HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1125 PEC
i
THIS lTEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
~ PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code ot the
Town of Vail on November 25, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for an exterior addition to add a 125 sq. ft. sun room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance,
located at 930 B Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing.
Applicant: Paui and Nancy Rondeau
Planner: Dirk Mason
A request for a major SDD amendment to SDD # 4, to allow for a new office building, located at
1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Tract K, Glen Lyon (Glen Lyon Office Building).
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Ken O'Bryan
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for two, 250's and a conditional use permit in order to construct a Type II EHU, located
at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Appiicant: Ray Mayer, represented by Steve Riden
Planner: Tammie Williamson
A request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditiona! Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add
"Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as conditional
~ uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. I
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, lnc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the
Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow
van storage/transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and ~
Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use.
Applicant: Town of Vail '
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
• Community Development Department
Published November 8, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
Agenda last revised 11/19/96 9am
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, November 25, 1996
AGENDA
Pro.ject Orientation / NO Lunch - Community Development Department 1:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits 1:20 pm
1. Rondeau - 930 B Fairway Drive
2. Mayer - 796 Potato Patch Drive Driver: Dirk
ioA I!r
• `
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board wil( break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m.
Pubiic Hearina - Town Council Cham ers 2;00 p,m,
1. A request for an exterior addition to add a 125 sq. ft. sun room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance,
located at 930 B Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing.
Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Planner: Dirk Mason
2. A request for two, 250's and a conditional use permit in order to construct a Type 11 EHU,
located at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vait Potato Patch. ,
Applicant: Ray Mayer, represented by Steve Riden
Planner: Tarnmie Williamson
3. A request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add
"Time-Share Estate Units, Fractiona( Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as conditional
uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
4. A request for a worksession to discuss amending the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and
~ adopting the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan. .
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer
Agcnda last revised 1 1/19/96 9am
5. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Speciat Development District overlay to
the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce ~
Planner: George Ruther ,
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 1996
6. A request for a major SDD amendment to SDD # 4, to allow for a new office building, located at
1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Tract K, Glen Lyon (Glen Lyon Office Building).
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Ken O'Bryan .
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
7. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8,
~ located at 666 and 696 Forest RoadJLots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vai1 Viilage 6th Filing.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
8. A request tp amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow
van storage/transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and
Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use.
Applicant: Town of Vail •
Planner: Daminic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN PENDtNG RE-ADVERTISING
9. Approval of October 28, 1996 and November 11, 1999 minutes
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please caA 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
Community Development Department
Published November 22, 1998 in the Va+! Trail.
.
. y
Agenda last revised 1 I/22196 I lam
. PLANNiNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSlON
Monday, November 25, 1996
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation / NO Lunch - Community Development Department 1:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Henry Pratt
Greg Amsden Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Gene Uselton
John Schofield
Site Visits 1:20 pm
1. Rondeau - 930 B Fairway Drive
2. Mayer - 796 Potato Patch Drive
Driver: Dirk
~ .
• .
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for an exterior addition to add a 125 sq. ft. sun room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance,
located at 930 B Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing.
Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Planner: Dirk Mason
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS
2. A request for two, 250's and a conditional use permit in order to construct a Type II EHU,
located at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Ray Mayer, represented by Steve Riden
Planner: Tammie Williamson
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION 1.That the one-car garage be appropriately deed restricted
• for exclusive use by the occupant of the EHU.
.
Agcnda last roviscd 1 I/22I9f, I lam
3. A request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add
Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as conditional •
uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED
4. Approval of October 28, 1996 minutes
5. November 11, 1996 minutes
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 1996
6. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to
the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9,1996
7. A request for a worksession to discuss amending the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and
adopting the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer •
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16, 1996
8. A request for a major SDD amendment to SDD # 4, to allow for a new office building, located at
1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Tract K, Glen Lyon (Glen Lyon Office Building).
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Ken O'Bryan
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
9. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8,
located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
10. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to allow
van storage/transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial Business, and
Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use.
Applicant: Town of Vail •
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN PENDING RE-ADVERTISING
. ~AgcncLi last reviscd I U22/9fi l inm
~~~IHIIIII
i The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please calf 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
Community Development Department
Published November 22, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
~
•
. ,r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for two, 250's and a conditional use perrnit in order to construct a Type
II EHU, located at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Ray Mayer, represented by Steve Riden
Planner: Tammie Williamson
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST
GRFA
In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter
(18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This
Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be ~
added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The
purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of
• existing dwelling units and also for the provision of employee housing units.
According to Section 18.57.050 (13)(5) (Type II Employee Housing Unit, General Conditions),
"An applicant shall be permitted to apply to the Community Deve(opment Department of
the Town for additional GRFA, not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in
the construction of the EHU."
With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to use all 500 sq. ft. of the two 250 allowances, in
the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1,
Vail Potato Patch. In this proposal, the applicant wishes to construct a 504 sq. ft., Type II
Employee Housing Unit, between the proposed primary and secondary dwelling units. The
applicant's proposed floor plans and building elevations, illustrating the Type II Employee
Housing Unit, have been attached for reference. This is an undeveloped lot.
TYPE ll EHU
Additionally, the applicant, Ray Mayer, is requesting approval to construct a Type II EHU to be
attached to a primary/secondary residence.
In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of
1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing
Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of
Vail. The definition in that ordinance states:
•
f:\everyone\pec\memos\mayer.n25 1
. ~ ,
Section 18.04.105 (in part)
"Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or ~
rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to
tenants who are full-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain
zone districts as set forth in Chapter 18 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs
shall be as provided in Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this
Section, a full-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average
of thirty (30) hours per week."
Pursuant to Section 18.57.050(B) of the Vail Municipal Code, in part, a Type II Employee Housing
Unit shall be a conditional use in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District; be permitted
on lots which meet the minimum lot size requirement; be attached to, or located within, a single-
family dwelling or two-family dwelling; not have more than two bedrooms; shall have one parking
space per bedroom, with a 300 square foot garage credit available to help meet the enclosed
parking space requirement.
The Type II EHU proposed by the applicant will be a 504 square foot, one-bedroom unit, between
the primary unit to the west and the secondary unit to the east. The applicant has proposed an
enclosed one-car garage for the EHU
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Legal Address: 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Lot Size: 28,575 sq. ft. / 0.656 acres
Zoning: Prim ary/Second ary Residential •
Use: Primary/secondary dwelling units with a Type II Employee Housing Unit
Allowed Proposed
GRFA: 5,957 sq. ft. 6,274 sq. ft.
GRFA with two (250's): 6,457 sq. ft. 6,274 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 5,715 sq. ft. 4,295 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
front: 20' 25'
sides: 15', 15' 18', 15'
rear: 15' 80'
Landscaping: 17,145 sq. ft. minimum 17,557 sq. ft.
Required Proposed
Parking: 6.5 spaces (one enclosed) 7 spaces (5 enclosed)
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL GRFA
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), the
Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for 500 additional
square feet of GRFA to be utilized in the construction of the Type II Employee Housing Unit
based upon the following factors: •
f:\everyone\pec\memos\mayer.n25 2
.
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
• Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect upon the existing to poqrap,hv veggtation drainage and existing
structures.
In the staff's opinion, the 500 additional sq. ft. of GRFA being incorporated
into the Type II Employee Housing Unit, will have no negative effects upon
the existing topography, vegetation, drainage or other existing structures in
the area. Changes to the existing topography, proposed by the applicant,
will result in regrading that complies with the Town's 2:1 maximum slope.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed new primary/secondary residence
with a Type II Employee Housing Unit, including the 500 sq. ft. of
additional GRFA, wifl conform architecturally with the other existing
structures in the Potato Patch neighborhood.
2. fmpact on adjacent properties. '
In the staff's opinion, the proposed new primary/secondary residence with
the Type f1 Employee Housing Unit and the 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA
will not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant
is proposing adequate parking, per the Municipal Code, to accommodate I
vehicles parking on the site. The 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA will result
in a minimal increase in bulk and mass of the structure. Staff believes, i
• however, tiiat this minimal increase in bulk and mass will not be readily noticeable from adjacent properties.
3. Compliance with the Town's zoning r~e uirements and aR li~cable I
d.evelQRment standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that:
"Any dwelling unit that proposes to use additional GRFA shall
comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design
Guidelines (18.54). These standards include landscaping,
undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general
maintenance and upkeep of the property."
The site plan does show compliance with landscaping, undergrounding
utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance and upkeep of the
property. .
B. Findinas:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting approval for Additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
• 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
impact adjacent properties.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\mayer.n25 3
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
IV. rRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR Q CONDITIONAL USE_PERMIT •
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval
of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
, Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing
Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the
supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing
quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for
both year-round and seasonal residents. The proposed EHU will have a
positive impact on the Town's hous+ng needs, by providing housing for
employees. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs. •
Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type (I EHU
on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
The site is currently undeveloped. The proposed development is
compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood, therefore,
little impact will be associated with this proposal. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be tocated, including the scale and butk of the proposed use in
re(ation to surrounding uses.
The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is very similar to those in
existence in the surrounding neighborhood. GRFA for the project will not
exceed the maximum allowed per the code.
5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for ~
Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Empfoyee Housing and shall be
subject to the following conditions: •
f:\everyone\pec\memos\mayer.n25 4
a. it shail be a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential,
Two-Family Residential and PrimarylSecondary Residential
zone districts.
•
The subject property is zoned Prim ary/Seco ndary Residential.
b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the
minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the
lot is located.
The minirnum lot size for a Type II EHU in the Two-Family
Res+dential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable site
area. The applicanYs property has 28,575 square feet of buildable
site area.
c. It shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family
dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family
dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.050(1) - Design Guidelines
Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development. It may also be
located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the
garage is not located within any setback, and further provided
that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal
Code is reduced or eliminated.
The proposed Type II EHU will be attached to a primary/secondary
development.
• d. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of
calculating density. However, it shall contain kitchen facilities
and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the
Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit
in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist
on the lot. Only one Type II EHU shall be allowed per lot.
The proposed EHU will contain a full kitchen and full bathroom
facilities and for all intent and purposes, will function as a third unit.
e. It shall have a GRFA of not less than three hundred (300)
square feet, nor mare than nine hundred (900) square feet. An
applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the
Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for
additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet
to be used in the construction of the EHU.
The proposed EHU is 504 square feet in size, and the excess (4
feet) GRFA has been calculated in the overall GRFA allowance.
f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms.
The proposed EHU is a one-bedroom unit and therefore complies
with this criteria.
• .
fAeveryone\pec\memos\mayer.n25 5
i
No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than
9•
sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom
Type II EHU. No more than two (2) adutts and two (2) children
not older than sixteen (16) years of age shali reside in a two (2) •
bedroom Type 11 EHU.
Since this unit will function as a one (1) bedroom, Type II EHU, the
I first part of the above listed regulation wiH be in compliance.
I h. Each Type II EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1)
parking space for each bedroom located therein. However, if a
one (1) bedroom Type II EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square
~ feet, it shall have two (2) parking spaces. QII parking spaces
required by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site
, as the EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property which is
proposed for a Type II EHU at the time a building permit is
issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and
' replaced by a new dwelling, not less than one (1) of the parking
spaces required by this paragraph shall be enclosed. A 300
square feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction
of one enclosed parking space for the Type (I EHU.
The proposed EHU will be attached to an existing
primary/secondary structure. The proposed development requires
6.5 parking spaces, one of which is enclosed and for the EHU.
The development has 7 parking spaces, therefore the parking
requirements are met on this site.
B. Findinas •
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit:
1. That the proposed focation of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code.
~ V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request
for Additional GRFA subject to the following findings:
1. , That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect
existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
•
i
' f:\everyonelpec\memos\mayer.n25 6
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact
adjacent properties.
• 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town
zoning requirements and app{icable deve{opment standards.
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request
for a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which ihe site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimentaf to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the appficabfe provisions of
Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code.
The Cornmunity Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request
to utilize 500 square feet of additional GRFA, in accordance with Chapters 18.57 and 18.71, to
allow for the construction of a new Type II Employee Hausing Unit and the request for a
conditional use permit to construct a Type Il EHU at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail
Potato Patch. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the
memorandum. Staff believes that all the findings are met, and will result in the complete
compliance of the site with the Town Zoning requirements and applicable development
standards.
~ Staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request with the following condition:
1. That the one-car garage be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the
occupant of the EHU.
•
7
' • 0 •
IA1' SO y ~
?I~111~~~, i ~ o
~
IIII ~ _
~c
1 ~
w ~ ,
L .~m
I ~ r~~ • e/
~ M
~r y !
1 ~ W M ~~IYc
1
~ I f I I~ ~ _ ~ U F"
I ~ 1 III! ~I~ 1 '
~ R w o
00
.
~.,o
~ i l~l 111111,1 i i.,111
TT I II l ~ ~ d ~
~oM
/1111I11II~IIJIII~/////~ / " W -~r~ ~p>
I l I I" ' ~ `p 1 w 01
~ , H o
s x•m•er u - aio.as• ` ~ t \ ~ ~ mgm
\ s f t ~ / ~
WIIDtMS LUtCT P OftR7~1a ` ~ = -
LOT
\ M t
a ~ '~«r+t ' ~
euRDtl~ Im~n~ ~
w~ w~nau • ~~w ~ i ,
ur I ciw
GtlfftM ~7S $ h-#n
~ T Lo. I I
~sw ~ I
1 '
ITE DEYELOPMENT PLAN
. SD1
. r.~...r
r.w rir w Mw 1s On. I ra 66w ur wa ~
rrmr rw . ..ruw r
t.OT LG w w. rn rw .~u • r
~~~~rews ~r~ r?r..~ r r?, ww.u. b N. S. N. tM ItM W U.
/MM -f M" YM !N ~ iihdww I aY 1 !T
~YrwtMl-.ilY~- q M/Mi
M r~ ~ s
~Yt/ Y wMA/ Y4 i!MY rw war? .~YN~Mr ~rt~ulr
~Irb M ~ ~11 ~ r ~1~ M~ MI II~. ~ ~
YI re~ Y dYII i. tYr oY w~ wwN~ ~ wl~ r
Wy y~YV. YI W .1. .i ~r i~i ~Yf1 Y ' ~
~~i rY ~ Y~rr ~I !r Y'? `Ir.
~is••
W T.S.'5~••~ was r`. n.sur r. rn r mp-n, aur . r .r
w,
w ~ORu~ ~I~L h w~? na /1 rl~+ M .~.M ~i r1r~ rw~r ~r~
t ~ 1 / r ~ Mwl1 Fr NIlr !"N f?. NNIM rr r" A/"
~ ~0 M.~ N ~ILN Mr1 r~ 1~ r ~.Ii. YI ~
1 ~ ~ ) • ~1 ~~Y mi nomom
u M1r rrll M MVwr"dM L! Nr
~.~I' s ~Yi~ AM
l war drrw 0.11 r ..rr w. w 14.4 Sir ti ~
r u. -n. .r. r iff
t~ 1. e
~ A
. YVl~ Mlllw' M/1 Y Yeribr'?1. b M~iIY r Ir
rM~ ~f 1 IM.Ar ~.f. NI rw~IWr WIf Y~f~r
~IY ~T M~~ M r~~Y~a YI Alrr w~ll r
~ _
I ~ I I I I 1 ~ I 1 I ~ ~
~ ~ • I ~ ul -hi Nw" w. r.~i r...~.. Aln i~.r?~.. . ,.R
~ Vw ~IM wwdl~ ~ is~ta sl~d ~/~Mb ~W i M
~
twit. b I~Mrri.~rt w N Aq/r-` RMMI~ ~wl Y~1 ~IY V
• h ~r~ .
I ~ ~ I ~ / ~ , ~ ~ J ' • ~ ~ ~wM~ ~i
I ~ ~ ~ i k'1 ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ W
Mr~wr I r~.+ SS y M pl~
4~ i L~, l I I I ~ $ ~0~
14 o
~ 11I111,1 ?1. 1 - ~ 1
~11I111I I 1 I ~ I I I I 1'(ll/, ~ 1 3~oa
1111 I i -fI-I I 1 I I I I 1 I 11 ~ l 1- uur I
ir efa. ar
llllll ~ ` W
f ~ ~ ~ a
~
?
. •
r~sr
0 f~'DO'LO' M ~ t20.E6' \
MIILOIMliW[ LYYT?OtslWia ~ • -
!AT
41, i: 4L
ra~r~
PLANP dCSIDVi.E
_ IM aoNoa119 Wwn ~xm~e wa em r. auuoiw aALne
ni-I w. r?. rr w..r~~ Aw r-1. •
o
10 O~i" dipl• IYIN 6(~ Y{T~1. • / _
w. wl-i s+?W?I. rw~w wi..a i-LAr..1. s ~ .
06.wr. w I'd n..r a+- um w. ro tr
+.i. Fir nw ...6rw iasw. 6 .r~.°.~-
_ r~Y, FlI ~Yw flN Il~w ar~ O'IM • OIA. OT
rtr. ~ Mrrb / M1r~t.l- Ilr{IY 6-Y n a~..w w.. ow... ?Ir l~w~~ JatPN. • ~s a?ww+
rT OikIN W~ ?M~Ir M~I~IfA J-ITwt. M
- 11~ Mt. M. K O.N Ivi dlrnIr 1'rpu strYl.l~r 1-Nl~1. 11
~ ? ' ~ P~• lYsl- r/ ?la ~ Me ~f. N. wl~YrT~ W?~1
R OAMUri. /-IrN IWtw -WwN 41k7d Y3Tw7. 31
~a~ar
A? PI- L~ +4N A- paYl. ?Ir M • ~ -M ~
n..r rrw ar ?..r r...w o- r..... r ~ 9y
~ we uf... rn..b sr.ar ri.w -IrI• writ n u
!M ali MIWr? ry~ w111N1- ~rrr •
40 Mftl~ .i.I- .rl?!~ M~IY tiMl. ~ 107
~ Npq110R QiA86 .Ip O-.Y~I}r .rt~lA w~!• ! M
C1T Ol_tl.. !M'Ns G~ll~ MArli lw11M4 q ~1
~ VOr IMM T~IIw h4-4111• r.L-1111. h+INw t 01
+vW Ua.. o..~ Nw. .~ru~ w u LANDSCAPE YLAN
w rr~. w. r-.v.• ~.arr 6-1. • ie
i• • se•.o• Ll
- i • •
i -
~ a
r
~ ~
a 1~1
r
M 0 I~
~r
~ ~ ~
14 u ~
~
s ~ .
~ ~ " ~ • ` ~ ' w o.
~
•d~ ~ ~ • ~ fd
~ sr
+
y~ ot ,
~
t
h ~
YLI~ '
OVER. 3IVSL FL001L
L
u~ - t.
a i
~ s
~ x
r
pt
u~ 0
v<
Z Ok
wo i
? ~ p ~o ~
. Q
J ~ w"O
OL W w
~a<
~ >
~
.
o~~'" e` •
x
t
~ r o'"O~ ~
• aNr'r , a
h ~ .r .
~ ?
..eat'
~i ~ .
4 ~ t
~
Y ~
1
I'"r
4
k
IN LEY~' FLOOS, JL!?14 A-2
.•.a~
~ •
~
M
~
O
- ~ s
w
~
6f` ~
u~ ?
w• ~ s
~ ~ _
r
id I
yy~ O Vy ~
i~ ~ I
A~c
s
r
a
a
0
. • ? f••R-=-~'` ~ 14
Q ;
er
14
xo
€ ~
.
gg•~
~ ,~i'' \ ,~.ec..+, •
i~
i
~
pER LEviL FLOCg, PLl+13 I~.~
tTY
arr -
.p.
. M ~
~
~wea.e~reean~~..•
F ~
x
w~
~„m..~.~,...,..~.. v e
x
w
~ ~ A N o
~„a. _ _ - - - - - - - _ _
.wmr ~vr urr re~-u• ~ ~ ~ ~ A.
O
rTim
~ ww
~ U
HTH
W q
~
1 I 1~~ Il~f{1 11 11 111 0 ~~r
~tRM ~IIR
~ /NI~1 /11a ~ ~
+01. Y. i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -
r ~va
IMi~ 110111111
SOUTH ELEYATION
u.- • r ~e-
A4
' ~ ~ ~
' • • ~ ~
I
!y e
0 ~
_.,~..r,.n,....~~. ~
•
> t
r d ,
_
- = -
- x
.~.,e.~...~,.T~.r - - - - w o
;.,e.u..u.T...•.r - U
~~s ~sr uer ~rwr 'F'~ ~
F
~
di ~ O
~E~3~ , a
~ r~ °o
; m
a
< a~
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 ' ~t p>
A
bw-
W ~
1 1 11 11 111111 IIi
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - 1l~1 IMIY 6ale_ e~ ~ ~
•~f7T~S
~'-----~sam LCQna ~ ~jlvf~r7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~Q +R. 7sM
.
fiASI' ELEYATION
v- . r -o-
A5
i
~
M
Q
Mt
. y
~ I
r
~ I
q!!lbf~
tle~~~u m
- - - - - - - - - - -
. _ _ ~ _ _ - _ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - ue~ ~f ullLr~~'~ _1_
~
-
T Z
0
tl~r~Wf~Y~~11~j_ Q 1.
j
T
W M ~
w
I - - ~ - - - _ ~ ~sr ~~rs ~ ~i A ~
W q
i ~
~ Er O
WMIs•
~ ~
~__=====i=====_____~___- - ~ -
`
?IMI~p
wmr w~ot
' wEST ELEVATION
si4• . i• -o-
AE
' • • ~
• ~ •
.
M ~
O
• r. _
w~errnwr~•-ti•1
~
~ S
14
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A~~YlWRr/~•~11•1 ~ ~
-T"
~ W ~V+
~ U F
~ -
z I
F
..eQ
0
.
_ iec}mt~r
d .o
.
i ~ ~ d~Oo
L---~--- W w
-fl
j ~ i I ~ L <ae
----r====
-
W q
~
I i I I---- I J I I I I I
I I I I I I i I I I LL-~'~ Ha
I I I I I I I I I I
I r i ~ ~~aaayr
-
- -m- :
-r-r----- il
II ~ III I I I I ~ -
II ~ III I 1 I I ~ - -
P-,worm
~-----~-1-------- _i ru.rs. - ~
~5=----=a ~ ~
~ I
NORTH ELEVATION
vv • i• b•
~ ~ A7
M ~
C
~ S
M
wt YOi MI~
\ ~ ~
IIYTf ' ~^1 ` •
~mnwr W
woo
/
~loooe h3 ~ A s O
A
Lw. 04 ~ O
\ \ ~ ~ W M
o~ernm~ ~ , ~ ~ O
ssR wnaa wr ortr wft ~oan~ o? l~ r.~ ~ V
~
War1 ua wn . w r. rr. LaW w. ww emaa
iew.`~" w . us '=r~' r~r: w ~ erwWi °i~ ie-
Of
wr
wrt w~~ w~ - ~a M. rr. \
4
4r[ WIT VNIt O!'A .MJ R. Wr WR LOO1 ls1'0. R~ • lY M. Ft. Y
ewrAM uor L~ ua WA - i~e en. rad [-xi O
IRI~ IrliS IY~ WR RA IOpN ORTAIWL WIT YMS R~ ~ f7.6 ~0. rT. , pl
iYf WR lAe1 {1.M6 RA . M0.! r. R.
10M HIL RA ~ M7.1 M. K. IY? WR &MIO RA - ~1J M. R.
MW L,ML O!A ~ I~J O. K. •
~ Ll1d RA ~ 3dOt r. R.
7006 RA . 660.1 r. R. Isf WtT t61w tt+R. \ ~ r~asr
ww mrc MIIia Rm . Yti OL R. !RIlNY' YOfl
M
wisa ~u~+a oiwrwM wr +oreu
IAM taL RA . = r. R. Mw' Ym S*I1M
MOI LM. RA . W.b M. ?f. ~,n
70Q 8?A - M{.~ M. R.
CrM/IE MPAS wft EWA M. Fr.
Ol .
'
LOwF.R LEVEL GRFA STUDY
vr • r o- ~
SFl
, ~ ~ S
~ • ~ •
~I ~ II
n'~M E
Ar.
~w
S ~
M r
" M[ YuT eRi1I iN.
goome..* LNM x
wo
U~
z•.
wo
A~o
. y F e
~ ~ W ~
Oqes1111L WIT W11M IJM •sow-ir O
a°
d "
o
ww
° a
n~ wi~mQ ~ oea~Rna 4 ~i 0d e
N1M Ll1t. Gn WILM
011l4~1 R~ O7M1~l~ ~
oAw WIT MW La1<~lA. 3,111.1 ~0. R. 01
IOf WfT MN LiVIL RA ~ M111.8 ~0. R.
OlrltJlW1 IoW liAL /MI • WJ M. R. W 1+
H o
a
Mm UVT FAXII LWAL ~r~rr
auww wm
~aar. a. ur
l[AIN LEVEL GRFA STIIDY
ur - v o-
SF2
w ~
0
c~
•
r ~ ~
wr wrc u4w urm
simcomoNe non ~
W o
/ F
z M
Ls~
~ O
k~
- ~ O
~ Vl 4" e
~ 04 ~ p
J J
~ M
msm wuss wr raw~na ~ .i ~
awm cwm wr amna
M/t W IT IR{11 LLaft RA ~J p. rT.
rrr wtt ur~w ua w~ • uw.s a. rt. ~ W q
` ' ?7i H
F ~
i
WT 0799 Lim
e+4wlle wtn ~ ~YiS'~ ~ =@!t!!~
s'l
IIPPEA LEYEL GRFA S'PtTDY
iir • r o.
J F3
' ~ ~ ~
Y
F
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior addition to construct a sun room, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 930 B Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing.
Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Planner: Dirk Mason
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGlUEST
In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter
(18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This
Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be
added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The
purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of ,
existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by
permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit.
• The applicants, Paul and Nancy Rondeau, owners of the west half of an existing duplex are
seeking approval for previously constructed GRFA. The applicant converted an existing deck on
the third floor of the residence into a sun room. According to the applicant, at the time of
construction, no approval was thought to be necessary. This 125 sq. ft. addition does not impact
the existing site coverage, as this deck is below the existing fourth floor. The exterior building
materials of the addition match the existing building materials. With the approval of this request,
the west half of the duptex will have 125 sq. ft. of GRFA rernaining.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Legal Description: Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing
Address: 930 B Fairway Drive
Lot Size: 30,100 sq. ft. / 0.691 acre
Zoning: Two Family Residential
Use: Duplex
Allowed Existin Proposed
GRFA: 3,053 sq. ft." 3,176 sq. ft. 3,301 sq. ft.
(west unit)
Site Coverage: N/A N/A N/A
• 1
~
~
!
Reauired Existin Proposed
Parking: 3 spaces 2 enclosed spaces no change •
2 surface space
'includes 425 sq. ft. credit and is currently legally non-conforming
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect uqon the existin.g tq.pography, vggetation, drainagg and existing
structures.
The residential addition has no impacts on the existing topography,
vegetation, drainage and the existing structure. There is a minor change
to the existing structure, as mentioned previously, the addition enclosed an
existing deck and did not increase the site coverage.
The changes affecting the existing structure are minimal and do not have
any negative impacts on the property. A geologic hazard investigation, •
written by a registered engineer with the State of Colorado, has been
submitted in regards to the potential avalanche hazards on the property,
and the relationship to the addition. No mitigation is required.
2. Imoact on adjacent Rrope rties.
Upon completing a site visit to the applicanYs property, staff believes there
are no negative impacts to adjacent properties. Public notices have been
sent to the adjacent property owners. To date, staff has not received any
input from the adjacent property owners.
3. Comoliance with the Town's zoning reauirements and aR lip cable
development standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that
any single family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed
shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping
standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code.
Additionally, before any additional GRFA rnay be permitted in accordance
with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of
the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, to determine
whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards
include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and
general maintenance of the property.
2 - •
i
~
Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find the property is in compliance
• with the applicable development standards listed above. The utilities are
currently undergrounded, the driveway is paved, and the general
maintenance of the property is excellent.
B. Findinas:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting approval for additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested additional GRFA would not negatively "
effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing siructures.
2. That the granting of the requested additional GRFA would not negatively
impact adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested additional GRFA would comply with all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application to
utilize 125 sq. ft. of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA available, subject to the following
findings:
• 1. That the granting of the requested additional GRFA does not negatively effect existing
topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested additional GRFA does not negatively impact adjacent
properties.
3. That the granting of the requested additional GRFA does comply with all Town zoning
requirements and applicable development standards.
•
f:\everyone\pec\memos\rondeau\n25 3
~ WHITE RiVER NAT10NAl_ FOREST
Sc~E i-.ZM~ ~
2i~U 0 i~v M~Y f X~ TOWN OF VQIL BOUNDARY
,
, unK aiieo s~wv zdy bosrs u~~cur~^.c ~
~ - - - - • \
UNPLATiEO
70WN OF VAIL
M1I.11f1T SHOP .
i AI! CU~lDOh11NIUMS '
I _
_ _ . - - - -
YhA T N
•rnRK
' • . INTERSTA7E 70
VILL GE WREN - I , 0 v I
'J ,F1
t HLIN-G ~ FR]M!A~E-" flP,17 _Ld:i=-'_' Tf(hCF A
~2~ VAIL VILLA6E 8th FfLING
-VAIL VILLA~ teNms canics
4fh.~~ILi G ~,,,,K ~ ~ 5 ~ ~
VAILyAL-UEY Ist. FILI
4
~
~ D PARK 5_~ - ~ - u,~~+ _ _ i~s•~ ~~c~~~~1 ~~:~ue, ~ f)~ ~ u„i vnn _ vAL_i.er
~530~R1
* f- ~ n.~ vnn wa11 ~r r A Ir)ro~ n•I ~ Irl ~ • /.j) i
l.) I~ll I0.1. ~ fl'15 ~
IN
20 ~ \ I:,I ~ril~ I~ It1ACT 1 2 ~1)J•i ~ ' IISf ` 1.1~~~
IftA(:~ \ ~ C 7
ICOI ~ ~ - Z. 3 Ilxr 15.~~~ 11'.r1 Ilri~i 1•1~~ + ` z / ' ~ - _ IJ1.1 Il~~r, ~~M'~14YCf1
~ rcarn ~ IOp~ n~ ~f £ 19 lltnGl
~ - MANOIt nMi+r~~lnrlr~ . , . I ~ 3 n !l IrI /~~•i1 ~~~i~~
' 10.': t151'. L
VAII . ~ - ~ 4 E~ • ~ tip ! ~ 17 13 ll•I:i_
Y35 / ~~V ' S`' 7 N - /
N~TUIIE '~St4 f tu:~) IOlii ~1 / VA\lE
~ CF.NfEIf / 7 • ~C~~ . Y IX7 I
\ \ 601 N112
2 IU~ 1
GrHf1EN G~~~ ? 9 1.'.,~ ITIN
i'E"AN 992 4
450 !'AHCEI E
2 4 GOLF COUHSF MnINi BLOG
SQCCFR FIElO
L 3 T17ACT D ^
12ZU ~8~
TI7ACT A t
,~.~y SKI L SRA. - ~ 93~ \ pt~ •
rlrilFH~~~ YAIL 2 Q~ I'pD
598 • ~ ~ ~ 996 Q_ z _ SP 1
3
~ ' ° T
LAGE 7ih. FILING PINOS OEL MORTE a '
998 10~, z 1 7 l il9 ~ 1130 7
a VAIL VILLAGE 7th. FILING ~6 - - ' 2 RA~T F
TRACT 0 co0 Z W
NORiH ?Ss ,
~ B FZ 6 FI 2 f 1 2 O x I
0 5 a s p 5 FaRCEL D ~~W LL)
5r,
3 925 U ~
FAIR'NAY
• . •4 a W
990
4GLE COUNTY U l. LL 1GE Fi IN ~
e 19 1 8 65
e0 890 1920 950 970
T A
• ~ ~ ~r
pt~~~.. ,
Cc'
\'o
4 1 ~
~ ~ ''r
` Y(`~\ , r^1 .~C`~ ~ v
` ~ ~ \ CJ~ ~ ~C,, 1• • , ~ ~
~ ? c>! / ~.uJ ~.f'/
\ i . ^1, e'1 / ~ ~ / ~ ` , a ~ ~J /'L.-• ~ ( [ ~ ~
~~~q~~, ~ , \ f ~ ~ 2 , i ~ ~ s ~
t ~ , ~',~"~,y r~~,' ~
~ ~ ` f? , sv'
h ~O / 1 \ I' / ~r),C, ` , \
U/e
~ ~ ` ~ ~ , ? ! "
Ao
/
C,,~? . . - _ . - , ~ Zti
~
,~,-c~' ~ ~ ; + _ " ~ ~
~ 1 ' • " ~'j~
,
~ /,'q~
1 ~
.
l ~ ~ , , ~ ~ a~ .~E?-~ ~ ~
~
,
ti
14
~ ~
t a
.
yi
~
~.Y, `•s~%~"
` ~ ' i~, :1`V:'.' ~ •
l
otj
~ .
S?ou-
ur"~
Lrro
~
,
. ;
~
,
, . ' .
M.EMORANDUM
•
I TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 25, 1996 •
SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal
Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license
units" as a condiiional use in the Public Accommodation Zone District and
establishing additional conditional use factors for time-share estate units,
fractional fee units and/or time-share license units in the Public Accommodation
Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting to amend
the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing that Section 18.22.030 of the
Municipal Code be amended to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-
• share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District and to
create Section 18.22.035, Conditional Uses - Factors applicable. The time-share estate units,
fractional fee units and time-share license units would be allowed subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code.
il. BACKGROUND
The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The
Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed
in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was
purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp
Hotel.
In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development
District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the
redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented,
and has since expired, but instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion .
of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located
at 20 Vail Road.
The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately "75 pillows" and
is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small
restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of
• 1
the buiiding. The hotei rooms are marginai in size (300 sq. ft. average) and iack certain ~
amenities, by today's accommodation standards.
The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows"
over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new
commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as
time-share interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion I
ot the required parking and loadingldelivery in an underground parking structure.
According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vaii, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide
sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-
public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related
visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District
is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre.
The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permit time-share interval units.
Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District
pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Density Multi-
Family Zone District. All properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In
order for a time-share project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a
developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an
entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time-
share project in the Town of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of property from its
current zoning to High Density Multi-Family.
Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-share estate units, fractional fee •
units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440,
time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows:
Time-share estate units: Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan
estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit,
the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the
timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan
estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually
recurring period of time defined and established by a recorded schedule set forth or
referred to in the deed conveying ihe timespan estate. Additionally, an interval estate is
an estate for four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a
timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule,
vesting in each such interval owner in turn for a period oi time established by the said schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival of the date
, certain.
Fractional fee units: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property,
including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint
ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by
oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the
use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or
more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding
upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement
2 •
continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any
• interest in the property.
Time-share liconse units: Shall be defined as a contractua{ right to exclusive occupancy of
specified premises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or
more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises
may consist of one parcei, unit or dwelling, or any of severai parcels, units or dwellings
identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a
timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan
estate.
{I1. CONFORMITY W{TH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNfNG DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in the
Public Accommodation Zone District as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant
planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives
stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 18.22.010 of the Vaii Municipai Code, identifies the purpose of the Public
Accommodation Zone Disirict. According to the purpose statement,
" The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges
and residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi-public
• facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and
related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district.
The Public Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open
space and other amenities commensurate witfi lodge uses, and to maintain the
desirable resort qualities of ihe district by establishing appropriate site
development standards. Additional non-residentiaV uses are permitted as
conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vai{ as a winter and summer
recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are intended to functian
compatibly with ihe high density lodging character of the district. The Public
Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at
densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre."
According to Section 18.22.020, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following uses shall be
permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone District:
a) Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail
establishments focated within the principal use and not occupying more than 10%
of the total Gross Residential Floor Area af the main structure or structures on the
site; -
b) Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or
terrace.
, . 3 . .
i ` .
. w
i Chapter 18.60 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides a framework for making decisions on
for conditional use Permits within the Town of Vail. Section 18.60.010 identifies the
requests
.
purpose and limitations of a conditional use perrnit. According to the Purpose Statement,
"In order to provide ihe flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Code,
specified uses are permitted in certain zone districts subject to the granting of a
conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional
uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properfy with respect to
the purposes of the Zoning Code and with respect to their effects on surrounding
properties. The review process prescribed in Chapter 18.60 is intended to assure
compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding
properties and the Town of Vail at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various
zone districts rnay be permitted subject to such conditions and limitatians as the Town of
Vail may prescribe to insure that the focation and operation of the conditional uses will be
in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to
other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these
objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be devised."
Section 18.60.060, Criteria-Findings, identifies the Criteria and Findings which the Planning
Commission shatl consider with respect to the proposed use before acting upon a conditional use
permit application.
A. The following Criteria-Findings shall be considered by the Planning and
Environmental Commission when acting upon a request for a conditional use
permit:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the •
Town;
2. The effect of the use on tight and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities naeds;
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and controi,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas;
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses;
I
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable
to the proposed use;
, .
, 6. The Environmental impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an
Environmental Impact Report is required by Chapter 18.56; 7. Prior to the approval ot a conditional use permit for a time-share '
, estate, fractional fee or time-share license proposal, the applicant
shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within •
the project or building; and written statements from 100% of the
owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, ~
' 4
of the proposed time-share, fractionai fee, or time-share license. No
• written approval shail be valid if it is signed by the owner more than
60 days prior to the date of filing the appiication for a conditional use.
All buildings which presently contain time-share units, would be
, exempt from this provision.
B. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a
conditional use permit:
• 1. That the proposed location of the use in accordance with the
purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the tone district in
which the site is located;
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity;
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this title.
VAIL LAND USE PLAN
Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of ,
Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The
• goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development
proposals. Staff has identified the following goals (listed below), as being relevant to the
applicant's proposaL•
1. General Growth / Development
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.
1_3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1_4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into
new development in the Village core through continued
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
2. Skier / Tourist Concerns
2_1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort
while accommodating day skiers.
.
5
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders
should work together ciosely to make existing facilities and the .
Town function more efficiently.
2_4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
3. Commercial
3.1 The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3_2 The Viliage and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to
serve the future needs of destination skiers.
3_4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial
areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
4. Village Core / Lionshead
4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the
existing character of each area is preserved through the .
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Master Plan.
5. Residential
5_2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep
occupancy rates up. •
6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensive plan.
Economic Development
The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of inechanism to control
tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial .
I uses is maintained.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN:
On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The plan is
intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating
~ development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing
community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that
will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly,
the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing
future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal
with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly
defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail
Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan,
and along with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built
environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. .
6 ' .
Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are
• designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of
objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy
statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the
stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in
implementing capital improvement projects.
Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
• residential and commercial facilities.
1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as
identified by the action plan as is consistent
with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Plan.
Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic
health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
• 2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria
shall be consistent with the overall goals and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan.
2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-
term, overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation
units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that
are developed above existing density levels are
required to be designed or managed in a manner
that makes them available for short-term overnight
rental.
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with
established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
network throughout the Village.
• 7
2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides nightlife and evening
entertainment for both the guest and the community •
shall be encouraged.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging.and commercial facilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of
any new or redeveloped project requesting density
over that allowed by existing zoning.
2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with
appropriate restrictions so as to insure their
availability and affordability to the local work force.
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the Village.
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver .
treaiments, landscaping, lighting and seating
areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways.
3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the
greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to
absolutely minimaf necessary levels in the
pedestrianized areas of the Village.
3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life
along pedestrian ways and plazas.
3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to
the project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
8
•
~ .
Goal #4 To preserve existing green space areas and expand green space
• opportunities.
4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas
with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the
different roles of each type of open space in forming the
overall fabric of the Village.
4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and
improvements to existing plazas (public art,
streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be
encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive
people places.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and cireulation system throughout the Village.
5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking
shall be provided (rather than paying into the
parking fund) to meet any additional parking
demand as required by the Zoning Code.
~ 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly
encouraged to provide underground or visually
concealed parking.
Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements
of the Village.
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
Sub-Area #1-8 Sonnenalp(Austria Haus)/Slifer Square
Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive, to provide stronger
edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the
pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide
improvements to pedestrian circulation with a separated walkway,
• including buffer, along East Meadow Drive.
Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route
along Meadow Drive, are two significant constraints that must be
addressed. One additional floor of residential/lodging may also be
` accommodated on this site.
•
9
. . >
IV. eROPOSED TEXT CHANGES
As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee •
units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses
and staff is proposing to create Section 18.22.035, establishing additional conditional use factors
to consider when reviewing a request for a conditional use permit for a time-share estate,
fractional fee and/or time-share license unit in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The
proposed changes to Section 18.22.030 are shown as sh.Aded below:
Chapter 18.22 Public Accommodation 18.22.030 Conditional uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone
District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 18.60:
A. Professional and business offices;
B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers;
C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations;
D. Ski lifts and tows;
E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures;
G. Public transportation terminals;
H. Public utility and public service uses;
1. Public buildings, grounds and facilities;
J. Public or private schools; •
K. Public parks and recreational facilities; ,
L. Churches; M. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than 10% of
the total Gross Residential Floor Area of a main structure or structures located on the site
in a non-conforming multi-family dwelling;
N, Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street,
walkway, or mall area;
0. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310;
P. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;
Q. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.70;
R_ Time sh~re estates urnts;>fractional fee;:units;~,nd time share license units as furthet
.
regulated by, Sect~od ~8 22 035,,.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE FACTORS
Staff is proposing to establish additional conditional use factors to be used in the consideration of
a conditional use permit request for time-share projects in the Public Accommodation Zone
District. According to discussions with the applicant and Planning and Environmental
Commission, staff believes that time-share projects could be compatible with the existing
permitted, conditional and accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation Zone District
given that certain factors are met. A similar approach is currently used in the Commercial Core 1
Zone District to address conditional uses.
•
10 -
Staff proposes that the following additional conditional use factors be established through the
0 creation of a new section in Chapter 18.22. The proposal is as follows:
18.22.035 Conditional Uses - Factors appiicable.
in addition to the criteria found in Chapter 18.60, an application for a conditionai use
permit for a time-share estate unit, fractional fee unit, and/or a time-share license unit in
the Public Accommodation Zone District shall be evaluated subject to the following review
criteria:
A. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the
hotel bed base (i.e., overnight accommodations) in the Town of Vail. In
determining the effects of a time-share project on the hotel bed base,
consideration shall be given to the proposed on-site relationship and ratio
of time-share units to accommodation units, the availability of lock-offs .
units and the short-term rental opportunities of time-share units when not
in use by the owner(s). The cumulative effects of the proposed time-share
project and other existing time-share projects shall also be considered.
B. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the
gross square footage of existing accommodation units in the Town of Vail.
Consideration shall be given to allowing for the inclusion of the proposed
lock-off square footage as accommodation unit square footage.
C. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse impacts upon
adjacent properties. Adverse impacts to consider may include, but are not
~ limited to, impacts to traffic, parking, noise, the character of the area,
loading/delivery and trash facilities.
D. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the
nature of Vail as a world-class resort offering winter and summer
recreation and vacation opportunities. The cumulative effects of the
proposed time-share project and other existing time-share projects shall
also be considered.
E. The proposed time-share projecYs ability to provide accommodation and
recreation amenities to its guests and the Town of Vail. Amenities to
consider include, but are not limited to, proximity of the project to public
transportation, availability of conference/meeting room space, availability
of hotel-type services, proximity of the project to retail shops and
eating/drinking establishments, on-site recreation facilities and proximity to
community recreation facilities.
F. The applicant's ability to guarantee the future adequacy, stability and
continuity of a high-level of management and maintenance of the time-
share project.
G. Whether an office of the managing agent is located locally, or on the site
of the time-share project.
H. Whether a front desk operation, operating 24 hours a day and seven days
~ a week, with reservation/registration capabilities, exists within the
proposed time-share project.
11 ' , .
I. The effects of a proposed time-share project upon the goais, objectives
and policies prescribed in the adopted Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan ~
Elements and the proposal's compliance with the Municipal Code.
J. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the
present and future supply of Town services, including, but not limited to,
loss of tax revenue and increased demand on municipal facilities. The
cumulative effect of the proposed time-share project and other existing
time-share projects shall also be considered.
I K. The proposed duration of time-share intervals.
L. Whether the developer of the time-share project plans to offer resale
assistance and/or exchange program affiliation to time-share interval
' purchasers.
M. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate,
fraction fee or time-share license unit proposal, the applicant shall submit
to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or
building; and written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units
indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed time-share,
fractional fee, and/or time-share license. No written approval shall be valid
if it is signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the
application for a conditional use. All buildings which presently contain
time-share interval units, are exempt from this provision.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION •
The Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommend approval to the Town Council of the applicanYs request
to amend Section 18.22.030, Public Accommodation, Conditional Uses, of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code. Staff recommends that the PEC make the finding that adding this conditional
use, with the additional review criteria to those uses listed in the Public Accommodation (PA)
Zone District, will continue to ensure compatibility with other uses in the PA Zone District. The
staff's recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the approval of the proposed Additional
Conditiona( Use factors Iisted in Section IV of this memorandum.
• . , _ , . .
f:\everyone\pec\memos\sonnenalp,n25 12 ;
~
~
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
• November 25, 1996
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Henry Pratt Dirk Mason
Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Tammie Williamson
John Schofield Dominic Mauriello
Gene Uselton - Tom Moorhead
Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
Henry Pratt and Galen Aasland were not present.
1. A request for an exterior addition to add a 125 sq. ft. sun room, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 930 B Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing.
Applicant: Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Planner: Dirk Mason
• Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request, according to the staff inemo. He stated that no
mitigation was being required with this proposal.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Paul Rondeau had nothing to add.
Greg Moffet then asked for any public input. There was none.
Diane Golden asked if the area would be heated?
Paul Rondeau, the applicant, said yes, possibly.
John Schofield had no comments.
Gene Uselton asked when the duplex was originally built?
Paul Rondeau stated that it was purchased in 1988.
Gene Uselton asked the applicant if he did the work himself?
Paul Rondeau stated that he did the work himself.
Gene Uselton asked the applicant if he was an engineer?
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
• November 25, 1996 1
~
1•
Paul Rondeau stated that he was an engineer by trade, not by license.
Gene Uselton asked staff if a building permit was required? •
Dirk Mason said a plumbing or mechanical permit was required, if the applicant was planning on
heating the addition.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
_ Greg Moffet said he liked to see people coming in when they wanted additional GRFA and he
stated that all the findings were complied with.
John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
2. A request for two, 250's and a conditional use permit in order to construct a Type tl EHU,
located at 796 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Ray Mayer, represented by Steve Riden
Planner: Tammie Williamson
Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the request, per the staff inemo.
Dominic Mauriello explained that this request was for an EHU of 500 sq. ft. He went on to say
that the 500 sq. ft. was given as a bonus to build the EHU. The applicant was not required to •
use up the allowable GRFA first.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had nothing to add.
Greg Moffet asked for any public input. There was none.
John Cogswell; an adjacent property owner, stated that this was the first time he had seen the
set of plans and that he was wondering about the parking.
Dominic Mauriello said that there were 5 parking bays.
Greg Moffet said one of the conditions of approval was to deed-restrict one of the parking spaces
' for the EHU.
John Cogswell said the neighbor to the west and the neighbor behind him had asked John to
attend this meeting, as they were losing their site views. John said that there were 3 units and
he asked about the GRFA?
Greg Moffet explained that the applicant was proposing to build using 180 sq. ft. less than what
was allowed. He said that the applicant was also building a lower house. Greg said the proposal
was permitted within the code, however, he did understand about the loss of site views.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 25, 1996 2 •
John Schofieid said it was good for an EHU to be built.
Gene Uselton agreed with John and said it was lower than allowed and was a nice residence.
•
Greg Amsden asked if the Fire Department had looked at the plan and also if there would be any
problem with the drainage?
Tammie Williamson said the Fire Department had looked at the plan.
Diane Golden stated that the landscaping was good and that there were more trees then are
there now. She is also thrilled to see another EHU.
Steve Riden, representing the applicant, said they knew they were going to restrict some
neighbor's views and so that is why they overemphasized the landscaping.
Greg Moffet suggested to staff, as a salient point, to put together a staff memo in response to
John Schofield's concerns about building less square footage than allowed. Greg also reminded
everyone that the applicant was sinking the garage quite a bit lower than the Code required.
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
Greg Amsden asked if staff will require an ILC survey after this project's foundation is poured.
He wanted to make sure the height of the structure was in compliance before construction got
too far along.
• Tammie Williamson said, yes.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
3. A request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to
add "Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share License Units," as
conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
Greg Moffet stated for the record said this was a narrow issue and reminded everyone not to talk
about the individual project, but only the issues surrounding the time-share use.
Dominic Mauriello stated that George Ruther, the Planner for the project, was out of Town and
George had asked him to give the overview. Dominic then gave an overview of the proposal,
pursuant to the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Gordon Pierce, representing the applicant, said that he was in agreement with what was
presented by staff.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
• November 25, 1996 3
G.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association (EVHA), said he differed •
with staff's interpretation of the Vail Land Use Plan's reference to a goal on page 6, 5.2, saying
that "we should be encouraging time-share." He felt the interpretation of residential meant a
residential zone district. Jim questioned how we jumped, in a 3-year span in 1983, from we don't
want it, to yes we do. He said when used as a conditional use, from a legal standpoint, he
~ doubted that we would be able to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. He questioned staff on
the definition of fractional fee and did it apply to condominiums? Jim said that, on page 2, he
read into it that it did include condominiums and he further stated that condominiums have been
approved in the CC1, without going for a conditional use. Jim Lamont stated that we permitted
all three and given the definition, are we saying that condos were not allowed in any other zone
district? Is it not saying that all condos are fractional fee units? Jim said the problem with the
conditional use approach, was that it needed to be inciuded in all zone districts. Jim asked how
could you make a distinction from site-to-site regarding time-shares or condominiums, based on
the fact of ownership. He said that ownership was not a means to regulate time-share. He
disagreed with the wording in the conditions that said "shall have no adverse affecY" and stated
that there had been no base-line study that gives an indication of the status of existing time-
~ shares. He further explained that there was no study to be used as a basis for control or to
compare. He felt these criteria to be very broad and questioned who was required to provide the
enforcement information? He asked what was heresay vs. actual fact? He felt it to be well
intentioned, but "gumming the issue, rather than biting into the issue." He stated until we have
assurances, the EVHA would be hesitant to have a final position on it. Jim questioned the
potential impact on the existing condo market for units in a similar price range? He said that
units in this area were in the $150-$250,000 price range and felt that we needed to tailor this to
apply specifically to the project. Jim felt that housing types in each neighborhood should be
defined in the ordinance using a menu. We could have a discussion on the relative percentages
of a mix within the project. Jim felt a conditional use was a weak sister, rather than a use by •
. right. He stated that we needed to determine the percentage in the area.
Dominic Mauriello explained that staff did intentionally draw this broadly, so that each proposal
could be evaluated to see how each proposal implemented the criteria. He said that it was the
applicanYs responsibility to meet the criteria upon their application. He stated that staff did not
want to nail down criteria for just one product. He explained that staff felt the criteria should be
broad enough to include other proposals. Dominic stated that there were 13 criteria in order for
the PEC to make judgements. He did suggest tightening it up. He said staff recognizes that
there are different impacts and that there is a distinction between condos and time-shares.
Jim Lamont asked for clarification on whether it applied to all housing types, or is the criteria
sotely for time-share?
Dominic Mauriello said that condominiums are a form of ownership and if you read the definition
of fractional fee, it discussed the conversion of property or condominiums to fractional fee.
Diane Golden had no comments.
John Schofield asked Tom Moorhead if a private club could be construed as a fractional use?
Tom Moorhead said, no.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 25, 1996 4 •
I
N
I a
John Schofield stated his concerns regarding long-term maintenance. He questioned if the next
proposal would be of the same qualiry. He felt that staff needed to put more teeth into this, in
• order to have quality products down the road. John suggested to staff to take a look at clarifying
the criteria by putting more teeth into it.
Gene Uselton agreed with John regarding the applicant having a"stellar" product. Gene said
that the problems with time-shares in the past was real and he felt that staff had taken a first step
in making sure that we wouldn't have a bad product. Gene agreed with Jim that the proposal
should have no adverse affects on adjacent properties. He thought that some of the conditions
didn't really tell the applicants what we really want and he asked how to do this without putting
ourselves in a straight jacket. Gene then asked Gordon for his opinion on what the PEC could
recommend to Town Council, in order not to have sub-par operations.
Gordon Pierce stated that interval ownership was quite different from time-share. He went on to
say that the applicant didn't want to be attached to a time-share definition. He said that the
applicant was affording a buyer to purchase goods and will only help the Town of Vail. He stated
that the premise that was originally proposed was for a win-win situation. He said if we could
drop time-share, we would be happy. He stated it was related, but different.
Gene Uselton asked if Gordon had looked into the Colorado State law for the cooling-off period?
Gordon Pierce said he didn't know the time allowed, but it was regulated.
Greg Amsden explained that the State law didn't differentiate between time-share and fractional
fee. He advised staff about the need to define the phrase "adverse effecY" and Greg still believed
that market conditions dictate. He didn't see resale for fee ownership, as having any effect on ,
real estate values. Greg said that he spoke with George Ruther after his trip to Park City. The
• Municipality in Park City had favorable remarks regarding this use and in Park City it had
accomplished what was to be accomplished in a resort. Greg went on to say that there were ,
about 15 sites in the PA district that would be able to do this. He felt other things that were put in '
the projects would determine whether they would go through. He felt that based on what was
needed in this Town, that this was a good proposal. .
Diane Golden asked about the EHU requirements?
Greg Moffet sa.id that would be an SDD issue. Greg Moffet said he was not comfortable with a
lot of the language in the criteria. He asked if "positive effects" would be preferable to "adverse
effects?" He went on to say that everything has adverse affects. He felt that provision H should
be a requirement. Greg had a hard time with provision J, as he saw that factor inherently
conflicting with the stated goals in the Tawn Master P1an to increase the bed base. He felt that
provision L was for consumer protection, but not a zoning issue. Greg told the applicant that
based on the comments heard today, he felt that we were not going to get consensus, with finro
members out. He told the applicant that they have heard some of the concerns. Greg felt that
we were not in a position today to make a recommendation and suggested to staff to spend more
time on the criteria. He suggested that the applicant offer to table this to the next meeting.
Gordon Pierce stated that he would hate to see it torpedo because of the reference to time-
share.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
• November 25, 1996 5
~w
I Greg Moffet reminded the applicant that he was in favor of the project and this might ease the
applicanYs task when they went in front of Council.
I Jim Lamont told the applicant that we were not saying yes, or no, but suggested having a menu, •
so project approval could be limited. He thought everybody in the PA cou(d then clearly define
housing types from the ordinance. He said that this project should not have to be burdened with
~ the time-share. With a menu you could choose different residential types and plug into zone
districts. Jim said that people were interested in fractional fee, not time-share.
Gene Uselton reiterated that PEC was proposing to recommend a change to the ordinance to
Council, but he saw them as different.
Dominic Mauriello stated that they were different, but the criteria would apply to all of them and
so therefore, the PEC needed to labe( the criteria for ali three types of interval ownership.
Tom Moorhead stated that the types were close enough and also, were governed the same
under the State Code.
Gene Uselton suggested clarifying the criteria a little more.
Tom Moorhead stated that there was a finder-of-fact with evidence presented by the applicant or
adjacent property owner. He went on to say that an adjacent property owner was adversely
affected when going from an undeveloped lot to a developed lot. Would this carry legal weight,
or would it go by the code. Tom said that he wasn't having the same problem as the PEC was
having with the term "adverse impact."
Gordon Pierce mentioned in talking with the staff, they felt each lock-off should be equivalent to
accommodation units on a one to one basis. •
Greg Moffet told Tom that the problem he had was with the phrase, "no adverse effects" and he
would prefer material adverse effect.
Tom Moorhead said that he didn't mean that it couldn't be made better. He felt all applications
needed to be adequately weighed by the applicant and the Commission.
Greg Moffet stated that this standard didn't do it.
Gordon Pierce agreed with no material impact replacing no adverse. He said that as far as
provision D was concerned, we presented a stronger, and a better, project than anything in
I Town.
Greg Moffet reminded the applicant that we were not talking about this particular project.
Gordon Pierce thought provisions E and F were both good for the ordinance, as well as G and H.
He felt provision I was good and that it didn't hurt. Gordon felt J was difficult. He said J was just
extra words, as you can't tell what would happen in the future.
I
Dominic Mauriello stated that Park City recommended provision J and they felt it had the most
impact.
Planning and Envirorunental Commission
Minutes
November 25, 1996 6 .
rt .
Greg Moffet felt that provision J should be stated in the positive, rather than in the negative.
• Dominic Mauriello asked Greg Moffet why he had a problem with the words "adverse effects?"
Greg Moffet said positive gave you more balance.
Gordon Pierce said K further limits the duration to higher than one week increments and stated
that the public didn't want something that was just one week. Gordon felt that one week
increments were not good for the Town.
Greg Moffet reminded Gordon that the applicant's expert from the Deer Valley Club used one
week intervals. -
' Gre9 Amsden said if You create enou9h of a Product, You could look at different market sectors.
Greg Moffet said he had no problem with one week intervals.
Gordon Pierce said provision L was good.
Greg Moffet stated that L was consumer protection and he would like to see it out.
Gordon Pierce said the State would require L.
Greg Moffet said he would like to have staff work on this a bit more.
John Schofield agreed with Greg.
• Gene Uselton said he would like this passed today, with a recommendation to staff to work more
on the wording.
Dominic Mauriello thought staff could have it ready for the 12/17/96 PEC meeting, if tabled.
Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC if changing the word adverse and minimal effects and putting J
in a positive light, would make them feel more comfortable.
Greg Amsden felt comfortable with staff doing the work.
Diane Golden was not comfortable.
Greg Moffet asked Dominic if it would be possible for the PEC to have their packets a week in
advance with the proposed language changes if this is tabled today?
Diane Golden said she didn't want to punish the applicant.
Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC that this item had been to three PEC meetings. He
recommended that the PEC approve it today and let staff make the changes prior to Council
review.
Planning and Environntental Commission
Minutes
• November 25, 1996 7
,
Gene Uselton agreed with Dominic. He felt the applicant and staff have done a good job and it
only needed a few word changes.
Greg Moffet summarized the suggested changes: •
A. Reword the 1 st sentence to read "shall positively effect."
B. Reword "shall positively effect."
C. Reword "shall have no materially adverse effect."
D. Reword "shall positively effect.
E-I. Doesn't need any work.
J. Reword " shall positively effect."
K. No changes L. Eliminate
M. No changes
Cynthia Thornberg, representing the applicant, suggested wording F to guarantee allowances.
Greg Moffet asked if in 5 years there are no funds for maintenance, do we withdraw the
conditional use?
John Schofield asked the applicant what assurances could F give to get high quality?
Gordon Pierce said the owners determine that and they increase fees with a vote by the
ownership. He stated that any good development will have this.
John Schofield asked Tom Moorhead for a mechanism to be able to review it down the road.
Tom Moorhead said an SDD offers the vehicle to be particular, however, enforcement is the •
issue down the road, because you would be enforcing against a membership.
Greg Moffet asked about the State rule regarding reserves?
Tom Moorhead said there is a State rule under CIOWA.
Jim Lamont asked if the Council could rescind the approval?
Tom Moorhead said, yes.
Jim Lamont said as long as those assurances are in to protect the Town over the long term.
Pam Hopkins, a concerned citizen, said she remembered recessions in Vail that when there is no
money, no improvements will be made. She said at Golden Peak and Garden of the Gods,
there was a percentage established that was used for improvements.
Greg Moffet said we don't contemplate all projects going immediately to time-share. He said
criteria would be designed with a ratio of 60-40, where someone will own 60% of project to be
able to make a decision.
Planning and Environmental Comxnission
Minutes
November 25, 1996 8 .
.
II I f
Gordon Pierce said a written agreement should be done saying that if the maintenance fee is not
paid, a unit could be taken away.
• Greg Moffet said to combine G and H and remove the first word "whether."
Jim Lamont asked for clarification on hotel-type services.
Greg Moffet said provision I was fine and wonderful. He said to add the positive to J and leave K
, as it was-loose. He asked Dominic where it was stated that it had to be an SDD.
Dommic Mauriello said it was not a necessity for a time-share project to be an SDD, because
every project had to be reviewed anyway as part of the conditional use process. - If a project is
being built within the zoning guidelines, there is no reason to require an SDD.
Johannes Faessler suggested adding to A"of equal sizes or larger."
Dominic Mauriello said under provision B, as iong as the square footage was not impacted, it
could be upgraded.
Greg Moffet asked how lock-off falls in the definition.
Jim Lamont said the problem with lock-offs is a bedroom that measures 10'X10'. If it is an AU,
then the minimum has to be 300 sq. ft.
Greg Moffet said the lock-off wording should state that it be sized for hotel room use.
Jim Lamont stated that was where the GRFA falls off. He said the goal was to maximize
• occupants.
Dominic Mauriello read provision A and stated the project could be evaluated based on that.
Johannes Faessler said the point is how big is the unit that is going to be replaced. He said if the I
unit is fairly big, it should remain fairly big.
John Schofield said to keep within compliance of the State law and not break out of it. The
criteria should be kept as broad as possible, but with enough information for the PEC and the
developer to understand it. John said to put as much teeth in it as possible with some way to
regulate long term quality. John stated that with these directions, if staff feels comfortable, he
could support sending this to Council.
Tom Moorhead said that the question was asked earlier about the similarity to a private club. He
proceeded give a definition and said that they don't relate at all.
Gene Uselton said to address the size of the hotel rooms.
Greg Moffet said he disagreed and not to legislate that. He agreed with all the changes. He
asked staff to come up with a consistent ratio regarding how many lock-offs were equivalent to a
hotel room.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
• November 25, 1996 9
,
Greg Amsden said a ratio should be established based on comments from our last meeting.
Dominic Mauriello said 50% of a lodge has to be AU's and is already required by the PA district. •
Greg Amsden said a ratio was important if they decreased AU's. He said from a developer's
viewpoint, developer's have no guidelines and if there was no ratio, it would be anybody's game.
Diane Golden said the hardest part of this recommendation is that we are setting criteria for
future projects and so therefore, we need to have good criteria.
Dominic Mauriello suggested making a motion for approval with the changes that were discussed
today.
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval subject to the condition that the proposed conditional
use factors be revised in accordance with the discussion of today's meeting.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
4. Approval of October 28, 1996 minutes
Henry Pratt had called in a change on page 7 and Greg Moffet had a change on page 16.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval of the October 28, 1996 minutes as changed.
The motion was seconded by Diane Golden.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. •
5. November 11, 1996 minutes
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9,1996
6. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District
overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9,1996
7. A request for a worksession to discuss amending the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan
and adopting the Gerald R. Ford Park Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd
Oppenheimer
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
Planning and Environmental Commission •
Minutes
November 25, 1996 10
r
8. A request for a major SDD amendment to SDD # 4, to allow for a new office building,
. located at
1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Tract K, Gien Lyon (Glen Lyon Office Building).
Appiicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Ken O'Bryan
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
9. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7
and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. .
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 16,1996
10. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to
allow van storage/transportation related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial
Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN PENDING RE-ADVERTISING
~ Gene Uselton made a motion to table items 5, 6, 7,8, and 9.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5.-0.
Dirk Mason read a letter from Paul Rondeau as to why a Realtor did not know the rules and the
letter stated that "Nancy was not a Realtor in Colorado at that time."
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4p.m.
• Planning and Environtnental Commission
Minutes
November 25, 1996 11