildings and improvements on the land. 11 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal under consideration. We do not believe that the additional unit will create negative traffic impacts. It is also positive that the applicant is willing to create the proposed road maintenance and drainage easements. �q. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that has little specific reference to this particular application. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and managemeWi of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. M 1� III R ilia'' W Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the recommendation o approval of this rezoning and resubdivision request: 1 That the resubdivision plat not be signed by the Town and recorded until su& time that the existing residence on the lot is demolished. 2. That all aspects of development on each lot, including at-grade patios and terraces and building roof overhangs, be contained within platted building envelopes. 0 ■ m FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Il—JY " IT •_ r tea✓ ��---- ---llt `_� � r xx4 ccei itcnr[ w nEn�cntrva a+o w�RSU�v vi»ur "e�a E o "..pzs�ovAtncm�w�istm+ cERr�r�rnrc .p.. 9est v Y o1 0�, ascr,bem ¢z -------------- ' Vfrd7E NI a,.. _ oat wva -. ev e er • c %l v: �oqa rn .a r M°"�'•a VICINITY MAP , °`Aa.< swvr.pR : ccRti.� ArE esmn{z vov a B e sr v as for .n �n mn no¢r:wn is arR r:tn a-0p c "eye eW vt vns gore 9 e sutm son a o a :w. � N_ev ...... - UNPLATTED pvxFR� tea Poyne .L fa Eztatr ono -- - -- - --s tne.eoi 1 navy zet ny nana nna s<a tx s aav ni no a <. of wavers vnvrY nte.ezt tv Joan f. '991. _______ , A.O.. . cn: im <v ti a rc,e nmv tt5- ---- 98t Be an t - 3 'p'q,0p; Y . Esaa l0T to £ JOq 50 1 e t a �y tnr e Z O- UNPLATTED wave ow r.a «c E_t i e i .. r e nqx a ¢a� of sa.. Ama.. •y � .a .e.a � u�*^Y'""< �, _ 149. \ '�, W ms s _ 8 LOT 18 L =45.7e T ®23.40 cm�ncnrE m . =E: i<,n . r 4r CIFiCE LC -49.29 C9 =N 86°48'18" W. �.tE ccar�r�c.r a R=90.00 1 =83.51 T =33.ib to r n z rarr... . N e a < x a n iv tent t x< t t. ¢: ,aon gat .v,n<a nna oetea to �s - " LC =62.20 r.. ._ aar of --------------------- - --------------------------- ,� � r � ca =s sa°a4 °34" W rxrrar a n e e. a p-- — — — —_ -- ao _ LOT 2 °O - - - - -- —J SCALE X30' - - _ _. s • Wv �O.V'K75�v' �U'114t myqor, I 61 Im M PH COPY PLANNING R NTAL COMMISSION August 23, 1993 PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 p a [A Nanning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 C7 1125 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 1200, DENVER, COLORADO DO 80202-2027 (303) 244 -9100 FAX: (303) 299 -7901 September 1993 Snowdon and Hopkins 201 Gore Creek Drive Suite 241 Vail, CO. 31657 0 WORLDVADE In 4WDAMEaAAQQM - Based on dominant vegetation (willows, bag birch, sedges), -wet'lands occur on the Gore- Creek llooOlplaan but this area is north of the property bounJaq. MUSM "I WIRWOMM Lm.i PA---d—vmPCd m W Z 'N o • 0 N 0 0 o NE� I t 4 x the laws Dographic survey was Made b-? me and St of my .mate aft a -oz. 3 certificate was prepared for 4 r 4,.c, not a 0 N 0 0 o NE� I t 4 x AMLITY ,ASEMENT /-,, TIMBER m m - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bra - - - - - - - - - - - OgM 9 o 0 0 90.00 . izx 9 MOLE 7 E, T'.: °CT 3S --------------------- 4. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver Dam Circle. Applicant: Leo Payne Planner, Jim Curnutte Craig Snowdon stated that he would like to have a clarification of staff's comment that the proposed road maintenance and drainage easements would be public. Jim Curnutte explained that Greg Hall of the Town's Public Works Department stated that calling the easements "public" was necessary to allow the Town to go onto them for maintenance purposes, however they would not be open to the public walking across Mr. Payne's property. Diana Donovan agreed with Greg's comments. She stated that she did not totally agree with how this process was handled, but that she could not justify denying this type of request when the criteria have been met. She said that we should favorably consider the public benefit of getting the easements which we currently do not have. Planning and Environmental Commission October 11, 1993 11 Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Greg's comments and that shifting the lot line to the west would greatly decrease any impacts to the trees on this site. Dalton Williams stated that he was hesitant to go along with this request for a minor subdivision because the subdivision was apparently well thought out when originally platted. He said that both lots ought to be zoned Single Family and that the density should not increase and that the total GRFA should not be increased. All Lassoe stated that she agreed with Dalton's comments, with the exception that some additional GRFA,should be allowed on the lots. Jeff Bowen stated that he feels that the center lot line should be shifted to the west in order to save the trees. He said that he is not totally persuaded by the wetlands study. He said that he has concerns that the 12,500 square foot west lot is not of adequate size. He stated that he was in favor of two single family homes on this site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that this was a technical issue which the applicant could work with staff on. Greg Amsden inquired whether there would be two driveway cuts in conjunct-Ion with this request. Craig said yes the property would be limited to two driveway cuts, which is what the lot 0 im SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320 to allow a satellite dish antenna, which exceeds the maximum allowable height above grade, to be located on the roof of the Vail Valley Medical Center, 181 West Meadow Drive /Lots E and F, Block 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center / an Feeney Planner: Jim Curnutte "The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish antenna, when measured from the top of the satellite dish antenna down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed 15 feet." The total height of the proposed satellite dish antenna is 18 feet above the nearest finished grade location (6 foot satellite dish located on top of 12 foot high building). The applicant requesting a 3 foot height variance in order to position the proposed satellite dish in such a manner that the top of the dish is 18 feet above finished grade. il ±§±<y ationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vnity. m Staff'believes that PEC approval of the requested height variance will not have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There will be no im u nce a pacopblc heah, saey oweae f he eqesed varas re granted. 57 Illy, WEST-MEADqW DR I IVE -Dr3q TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ZMMM2�� DATE: November 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 5, Simba Run (Sav Villas)/An unplatted parcel located at 1100 North Frontage Road. I Building C Western Half: No change in height Building C Eastern Half: Decrease in height of 2.5 feet Building D Western Half'. Decrease in height of 1.5 feet Building D Eastern Half: Decrease in height of 1.0 feet Please see the attached site plan for the locations of the above described buildings. 0 1 n 111. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Section 18040.100 (Amendment Procedures) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code stipulates the following for minor amendments to Special Development Districts: "Minor amendments- Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020B (attached) may be approved by the Departmen"I of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development." In addition, the Municipal Code also stipulates that the Community Development staff shall inform the PEC of the staff action on the request for a minor SDD amendment. K ; - ! : SITE ELAN . \� < � .. � . � i ;. \ O Lj (Vail 12. 29-89) 382-1