HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0411 PEC
PL.ANNING AND ENVI O ENTAL CO I5 14 '
~ qpril 11, 1994
AGENDA
11.40 a.m.
Pro'ect Or?entationlLunch
Discussion on making mations/Tam Moarhead. 12.00 P.M.
Sit_ e V~_s_!ts
Dauphinais
WeimanlReiss
Westin ~
~
Lionshead Center
C3ickenson
Driuers: Andy and Mike
,
2:00 P.M.
Public Hearina ro~red access allow 1. A request for a minor 5DD am R~S ~;ocated at1300'Wes tthaven Drive~more
and landscaping at the West'n
Specifically described as:
easeeoE LoDGE Joirrr vErrruaE
(rves,m HoW)
Thai pan oi he SW 114 NE 1'a Section 12, Tovmchip 5 Soufh, Rame Bt Wes, ot the Sixri Pfindpal Merd°an. Town oi Vail. Eagle Cwnty. G01aado. deu"ed zs idlavs.
tlor ifie Coiwada Mounlan Crndort'iniums recad~ n
gsgmnna a: a poni m rie soucherlY baurdary oi ihe parce~ of land sho'~'n on ifie Cordorturuv~n aP
. 1745' W 12 .3a teet. (3)
Book 3fi7 at Paoe 62~ n it~e o19ice oi 7he Ea~e Cou~ty Cob~ado. Gerk ard Rocader, wher~oe i~ mosi souths NLO"58r 7 o~i 5' E said 15 OO parcel teei. bea(re 8) 5 S 52 3?' 1 50 2 29' W
'45' c
td 16 teet dstant~, ahsnce ihe Idiowm9 nine courses a'u'9 ~e yo~h~y bw~ary ol sa+d parcel {i) N 52`50'23' E a9.t6 ieet iZ) N 37"
N 574't S E 1~ teet 141 N 3" i2'b5° W 1.30 teet (51 N 52-47'15° 42.601eet: (bl N 37"72 '45° W 8.70 teeY. (7) N 52"50'28° ieet~ ihenee S 37`09'31' E 45 3d test ihense N 52"50'29' E
22.40 teeti {p) N 52`5029' E 35.28 ieet~ ihence depenin3 sa,,, s°Utheny b°undary theme
02 45101eet, ihenGe Creek~i) 5 9 2635 W 76d:Neet (ZI~ 27301 300 6!W'12b 471ee3 (3~5 53`37'360' W~t9i3410et. 4~65`31'36i W,145S teet 1~'snce N
covrs- alon9 4
37"0537' W 116.45 ieel 10 ihe pant ot beginrnn3 c°^1arrvreg 110,200 s4+we ieet or 2.49 acres. mae or ess.
pLqZA SUtTE
Thet pan o1 t e SW 1/4 NE t;b Seciion. 12, TowrtsNp 5 South. Rarge Si Wes9 01 tlie Sizfi Pnnppaj Mendian. Town ot Veil. oo~e m~;~~~~~~ :Bo~ ~7 at Faoe
B~~n~ mmpun the center oi said Section 72 bears S 3'4~`SD'S8°
ai the moat nwtheM comer °i Map o1 Gdaado Mwniain Cordanmiu^'S acwrding
620 in rie diice oi Eagls Countp CdoreJo. Clerk end Rec orcler. ++'he^ce 1r°" pn wilh plastic cap 9
W 96417 teet. tlisrtce N 564Ed4' E 1~ 67 ieet, thence 79 97 teet alon9 ha m'c ot a curve to the iett hevirg a radius ot 1121 .72 teet. e cenval ang
p4^05'0b°. and a chwd thai bears N Sa46'13° e 79.951esr. thence N 574341' E 28.821eei. thence 5 37°09'31' E 105,76 1eeC thence 5 52'5025 W 25.00
lest: tfience S 37'Oa31° N` 25.00 teet, thence S 5250'28' E 80.00 ieet, thence S 52`FA'29' W 15.00 tee7; thence S 37"0991° E 16.78 1eet. ihence 5 52`5Q'29'
W 21.30 feel: ihence 5 37`09'31' E°. 60 feet, ihence 5 52'5025 W 80.00 teett ihence N 37'09'3t' W 9 6D teet: ~hence S 52'.50'29° W 48.701set: thsnce N Cond
thence dbvnn5 tMee uwrses alon9 said nonhe ste~ty 4%ne6 i7N'37hfl9' 3h~'+' 55.001 ei i2i N 7~~ E 5 DO teotc(3) ~ ~ 09'3i~~W 8i1_d0 teet to i point oie
beginryny, mntamirg 1.009 aaes, more a Iess.
qpplicante Vail Ancillary Trust, d/b/a The Westin Vail Resort
Pianner: Andy Knudtsen
2, A request for a setback variance to allow for an expansion to the residence located at
4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Margaret Gross
Pfannere Randy 5touder
1
Secondary 3. A request for a minor subdivision and to ;oat d at 2850rK n nck nn c/k Raad/ ore ~
Residentiai to Low Density Multi-Famdy,
specifiically described as follaws:
A P°rpl ol W+d in the Sanhveeat Ouaner ot Securn 14, 7wmd+ip 5 Sw~. ~9e 89 Wesl ad the 6th Pn+ec{+d Meric~m, more Prfiaelufy dbaibed aa 1WoNa:
~ Seaim 1 A. bears (Pdwfi 29 de9reen 28 rtirwwmsc 51 seconds WmI.90T3.08 1"1 Dee1) (Nonh a3
gega+nn9 ai ponl whence a brass caP aN iw a comer br Cee West 7a Quvde9tsr af reea sOSaid mnuwc i B woonda EoQ. 90.~6 feat Theaoo t83.621.a a4on9 the arc o1 n anw 10 V+e r~¢+t
e titnese
°
s W.O. 975 96 1-0 Meaaired): The~a NoM ra t0 mnNes 21 axa+ds Eut. 6277 fss4 Then~ 117 43 fwt oiws3
• pegrees 15 mn+tea OZ ~ s E.W. 18176 Iaq: Thwwe SoNh TI de9 Th~~ ~ 79 de4ross 32 m^o~ 55 ~s East. ".5`~
wtad+ aro c~is~nds a chortf twari^9 Pkn' 68 degrcas 12 rnnutes 30 ucmd East 145.60 teec: Sout~ 1 t ee9reea 25
9Fre xc d a arvs b the deli whdi re wbtetx'1s a diad beam9 ~ 86 daleea 36 menWes 77 aecaws 47 ~ees 20 mnNea 37 aecmds EffiL 4420 feet: Theme teek 7henea 5t.10 1-1 drn9 fie arc ol a cwe to the n9ht whioh ~e ujbisda a diad beaing Sa+~ .
mrwtea 50 eewnds Weat. i 10,51 teet:
Thenee SaM GS de9rees 18 rnnutes 99 secaids West. 320.00 fuet:
Therece Pv-th 99 de9rees 07 mruees OS seca'ds Wesi. 54 OQ ieet: . ,
Thaua Sarth 77 d~3rees 48 -1es tt cecrnds Wast 166.i81ee1:
Theme So0h 10 degrees 53 mm0es 33 s°cads Weat 36.48 ieei: s Easl. 129.75 Ieei Mea~+red) to ~'t° ~i~ OF BEGiNNING.
Th~ce PdaAh 87 d~te~ db mrui~ 06 secU+ds West. 337.72 feei: rves 38 mreMes 32 se~mAs East
The+~ce (Pknh 91 degrees `a2 m^ui°s 13 se~"ds Eest. 130.00 ieei Oeed) P~+~' 91 d~ress 55 mrvi- 39 sacond
Beerm9 kw" G.l-0. record ta Swih haH ol Secum Yne betwee+ Se~w~ 14-15. (G.LO. rer,ord South Ot de9rees 362 rt+rut~ East} (SaM Ot d~
Me~~}
p,Aplicant: Juanita 1. Psdotto
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
4. A request fiar a minor subdiv{sfon and a wall located atri4229 NuggewLfor anehLot 6,
construction of an avalanchs mitigation wall
gighorn Estates.
Applicant; He1en Dickenson
Planner: Mike Mollica
5. A request far a minor SDD amendment and a mi ~orasne Dr~v ~Paoc a D t L1°h~~r,dg~ e
betyveen Parce! D and Tract C, located at 1320
Filing No. 3, and Tract C, Dauphinais MoseleY Subdivision.
Applicant; Pat Dauphinais
Planner: Jim Curnutte Lionshead
6, A request for a major CC11 exterior alteration and seack
Asso~a~tes offices~located at 520
Genter Suiiding ta allow for the expansion of the a
Lionshead Ma11/Lot 5, 8lock 1, Va+1 Lionshead 1 st Fi1?ng.
, Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
~ Planner: Andy Knudtsen
7. /SecondarY lots lacated at 2682 and
' A request for a minor subdsvision for two Primarye SUbdivision.
,
2692 Cortina Lane/Lots 9 and 14, Block B, Va11 Ridg
' Applicant: Hans Wiemann and Helmufi Reiss
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
S. A request for preliminary plat aPProval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots
'
enerall located north
Range 81 West, g Y
16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Towns ion.
o f I_ 7 0 a n d w e s t of t h e V a s l R? d ge Subdv s
A licanto John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development (
Planner: Jim Curnutte TA LED TO APR1L 25, 1994
pp
2
- -
9 setback p, request far variances to allow far off-site Park1 resid~nce locatedrat i 799 Sierra d site
coverage to a11ow #or a new Primary/Secondary TrailiLot 17, Vail Village West 1st Filing.
Applicant: George Plavec T L T AP IL 25, 1994
Planner: Mike Molfica ope
variance 10, A request for a wall hsaght variance 2445 aGarm sch'Dr ve/Lots 10 and'l11., Block H, Vail
driveway to exceed 10 /o focated at
das Schane 2nd Filing.
Rpplicant: Steve Sheridan and ATam ~Szpi jch NDEFINITELY
Planner: Andy Knudtsen ,
11 qpprave minutes from March 28, 1994 PEC meeting.
12. Council Update;
~ •Trappers Run
sCornice Building
.Todger Anderson Appeai
•Joint Council/PECiDRB worksession on Alpine Design, A ril 26P 1 g949 Tuesday
Afternoon, Council Chambers.
•Vail Mountain School appeal,
13. Discussion of landscape requirements for 44 Willow Place•
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
14. Discussion of procedures far making mations.
3
U
TO: Pfanning and Environmental Cammission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 11, 1994
sUg,lECT: A reauest for a front yard setback variance t~a~t ~295 N gget Lan t/ion
of an addition to an existing residence locate
7, Bighorn Estates.
qpplicant. Margaret Gross
Pianner. . Randy Stouder
DESCRlPTiON OF THE REQUEST lonthe front of the
The applicant is proPosing to add a rrew entry foye~, porch and deck a g
fo er is a ane stary addition, and the deck~ W~ ~dp~oxler ately 133
ex. ~sting hOuse. T~e entry ~ ro Qsed add~t ~
rd to the ~ast of the existing house. The prmin in regard to the setbacks. ,
fo
the front ya
square #eet in size. The existing resider~ce is noncon t from ths front proPerty line and 8 fest framOh~ estern
Currently, the houss is Setback 5 fee
~,i~~. T~~ p~aposed addition wou1d extendt ~h~ 2 f f et ot of tha #ront p p Y
frant set ack t al'ow
K~roPey
boundary. The a t is r e u e s t i n a v a r, a nce exten to i t hin 5
ition to the existin residence that oul f e t o f t e r o n
for an ad
r erty un rX.
' Y
11.
the firont
The proposed d~ °scussion additionissues raised at the worksessi°n conce~he ned the location s'ze of a and privacY location `~ra" of t 'n e
, impacts to existing vegetatian, a
setback. The Gommission felt that the size of the proPosed addition and its lacation were
trees
fe1t that the
The asked the app10cant to indicate to What e un~restr ctsdg
~pproprAate. y to a11ow people to move along the deck
need to be trimmed_up TheY would
ro riate. Staffi stated construction
were landscaping propossd to mitigate l0~~ the aliawable he ght w than the p~~t setba~~e ~ roposed
that a praposed privacy wall exceed osed to p
would require a wa11 height variance.Th mem' ovenitwfrom the app cpa ion.
privacy wa1i, and requestsd that the app cant
III{, Z N1NG STATISTIC
ra ert is located in the Twa FamilY zone district. The following table outlines
The subject p p Y
the requirements for this zone distroct.
All PrQ ~s~~
owed/Reauired Existin
17,767 sq.ft.
Lat Area: I~~cabie 17,767 sq.ft.
Not App
22 feet 13 feet (1-story addixion)
Height: 33 feet 2,004 sq.ft.
1,$71 sq. (133 sq.ft, addition)
GRFA: 4,452 sq.ft.
1
Front: 5' Front: 5'°
Front: 20' Sides: 8'and 144, Sides: $'and 144'
Setbacks:
Sides: 15' Rear: 56' Rear: 56'
Rear: 15'
1,954 sq.fit. (11°0)
20°0 1,806 sq.ft. (10.2%)
Site Caverage: 3,553 sq.ft. ( ) 60% 15,730 sq.fit. (88.5%) 15;582 sq.ft. (87.7%)
landscaping: 10,616 sq.ft.
2 spaces 2 spaces-
Parking: 2.5 spaces
*5etback variance requested.
"`Existing nonconfarming situation.
' . I ' ' ' A. Cansideratian af Factors: '
~~~n t~
Ti~e r~latianship af ti~e reques#ed vari
t ti 1 r~d struc#ures in th
The nev~r entry o otl~er exBsting or
foYer would extend ta within 5 feet of the property boundary and
halt an ugget Lane.
would be approximately 15 fest from the ed9 area wh~re the additian and th~
speng sprUCe ar~d various shrubs occupY e require
the new deck are proposed. The addition and th s~rubs~The applicant proposesl
of at least tw+o 4 ta 5-inch aspen and sever~.
ta build the deck around the existing vegetatlfln adjacent to the north east
corner of the existsng hou$e• other The app'icant intends to transplant or replace the two aspens aia~ has been
vegetatian that is lost a~10 r~S ~he Plann dng,tand Envaoa?~~~ a C4mmission
submitted for cons'de Y
(pEC). The landscape plan calls for the addition of three trees in o separa s
locations, ana the addit1°n °f three shrubs adjacent to the proposed additian
(see attached reduction)• The applicant has not specified the s6ze and type of
the replacement trees
plant materials. S?nce aspens are be?ng remaved,
should be aspens witham?ei~f shrubs, p but we1feel that thetYp~ should be
recommendat'an on the #yp
identified prior ta final approval.
Stafif fieeis that the addition will nat have any adverse effects on adjacent
structures or uses•
2. The degree to w+n'ch relief fro r~e u'at on s necessary to achieve
and enforce ent of a spec'f'ed g
com atibilitY and uniformity of trea'~ w'~h~~~nrant of spec al'C'nity
or to atta,n the o jectives of th's t
privitege. ack Strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the fro i c~nbfrom any further
requirements on this lot wouid genera!!y preclude the app
expansion of the existing house without goihr~onstraned r Tremodel he Gore Caeek
agrees with the app'icant tha# the site is severeY Is~ant from
stream valley and stream setback north prohibit happ e exist?ng house
expanding the house to the 2
encroaches within 8 feet of the west property boundary, and is ?n c'QSe
proximity to the house on the adjacent loude u~on~the sma11e pacewthatd require
a side yard variance, and would also mt P
currently separates the two hQUSeS. That
bie~sThe applica t states hat on Y
house where any type of expansian is fieas
1,500 square feet or only 8.5% of this sits is open and unencumbered by
setbacks.
Staff agrees that ths property is constrained, and that the addition is proposed
The cQrner of the existing garage
in ths only feasible locafiion on the property• ~ The proposed addifiion w'f~
encroaches to within 5 feet of the firont property '.ne.
not aggravate this existing nonconformity, i.e. it wi11 encroach no closer than 5
feet froM the front property boundary.
3. The ct f t r t li t and ir, i tri #i f
v ~ ,j f iliti
population, transpartation and tra ic f ciliti ,
tilities, n u lic f ty.
The proposed addition would be we91 scr he ou ~ itse9f ci~rap~rp~~ t~ t~ee to
the existing tapography, vegetation, and t
east, north and west wi11 not be able to see the proposed addition. It wou1d
only be uisible from a poin# directly in front af the existing hause. The proposed
addition is ane story (13 feet maximum height) and the appiicant is proposing additional landscap'ng to help soften the visual appearance of the addition. act Thus, the proposed addition should have litti flaw'orps te ones alongight
NU99e
air. The addit9on would not interfere with traffic ub1ic
Lane, and should have no impa f~an transportatian, traffiic facilities, p
facilities and utilities or public ~tY
B. The Plannin and Env?ronmental Commission shall make the followin ~indi~ s
before qrantina a variance:
1 That the grantin9 of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of special
'
.
' priviiege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties ciassified m
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimenQ al~,eS ~ public
healti~, safety or we1tare, °r materia11y injurious to p pe
' improvements in the vic+nity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the follow?ng reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretatio diff culty arounnece sary
d
regulation would result in practicaf
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
~ 3
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da not
apP'Y 9enerally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or efor ~ v eges enjoye~ ~y'tn rown~ers n
would deprive the applicant o p
of other properties in the same district.
V ! ' T1
V. T I
eqest
's recammending appraval of the front setback vari ~~es a d
Staff ~uses~and well not haae ta Y
u
proposed addition wilf not adversely ef#ect ad;acent struc roval ofi the
theavfar feels anceh t ne essary to
impacts on traffic, transportation, public tacilities.
s
praposed addition is not a grant of specia p 9s , an
Ilow the applicant to improve the existing structure w9thout adversely impacting adjacent
a
property owners or the Core Creek Stream corri or.
c:\pec\memosigross.328
~
4
~
Y \
~
~ r ~ • . " ;
f . ~ . ~
~ rrr r.rw rv? °a~ a~ ~ f ~ s'rL ~`v e i Y+4 m- . . . ~ 0 ~ a . . . C
` . ,~'r~.. ~ . ".::.a_s._. K-- K• ~
y • _ e. ' .
~ x .
~ K x
. • _ y K
k n ~ . ~ .'~.~r " 'z . . u , . , •
. • 1, ~.t '~'•v `a• ' /'ti' , ' _ . 3. • n , .
, x ••ca ' . . x • * ` ' ~.r,....:,•-ur• . - s`. . ' . - . ,
i 1 '}i~,c F , .~•E: e-;*•"~~ _ .1' . r. . `a, • . , - v . ~ ~ . " ~ • • _ .
'ir./ ~ , ` e . • . . ~ . . ~ w.... ~ ' . . ' . .J .
. ta.si'._ • . I ' j_~:A.ik~~N+rw:.M •r:Yftv . , . . - y , - ' ~ • «
. . ..F' . •~~'.4 ~ ~•~r ~ ~v ~ R .mr+..y• . , . ....e. ° M • . ' . .
. . ' s ° ~ nT" , °r•``r . - .
y..
' r • ~ , ~wa,r»~ n"~"", +4„ . . . . . . . „ ~
,i" . . . .
: - . - ' ~ . j ' • ~ . • . . , '
• . , . . . .
~ . , , ' - . ' ' ' - '
~ ; r _ ,
k~ . .
. ~ - ~ .
. ~ . ' ~4
~
TO #
\ .
.
e
. . . _
waBK*~S'~ w-:n i• . ~s,+,se_ .a .,,..x.s...~+¢~4a~. . ~ ~ :
4.4
. t ~ ' ~ . • ~
~ t
_ I .
, a . - .
.
_ . ~ ' . ~ , ((j~v}/ ~W /f ~ t. ~ i°;;'_ :~Y~
r4ag s
+a ~ . • , ~ ~
e.
Y ..C(' . . ••~yE~~~ w J
i?-:a , l~
'~•45~ , ~ . ' ~
a>. . ~
d
~ ~ _ . _ . . . ,
k e ; ~
~ 4 ~J _ . ~ " . . . . . .
z -
. . . . . . ~ .
~"'e,4 'r. . . . • . .
~~'~A.'._ . • . . . . _
fi..: ' . . .
~g.;:"~ • ' , . .
4k •
^ •
.
.g _
t••
5C)L4TH tLLVATION
Vm 1
~
~ •
- s ~
, . ~ ~ t , r-e% ~ ~ r ~ . . . • _ , - . '
i. . . - . - - , _ , . . _ . - - . . . . . . . .
: . ~ . ~ ~ .
~e.~... ~ _ . . _ . . . .
~ •3, : . . .
I ~ •
~
~ t
V ~
~ I
~
~
ELMAT ION
r= ~ _
~ _ f J~~A tI
d---
. m--
J--- /
~
-3-r~ T s~c=-s~.ia~~Y° .°-.r ~ - _ : y• , . - y .
~ ~ ~ . : . _ . , ' ~ . ~ . ~ . , . . . .
e " . . . . . . - •
. z . _
_ . ~ • II
} Y- . „/"i'~" • ~ ~ ~
- _ • i
I
I
I
! ° i I
1 y : •i
. i ;
_ ~..ii..+.UA! ION.
f~ ~ - • _ i
~
/
~
E A U
TO; Planning and Environrnental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 11, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a minor SDD amendment to allow a modification to the approued
access and landscap+ng at the Westin Resort located at 1300 VUesthaven Driue, ,
more specificaNy described as: '
CASCADE LODGE JOINT VEMURE I,
(Wesiin Hoiei) '
Thai pari of ihe SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Seciion 12, Township S South, Range 87 Wesi ot iho Sixth Principal Merrciian, Town ot Vaii, Eagle Couniy. Colwado, doscnbed as fdlows:
Beginning ai a point on the southerly bouridary oi ihe parceI oi land shown on ihe Gondominium Map for iho Golaado MouNain Condominiums recardecf in
Book 387 ai Page 620 in iho oflice ot ihe Eagie County, Coiorado, Clerk ard Recorder, whence ihe mosi southady cornor of said parcel bears S 52'50'29° W 1416 leei disiant; thence ihe 1ollowing nine courses along ihe soWheriy boundary ot said parcol: ti1 N 52`50'29' E 49.76 teci; (2) N 3772'45° W 12.34 feeC (3)
N 52'47'1S E 1 .00 teet; (41 N 37'12'45" W 7.30 teai; (5) N 52`47`15" 4260 teei; (6) N 37'72'45" W 8.70 feet; M N 524775" E 15.00 teei; (8) S 37'12'45° E I
22.40 teei; {9) N 52S0'29" E 3528 teei; ihence depai~ng said soufierly boundary N 5250'29° leei; ihence S 37`09'31" E 45.34 ieoi ihence N 5250'29' E
48.70 leot; ihence S 37^09'31" E 9.601eei; ihence N 5250'29" E 80.00 ieet ihenco S 37'09'31" E 220.02 ieei io Goro Geek; thence the fdlowing four
courses along Gore Gee}c: (7) S 4926'38" W 76.45 teet (2) S 22-3136" W 124.47 leet: (3) S 5337'38" W 71934 iee1; (A) S 65-37'38" W 14 58 feot; thence N
3709'31° W 116.45 1ee1 lo iho poini of beginning coNainirig 770.200 squaro teet or 249 acres, more aless. ,
PLAZA SUITE
Thai pad oi ihe SW 1/4 NE 1i4, Section 12, Tawnship 5 5ouih, Rarge 81 Wesi oi ihe Sixih Prindpal Meridian, Town oi Vail, Colorado, doscribed as idlows: I
Beginning at ihe most norlheriy corner oi Condominium Map oi Cdorado Moumaln Cordominiums according to ihe map thereof recorded in Bodc 387 al Page
620 in the otiice ot Eagle CouNy, Colorado, Clerk and Recwder, whence an iron pin wBh plastic cap markin9 the center of said Section 72 bears S 34`50'58"
W 964.371eeq; thence N 56°48'44" E 106.67 leei: thence 79.97 ieet along the arc oi a curve to ihe lefl havirg a radius ot 112172 ieet; a central angle oi i
04"05'04", and a cha'd that bears N 5446'13" e 79.95 ieei; thence N 52`43'41" E 28.82 toet; ihence S 3709'31° E 105.76 leet; ihence S 52`50'29° W 25.00 I
feet; ihence S 37^09'3P' VJ 25.00 feet; thence S 5250'29" E 80.00 ieet; ihence S 52 50'29°W 15.00 }eet; ihenca 5 3709'31* E 16.78 teei; ihwce 5 5250'29° ,
~ W 21.30 feei; ihence S 37`0933" E 9.601eet; fionce S 52`50'29" W 80 00 feei: thence N 37 09'31 ° W 9.60 feet: ihenco S 52"50'29' W 4870 iooil ihence N ~370931" W 45.34 leet ihence S 52`50'29° W 56.96 teet to iho norlheasiedy line oi said Condominium Map of Colorado Mouniain Condominiums; thonce ihe
idiowirg ihree courses along said nodheasierfy line; (1) N 37 09'31" W 55.00 feet; (2) N 0750'29' E 45.00 teet: {3} N 37'09'31" W 80.40 teet to ihe point oi ~
beginnirg, wniaining 1.000 acres, more or less. !
Applicant: Vail Ancillary Trust, d/b/a The Westin Vai! Resort I~
Planner: Andy Knudtsen ,
i. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Westin Hotei has hired Design Workshop to redesign the entrance and courtyard of the
Westin Hotel. Staff understands that the goai is to make the entrance to the hotel more
representative of the mountain setting. The cancept of the improvements is to narrow the
automobile access, line the driveway nn either side vuith planter beds and spruce trees, and
narrow the pedestrian access ways to accommodate additianal landscaping. There will be
eighty-three spruce trees added to this area. They range in height from 8 ta 14 feet. These
will be planted where the mauntain ash and tree grates are currently located. There wili be
twenty moun#ain ash trees removed from this site as part of the modifications. Please see the
piant lists attached to this memo. The specific changes involve:
1. Narrowing the automobile access from 28 feet to 22 feet,
1
2. Adding curbs ta delineate #he driveway from the planter beds and pedestrian
areas,
3. Removing concrete unit pavers and a portian of the pedestrian area and
replacing that with planter beds,
4. Removing twenty mountain ashas #rom the property,
5. Adding eighty-three spruce to the plantable areas on either side of the revised
driveway location,
6. Revising the center landscape isiand and replacing the boulders and fountain
with a 30 to 40 foot specimen spruce,
7. Providing a fire lane and fire truck turnaround in the entrance courtyard,
8. Creating six parking spaces where currently there is an undelineated parking
area.
g. Eliminating a portion of the fauntain area adjacent to the canference center,
10. Adding a sign on Westhaven Drive, and
11. Extending the concrete unit pavers past the entrance ofi the cour#yard inta
Westhaven Drive.
II, A E E T PROCEDURE
Section 18.40.100 (Amendment Procedures) of the Municipal Code stipuiates the foliowing for
minor amendments to Special Development Districts:
'°Minor Amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in
Section 18.40.0208 (attached) may be approved by the Department of Community
Development. A11 minor modifications shall be indicated on a compietely revised
development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by ths
Department of Community Development.°°
ln additian, the Municipal Code alsa stipulates that the Community Development staff shall
infarm the Planning and Enviranmental Commission (PEC) of the staff action on the request
for a minor SDD amendment.
111. STAFF ACTION
The Community Development Department stafif believes that the applicant's proposed
modification to the entry courtyard of the Westin Hotel, as described above, is consistent with
the criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020(B) (attached) and has approved the appiicant's
requsst to madify the entry courtyard as described. We beiieve that the landscaping that will
bs removed will be replaced with more than enough additional plant material to make the
2
entry courtyard aesthettcaHy pleasang. We believe the applicant's desire to use evergreen
trees is good, as +t wilf provide a stronger landscaping statement in both summer and winter
months. The Fire Department staff has approved the new design with one conditwon and the
Pubiic Works Departmsnf has appraved the plans with two conditions. Prior to the
construction of the improvements:
1. The applicant shali dedicate a#ire lane easement satis#actory to the Town of
Vail Fire Department which shall be recorded a# the Eagle County Cferk and
Recorder's Office.
2. The applicant shal( provide engineered drawings for all work to be done in the
Westhaven Drive rignt-of-way for the review and approval af the Town of Vai!
Public Works staff; and,
3. The app9icant shall include pans on the drawings to be lacated at the entrances
to the parking garage and the hotel driveway.
In canclusion, the staff believes that the appiicant's request would nat alter the intent of the
SDD nor would it have any negative impacts on adjacent property awners,
c:\pe6memos\westin.411
~
3
i
ZONING
unit owners if auihorized in conformity with all pcrtincnt
requirements of the condominium association's declara-
tions and all other requirtmcnts of the condominium
declarations arc met
B. "Minor amcndment (Staff rcvicw)" shall mean madif-
cations to building plans, site or landscape plans that do
not alter the basic intent and charactcr of the approvcd
' special deveiopmcnt district, and are consistcnt with the
design criteria of this chaptcr. Minor amtndmcnts may
include, but not be limited ta, variations of not more
than five fect to approved sctbacks and/or building
footprints; chan$cs to landscapc or site plans ihat do not
adversely impact pedcstrian or vehicuiar circulation
throughout the special devclopment district;,or changes'
to gross floor area (cxcluding residential uscs), of not'"
, morc than five percent.of thc a proved square footage ofr;,
rctaii, office, corrirraon areas and other nonresidential
ftoor area.
C. "Major amendment (PEC and; or council review)" shall
mean any proposal to change uses; inerease grass
~ residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or
accommodation units; modify cnlarge or expand any
approved spccial development district (other than minor
amendments as defined in Scction 1$.40.0208.)
D. "Underiying zone district" shall mean the zone district
exisiing on the property, or imposed on the property at
the time the spccial development district is approvcd.
E. "Affected property" shall mean property within a speczai
development district that, by virtue of its proximity or
relationship to a proposed amcndment request to an
approved dcvelopment plan, may be affcctcd by re-
. design, dcnsity incrcasc, changc in uses, or othcr
modifications changing the impacts, or charactcr of the
- approved specia.I development district.
{Ord. 21(1488) § 1.}
382-10
(Vai! 12-29•89)
WESTIN VAIL E50 T
DRB SUBMITTAL
EX I IT ONE
Proposed Plant aterials
Westin Resort Landscape Renovation
The plant material palette proposed for the Westin Resort utilizes appropriate alpine
materials in order to reinforce the identity of the hotel as a mountain resort. The
follov?ing Plant List summarizeg the type and size of plant material proposed for use on
the project.
PLANT LIST _L
EXHiBiT ONE (Continued)
I
QTY. I 80TANICAL NAME I COMMON NAME SQE
I
T1'f:E~
50 ~ Picea pungens 'Glauca' I Coiorado Biue Spruce ~$'-14'
33 iPicea pungens'Green' Green Spruce 8'-14'
Populus tremuloides _ tQuaking Aspen I, on site
~ ~
Sttrutas {~4Q{?fl s~} ' ;
~
~ Cornus sericea 'Baileyi' ~ Redtwig Dogwood I 5 gal.
I~
ornus sericea 'Flaviramea' Yeilowtwig Dogwood 5 gal.
C
I Cotoneaster apicula#us _ _ ~ranberry Cotoneaster 5 9al. _
_
Euonymus aiata 'Compacta' ~ Dwarf Burning 8ush 5 gal.
~ - -
TPhysocarpus monogynus : Native Ninebark 5 gal.
- ! Prunus x cistena Purple Leaf Pium I 5 gai.
~Viburnum trilobum 'Wentworth' ICompact American Cranberry 5 gal.
-
Juniperus chinensis 'Pfitzsriana Compact' .I Old Gold Juniper 5 gal.
fl sf}'
Groundctsveirs 100
~ Aegopodium podagraria varieg. ~ Bishops Weed I #lats
~Cotoneaster dammeri 'Royal Beauty' ~earberry Cotoneaster flats
~ahonia repens ~Colorado Creeping Holly ` flats
4Thymus spp. ~Thyme fiats
~ Vinca minor 'Bowlesii' , Bowles Periwinkle I flats
_
I
Veronica filiformis Sirdseye Speedwell ~ flats
14,000 sf I Poa pratensis _ i Sluegrass sod _ 1___ _
I
Perinr?iati 50~
Aster spp• Aster flats
!IChrysanthemum maximum ?Shasta Daisy flats
Coreopsis spp. iCoreopsis flats
~Crocus spp. Crocus filats -
I
_
-
! Gaillardia grandiflora Gaillardia _ a
I DaylilY flats
_ L -
Hemerocallis spp• i
I Iris spp_ Iris flats
~ Lavendula angustifolia 'Munstead' _ I English Lavender flats
B1ue Flax _ flats
{Linum perenne_ ~ _ flais
fNarcissus sPP__ Daffodiis
- - -
Papaver s pp I flats
i_ -
~i ~Poppy Y
Rudbeckia ful da 'Goidstrum' Black Eed Susan I flats
-TTuli a s . Tulips i flats
• _
P
i - - flats
Viola cornuta . ,Tufted Pansy
_ ,
jAIYssum - _ { flats
[Dusty Miller i fBats
Geranium flats
I ; - -
flats
,
~impat~ent
Lobelia flats
1 - - -
~ _
flats
.9 _ - ~
iMan old i - - 4 flats
Pans flats
Y-
~ j - _ _ _ _ } - _
Salvia
- - - flats
1 Sna dra on ~
wESTIN va1L RESO T
D B SUB ITTAL
EX I IT T
Existing Plant aterials to be e ove elocated
Westin Resort Landscape Renovation
Significant plant material which currently exists on the site is identified on the
accompanying Site Survey and in the Existing Tree Inventory. The chart includes a
remarks column indicating which material will be removed from the site, relocated
within the site, or protected in place.
In addition to the material specifically identified in the Existing Tree Inventory, there are
ten existing Green Ash trees located on the north side of Westhaven Drive which will be
relocated elsewhere on the Westin Resort site.
Existing shrubs have not been individually identified on the Site Survey. It is the intent
of the owner to protect as many of the existing shrubs as allowed by the new
construction. Where construction activity necessitates the removal of shrubs or other
~ low plant material, it wi11 be replaced by material of equal quality and size.
~
.
~
EXISTING TREE INVENTORY
EXHIBIT TWO {Continued}
TREE # TYPE SIZE REMAI2KS TREE # TYPE SIZE REMARKS
Tl Green Ash 3" Relocate T41 As en 1" Remove
T2 Crreen Ash 3" Relocate T42 As en 3" Relocate
T3 Green Ash 3" Relocate T43 As en 4" Relocate '
T4 Green Ash 3" Relocate T44 As en 3" Relocate '
T5 Green Ash 3" Relocate T45 As en Reiocate '
T6 Green Ash 3" Reiocate T46 As en 4" Relocate '
T7 Green Ash 3" Relocate T47 As en 3" Relocate '
T8 Mtn. Ash 3° Remove T48 As en 1" Remove '
T9 Mtn. Ash 3° Rerriove T49 As en 3" Relocate '
T10 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T50 As en 1" Remove '
Tl 1 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T51 As en 3" Relocate !
T12 Mtn. Ash Remove T52 As en 1" Remove '
T13 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T53 As en 3" Relocate '
T14 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T54 As en 3" Relocate !
T15 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T55 As en Relocate I
T16 Mtn, Ash 3" Remove T56 Pine 3" Protect in Place
T17 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T57 As en 5" Protect in Place
~ Tl$ Mtn. Ash 3° Remove T58 As en 3" Protect in P1ace '
T19 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T59 As en 2", 4" Protect in Place
T20 Mtn. Ash 3° Remove T60 As en 4° ProtecT in Place '
T21 Mm. Ash 3" Remove T61 Pine 2" Protect in Place
T22 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T62 Pine 4" Protect in Place
T23 Mtn. Ash 3'° Remove T63 Pine 3-12-2' Protect in Place
T24 Mm. Ash 3" Remove T64 Pine 3° Protect in Place
T25 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T65 Pine 4" Protect in Place
T26 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T66 Pine 2-4" Protect in Place
T27 Mtn. Ash 3" Remove T67 Pine 3" Protect in Place
T28 As en 3-3" Protect in Place T68 Pine 4" Protect in Place
T29 As en 3" Protect in Place T69 Pine 4" PxoYect in Place
T30 As en 4" Protect in Place T70 Pine 2" Protect in Place
T31 As en 3" Protect in Place T71 Pine 4" Protect in Place
T32 As en 4° Protect in Place T72 Pine 3" Protect in Place
T33 As en 4" Protect in Place T73 Pine 4" Protect in Place
T34 As en 3" Protect in Place T74 Pine 2", 3" Protect in Place
T35 As en 4" Protect in Place T75 Pine 3" Protect in Place
T35 As en 2-3" Protect in P7ace T76 Pine 2" Protect in Place
T37 As en 3" Protect in Place T77 Pine 4" Protect in Place
T38 As en 2-2", 3" Protect in Place T78 Pine 3" Protect in Place
T39 As en 1" Remove T79 Pine 3" Protect in Place
T40 Craba le 3" Remave T80 As en 4-3° Remave
~
NOTES
1 . ( . I 1. 511! -vlY F'NIVANLD UY: ~
1 ~
~~CWVINNnnnu'ltCN~rvG. iNC.
~ Ll1.NWU~k) :A'HiH~5. Co -01
~ CASCRDE CLUE3 nos 0
~ u«nv ~rns r1nvurzu a+ awuuar or, ~uua. ,uu wwm.x
i ~ tl5)U~Ui, cf)
+ ~ ~ ~
{Q
'NES7HAVEN DRIV/E ( . ~ • I
4\
O
z~;" a ~
~
F I
•U ~ I C? ; b a w ~
, I
CMC BUIIDING CONFERENCE CENTER Q r I
y/'1
' i tl 1
y
r
A~
~r-
c~'~~°~
1 *w ~ ~ M ' ( a..N. r w~..w +v> UYS14:N MOfU4y11tJY. INC.
~ o.. ~.~.--t i .Yi i~ w.~ ~ l , ~ ' ~w~..n. . a~w ~ . . LaNDyCAYr ANCIf1T4LTUki I~
b~ ti~ ~ r rounua runnina
IwMY YtwnHtrvG
„ ^ ~ ~ ia v.
. ~ vil
. ~ , e~• ..~..w,~M1,,,~.~.,.".~: _
i ~ ; ~ ~ .ca, ~ ; , , ` r tZ~
~ ~ . ' .a ~ ~ j........., e f"; TERRACE WING
' ..ed~ . ,1 . . 6~t~
~
~.e. ~ ~ ~..+....~~.n a~ » '\j,, . . . y„uwM x~ wi~ x~wwiw.. Drasn k
. . . '~~ml.....~d..,'...~ ..w M
_ ,N ~ ~ ~~~~~...1: a. .•:t~.v~ .w. ' ~„yeL'~
q . .J , „ • l
' ~..a.......,.•i , n ~ a..~I .
1m~ WESTIN HOTEL ' Y
y
1 .yj~.•~~'`j~W~~' . . Exisiing Conditians
~ • ~
~ . urvuy
~ ~ , /
~ / ~
4
_ _ . _ J . f~/
~ ( /
ScntE:
L di . . y~
~ / ~ U 2u o e0
NOTES
~ ' r. _ : - - ~
Propoeud Conlluwua Troun „ 3
, in. ~.~w~W~q ( r
Z Cadfet Wan ~'i-i
Unq ~ proposuC Dalduoun T,nue
CASCADE CLU[3 p.".o
~ . Pwpow~ Shm6n, Oioundcova~x, un0 PuonnnWln `(.J
' toumw~er~w~..w~~~.x.~..~.wNw~«iuwau~u.ul V 1
Propo-d Annual Plowuro
o
{.....'t,;e,.~)-•' , . ,..C. ~ y -,lp~ 1 j. j' <:,;,f"' ,o
- 1 i..`_ .l V ~..r ,•s A N
- ' z ~.,.oe~~.rwwuwW+~~~,rw~wwwuu~wvw~ww»wwrwww., a b.
E.iaanpAspnallRoaa ul o
~ Fa~inpa3lmersacsion '--r-~--:1---+ IC WESTHAVEN DRiVE
NoteiWanalicalwnSiqn h ~a N~ '1~II1• ~ ~ ~
f y Plant Lis4 y
Pta,a+g esd 0
Evstinp Pawing Nuw Gonante Cwb
CMC 6UIL09NG \i~,"s CONFERENCE CENTEt2
HalocaNdTruus y
PuWic M
~ ~r _ l~?~i ; , : • j" j~
ti • ~ ' ~ ~ { faAsUnp Pavinp
Caeaete 8an0 at Eisong Aspnn 7reet (J I,M~F^ ~
EOnaoiPavmrs r•~ Pub4isArt
Pla,6ng eea
~T
Eaistinp 8ar Pa4o
,•t~% ~-~,A^ ° ya 1 ..a.., u1,5Wn wui<sUi~or. I»c.
ura~c.ve >ucarcci-ruxa
_ ~t~'`.~,' ~~~i4 . M
. «a~~ ruuHi~u ~•aanrvinc
' d.AtiU Yt~.htilPo4
~ . s «.r. ~ V+ UN~~AN D1s1~9N ~
, r ~ o EziNng fountaln wiih
~ Q ' Q New F/ucM;uaiea! Equlpsemne
PuD1icM ao a oaco 8oultlwslrom
E iaung Foun~ ~ct~v~~survs
~ M.
•r;y~ u
, . p w~. .
PlanWip BW re+ Plantin0 Bed ~ -
, ,J~./•.+., . I -s Wyns~.iwe~r~iwauuwcmu~y.w~~~wyd.+,nrywwaa+vN u.i. _
ExisUngPlinIin9
-FT f~ 30'lo40'SpedmOtt
SWucm Trua
6arpv Plentors with
alunuwFwwnrc 'ava ~ -SMnTermParF7ng TERRACE WiNG ,
tdewc.awececum ~ ' ~ ~d8~1Y:,, w"•
Mival CounYar6
L.~ aoo
` E '
C.ontrv9nPuvnra B:utd
L~~`5 r+~» Ed{i~ oi
Edtunp Aonu•Coehon ,~M+t~ ( j~+)n}~ a. W~ ~ lJuw Concrnln Pavurs
ut Tnrt~cu Wui, Fai~os
Exteqn Pevinq
„a ewa ~~,a C3- • e.iaurro L;,na,c;,p,
Pwnw, wnn
Anrwd Fbwsra Eciswp Sps
t~ 1 ~r
WLSTIN HOTEL E°m°"°°." P"u,
Nuw Sidnwaik
lwxru~u Ya.ws
landscapu Plan
uenrInu nuMutA
Nia S
~
~
- ~~.E . - ' ~ ' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ : ~ . ~'t~,' Y,r~ ~
~
0-1 4~`
~ ~ ~ ` ~ a ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~
~ ~ ~ ~
a
_ . ,
.
r~`:
~ - _ -
~ i
s .
~
'
, .s
~
~
- -
~
.
-
~
~
~
~
;
- ~ ~ - - ~ ~
~ ~ -
~ , -
~
~
y T
- ~s z ,s~ ~ _ - _ _
~ ~ A'
-jw
~ ~ ? ~ ~ - - ~ _ - _ -
- ~ - ~ - ~ - - - -
_ ~ ~ - _ - - - : ~ - - - - - - _ - ~ - -
r
~ • ~ . ~ ~ , -
- ~
~ MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: April 11, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a request to rezone a#ract #rom
PrimaryiSecondary Residenfiial to Low Density Multi-Family, located at ,
2850 Kinnickinnick RoadJmore specifically described as follows: ,
A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 94, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 61h Principal '
Meridian, more particuiarly described as foilows:
Beginning at a pant whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears
(North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds
West, 915.96 feel Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 ,
feel along the arc of a curve to ihe right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 i
seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 I
feel along the arc of a curve to ihe Ieft which are subiends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17
seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 secands East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10
feel along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 ~
seconds East; 4420 feei; Thence South 14 degreas 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet;
Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet;
Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; !
Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; ~
Thence South 90 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet;
Thence Norih 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 33772 feet; ~
Thence {North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 ssconds East, 130.00 feet Deed} North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31
~ seconds East, 129.75 feel Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.LO. record South Ot ,
degrees 302 minutes East) (South Ot degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured)
Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1. ACKG OUN
(Please note changes to the memo since the February 28, 1994 review are shown in
bold.)
On February 28th, 1994, The Ptanning and Environ ental Com issaon (PEC) voted 6-0-
1, with Greg Amsden abstaining, recommending approvai of the praposed rezoning.
There were several conditions that the PEC requested be added to the site plan and the
plot. ne of them pertained to the common access on #he southwest corner of the site.
The applicant was requsred to get approval from the adjacent property owners
regarding the common access. This was to be done prior to first reading at Town
Council. The two owners to the southwest of this praperty have decided they did not
want to share the common access. As a result, the applicant has redesigned the site
plan and prouided access for building envelapes one and faur from Kinnickinnick Road.
There are no new curb cuts. The two westernmost driveways have been extended
fur#her inta the site to provide access to these o envelopes.
1
ecause of the change in the site plan, the applicant has een re uire to return to
PEC for a review ofi the chan es. 11 other develop ent issues re ain as a_ reed to v
the PEC, staff, and the appiicant during the Februarv 28, 1994 hearinq. The conditions
are listed at the end ofi this memo.
11. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
taff elieves that the riginal site lan is ore comprehensive an a resses access
to nei h orin ro erties better than the site plan proposed at this ti e, o ever, e
believe that the developer of the Pedotto property should not be required to soive an
acce s i sue in nn r t t re uires adjacent pro erty o ners to approve the ccess
lan. ta feels that the a licant has d ne everythin within his control to achieve
this s luti n; however, the nei orin r rty o n rs hav not en illin to
rti i t. Therefore, t ff r c n th t t a n all it r it I t
v I . Staff r f r t it 1 reviewed y t r ry 28, 1994 i#
t r cc . However, st n t eii v t t th r r i ific t negative
i c# fr t it 9 r r vi f r t ril 11, 1994 ri t t it should
I e approved.
II1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Juanita edotto, and her representative, Greg Amsden, v+roua 1ike to rezone a
parcel of land in Intermountain from Primary/Secondary Residen#ial to Lovv Density Multi-
Family. If rezoned, the applicant is planning to construct nineteen dwelling units in fourtesn
structures. The parcel of land is 2.49 acres. Of this, there are 2.36 acres that are considered
buildable by #he Town of Vail standards.
In addition to a rezoning, the praposal includes a minar subdivislon request. In the future, the
applicant intends to use the single family subdivision process to sell aff the individual dwelling
units. Prior to this, however, the currently unplatted parcel must be platted as a lot. This
provides an opportunity to document building footprint locations, GRFA restrictians, and other
development standards on the plat. These standards will be listed on the plat and will be
applicable to any developer as well as future home owners.
Since the previous worksession, the applicant has dsleted ane single family dweliing unit from
the site plan. Anather change is that the building envelapes have been deleted and replaced
with specific building foatprints. Previously, a prototypical footprint was shawn within an
envelope. lt measured 37 feet by 37 feet. The updated footprints have been increased ta 40
by 54 feet for ths larger type of unit and 38 by 30 fieet for the smaller type.
The footprants will be a minimum of 15 feet apart. The applicant is requesting the ability to
shif# the faatprints as much as ten feet, if needed. Changes in footprint location wauld haue to
be approved by the DRB. Fifteen feet of separation would have to be maintained for both the
structures and decks. The PEC approved these standards at the previous hearing on
February 28, 1994.
2
The current site plan proposed by the applicant is made up of nineteen dwelling units in
fourteen structures. Nine of these will be sirtgle family residences. Three of them will be
s9ngle family residences with a deed restricted carefiaker unit located above the garage. Four
of the dwelling units will be located in two duplexes. The total number of structures wauld be
fourteen. To#a! GRFA for these dwelling units is anticipated to be 25,900 square feet. A site
plan is attached at the end af this memo which shaws uvhere these structures would be
located. The chart below shows the break down of the structures and units:
Number o# Units Number of Structures
9 single family 9 9
3 single family uvith EHU's 6 3
2 duplexes 4 ?
T TAL: 19 14
The architect has designed three styles for the faurteen structures. These are shown in the
perspective attached at the end o# the memo. Each type will have the same ateriais, wh6ch '
inc(ude a stucco first story and horizontal cedar siding on the second story. The roofs will be
shake shingles and wiH have clipped gables. There will be corbels to support the second ,
story cantilevers as well as the eaves. The windows will all haue shutters to help create a
bavarian appearance. Though there are three differen# interior plans, the exterior mass and bulk is aimost identicai for two of the units. Therefiore, there will appear to be oniy two i,
d4fferent types of exteriors. The larger home, with the caretaker unit, will have a faatprint '
measuring 40 feet by 54 feet. The smaller hame uvill have a faotprint measuring 38 feet by 30 ~
~
fee#. '
I
The neighboring propert9es to the parcel under consideration include: '
North: Columbine Norkh I~I
East: #'rwmary/Secondary development ,
5outh: Camelot Townhauses and single family development
est: Primary/Secondary development
The praperty to the north and east is zoned Resident9al Cluster. The property to the south
and west is zoned Primary/Secondary. The Land Use Plan has designated the parcel under
consideration as Medium Density Residential. Per Land Use Plan, a range of seven to thirty-
three units is possible based on the 2.49 acres. This translates to three to fourteen dwelling
units per acre.
IV. ACKGROU D/FO ER REQUESTS
In October of 1990, the Professional Development Corporation proposed employee housing
developments on several sites in the Town of Vail. The Pedotta site was ane of them. In
their request, they proposed Medium Family Multi-Family (MDMF) zoning. In the memo dated
October 29, 1990, stafif recommended that the applicant reduce the number of units on this
sste to LDMF densities and maintain the amount of GRFA on the site to RC standards. The
proposal for the site is shown below:
3
Type of Unit Number of Units Square Footage GRFA
Efficiency Units 6 495 sq. ft. 2,610 sq. ft.
One Bedroom Units 6 482 sq. ft. 2,892 sq. ft.
Two Bedroom Units 27 609 sq. ft. 1&,d43 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 39 21,945 sq. ft.
V. ZONING ALY '
Total Site Area: 108,682 square feet or 2.49 acres
8uildable Area: 102,788 square feet or 2.36 acres
Allowed Dwelling Units Employee Housing
Densit Allowed Units ABlowed GRFA Allowed-
24,368 + b,10C3 =
Primary/Secondary: 15,000 sq. fl. of 12 dwelling units 6ondit~onal rsview" 29,468 s9 ft.
buildable required
per lof (six lois)
=
Resideniial C9usier: 6 dwelling units per 14 dwelling units 25,697 + 3,150 ~$,g47 sq. fit.
buildable acre
Lovv DensiTY 34,836 + 4,725 = '
Multiple FamiBy: 9 dwelling units per 21 dwelling units 35,561 sq. fl.
buiidable acre
Land Use Plan Medium
Density Fiesidential: 3 to 14 dwelling units 7 to 33 dwelling units
per buildable acre
ProPosed: 8.5 dwelling units 16 dwsiling units 3 EHU's 21,625 + 4,275 = psr buildable acre 25,900 sq. ft.
*These 6 EHU's wouid not count in density calculatians.
""Garages not included in GRFA calculatians.
4
5taff has analyzsd ihe proposed site plan submitted by the applicant and has provided a zaning analysis below.
Total Site Area: 108;682 sq. #t. or 2.49 acres
Buiidable Area: 102,788 sq. ft. or 2.36 acres
Zoning which would be in effect: Low Density Multi-Family
Allowed Per
LDMF Standards Proposed
Uses: SingBe Family, Two Family, and Multi-Family ' Single Family and Two FamiBy
Lot Area; Minimum size: 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable 102,788 sq. ft. of buildable
Setbacks: Required: Front: 20'
Front: 20' Side: 23' (west)
Side: 20' Side: 20' (east)
Side: 24' ' Rear: 20'
Rear: 20"
Neight: 38, 33'
GRFA: 30,836 + 4,725 = 35,561 sq. ft. 21,625 + 4,275 = 25,904 sq. ft.
Density: 9 dwelling units per buildabfe acre or 8.1 dwelling units per buildable acre or
21 dwelling units 19 dwelling units
Site Coverage: 35°le of total area or 38,038.7 sq. ft. ' 19.5°ta or 21,137 sq. fit,
~ Landscaping: 40% of total site area or 43,472.$ sq. ft. 71.8°!0 or 73,761 sq. ft.
Parking: Per off-street parking requirements Msets code
VI, REZONING IT 1
A. Suitabilitv of the propased zanigq.
Staff's analysis of the suitability af the proposed zoning focuses on densaty,
compatibility with surrounding developments, and ways that the proposed develapment
can be buffered from existing neighboring uses.
Sta#f recognizes that many of the surrounding praperties adjacent to this parcel are
multi-famiiy complexes. The applicant has estimated their densities to exceed
Residential Cluster (RC) standards and staff has confirmed this informatian. The
surrounding muiti-family developments have densities that range from 11.3 dwelling
units per aere to 22.2 dwelling units per aere. Please see the chart belaw. There are
also surrounding single family and primary/secandary developments which have
densitiss that are lower than the proposal.
5
Name Units Area Density
Interlocken 39 1.80 21.6
Golumbine North 16 92 17.4
Flussheim 4 24 13.8
Innsbrook 8 36 22.2
Golumbine West 7 62 11.3
~Camelol 8 36 22.2
Though the density ot the surrounding properties are higher than Rssidential Cluster,
the type of development (single family, duplex ar multi-farvtily) effects the vuay the
density appears on this site. For example, many of the develapments are made up of
townhouses. Since the units are more compact than detached single family homes,
the structures do not cover as much of the site and are likely to have larger areas of
useable open space. Staff believes that the proposal should be modified to improve
the arnount of useable open space, to reduce the amount of asphalt, and to increase
architectural variety within the clusters an the site.
Specifica9ly, staf# believes that Uni#s 13 and 14, tJnits 7 and , and Units 1 and 2
should be cambined. The units to be cansaiidated, however, should be the smailer of
the two styles. At this time, the larger unit with the employee housing caretaker
apartment is shown in each of the three areas. We are concerned that the structures
may be toa large if tripiexes are created. Therefore, in addition #o cnnsoHdating these
faotprints, staff believes that the employee housing units should be shifited to other
footprints in the development. We believe that the variety of massing created by a
combination of units will help the development be more compatible with the
surrounding properties, as they have been deveioped in more of a tawnhouse style. 6n
addition, staff believes that the resulting open spaces will be larger and will be able to
accammodate additionai landscaping, particuiarly on the northeast, northwest aracl
central portions af the site.
Landscaping is a key issue in staff's opinion, as the amount of density to be
considered under the rezoning proposal should be evaluated based on how it is
buffered from adjacent properties. Staff is primarily concerned about the perimeter of
the site.
At this time, the applicant has committed to the following:
1. Six clusters of aspen located around the perimeter of the project alang
Bellflower and Kinnickinnick. These clusters range from three to eight
aspen each.
2. On the east end of the site, there will be #en to twelve aspen along
Basingdale.
6
3. Two planting areas of aspen made up of a total of fifteen ta twenty trees
will be located next to the Camelot Townhouses.
Staff understands that the drawings submitted to the Design Review Board (DRB) will
include additional landscaping and that the landscaping shown on these pians refiects
the basic landscaping needed to buffer adjacent properties. The landscaping listed
above must be incorporated into the DRB drawings and must be planted priar to
issuance of a final certificate of flccupancy for the dwelling unit adjacent ta the
landscaping.
Another key issus that relates to landscaping is the preservation of the green space in
the center portion of the site. Since the last worksession with the Planning and ,
Environmentai Commission (PEC), the appiicant has had an environmental ,
assessment {EA} done for the wetiand area. This report is attached to the back of this
memo and delineates the boundary of the wetiand area as well as a 10 foot buffer ,
area along all sides af the wetlands. The map from the EA was drawn on the previous
plan which showed a building footprint within the buf#er areao This has been corrected.
The revised location si#es the buiiding outside the buifer areao Stafif belieues that any
rezoning approval should be conditianed with a requirement that the cansultan# return
to the site in the spring or summer to canfirm that his analysis made during uvinter
months is accurate. Any modifications that vvouid be generated by the consultant ,
wouid have to be included into the site plan. Building footprints would have to be ,
shifted if the update indicates that they are located in the buffer area. I# the footprints
need to be shifted, staffi beiieves the project should be recansidered by the PEC.
There are some large existing aspen in this area adjacent to the wetland area to the
west. They range in size from two inch caliper to eight inch calsper. Staff beifeves that
any trees that can be transplanted should be. If they are to be cut down, they should
be replaced on a 1:1 ratia based on the caiiper of the tree to be removed. For
example, and eight inch caliper tree would have ta be replaced with two 4 inch caliper
trees. Staf# believes this is reasonable since larger trees do not transplant well
according to the Town's Landscape Architect.
Staff understands that the applicant desires to change the zoning from
Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi Family to aNow additional units,
not necessariiy more GRFA or site coverage. The applicant has agreed ta rsduce the
amount of GRFA to below Primary/Secondary standards and maintain the amount af
site coverage and height ta Primary/Secondary standards. These restrictions wili be
recorded as plat restrictions. Staff does not have a problem with the number ofi units if
they can be sited in such a way to provide adequate open space, buffering and
minimal site coverage. !n order to achieve this, we believe a more clustered design
concept is necessary. We feel an adequate landscape plan has been provided, the
wetland area has been prfltected, and that unit layout is good as long as the units are
combined as suggested above.
B. Is the Amendment Providinq a Convenient Workable Relationship with Land
Uses Consisten# With Municipal Obiectives?
7
Under this criteria, staff has evalua#ed the rezoning proposal to snsure that it will
provide workable rela#ionships to those properties around the site. In addition, the
rezoning proposal must be consistent with the Municipal C}bjectives. Ensuring that the
future develapment will have a reasonably compatibls relationship with the existing
neighborhood has been the #ocus of much of this review. On January 17, 1994, there
was a neighborhood meeting atkended by approximately thirty neighbors. Attached #o
the mema are all of the letters that have been received by staff from the neighbors.
The primary concerns of the neighbors seem to reuolve around pedestrian safety and
traffic safiety. Staff has contacted the Poiice Department and the Public Warks
Department since the neighborhood meeting to ask them to look at increasing pa#rol as
well as increasing the number o# stop signs in the area. This appears to be a problem
that needs to be solved independent o# the rezoning issue.
Nowever, the prQpOSaI WIII I1aV2 50111G' pOSIt1V8 iCT1paCt Ofl tlle5e iSSU@S, since there will
be public improvements made by the developer. The Town is requiring the developer
to provide a sidewalk that vuiii run the length mf the praperty. The applicant is
proposing a 6 foot wide waik that wiii be detached from the edge o# pavement on
Kinrrackinnick. The Town is requiring that this be a hard surface walk that can be
maintained during winter months. It wili be the responsibility o# the homeowners
association to keep the waik clear. This is a Town wide requirement that appl9es #o all
developments that have adjacent sidewalks. The app9icant is praposing a cirader walk;
however, staff believes it must be hard surface. Please see the p1a# restrictions at the
end of this memo regarding the sidewalk and other public improverraents.
A concern related to safety involves the number of curb cuts on Basingdale, eliflower, '
and Kinnickinnick. Originaily, the applicartt had submitted a plan with five curb cuts on
Kinnickinnick and three on Bellflower and Basingdale. Since the original submittal, the
architect has removed all curb cu#s off afi Basingdale and Bellflower. Staff believes
that this is a significant improvement as the driveways were previously Iocated
relativeiy clase to the intersections.
At this time there are five curb cuts for the entire project v+rhich access from
Kinnickinnick. These curb cuts access shared driveways. Staff believes that the
revised plan provides a more efficient use of the site and leaves more af the land as
landscaped area and open space. Though there has nat been an increase in the
number of curb cuts on Kinnickinnick from what was origina!!y submitted, staff believes
there is an apportunity to improve the situation. By relocating the access #o Building
Envelape #1 from Kinnickinnick to the shared access on the sauthwest carner of the
site, there would be mQre open space around Building Envelope #i , and one less curb
cut on Kinnickinnick. Staff believes that this wauld be an improvement.
Ana#her concern of the neighborhood invalved parking, storage, and general
appearance of the project. The neighbors were concerned that individuals living in this
development would not have adequate parking and that additionai cars would be
parked in the neighboring parking 1ots. Staff has reviewed this concern with the
deveioper and believes that the two car garages for each uni# and #he driveways in
fron# of each unit will accammodate the parking demand. An altsrnative would be to
create a parking lot for guests. However, staff believes that the parking apron in front
of each garage can accommodate guests most of the time.
8
egarding storage, during the neighborhood meeting it was suggested that there be an
area on the side of each garage for bicycles and other miscelianeous items. The
appficant has designed one of the garages #o be 480 square fee#. The drawings show
a template of a Suburban and a Cherokee to indicate how much of the garage will be
taken up by automabiles. The remaining area of the garage will be availabie for
storage, and staff believes that this will be an adequate amoun#. One of #he goals with
the storage area was to ensure that the twa parking spaces will aiways be avaiiable far
parking. Though this cannot be guarantsed, staff believes that providing the storage
that is shown on #he drawings is a reasonable assurance that the spaces will be
available. Staff believes it is critical that the ather units {with garages approximately
387 square feet in size} be expanded to the size of the iarger garage.
A significant concern to the planning staff was how the developer uvas gQing to work
out agreements with the neighbars adjacsnt to ths southwest corner of the site
concerning parking and access. Currently, there are parking and driveway
encroachments onto the Pedotta property by the neighbors. The applicant has worke
closely with the two existing homeowners in this area and has warked ou# agreements
with them for shared access. This access aisa includes a fire truck turnaround. AI1 taf
the driveway in this area will be paved. The adjacent owners vvili share the expenses
with the develaper. Staff beiieves that this is an excellent resolut?an to a problem that
has occurred for some time. Staff wants ta emphasize the positive benefits that result
from the solutian have been negotiated by the applicant.
One of the final issues of concern by the neighbors involves the appearance of the
project. The applicant has provided prototypical elevations as well as a perspective af
three homes sharing one driveway. Staff believes that the design character of the
homes is positive, including the materials, detailing and general massing.
Staff believes that the three employee housing units proposed in this development ars
consistent with the Land Use P1ans goals of the Town to have employee hou5ing units
added #o our community. We bslieve that this component of the development
addresses a larger community need. By dispersing the three deed restricted employee
housing units among the nineteen dweNing units, staff believes that there is a gaod
balance of free market and employee units within the development. Attached to the
end of this memo are employee housing restrictions that have been tailared for this
development. They are based on the Type !!1 EHU; however, they da not include
provisions that allow the sale of the employee housing unit.
C. Does the Rezoninq Provide for the Growth of an Orderlv Viable Communi
In order to ensure that the future development on the rezoned parcel will bs developed
in an orderly manner, staff has prepared the following plat restrictions which will be
located an the plat and recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder:
9
~ Piat Restrictions
All canstruc#ion shall conform to the standards listed be9ow and shall comply
with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan.
2. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, including all
decks and cantilevered portions, but excluding eaves. After completion of ths
first structure and prior to the application for any subsequent building permit,
the applicant must pravide survey information verifying the locatian of
previously built structures to shaw that the 15 foot separation requirement will
be met,
3. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from
the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 feet.
4. All driveways to be constructed on this site shall no# exceed 8°lfl slope. '
5. RFA and site coverage and height shall be allocated fior the structures as !
fo9lows: ~
F uilding nvelope # Dwelling Units Credit GRFA Total GRFA Site Coverage Height
Allowed
2 450 sq. ft. 2,480 sq. ft. 2,586 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 33 ft. I
~ 2 Z 225 sq. it. 1,425 sq. ft_ 1,650 sq, ft. E1,400 sq. ft. 33 i#. 3
1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. t,654 sq. ft. 00 sq. ft. 33 ft. !
¢ 1 225 sq. ~t. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
5 p 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft: 33 ft.
g 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1;550 sq. ft, 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
7 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
g 2 450 sq. ft. 11680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. it. 33 ft.
g 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
10 i 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,404 sq. h. 33 ft.
11 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,134 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft.
12 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq, ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
13 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. h. 1,490 sq. ft. 33 ft.
1~2 450 sq. . ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft.
6. No fences shall be allowsd on this property.
7. Phasing - The applicant shall provide the employee housing units accarding ta
the phases showrn below.
10
A. Priar to the issuance a# a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit 3ocated
pn Building Footprints #1 through #6, the applicant shail secure a final
Certi#icats of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy #ar the
first of three deed restricted employee housing units.
B. Prior to requesting a fina] CO or TCO for any dwalling unit on Building
Footprints 7, 8, 9 or 10, the applicant shall secure a finai CO ar TCO far
the secand 4f three deed restricted EHU for the developrnent.
G. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit iocated on
Building Footprints 11, 12, 13, or 14, the applicant shaii secure a final
CO or TCO for the thwrd of thrse deed restricted empioyee housing units.
The Fire epartment and Public orks Department have revievved the proposal and
support the project with the following condi#ions.
,r rt t ,
1. The fire access easement an the southwest corner o# the site must be defined ,
and then recarded at the County Clerk and Recorder prior #o DRB approval of
any dvvelling unit if a common access on the sauthwest corner of #he site is
,
provided. The easement must be posted in field with "oParkin9" si9ns• Staff
i11 11 t e site lan revie e y#he PEC on e ru ry 2, 1994 flr t
si#e lan revised an rii 11, 1994 t e constructe .
~ 2. All driveway surfaces must be "a1i weather driving surfiaces."
3. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards.
u lic orks
i. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of-way area
must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling units. The Town
Engineer is requiring sidewa0ks, curb, gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering
drawings and/ar grading plans to be provided by the developer.
2. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road side
ditches, streetlights, etc. prior to a DRB hear?ng for any dweiiing unit.
D. Does #he rezaninq comply with the Vail Land Use Plan?
Staff has listed the relevant goals and objectives from the Land Use Plan belaw:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance
between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor
and the permanent resident.
11
1.2 The quali#y af the environment including air, water and other na#urai resources
should be protected as the Town grows.
9.12 Vail should accammpdate most of the additional growth in ex?sting developed
areas (infill areas).
5.1 Additional residential growth shoufd continue to occur primarily ?n exasting,
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas vuhere high hazards do not exist.
5.5 The existing empioyee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additianal employee housing needs shauld be accommodated at varwed sites
throtaghout the community.
The Land Use Plan designates this site as Medium Density Residential. Under this
desfgnation, the dwelling units allowed on this site range #rom 7 to 33. ased on the
D designation, staff believes some increase in units by rezoning is reasonable.
The goals and objectives in the Land Use Plan describe develppment generaily like the
one being proposed. Goals 1.12 and 5.1 cail for infiil development that is not located
in hazards. This plan compiies with these goals. Also, the Land llse Plan calls for
additional empioyee housing, which will be included in this praposai. Staff believes the
three employee housing un9ts propased are positive.
Vil. MINOR IVI I IT 1
The Su ivision e ulations in the zonin or inance establish ini u stan ar s for
the creation or modification of lots. The Subdivision Regulatians aliow for the division
of existin iots with the creation of new lots from previously unplatted properties. The
zonin r inance establishes the re uire ents for lot i e sion, i t iz an road
frontage. These zoning standards have been met by the e ott r s 1. Th z nin
code re uires a in6 um Imt size of 10,000 square feet of buildable area. The proposed
lot size is 102,788 s uare feet af buiidabte area. The inimu fronta e re uire is 3
linear feet on a pu iic righ#-of-way. The pro osed frontage is a roxi ately 1,00
tinear feet. There is also a requirement that the lot be able to enciose a shape 80 feet
by 80 feet within its boundaries. This standard has also been fulfilled.
In addi#son to the specific standards listed in the Zoning Code, the ub ivision
Regulations have purpose statements which are also criteria #o review subdivision
proposals. The purpose statements of the general provisions in the Subdivision
e ulations (ection 17.04.01 Q(A and are provided below:
"17.04.010 - Purpose.
A. The Subdivision Regulations contained in this ti#le have been
prepared and enacted in accordance with Title 31, Article 23, Part
of C.R.S,, 1973, For the purpose of promoting the health, safety
and wrelfare o# the present and future inhabitants of the Town of
Vail, Colorado,
12
To these ends, the re uiations are inten e to rotect th
environ ent to ensure efficien# circulatiott, adequate
impravements, sufficient open space, and in gener I, t assist the
orderly, efficient and integrate develo ent af the Town. These
regulations also provide for the proper arran e en# of streets an
ensure pro er distribution of opulation. The re ulations f o
coordinate the need for public services with gavernmental
i rove ent rogra s. The standards for desi n an
construction of improvements are hereby setforth to ensure
e u te an convenient tra ic circulation, utilities, e er encY
acce s, raina e, recreation, and ii ht an awr. Iso inten e is te
i rav ent f 1 n r cor s n urveys, lans n lats, an t
safeguard #he +nteres#s of the public and subdivider and provide
common r t cti n f r#h rch sers; and t re ulat other
ttr t Town Ini nvirn ett Commission
and T c;1 necessary in r r t r t t
i t r t f t u lic.°°
The r ose 1 t ill e t kin currently u I tt rc 1 and r ti it t1, '
'nnsbroo t ff li v # t th change fir n un i tt rc I t
I tt 1# i11 t negatively i ct t crit ri 1i t v. f t
su ivi i r v 1, the esi n an constructian of i r ve t ire t li ri t- ,
of- y ill e reviewed y the To nn ineer. The evelo er ill fu11y r s nsi 1 ,
,
for r vi in u lic side alk and draina e facilities a jacent to t i rc 1. Staff
~ believes that these requirements fulfill the standards listed above.
The u ivisi n e ulations are further intert e#o serve t e f 11 in s cific ,
purposes (17.040.010 (C)):
"1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which
ev I nt an ro osals ill e ev luate an to rovide
infor ation as to the type and extent of i prove ents re uire .
The developer is fully aware of the requirements of the subdivision.
"2. Ta provide for the subdivision of property in the future withaut conflict
with development on adjacent land."
Staff has evaluated the proposed rezoning and subdivisiott proposal rela#ive to the
surrounding properties. As previously discussed in this memo, the developments to
the north of the si#e all exceed the proposed densities. Furthermore, staff has worked
closely with the developer, the Fire Department, and the Pubtic Works Department on
#he proposed site plan. The site plan wilt be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder's Office as an exhibit to the Innsbroak Meadows plat. The site plan has been
carefully designed to minimize conflic#s with developments on adjacertt land, to
preserve the environmentally sensitive area in the center of the site, and to ensure that
all future development will be in compliance with Town standards.
io 13
'13. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and
the value of uildin sand i rove ents on that land."
#aff eiieves that future develo ent, in accordance ith the pro ose site lan an
lat, will not a versely affect the vaiue of uildin s and i prave ents in #he
surr un in area.
"4. To ensure that sub ivision of ro erties is in c li nce ith the To n's
zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable
rel tionshi a on land uses, consistent with municipal development
objectives."
discussed r vi ly in # i , t e proposed rezonin vel nt n t
r 1#t I t will i c f r nc it the ra os z n i#rict f L it
lti- ily
ui lic and riv t liCy n c#i ~t i r r t r vi
~ adequate ffiCi t tr r# ti , t r, sewage, sG 1, I
arks, lay raun s, r cre ti na1 an t r u 1ic r ir t
f+cilitie n n r Ily to r vi e tat u lic f cilitie will hav
~
sufficient capacity to serve the proposecf subddvision."
Staff 1i ve t t t e revie y#h u 1ic rks eart ent a i entifi il i u ~i
such as transportation, water, sewage, etc. an that the existi i fr tructure i11 il
~ able accommodate the new developmen#. The developer will be responsible for II
providing drainage impravements and sidewalk improvements on the perimeter of this
site. These will tie in ith exis#ing i rove en#s in the area a d will be consistent with
the ork the To n has done in the Inter ountain nei h orhoo in the recent past.
"6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land
n to est IiSlt reasona 1e nd desirabie cons#ruction design
s#andards and procedures."
The applicant will be requesting Single Family Subdivision review for each unit as it is
constructed. Once the foundation has been poured, #he applicant will be able to sub i#
a Single Family Subdivision application far that site. Staff believes that using the
Single Family Subdivision process, the land will be further subdivided in conformance
wi#h the Town standards.
17. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, ponds, and to assure
adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water tabie an to
encourage the wise use and management of natural resources
throughout the municipals#y in order to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the community and the vaiue af the land."
Staff believes that the environmental assessment done for the central wetland area of
the site adequately discusses the issues associated with that area. The wetland area
has been delineated and a buffer area has been added to further protect the green
14
space. con i#ion af a roval of the rezonin is that the cansui# nt h ravi e the
environ ent I assess ent return to the site in s rin r su er t verify his
esti t s. Staff un erstan s that urin inter onths, accur te etlan elineati ns
cannot be one. If there is any chan e to his ori inal esti ates, the a Iicant ill h ve
to return ta the PEC ith the site lan odifications. The verificatian ust e done
prior #o any issuance of a buiiding permit for this property.
VII1. T FF C E TI
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning and minor subdivision. The minor
subdavision appraval will be contingent on approvai of the rezoning. We believe the praposed
LDMF zoning is consistent with the rezoning criteria and subdivision criteria and will be
compatible vvith the surrounding properties. SpecificaNy, staff beiieves that the requested
zoning is suitable far the site given that it will be integrated into the neighborhood per the
design ofi the site plan, s belive #ha# the request provides for workable relationships with
siarroundsng land uses and is consistent with municipal objectives. Specifically, it is cansistent
with five different goals as well as the DR land use dssigrtation of the Town's Land tJse
Plan. Finally, staff belisves that the plat restrictions will insure that the development wili
contribute the viability of the community. The proposed subdivisran meets all af the platting
requirements of the Zoning Code as weli as the purpose secfiion of the subdivision section.
Therefore staff recommends approval with the conditions #hat:
{ teas n te t at the c n ition sho n belo in ol reflect t e ch n es er th ,
Planning and Environmental Commission.}
~ 1, The developer sha11 submit the subdivision plat, site plan, and recording fees ta
the Town prior to issuance of any building permit for a structure on this ,
property. The plat and site pian shall include the plat restrictions listed belaw
and all future development shall confiorm to these.
a. All construction sha(I conform to the standards listed bsiow and sha11 comply with the building
footprinis showrn on the ariached site plan.
b. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, inciuding all decks and
cantilevered portions, bui excluding eaves. After the construction of the first structure and prior
to any subsequent 4uilding permit applications, the applicant must provide survey information
verifying the location of previously built siructures to show ihat the 15 foot separation requirement
shall be met given the construction of the proposed unit(s).
c. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from ihe 38 feet allowed by
LDMF zoning to 33 feet,
d. All driveways to be canstructed on this site shall not exceed 8% slope.
e. GRFA, site coverage and height shall be allocated for the structures as follows:
15
Building Total GRFA
Enveiope # Dwe119ng Units Credit GRFA A9lowed Site Coverage Height
1 2 450 sq. ft. 2,080 sq. ft. 2,530 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 33 ft.
~ 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
3 1 225 sq. ft. 11425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
4 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
5 Z 454 sq, ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft.
6 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,460 sq. ft. 33 ft.
7 , 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft.
g 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft.
9 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. fi. 1,400 sq, ft. 33 ft.
10 1 225 sq. #t. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq.. ft. 33 ft.
11 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. fit. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft.
~ 2 y 225 sq. ft. 9,425 sq, ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 11400 sq, ft. 33 ft.
~ 3 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,404 sq. ft. 33 ft.
.
14. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft.
2 450 sq. ft. 1,6$0 sq. ft. 2.130 sq. ft
f, No fences shall be allowed on this property. '
g. Phasing - The applicant shall provide the employee housing units according to ihe phases shawn befow.
~ I. Prior to the issuance of a final CO or TCO for any of the first six structures constructed in Innsbrook
Meadows, the applicant sha11 secure a finai Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy for the first of three desd restricted employee housing units.
ii. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any of the seventh through tenih siructures constructed in
Innsbrook Meadows, the appiicant shali secure a finai GO or TCO for the second of three deed
restricted ENU for the deveiopment.
iii. Prior to requesting a finai CO or TCO for any of ihe eleventh through fourteenth structures consiructed
in Innsbrook Meadows, the applicant shall secure a final GO or TGC? for the third of three deed
resiricted employ2e housing units.
2. The developer shall have the Enviranmental Assessment updated and shall
have any required amendment to the site plan presented to the PEG for their
review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit on this
property.
1 9
4. The driveways serving Building Faotprint #1 shall be modified to reduce the
length by shifting the curb cut to the west. The Town Community
Development staff and the Town Engineer must approve the change prior
ta any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this praperty.
16
5. The existing as ens located to the west of the green space area in the center
af the site shall be transplanted or replaced on a 1;1 ratio based on the caliper
of the existing trees. For example, and eight inch caliper tree would have to be
replaced with #wo 4 inch caliper trees. Staff beiieves this is reasonable since
larger trees da no# transplant well according to the Town's Landscape Architect.
ta ay ap rove u to 10 foot shifts in buildin fo tprint location fro
those shown on the plan approved by the Plannin an nviron ent 1
Commissian on February 28, 1994 as tong as the' 5 foot se aration
between the units is maintained.
7. The applicant sha11 rovi e a ini u r e r it in e c tructure
of 480 square feet.
. The applicant shaH amend the site plan and subdivision piat according to the
Public orks and Fire Department comments listed below. These changes
shall be done prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this s6te.
ire e art ent
A. The #ire access easement on the southwest corner of the site must be
defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder priar to
DRB approval of any dwelling unit if a common access on the southwest
corner of the site is provided. The easement must be posted in fiield
with "No Parking" signs. Staff ili lio the site lan revie e g~e
PEC on Fe ruar~/ 2, 1994 ar the site plan revise on ril 11, 19to be constructed.
B. All driveway surfaces must be "a!I weather driving surfaces."
C. Hydrants must be installed accord6ng to Tovun of Vail standards.
ublic orks
A. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of-
way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling
units. The Town Engineer is requiring a hard surface sidewalk, curb,
gutter, s#orm sewer, inlets, engineering drawings andfar grading plans to
be provided by the developer.
B. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road
side ditches, streetlights, etc, prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling
unit.
g. Either site plan, the one reviewed by the PEC on February 28, 1994 or the
one reviewed by the PEC on April 11, 1994 may be constructed by the
applicant.
17
1, Approval f the in r su ivi i n shall e contin ent an approval of the
rezoning.
c:lpec\memos\pedotto.401
18
'
~ . . . ~ ' .
. . 1
~ J„~. '
. ' - r.----= ' ~
,
r s `..s.e.P----- s.e~ =l a _ . a . ^ ° s,~ g m ~ ~ .
• ~ I - - • - ~_.p~ _1,~ _~-=--r--- F.-,-"
i~-
~ ~ c t`•- ~---a*'-' _ _ ~
' - ( ~ r>.~~~ i V ' • • e ~ c~'---r._;.-,Y
,
/ ~ ,N,. • _ . • . . ' . . a ° ~ ~
~ -~i' ~ - ~ -
e a ~
- ,,,,.y.---~--' . ~~;us~~:.;G~= ? i.~%~Q ~
. 1 • '
: ` . _ y f_..---~
. , . • ..r e• ;,.~'-y`k
' '
~,~e.
I t~;
, i
i
o . , . ~ I'
. ~ ~r
. • ' ~ f ~ t~~, ~ • . ° ~ ~ ~t,~ r~1~`.
I `
, , • . , . 1.. + i ~.Ifi~
.
;A+
a . • r(
aALf
. , .
~ ~ ~ = a -
~1.
. .
~ Irk
w
v
. - • -
'
~
r
. • . - . - a~-J"°
. ~v s .
. . . . r ~ v s...m ~
_ •Y ~ -
' _ ~ ~ ~ i
....a a ' rt,< 1
d ' , - r__~ ~ L, •~M ~
- - - ; -.-y ~ c r. - ~ ` _ _ - - 1.;-~
. _ _ ' ' ' i ~ 3_ `~~6 ~,>_t/:rP i . • . - ~ ~ -`'~ifJ'
_ i- - a L~~ ° «+.1er?e-S~°^ ~ • . . . 1
/ pL~.J r ~ • ~ _ ' ~ , . ~`Ji v s ._....r~` p..
. .
. . _ _ . . ° ° • e -
• , .~.-.:r;....:.~... . !1~11S~K:~G~~ i 1~~~Q ~ '
- - . Z.'~_ ,~t
,
. . . •
" . .,~,_...r
-mom
~ . ~ • w rr° ` ~ . ~ i 4, t,~' 4.,~y("?'.Sj'.'.
• , r:rz,Ht;E
' . ' < . s s ' .eka~~:~. r •
' . • _.:i.4lr~a
-
~ ~ .
PL.AT tJF SURVEY ~
• . ~ iON 14,701NNSHIP 5 SQUTH,RANGE 89 WEST OF TNE 67N 'PRlNCiPAI t++tERiDlAN, ~
OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST t J4 OF SEC
g qy ~ aalme~H#M i~~°~ br Oisa ~*a gvaqev enew~t +
EAi3LG LOUNTYp CAdLQRKDV . A M ti;>t~aM O~ 4Mw bweaw~ Ovtt>~ f MePI+ iddw.~r~a ~y1 AistB i r9 rW'^01~'ow~ dt~eea ~M +s~~ ~ s# ,
N 06C eSettMO ~ ~m,A * s
e.m e.ir+» aei-,
. ' .~.e...^. r `~S,g°°m`.:'ei~i.::is ~ : w :.w .i.e+ . .`.:et ,.ti .~."S.:i o `...:e:~iiii`.e`.'a.. .i « . t• ~ ~~~.~w. ~ m ~`..~..sw>~..m Iaes 09 a cYNe se tW 4 f.96YmeA ws~ sal~ ~~eis6' ' ' '
e1 srwae .68 ev a /
M
.e ~..+'-~~:V ~ ?arr e~i~° ~ mf 0a~e»w 1 ~~H~NCaMS~R+~ . ~13.19 .
s.rer~s.aem~.svrr ~ rs~eu.ms w.wr wtR~i9 ? 4s4{se 1st a ~~.~..~m's+~. r a~wrwsra.wsarrrr«+wwr Y°° ~a a wta ~e {M~~+~"aSlO~ • tt 0
' ~m.. . ~ 'e~iti i+'•ii~TM % q..ie' i..a si„ i,`,`: s.i: i e ~ty
~ v+..s..~.~~~,.m..s~..~ a iiiaa w ..eeae~sw ..v i«s. is
moa~ r.. ~•~ss 0.9vvaao-e ~ ~yeeN ! st! r 1
e i ise9++E. J ? aa.rrw+. .
:-4 =
~_w., ' w s..m .•a a` wu .u`~ $
v
' , s r ie' : aa . •
ai a m t~88
r~~.w-~ : m ...e. ......w :,si ei'aotme
Nflt{ 4+ • 0.ea ! me~t • » 9~w y a0 ~ 0 qp wN11
nsssvNlawas • 01;~ ~~a .
. ~ «e•~r~+s. .m~w - actlw•i4.l0at.0 M.
n's"~°~~ ~ ' ~ m . 1lw • 1 l~~t~f~ II ~.I~~l~ ssMe M
la . -_.o.,t,.N uni?,.~~ta "`^^u.>" ~T`°"°a,~x ~ C~.:.a-_ . . i' i ' / °rj" ~ ~ r/} .v
vz~l
~ . ~ VDklr7Tf.~N.~'.t.l.ti%; ''ap, j~'!'' ,52.3~ ' / / ' 3 /Q ~
.
sF s x rryrc'awl ,.?~POP, ~ ~ ~ i~~~ n. ~j+, M(
~ ,.~:t~s s : .c"~` Gtzv t ...tt~d' °Yt~ ~ ,/~~F '^TM'-~-c l%_'-
~ ~ti q ,_„f•;`° ? r •_~$X ~ X u w~"' ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ r'w:./ ~ ~ ~ ~l .
x ~ _ _ _ _~----"`•s _ ~ i ' ~ ,~,~.Y.~ ~ / 1 ~ _7~_
~ wii . 4.~• . ` _ . a. ~ ,~~I ~ /i fj'~'~ / , ~ ,w
p.tas. Tx . 3. ~ yr--... -°-=°""`t . c ~ ~ b • X /Gi / /~j j ? G, % a~
..An- SLTERM./~.RqTA.TN
oEVE4:.;~~+
pQ~~ °t~ ~j~N y.,. ~r / t. ~i~~.~ 7
m K r ~ . : ~ ~~j r ,y; 1`s .
U ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ - ss ~ / / '~,sY ` • ' ' ~~~5
Y +0:66 v 337.72 _
,
' 3 `i' ~ ,•2 _ _ 1n
~Z~ w.. 1 s 'f~`"' ~ '.'+w.~ ~ ~ ` ` ` ~ ' ~.>nr~arm + L4£k~ - ~ c~d.,.''°ni r*~
' . / ~ f~ s tal9w aaa O w.a Mr
Dtl 1 9CLmWt~.IM~i~l~~ew, .
' YfE57 Fti1GY COHDC+.iiKiJM
a'.casae+u.c.t p ti~°
8ro.^.K a i
Y,1:. N`:RMLV7T9:PF . 19 w• ~
GE~.'c:.v'~tiNY
. Q M M MwY IM °0 wam Nxw 4f tOaiii
wam ea+~.«a x..w.cwcs
~ st.e.c ~sr. awt' a..vs uc.r «nt ua euros sro~ ' ~e.+. ~«e~•s..:i «i.°'.+~ N "`•»""'••rti•ei•~~ ar w • ~ rw iws
1 Y1e96~f! K~ f 4Y8YM~ i~~ Ke4~ a* 3G la1°Y9'!t°( Os~feO[Y~.roa9~~~ ~t T^ 0f~~i A6wa++~ s * aseWe
aNSesN y+^~ e+]]y µ+K s1 tM
~ s~N9YaP~v tom° T' ~ a B~m w i~oae« e
~io'sI'N'w IaM' , R~K Sif.PTt S1CC7
j fiisi,t a~~aassA i ~
6y.
w~a yt, . noa .s wu~~ 1}j A .C
na~cr rd, wre~ ~
aaorr. ' - -
~
~ FlNAL PLA T 0F
° l
SBRUCK MEADOVIIS
6 th PR/IV CIPAL MERIDIAN
secrior~ 14, T s s, R. 81 c ocA TEfl i~v rHE scv 714, r
rowN o~ VAIc
A suBDi 1sIoN i~v
EA cc E couN rY coc aRADO
,
GRApx,C sCALE ~
4 - u ~
~ermD O
. n ~
t . Pte
t
R.
Q.°~
i°
p I50
y RpA sr,• / ~ ~ d,~,,,~~
.d aa
~
~W r
l
`y
a~
7~°~
7PRb5da.+sAoecs S0.'~f ARE FZZT ~
p
qpp~( nMta M+~w Par~GY*/t aW0 KM!M M ta ? r aw w o m.r w+ s w
a ~n.u• iH ar' "n~ ~.+m° ,bexirr rx..• SiTE
~p yµu" su' rsrY
z ,,s
u na' xro' «.r.° wv as~zooan +srsrss° ~
M91C/CMC` MM'RS'SYf~1T.c5'~S+Yw~ /r •J II e• . ~~~w ~r M~~~"',^R,
N'Md /IXM
MR O YXKf1` 1I~
K ~
O MC &3 RtnO A1LaeMB/ GM' 4[ 89di ~s, gpa(( I°. M9~ r~ ~••~w'~'+~°°' Me=+~
P[AAfrCCMl.i9WM~ m~rwm~ww N"° H~~s~~
• AOrw$SO'G~.+b
WOtrOid%tWN Mr~ ~~ew
• APCAASSCaHASIK'
FC' a.w.i' K'A.+M ntt 3a3 ~ w°
`o?a~ w+N s a.ww ~ ar* n ~ - - ~ ~ • eM4'a+ . w .
wws ~
_ MDA.ME S & M0 (JRE
1125 SEVENTEv`+TH STREET, SUITE 1200, DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2027
~ (303) 294-4140 FAX: (303) 299-7901
January 21, 1994
Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frantage Road
Vai1, CO $1657
Attn: 1vlr. drew utdsen File: 02442-050
Re: Wetl d alysis - Pedotto Property
West Vai1
ear rm udtsen:
e above-referenced property was inspected on January 19, 1994, to dete ine whether
wetlands occur on the site. °s inspectian was conducted with Greg sden of Christopher
Denton Real Estate and Russell Forest, Town of Vail s .
This analysis must be considered prelimfnary because of snow, which covered most understory
vegetation. Therefore, shrubs and trees were used to indicate potential wetland areas, along with
site hydrology along a stream.
The results of the field inspection are provided in the attached letter report.
Please contact me at 1-299-7836 if you have questions on the information provided herein.
Sincerel ,
j MMOORE
en . Hettin r, PhD
Senior Ecolo s
Enclosure
cc; Greg Amsden
t,P-H:men
p:lvail\pedoceol1rh01
OffICES WORIDIY'IDE
AMES Q~~~
PRELrMmNa.RY WETz,AND assEssMEN°z°
PEDOTTO PROPERTY
The F'edotto property that is adjacent to Kinnikinick Raad in West Vail, Colorado, was inspected
on 3anuary 19, 1994, Yo determine if wetlands occur on the site, and to indicate the appraximate
extent af wetlands. Because of extensive snow cover, exact locations af wetland boundaries
cauld not be determzned. However, the presence of wetlands were indicated by glant species
that were evident, and usually occur in wet areas.
A small drainage angles across the property fram south {sc,utheast} ta north (northwest), and is
marked by a rzparian willow cammcanity (Plate 1). Based on the presence of willows (Salix spp.)
and redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), this wetland area varies from 10 to 30 feet wide
a.long the drainage (see attached map).
A second sma11 wetland may occur sauthwest af the stream as a small seep. This area was
marked by a sma1l stand (10 to 15' in diameter) of caw parsnip (Heracleurn sphandylium) and
cow bain (O.z)polis fendleri), which are associated with wet soils (Plate 2). Other plant species
in This area include honeysuckle (Lanicera dioica) and grounded (Setrecia serra). Honeysuckle
is consrdered to be facultatlve to both upland and wetland areas, and groundsel is an upland
species. Thus, ihis area may nat meet wetland criteria.
C}ther parts of the site support an aspen (Poptrlii.s trernulaicles) woodland af trees rangin- in DBH
(diameter at breast height) from 2 to 8 inches on the west side of the stream; and an open or AghL
non-forested (grassland) area occ~lrs on the east side af the draizia-e (Plate 3).
Recammendations
It is my recommeridation that constructian not occur zn the area containina cow parsilip that
likely cantains a seep in the aspen w°oodland and in areas adjacent to the stream. Thus, no
"dred-e and fi11" activity would occctr and a 404 permit fram the Corps of Engineers would not
be required. Moreo-ver, the property should be developed in a way that existinc-, wetlands be
protected from degradation during and after property devetopment. A buffer area af ve-etation
shoutd be developed between building envelopes and the wetlands to reduee the amount af
influence that develapnlent has on wetlands and an water qtiality. Thi buffer should be at least
30 feet wide.
LTnder~round utilities (e.g., se`~rer Iine) cross the drainage near the road, u-}Iich would allow for
a crossing beneath t}1e hydrologic floor of the stzeam witPiout disturbinl- the wetland. Tunnelino,
beneath the stream u=ill need to be done in a manner that maintains stream hydrolo-y and does
nat place soil or other material in wetland areas.
Aft
..1.. rs • • ~ 6
, ~„°A
, ..~:'.'`a,i::..... . • 's'.'~s:.;':j..,.
? -
/-HEk1T11GE CAE;LF'?1'°.I0t! Fe 55 rfbo• •Iosvm cQD
7 V.CAE3LE l.S. r ~
~
A
NIZ) • ~O' ~ J
_ e ° m ~'~a ~ . ! s / j? M
~ ` ' ` ' . • INV 26 61.~ ~ ' •
1 ~
~ _ --°--~.9~?~ " _
s , ~ a ~
rsbcr ~ aot
59 7 .43 . . •
J L ..i ~ • ~ ~1 \ ,
l ~
1
S£e
\ ~ ~ i_,~' • . t"
L'~p
~ S MOR [ f{ d 4 0 'r/p'JR ..,v
f ~ 4 ~ / w?
„ . ~ - ~ , z'' t . $ " i f
78 50
.s.d,~ •~s.~ , „ . . r, j-'~"'~----~'~'~'r '0----~~~.----
..ir . ' ..1 • ~ ~ n~~..M 'r ~----~_m.~...e_~~""^--.~ ~ .~--e.._
_ 7H60 ~6d~-4ti,,,~_~".•:i~;;<..y. -y''" , ~ _ `a .
~r_: ' + _ / s=,,,,..-`'"'~ ~-----r.~ m_'°"'°"°'~ ,o~,,,,~,,,~
\
101~
-M:x. R?M 57.80
` °
s riv. 4 9.70 w
o'.
,
38~` l'- . s,` s ~ C; s ' j'l~ ~~,at j l_ p' , 1 ~ r+a
•~1:_ / . 1: i ~~jl 49 t~ ,
s:~ T . • (
8
S E-
•'~y • ~ ~1 I•~ •1, ~ ~ ' r ` . . ' . '
'r . • _ L., . . ~ ! ~ , . '
~-=~',s 1 . ~ , ; : t } , ~.T•. ; • ~ , . . . .
,~,i,;~=~:: ~ ~ • t~ i,,. . , . . . • . - _ ' ' _
. . .
. . •
.
d ~ C j_ r s, f.s=• ~ ~'~~q`- efi ~'.b~. 4. ,a~-- ..~c`
_ ~ --'S1~ ~ - µ ?•f >~';f 's ~ ' ~ ~•V' w _ _ .m^,.`*.«" .
zi
~ -I r
` .,•~a~~ ' ~ , ~
- f- ~
_
- - `
_ - - _ . .•r- .
AgilL
a
~'~.:s
.
v
4r*~~.
Plafe 3. Strcam s}'stem near prapert}' boumdary at Kinnil.i,lick Road.
s..
_
~ •:z`--% ^vo-n-se-,...-". ~
._~'.w"_
Plate l. Willow-dominated stream that t~ows solit}ieast to ~
nortllNvest across the property. Area of property on tlie left
side of phato is non-forested. '
41.,; ~ ~ ~ •
sEY M
j
~
c ~
~
- ~
Plate A small seep may be indicated by the presence of
cow parsnip and cow bain (center backuot:ild).
.P661 g 1 0.7_4 (t,038 LISM,
cAsEa GRRPHtc MaauFncruntN6
Feb 15, 1994
Andy Knudtsen
75 South Frontage Fioad
; Vail, Colaracfo. 81657
Dear Andy,
Thank you far yaur letter about the rescheduling o€ the planning meeting regarding
the Pedotto parcef. I appreciate that you have been keeping us informed as these
dates change.
I hope that we wi[I see a presentation 4n the 28th that includes same of the input
from the January `Town Nleeting„ Encluding the reduction sn the number of total units
by at least one ifi not fwo. As the develaper canfided fo me his margin was "very
comfortabfe". w?th the existing density, we should be able to get some sart af
concession on the density issue. In addition f hope that we can reduce the tataf
number of access cuts onto Kinnfokinnick road, I'm sure that the other roads cn the
east and west ends of the Iot have their difficulties but by putfiing all of the ciriveways off
Kinnlekinnick it wou1d appear that we are making this roaci at Ieast as dangerous as
the others if not mare so.
I fook forward to the meeting on the 28th, and fhank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
; ~ Charles C7very
23698 U.S. Hwy 24, P.Q. Bax 10, M(nturn, Colarada, $1645
uotce(303) $27-5274 fax/data(303)827-5760
i
ton sree(Ba0) 448-8808 em$i[73311.1130~.vcompuserve.corn
CHEhEY Kon Jan 94 10.43 PAGE 2/2
TOS Grcg Amsd°n
A.°ady Knudtsen.
FROM: Kay Chaney 2754 BasingdaZe Blvd.
976-4935
I map not be able to attend the neia,hborizood meeting this
SYP1'I2I°aga so I wantecl to convey ny feelings on the proposed
development on the Pedotto prcpArty.
I have to say that I don't understand the oppositian wh.zch
is bsa.ng mountECi to the tievelopmentr since it seems to me
to convey a vezy resicier,tial feeling, which is what I tllink
. most peopls a.n Intermoantain are hoving to have, irisofar
as it is possibla with the condominiwn projects already in
the neigl'borhocd.
I think it is a good idea to bua.ld single family haTdes,
vince that is what £anilies in Vail want now that we are
coming of age. The families that have la.ved here 3ong
enau,h have grown fron rent.ing apartmentv, to cwnirag `
condor.iiniums, thara duplexes anci ultimately szngie family
homes. Regardless of whet°r.er or not that is the bcst use
of our limzted vpace, that is what peoplv want.
Buildirig the homes for sale, rather tlzan rental, also adds
to the residential quality of t.he rroject.
Z thi°r.k the revis=d sita plan appears to be an impravement
ae.,thetically on the original site plan,
` As I mer.tioned at the work sessian 4-n Uecember, my only
conccrn would be t.hat a rezonia:g to low density raulti-family,
so that the nature af the de,elcpMerdt ceuld not be changeci
once the ir,creased density was appraved.
I'm sorry that I might not bE ab3.e to attend t2:e ;neeting,
since so often only negative voices are heard at these
meetings. If I can get away from my other appointnert
sarly enough, I will be thes:e.
~
~
KU(_KWcL! ' P.(301 .
' Oigila! Commun:cationy DEViOion
Rockweii tnteenstionai Corpoc'ation
SQat?LirchSlrCeY RQC~{We(l
NeW~n oGauti, c~ifor~ a~9z s o [nternational REC'D Ja rN 14 1994
.
T'L" L: (710 833-4655 .
~ FfiX: (7I4-)
833-~~~~
DAi E : 0121 P ; G E Ci F
1-21
? o : z-~.. s A FRx TRAr~~sr~
l. lllY!
_ 1-^ .`t y P+ EA~ 4~ v '
vE J~.LI 1LF~ Iili'1^•~cJlA-1-ELY, ~
-j'23 tl,-n
lj 6.):-- . i . ~r~~„ _d f?~ ~ {i ~
- . .._~!~'J ./U!?l~"~ t,cl~1C~
. '
~ . ~ ~ . . . .
~
t~ _..4 . .
...7`~?~?/ ...?`S-K ~~~`yats y:A_._,. tJ~s2.t'
- ..__.,(~3 f r7S„Q,, ~
r'j
. ~
_ ~ tY» tf
cnr~A,/ 73. 41bflr j
~ -
TO TA'" P. 001
1e~U~ r.Ul
fau. Jan 2U,y4
~ AME7ftIC.~3.N ~
- ~~xExL~AH~~
~
. ~ . ~ .
~
. ~
. 1
_LV)
IC)
~
C-1. CA
~
.
~w
~
"
C\
~ . .
~ ~ ~ .
~v~( .
~
Nk. .
.
t~`~,C~.~•L~..=c_,. a e .
'-~C?~ltt\ ~t _ . >
225 1hfa11 Sireet Vail, Coloracio 81657 (303) 476-1477 ~)utsi~le Coiorado 1•800-327-1
Dear Intermauntain Hameawners and Residents; ~
T am writing to ask everyane ta attend a neighborhaad meeting at
7:00 PM, Monday, January 17th in the Town of Vail Chambers.
once again, the Pedotto praperty is scheduled to be railroaded
' through in an attempt to re-zane from the PrimaryfSecondary to
' Low Density Multi-Family. Zf we allow tliis ta happen, we will have
14 building-s with a total of 19 units and pobably 40-45 mQre cars
speeding up Kinnikinnick Raad. There are six driveways proposed
far
~ these 14 btiildings, all but one exiting on Kinnikinnick Road.
~ A little ludicrous, wouldn't yau say! The tatal GRFA praposed is 25, 900 sg.' it., similxar to the last
praposal just a few years aga traat we all were most upset about.
Thzs re-zaning request is being made by Tom Campbell, wham I
believe is the sarrae developer as the last time this attempt was
made--but this time, as a represerztata.ve for Mrs. Pedotto, we have
a member af the Planning and Eravironmental Commnission--a bit of a
conflict of interest--wouldn't yau say?
This same PEC that is in favor of 25,900 sq. ft. on 2.36 acres,
aside from up zoning, is the same Commissifln that recently denied
the development of a 2+acre parcel to the East af Meadaw Creek
Condaminiums. That request was for a duplex of approximatel 6500
s q. f t.{ b u i l d a b l e G R F A is over 9,000 sq. ft.}, lhey actually said
they would like to see less GRFA so it would encroach less an th.e
ha.llside. Oh, and yes, they voted against a retaining wall for the
driveway. Are they aware that we live in the mountains and that
all af the desi.rable flat I.ats are gone. They are going ta have to
contend with retaining walls--lzke the ones just built in West Vail
to sugport, those giganta.c raew duplexes.
In conclusion Z would like Mrs. Pedatta to know that if she divided
her land znto Iots and built under the current zaning, no one in
Intermauntain wau2ci object--We szmply object to this many
structures, this marzy cir=.veways and the amount of speeda.ng cars .
that this many accupants would invarzably drive.
Sa don't forget Monday night at 7.00 pm in the Cnuncil Chambers,
Town of Vail czff ices . See you there.
Si ce elry, _
Babi Salzman .
. .
&
. CCh:57rUi,":1O'. CC:~Ss.1T.1?:T:~l
, , • A.~CH1TEc;TURE
~ .
December 20, 1993 • ~ • ~ • ` : .
, . ;
. ~ ± < . .
~Tjo Cit;t of Vail
plznnsng Dep~-rtment;
Vail, CoIorac~o
, ~
A : : Andy Knudtsen
a . ~ ; .
lZF: 28050 Kiuhic}.ini-iicl: ho`ad Z.ori.ing
1 1
1 f e e a a •
Cc'iZ 'lMi'. M21IdfSZ11; ° ; E
>
. ~
; + ; •
Yurs,aant to ouz° z°ecerit disctassivns,'I wish'to £oz°mally outline iny objectzons regarding the
pedotto Pareel deve'.optllent plans>'as currently presented. ,
e izicf°ease irz dens:fy an the propCrty°, ciuplcd rS°ith thc. signafic.ar,t arnount of t°,a: d sllrface
areas, witl resilt in an increaret3 run-off. A p:elimi;,1ry invest:bation reveal; a gre<°it c3eal
of this run-aff-has P6 tealtial~so cbarnel itself into ttie adjacent parcei at the cxistA:lg Vail
Swim and Tennis C1,ub ent'rance. lnis in4reased nin-aff wi11 not on.ly cause prvbleials
associated witli the entrance; but it wi11 have a negative impact,on tlac site drair;aoe an the
structures~imr,ieciiatefy adji,cer.c to Kiwalekir nzck Road.
Tf:i,- second ccncern whicn v>;e have;regar~:it7g the increased dep~sity aa~ the propase~i plan,
zelates to the architectural de,ion ~~rhich Is beznff propos~d, Wdhighly rLcc7ii2inend ti'at the
de;'etaper soften the ~ery ha'rd lines of his project;through the uti3ization of perimctez earth
bermio~, and 4 $enezaus in:~ta?latfan of conifers and deciduous trees to soften the visual
unpact.: ~ ; . • o
a
I 15'2SI1 to adti°i so ; ou th3t i am not in objectior.~ to the developer's pz°c~pt~sed pco;ect. owever, in t~ib~st;irterest oi the im.~ge oi Ueyelopr~ier~t in lhe tc~wzl of Vail, tile above
i'#ems nee.d to be nciciressed 'try ;he;developer. • ,
~ ~ • ~ ;
, ,
, la es arx, A.I.A
. r ~ • .
1 ' . , E . •
• i
N0R7}i1YFS7 Cj~FJCE CALIFOFv.'?A OFFICE SQL T?-I:C'%57 Ofr1CE C:fiA?VATE O r Cc
E3 t i"EW,6FiT StREET, StJiTE 707 ' 150 P:UiAIt'TNC A'd"t.. S:1;TL• l5S 9*1 O iR.AV15 ST. t nat t5i 7~SJ;.'~C,.cTtY1•1'i'
~ • rtA'1'SLr,1X'ASN,.I?Zt~"1d;'»S?61{'Y Q~, I't1:aF=li.C41.6~C~ti:;.i:S26:5 ~ H47L'S70TT,7E.X/iSi7~:e D-'~'~'ER.t;(.~LC3fL4.0'sJ2:8
?OS•6:1•~122 7:4-Sds•Ei2J . 713•L59,I172 ' :C~•3:t.i3.^.~
?t~.1.9:+a1 eFA.~C) . 7:~+-s,s•:aac tr•n~;) ' 7t3•751 ~css~ ir~3 30•561-ME5 (Fa?;)
, ~ • , : '
i
. ,
~ ° • . ~ , e ' ,
. • `
This petition is directsd to the Tawn of Vail fn reference to
the request to rezone the parcei o'I land located at 2850
KinniUtcit7nick. The Y-Aason is the time and date at which the meeting
i s schedu 1 ed . Th i s cou 1 cl nat be at a worse t f ine for aiiyone i nvo1 veil
in the tourisnz Lusines5, which eticontpaw:,es the whole ot Vail.
These property owners are unahle to attLnd the r«eetii°sg *ds
scheduled «nd are oppasect to the rezonin at 2850 Kinniclefnnick
NA1IE ADI}RESS
2
-----_~L~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ~ ~ ~~,t~.~
: .
_ . .L~s"ry-- 2-2- . S f
, _
_~~'_________---~-~5'~~.3_~.~'.~°.~a-~-r~~`u~~~'c~.-.
J - ' • ~ -t
-ry°
1V,~,
~e....v.,~...~~G^. it~~\ 1 ~ P --m...-~.....-,G~1'_~.r
m-----.`--m.^---_.--~
. -a--e-~-d.m---...-.a.7,.v,_.e_..e--.s.-------av-^
--vm-v.e.e---.rti.,..-r.»e.m..--.v---es-_^m----
.,evm--a.e-s-_--m.-...-.e--.m...r._---r---a.m.---
.d-e..e-.e.-m-r.mm-.m.._.~---v-v.-'----.o--a.-'--
r^--m..-.s-o.-....-.s°-^_-v..s-.y'--o..-r.m'--r-r-
-.a.-...w-v-..mm-----.m..s--.m--.e.--"r...----d..e-
_..-_.-a..-m...m.-.m.-.v_......--m,..w--.....----`--.m---^-'--
--------------------------------.P.--.~--,..._..._ms----------°-_.s°_^-m---^-
--m.-m...v--_.'----.,..-._-_.-e..-.e-'-------.e-v-
------------------------------.m--n----.....a-...-...__---_..-ve---°.m-e...e-------
e.-.m-...---_....m.er.v-.._-.m.v..,.----r_..m~----s.--°w-
-r---..s-s-mo.--'--'--.....m-ma--s.--...-e------
-----------------------------v_-v._...e."m--.m-...--.m--_.---o..-----v---._--m..oe.
...--.m~---^.--.e--a..--,.e.m--m--.»--e-e..-a----°--
-e..-"'-------.m.`--d-.m-m..-._m---_-m..e-v-vem-
-'--e..°-.e----m-'--m..dm.--.m._-----m--..e--.m'---
.m-m---'---a..----.em.-rm..---m-----v'-m--`---
------------------------------------r-vv---r---ev-------v-------em-
---.~----"-.s..oo.-----m-a..----_.--m------._.
. n.°^-m-°----..ae..m---_.----m..--r-'r-...ev---
'--------'----e..'^--..e----...---"----'
, -------...."-`~~~---..m--r---m----..~----'^-
S °-..e-e..evo.---a..-.m-^ I
v.e.--m.°--e.o---..e---------a.o°°--°ms.~---°°
_ --.om.------v--'-
. _ ~
~ Charles Overy
2833 KinnicJ:innack #3 r ~
Va.il, Colorado 81657 Cl
(343) 479-9133 =
. 2
l-A .
Sun, Dec 19, 1993
To The Planning and Environmenfal CommESSion, Town of Vai1,
e
1 must Iodge, in the strongest possible terms, my protest to your convening a planning
and zoning worksession regarding the rezoning of the "Pedatto parcel" in
lniermountain dur?ng what is certa?nly one of the ValPey's most busy periods.
I received your notice for an initial meeting an the 13th of December and tivas able fo
take t;mp to af#end. I spent one and ane half hours waiting for the "request for
worksessian" on the 2850 Kinnickinnick parcel to came on to the agenda. After the
first item of the agenda had noi been finished, it was evident that the meeting was
going ta progress slovrly. l had not planned to spending the entire afiternoan at the
meeting and had to leave. In addition, I tivas frusirated by the fact that I could not find
anyone ?n the front oiflce of the building who knew what a°'request for worksession°' ,
was. If the request was a minor procedural matter, might it not, more democratically, ~ have been disposed off at the beginning of the meeting? 1f "a reques# for worksessian
is a scheduling matter shauld it not be stated as such. In addition, I have not received
a maiPed notice of the meeting on 20th December aiihough I..was on your list to receive
a notice about the initial meeting.
f am unable fo attend the .meeting on Manday the 20ih as ! have had prior work
cammitments for over 4 manths: 1 am very interested in the proposal as ! Iive at 2833
Kinnickinnick #3 and my residence looks out across Kinnickinniek road a# the property
in 'question.
1 am not unfavorabfy disposed to the development of the Pedotta parcel as I believe
that su?table develapment of a significant portion of this land will improve the
lntermouniian neighborhood. Furthermore, I am very encouraged by the open
discourse that yaur department nurtures regarding all af Vaif's planning questions. i
do not feei that I have adequate in#ormation regarding this develapment and, at this
time, 1 am opposed to the pian as outiined in your memorandum of Dec. 13. 1 feel that
the timing of your worksession on this property is most inapprapriate. The
neighborhood in question is certainly a°`working" neighborhoad and most residents
will be very inconvenienced by ihis meeting it, indeed, they are able to at#end at ail.
a Should there be any question that the submittal or scheduling of this worksession has,
in any way been affected by the above concerns i wili fuily pursue my legal
aiternatives, 1n addition, 1 wiil become vociierous and obstreperous in my appos?tian
to the applicants proposai. .
i
AdEL
( feel that my rights as a taxpayer and my duties as a citizen have been violated by
your lack af cancern over the fntermountian residents` commitment to the fundamental
business base af this cammunity. At this time of year, our service fa aur guests and #he
tourism base must be paramount. I suggest that this is an excelfent week fo consider
. Plann€ng and Zoning matters that affect our non resrdent c?tizens. I hope that you can
aPPreciate my concerns. A prompt reply is requesfed.
SiIIcL.
~t
1
ChaCfe VBty .
.
4r Agk
~
E q U
Pfanning and Environmental Commission
TO:
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: Aprii 11, 1994
SUSJECT: A request fior a minor SDD amendment and a minor subdivision to
relocats the lot line between Tract C, Dauphinais-Nloseley Subdivision
1 st Filing and Parcel D, Lionsridge Subdivisian 3rd Filing, located at
1320 Niorraine Drive.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
Planner: Jim Curnutte
1.... DESCRIPTI T ent The appiicant, Pat Dauphinais, is requesting a~el~cate thel D st'~'g Pma tedDot line(sDparating ' division amsndment and a minor subdivision in order t Tract C, Dauphinais-N?oseley SUbdivision 1 st Filing and Parcel D, Lionsridov ~ sbaccess tord '
Filing. Tract C, which is a part of the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision, p
Parcel D. Parcef D is zoned PrimarY/Sec°ndary and is not included in the SDD.
On March 16, 1994, the app lican# received final design approval for a primary/secondary structure on Parcel D. At that meeting, the applicant presented a site plan to the Design
Review Baard (DRB) that showed the proposea st! ~~t p~'icated t at thetpu pos~ at P~ap ngy
Iine of Parcel D(see attached site plan). The pp urbance the building on the eas#ern side of the property wa~srt~o~iG~~~d fur her to the'wests~or down the
impacts to views that would result if the build:ng w r~ved, he would then relocate the
slope. The applicant told the DRB that if the plan was app
lot line between Tract C and Parcel D in ~r~ der ~o QS d iaca ondofgthe setback, bu dingnon Parcel D
parkang requirements. The DRB felt that p p more was preferable to having the building located
seshnecessary to tacco'mpl shdthe ProPOS d Iflt
visible from the valley below. The two p oce
line relQCation are described as follows:
Minor SDD Amendment
openrY
Although the underly9ng zoning of the D~p~ a~ ide tfied oD tphe fPral1plat/ asconda
the designated land uses allowed on T tract
was space, access and utility easement° also ow ed by creating at the t me the
provide access to Parcel D, wh'ch was
SDD was created. A minor SDD amend henreasoa arrnintor SDDaamtendment swhich
currently separates the two praperties. T
required is because the proposed lat line relacation will reduce the si#e area of Tract C
~ 1
by 1,869 square feet. However , the SDD zoning will remain on the entire Tract so
there will be no effect on the original size and exterior boundary line of the SDD as a
whole. As mentioned previously Parcel D, which will be gaining 1,869 square feet of
site area, is not a park of the SDD.
Staff has determined that this request is a minor SDD amendment, as opposed to a
major SDD amendment, for the following reasons:
- The request does not eliminate the entire Tract C from the SDD, it simply
reduces its size in an area that is not necessary to provide access to Parcel D,
which is the main reason the Tract was created in the first place. '
- The overall size and shape of the entire SDD is not effected.
- The area of Trac# C being incorparated into Parcel wiil be retained as an ,
open space, access and utiiity easemant, which is the exact same wording
currently used in the SDD. o zone change is proposed with this requsst. The
zoning wili cantinue to be SDD with an underlying zane district of ~
Primary/secondary. I
i
- A note has beert added ta the resubdivision plat (see afitached copy) which
states that the area of i°ract C being added to Parcel D shall no# be ussd to '
increase the GRFA or site coverage currently allowed on Parcei D. ;
i
~ Minor Subdivision
The Minar subdivision element of this application is necessary to legally reflect the ,I
transfer of 1,869 square feet of land from Tract C, Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision 1 st
Filing to Parcel D, Liansridge Subdivision 3rd Filing. Section 17.08.210 of the Vasl
Municipal Code defines a Minor Subdivision as:
"...any subdivision containang not more than faur lots fronting on an existing
street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of municipai
facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the
parcel or adjoining property.°"
11. ACK ROU
The Dauphinais Moseley Subdivisian (SDD No. 22) was approved by the Vail Town Councii in
1988. The appraved development plan far the SDD allowed for the resubdivisian of the
nineteen existing Primary/Secondary zoned lats into twenty-four Single Family iots and four
tracts. A major amendment to the SDD was approved by the Vail Town Council on April 17,
1990. The amendment resulted in changes concerning lat sizes, GRFA, curb cuts, employee
dwelling units and architectural guidelines related to the subdivision.
Qn March 18, 1986, Parcel D was annexed into the Town of Vail. On March 16, 1994, final
design review approval was granted for a primary/secondary building on Parcel D. This
approval contained a canditian that na building permit wiil be issued for the struc#ure until
such time that the lot line between Tract C and Parcel D was relocated in arder ta allaw the
building to meet setback and an-site parking requirements.
2
111. Z I A ALYSI
As mentioned previously, the proposed lot line relocation will not result in any increased
Y
GRFA or site coverage allawance on Parcel D. AlthoZ~~ nhianalqys~s indo der to give the
the below Iwsted zoning criteria, staff is provsding this 9 Tract Plannin9 and Env?ronmental Commission (PEC) an idea ~~tae S~ ~d#st uct~u~re'on Parce! D.
wh;Ch wi11 be incarporated into Parcel D and the size o t pp
Tract C Proposed under this
~ Allowed per SDD Amendment
SDD Ap~roved Plan
39712 sqc~~~~ fest
Lot Area: 5,581 square feet
Na change
Aliowed tJses: Open space, access, utility eassment
No change
GRFA Allowance: 0 square feet
No change
Site Coverage: 0 sqUare feet
Parcel D Propased under this
Allowed per SDD Amendment
Existinq Zoninq
28,540 square feet
L.ot Area: 26,671 square feet
Primary/Secondary
Allowed Uses: Primary/Secondary
No change
GRFA Albwance: 5,767 square feet*
No change
Site Coverage: 5,335 square feet
* This figure includes the 850 square #oot credit. i aaQWitid° fo~the Pr m6ary/Secondaryof
GRFA, up to 1,200 square feet of garage space is
development.
,V, INOR SDD A END ENT AND MINOR SUBDIVISIQN CRITE IA
' Minor SDD Amendment
Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Cade (Amen~d~me Dis r~~ s~ures) stipulates the
following for minor amendments to Speceai Deve op
3
"Minor Amendrnents: Minor modifications consistent wit~h~V~e~ d~y tg~ criteria
outlinsd in Section 18.40.020(B) (attached) may be app
Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be
indicated on a completely revised development plan. Appraved changes shaif
be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department af Community
Development."
1n addition, the Munecapal Code also stipulates that the Communiiy Development staff
sha11 inform the Planning and EnvlrOnt ta! Commissian (PEC) of the staff action on
the request for a minar SDD amendme
Staff Respanse: nor Staff believes that this applicatian G j 8 40 020{B} the
th~' Vaa Mun c p'al Cod D
Amendment as outiined'n Sect'on
Specifically, The 1,869 square fa he SDDionor ~hle th~ proposed chan'g~ t~ ther
the basic intent and character of t
approvsd site plan adversely impact pedestrian or vshicular circulation
throughout the SDD.
inor ubdivision Criteria
One of the basic premises of subdivisio ~~ng I,'~ must be mem The fastdset ofor a
nsw 1ot(s), or the resubdivisian of an ex J ot(s) I~cation are as fo11ows:
review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision app
A. Lot Area
The minimum lot or site area for a propsrty located within the
Primary/Secondary zone d°+strict 9s 15,000 square fest of bu~l~d~a o1e aa~y p0~ ~n
I~un+cipaf Code defines "buildable area'° as any site, 1ot, pathereof, which does not contain Pascel floodplain,
meetsdthe ma amumaQt a~rea r
areas in excess of 40% s1ope.
requirements set forth above and the arppon Parcelg Drelacation wsll actually
increase the amount of bui1dable lot ea
B. Fronta e
The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that lo#s in rthe cel D! cur e/nt Y Secondaary
zone district have a minimum frantage of 30 feet. Pa However frontage of approximately 120 feet along the Nort~her O~ta~~ e sato the p opert~!
due to the sVe~e~p toP~ Mopa nelDr g ~ hand t ough Tract C.
shall be p oC. Site Dimensions
The Vai! Municipal Code requires that ~aC w~th n Sts baudndariep~ Pcapa a cele
of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on
D currently meets the
size d str~ t andehe proposed 1ot I'inte relocation wiN not
Primary1Secondary ne
reduce the size or shape of Parcel D's baundaries.
4
Although the underlying zoning of Tract C, and the entire Dauphinais-Moseley
Subdivision, is Primary/Secondary it may only be used for open space and as an
access and utility easement. Th r bed minimum "buildable"
not applicabls'to
purposes. Therefore, the above desc
the Tract C portion ofi this minor subdivision request.
The second set of criteria to be cansidered with a minar subdivision request are
outlined in Section 17.16,110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations, and are as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the
application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter,
the zoning ordinance, and ather pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems applicable• Due consideration shalf be given to the
recomrnendations by public agencies, utilitY companies and other
agenc9es consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall raview the
application and consider its appropriatensss in regard #o Town pnlicies
relating to subdivision control, densitfes proposed, regulation ~f~~~#~
ordinances and resolutions ar~d other applicable documents,
the aesthetics af the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding uses."
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of thea d to araovde inforemat on as'to heVtYPe and
and proposals will be evaluated p
extent of improvements required.
Staff Response:
pne of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any
deve3opment con#rol, is to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the
PEG, applicants, and the community know will be foilawed in the public revievv
process. Although this request does not involve the creation af a new
subdivision, the minor subdivision process is appropriate for reviewing proposed
resubdivision requests.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent land.
Staff Response:
Staff believes that this proposal will not alter the intent of the SDD nor will it
have any negative impacts an adjacent property owners. That portion of Tract
C which will be incorporated entoh~ aa l D WAlbe ant open space, accessuandt'y
has. The only difference is #hat #
utility easement on Parcel D rather than a part of Tract C. A note has been
added to the plat which states that the sasement may be used far parking.
5
3. To protect and conserve the vafue of land throughout the munic9pality and the
value of buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response:
Staff believes that this praposal wi11 not be detrimental ta the value of land
throughout the Town, nor in the immediate area.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning
ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among
land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
Staff Response:
Staff believes that the proposed lot line relacation wiil maintain a harmonious9
convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with
municipal development objectives. As mentioned previouslY, Parcel will not
gain any additional GRFA or site coverage as a result of reiecating the lat line
between Tract C and Parcel D.
5, Ta guide public and private policy and ac#ion in order to ar° rou dds~qre~ t~ tio~nal
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, plyg
and other public requiremenfis and #acilities and generally to provide that public
fiacilities wiN harre sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdiuis?on.
Staff Response:
This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address
large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular praposal under
consaderation. We do not believe that this proposal will impact any of the
above faciiities,
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to
establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and
procedures.
Staff Respanse:
This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that has little specifiic
refsrence to this particular application.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy af
drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to sncourage the wise use
and management af natural resources throughout the municipality in order to
preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value af
the land.
0
6
Staff Response:
Staff feels comfortable that the applicant's proposed lot line relocation will not
negatively effect any of the items in the purpose statsment listed above.
V. STAFF C ATi
The staff is recommending approval of i te ~~ep~~~e~n Tract C~Dauphinais-Moseley dment
and a minor subdivision to relocate the o eve
tha the
Subdivision 1 st Filing and Parcel D, Lions~e9t andbmina osubdiv slio g re ew criiter a ast outlined
applicant has met the minor SDD amend
in Sectian IV ofi this memo. The staff recommendation #or approval carries with it the follawing
condition:
1. No building permit shall be issued fiar the construction of dwelling units on
Parcei D until the final plat reloc~at~ ~i ~~~0 d~d aline t theeEag ~ Cour~ty Glerd k ~n~el D
has been signed bY the Town a
Recorders Offiice.
a\peclmemos\dau phina.4 71
~
7
$ ~ Y Y
q W oy
~ ps I
zg ;
p~ 1
gpLp.ftCRESTCONDOMiNIUMS l ~ 1\ ~
~ m .
\ J
m i
cr+``
FW~
{
l . ~ I UN9
1Ws$
TflAGT ~ ui
CL
s ~ TRACY C
2 m i
~ ~ _ ~ 8- - ~ ~,5~ ~ ~ N o p IT B
rV
~ . r LoT , 1
~l
UQ
i
s~co . _ _ _ - o tn ~
BUILOtNG ENYEIOPE - - ~ ` a ~
~ - ~ ~
~ , ~a i
~u~i
Zib~ ryd 1•----- ~ ~
i
LOT fl ~ i m.s 3219- ~
x~ua__._.',:~~
I 5 ~ ~
? ~
, (szufa v We"r
. / ' wecr f
/ ! ° e 1
~ ov Z sxtns
`O
A RESUBDIVISION pF
PARCEL D, L/OfVSf'/DGE SC18D1 !//Sl0/V FlL/NG
ANLi
Na
TRA ~'T~ C, DA UPf-//~/AlS-MOS'~L EY 5'UB . 3
rowN oF ,~~L, F,~cL~- counrrr, r~oLa,~,~~o DI f//SiOIV F1LlN~,
J320 MORAINE L?R1VE
11/0. 1
,
r ~
N22"51°34°W
B.iO PAACP 8 ~
L tJ' / ~
R ~ ~ • / y,8' ,E 1 h 1 -
~ ~ sg•k6 `~2 ae ssj. ~
oz' e' 1
cj° ~ daJO ~ 1 R-onxSOLAR C/~'FS3" CONOOMlN/UMS i \ r,» ar G D~ o'~"mcr'~`s~m N«'m°ue..
p~y • } lf ~ "zfj e,., ~ ~~ar A~w~'~"~,~ '.w.~,""'.~ °u,'~~
e°rr
tnvE
rx;s
O GRFA. SYdI SOUdRf F£ET n. ~a.v~ m°^"n~ ~Nf~~ v.
g- ~ o. US POS7 Aef7C£
a. 4CCESSE AN SFEI~+ SP Cf,
• - -r - ,
EASEMENT U ~~Y ~ UONSRIDG~
BY TNIS PLqT ~ 7RACT A
~ ~ ~gp \a 1 mrv~ra ntsr ~m.v
~ *G ~ a~roM~wa.~mw'~aaxar.mvw vw4.w
~ GRAPHIC 9C$LF LOPLIN£S VACAI~p
a. o pw p Gr~BY 7H1S PCAT ~ v cu.rn o- e,ar ~ ^~'~'~M,~•,•,:~ Y ~
34YITM£3dVAtC6TMARX£RS LOT u .aPYC ~ s~ n axaa
N£
O-x,wm's'~m~,~p,~q~ KUnc cw a! rts ma.ts ~~,J , awrr cr <na[
~ ~ ~.590 ,5p/qqE s££Y nr+m m. mpe~y e.xann w owanxn o.a ee..»b m
SrR~'EP AmR£95 , ~ I o6s5 A~£5 \ •`~^^w~ a.a. m. un _ wr x_._,
~ Fy SGA,p~3 G F~ 4072
f SJTE
eorarvrso"H~'~
ex-
r
110 sax...,
reZ DAJPNINAIS-AlOSELFY
o nr ~oarv tx. c 7RACT
A
~-_MAP
n» 7000'
~-i
~
t
ZONING
nit nc ` uthorize in confo ity 't aII trtinent
requirements gf thc can o zaiu saciatian's tclara-
Lions and aII other rcquiremcats af the condominiuan
eclarations are ct.
inor a en ent ( taff review)" s a21 ean odifi-
cations to uildin lans, site or landscape lans that da nat altcr the basic intent and charactcr of thc approved
speciat develop ent district, and are consistcnt with the
dcsign criteria af this chapur. Minor amendmcnts may
inclu e, ut ot e Ii ite to, variations fot ore ,
than five fect to approved setbacks snd(ar building '
footprants; chan cs to landscape or site Ians that do not
~ adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circuiation i
throughout tht special development district; or changes
to gross flaor azea (cxcluding residcntial uscs), of not ~
morc than five percent of thc approved square footagc o,f '
rctail, office, common aieas and othtr nonresidential
floor arta.
C. "Major amendment {PEC and/ar council revicw}" shall ~
meaaa any proposal to change uscs; inerease gross
. residential floor area, change the number of dwtlling or
accommodation units; modify enlarge ar cxpand any
approved speciai develapmcnt district (other than minor
amcndments as dcfined in Secsion 38.40.024B.)
D. "Under2ying zone district" shall mean the zone district
existing on the pr4perty, or imposed on the property at
the time the sptciai dcvelapment district is approvcd.
E. "A€fGCted propcrty" shalt rnean proptriy within a apeeial
development district that, by virtue of it$ proxfmity or
relationship to a proposcd amcndment zequest to an
approved dcvtlopment plan, may be affccted by re-
design, density iacreasc, change in uses, or other
madifications changing the impacts, ar character of the
approved spccial development district.
(Ord. 23(1988) § 1.)
382-10
(v:;l 9-2-$8)
MEMORANDUM
Tp: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 11, 1994
SUBJECT: A request far a minor subdivision and a wall height variance to aliow for the
construction of an avalanche mitigation wa11 loca2ed at 4229 Nugget Lane/Lot 6,
Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Helen Dickenson
Planner: Mike Mollica
1. DESCRIPTION T
The applicant is requesting a minor subdivisian and a wail height variance in order ta allow for
the installation of an avalanche mitigation wall, at Lot 6, Bighorn Esta#es (4229 Nugget Lane).
The property ts located at the very westsrn end of Nugget Lane, and at the southwest corner
of the cul-de-sac. Lot 6 is currently zaned PrimarylSecondary Residential and has an existing
duplex located upon it. Na additions or modifications have been made to the building since its
initial construction in approximately the late 1960's.
As further background, Lot 6 9s lacated within the following geoiogic hazard areasa ,
•Debris Avalanche High Hazard
•High Severity Rockfaii
•Possibly Snow Avalanche Influence Zone
The uses adjacent to Lot 6 include Lot 7 to the north, which is zoned Primary/Secandary
Residential; Lot 5 to the east, which is aiso zoned Primary/Secondary Residential and a large
unplatted tract to the south, of approximately 45.32 acres, which is zoned Agricultural and
Open Space.
During the late spring of 1993, a wet spring avalanche impacted the southwest corner of the
dwelling. The damage was relatively minor, but the quest+on o# fu#ure avalanche hazards has
become a critical concern of the property owner. Mrs. Dickinson has hired the consulting firm
of Hydro-Triad, Ltd. who have prepared an avalanche analysis for the site. In summary,
Hydro-Triad has proposed the following recommended hazard mitigation measure:
"The recommended mitigatian measure is a detached wedge wail vuith a
minimum height (uphill side) of 7 fset. The recommended alignment and
section is shpwn an the attached site plar?."
1
r
Due to the ciose proximity of the existing residence to the southernmost property line, Hydro-
' Triad's praposed location fior the mitigation wall Iocates the wall almost entirely upon the
adjacent praperty ta the south. Mrs. Dickinson has entered into a cantractual agreement with
the adjacent property owner, to purchase a smali portion of the unplatted tracfi, which would
be necessary for the construction of the mitigation wall.
The minor subdivisian request is necessary to incorporate a small portian of the adjacent
unpiatted parcei into Lot 6, so that the mitigation wall is iocated entirely upon property owned
by Mrs. Dickensan. 1t is proposed that the Agricultural and Open Space zoning on the
unplatted parcel remain, and that Lot 6 would thereby have two zoning designations on the
property. The staff balieves that this is acceptable due to the fact that the appiicant has
agreed that the additional lot area, which would be added to Lot 6 from the unplatted parcel,
would not contribute to the available GRFA or site coverage for Lot 6, and that the "new" lot
area would not be used for any development purposes, and that the property setbacks (for Lot
6) would be measured from #he ariginal plafited lot lineso
A wall height variance is necessary due to the fact that the consulting engineer has
recommended a minimum wall height of 7 feet. The Tavvn of Vai1 Zoning Code allows wall
heights to be a maximum of 6 feet. A variance is necessary for the additional 1 foot of wall
height.
The applican# has agreed ta add a s#one veneer facing to both sides o# the eastern portion af
the avalanche mitigation walf, and to ths north side of the western portion of the mitigation ,
wall. Additionally, the appiicant has praposed to add landscaping on the downhill side of the
wall, as indicatad on the attached site plan. A total ofi four aspen and approxima#ely twenty ,
shrubs wi11 be added to this area,
11. BACKGROUND A IST Y
According to the Hydra-Triad report, during the 1993 spring avalanche, "sliding snow entrained
considerable debris and aspen trees, same up to 7 to 8 inches in diameter (twenty-five to
thirty-five years o# age). This is further supported by (Vlrs. Dickenson's statement that there
had not been avalanche activity ciose to the dwelling since their purchase in 1974. The
generaf slope still contains a significant number o# 12 to 18 inch diameter evergreens which
are seventy to one hundred years of age. However, a fairly narrow avalanche path is
apparent. This path runs northwest towards the southwest corner of the building and towards
the runout zone of the #7 Avalanche to the west of the dwelling. The area above the lower
band of cliffs was c(ase(y abserved to see if any evidence of avalanche activity existed. This
area has a fairly thick stand of evergreens uvith many having 12 to 18 inch diameters.
Evidence of broken limb patterns ar other avalanche activity was not found.°"
Further, according ta the Hydro-Triad report, "°This wall woufd deflect some af ths potential wet
spring avalanche mass away from the duplex to the western segment of the property. Some
af the snow mass would lodge aiong the wall. The construction af the wall will not increase
any avalanche hazard to buildabie areas of any adjacent properties," The applicant has
agreed that prior to the Town signing the final plat, the consulting geologist/engineer shall
cerkify tha# the proposed avalanche mitigation wall meets the Town of Vail Hazard
Regulatians. Specifically, the eonsultant must certify that "the site is iocated in a gealogically
2
sensitive area but that constructian of the avalanche mitigation wall will not increase the
hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights-of-way, roads, streets,
easements, utiiities or facflities or other propertias of any kind.
MINOR u Iv'sy c ITE 'A
4ne of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for a new lot
must be met. These standards typically deaf with minimum 1ofi size, lot configuration, etc.
Although the appiicant is not propasing to create a new lot, and is not proposing to add any
development rights to the existing lot, the subdivision standards establish the first set of
review criteria to be considered with this application:
A. Lot Area
The Tov+rn of Vail Municipal Code requires that the minimcam lot or site area for a
property Itscated within the Primary/Secondary esidential zone district be 15,000
square feet af buildable area. This proposed minor subdivision would add
approxirnately 2,315 squars feet of 1ot area to Lot 6. This minor subdiv9sion would nat
create any nonconforming situation with regard to lot area.
B. Frantage
The Vail Municipal Code requires that any iot, in the Primary/Secandary Residential
zone district, have a minimum frontage af 30 feet. This minor subdivision will not
effect, nor modify fihe existing frontage dimension for Lat 6.
C. Site Dimensions
The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capabie of
enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The applicant's
proposed minor subdivision will nat modify, nor impact, the existing site dimensians for
Lot 6.
The second set of criteria to be considered wrth a minor subdivisian request are outiined in
Section 17.16.110 of the Vaii Subdivision Regulations, and are as fo4lows:
"The burden af proof shall rest with the applicant to show that ths application is
in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations #hat the PEC deems applicable. Due
consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC
shall review the application and consider its apprapriateness in regard to Town
polecies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations,
ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the
aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibi4ity w,th
surrounding uses."
3
Some of the key aspects of the abave statement refer to "compliance with the intent and
purposes of this chapter..,, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding fand
uses,° etc. The applicant has addressed the geolpgic hazard issues in the Hydro-Triad
report, (Navember 1993).
Overal[, the purpose section is in#ended ta insure that a subdivision is promoting the health,
safety and welfare of the community. The subdivisian purpose statements are as falfaws:
1. To infiorm each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
propasals will be evaluated and ta provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
StaEResponse:
The applicant has besn informed of the standards and criteria for this minor
subdivision proposai, and through the staf#'s evaluation, we believe the applicant meets
the basic standards for a minor subdivision.
2. Ta provide for the subdivisian of praperty in the future wathout canflict wi#h
development on adjacent 4and.
Staff R2Wanse:
Sta#f does not believe that this minor subdivision will have any negative impacts upon
adjacent properties, and on the possibie future development of adjacent properties.
3. To protect and conserve the vafue of land throughaut the municipality and ths value o#
buildings and improvements on the land.
Staffi Response:
Staff feels that the recommended avalanche mitigation wa91 protects and conserres not
only the value of the structure on Lot 6, but also increases the safety of the occupants
in the structure shouid a future snow avalanche occur.
1t should be recognized that due ta the fact that the original structure was built prior ta
the Town's adoption of the Hazard Ordinance, no avalanche mitigation was required at
the time of construction. Staff believes that the applicant's variance and minor
subdivision requests are reasonable, given the history of snow avalanches in this area.
4. Ta insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning
ordinance, to achieve a harmoniaus, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipai development objectives.
4
Staff Response:
The staff believes that the praposed minor subdivision would be in compliance with the
Town's zoning ardinance and fur#her, the applicant has agreed that the additional iot
area, which wauld be added to Lot 6, would not contribute to the available GRFA, or
site caverage, and that the appiicant has agreed that this "new" lot area would not be
used far any deveiapment purposes, and that the property sstbacks far Lot 6 would be
measured from #he original platted lot lines.
5. Ta guide public and private policy and action in order ta provide adequate and efficient
(IQIIJpV'tGl`'o119 YYat4i9 sG+YYUgS.+9 Jl?{IoiJlJ9 pGikJ, playg+°ounds, Il+ISIGatIV11Clt Gilt4.( tit+f[.+P
public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have
sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
S#a#f Response:
The staff believes that this purpose of the 5ubdivision Reguiations, as listed above, is
intended primarily to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particuiar
praposai under consideration. Staff does not believe that this current proposal wall
impact any of the above faciiities.
6. To provide for accurate Iegai descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establtsh
reasonable and desirabie construction design standards and procedures.
Staff Response:
This is an inherent goal of the Subdivision Regula#ions that has little specific rsference
to thfs particular application.
7. To prevent the poilution of air, streams, and pands, to assure adequacy of drainage
facilitiss, #o safeguard #he water table and ta encourage the wise use and managament
of natural resources thraughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the cammunity and the value of the (and.
Staff Response:
The staff believes that the applicant's proposed minor subdivision will have no impacts
on any of the above considerations.
IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.460 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based
on the following factors:
5
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationshi of the re ueste variance t o# er existin or
potential uses and 5tructures in the vicinity.
The staff believes that the applicant's request to exceed the maximum
allowabie walt height by 1 fioot will have na rtegatiue impacts upon any other
existing or po#ential uses and structures in the vicinity. We believe further, that
the appNcant's proposal to add stone veneer facing to the avalanche mstigation
wall, and to landscape this area mitigates the requested variance.
2. The de ree to which relief from the strict an literal inter r tation
and enforcement of a specif6ed regulation is necessary to achBeve
c ati i1ity an unifor ity of tre t nt among ite i the vicirti#y
r to tt i t jective f# i titl it # r t# special
rivil .
The staff finds that it wauld not be a grant of speciai prrvilege to a11ow the
applicant ta construct a wall which exceeds the maximum height by 1 foot. e
f3nd that the property has a physical hardship, due to the existing building
location and its location atijacent to an avalanche chute, and that the 1 foot
overage is reasonable. e also believe that the strict and 16tera1 interpretation
and enforcement of the wall height reguiation would present future safety
concerns to the occupants of the structure.
3. The effect of the requested variance on li ht an air, istri ution o#
population, transportativn and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and publiC safety.
The staff believes that #he applicant's request for a wall height variance will
have no effect upon any of the above considerations.
B. The Pianninq and Environmental Cammiss9on shall make the followinq findinqs
before qrantinq a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance wifl not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitatians on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance w+ll not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or wel#are, or materialiy injurious to praperties or
fmprovements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enfarcement of #he specified
regulation would resuit in practical difficulty ar unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
6
b. There are exceptions pr extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da nat
apply generally to other properties in the same zane,
' c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
, would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other praperties in the same district.
V. TAFF E DATIG
The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested minar subdivision and wail height
variance. The staff finds that the minor subdivision criteria have been met as indicated in this
memorandum, and fur#her, that the variance criteria have been met, specificaily criteria !V, B,
1, 2, aIld 3 (21, b).
The staff's recommenda#ion fior approval carries the following condi#ions:
1. That the final plat for this minor subdivisian not be signed by the Town of Vail
until such time as all o# the required u#ility companies sign-aff on the vacation of
- the existing utiiity easement.
2. That language be added to the final plat which indicates that the property is
located in adebris avalanche high hazard zone, a high severity rockfall zone,
and a possible snow avalanche in#luence zone. In addition, a second plat note '
must be added which indicates that the iot a+°ea which would be added to Lot 6,
from the unplatted parcel, wnuld not contribute to the available GRFA or site '
coverage for Lot 6, and that the "new" lot area wauld not be used fior any ~
development purposes, and that the property setbacks would be measured from ,
the ariginal platted Ipt iines. '
3, That stone veneer facing be added to both sides of the eastern portion of the '
avaianche mitigation wall, and that stone veneer facing be added to #he north
side of the western portion of the avalanche mitigatian wal1.
c:\pec\memos\dicke nso.411
7
e
~ UNPtA ~t2. AMEIVDED FlIVAL PLA T,
N32°a9'00'£ L Od L!' L./ IV HL/ ! \ / Y ES I A / ES
' t2• UflUTY RNO OftA1NAC£ EASEM£NT ! DYY1 V l/!- V!`1 IL, EA GLE COUNTY, COL ORAt
~ r ~ _ _ - - - - ~ 4229 nruccEr LANE
i...waror
o A76 1 ~
t
*ti , M SITE e<rH
fl{r ~j I~ rz' oa,o~ucr am urnin sas~r UI~INlTY MAP
a . V r.6utm ar nss ru7 .
p Seotx 7' : PQ00°
LOt id@' YFG YCA dY PA3 PLAf
. ~ , ~
Nrt t " ~ ~ i
i 21.754.49 souaee aa
0 1 N 1 0. sss AoRES '
T~ ° 1 ~ i ~zz9
1 > i
~
l ~
NuccEr c,aNE (sD)
l ! cs = Nz,7eJc°w
, f~ 1 1 A= 5472100'
, f R_.s00*
L ~ 42$Y
41
T=?.IO~
--.e-- s- - - - -
5U71Ll7Y AND DR„G(NAGE fASEM£NP ~J
~ SJ63524°w raa.as• ~
~ ior s (
t @A.q$ Q'° BEAR/NCS The SouPhwrsf LJ+e oP let 6. Brghom fsloPes
~ 8otwaen the Westem-mast comer, Deing o No. 4 rebor ritA p/astie
' eap morkad 7r1ter-Alin £ng, P.E. & P.LS 26626 ond the South¢m-
mnst cosnev: beino o No. S seDOr .4 washx moekod 'LS 2783- said GRAPHIC SCALE
dl p/ad
4aR'+D
LS ?783
~ 1C CAP P£ PLS 26626
m+ .w /~1MSr3[autaSa ~m, ~ : u,
w~ :'.w,+ ' ' aas o01=
. ' eerr ~
~ . _
.
~
~
. ~ ~
.
.
. , . _ i -
~ . . _
. . . . ,
~ . . . _ . :
- t
" ' . . .
. ~ ,
' • ; : - ~
,
.
' '
. :
. . : . . . . .
.
~
- - _ - _ . _
11 ~ h ~-?'G a~tn•t n K/•7+~.+s Lis.++ s[us " .
_ - . i ~ - ~ l.a~:;a e~,. : ?
' fi~SEt?FNTCir¢Afe.ASE, r" a7.'8&(e~e / `f. l Qf•' ~ • s^^w '
_ _ 4 _'.i • - , ~Q?~0.:. p ~ ~ - • . , _
~ - . . . Ys b~~7[~Mfn?y t t.ari.+++_-^--~y ' , • . . . ~ . ~
. _ . . , . . ~ " v ~ .
e450
. : ' . e ; . _ . ' . . . . . lr ' . . . . . . . '
.yy . ? ~ ' r)`'~. . _ -=L
-tr
_ .
,
.
. . .
51TE P~AH
- :1 . . , .,.u ~.a<: a-w.~~a ~ • • ~
. . ~ . . . _ v . a ~ 5 r
. ' _ . . . . ~ . . . f . ' ' ;L
. . ' - - - " ' • ' _ . . ' - ~ - s.~...bscevd'sulrtv~,rts...
` , : ~ • . ~~,-T:. L2.r~t+~{
- ' - ~ . • ~ • trq a•c~- , 3bsw
~ _ . . . ' . ' ~ ~ , ` . GeW¢.iDd LMr : A y'.S~p~LL'•
~ ~ . - . . . • ' . ~'i+.u~.1. cucw~.iT -3. r 54aiJt
- CONSTRUCTION PLAN
. _ . . . , . _ - . . ~ s .6'. . .~.5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commissron
FROM; Community Development Department
DATE: April 11, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subd?uision for two PrimarylSecandary lots located a#
2682 and 2692 Cortina Lane/Lots 9 and 10, Block B, Vaii Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Hans iemann and Helmut Reiss
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
WEEM
PROJECT I I
The applicant is roposing a rninor subdivision to refigure Lots 9and 10 of the Vail idge
Subdivisian. The applicant is proposing to take 1,207 square feet of land area from Lot 10
and add it to Lnt 9. Simiiarly, there will be 1,207 square feet of lot area taken from Lot 9 and
added to Lot 10. As a result, there wili be rto change in the lot sizes9 though the lot #ines vailP
be reconfigured.
The reason the applicant is proposing to replat this property line is because the adjacent lots
have been developed recently. Previous to the construction of the Cortina Chalets, Lots 8, 9
and 10 were owned by one person. When there was only ane residenee on the lot,
improvements such as retaining waNs and driveways and a portion of the residence were
constructed across the property line between Lots 9 and 10 by the previous owner. The new
lot line 1ocation will eliminate the encraachments, '
There are soms existing non-conformities regarding a setback and lot size. Currently, both
lots have less than the 15,000 square #eet pf buildable area required to create lots. Also, they
do nat meet the minimum setback requirements. Under the proposal, the nonconformities will
not be increased. Therefore, Tom Moorhead, the Town Attorney, has said that no variances
are required.
II. MINOR IVISI IT IA
The Zaning Code reguires 30 feet of #rontage on a pubiic right-of-way. Lot 9 will have 99 fest
of frontage and Lot 10 wifl have 137 feet of frontage. Both lots are required to be able ta
contain a shape 80 feet by 80 feet square. 8ath lots fulfill this requirement. The third
standard af the Zaning Code requires 15,000 square feet of buildable lot area. This s#andard
is not met by this proposal; however, the lot area for each lot remains the same. Therefare,
the Town can aliow the modification of the property line location without variances since there
is not an increase in the degree of nonconformity.
1
In addstiort to the specifiic standards listed in the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Reguiations
have purpose statements which are used to review subdivision proposals. The purpose
statements of the gensral provisians in the Subdivision Regulations (Section 17,04.010(A and
B)) are provided be(ow;
i "17.04,010 - Purpase.
, A. The Subdivision Regulations contained in this title have been prepared
and enacted in accardance with Title 31, Article 23} PSAIL O1 C.R.S•y
1973, For the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of
the present and future inhabitants of the Town of Vail, Colorado.
B. To these ends, the regulations are wntended to protect the enuironment
to ensurs efficient circulation, adequate fmpravennents, sufficdertt open
space, and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated
developmen# of the 1'own. These regulations also pravide #or the proper
arrangement of streets and ensure proper distribution of opulat6ora.
The regulations also coordinate for public services with gauernmental
improvement pragrams. The standards for design an corastruction af
improvements are hereby setforth to ensure adequate and convenient
traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreation, and
light and air. Iso intended is the improvement ofi land records an
surveys, plans and plats, and to safeguard #he interests of the public
and subdivider and provide common protection #or the purchasers; and '
to reguiate other matters and the Town Pianning and Environmentai
Commissian and Town Council may deem necessary in order to protect
the best interests of the public.°' '
The proposed subdivision confarms with the standards listed above, in s#afYs opinian. It is
important to nate that development has already occurred on both of these lots and the goal of
the replatting process is to eliminate encraachments by reconfiiguring the praperty boundary.
The Subdivision Reguiations are further #ntended to serve the foilowing sp ?fic purposes
(17.040.010 (C));
111. To rnform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which
development and propasals wiii be evaluated and to provide information
as to the type and extent of fmprovements required."
The deveioper is fully aware of the requirements of the subdivisian.
"2. To pravide for the subdivision of praperty in the future without conflict with
development on adjacant land.°°
This subdivision request eliminates con#lict with develapment on adjacent lands.
113. To protect and conserve the value of land throughaut the municapality and the
value of buildings and improvements on that land."
2
Staf# believes that #he plat w?1i have no negative impacts on the value of land in this arsa of
the Tawn,
"4. Ta ensure that subdivision of properties is in compliance with the Town's zoning
ordinance, to achieve a harmoniaus, canvenient, workabie relationship amang
land uses, consisfienfi with municipaf development objectives,"
Staff believes that the relationship among land uses is consistent and unifarm in this area and
that the proposed replatting will not create any negatrve impacts. Concerning compliance with
the Town's zoning ordinance, there is nat an increase in the degree of nonconformity.
Therefore, staff can allow the proposed lot sizes to be approved without any variances.
115. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide
adequate and efficient transpnrtation, water, sewage, schoots, parks,
playgrounds, recreational and ather public requirernents and #acilities
and generally to provide that public facilities will have suf#icient capacity
to serve the proposed subdivisiort.,,
The development potentiai of the lots daes not change as a result of the replatting.
°'6. To provide #or accurate legal descriptions of newiy subdivided 3and and
to estabfish reasonable and desirable cons#rucfion design standards and
procedures.,,
The legai descriptions will be accurate given the adjustment.
7. To prevent the pallution af air, streams, ponds, and ta assure adequacy
of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the
wise use and management of natural resources throughout the
municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stabi(ity, and beauty of the
community and the value of the land."
As development has a(ready occurred on these iots, staff does not foresee any negative
impacts to the environment as a result a# this replatting.
Itl. TA F RECOMMENDATION
Staff recammends a proval ofi the proposed minor subdivisian. We believe that it meets the
zoning standards, as it maintains the same !ot area as presently exists. Staff also believes it
is consistent with the objectives of the subdivisian standards, as discussed above. Therefore,
we recommend approval of the request with no conditions.
c:\peclmemos\wi emann.417
3
{-y
c T!N L N (5 )
_ lv40 5z'ao sIc-
I37 04 '
S40 52 OD'°t~v 115. 4Q' N40 52'OD'E 99. O&'
S40 52 00 „W 720. 70'
~ ?LD EASE, LO7 9 5,188, SQUARE FEET EASEtaENT °
g w ~ 0,119 ACRES
m~ W ~h tvEw EasE. LnT 9 u
a U ~ 4,069. SQUARE FEET
+m< 4 a) 0,093 ACRES Gl
~ 5TC1RY 1) 17MBER RE;AiNING wAGL
Two ~
~ WOOp AME Q O ° - b, ~ ,s•~ ,°o, u1
EocE oF DRIVE
Cn ~ Zt, / Q
~ nr3s sa 2o E s6 s~'
wF° ~
4.64',.- 50°
t42 4 47~2o~E 60. EASEAA£NT ~
11 LOT la L ~ ~
~ LOT 8
Overhong ~ 53&5420"W 57.0024.5' j ~
.,~q
4e. 7'
G, 0 2s.4°
Rock 1ti'ail , Z t 0
y
C-)
Ca tile vsr
~
~ ~~T ~o TWQ STORY
~j 35,17g, SGUARE FEET ti S~CCQ c~
29. 4' o
0.348 ACRES 25.0° v
NEW ~.~T 10 O FDUND
15,178. SQUARE FEE7 r4.5' SE7 5,
ricv'
6~
0.348 ACRES NQTE.• Cc
~QZ +s, -~o L___,~'__~_ . ~ ~ sL
1,207. SQllRRE FEE7 y~°d ~ k
0,027 ACRES
` 7' U7TLITY fASfMEN7 75 p, A1,36'54 20 E 723. ~ f 25-7'
IJ36 54 20'E '8~ 0-q' 77.4'
~ N36 54'20"E 173.12' oLD LQT s LOT 19
~ N36 54'20--E 68 6$' ~ 14,879. SQUARE FEET ~
~ 0.341 ACRES ~
,s
LOT ,7 ~ LOT 'B NEW LQT 9
~ 14,879. St~UARE r EET
0.341 ACRES
E A U
TO: Planning and Environmen#al Commission
FROM; Community Development Department
, DATE: April 11, 1994
SUBJECT: A reguest for a major CCII exterior alteration and side and rear setback
variances to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the
Va,l Associates skier services located at 520 Lianshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, llail
Lionshead 1 st Filing.
ApplrGant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Pianner: Andy Knudtsen
1. DESCRIPTION T
Vaii Associates owns the cornmercial space in the lowest level of the Lionshead Center
Build#ng, facing south. They are proptssing to expand the space appraximately 8 feet ta the
west and 11.5 feet to the south. This addition wili project out from under the existing
Garfinkle's deck. There wiil be an increase in commercial floor area of 1,329 square feet.
The proposal requires an exterior altaration and a setback variance. The proposed setback
afong the south property line would be .5 feet where 10 feet is required by the CCIi zone
disfirict. Along the west praperty iine, the setback will be 4.5 feet where 10 feet is required.
There are two wing walls on the south eievation that currently sncraach into the se#back 2
feet. The main part+on of the buiiding, however, currently conforms to setback requirements
with a setback of 12 feet ta the south and 12.5 faet to #he west. As designed at this time, the
reques#e variance to the south is for 9,5 feet and to the uvest is for 5.5 feet.
Materials
The applicant is proposing to use materials that are intended to compliment the addition that
was built recently on the north side of the building for the cammercial expansion. There will
be a sandstane base that will run the entire length of the addition. The facade of the addition
is primarily glass that will be divided in a variety of ways. The designer has alternated large
panes of glass with smatl panes of gtass, divided by copper colored mullions. Ths roof is
designed as a shed roof and will be caversd with a copper colored standing seamed metal
roof. There will be two entrances into the in#erior. The doors of the entrances will be
surrounded with buff sandstone. Awnings and copper sign boards will accent the entrances
above each doorway similar to the signs used on the north elevation. Please note that #he
sign faces will be either perpendicular or parallel ta the daors below, but will not be set at an
angle. The uss of materiais and the design of the facade will be discussed in greater detail
below.
1
Landscapinq
There are two different areas ofi landscaping that are proposed in conjunction with this
addition. The first is immediatefy south of the proposal. It involves three separate pianters.
Each planter will each contain approximately six aspen and apprpximateiy twelve five-gallon
shrubs. The shrubs are made up of an assortment of russet bu#falo berry, alpine currant, and
potentilla. The planters measure approximately six by twenty-six feet. They will be two to
three feet tall. They will be constructed out o# sandstone that will match the base course on
the building. The cap will also be made out of sandstone. The two openings that will be
creatsd between the three pianters will be used for removable staircases. Vail Associates
hauls srtow into #he base area and tries to maintain the surface of the snow approximately 3
feet higher than the surface of the ground. In order to allow pedestrians ta step up to the
higher elevation, Vail Associates will install temporary staircases between the planters. These
will be removed in the summer, when the snaw has melted. There are two existing aspen
trees, approximately 7-inch caliper each, that will be remaved as a result caf the improvements
6n this area.
The other area where signifacant landscaping changes will accur is west of the addition.
There will be thrse iocust trees planted within tree grates next to the west eievatian, t the
#ap of the Garfinkle's staircase, there will be a 20 square foot planter created with ane aspen
tree planted in it. The landscaping isiand west of the sta+rcase wi!l be reduced an size by
approximately 300 square feet. The island will be regraded so that it matches the nevv grades
of the staircase. There are currently six spruce trees in this island and three aspen tress, ,
The spruce range in size from 18 to 30 feet. One spruce will be removed as it is not healthy
~ and is in the location that involves significant regracfing. It will be replaced w+th a 15 foot tree. ,
The rest ot #he spruce will stay in the island but will be shifted to accommodate the new
,
grading and new staircase. Of the three aspen in the planter, the two on the southern end will
remain where they are. The one aspen on the northern end will be removed and replaced
with thrse aspen trees. '
Site Irn rovements
The applicants are proposing site modifications on the southwest corner of the site. The two
staircases currently in this location will be combined into one. The staircase that provides
access to the Garfinkle's deck will be rempved. The existing public staircase will be rep(aced
with a new concrete staircase that will be angled ta the west. The new staircase will also
include a short section which will connect to the Garfinkle's deck. The area at the base of the
staircase will be finished with pavers. The new paver area will extend from the base of the
staircase to the east end o# the Vail Associates addition, This area of pavers is located on
Tract C. This tract was created at the time af subdivision for pedestrian access, per the
covenants of the subdivision. Staff has verified that Section 2.2.3 of the covenants limit the
use of Tract C to pedestrian traffic and emergency vehicle use.
2
~ 11. Z 1 TATI TIC
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request:
, 1. Zone District: Commercial Core 11
2. Lot Area: 0.923 acres or 40,205.9 square feet
3. Proposed Addition: 1,751 square fset
Allawed Existing Commercial Residential Total
Addition Additiorr
Approved
3/28194
Height 48' 47' 12' 46' NIA
Setbacks
North 10' 20' 74' 11' ;N/AA
East 10' 43' 165' 192' W
est 10' 5' 4.5' 13' South 10' 8' 34' Site 28,135.7 sq.ft. 23,827.3 sq.ft. or 1,329 sq.ft. 0 sq.fte 3 Coverage or 7D% 59.3% or 62.6%
~ Landscaping 8,038.8 sq.ft. 6,432 sq.ft. soft no change no change no change or 20°l0 1,607 sq,ft. hard (landscaping wiil
minimum 8,039 sq.ft. total be reanoved from
(maximum hard adjacent V.A.
'
landscape is land)
1,607 sq.ft.) '
GRFA 32,155 sq.f#. 27,916.1 sq.ft. no change 1,552 sq.ft. 29,46$.1 '
or 80% or 69.4% sq.ft. or
73.3%
Parking to be determined rsduction of
by the PEC 1.5 spaces to
total required
parking
In ths chart above, staff has noted that the parking requirement for this commercial addition is
to be determined by the PEC. There will be 1,329 square feet of additional floor area.
Attached to the end of this mema is an exhibit showing the breakdown of the entire Vail
Assaciates space under both the existing and proposed scenarios. The new floor area can be
broken down as follows:
3
Chiidren's Ticket Sales: 392 sguare feet 250 square feet 1.5 spaces
per parkwng space
Daycare Area: 437 square feef 300 square feet 1.4 spaces
per parking space
Group Ticket Sales: 500 sguare feet 250 square feet 2.4 spaces
per parking space
Staff has assessed the daycare area at 300 square feet per parking space. The Town of Vail
Zoning Code does not specify an amount for this use; however, statf talked to planners at the
City of Boulder and found that this is the standard they use. Staff tried to contact other ski
tawns (Aspen, Brecksnridge), but has found that many of them also do not specify an amoun#
for this use. In 1988, the Town required orae parking space for every 666 square feet of #loor
area at the Goiden Peak Children's Csnter. In our opinion, #he arraount of parking that was
provided was inadequate.
Staff understands that there are fourteen adu1t ski school superuisors that will be maved from
the Lionshead Center space to the Gondola Building. The new space is being provided as a
resuit of the purchase of the Peregrine Building in Avon. Many of the employees wha
currently have offices in the GondQia Building will be moved into the Psregrine Building.
Based on the above calculations, there would be 4.9 parking spaces required for the addition.
Staff believes it is reasonabie to give a credit for the fourteen supervisors #hat will be removed
from this location. Their office area is currently 540 square feet and is proposed to be 396
square feet. The 194 square feet difference results in a credit of .6 space. As a result, there
will be a net parking requirement of 4.3 spaces. These spaces are assesssd a fee of
$8,594.40 for a total of $36,955.92.
The current fee for each parking space is $8,594.40. Please note that ff the fee increases by
the time the appticant obtains a building permit, the parking requirement wili be calculated on
the increased fee. Staff is viewing the use of this expansion as skier services. Staff
understands from Vail Associatss that ?t is for their ski school participants, which range fram
children to adults. It is not considered office space.
111. EXTERIO AL.TE ATION CRITERIA
A. Height and assing:
At one story, the height and massing is consistent with the architectural guidelines for
Lionshead. The addition is alsa good, in stafif's opinion, in that it helps to add visual
interest on the first floor and breaks up the building.
B. Roofing:
The architecturai form of the roof is consistent with the diagrams and statements within
the architectural guidelines. Under this section, the guidelines state that:
4
°'it is important to integrate expansions with existing buildings so as to
avoid a patchwork, "tacked on°" quality for Lionshead. It is hoped that all
expansions wili appear to have been part of the originai design of each
building."
Staf# believes that the copper colored standing seam metal roof wifl be an appropriate
material for this addition and that the roof form helps the addi#ion look integrated with
the rest of the building. The shed roof form will be broken up in two places by the
sandstone eiement flanking each entrance. The raof over the entrances wi11 be filat.
Stafif believss the variety makes the roof more visually interes#ing. The standing seam
metal roof will not be made from copper but will look like copper. The PEC should be
aware that it is not expectsd to weather as copper would.
C. c Ilsl #ructures:
Staff believes that the facade of the addi#ion is consistent with the design
consideratians. During the review process, the architect has pravided several different
options for the layout af the vvindovvs ta the staff. Staff believes that there has been a
significant improvement over time in the design of the mu6lions and windows. The
architect has tr9ed to make this addition more like the commercial addition on the north
side of the Lionshead Center Building. At this time, staff believes that the variety of
large and small paned glass is good. There are o to three windovu shapes
a!#ernated in such a way that the design is successful in providing visual interest far
the addition. The use of #he Colorado buff sandstone base, the copper colored
mullions, the copper colored roof, and the sandstone entry elements, work together ta
provide a high quaiity appearance, in staff's opinion.
D. Facades - Transparency:
One of the criteria from this section states that:
„glass should be grouped into banks of windows un9ted by common trim
and mullions. Create broad glass/wall patterns, avoiding the
impressions as windows as regular spaced "holes" in the walis."
As stated above, the proposed window design is a much closer reflection of the rest of
the commercial portion of the Lionshead Center Building. The windows are now
grouped into banks, that are made up of a large pane of glass surrounded by smaller
panes. Staff believes that the proposed design is consistent with the criteria calling for
banks and windows united by common mullions. The guidelines also ca(i far "clear or
tinted glass", and state that that is acceptable. The glass will be clear.
E. Decks and Pa#ios:
The plaza area between the base of the revised staircase and the entrance will
become larger. Staff thinks that the uss of pavers in this area will be positive. The
pavers will extend from the staircase an the west to the eastern edge of the addition.
5
~ F. Accent Elements:
l`here will be accent elements above each entrance. There wi!l be an aurning as well
as a copper sign. Ths signs will be similar to the ones on the north sids of the
Lionshead Center Building. The awnings will project out at a 45 degree angle. The
applicant is proposing a farest green but has also pravided an atternate awning color of
maroon. Staff believes that either one would be acceptable. Sta#f beiieves that these
accen# elements will highlight interest at the appropriate areas.
Anather accent material will be used in the project will be the rarlings for #he new
staircase. Sta#f would like the architect to design a high quaiity metal raifing, similar to
recent projec#s in the Village. We believe this is a design detail that can be left to the
Design Review Board (DRB) for a defiermination.
G. Landscape le ents:
Staff believes that the propossd landscaping will be a significant improvement to the
area. There are four trees that are praposed to be cut down. ne spruce and one
aspen in the planter west of the addition, and #wo aspen in the area south of the
addition. These will ba replaced by three aspen in the landscape island, one spruce in
the landscape island, one aspen next to the Garf'rnkle's deck9 three IQCUSts in tree
grates at the base of the staircase, and eighteen aspen in three planters sauth af the
addition. In addition to these tress, there will be approximately forty to forty-five shrubs
planted in these areas. Staff believes #hat the quantity of landscaping proposed for
this area will be a significant impravement. Though there will be approximately 300
square feet of landscaping island removed, there will be approximately 425 square feet
of additional landscaping added as a result o# ths planters. Most afi the (andscaping
will occur on Vail Associates land, off-site from the Lionshead Center Building.
H. ervice and elavery:
Service and defivery will not change for this building as additronal square footage of
#his use does not trigger additional loading docks.
IV. SU -AREA CONCEPTS
There is one sub-area concept identified on the plan pertaining to this area af the building for
Lionshead Cen#er. It calls #or an expansion of the building/arcade/awning/etc. in the area of
Garfinkle's deck ta improve scale, she(ter and appearance of commercial facades. As +t is
located in the area of the Garfinkle's deck, it does not exactly pertain to the first floor
expansion beyond the deck.
V. SETBACK VARIANCE
The setback reguirement in Commercial Core II is 10 feet on all sides of the property. Vaii
Associates is proposing a.5 foot setback from the south property line and a 4.5 foot setback
variance from fhe west property line. As designed at this time, the requested variance to the
south is for 9.5 feet and to the west is 5.5 feet.
6
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationshi af the requeste variance to other existin or
potential uses and structures in the vicini#y.
Staff believes that the relationship between the requested variance and other
uses in the vicinity wi11 be acceptable, given the nature af the surrounding uses.
As this building is Iflcated at the Lionshead base area, and given that the
addition is for guest related base facilities, staff believes that there wili not be a
negative impact resulting from a setback encroachment on the activities going
on in the base area. It is important to note that Tract C is located immediately
south of the addition. When the original subdivision was platted, Tract C was
ca(led out for pedestrian access, per the Subdivision Covenants. We believe
that this pedestrian access will guarantee a reasonable buffier around the
proposed addition.
2. The r t ic r!i f fr t #ric# and lit r 1 i t r r t ti
an enf rce ent f a s ecifi re ut ti i n c r t i v
c ati ility a unifi r i#y fi tr t ent among ites i t vici it
or to attain the o jectiueS of this title ithout ran# f s eci i ,
rivite e. ,
Section 18,25,070 of the Zoning Code requires a 10 foot setback in GG((,
"unless athe?wise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and ,I
Design Consideratians". Thaugh specifically not identified on the Urban Design
Guide Plan, the concept of first floor expans+ons has bsen identified throughout
Lionshead. Specifiically, it was cailed for on the narth side of this buiiding. in ,
addition, the Zoning Code references the Design Considerations. Staff believes ,
that the design of the addition is cansistent with the Design Cons9derations, as '
discussed above. '
The Land Use Pfan also relates ta this type of addition. Selow are the relevant
goals from the Land Use P1an which reiate to this propasal.
Section 1.1 Vail should continue #a grow in a controlled enviranment,
maintaining a balance between residential, cammercial,
recreational uses to serve both visi#ar and permanent resident.
Section 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town
leader should work together closely to make existing facilities in
the Town function more efficientiy.
Section 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town
leaders should work together to improvs facilities for day skiers.
Section 3.4 Cammercial growth should be cancentrated in existing
cammercial areas ta accommodate both locai and visitar needs.
Section 4.2 lncreased density in the core areas is acceptable as long as the
existing character of each is preserved through implementation of
the Urban Design Guide P1an.
7
In general, the staff believes that the proposai is consistent with tha Land Use
Plan and the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, Based on
this compliance, and the reference to these documents in the Zoning Code,
staff believes that it is acceptable to support a variance.
3. The effect of the requested variance on li h# an air, distribution of
papulation, transportation and traffic facilities, u lic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff believes that there wi11 be no negative impacts to the above-referenced
criteria. There may be a benefit to transportation and traffic facilities.
Representatives of Vail Associates have reported that they currentiy have ta
transport childran from Lionshead to Galden Peak. With the expansion of #his
faciiity, the families who stay ?n Lionshead will not need to use the
transportation or traffic facslities to transport their children to Galden Peak.
B. The Planni~q and Enviranmentai Commission shail mak~ the followinq findinqs
before qrantir~q a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant of special
priviiege 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
heaith, safety or wel#are, or materially injurious to properties or
improvsments in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of #he following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enfarcement of the specified
regulatian would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship incansistent with the objectives of this ti#!e.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply general(y to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same distric#.
VI. RELATED ISSUES
The Fire Department and Pub(ic Warks Department have provided their comments for this
addition. The Fire Department is requiring that the Vail Associates addition be sprinkled and
that additional fire hose cabinets be installed. The applicant is aware of this and will comply
with this standards. The Public Works comments have been addressed.
8
VII, CONCLUSION
Staff recommends a r val of the major CC11 exterior alteration and sstback variance for the
Lionshead Center Btailding. We believe that the architect for the project has rsfined the
design during this review. We believe that it is now consistent with the Lionshead Design
Guidelines and Design Cansiderations, as discussed above. In addition, staff is
recommending approval of the requested variance. We believe that the applicant has met the
criteria as discussed above. Specifically, staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the
Land Use Plan as well as the Zoning Code, given its refsrence to the Lionshead Urban
Design Guide P1an and Design Considerations. !n addition, staff believes that the request is
consistent with the findings. Specifically, staff be(ieves that Finding 61 has been me# in that
the variance will not constitute a grant of specia( privilege due to the compliance with the Vai!
Lionshead Urban Design Cansiderations. Finding B2, is met irt staff's aptnion, as there wi11 be
no negative impacts to public heaith, safety or welfare. Finding 3A is met in staff's opinian, as
a strict interpretatiQn of the setback requirement would result in a practicai difficulty for Vai1
Associates and would eliminate the potential of an addition in this area. Staff believes that
providing space for base related faci(ities at the Lionshead skier base +s consistent with the
Land Use Plan and is consistent with the objectives of the Town. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the praposal with the cond6tions that:
1. The addit6on be sprinklered according to the standards of #he Tawn of Vail Fire
Department;
2. Additionai fire hose cabinets be installed according to the standards of the
Town of Vaii Fire Department; and,
3. The exterior alteration be contingent on approval of the setback variance.
4. The DRB review the design of the railang to be installed on either side of the
new staircase.
alpec\mem os\I cbva.328
~
9
EX 1 IT
Existing Proposed
Floor Plan Fioor Pian Difference
Children's RegistrationlTickets: 550 sq. ft. 1,157 sq. ft. + 607 sq. ft.
Piay Area: 1,970 sq. ft. 2,685 sq. ft. + 715 sqe ft.
Lockers: 425 sq. ft. 410 sq. ft. - 15 sq. #t.
Supervisor Office: 540 sq. ft. 396 sq. ft. - 144 sq. ft.
Group Ticket Saies: 855 sq. ft. 1,010 sq. ft. + 155 sq. ft.
Bathrooms: 203 sq. ft. 214 sqa ft. + 11 sq. ft.
*The proposed areas are based an #he constructian of new floar area as weil as the
reprogramming of the interior,
10
i
~
t
~ t
B X
1
I
I
g ~ O
~ y
~ -
»
~ J
.
1 r - - -
11 I
li
\
~ at s a t a
_
3
a~r~ rr~w a
~ - - - - - - Y
. t
m • a • • • +
s
. LT'- - - .e~- - - - - .m.- - 'r- _.T
as r ~ 1 1 3 ~
- ~ ~ ' • i • ~ • , + . ~
aa+Ner ' "
~s
» a~ ~
nta~ ~
a.
• ~
~
S/TE PZAN
~
~
WMKM
~ LIONSNEAD
i ~ CEN E
1 ~
-
' _
• i~
~
s
-°'t
s ~ v
s o • , t • i
,,.x - -
d..,.. ~ '
. d
U
FLaQR PLr4W
.
~
.~.~.~.~-.t, ~+-za
~ NEW Ai. ST TO CAMACEL-S
[
' ~ t t ST u ROOFM
Al. AS A RooF ' j
~
t
1
li
~------------------1 - -
-
KYFIM FtqM AW1iiNl1M S10RffRONT
WEST ELEVATION
s
r #
I
~
-4~
'
}a '~S° ~
CANWVAS AVOWIMM
T0 MATDi ~
nTnTn n n
too=-D 9jE
LCONCUM Wt'TM L crwvAs A ro
u~~
~ STAMM MM META- ROOFWG SOU ELEVATf 0
ABV MEtu ROOF
SCALF--
KYNM FNSc ALUMUM c
~
.
L 1 VI T L COMMISSION
April 11, 1994
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Greg Amsden Kathy Langenwalter Jim Curnutte
Bill Anderson Dalton illiams Mike Moliica
Bab Armour Andy Knudtsen
Jeff Bowen Kristan Pritz
,411ison Lassoe Randy Stouder
1. A request for a manor 5 D amendment ta allow a modification to the a proved access
and landscapirag at the sstin esort located at 1300 esthaaen Drive, rnore
s eci#ica9fy described as:
CASCADE LOpGE JOINT VEMURE
(Wesiin No1eI)
That parf ot the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Seclian 12, Township 5 South. Rarige 87 Wesf oi lhe Sixih Principal Meridian. Town af Vail. Eagle Counry Coiorado. doecribcl7 as Idlows:
8eginning al a point on the somherly boundary oi the parcel of land shown on ihe Condominium Map far the Colarado Mounlain Candorniniums recadod in
8ook 3$7 al Page 820 in ihe oifica ot the Eagie Covniy, Galorado. Gerk and Recorder, whenco tho mnst southedy corne! 04 said parcel bears S 5?_"50'29° W
14.16 ieoi distant; ihence ihe Iollwwinq nina caurses along me southedy boundary of swd parcoC (i 1 N 52'5929" E 49.161oot; (2) N 377 2'45' W 12.34 feei; (33
N 52'471 5° E 7 00 ieol; (4) N 37 12'45° W 1.30 teei; (5) N 5247'15" 42.601eat: (6) N 3712'45" W 8.70 feei; {71 N 52'47' 15" E 3 5-00 feet; S 37` 12'45" E
~ 22.40 ieei; (9) N 52`50'29° E 3528 feell thence deparling said southerly boundary N 5750'29" ieet, ihence S 3709'31" E 45.34 feat ihenco N 52`50'29" E
4870 teei: ihence 5 37`09'31° E 9.601eeP ihence N 52"50'29" E 80 001ep; ihecce S 3709'31" E 220.02 ieet to Gare Creeic, thence ihe idlowirg four
courses along Gore Creek: (1) S 49'26'36' W 76 45 teeC (2) S 2233'86' W 124 _47 feet; (3) 5 53°37`36` W 119 94 ieet 44} S 65'31'36' W 14_58 feet; thencs N
37`09'31' W 716.45 feei to the pant ot boginnirg conlaining 110200 square ieael a2.A9 acres, more or Iess.
PLAZA SUITE
That pari of the 5W 9!4 NE 1/4, Section 12. Township 5 Souih, Range 81 West oi the Sixth Principa! Meridian, 7own of VaiI, Colwado, described as idiows:
Beginning at ihe most northedy cornar ot Condominium Map ol Cdorado Mountain Coridominiums according lo the map thereoi reca'dcd in Book 387 at Page
620 in the oflice of Eagle CouMy, Colorado, Clerk and Recader, whonco an iron pn wiih plasiic cap mariting Ihs center ot said Section 12 bears 5 34'50'5$°
W 964,37 leei; thence N 56°48'44" E 106.67 feei; Ihenco 79.97 ieei along the arc ol a curve io Ihe Ielt having a radius ol 1121.72 1eet; a central anglo of
64`05'04", and a chord thai bears N 54-4613" 0 74.95 leet; ihence N 5243'41" E 28.82 ieel; lhence S 3769'37" E 105J6 feet; thence S 525929" W 25.00
1eet; Ihence S 37=0937" W 25.00 ieet; ihence S 5254'29° E 80.00 teet: Ihence S 52'S0'29" W 15.00 feet; thence S 370931° E 16.78 feel; Ihenco S 52"50'29'
W 21.30 feel; thence S 37`09'37" E 9.60 teei; ihence S 525929" W SO 00 feel; thence N 37`09'31" W 9.60 feet; Ihence S 52'5Q'29" W 4830 toet; thence N
37°0931" W 45.34 feet; lhonce S 52`50'29° N/ 56.96 leet io ihe norlheasiedy line ot said Condominium Map ot Colorado Mountaia Condominiums; thence tho
Idlowing three cour-es along said nodheasteriy lina: (t) N 37`09'37 ° W 55.04 ieet; (2) N 07'50'29" E 45.00 teel; (3) N 370931' W 80.40 feei io the point ot
beginnirg, coniaining 1 000 acras, more orlesc.
Applicant: Vail Ancillary Trust, d/b/a The Westin Vaii Resort
Planner; Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff inemo. Andy stated that eighty-eight
spruce trees will be added to the site. He stated that staff has approved this minor
SDD amendment with the three cond>tions cantained on Page 3 of the staff inemo.
Biil Andersan inquired whether the trees which were being removed couid be replanted
around the Club at the narth and east side in the barren area.
Pianning and Environmental Cosnmission
April 11, 1994
1
Skip Bshrhorst, represent?ng the Westin Hotel, stated that their intent is to transplant
the trees an the south side amongst the trees already there along the bike path. Skip
said their intention long term is to upgrade the whale entry but there is a question
abou# adequate irrigation.
Greg Ochis, with Design Workshop, explained the tree salvaging process. He stated
tha# currsntly, the trees are placed inside of pits with grates over them and that it
would be difficult to pull them out wrthout damag?ng them.
Kris#an Pritz commented that additional planting on the north side of Cascade Cfub has
been difficult because there is vsry liftle space between the buifding and #he CDOT
right-of-way.
Jef# awten stated that Todd Op enheirrter and Trees for Vail might be success#ul in
propssing lovver landscaping that would be approved by the Highway epart ent.
Skip ehrhorst stated that #he proper#y boundary vvith Colorado ountaan Collsge goes
into the line of planting for the courtyard for the estin. He has a letter fro Cascade
Viiiage Association, Celorado Mountain Gtsliege and the estin support+ng the project
and a potential sign by C C. The property is owned jointly by various parties. Skip
said that the letter says that the individual owners of the Condominium Associatian are
nat a jeeting to the signage.
Andy replied that the sign proposal was a DRB itern and that he could clarify the Sign
Gode standards for the applicant after the hearing.
Jeff Bowen commented that the width at the raad would create traffic problems.
Andy stated that the Fire Department prefers the propased design for access.
Greg Ochis mentioned that the new curb and landscaping will rnake traffic flow clearer
as to where drap off and pick up lanes actually are within the courtyard space.
Skip Behrharst said the Fire Department required the proposed iane.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a minar SDD amendment in
accordance with canditians 1,2 and 3 of the staff inemorandum:
1. The applicant shaif dedicate a fire lane easement satisfactory to the
Town of Vail Fire Department which shall be recarded at the Eagle
Gounty Clerk and Recorder's Office.
2, The applicant shall provide engineered drawings for a!I work #a be done
in the Westhaven Drive right-of-way for the review and approvai of the
Town of Vaii Public Works staff; and,
Planning and Environmsntal Commission
April 11, 1994
2
~ 3. The applicant shall inc3ude pans on the drawings to be located at the
entrances ta the parking garage and the hotel driveway.
Bob Armour secanded the motion. A 5-0 vote approved this item.
2. A request for a setback variance to ailaw for an expansion to the residence located at
4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Margaret Gross
Planner: Randy Sfouder
Randy Stouder made a presentation psr the staff inemo and noted the changes which
had been made #a thas proposal since the March 28#h worksessian.
ill Hein, the archstect for this project, explained that the site is heavily treed. He
sta#ed that the applicant wauld like to develop a new planting bed to the north rather
than placing additional trees where there is aiready alo# of plartting. Fle stated that
they were no# proposing to reduce the number of trees but they were proposing a
location change. '
andy stated that staff is recommending approval,
8ob Armour rnade a motion to approve this request for a setback variance per the staff ~
memo. Jeff Bowen secanded this motion and a 5-0 vote approved this 9tem. i
3. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary
'
Residentsal to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more I
specifically described as follows:
;
A parcei of land an Ihe SoWhwesl Quarter ot SeGion 14, Township 5 Souih, Range 81 West o) the 6th Principal Meridian, more parliculady described as follows: 'I.
Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness comer for the West Quader of said Secticn 14, bears (North 29 degrecas 28 minutes 51 sewnds Wesi, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43
Oegroes 75 minuies 02 seconds West, 915.96 ieei Measured); Thence Norfh 74 da3rees 05 minuios 29 seconds Easi, 1076 loot; Thonce 183.82 ieet a3on9 1ho are oi a cuave io the right '
which are subtends a chord bearing Nath 88 degress 12 minulos 30 seconds Easi, 181.76 feei; Thence Souih 77 degrees 40 minules 21 seconds East, 6277 feel; Tbence 747 43 teet along ,
ihe arc ot a - io ihe (eH which azc subtends a chorti baaring Naih 86 dagreos 36 minules 17 seconds East, 145.60 feei; Thence Nor1h 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds Easi, 406.55
teei; Thenca 54.70 feet Mong tho arc ot a curve to ihe rigM which are subiends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds Easi, 4420 teet: Thenco Souih 14 degrees 25
rninuies 50 secorids Wes1, 110.51 ieet;
Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 foet: Thence Nonh 19 degrees 07 minuies OS seconds West 50.00 teet; ,
Thence Somh 77 dogrees 48 minutes 41 seconds WesL 160.16 feeP Thence Sou1h 70 degrees 53 minules 33 seconds Wesi, 38.48 teet;
Th ence Nonh 87 dogreas 40 minules 06 seconds WesL 337,72 teet;
Thence (Norlh 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 ;zconds Easl, 130,00 ieei Doed) North 7 7 degrees 55 minutes 31 secorids East, 129.75 feet Measurcd) lo the POINT OF BEGINNING.
6eanng trom G.LO record for South hatl ol Section line betweon Soclions 14 15. (G.L.O, record South Ot degreos 30.2 minmes Eas1) (Soe4h Ot degrees 38 minutes 32 secmds Easl
Measured)
Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotta
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
It should be noted that Greg Amsden stepped down fram the PEC for this item to
prevent any confiict of interest and Jeff Bowen took over as chairman.
Plann7ng and Environmental Commission
April 11, 1994
3
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff inema highlighting ths changes that
have accurred to this praject since the March 28, 1994 PEC meeting. He said that the
negotiations with adjacent praperty ovvners on the south side of the site did not work
out and consequentiy changes were made to the plans. He sa+d that staffi prefers the
site plan approved at the February 28th PEC meeting. Andy stated either site plan is
acceptabie to staf#. He pointed out to the PEC that Condrtions 9 and 10 of the staff
memo are new. Rndy stated that with those additions, staff recommends approval.
Rick Rosen stated that he requested Greg step off the PEC. Rick stated that they had
attempted to work with the neighbors on access but that the neighbors could not agree
to the original site plan. He said #hat the alternative site plan was created since an
agreement coutd not be reached with the adjacent property owners.
Jeff Bowen inquired what the relatianship would be with the neigh ors regarding
trespassing if this second plan is approved.
Rick asen stated there is a parking problem with the condom6niurn, but that the
design a# the site pian has situated buildings in such a way to aliovv future access ta
the neighboring lots. The neighbors, however, would have to develop anew
agreement with the applicant.
ill Andersan rrtotioned that the request for a minor subdirrision and the re uest to
rezone a tract from PrimarylSecondary to Low Density Multi-Family be approved in
aceordance with the staff memo and the ten conditions li5ted on pages 15-18. Aliisan
Lassoe seconded the motion and a4-Q vote approved this item with Careg Amsden
abstaining.
4. A request for a rrrinor subdivision and a wall he+ght variance ta allaw for the
canstructian of an avaianche mitigation vvall located at 4229 Nugget Lane/Lot 6,
ighorn Estates.
Applicant: He}en Dicksnson
P(anner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff inemo and stated that staff is
recommending approval of the requested minor subdivision and wall height variance
with the conditions autlined in the memo.
Peter Monroe stated the grading plan is relatively flexible. He has shown the grade
north af the wall at an svsn slope.
Mrs. Dickenson mentianed she prefers terracing in front of the wall, versus an evenly
sloped grade.
Bob Armaur recommended that the grade be terraced or the slope will wash right down
the hillside.
io Ptanning and Environmental Gommission
,4pri! 11, 1994
4
Greg Amsden asked if the wall will follaw contours.
Pe#er said the tap of the wall will follow contours. He explained that the avalanche
study required that the 7-foot wall be exposed on the back side.
Bob Armour commen#ed that he hopes that the DRB wiil review this proposal closely
because it will be a big wall.
Mike Mailica asked the PEC which aspects the DRB needed to look at.
Sob ,4rmour stated that he likes the stone veneering but that it is a big object and that
it may need trees on the downhill side of it.
ike showed ob the landscaping plans and asked ob what ty eof screening he
vvould like to see.
Bob stated that evergreen trees would be nice ut the DB can revie this issue.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the terracing done to disguise the end of
the watl. He added that he would like to see landscaping used to m?nimaze the saze of
the wall.
Allison Lassoe made a motion ta approve this request per the staff memo with Jef#
Bouven seconding. Greg requested that Allison amend the mation to include the staff's
recommended conditians cantained in the staff memo and added the requirement that
the DR look closely at the landscaping plan. Allison and Jeff amended the motion to
include Greg's concems. A 5-0 vote approved fhis item.
5. A request for a minor SDD arnendment and a minor subdivision ta vacate the lot line
be een Parcel D and Tract C, located at 1320 Morraine DrivelParcel D, Lionsridge
Falang Na. 3, and Tract C, Dauphinais Moseley Subdivision.
Applicanta Pat Dauphinais
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Cumutte made a prssentation per the sfaff inemo. He stated that the minor SDD
amendment and manar subdivision request were necessary to relocate the lot line
between Parcel D and Tract C. He stated that the reduction in size of Tract C
necessitates the minar SDD amendment and minor subdivision. Jim said that staff is
comfortable with the applicat+on with the goal of moving the lot line in order to keep #he
development on Parcel D away from the ridge lacated aiong the eastern side of the lot.
He added that the purpose of Tract C was to provide access to Paresl D and that this
request aliaws the building on Parcel D to be moved back aff the ridgeiine and out af
the setback. He stated that staff was recommending approvai of the requests with the
condition tha# a buiiding permit not be issued until such time that the plat has been
signed and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 11, 1994
5
Bob Armour motioned that the requests for a minor SDD amendment and a minor
subdivision be appraved per the staff inemo, including Condition 1 outlined on Page 7
of the staff inemo. Sill Anderson seconded this motion and a 5-0 vote approved #his
6tem.
6. A request for a major CCI! exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead
Center Building to ailow for the expansion of the Vail Associates offices iocated at 520
Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, B(ock i, Vai( Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Vai1 Associates, Inc.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy made a presentatian per the sta#f inemo. He stated that the exterior alteration is
consistent with the existing criteria, that the proposed roofing ma#erial is ap ropriate for
the she roof, that it works well and is high quality. He said the archAtect has used
some of the mmre successful patterns on the north side of the existing building and has
applied them to this addition. Concerning the decks and patios, Andy stated that the
use of pavers and reworking of the western end of the buiiding will be beneficial and
usefui to the pubiic. He stated that staff was recommending that the DR look at the
railing de#ails. Concerning landscapang elements, Andy stated that what is roposed
more than compensates for what is being taken out. He added tha# Tract C is
restricted to pedestrian use anly. Andy statsd that sta#f supports the variance prpposal
and exterior alteration proposal and is recommending approval of the request based on
#he Lionshead criteria with the four conditians contained in the stafif inerno.
Bill i'ierce, the applicant for this proposal, stated that he would 6ike to discuss parking
for this project.
Tim Kehoe stated that they are in the process of trying to come up with comparable
studies frorn Steamboat, Keystone and Telluride. He stated that they have not
received any information at this time. He said that Vail Associates would like to return
to the PEC at a later time with an appropriate parking assessment. Tim stated some
people stay in Lianshead and use the Golden Peak facility. Ne said that Vail
Associates would like to address this issue before final approval.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the PEC could approve this item and have the applicant
come back at a later date and amend the approval.
Tim Kehae stated that it is Vail Associates' feeling that the parking ?ssue at Lionshead
is different from other parking scenarios in the town. He described the use of the
Children's Center.
Bob Armour asked whether this wouid be used for day care.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 17, 1994
6
Tim Kehoe stated it is not actually day care and that Vai1 Associates eventualiy will
incorporate a day care program with the program in Avon. He emphasized that it is
, strictly a ski school. Na stated that children do not stay in day care, but #hat the
children anly come back in for lunch and bad weather. He said that the children are
there for ski lessons.
Tim stated that the activities at Lionshead are not the same as Galden Peak day care.
Greg Amsden inquired about the copper co3or of the materials.
Bill Pserce expiained the copper color is achieved by a paint cantaining copper flakes
and that it was proposed to be placed ort an aluminum-type surface that wears quite
vvell in the sun. He added that the same system is used on rnetal roofs.
itl Anderson asked that the copper be used instead of kynar so that a11 colors atch
on all parts of the building. He added that he would like to see the cop er weather the
sarne all the way around the burlding.
Tim Kehoe stated that the copper on the north and west sides has only been use an '
the window mullions and that the maple would na# hold up on the southern exposure.
e said that Vail Assaciates had also rnade a prflpasal ta go wi#h a fiorest green or a '
maroon color fior the mullions. '
ill Pierce pointed out that a copper wrap system would in#erfere wi#h windaw I
functions.
Jeff commented that a true copper roof would make the addition look much better and '
addsd that he vvas not in#erested in Soulder's parking requirements for daycare and ,
believed that something could be worked out specific to this request.
Greg Amsden favored a copper roaf, and felt that #he DRB shou(d review the different I
color closely. He was also open ta the parking situat9on and Vail Associates caming '
back at a(ater date to resolve this issue.
Kristan Pritz suggested tabling the parking issue and approving the sxterior afteration
and variartce. She suggested that the solution to the parking issue could be made a
condition of approval and that the appiicant could come back before #he PEC at a later
date to resolve this item befare a buiiding permi# is reteased for the addition.
Bill Anderson made a motion ta approve the request for a major CCil exterior alteration
and the setback variance per the staff inemos includirtg Conditions 1,2,3,4 with the
additional Condition 5 that: "the parking requirements be fiinalized with PEC prior to #he
release of the building permit and that a specific note be transferred to the DRB from
the PEC to revsew the use of the kynar copper colored roof.°"
Plaraning and Environmental Comm4ssion
Aprii 11, 9994
7
Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 4-0-1 vote approved this item v+iith Ailison
Lassoe abstaining from this item as she is an employee of Vail Associates.
7. A request for a minor subdivision for two PrimarylSecondary lots located at 2682 and
2692 Cortina Lane/Lots 9 and 10, 8lock 8, Vafl Ridge Subdivisian.
Applicant: Nans Wiemann and Helmut Reiss
P]anner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy made a presentation per the staff inemo.
Jeff Bowen said that he would be voting against thi5 item because of hes origina( vote
in opposition to the project because of concerns about the excessive mass and bulk of
the new structures and concerns about the retaining walls associated with Cortina
Chalets.
Andy Knudtsen stated that #he request pertains rnore ta the o( er residence rather fihan
the three recently constructed "Cortina Chalets".
Jeff Bowen sfated his phi#osophicai reasons.
Kristan ritz stated she understood staff couid not change Jef#'s posotion,
Bob Armour stated that they were not making any nonconfarmi#y any worse.
Allison Lassoe made a motion ta approve the minor subdivasion per the staff rnemo
with Bob Armour seconding the motion. A 4-1 approved this reguest with Jeff Bowen
voting against this itern per his reasons stated above.
8. A request for preliminary plat appraval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots
16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Tovvnship 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north
of I-70 and west of #he Vaii Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development
Planner: Jim Curnutte T LE T AP tL 25,1994
Jef# Bowen made a motion that this request be tabled to the April 25, 1994 PEC
meeting with ANis4n Lassae seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this request until
April 25, 1994.
9. A request for variances to allow for off-site parking, GRFA in the front setback, and site
coverage ta a11ow far a new PrimaryJSecondary residence located at 1799 Sierra
Trail/Lat 17, Vail Village West 1st Filing.
Applicant: George Plavec
Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO APR1L 25, 1994
Ptanning and Environmental Commission
April 91, 1994
8
~ Jeff Bowen made a motion that this request be tabled to the Apri! 25, 1994 PEG
meeting with AI(ison Lassoe seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabted this request until
April 25, 1994.
10. A request far a watt height variance and driveway slope variance tp ailow for a
dr?veway to excesd 10% located at 2445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block N, Vail
das Schone 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech
Planner: Andy Knudtsen T L 1 FI IT LY
Jeff Bowen made a motion #hat this request be tabled indefinitely with All6son Lassoe
seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabied this request indefini#sly.
11. Approve minutes firom arch 28, 1994 PEC meeting.
ob Armour made motion to approve the minutes from the arch 14, 1994 C
mseting.
Goncemang the Vail Mountain School issue, Jeff Bowen requested that minutes reflect
mare cornments on why the PEC feels that the expansion of the ountain School was
appropriate.
Bab Armour asked if he should amend his motion.
Jeff requested that the PEC's comments be added to the msnutes ta show the basis for
the approval. He requested fhat an amendment be made to the March 28, 1994
meeting rninutes to indicate minimal impact to the site and surrounding neighbors,
approval of a previous variance which had since expired which was similar to the
current request, and the minor size pf the variance.
Bob Armour withdrew his mation and Jeff withdrew his second.
Kristan Pritz safd that Council was interested in seeing if the rockfall berm cauld be
fixed, moved or made to look better.
Jeff Bowen sfated that he would like to attend any meeting on this issue and requested
that he be contacted when the project was reviewed by the Council.
Bob Armour moved that the PEC adopt the minutes as written and as modified by Jeff
Bowen, Jeff Bowen seconded this motion and a 5-0 vote approved the minutes from
the March 28, 1994 I'EC meeting.
Planning and Enviranmantat Commission
April 11, 1994
9
12. Council Update:
•Trappers Run
•Cornice Building
•Todger Anderson Appeal
•Jaint Council/PECIDRB worksession on Alpine Design, April 26, 1994, Tuesday
Afternaon, Council Chambers.
-Vail Maun#ain Schooi appeal.
13. Discussion af iandscape requirements for 44 Willow Place.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy presented the three main issuss: 1, the reduction in the proposad nurnber of
trees; 2. the proposal to replace six existing trees ins#ead of transplanting them; and,
3. eliminating the sidev+ratk.
ill Anderson asked if it was necessary to vote on the request.
Andy explained a vote is needed ta con#irm that the proposed building permit drawings
were consistent with the origina! PEG approvai, He said tha# the R had no
objections if the PEC sa6d its okay.
Jefif Bowen motioned that the changes be approved with Bilt Anderson seconding the
motian. A 5-0 vote approved the changes to the iandscaping plans.
14. Discussian af procedures for making motions. '
~ Planning and Enviranmental Gommission
April 11, 1994
10