HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0113 PEC 1
~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT Y4UR PROPERTY
PUBLiC NtJTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tha# the Plannang and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hald a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 0# the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on January 13, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. in
consideration of:
A request for a warksession to review the proposed changes ta the Develapment Review
Irnprovement Process (DRIP).
Applicant: Public UVorks DepE., Fire Dept. and Community Development Dept.
Planner: Susan Conneily
A request for a front setback variance to allow for a new garage, located at
1034 Homestake Circ{elLot 5, Block 6, Vail VilVage 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kel#on
Planner: Dirk Mason
A request for an arnendment ta the Vail Vil4age Master Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan,
(ocated south af the Ladge TowerJT.SS., R.80W., Sec. 8, Lot 2.
Applicant: Codge Properties, inc.
Planner: Dominic Maurie{ia
A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1, 3, 4, 6, to allow
two satellite dishes to ba installed at the northwest corner af the Vail Commans property, lacated
at 2099 N. Frontage Road Westi Vail Commons.
Applicant: KTUN Radio
Planner: Tamrnie Williamsan
A request ta amend the Gerald R. Fard Park Master Pian and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park
Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vaii, represented by Larry Grafel, Parn Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer.
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a side setback uariance in arder ta construct a two car garage, lacated at
4532 Streamside Circle East/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition.
App(icant: Lil4ian and UVi44iam Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the camman praperty line between Lots 7 and 8,
located at 666 and 696 Forest Raad/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Vilfage 6th Fifing.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Waterton
~
~
A requesi for a new Specia) Development District, No. 33, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek
Raad/Lats 3& 4, The Valley, Phase V. ~
Applicant: Jirn and Ronna Flaum
Planner: Domirtic Maurtello
A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Developrnent District overlay to the
Austria Naus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ an part of Tract C, Vail Viilage First Filing.
Applicant; Sonnenalp Properties, (nc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
A request to amend section 16.20.020 and to add section 16.04.065 of the Sign Code ta aliow for
electronic signs as Public Information Signs.
Applicant: Vail Associates, inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Dirk Mason
APPLICATIt}N W1TF1C?RAWN
A request for a canditionai use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type ff EHU,
located at 186 Foresfi RoadlLot 9, Biock 7, Vaii Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Mike Flannery
Planner. DirkMason
APPLICATIt)N WITHDRAWN
iJll///i1/ ~
The applications and inforrnation about the proposals are avaitabie for public inspectian during
regular office hours in the project planner's of#ice iocated at the Town of Vail Community
Devetopment Departrnent, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour noti#ication. Piease calf 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD
for information.
Community Deveiopment Department
Publishad December December 27, 1996 in the Vai1 Trail.
~
!
Agencia last revisc<i It08197 3pm
PI.ANNING A D ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
~ Monday, January 13, 1997
AGENDA
Project Orientation / LUNCH - .CommunityDevelopment DegartmenA 12:15 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site VisitS : 1:15 pm
1. Kelton - 1034 Homestake Circle
2. Vail Commons - 2099 N. Frontage Road West
Driver: Gearge
}a~~~ ~-o
~~°?~g`6~,,, .
e
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearina - T4wn Gouncil Chambers 2:00 p•m•
1. The selection of a P(anning and Environmental Commissian Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
The selected persons shall serve one-year terms expiring December 31, 1997.
2. A request for a frant setback variance to allow for a new garage, located at
1034 Homestake CirclefLat 5, Slock 6, Vail ViHage 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Planner: Dirk Mason
3. A request for a variance fram Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1, 4, 6, to allow twa
satellite dishes to be instaf{ed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property, focated at
2099 N. Frontage Road West/ Vail Commons.
Applicant: KTUN Radio
Planner: Tammie Williamson
4. A request fior a side setback variance in order to construct a twa-car garage, located at
4532 Streamside Circle East/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Additian.
Applicant: Lillian and William Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter
P4anner: Lauren Watertan
5. A request for a new Special Development District, No. 33, lacated at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr
Creek Raad/Lots 3& 4, The Valley, Phase V.
~ Applicant: Jim and Ranna Flaum
Planner: Dominic Mauriella
\
rlgenda last reuised 1109t97 3pm
6. AreqlleSt ttJC a IllltlC}!' SubGI1V1S10n 20 CeloG~~~ th£ COC71(Tlot3 pC'Qj?e1`ty {ille bEtW£;@(t LfltS 7 aI1d
8, located at 666 and 696 Forest RoadlLo#s 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Viliage 6th Filing.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian ~
Planner; Lauren Waterton
7. A request far a worksession to discuss establishing a Spectal Deuelopment District overlay
to the Austria Haus, iocated at 242 Eas# Meadow Clrive/ on part of Tract C, Vail Viilage First
Filing.
ApPlicant: Soranenalp Properties, Inc,, represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
li 8. A request to arnend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adapt the Gerald R. Ford Park
Management Plan,
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd
C3pPenheirrter.
Planner. George Ruther
9. A request for an amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan,
located south of the Lodge Tov+rer/T.SS., R.80W,, Sec. 8, Lat 2.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, inc.
Planner: Dominic Maurielio
APPLiCAT1UN 1N1THDFiAV1/N PFNDlNG ADDlTIG1NAi.1NFCJRMATI4N
10 A request to amend sec#ion 16.20.420 and ta add section 16.04.065 af the Sign Code ta
allow for electronic signs as Public information Signs, ~
Applicant: Vail Associates, lnc., represented by Joe lirlacy
Planner; Dirk Mason
APF'1.1CATIUN WtTNC?RAWN
11. A reques# for a conditional use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type {i EHU,
located at 186 Forest RoadlLot 9, Black 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mike Flannery
Planner: Dirk Mason
APPLIGATION WITHDRAWN
l1lllllllll
12. lnfarmation Update:
' Status of the variable message sign proposed - Dirk Mason
13, Approvai of December 16, 1996 rninutes.
The appiications and information about the praposals are available for pubfic inspection during
regular affice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation avaitable upon request with 24 haur notification. Alease call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD ~
for informatian.
Community Development Department
Published January 10, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
Agenda Ittst revised i ll 14I97 9ar1i
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONN9ENTAL CQMMISSEON
Monday, January 13, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect C3rientation / LUNCH - Gommunity Develoqment Department 12:15 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden - Greg Amsden (left at 5:20 p.m.)
Henry Pratt
Galen Aasland s
Gene Useltan
Diane Golden
John Schofield
5ite Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Keltan - 1034 Hamestake Circle
2. Vaif Commons - 2099 N. Frontage Road West
Driver: George
d~:.,eBF„
_.,....r/ ,
NflTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board wiif break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:34 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. The se(ection of a Planning and Environmental Cammission Chairpersan and Vice-Chairperson.
The selected persans shall serve one-year terms expiring December 31, 1997.
MOTIaN: Gene Useltan SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0
Greg Moffet (Chair) and Greg Amsden (Vice-Chair)- reappainted thru March 1997.
2. A request for a frant setback variance to allow for a new garage, located at
1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Plannec: Dirk Masorr
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECC3ND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10, 1997, at the applicant's request.
3. A request far a variance from Section 18.58.324, Sateilite Dish Antennas, D1, 4, 6, ta alCow two
sateliite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons property, located at
2099 N. Frontage Raad Westl Vail Cammons.
~ Applicant: KTUN Radia
' Planner: Tammie Wiliiamson
Wt}RKSESStON - Changed due to insufficient submittal informatiar?
Ageztcla lisi rs:visecl I11A197 9aril • .
4. A request for a side setback variance in order tQ eonstruct a two-car garage, Iocated at
4532 Streamside Circle EastlLot 15, Bigharn 4th Addit'ron.
Applicant; Lillian and Williarn Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwaiter ~
Planner; Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
' TABlED UN7lL .lANUARY 27, 1997
5. A request #or a new Special Development District, No. 33, located at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr
Creek RoadlLots 3& 4, The Valley, Phase V.
Appiicant: Jirn and Ronna Flaum
Planner: Dominic Mauriel#a
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
APP'ROVIED WITH NINE CC}NDITIONS -
1. The development standards for this development shall be those described Section il# of
this memo and shall be subject to the development pian entitied "Fiaurn Residence,"
prepared by Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects, dated 11111/96, with the latest
revision an 1/10/97.
2. Trash collectian shall be typical residential curbside colleetion and dumpsters shall not
be permitted on these lots Qr in the adjacent right-of-way.
3. This site shall be limited to one curbcut far all three lots as depicted on the development
plan. The entire curbcut shall be developed upon construction of any of these ihree
lots. ~
4. The applicant shall submit a'mitigation plan for the rockfail hazard which shall be
reviewed and approved by the appiicant's geoiogist prior to Design Review Board
approval fiar eonstruction of homes on these lots.
5. This approval shall become void if the construction of at least one lot is not commenced
within three years of the final approval of the SDD.
6. The recreational amenities tax for this development shall be assessed at the rate
required for the Residential Cluster (RC) zone district, as provided for in Chapter 3.36 0#
the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
7. A(I retaining watls an-site shall conform ta sxisting code requirements. No retaining wall
shall exceed 3' in the first 20' frorn the front property line Qn these lots.
8. AIl deveiopment standards contained in the final ardinance approved for this site shall
be noted an the development pian and the final piat for this develapment. Those notes
shall inciude the foilowing note regarding development within building envelopes: "A41
#uture development will be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes.
The oNy development permitted outside the platted building envelapes shall be
landscaping, driveways and retaining walls associated with driveway construction. At-
grade patios (thase within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project
beyond the building envelopes not more than ten feet (10') nor rnore than one-half (1/2)
the distance between the building envelope and the praperty line, or may project not
more than five feet {6} nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension
between buildings." ~
rlgc nd.a fiasT rcvise<< I,'I i4f97 9am
9. CJne Ernpioyee Nousing Unit (EHU, Type 11) is required iar the en#ire develapment which
must be provided prior to, or in conjunction with, the Building Permit for the third house
constructed on-site. Five hundred (500) sq. ft. of additionai GRFA shall be allowed for
~ the construction of an EHU on each lot.
6. A request far a minar subdivision ta relacate the common property line between Lots 7 and
8, lacated at 666 and 696 Farest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Black 1, Vai! Vilkage 6th Filing.
Applicant: Neii and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Waterton
M4TION: Gene Use(tan SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDiTION -
1. The applicanC shali submit a final plat ta be recorded with the Eagie County Clerk and
Recorder. The final plat shafl identify the two building envefopes by a surveyed fega{
description and the foHowing note:
"All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted building
envelopes. The oniy development permitted outside the pfatted building
envelopes shail be fandscaping, driveways and retaining walls associated
with driveway construction. At-grade patios (those within 5' of existing or
finished grade) wil4 be permitted ta project beyand the building envelope not
more than ten feet (10') nor more than one-half (1/2) the distance between the
building envelope and the property line, or rnay project not more than fiive feet
(6) nor mare than one-faurth (1/4) the minimum required dimension between
buiidings."
7. A request for a warksessian ta discuss estabiishing a Special Developrnent District overlay
to the Austria Haus, {acated at 242 East Meadow Drivel on part of Tract C, Vai{ Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenaip Propert+es, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
W(?RKSESSION - Nt7 VQTE
8. A request far an amendment to the Vail Village Master Pian and the Vaii Land Use Pian,
located south of the Lodge Tower/T.SS., R.80W., Sec. 8, Lot 2.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, inc.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
APPLICATIt3N WtTHDRAWN PENDING ADDITtONAL. tNFORMATtON
9. A request ta arnend section 16.20.020 and to add sectian 16.04.065 of the Sign Cade to
ailow for electronic signs as Public Informatian Signs.
Applicant: Vaii Assaciates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Dirk Masan
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
~
# Agencta la,; rekisecl P1 14/97 9afn
10. A request for a conditional use permit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to aliow for a Type II ENU,
Iocated a# 3 86 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mike filannery ~
Planner: Dirk Mason
APPLICATIf3N WITHflRAWN
/lJl//I/t11
11. lnformation Update:
Status of the variabie message sign proposed - Dirk Ivlason
12. Approval of December 16, 1996 minutes.
The applications and infarmation 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 Departrnent, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation avaitabte upan request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-21i4 voice or 479-2356 TDD
for information.
Cammunity Development Department
. ~
i
I
~
MEM4RANDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmenta! Comrnission FROM: Cornmunity Development Department
DATE: January 13, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to ailaw for a new garage, located at
1034 Homestake Circie/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Pianner: Dirk Masort
i. BACKGRUUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applican#s, Art and Eiaine Kelton, are requesting a front setback variance o# approxirnately
5"-6°, to allow far a 14'-6" front setback, in order to construct a garage addition of 206 sq. ft. This
site is currently improved with a twa-story single family structure with a 452 sq. ft. twa-car
garage.
This site originally had two dwelling units, a sing[e family structure with a detached twa-car
garage and secondary dwelling unit above. The current structure consists of only the origina{
~ single family dwelling unit and has since attached the garage inta a single structure.
This site currently meets the Town of Vail Municipal Cade's off-street parking requirements by
providing 3 parking spaces. The current parking regu(ations do not require enclosed off-street
parking for residential units. Hawever, enclosed parking is encouraged by ailawing a 600 sq. ft.
credit for enclosed parking on this site.
11. ZpN1NG A9VAl.YSIS
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
Use: Single-Famify residence
Lot Size: 11,983 sq, ft.
Standard Aliowed Existina Proposed
GRFA: 3,421 sq. ft." 2,888 sq. ft. 3,029 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 2,397 sq. ft. (20%) 1,984 sq. ft. (16.5%) 2,352 sq. ft. (19.6%)
Landscape area: 7,190 sq. ft. (60%) 9,226 sq. ft. (77%) 8,701 sq. ft. {73%}
Setbacks:
Front: 20` 24'-11 14`-6,•
Sides: 15` 14'-2° (north) & 20'_6" (south) n/c
Rear. 15' 14`-7" n/c
~ Parking: 3 spaces required 4 spaces (2 enclased) 6 spaces (3 encfosed)
" }ncludes 425 sq. ft. credit
1
> 1!!. CRITERIA AND FtND6NGS
Upan review af Section 18.62.060, Cri#eria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Niunicipal Code, the ~
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front se#back
variance. The recommendation for denial is based an the fatlowing factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variahce to ather existing or
potential uses and struc#ures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that providing enclosed parking for residentia( units is a
benefit to the neighborhood. Most homes constructed in this
neighborhood haue two-car garages. Eight homes have access aff
Homestake Circle. Seven of these homes have two-car garages and the
eigntn has a one-car garage. Additionally, the adjacent properties to this
site meet the required front setbacks. Staff believes that the requested
variance would not be in harmony with the structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
' enforcement o# a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of #reatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objec#ives of this titfe without grant of special privilege.
Sta#f believes that the layaut and orientation af the existing structure do
not make this site unique. The site exhibits no physicai characteristics or
constraints which constitute a hardship, therefore, staff believes the ~
praposai would be a grant af special privilege.
3. 1°he effect of #he reques#ed variance on light and air, distribution of ~
population, transportation and traffr"c facilities, public facilities and
utiltties, and publ;c safety.
Staff be{ieves thai this proposal has minirnal impact on light and air,
however, it is not significant enough to effect adjacent properties and the
right of way. This proposal daes not have any impact on the other factors
of consideration.
B. The Planning and Environmental Cammission shall make the following findinas
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of special
privilege incansistent with the limitatians on other properties cfassified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or mare of the fallawing reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretatian or en#orcernent of the specified ~
regulation would result in practical difficuity or unnecessary
2
physicaf hardship incans+stent with the objectives of this title.
~ b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditfans
applicable ta the same site af the variance that do not apply
generaliy to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulatian
wauld deprive the applicant af privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV, TAFF RECCIMMENDATION
The Community Deuelopment Department staff recommends deniat of the applicants'
front setback variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant af special privilege
inconsistent with the #imitations on other properties elassified in the same
district.
2. That there are not exceptians ar extraardinary circumstarrces or conditions
applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District.
3. That the strict interpretatton or enforcement of the specified regulation will
not deprive the appNcant of privileges enjayed by the owners af other
propertles in the same district.
f:leveryoneipeclmemostkelion. 113
,
~
~
3
' I RIV E(Z NAT1ONAL FORE.J~
~
DUNDARY
UNFLA'fl'ED ~ _%Z' '
"ED
r---~
• vai'~
TC7WN pF VA!4
MAINT. SNOA
INTE R ST~,~TE ?'C?
( NCJT IN T, 4. V. )
-rENNIs couRrs VAIL VILLAGE 8fih.
2 ~
ij
2 ~
cRE~'K 1055 ! 1115 1 1183 G
EAST VAIL WATER 967 1031 104 4 0 g g Ip ~~63 4
SANITAT14N 8LD 'T'RqCT 1 2 3 & 0 125 1153 = c i193
0 100! • 1045 w,a,5o 7 ~v 2 3
1007
1 = 3 ~~~43~ 1106 hTJSlLVER I C
IQ22 U ~ 9 IO 1157 1187 ~ ~ 7R
NATURE 6 ~ 7 111 7 1136 12 13 ~ 1195 C
C 601 Eft 2 F,~~P 1081 • Ii217 6
VALLEY.
• t0 ~
12 6 ~
(-n\ 1014
620 992 vasL-
?
*
SOCCER FtELD 4 3 TRAC7 A 3 TRACT D 2 24
994 GA~y 1 1 20
5 p 1200
~ gs P I730
7 7RAC7 F
VAiL VILLACE ?th. FILII~G 998 10(~~ 21 ?3 41 75 169 ~ I 1150
ommm
965 975
1 2 aQ-' 3 PARCEL D
925
FAIRWAY fP~R'NpY Cj .
• ig •
~
V L LL GE iot F1 iN 990
870 10 9 8 7 6 5
880 890 920 930 954 970
TRACT A
4}~~~... . ` . .
~ - , ! ' . : . : - . . ~ - . F
. . G
- . - ' c,j
• : s o~~ . , . / . C. ` . ~
~
f.• ' ~ ' t c~z.t ~,p~ ~if / ' ~ ' . . . . .
~ .
~ / j'.12cg»('. AL_SGN
,~i AR A
11419.8 54. PT. Q~ 2292 SQ- FT 51 ~RF__A_ct-
f.; . . . _ . . ~ ,
. .
~ , ' ~~1 \ ' • _ ' :~1. , ~ ,:r - ~
- . '.1 - ; , . , . . ( : , ~ ;
.
:
~
-
. 1 ' , ' ~
. . ~ . -
' , ' ' ? . ~ ' ~ ~ _ . ,`r r _
, . ~ • , , .i':; , ~
, ~ _ . . (
. . .
~ . ~ 4 " 1/ 'z=~.,'`~
Q V
' . . ~
- - - " - - ' J-:":
- ' 1'~..,,~~~~ . • - - + ~
\
a, t x
r ti..•'
4^.
a h y_ _ ?~y„.,
~'G' ^S"' J '
. t2''~~'? _
S ~>„a
" fn4 y i
•t ` :
_ v z Ys
~~^i' -.~.T:. ~ . J•
~~fs
~ "
i\~``
- y =
; .
- - - -M~ :"i.,'.
.4-,,~ :
.
' .r:•.,.:j~;
, i
~~Y . .
ci 1n
J~.
'f
t~'
t~~'.
a.
e.~`µR~ ~'~.`~~."z~i.-e•-•}~e+~
~
~
^r
:~,'r..".,s•:
`
i
s`a
:!}rv
- - i
~N
ou
:
V.'~ ~`s"~'' ~':~~.~.\..-Y~'...• ~.^~.~~~ua,~j~it~•4, f-
~ `a.. ~.A.~ I
d~
% t'? -
3'1t'• Yr~ aK)•
.
,•.1k
':.{}"o.c: - 'r','::,.i•
. c_ -j~.~r•, ,~i..~A~,
_ 0:=~` '.T..'., ln.l' i~?•
_ ,
- =,.=:.e~
F~ }S'
- ..y
. ,f, _
~
"uj• .j~._'~.,~~ ~
_ x '
...x.... . . _
sl. ,~F?
. ~
~
.p _
. . . ....F.::,
.
~ , ~ - ' ' '
' , •
.
~ . - . ..,y" :Ly-... _ •
...e..
- ,
: . R.,..~-. . i.t-~s-..~. _ ,.i . r.,
_ ..•3 ~ ;'l*' "F ' ~ ' _ '
x y~.
_ - af
- :
_ y..+.•
- =
t~
`"41 ' Mtry ' _
I ! ~v"
~
_
ri.
.rt">
L`•~`"^ _ `.'4Y:. R .
•'.'~'7
.~a.
+
~
-
~
. ) P..' . . ~ ' {'i;S :•~y~'~ '!i
` . . : - 'Y . ' , - ' ' - ° ~1;':~`•";;j,-•` _
•-1'`' ~ _
•4
e~: t
t_
Y.~ •
;•t•, _
2.
•~l<~• _
jJ {
^g ` _
t~~ w
p h,..
rk '
( y.:>
'~34
' u'f.`•.~.
- rt •j..
.'4 Fi=
~''y.'.,.:°` ' ~ ~
`~'f . e z. ..:i`• .s:~ ~'F. .c . nr. ,~,~n`,.
.l.,e...&._.r`r:w3;' s - ~,sS ~ ' f: A„ . -~:;-4 ,.a,t• p-.t:
{ h
~ i
~ /}e.rrnx-t C.w7r1~ L io`~unak 4w~~ c-rc~
--`L_
oc, ~ vErX- Pb°`w
tJiNW4lh fD MP'C~{'~ , '
giH~~+t c~NOittiT~ ~ ~ bttstF#,4._Lz~"l. 1. '
vp aGOSaq-~ ~ • - t.
26~ L{{ Oxt- sr.-..^~e2
ik • ;
_ •t `Y ~ . t i. ~ ~ _'.i1P ~ ^'C~ ~ ~f~~~.
V ~ / (
i I 4 ~ ,;+PJCr'~cW'f~s I I . ~,YZr4aJL Ltrln'Kv F7atF.
-
um"u-,
. . a.
'
Li
~ ~ ~ '
~
1 i I
J
• 4' ,
; } •
F
t~e~1 t?n-xt~! u~nre, rtrn-f \
u,avr~c Mrrnt,~ xzl'
N,e-~zu.u-, w ~ss p~.rrnwz \
~ ' ' - ~ ~TM-- --r ~ rr..il vssc. r•t r-,e,.rX.a....
" i•yy TD Ms~a:
}
i
- I ixXlf;"'~S
i
~
1
I
~ ..t
'g II 7!~ ~ ' $
~ +4'rj~ ~ 5rx.rs t/y `i-rl rt~cN-r ~~r~r_cnc~-t
~~.T.~. 1 v ( i
MEMORANDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Cammission
FROM: Community [7evefopment Department
DATE: January 13, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320, Sateliite Dish Antennas, D1, 4,
6, to allow two satellite dishes to ba installed at the northwest corner of the Vail
Commons property, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road WestNail Commons.
Appiicant: KTUN Radia
Planner: Tamm'te Williarr?son
1. DESCRIPTION 4F THE VARIANGE REQUESTS
The applicant, KTUN - Radio formerly K-Lite Radio, are moving their o#fices from the Vail Run
Building to the Vaii Commons development. They are requesting to relocate twa sate!lite dishes
and three antennas to the new location. The applicant is requesting to place two satellite dishes
in the northwestern portion of the Vail Commons Development adjacent to Unit F6. The proposaf
is to depress The two sateHlte dishes approximately 30 inches into finished grade and the dishes
will be placed approximateSy 26 feet apart. The sauthern-most dish (10 feet in diameter) is
proposed to have a maxirnum height of 11 feet above grade. 7he northem-most dish (13 feet in ~
diameter) is proposed to have a maximum height of 12 feet abave grade. Both dishes are white
and composed of solid fiberglass. 7he proposed landscape screening includes two Colorado
Spruce north of the two dishes and four aspen sauth of the two dishes. The northern-most
satellite dish encroaches approximataly five feet into the 20-foot setback required by the
Commercial Core 3(CC3) Zane District.
The remaining three antennas are to be located in the false s#airwell tower near the Narth
Frontage Road. The height of the three antennas is yet to be determined. The antennas must
be placed at a height to transmit and receive signals without interference, to Dowd Junction.
The appticant is requesting the foi0owing three variances from Sectaon 18.58.320 D 1, 4, 6 I
of the code:
1. To allow two dishes;
Sectian 18.58.320 D 1
"No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be aflawed on any fot as
defineated an the 4fficiai Town zoning map;"
2. Ta a(low the dishes to be greater that nine feet in diameter;
~ Section 18.58.320 D 4
1
"The maximurn size of any satefiite dish antenna installed for use by a
single residence or business sha11 be lirnited to nine feet in diarne#er. ~
Satellite dish antennas serving multi-family dwellings shall be limited to a
maximurn of twelve feet ira diameter;,,
3. To allow the northern-most dish #a encroach approximately five feet into #he required
20-foot setback in the Commercial Care {CC3} Zone District;
Sec#ion 18.58.320 C? 6
"Satellite dish antennas shall camply with the exisfing setback
requirements of the zvne district in whach the satellite dish antenna is
~ installed, Satellite dish antennas shall be prohibited in easements and
pubiic rights-o#-way. No portion o# a satelli#e dish antenna or its
suppQrting structure sha11 encroach into the vertical plane as drawn from
an existing easement or setback line °
The curren# equipment specifications are as fotlaws.
~ A 3.8 rneter (13 foat diarneter) satellite dish to be installed 12 feet above grade at the
northwest corner of the development, next to unit F6. This dish would receive radio
~ programming fram satellite Satcom 5, which carries feeds frorn ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC
and ather sourees. This is the rnost camrnon satellite used by radio stations. The
Na#ional Ernergency Alert System depends on these networks to distribute information in
a National crisis,
~ A 3.0 rneter (10 faot diameter) satellite dish to be installed 11 feet above grade, in the ~
same lacation as the above rnentior?ed. Some radia programs of special interest to Vail
listeners, are transmitted on 5ate11ite Galaxy 4, and require a separate antenna. While
KTUN does not presently carry the Denver Broncos, Rockies, Colorado Avalanche, CU
#ootball or basketball, or GSU football, they would like to be able to offer such programs if
warranted by listener demand. This dish is necessary to receive those programs;
* A SCALA PR-950 Paraflector (c(assified as a satellite dish by the Town of Vail Zoning
Code, 18.58.320 (b) because of its size} would be instaPled as high as possible in a fafse
stairwell tower near the North Frontage Road, at the edge of the parking lot. The
dimensions are 68° x 36" x j 8". This antenna would be used to transmit the station's
programs from the studio to a relay point atop Dawd Junction, and then on to fihe
#ransrnitter at Castle Peak in Eagle. A line of sight path is necessary far this
transmission. Lacations farther back on the lot (from the North Frontage Road ) are
shielded by a ridge east af i3own Junction that blocks the transm'sssion path;
• A SCALA HDCA - 5 Series Yagi antenna would be installed at the sarne loeation. This
antenna would be used to receive the station's broadcasts far mortitoring at the studio.
The dimensions are 62" x 56". This antenna ensures the station has a clear signal, to
make broadcasts optimal, and
s A SCALA CA7 - 460 Yagi antenna would be installed at the same location. This anfienna
would be used to recsive data sent via a specia( radio link fram the transmitter back to
the studio. The dimensians are 40" x13.5" x 4". The FCG requires that the radio station
be able to rnonitor transmitter pawer and ather parameters. API of these antennas are
reeeive-onty antennas, except the Paraflector. The link transmitter used wiTh that ~
antenna aperates a# anfy 10 watts. At #hat power, radio energy exposure to the public is
minimal. Currently, the FCC follows 1982 ANSI standards, which specifically exempt this
2
type of system fram the applicable environmentaf regulations because of the extremety
~ law power involved.
11. SACKGROUIVa
a In December of 1987, K-Lite, now known as KTUN Radio, requested a variance to ailow
for a satellite dish (13 feet in diameter) to service the radio station located in the Vail Run
Buiiding. This request was in respanse to K-Lite's relocation from Eag(e fio the Vail Run
Building. Town of Vail ordinances limit the size of satellite dishes to 9 feet for single
family and business usss, and 12 feet for dishes serving multi-family dwellings, however,
the Planning and Environmenial Commissiorr (PEC) approved the variance request at
their December 14, 1987 rneeting.
e In February of 1989, K-Lite, requested a variance to allow for the ins#allation of a second
satellite dish at the Vail Rurt BuiPding. The Vail Run Building already had an existing
satellite dish on-site at this time. This dish belonged to K-Lite Radio which was a
cornmercial tenant withirt the building. Section 18.58.320, D1 of the Vail Zoning Gode
states:
"No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be allowed on any fot as
delineated on the officia! Town of Vaii Zoning Map."
However, the PEC approved the variance request at their Fsbruary 13, 1989 meeting.
* In October of 1989, K-Lite Ftadia, subrnitted a request for a variance to ailow fpr the
~ installation of a third sateliite dish at the Vai( Run Bui(ding. At that time, K-Lite was using
a 13 foat diameter receiving antenna for its CBS Netwark aff'rliation Emergency Action
Natifieatian System and its rncrsic prQgramming network. 7he purpose ot the additional
antenna was to expand their broadcast services and specialized programming. This ~
antenna was to be 10 feet in diameter. Due to tYae difference in the locations of the fixed- '
orbit satellites (139 degrees and 74 degrees), it was not possibie ta receive bath signais I
with the existing 13 foot antenna. The PEC approved the variance request at their
October 23, 1989 mee#ing.
CRlTERIA AIVD FtNDiNGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance. The
recornmendation for approval is based on the fallowing factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relatianship of #he requested variance ta o#her existing or
poten#ia6 uses and structures in the vicinity.
Limitations on the permitted number af sateE}ite dishes per !ot ar praperty
were established because of the potential aesthetic impact of several
dishes located an one property. ln evaluating the potential impacts of this
request, consideratian of the proposed location is an important factor.
~
3
As it relates to this request, the applicant has proposed some landscaping
to mitigate the views. Staff beV'reves that there shouid be additiorsal
landscaping to further mitigate the impacts af the dishes trom Vai! Das ~
~ Schone. We wauid recammend #hat the applicant re#ocate ane
aspen south of the southern-mos# dish and add one additional Colorado
Spruce. Additiona4ly, the applicant should add #pur t4 six shrubs to screen
the base of each dish.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
i en#flrcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
campa#ibility and uniformity o# treatmen# among sites in the uicinity or
#o attain the objectives of this #itle without grant of spec+a3 privilege.
Radio and televisian broadcas#ing studios are a permitted use within the
Commercia! Care 3(CC3) Zone District. This permit#ed use is likely to
require antennas andlor satellite dishes in order to effectively operate this
type of business. The radio statian is relocating equipment already in
existence at anather location. This use has no history of harmful/negative
impacts to properties within its vicinity.
The applicant has demonsirated that in arder to effectively operate their
business, two sate!lite dishes are necessary. Due to the location of the
fixed-orbit satellites, it is not possible #or KTUN Radio to utilize oniy one
satellite dish. Staff beJieves that granting approval of this variance wouid
not be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect a# the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
populatiort, trattsporfiation and traffic facitities, public fiacilities and ~
utilities, and public safety.
The staff can #ind no significartt effect an any of the above considerations.
8. The PJanning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinQ findings
before aranting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance wi(I not constitute a grant af special
privilege inconsistent with the fimitations on ather properties classified 'sn
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pubiic
hea4th, sa#ety or welfare, or materia{!y injurious to properties or
improvernents in the vicinity.
3. That the uariance is warranted for one or more of the foliowing reasans:
a. The strict literal interpretatian or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar canditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the sarne zone.
~
4
c. The strict interpretatian or enfarcement of the specified regulation
~ wouid deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV, STAFF RECOMMENDATtQN
The Comrnunity Devebpment Department staff recommends appraval af the applicant's
variance as requested. The parameters established by the Satellite Dish Ordinance were
intended to provide a general limitation in the size, number, location and screening af
dishes proposed. It is apparent that certain types of businesses have unique needs in
regards to their transmission facilities. The applicant has satisfactorily shown that the
use of anly one sateliite dish for their particular business would constitute a hardship.
The Community Develapment Department staff recommends approvai of the appticant's
varianee request subject to the following findings:
I . Tha# the granting of the variance wiJl not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other propecties classified in
the same district.
2. The size and nature of satetlite dishes is such that placement and
screening may involve exceptions and/or extraordinary clrcumstances
applicable to the subject site, that da not apply generaily to other
properties in the Cornmerciai Core 3(CC3) Zone District.
~ 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforeement of the speeified regulation
would resuit in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship ,
inconsistent with the objectives of this titfe. '
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant relocate one praposed aspen south of the sauthern-
mast dish and add one additional Colorado Spruce. Additianally, that the
appiicant add faur ta six shrubs at the base of each dish to provide
additionaf screening.
2. That the landscape screening praposed by the applicant be maintained irt '
a healthy state, so as to etfectively provide a sufficient buffer to the
satellite dishes at all times.
3. That the satellite dishes be af a colar that sufficiently blends into the
surraundings, subject to final review and approval by the Design Review
Board.
4. That the satellite dishes be af a rnaterial (such as mesh) as to minimize
their irnpact on adjacent properties, subject to final review and approval by
the Design Review 8aard.
~
5
. ~
KTU9 72,flfljb 0
.
. ~~•t'~'~'~' ~ ,
~
CHAMONIX LANE ~
~
~ ~
~
~ i TI ` .
V-TU~ . ~ '
,
VAIL
DAS
5HONE ~
* BRANPE54-
BLOO_
~ ( ( HH ~ 1L~1 f .
~
' E
~ NO~1~'}1~H FR~~~t •1s~
~ `
CSI
~ TOM OF Y ~ ~ ~
~ E5T VAIL INTE j~` ~/HAN~+~ ~,dE
~
G1
i
~
~
#
~ F~Ki1GL
~
i"t+"'.i:`'GrfS i >C. 323 .'~iQ9 '5200 P.01J
i
~ ~ i
, -
u ' aFeBAGK
~;P
A 1ET A
oPERn ~Irs
VAIL I7AS ~'-JGHONE !
RE14 PA~.'.K{N5 LOT ~
PAR.T{A1_ 51TE F'1._AN 10'_0" plAMETER 0I5N
L7{SN L06P;YIC7N 13'_0„ DIAMETEF2. DISN ~
~.,14,11 i
< - - ~ . . .
~
. . ~ BEY'G7NO
ijiv!~ ~ ~
"3 SEGT1ON A-A
'~GALE: I1Ib~ 1 0 6,~r~LirE r~l5f-~5 at~ n~~~r~
f " 50" (MAX) irtro Firt. 6RAVE ;
. i
CTC)R IaiAf2K DClNALDSOhi AftCHlTECTS , P.C.
ws~arux~ . ru~Nrr~~ KTUN RAD#C3 STATIt3hf DiSHES L+C)CATiC)N ISIQU T E)ESIGNEO 91' ~NEGKE6 6Y
BOMchrnark Ptaxa, 5u1to 207
P.O. pox SSOG, Avon, CQ 91620 1 -02-97 - M.9. A.D,
'i70j940-62040 FAX/949-3245
TDTAL P.O2
1 1- i;-- 1 9c,rD 39Pt-t FRu~ t t".OSS ENTrmRTA I h;r',EPaT 970 94S 123; P. ~ . ,
~ PR
SCALA ° 5
PARAFLECTC3W AIVTENNA ~
PRCJfE5S14NAt AN'fEtJNA SYStEMS fOR
eaoAocAsr arvo coMn~vN~cAnc)NS 18 dBd gain
940--960 MMz (broaciband)
7he Sca1a Paratlector is a high-gain hall-parabolic antsnna used in
profsssionaf broadcast and communications systerr+s araund the
wocld. 7`he uniqua c6osign cumbines high performance and fong.
ierm re1(ability wiih low cast and uery canvsnieM tr<snsportation.
The ParafleCtor ot(ers gain cornFarabSe to $ parabolic grid or dish
yet the lnwer weight and surface area resuti in less towst i4ading
&Yttl (9S& 8Xp6(}3IY8 'tISS4i3133t40Ct CoStS.
The Parafl8ctos' Is iabricaiet# from seApnless drawn alumintim pipe
and tubing and teavy aluminum castings,.9o(d anodfi.zed for corrosiorr
protectian, plus stainiess steei hardware and fasienings. 7he re,sult
is a lighiweight bvt exiremelY {u39ed antenna that wi#1 provide
many years of service in the most dernanding onvirorimments. xhe
taarn-tilled braadband fee8 assembly requires no pressurization
and it cart be essity reptaced if necessary.
The PR-950 feaiures:
p High gain and high front-to-back rat'to for point-tapaint re{ay system
applicataons, incluciing broadcast aurat STL links.
• Compaci packaging for quick and caconom;cat shipment via UF'S oc
Federai Express.
* Moqts Caiggories A and S(FCC 94.75) and SF2SP 300.89 and (Shown vertfcal}y potarized)
30{},958 (Canada) whQn vertically potarized.
Fraquency range 944--960 MNz {b(oadband) . . . . ''OO. r s~
Caaltl 3$ SjBd ~
ImpedanCti 50 ohms
VSYYR ^ < 1.2:1 a70• - ~ - .o-
YolatiYatiQn !-torizon4dl Or v8ritcai
Front•to-baCk ratio >25 dS
tvSRxtmum input power 100 watts r,O
H-piana baamwidth 12 degrsas {hatt•power} t
E-pian9 b9amwidth 24 d9grees {Raif-power}
Tqrm;naUon N lemale We~ight 38 Ib (17.2 kg) ti-plane
tioriaoMal pattan - V-pc)iariration
pimensions 68 x 36 x 18 inches (1727 x 914 x 457 mm) VerDCai pattnm - H-potariza0on
Equival6nt ttat piate area 4.4 t12 (.41 m2)
Wind sunrivai rat}ng 100 mph (160 kph)
o•
Shipp'any dimensians 40 x 36 x 7 inchss (1016 x 9t 4 x 378 mm) 14.
Sh;pping weight 45 Ib (20.4 kg) •
Movsning ~ MounGng kits ava4abie for masts of 2,375 xo
4.5 irtcttes (60 io i 14 mm) 40.
!Urder tnfartnatlon: '>o. - - - •°(yodQ) Stock Code
PR-950 940''.t-Ot?t
Repsacement feed assemdly (940-960 Pr1Hx) 34351-042
No2e; SpeClty a mcwni;rrg kit wiren orriering (see l;st;ng on reverse).
a ~ 11o
.
~
SCAC.A ELECTRC)Ni(a IGC}RP'ORATION E-plana
rlorizortal galtem - N-pol,adxatiUr?
Post t?ffiCe Box 4580 Phone: (503) 779-6540 vergr,W pattsm-v-pplarization
Medford, fJR 87501 (USA) Fa3c: (503) 779-3991 PARAFLF.C•TOFI ds. R fi$itlNld 24i(MRlitk 4f SCaW EkClfOtliC CPrTiWa%4ft.
Scata E/actronic CwparaL'on is a member of Jhe Katlrrein Gmup
1-'l 3-19` 3: d0," S FRQP-1 t-OSS ENTERTCa I hSt.+ENT 970 9d5 1237 P. A
SCALIA ELECfiIIOtdtC
CORP4RAT10t# "MODCASERIES
POST OFFtcE BQX 4580 ~ „
MEQFORD, aREOON 97~ / Y I
(543) 779•S5U0 ~ {SINGLE C~~ H ~ ~ E ~
.
APPLiCATIC9NS.
VHF-TV RECEPTION
FM RECEPTIUN
GATV SYSTEN4S
TRANS TOR SYSTEMS : . . , . . . . . . .
HDCA-5 FtVE-EL.EiV1ENT YAGI
HDCA-14 TEN-ELEMENT YAG3
D1 o6iase 6-2 }L 6b
~ ELECTAIcAL sPECtFICAYiaNS
Frequency Range: Any specified VNF-TV Channei (2 thCOUgh 13) or
Any spectfied FM Channei (88 through 108 MNz)
Impedance: 75 ahms (50 ahms with optional iransformer)
Maximum VSWR: 1,5;1 across specified channet
Polarization: NoriZantal
Front-to-Back Ratia: 14 db
lnput Pawer Rating: 250 Watts
Termination: N, F, or UNF type femaie r
. . . . . . . . _ . . . <tj. . .
Nominet gein over dipote: HDCA•5 ; • hiDA-iQ
Channeis 2 and 3 6.75 db 8.75 db
Channels 4, 5l 6 7.50 db 9.50 db
FM Chan»els {88-108} 7.50 db 9.50 db
• Channets 7 thraugh 13 8.0 db . 10.0 db .
AbouE antenna gain speciticat{ons: Scala NDCA yagis give maximum possible gain svenly distrib-
uted acrass the specifted TV channei. 'fhts flat response is critlcat for qood calor te3evisiort
performancs. There are no peaks that to4k good an a fiefd strengih tnster at #he sacrifico of critlCat
signat lnformatlon. Ksep this in mind when comparing ga,in specifications wiYit other antenna5. The
nomEnat gain #tgures 1lstgd above are over dipole. Add 214 db to determir?e galn over #so#roplc (dbi).
Ftve-element yagEs for FM and iow-band TV channets are availabie +nt6th rear tcantlleverj maunting at
ex#ra cost. Five and ten-eiement high•band yagis are avatlable with extended booms for rsar
movnt°sng at slightty higher prlces.
s.80
1 1 -1 3-1996 3:40F?;A FROM MOSJ ENTEFTA I r;r'F, aT 97 ~9d5 1237 P. 5
S CKA L iA EkE~TFt4~aG
C~t;s~~f§~'~'iON 460
iCE 80X 458U BROADBAND Y I ~
POS7 4f F
MEOFt7RD, ORfGQN 97501
(503) 7T9-85011
A~PLI1it19 I'1JN~7: ~
~
ty#p tr~!~~,} ~ .~rVtY7~U~+i\il~i~~{~1.~1S
* TELE1V1G 1Ili Y i r
a
ELECTRICAL SPECIFtCATiUNS
~ Frequency Range; 460-470 MHz {Sroadband} ~
406-420 MNz (Broadband)
' Note: Available for other portions of 240-500
fvlHz spectrum. {Bandwidth Fc - 20/o
impedanCe; 50 ahms
Gain {over dipole}, 10A db
Maximum VSWR; 1.35:1 over specified bandwidth
Front•to-back Ratio: 14 db
Input power rating: 100 watts
Polarization: H or V(rear-mount, adjustabie)
Terminatiort: Type N #ernale (mates with lJG-21/U)
MECHANtCAI. SPECIFlCATICINS
Net Dimensions: 40" X 13.5" X a"
Net Weight: 5 pounds
Shipping Weight: 7.5 pounds
Mounting: Atiaches ta 2-3/8" maximum U.D. circular
$upport
Wind Load: 40 p9unds (100 MPH w1#h 114" ice) ~
(Note: Dimensions & weights listed for 450-470 MFIz model)
ys-so
MEMORANDUM
~ Tfl: Planning and Environmentaf Commission
FR4M: Cornmunity Development Department
DATE: January 13, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 4532
Streamside Circle Eastf Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition.
Applicant: Liilian and Bili Bresnahan
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRlPTION t3F THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a side setbaek variance nf approximately 3, ta al[ow for a 12` side
setback, in order ta construct an attached 415 sq. ft., twa-car garage. This site is currently
improved with a dupiex structure withaut a garage. The existing structure was constructed in
1973 and the area was under Eagle County jurisdiction at that time. As constructed, the duplex
encroaches 10' into the required 15' side setback and therefore, is a pre-existing nonconforming
structure.
~ The PEC first reviewed this request on December 16, 1996. Since that meeting, the applicant
has revised the plan to provide a larger west side setback for the proposed garage.
There is an existing unimproved driveway for the west half af the duplex, which approaches the
house in approximate4y the same area where the garage is proposed. There is also a large tree,
located in the front af the dupiex. The existing la# line dividing the duplex is located 34' from the
west property line and 19' from the setback line.
The site is alsa nonconforrning with respect to driveway paving. The driveway is currently
unpaved and therefare must be paved if this addition is constructed.
11. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Two Family Residentia!
Use: Duplex residence
Lot Size: 15,067 sq. ft.
Standard Aliowed Existin Proposed
Site Coverage: 3,013 sq. ft. {20%} 2,080 sq. ft. (14°10) 2,586 sq. ft. (17%)
Landscape area: 9,040 sq. ft. (60%) 11,600 sq. ft. (77°l0) 11,381 sq. ft. (75%)
~
1
' Setbacks:
'I Front: 20' 34' 25' ~
Sides: 15' S' (west) & 47' (east) 5' (wast) & n(c (east)
12' #o garage
Rear: 7 5' 59' nlc
Parking: 4 spaces required 4 spaces (none enclosed) 6 spaces (2 enclosed)
i
111. CRITERIA ANLI FINC3INGS
Upan review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town ofi Uail Municipal Code, the
Cornmuniry Development Departmen# recommends approval of the requested side setback
variance, The reeornmendation for approvai is based an the foilowing factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relatianship of the requested variance to other existing ar
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Most duplexes in this area were constructed with garages. Staff believes
that providing garages is a benefit to the neighborhood by removing cars
and other items from public view. While the proposal is compatible with
the neighborhood, the encroachment into the setback is an additional
impact ta the adjacent structure ta the west. However, staff believes the
applicant has mitigated ihis impact by proposing to locate the garage as
far east as possible. As a result, the existing tree will be removed. The
applicant is proposing to mitigate the loss o# the tree with an 8' spruce ~
tree. Staff believes additional mitigation of the tree and the addition of the
structure can be obtained with landscaping and fenestration additians to
the project.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
campatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the tabjectives of this #itle without grant of speeial privilege.
Staff believes that the layaut and orientation of the existing structure rnake
' this site unique. The existing location af the building in the side setback
and the lacation of the lot line dividing the duplex, constitute a physical
hardship and #herefare, prevent the addition fram being maved further ta
the east, aut of the setback. The applicant has propased a modest two-
car garage of 415 sq. ft., which staff believes to be the minimum
necessary far adequate access and use af the garage. The minimum
width for a two-car garage is generally 20' and the applicants property is
only 19' wide. Therefore, some encraachment into the setback is
I necessary for a two-car garage. Staff believes the proposal is not a grant
of specia( privilege due to the site constraints.
I
~
i 2
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
~ population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and pubiic safety.
Staff believes that the requested variance wili not negatively affect these
issues. While the proposed addition is located in the setback, it
encroaches 7' less than the existing building. There wiii continue ta be a
separation of approximately 22' between the two buiidings and 29'
between the garage and the adjacent structure. Staff believes that this
separation is adequate and will not compromise these issues.
B. The Planning and Environrnental Commissian shali make the following findinas
- before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privifege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will nat be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materiaily injurious ta praperties or
irnprovements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the folfowing reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
~ regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or canditians
appiicable ta the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners af
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF REC+dMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends appraval of the applicant's
side setback variance request subject ta the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the iimitations on other properties cfassified in
. the same district.
2. There are exeeptions or extraardenary circumstances or canditians
applicable ta this site that da not apply generally ta other properties in the
Two-Family Residential zone.
~
3
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would ~
deprive the appiicant of priviledges enjoyed by the awners of other
properties in the same district.
The recomrnendation #or approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. The driveway shall be paved.
2. 1n order to pcovide a bufifier to the adjacent property and to rnitigate the
setback encroachment, trees shall be added along the west wall of the
new addition. Speci#ically, a minimum of ihree aspen trees shall be
added. The location shall be subject ta the review and approvai by the
Design Review Board.
3. Windaws shall be added to the east and west elevations of the new
garage, subject to the review and approval by the Design Review Board.
~
~
4
i ~ / - - - Z_
r
i
WALKWAY ~
~ • . ~
t --t-
~ ~
~
r ~
~
a
F
i
( PORCH t UP
TWO CAR GARAGE
E
~ ,
~
~
f
,
- - ~ ~ ~ ~
;
- . - - - - - -
,
; Pf24PERTY LINE N 36°43'00" E 173.29
• 1 ~ 1 • ; SNRUBS SPRUCE f`
, f
, Z
1 ~
.
-r-
t
` 15' SIDE SETBACK
;1 ~ ~ S < t $ ~ r t } ~ ~
G pTi.,.~ t~ tT _ _ .
.~~rt~~[~!c t,1 k~ 's.~ .~~LT?. -
> .
:
S 36°43'00" W 151.58' ;
_
PROPERTY L1NE
G.~
ttr
EXIST(NG PAVEMENT
l-'
r i ~
R)y
~ m
~
, 20' FRONT SEf'BACK
~
~
_ , - ~ -
_
~ - -
T"
, : _ ,i ; , -
SIDING, FASCIA AND TR1M
TO MA7CH EXlST1NG
~ ' ~ . ~ ~ - ~ -
;
; _ . ~ _ - - _ .
1-4
i NORT~ ELEVATION
i ~
i ~
. -
~
- - - -
,
~
EAST ELEilAT1C)N
. ~
. , . - - - - - - - _
. _
.
_ _ ,
{ .
~ - _ ,
,
. . . _ . . _ _ . I 4 a ~
_ ; .
--3'r+t~`=~.•,.-
. _ . . ~ .
~ . . . ~ ; ~ ~
II _ . . . . . . . . . }
. . _ . - . . . - " . . . . .
t - . _ . . . . ~ .
WEST ELEVATION
r
~ MEMURANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmentai Commissian
FROM: Community Dsvelopment Department
DATE: January 13, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for the estabPishment of Special Development District, No. 33, located
at 1521 and 1631 Buffehr Creek Road/Lats 3& 4, The Valley, Phase V.
Applicant: Jim and Ranna Flaum
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPTlQN OF THE RE UEST
The applicant is proposing ta estabaish a SDD (wi#h Residentiaf Cluster as the underlying zon9ng)
an the subject property in order to aifow a deviation #rom the Eagle County approved Planned
Unit Development (PUD). The site is proposed to be subdivided inta three, single-farnily lats.
The property is currently carnprised of twa dupfex lats.
The property is zoned Residenfiia( Cluster {RC}, however, when the property was annexed to the
Town of Vait, that annexation recagnized the Eag1e County approved development plan for the
property (a Plannec# Unit Development) (per Ordinance Na 13, Series of 1981). The PUD for
~ Lots 3 and 4 is specific. The approvai allows a dupCex on each lot {a tataf af 4 units} and requires
a parking structure for a11 of the parking on-site. The approual ailows each dweiling unit a i
maximum af 2,200 sq. ft. of GRFA (8,800 sg. ft. total for both lots).
The appiicant is requesting a deviation from the approved Pt1D in order ta a!!ow three single-
farnily houses to be canstructed on the property. The appficant is proposing to retain the same I
maximum GRFA for the site (as approved in the PUD) and dividing the GRFA equally between +
the three proposed lots (2,933 sq. ft. per lat). For comparison purposes, the RC zoning on the
property allows a total of 5,300 sq. ft, of GRFA for the entire site. In the RC zone districfi, GRFA I
is caiculated based on buildable area (areas with slapes less than 40%). The site contains a ~
large amount of area with slopes in excess of 40°l0. In singie-family and two-family zone districts
(SFR, P/S, and R), GRFA is based an totai site area and structures may be bui(t an s(opes in ~
excess af 40°!0.
The RC zane districf atso requires a 20' tront yard setback. The applicant is proposing less than
a 20' front setback on the lots in order to allow attached garages to be constructed in the front
setbaek and also to reduce site disturbance. Based an comments fram the PEC at the
December 9, 1996 worksession on the proposaf, the applicant is proposing that na GRFA be
allowed within 20' trom the front property line. It appears that the PUD allowed the parking
garage ta be located in the frant setback.
Alsa, based on Cornmissian cornments at the Deeember 9, 1996 warksession, the applicant is
proposing that a Type IC, Employee Hausing Unit be allowed on each lat. An additiona1500 sq. ft.
of GRFA and a 300 sq. ft. garage credit is proposed to be alfowed per each ENU constructed on-
~ 1
~ D. Conformi#y with applicabte eRements of #he Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design P1ans.
This site is designated as Open Space (OS) in the Land Use PCan. This designatian
alfaws development at densities of 1 unit per 35 acres. However, this land is zoned
Residential Cluster and has a develapment plan which was accepted by the Tawn af Vail
upon annexation. Therefore, the previous rights for development on this property have
been recognized by the Town and should be recagnized by the Land Use Plan.
The foliowing Land Use Plan goals directgy address the subdivisian af this 1and:
Goaf 1.6 C3evelopment proposals on the hillsides should be evaluafed on a
case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted far some
!ow in#ensity uses in areas that are not visible from the valley floor.
New projects shou0d be carefuily contralled and developed with
sensitivity to the environment.
Staff believes that since this is deviation from a previously approved PUD and since the
proposal reduces potential impacts to the area, that the proposal irnplements this goal.
Goal 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard
areas.
Goa15.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as apprqpriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
This site is already platted for two duplex lots. The proposal will make three sing(e-famify
lots frorn the existing duplex lots. A site specific analysis far this s+te indicates that ihe
area is a"moderate" hazard area. Staff believes this proposal implements the intent ot
this goai.
Goal 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through ~
~
private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town
of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
Goa15.5 The existing employee hausing base shou(d be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommadated at varied sites thraughout the community.
The PEC recommended that each home be allowed 500 sq. ft. of additianal GRFA for
EHUs on these lots. The applicant has incorporated this ability into the SDD. Staff
believes the proposal implements this policy.
~
5
E. Identification and mitigation o# natural andlor geologic hazards that afifect the
proper#y on which the special development district is proposed.
The site is located in a High Severity Rpckfaii Hazard. The applicant has provided a site ~
specific anaiysis which indicates that the hazard is "moderate" hazard and that
appropriate mitigation can be provided to protect uses on-site as welP as adjacen# uses
and public facilities.
F. Site ptan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional develapanent responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegeta#ion and overa}l aes#hetic quality of the community.
Staff believes the propasal accpmpFishes this criteripn by lirniting developmenfi and
creating building envelapes on the si#e.
G. A circufation system designed for both uehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulatian.
The proposed devetopment plan accammadates vehicular and pedestrian circulation
consistent with the scale of development proposed on-site.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order ta optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The site has extensive vegetatian. The applicant is also proposing to mitigate the
impacts upon the vegetatian. The proposed plan implements this criterion.
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wifl maintaen a workable, functional and ~
efficient relationship throughaut the development of the special development
district.
No phasing plan is proposed.
V. STAFF FtECC3MMENDATIUN
Staff recornmends that the PEC recommend approual ta the Town Council of the
applicant's request far the establishment of Special Development District No. 33 subject
to the following findings:
1, l'hat this Special Development District (SDD) is approved based on a deviation
from tne Eagle County appraved Planned Unit Develapment (PUD) for this site.
The deviation reduces the density of the site and lessens the impacts to the site
and the community.
2. That the proposed SDD complies with the nine design criteria as stated herein.
3. That the proposed SDD wiq provide ftexibility ta atlow creativity in the development
of this (and in order to promate its most approprfate use and in order to improve
the design character and quality of the neighborhood.
6 ~
~ The recommendation af approval is also subject to the follajnring conditions:
1. The development standards for this deveiopment shall be those described Section
ll( of this memo and shall be subject to the development plan entitled "Flaum
Residence," prepared by Pierce, Segerberg & Assaciates, Architects, dated
11I11/96, with the latest revision on 1/10/97.
2. Trash collection shall be typical residential curbside collection and dumpsters
shall not be permitted on these lots or in the adjacent right-of-way.
3. This site shall be limited to one curbcut for aIC three lots as depicted on the
development plan. The entire curbcut shall be developed upon canstruction of
any of these three lats.
4. The appticant shall submit a mitigation plan for the rockfall hazard which shall be
reviewed and approved by the applicant's geolagist prior to Design Review Board
approval for constructian of homes on these lots.
5. This approval shall become vaid if the constructian oF at least one lot is no#
commenced within three years af the fina{ approval of the SDD.
6. The recreationa6 amenities tax for this development shall be assessed at rhe rate
required for the Residential Cluster (RC) znne district, as provided for in Chapter
3.36 ot the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
7. Ali retaining walls an-site shall canform to existing code requirements. Na
retaining wall shall exceed 3' in the first 20' from the front property line on these ~
lats.
8. A(( cieve(opment standards contained in the final ardinance approved #ar this site ~
shall be noted on the development plan and the final plat for this development. j
Those notes shall include the following note regarding deve)apment within building
envefopes: i
"All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted bui(ding I
envelopes. The oniy development permitted outside the platted building '
envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls associated with
driveway construction. At-grade patios (those within 5' of exist'tng or finished
grade) wilt be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes not more than
ten feet (10') nor rnore than one-ha!€ (t/a) the distance between the building
envelope and the property line, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor
more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension between buildings." ~
f:\everyone~pecUnemos\flaum.113
~
7
q- Ubl~ Pierce,
iegetberg & I
l.+vra IYiKmn"9.OU'yR
~ k F3+t,C.d.,mA^=. s~M~r+hww+u~+a.aptt~,v~.. ASSOCIHiCS,
+ .a
Yf.{
~_~i"B~SiL$Lt~kid ~l.SIl~t„~NA~lf`4~N~Nw WKFmuubeJmdmttx f fNl..hlp. rChitQ([s
~wnkrall.~~ limib(uaily}+n n1A0syAynCetmdi~ilb+.dp fl~~ pe.tx Q,(.•A.1 A.
~ D«Vlnrln~+a tfi.al~m~Ynio
No Givn u pu. ~ :o L~ v~e r.w r~ A~~~.c I
pApert~lur Grye nJYnN.,Mm V(rom I\T}PIIIN?
~ ~ . ~fi- P-P-)
l n' Fmµ,+nlAwim~Uan(ENU) IT)MIIEHIipnlpJb.<d.
~ ~NaKRr CLpev IRS: 0fi.- Mn, r.e Ia.f.M, ~•w~. i.s+.v e..i w.~
~ O~~LLekArn Myprm.ddr.ebpnm~pl.nnlW~Win~en<bpa ZmiMCa-0e .aCo~,.~.t..~~n~'
n,cny- it s+oe,.' e_..-
-,Y:R L•O'
,93iw~:~<n~~,~~a,~
4 f-IIEHIGNFi $OO~µM1a1b.N4vlwJc.~LynKn~4ank'Nl.pp
~„bKC!ptN"Y ~Al~"+ ~ ~Y9~IIk1lLrzyui~rn~cri• ti..1,1~~„xulPw~nyW 1 ',4si~~tqo1(ampa.bbWtsVODUSw~.?Is6dn.xWmn~IlMpn.Jnan
,J.LLGrUkf-'DU.dH~4ti Fn~wmu~wil.vnn~.w,nrc.~i.iryuu~l ur(~aWwo~iwaprld4 P mnfl.Illu.<~wwswnulWnul7'~u
of «,nnvn..i d ad,.4.1 bn'
r2 ~-~'O ? Tx a+cc hw bq aK mm fn..ap „~a x ro~,.ui,n.t .n~~
w~rchdala ~a uu.'
3 &uW( fa~xkqt (ww[ J~kk¢naK m tl~ blv ~.LII % rcwwud m ~Ir vc.
~dae 3c ~Lnod bu~lArt~ m~<lyu IAu mtrin~un ~9il1 u.l.d~ ~11 Jal. rw! ca,c
lad
I+w. « 11r o-h dnaio~mav pcmeed u+n;h tlic pwM e»~ii~5 ~».~Aqn Wll
~ ~~T'^~S y t~ P~'4 6~.rn~1 ad IxUwn6.aii~ nftwura: nN 1rv.w~t
FX.I~~lv/~ ~zc'+CL~'~' a.ua~.ran
LINF- ~o °w '
~A
VL~ .(XX SoLK }'4LL ~ _.4190 P~~~ .GO'h~ A~M1Cy f ~
lOT C ~
•7749 ncII~
bY 'S(.KvC~'~ w~M
^c
h l.llLt~l~6
_ ` - - ` ~'v!L'Jp•c ` ~ ~ ~ , Y~ ~ ~ ~ + ~
7F:` -f - ^r' = ~ ^L414.D~NOr••~- ~ >
, . f 5
r ~S 5 ~ , ` ' ~ ` ~ ~
qaoo __.•---..---Y~--....._-_.._a- - _ `"`N T~ ~ ` " ~ 1(~--.._ . \ /C2 'Ji Gt.oI.~~N!a PF
__.,~n. ~be,y~\... ~ ~ : ~ +.'`\,-~..GO . ~ ~ g+.V
_ _ 'UP.cw 7 \ \
5»~ ! ~ Fl-kuHa~s~o~+cE
t
- r'.-.a - _ - ^ . ~ • _ o~,-~-~-~ _ ~ . " ~ ` ~
t~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~x ,-~u , ~ \ _ ~ ~ ~
_jf5'`~
/ / - " ~ ' ^ ' ~ • ~ ~ \ , ~ ,1 \ ~ \ ~ \ \
- ~ \ \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ is• ` ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~o I qC,
" ~ j = ~ ~ ` \ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ t.K•<MO•,,~~
, ,z r-4 ` u + 63~0 ,t ,:s \
TL. \
l-:L_~ 'h1Q / / G6 ~ . \ i
ca-°•.___.. _ ASrtks;..T tdVtl.~ ~
/
To
-4`-0` W~o 3L ~oenre.> av f
acr/aJAf /
~ ~u w z~:
nr~,rrJri.SCG_.'- T.o.v ¢wu~.~~.rtrg 3L ~ a
I C ^,,.G ~0 75r ~'LEp ; '~t,o.
BUILDiNG f.NVET.OPE ~ eY P.Ix1c. TREE SCHEfH11E (i «c c.rz ~tD ` t
. TJ~ ~Er_'uXYKY* oo TuF-_E tot" ~
t}ldl7c 4p~jncr.^+°.D*U^'urdrrl, eiSflrlh~la
R>I':a intttlvqrllvun.~>,'rur, (
KC'~i7~'?bF1a1I0.'.1-~tIGU7x dl.tGti'L+c~'a4~'J( !x•r-~.ix ^`e,~z'•'o ¢,~`~y'x+
I ° ~ l
"3~1t..~~i;c1 e,uJG.u!4 711Qt,.~ gG ~
v,r-rohc.ar+~kr, n-fGenn~ p.w-rya~a,. q7d n/ u~ ss
v Datc:
bc'7faIR1~~Y W.~.Lt.'~
7`>hib':E'A ..1~ I7KIykl.Jd( Eqj~}(~,yif~~Ct.~ ~
pfO~Cil tV.
`
~ SITE PLAN ~orawn a ~
zo' _d
Chtckcd by:
9ieet Of
( Al
a
. ~ ,
~ MEMQRANDl1N1
TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FR(JM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 13, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vaii Viilage 6th Filing,
lacated at 666 and 696 Fares# Road.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Pianner: Lauren Waterton
1. C3ESC IPTION OF T~iE RE L1EST
The applicants, Neil and Nancy Ausfirian, are proposing a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8,
Btock 1, Vait Village 6th Filing. The applicants own both lots and are pr8posing ta relocate the
existing carnmon Cot line between Lots 7 and 8(see attachment). The developed lots are located
on the south sicfe of West Forest Road. The proposed minar subdivision wou(d result in
increasing the lot area for Lot 8 and decreasing the 1ot area for Lot 7.
The PEC first reviewed this request at the December 16, 1996 meeting. The item was tabled in
~ arder to ailow the applicant work with staff ta identify "buifding envefopes" for each of the lots.
Since that meeting, the applicant has proposed buiiding enve(opes for both fots, as shown an the
attachment. The envelope for Lot 7 allows far future developrnent to accur in the general vicinity
of the existing structure. The envelope for Lot 8 allows for future development to occur south of
the existing structure, yet preserves a majority of the lot as undevelopable area.
N. BACKtaROUND
• On June 11, 1964, the Eagle Caunty Board of County Commissioners approved a final
plat for Vaif Viflage 6th Filing, establishing Lots 7 and
• On August 23, 1966, the Vail Village 6th FiHng was establtshed as a part of the Town of
Vail.
Ilt. Zt}NING ANALYSI$
The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is ta pravide the Planning and Enuironmental
Commission (PEG) with an understanding af the impacts on the applicable development
standards, resulting fcom the minor subdivision being praposed for Lots 7& 8.
~
f +
Developmen# Standard Lot 7 Lot $
existin proposed existin 12ropased ~
Total Lot Area: 33,174 sq. ft. 23,218.8 sg. ft. 43,076 sq. ft. 53,026.8 sq. ft.
(0,7615 acre) (0.5330 acre) {0.9888 acre) {1.2173 acre)
Building envelope: NIA 4,798 sq. #t. N1A 12,977 sq. ft.
Total allowable GftFA: 6,259 sq. ft. 5,422 sq. ft: 6>754 sq. ft. 7,251 sq. ft.
Exis#ing GRFA: 3,060 sq. ft. 3.060 sq. ft. 4,681 sq. ft. 4,681 sq. ft.
Remaictistg: 2,362 sc{, ft. 2,570 sq. ft.
Total Allowabls Site Coverage; 6,634 sq. ft. 4,644 sq. ft. 8;615 sq. ft. 10,605 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Size: Yes Yes Yes Yes
(15, 000 sq. ft. of buildable area)
Daes the lot meet the sizel shape Yes Yes Yes Yes
requirement of 80' X 80'?
Allowable Density. 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling
units wl one units w/ one units wl one units w/ one
' Type ll EHU Type li ENU Type II EHU Type II ENU
The propased rninor subdivision will resul# in irnpacts on the development potential of Lots 7& 8.
As illustrated abave, through the reconfiguration of the common lot line, development patential
from Lot 7 wili be "transferred" to Lot 8. Currentiy, 13,013 sq. ft. of Grass Residentiai Fioar Area
(GRFA) is permitted on the combined area of the two lots. The applicanYs minor subdivision ~
}~roposal wou4d decrease the amount of allawable GRFA tc~ 12,673 sq. ft. The decrease of 340
sq. ft of GRFA is a result of increasing the fotal lot area of Lot 8, and the way in which GRFA is
calculated.
According to Section 15.13.080, Primary/Secondary Density Control, the fatibwing GRFA shall
be permitted on each site in the PrimarylSecondary Residential ,Zane District:
1. Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first
~ fifkeen thausand square feet of site area; plus
2. Ten square feet af GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over
fifteen ihousand, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area; plus
I
3, Five square feet of GRFA #or each one hundred square feet of site area in excess
of thirty thousand square feet.
ln addition to the above, a credit of four hundred twenty five (425) square feet af GRFA shall be
perrnitted for each allowabfe dwelling unit.
The 340 square foot reduction of GRFA results when the 9,951 square feet of fot area is
"transferred" to Lat 8, from Lot 7. The GRFA for that additional lot area is appartioned at five
square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet ofi site area (5%) rather than a part of that
area apportianed at ten square feet (10°Io) as it had been caiculated on Lot 7,
~
2
IV. MIMOR SUB[~IVI~IC}N CRI°TERIA
~ One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the
creation of a new iat must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two neuv lots, but
instead, simply reeonfiguring two existing lots, the minimum standards still must be met. As a
resu(t, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of
the Town of Vai1 Municipa! Cade.
The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental
Commissian for a minor subdivision application are as tollows:
A. Lot Area - The Tawn of Vail Municipal Code defines a"Lpt", in part, as a parcel of
land occupied or intended to be accupied by a use, buiiding, or structure under the
provisions af the Municipal Code and meeting the minimum requiremenTs of the
Code. The minimum lot requirements for the applicant's property are defined in
Sec#ion 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, (Primary/ Secondary
Residential). Section 15.13.050, defines the minimum lot area as 15,000 square
feet of buildabte area. As Lats 7& 8 are currently platted, both fats meet the
minimum Iot area requirement of 15,000 square feet af buiidable area. The minar
subdivision, as proposed, would maintain the conformity with the minimum
buildable lot area.
B. Frontaae - The Town o€ Vail Munscipal Code requires that fots in the Primary
/Secandary Residentiaf Zone District have a minimum street frontage of 30'.
Currently, bath Lots 7& 8 have street frontages greater than 30'. This proposal
does not affect the frontage for either Pot and therefore, wauld not affect this
~ requirement.
C. Site Dimensions - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in the '
PrimarytSecondary Residential Zone District be of a size and shape capable of
enclosing a square area 80' x 80`. As platted, bath lots meet the minimum site
dimension requirement. The propased minor subdivision would not af#ect the
minimum size and shape requirements for these lots.
The second set of criteria to be cansidered by the Planning and Enviranmentat
Cammission with a minor subdivision reqctest are as outlined in the Subdivision
Regulations, and are as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the applicatian is in
campiiance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning C)rdinance and other
pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideratian shalf be given ta
the recammendations by public agencies, utility cornpanies and other agencies cansulted
under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the applicatian and consider its
appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivis+on contrQl, densities
proposed, regulations, ardinances and resolutians and other applicable documents,
- effects on the aesthetics af the Town, environmental integrity and cornpatibility with
surrounding uses."
In accordance with Section 18.66.080 of the Tawn af Vai(, notifica#ian of the public hearing on the
proposed rninar subdivision was published in the local newspaper of recard and notices were
~ sent to the adjacent property Qwners.
3
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
1. To inform each subdiuider o# the standards and criteria by which developrnent praposals .
wiii be evaluated and to provide in#ormation as to #he type and extent of improvements
required.
Sta#f Response: t7ne of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as
well as any developmen# confirol, is to establish basic ground ruies #o which the
staff, the PEC, the applicant and the comrnunity can foilow in the public review
process. Althaugh this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision,
it is the appropriate process to amend existing platted lats.
2. To pravide for the subdivision of property in the future without cQnflict with development
on adjacent properties.
Staff Respanse: The applicant's lots are bounded on the north, east and west by
existing primarylsecandary structures, and by U.S. Farest Service property on the
south.
Staff believes the applicanYs request will not confiict with the development
potential of adjacent properties, as the applicant has nat requested ta deviate
frorn the development standards prescribed by the Town of Vaii Municipal Code
for the PrimarylSecondary Residential Zone District.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughaut the munlcipality and the value of
buiidings and impravements 4n the iand. ~
S#aff Response: The minor'subdivision proposed by the applicant will not have
any negative impacts an the value af land throughout the Town of VaiL The
applicant's property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The zoning
designation will not change with the minor subdivision. The lots are currently
developed. Lot 7 is developed with a single-family house, while Lot 8 contains a
primary/secondary development. The proposed lots are similar in size to the size
af the o#her lots in the vicinity.
4. To insure that subdivision of praperty is in compliance with the Town Zaning Ordinance,
to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workabie relationship among land uses, consistent
with municipai development objectives.
Staff Respanse: The propased minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8 is in compliance
with the Tawn Zoning flrdinance. Staff believes that the minor sudivis'san, with the
building envelopes proposed, will allow development to occur that is consistent
with the character of #he neighborhaod and will protect the steep hiliside and
rnature vegetation on the property.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order ta provide adequate and efficient
transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public
requirements and facilities and generally ta pravide that public facilities will have sufficient
capacity to serve the praposed subdivision.
~
4
Staff Rescaonse: The purpose of subdivisian regu(ations is intended primarily to
~ address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as oppased to this
propasal for a minor subdivision. Staff daes not believe that this proposaC will
have any negativP effects on any of the above listed public facilities. There are no
utility easements that will be affected by this minor subdivision.
6. To provide for accurate legaf descriptions of newly subdivided land and to estabiish
reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures.
Staff Response: The praposed minor subdivision is in conformance with the minar
subdivision platting requirements of the Municipal Code.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and managernent of
natural resaurces thraughout the rnunicipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the community and the value af land:
Staff Res~onse: STaff believes the propased minor subdivision will not have any
negative impacts on the poliution o# air, streams or pands, and wili not negatively
impact the drainage ar water tabie. The proposed building envelopes wiil pratect
the natural resaurces on the site by requiring future development to be cantained
wi#hin the building envelope and protecting the majority of each lot from
development.
V. STAFf REC4N#MENDATIQN
The Cammunity Develapment Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request
ta allow for the minor subdivision of Lots 7& 8, Biock 1, Vail Viliage 6th Filing, subject to the
following findings:
1. The proposed minar subdivision has met the criteria for minimum lat area, street
frantage and site dimension requirernents. .
2. The proposed minor subdivision has met the purpose of Chapter 17
(Subdivisians), Chapter 18 (Zoning) and other Town policies relating ta the
develaprnent objectives of the Town of Vail.
The reeomrnendation for approval is also subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant submit a final plat to be recorded with the Eagle County ClerK and
Recorder. The final plat shall identify the two building envelopes by a surveyed
legal description and the following note:
"Ail future developrnent will be restricted to the area within the platted building .
. envelopes. The anly develapment permitted outside the platted building
envelopes shali be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls assaciated with
driveway canstruction. At-grade patias (those within 5' of existing or finished
grade) wiii be permitted to project beyond the bui3ding envelope not more than ten
feet (10') nar more than one-half (1/2) the distance between the building envefope
and the property line, or rnay praject not more than five feet (5') nor more than
~ one-faurth ('fa) the minimum required dimension between buildings."
5
S c ~2 I'12"' ~
;
-1._~_ .
28.26'
/V 73 46 57° E ~ .
26.25'
/1 ' 1 - ~ ! 3~ _ ~ ~~FG?,.;7 5/?"
. ISE7 5 V;%pLA~ sSt1=:-
~c AND PLS l.'G. 26~
~ ~
L 0 T 7 aOCK 1
~ 23,218.8 SOUARE FEET
0. 533 ACfi ES ~
L a r~:`~:
53, 026. u SCJ'J<"it','c r~ t T Iz .
Z
~ ~
b~ldf
~o
~ N
d
LpT 9 LOT 6
N
. ; ~
,
.1
j
L or uNe VI, cA rFO i
~ 13 r Ti rrs PL,a r~
c~
~
,
,
. , ~
/
{i~
UND REDAR lY/ALUM. CAP L.S. ND. 11413 ~
OF LOT 2, c?LOCK 2, AND A FOUND 518"
183 AT T!!E NORTNEAS7' CORNER OF LO7 7, h
' FOOTAGE OF L OT 8.
1396 757978„ ~
- &5 06 ~1 " I 7B'LJO 45° ~
10' ~EASEM~N7 ~ ~
N so aa'oo" W 66.36P
a .
UNPLA TTED
t .
~ MEIV9AdRMNDUIVi
TO: Planning and Enuironmental Cornrnission
FROM: Department of Carnmunity Deve(apment
DATE: January 13, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a worksessian to discuss establishing a Special Develapment
District overlay to the Austria Haus, loeated at 242 East Meadaw Drivel on a part
of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail ViCiage First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIF'T1t3N C}F THE REQUEST
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properfies, dnc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a
worksessian to discuss the establishmertt af a Special Development District at 242 East
Meadaw Drive/on a part af Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. The applicant is
proposing to es#ablish a new Special Development District averiay ta the underlying zane
district of Pub1ic Accammodation, to #acilitate the proposed redevelapment of the existing
~ Austria Haus. The purpose af the worksession is to discuss the fractional fee
clublaccommadation unit mix, parking requirements and urban design camments.
It. BACKGROUND
C}n January 7, 1997, the Vail Town Cauncil reviewed and approved Urdinance #22, Series of
1996, an ordinlmce amending Section 18.04, Definitions, adding "Fractional Fee Club" and
"Fractional Fee Club Unit", amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, allowing fractional fee
club as a conditional use in the Public Accommodation Zone Distric#, arnending Section
18.60.060(A){7}, Conditianal Use Permit Criteria-Findings, on first reading. Second reading af
the ordinance is currently scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 1997. A copy of Ordinance #22,
Series of 1996 has been attached for reference.
The ordinance approved on first reading by the Town Councif varied from the ordinance that the
Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval af on November
25, 1996. The ordinance appraved by Tawn Council provides definitions for fractianal fee club
and fractianal fee club unit. firactional fee club and fractional fee club unit are defined as follows:
"Fractional Fee Club, means a fractional fee project in which each condominium unit,
pursuant ta recorded projeet documentation as approved by the Towrn af Vail, has na
fewer than six and na mare than tweive owners per unit, in whase use is established by
reservation system. Each of the fractionat fee club units are made available tor shart
term rentai in a managed prograrn when not in use by the elub members. The project is
managed an-site with a frant desk aperating 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
praviding reservation and registration capabilities. The project sha{I include or be
~ approximate ta, transpartation, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and
recreational fac9lities".
1
• R
"Fractionai Fee Club Unit rneans a condominium unit in a fractional fee club described as ~
such in the praject documentation and not in #he accommodation unit within the fractional
fee ciub,"
As originaily drafted, per the PEC's recommendatian, Ordinance #22 established twelve
additional conditional use permit review criteria as a new sec#ion {18.22.435} in the Public
Accammodation Zone District. Section 18.22.035 will na longer be established. fnstead, the
twelve new review criieria have been consoiidated inta five criteria, with seVera3 of the original
criteria incorporated into the de#initiQn of a fractional fee club. The five new review criteria will
now be incorporated in#o the Conditionai Use Permit criteria-findings Chapter (18.60) as Section
18.60.060{A}(7){a-e) o# the Municipal Code. The five new criteria wili be used in conjunction with
the seven criteria already listed in Section 18.64.060. Staf# believes these changes elirninate
redundancy and are more appropriately located within the Municipai Code.
Lastly, Ordinance #22 no longer ailows "#imeshare-estate, fractional #ee units or #imeshare-
license units" as conditiana( uses in the Public Accornmodation Zone District. The Town Council
removed the three uses in response tQ concerns that such uses are not in the best interest af the
community. The Town Councii mernbers agreed that fraetionai fee eiubs, as proposed by the
applicant and defined in the revised ordinance, are a form of public accommodation beneficial ta
ihe community, since quality fractional fee clubs are an appropriate means of increasing
occupancy rates, rnaintaining and enhancing short-term rental availability for our guests and
diversifying the resort lodging market. tIL flISCUSSI{)N ISSUES
As this is a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal to establish a Special Development
Dis#rict, staff will not evaluate all of the details of the propasal at this time. Staff, however, has ~
identified four major issues which we would like ta discuss with the PEC and the applicant. Staff
beSieves that in order for the applicant to cantinue forward, direction must be given on each of the
discussion issues. Each of the issues is briefly described below:
1. Fractional Fee Club UniUAccommadation Unit Mix
The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council have each wrestled with the
issue of maintaining existing accommodatian units in the Town of Vail. Maintaining and
enhancing the hotel bed base in town is identified as a goal of the cornrnunity in many of the
adopted planning documents. Qrdinance #22, as approved by the Town Council on first reading,
requires that redevelopment proposals for fractional fee clubs maintain an equivalency of existing
accommodation units. According to the Section 3, 7(b) of Ordinance #22, Series of 1996:
"If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the
fractional fee club shall maintain an eguivalency of accommodation units as are presently
existing. Whether this equivalency is maintained by an equal number of units or by
square #ootage shall be determined {by the PEC} Qn a case-by-case basis
{Jrdinance #22 also provides for the consideration af lock-off units as accommodation units for
the purpose of calculating accommadation unit equivalency. According to Section 3, 7(e) of
Ordinance #22, Series of 1996:
"Lack-off units are encouraged and may be caunted up to one-half {1/2} of an
accommodation unit for purposes of calculating the equivalency of accommodation units."
The existing Austria Haus contains a total of thirty-seven (37) accommodatian units (33 hotel ~
2
~ roams and 4 suites}. The thirty-seven accammodation units comprise a total of 11,800 square
feet of Grass Residentiai Floor Area {GRFA}.
f s ventseven (77) possibie keys (24 fractionaI fee club
The applicant is proposing a total o e y -
' units, 33 lock-off units and 20 accommodation uniTs). For equivalency purposes, the total
number of accommodation units proposed by the appiicant, assuming each lack-off unit is
determined to count as 1/2 of an accammodation unit, is 36.5 units (20 accommodatian tanits +
33 lock-off unit {16.5 accommodation units}). The 36.5 equivalency units comprise a tota( o#
approxirnately 14,327 square feet of GRFA. The total GRFA of ali units, including the 24
tractional fee club units is approximately 37,906 square feet.
Does the PEC believe the applicant has adequately addressed the equivalency requirements
designed to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of hatel accommdations in the Town of
Vail?
2, Parkina Requirements
Chapter 1$.52 of the Town of Vai1 Municipai Gade provides parking requirements and standards
for development in the Town af Vail. According to Section 18.52:030, existing, legal non-
conforming parking situations are "grand#athered". The "grandfathering" of the existing, legal
non-conforming sitaation requires an applicant of a redeveloprnent project to construct, or pay-in-
lieu, for only those additional parking spaces required by the increase in use af the property.
The existing Austria Haus has a total o# twenty-five parking spaces ta accommodate the thirty-
seven accamrnodatian units and accessory uses (restaurant, bar, retail). Of the twenty-five
~ existing parking spaces, oniy fifteen are considered legal, non-conforming. Ten parking spaces
are not legal spaces as they are canstructed off-site, in Town of Vail right-of-way.
The applicant is propasing to provide forty-eight on-site parking spaces with the redevelopment
of the Austria Haus. The parking spaces wiil be accammodated in an underground parking
structure. Staff believes that approxirnately seventy parking spaces wil( be required pursuant to
the standards prescribed in Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing to
pay into the Town of Vai! Parking Fund far the balance of the parking requirement (+l- 7 spaces).
Parking spaces are currentiy valued at $16,333.38. This figure wiil be adjusted for 1997 ta reflect
the Cansurner Price Index for the Denver/Boulder Metro Area. The new figure will be available mid-February.
The staff would like the PEC to provide direction to the applicant as ta whether they should be
considering mare on-site parking spaces or whether they may pay into the parking fund for thase
parking spaces required, but not provided for on-site.
3. Urban Desian Comments
The Municipai Code perrnits the Town af Vail to retain the services of an Urban Design
Cansultant to provide consultation on rnatters relating ta design, scale, mass, architecture, site
planning, etc. far develapment projects in the care areas. Staff has €orwarded a complete set ot
plans to Jeff Winston, of Winstan & Associates, Inc., our Urban Design Cansultant. Jeff has
reviewed the propased plans and has provided his initial comments. A copy af the memarandum
from Jeff Winston has been attached far reference and was supplied ta the applicant an
Tuesday, January 7.
~ Staff is requesting that the applicant respand ta eaeh of the eamments indieating how they will
3
address each of the issues. Sta#f is alsa requesting that the PEC provide directian ta the ~
applicant regarding Jeff Winston's comments. Staff will forward revlsiflns made by the applicant,
to Jef# Winston. Jeff wiil be attending the January 27, 1997, PEC meeting to discuss his
cornments.
Staff has reviewed the 3nitial comrnents provided by Jeff Wins#on. The staff agrees with each of
the issues raised. Selow is a brief review of the staff's response ta the issues:
1. The s#aff concurs with comment #1. We would suggest that the applicant remove one
story on the west end of the building. The removal of ane-story allaws the Austria Haus
to better relate in scale to the buildings on the Village Center praperty. Specifically, the
staf# believes that removing the lofted space from Unit #17, the building height on the
west end would be brought down approximately nine feet. The building is approximateiy
44,5 feet tall (eaveline) an #he west end.
Staff further belives that the ends of the building cauld be stepped back/forward
horizontally as suggested by Jeff Winston. We agree that stepping the east end back
(tawards the stream) six to eight fieet wilf increase variety and interest in bath the north
and south elevations, a11ow the building to relate better to Slifer Square and improve
pedestrian circuiation. We also agree that a horizontal step of the first flaar only, on the
west end af the building, would create a better alignment of the Austria Haus with the
buildings on the adjacent propecty. Staff feels that the west end first floor could come
forward eight to ten feet (towards the street), without adversely affeeting the tower
elernent ar the front entry drop-off area.
2. Sta#f eoncurs with comment #2. We are currently exploring the logistics of the praposed
location of the bus shelter. The town staff is concerned that the proposed location wiil ~
canf4ict with bus passengers laading/unloading requirements. If it is determined that the
proposed bus sheiter location is unsuitable, we would recomrnend that the sheitered area
remain. Staff believes it will serve as an attractive space #or covered seating, information
display, etc.
3. Staff concurs with comment #3. The town staff is currently reviewing the praposed street
relocation and discussing pedestrian/bus traffic circulatian. We wili #orwarded our
comments and concerns on ta the applicant and PEC once the review and discussions
are cornpfete,
4. Staff concurs with comment #4. The applicant is proposing to pave the front entry drap-
o#f are with brick pavers as suggested. The staff is recommending that the point were
drop-off area and the pedestrian areas meet be flush. A curb is not recommended since
it tends to create the appearance of a parking area oniy.
5. Staff concurs with comment #6.
6. Staff concurs with comment #6. Town staff wili be working closely with the applicant to
. ensure that adequate access is pravided ta the Austria Haus from Slifer Square, that
some of the barriers which exist in Slifer Square are removed (improving pedestrian flow)
and that tree removal is kept ta a minimum.
7. Staff cancurs with comment V.
4 #
~ 8. Staff concurs with camrnent #8. The appiicant has prapnsed revisions ta the raof plan
which correspond with Jeff's concerns.
Staff has identfied severat additipnal urban design concerns we would like to discuss with the
applicant and the PEC.
1. The south elevatian of the building appears too repetitive, too linear and lacks the
architecturai appeai of the narth elevatian. Staff woufd recornmend the applicant explore
ways of introdueing rnore architectural interest on the south side of the bui(ding. flne
suggestion rnight be ta eliminate the repetition af the vertical chirnney eiements by
removing several of the chimneys. The fireplaces within the building are natural gas, and
therefore, anly exterior wail vents are necessary. A second suggestian rnight be to
exprore how the exterior building materia)s are applied. The introduction of a different
material or application may reduce fihe repetitive appsarance on the building. A third
suggestion would be to take the lounge area on the first floor back into the building. This
eliminates the repetitive nature of the singular piane of the sauth elevation and creates
apportunities for additional shadow lines and reveal. These are only a few of the many
pt}SStE3tl1t125 aVaflaEJ{E: $0 thE' appltCc'3Ctt atld aC@ C10t Itlt$i"id2d tt3 b8 an all°IlIClUSIVB tfSt.
2. The applicant has proposed above-grade patios on the south side of the buiCding. Staff is
concerned with the size and use of the patios. The patios could be reduced in size to
provide more "green space" on the south side of the btailding. As proposed, the site has
very little true "green spaces" and a lot of hardscape.
Patios and decks are aften designed to be private in na#ure. The appficant's property
adjoins public lands. Staff would like to poinf out to the applicant that there is no desire to
see an addit+onal segment of Gore Creek "privatized".
1V. STAFF REGOMMENDA7'!ON
Since this is a warksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development
Distrfct to the property located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part af Tract C, BIQCk 5-D, Vail
Village First Filing, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Ptanning and
Environmental Commission to the Town Councii, staff wiff not be providing a recommendation at
this time. Staff wii(, however, provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposat at the time '
of finaf review. ~
~
5
ottvtNnNcr NO. 22
srRrrs or 1996
AitiT flI2DINANGE AMENDIl*1G SEGTION 18.04, I?EI+INTTTflNS, ADDIIYG ~
"FRACTTfliVAL FEI; CLUB" AND "FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB T1NIT", AMENDiNG SEC'i'ION 18.22.034, GfJNI3ITIdNAL USES, ALL0IVING FRACTIONAL FTE CLL113
AS ACONI3ITIONAL LTSE TiV THF. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATI0N ZONE DISTRiCT,
A11'IrNDII'yiG SECTiOi\' 18.60.460(A)(7), CONDITI014'AZ USE PERMIT CI2ITEFtIA-
FINDINGS,
tiVHEI2EAS, an application has been submitted ta amend Sections 19.22.030 ancl
18.60.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allotiv fractionll fee club as a conditional use
' in the Publie AceQmi'nodation Zone District and to prQVide criteria and fisidings applieable to
fractional fee club requests in Vail; and
WHEREAS, all natices as required by Section 18,66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
VJHEIZEAS, on November 25, 1995, in accordance with Section 18.66.140 the Totivn of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearin~ on the proposed
amendments and unanimflusly recommended approval of the amendments to the Totivn Council; ~i
and
WIIEREAS, tlie Vail Totivn Council believes tlzat quality fractional fee club unit are an ,
appropriate means of inereasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short-tc,rin rental
availability and diversifying the resort loclgii7g market within the ToNvn of Vail; and
~
WIIEI:EAS, the Vail Town Council believes t11at a fractional fee club is a form of public
accoinmodation; anc~ ~
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers tliat it is reasonabie, appropriate, and
beneficial to the Towsi of Vail and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to adopt Ozdinance No.
22, Series of 1996; and
WIIEILEAS, the Vail Town Council believes the proposed amendments are consistent
with its adopted goals, objectives and polieies.
NOW, THEREFQIZE, BE IT flRDAINED BY THE TOWIN COUNCIL OP THE TflWN OF
VAZL, COL4ItAD0, TI-IAT:
SECTION 1
ChapCer 19.04, Definitions is 1leseby amended to read as fallows:
18.04.1 36 Fractional Fee Club, means a fractional fee project in which each
condominium unit, pursuant to rccorded project doeumentation as approved by the Toxvn of Vail,
~ has no feNver than 6 ancl no more than 12 owners per unit and whose use is established by a
reservation svstem. 1?ach of Yhe fractional fee club units are made available for short-tcrm
renfal in a managed program when not in use by thc clnb members. "1'he project is managed
on-sitc with a front desk operating 24 hours a day, seven days 3 week providing reservation and
revistration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops,
eating and drinking establishments, and recreation facilities.
I 15.04.136.1 Fractional Fee Club Unit - a eandominium unit in a fraetional fee club
described as such in the groject documentation and nat an accommodation unit tivithin the
I fractional fee club. ~
I 1 Ordinana Vo. Z?, Scria af 7996
~
i $.04.43D Fraetiona1 Fee [Deieted]
SF:CTIO' 2
Section 1$.22.030 - Public Accommodtttion-Conditional Uses - of the T'own of Vail
Municipal Codc is hcreby aznended to read as follows:
18.22.030 Conditinnai uses
T'Ile foltowing eonclitional uses shall be pernlitted in the Public Accommociation Zone
District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use pernlit in accordanee Nvit11 the ~
provisions of Chaptcr 18.60:
A. Professionai and business offiees;
B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers; ~C, Privnte chibs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations;
D. Ski lifts nnd tows;
E. Tileaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities;
F. Public or commercial parl:in(t faciiities or skructures, I
G. Public transportation terminals; I
H. Public utility and public service uses;
I. Publie buildings, grounds and facilities;
3. Public ar private schools; I
K. Pub(ic parks aad recreational facitities; I
L. Churches;
M. Eating; drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than '
10% of tlie total Gross Residential Ploor Area of a main structure or structures
located on the site in a non-confornzing multi-family dwelling;
N. Major arcacte, sa ]ong as it does nat have an), exTerior frantabe on zny public way, li
~ street, walktivay, or mall area;
0. I3ed ancl Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310;
P. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.460;
Q. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 15.57.70;
R. FracTional fec cSub as further reguJated by Sectian 18.66.060(A)(7)(a-e).
SECTIC}N 3
Section 18.60.060(A)(7), Conditional Uses Permit criteria-findings, of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall rend as follows:
7. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractianal
fee, fractionai fee club, or time-sIiare Iicense proposal, the following shall be considered:
a The applicant shall submit to the town a list af al] owners of existing units
within the project or building; and written statements from one-hundred
percent of the owners af existing units indicating their approval, without
conditian, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written appraval shall
be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the
date of filing the application for a canditianal use.
b. If the propasal for a fractianal fee club is a redevelopment of an existing
facility, the fractianaI fee ciub shall maintain an equivaiency of
aecammadation units as are presently existin;. Whether this equivalency
is maintained by an equal number of tmits or by square footage shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
~ C. The abiiity of the proposed project to create and maintain a high levei of
occupancy.
2
d. Employee hausing units maybe required as part of any new or
redevelopment fractional fce club project requesting density over that
allotiued by zoning. The numher of employee housing units required witl ~
be cansistent with employee impacts that are expectecl as a result of the
project.
C. Lock-off units are encouragecl ancl may be counteci uP to one-half
(112) of an accommocIatioii unit for purposes of calculating the
equivalency of accommodation units.
SECTt{)lti 4
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of.tliis ordinanee is for any
reasosi }ield to be invalid, sucli decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
th~isorclinailce; and the To,,3m Cotuncil hereby dec3ares it 4vould have passed this ordinance, and
each part, seetion, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of tllc fact that an},
one or more parts, sectians, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
fiECTION S The Totivn Council 1lereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thcreof.
SECTI(jN f
Thc repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any durty
inlposed, any violation that occurred prior to the efFective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as eoinmenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed ar7d reenncted. The repeal of any provision herehy shall not revive any ~
provision or any ordinance previausly repealed ar superscded unless expressly stated herein.
Si;CTIi7N 7
A11 bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinaitees, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent oi11y of sucli inconsistency. "I"his repealer sliall not bc construed ta revise
any bylativ, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, ilieretofore repealed.
FiJLL ON FIRST READIir.'G this 7th d1y of January, 1997, anci a public hearing shall be held on
this Ordinance on the 21 st day of January, 1997, in the Colmcil Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Coloraclo,
RobertZNl, flrmour, Mayar
I AZ"I'EST:
_ Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF JANT.IARY,
1997.
~
3
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
~ ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, ToNvn Clerk
~
~
4
,
Adak
P~erce
~ Sc{erbere k ~
~ A~scc:+lns
) hn'.t tecit
~ PC-4tA.
I unnem
u
:.R.: ?
: e.
I
i
/
/
~ / ` e+coc rn ~ !
'
"-'-"`i
j ~ \
r ~ ~ ~ ` ~ "ti.,~ _ - c,~s<- - ~ ~•Q I
"v '
_
.
.
'~''~j ~~i . ~i`^'°" r - 7~ t
.
- f " ~ • ~
• i
~ii rr"•~ ~y F--r-
,
4} ' _ ' ~•i~¢ . 1.,. ~r
` , ;,~2¢~,
~ -
~ omm er. n.n f.~+
SoTEo-PL.~N! °"et°
' ~t a
' V1Y L]F./ .
2)mnafar
~ - - - -
~
J ~ 5..~er:.,~3 &
Ac.s. ~.vt~.v
A,-cF`~Lec:•
~ Yreeoe
' ( r
~
~
i ! ( j i i t f
i
4 4~
+ { • ~ Y i ~ jf ` ~ i...i
. .
.
,
, : , . , . . > . a . . _
' _ . _ - ` ----__-f - _
- - . .
, -
~ ;
~ ~ ~ - . - - ---_-4.------ ~
U ~ - + ~ ~
~ ~r•~~-R'~ ~ .tzrdi[sta. I tza~.t~3'ro~ rw
~ ~ 1 I I t ~ t
k
~ u.,e er n... p.~.
GARAGE LEYcL FLOOR PLAN
,42.0
e
o~
,
_ ~ ~ ~
Ank
. -
, - _ ~ / - - FC -
- . ~ Asvc ;~tex
' i-r~ ' \ \ ~ ` ` • .~1 amcic
` ' 1 ---y~.- I _ !
_ -x~.----- r + , ,
' ` . . --~~i i i ~
.f
. ~
~
i~.~_-, , - - - - - Ip
-r _ - - - ---F
~ . ' ~ -
T ~
~ ~ .
5
~ 1- -
~ - - - - i ~
.,i .,Ap~ - - - ' - -----'---~-F- ~-----~I~t
- - I - (
~ - - - - - - - - - - ; - ---1- --1~ - ' ~ -
~
, r ~ I ? 4awsr_ ~ I
~t z ~ 1 t ~ - - ~ - ~
~
.,v:'•:
~ ~ . ~
~~\'~~G I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I
'v , ` ~ i , i \t':• :;.r~,•,v~ I i
~ ~ti. ~ vnM ~ rsmn
f Y~ ~
~ ~ a..a er rw~ M
4
m..~ a
'h
~ • FfRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
~ Q-r~,e~.,~
~ ~z•-~~
o~
~ : ~ Segceer? 6
P.,.4 <
- r / i ~ Rrwe
~ / ` n1a+r
{ - -r--- - ~ ,;u•. 3~~v - - ~
~ I~~_ - - _ _ - ~ - _
4
~ . _ _ ~ - - - - _ r----- _ - - _
_4W i ( ~ ~ I ;
i p1 ~l ' h , ` ' I
- ~ ~ - - 1 - - ~
~ ~
- ~ +
,
~ i - - , (
~ ~ •~a _ftt••~?_ LCCXRT ..tt42i LLOC~ Y~ ~GCCO~ U+~F_ i~C~ ~ i ~
s ~
- - ~
C} ~ - ~ - -
4hz~ ~ _ ' (
' ~ ~ +
, t
d ' LKK M ~ I ~ . r
~ ~rY.~, t ( ~ _'y.hT'_2 .flXr" iYX'^J._ .R~C'L 1GS"_ .'4~'_A. J411:]. 19Y!I.it -1N1TW i~y" ~
V ft}t
~ ~ - . . .
"v ~ • i\ . t \ 1 p^`.1 Frl r i . . . _ 1
.
_ . , ~
,t
,
;
~ - -
C-yr~ _ - _ y ~
•`Y ~ ~~f~ (PaNNe~ue~ M9n
M
y . la~+w a
5PCOND LE1!EL FLOGR PLAN-~-~- ~
'
~ Lfi1~ffi-.X3Z.=F ~ A2
.4
~ i
~
Adak
' - _ - - _ _ - -
_
,
~ ! $•F : k
A, hl'
Pi . 1
• ~ I S*m~L ~ ~
-
- -
! --sV - _ ` - ' ~ -
~ . i - ~ ~ - ` _ _ _ ^ ` ~ - - - - - - - ~ - 1N + - y .
~ ~ I{. l ---i-- --__i ~ -----i-----= ~
~
~ v = ~ ~ ~ - - - ` ~ a
.
- ;
+ ~ - - - - I,
_ - - - - - - - ~
,
_ ~ t.. -
_ - - _ .
~
. a .r.',; :cu n•• ` ~4 , r- ~ ~•x:.J.. _vx'. a :u a~ F - _ - _ _ 'ccx a~. ~
n • , . tt
~ l~ ..~_'i........i~t._
tF ~
~
~ _ ~ ~ - ' ~ - - _ ' - ~i
' ~ _ L . ` ; ~ _ _ j - - - ~
j, ~ I i - - - - - ~ _ _ !
G
~
~ d
t • c ' .~Yi'y V3•+-x - .
I i { a
_ ; f - ' ~ ~ I ' ~
- _
> a...
U ~
~ - _ T+-lIRD LEvEL'FLU~i~i~t~Al~
~ - ,423
~ ~ _ .~.ave~ sa••o• i
o~~m I
r .r
_ _ - - - - - _
~1 As~:r.tatef
~ Ant~~ta~.,iPi ~
i ~ ~ -
~ ' u-~ ' ` ~
,
f~ •
. s `t----- i ' -
i
~
M'sY3'FiM
~
Ss,:
- -
,
~~S
---T
~ ~ tS*7~`~ 1 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ i i ~ 'Q
,
- . - .
.~"4~Yr`
ki.>f~. ~ ~ f ~ ~ i i , s~_ 4 . ~ ? 1' ~f-
'.i
F-i-F._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (
,
,
x,,,1-'
,
u , - - - - - ~ - - -
~ < - • - (
- + ' ; y ~ ,,,,,,a. ~V_V , , . ~ ~ ~ ~ i`•: ~ u 11 ~~t~~~.' - ' 4---___
n. ~ r s' ; y~s ~ ;.s }.r,c.f t` . ' }O 6. d... n Uy',.'.'s fi I I" I 1
z`~.,;, vi
_ ~s ~
- ~ ~ ~ - f
. .
\ , ~
x
~ . .
- - ~
r-
-
_"_.."_~__.A,_,. a
r . : t.
- ~t~t
\ \ FOURTH L~'JEL F . , ~,t '~d•~..
c ° .
-
Y'_.t4-7'
~ ~ ~
Se;eroer; k
A~vncut=t
AKt~IIc~'.n
Pi. ~lu
• ~ ` i ~rlatce
~ I
I ~
i
~ I
~ - ~ ~ - - ~ - ' ~ i ~
r- - : -
i .
.
~ - i--` - ----i-- - - - - ---t - - - - i i0
~i i ~ ; . t f1
`s}---------- - --r ---t-------~at r--- -r------~ , i '
1 ~ ~ ~ - - - -
oDal
LA a0011 ooo! - i ~
L}- - - - -1- - -
- i - '
n t ! t ~ . ,
~ i ,
} . - i-- - - - i - - - L - _ ~ - - -
.
~ - ~ 1- ~ r - ~ ~
~
C
~
. I i
-~--t--r, - - ~ - - - -
~
~
a
~ ~ ~ROO~ PLAN
~ ~~8•.~~-m• ~ ,t42.5
~
i
-
-
~
i
I ;
~
~ f
I r ~ : Fl" ;
,
:
~ - ~ t~G_ - ~ ~ ; ~ i I~~ ~ ii 1- - - - ~ -
,
,
,
- ,
~ ~ -
. .FAST.EIEVAT30!{ ~ _7iE4T ELPVA2'}f7tL--'---'__ ~ ~
~
I~
~ i
~
~
- ~ -
-
r
t I
5 ~ ~ ~ y mw
,
,
! ~ ~ f~ . i ` -r ~1 " - {t~~'~}, ~~~~IItt7I~~ •
_ i!.., "'----r
i a
~~i
~ ~
4 i QfiE L-1 ~ N mr~~: ~t = ~ ~~~fi~ ~s t:l~~i ~ r.. I r }r~T
i `3 ~ 1 .,~4e;~ ( ' ~
~ .
~
1 ' _ - - ~
C ~ I
~ lfOft'tK QEl'ATfOH '
y ~p
i ~
i
! T~tit ,,!j t•, 1
J=tu31 k_ \ R' tltm*rcrtmIIIIIIlTIIf.R1IItII ~ +i~ 9L~IIi1i ~p~
~
:~T~
i
i y~ M.
~'i
1 ~
~ _
;-r it
1 ~ . io....--. ~.w
r a
. . ~ ' _ -BOUT~$. ELrAM"
.
J
t
~
.
~
I ~x•~w. R
~ A~i~hn'ta
(
f `
F7
~ I
~
~
(
~
( I
~ 0 U ~
. ~ 5
~
~ FT j i
,
LEJ
t '
1_
tfOTF1. ROOM TYf'E •A'
~
i
a
. E
i
FF ; ~.,ti ,
;
a , -
0 0 o o RM_
~ -
~ .
~
o
,
r~ fl.(~c'rR nN r-Y('X'A±- F2.QOfi Pi.tN WMf LnfT ~
I F ~
Rat.RL6fklt - ~ ~
i
~ . I
I
- ~
'-f+-~+~X
. I
~ w....
~ - ' • • ~ ID._-~ _
~_e.
7
; _
1 .
{ -
~ . . . . .
_ 0 0 0
Y~e I
~e;+rxrh k
f"i ~ 1 art~ _ ~ Af'r:hlixt'.t .
1J
/ I
f 7PL;-.'~' ( ~ 1 -_;E,
h> . '9 ,
* {
\ -
~
(
LI1~lIT 1*12 r-LOJR PLAN'
~
i
`
kl'~
_ . ~
I
IJNIT aM FLOJR PLAN
fi 17
~
, , ~
1 FM
4
o _ .
, -
/
2F
- / ~ I rul.a v. roonee. UNIT ~18 UPPEfz LEvEL PLAN ;
~ 1 !/4':I'-e' .
a U~lIT ~11 FLOOr~ PLAt~ L-J~ «
1SG/
? - _ - _ _ _ , - -
. -
a.
- ;
%
ii
r_l ~ .>.,f~~C - 4 ~
2 UNlT" 5 FLdUt2 PLAi4
i«• ~ a- 1 ~ ~
~
~ i
Fri
UNIT* im FLOOR PL,„1!
2
1,<•_~_z
<< ~_~~.cll, ~
- ,,•.~-~lj~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ -
-
.
x,
UN!T* }8 LGl!.JER LEVEL PLAN
i „<•.~-o ;~,,dw,.
)ovn.a Wwin
. ~ p
UNIT" 54 fiLOOR PL,4N
- ` LI U4~=i~'-@" ~
nt~~~t~H~~`_'~~ • / ~ ^ _
.
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ i ~ . ( _ . _ '--5-=~=! rfi~~. ,e.y,n~ ~i~_~.'.~.n, . _
t
• ~ , i 1• `s,.. ~J _ . _ - - -r - , _ _ . -
, . .
Y Z _
~
• . ,.s' °try ~1 z- ; ~ _ -
.
• ~ l - ~r . ~ \ _ ~ f ` ~
~
~ i . ~ ~ ` ..-f t ` ~'"J..;: . /i ~ y ~ • ' - / ' ' ' _ ' _ ~ ~N j ' viL1:1.=_ CENtE.Fi
G.. • ~ ~i
.
,
s.
~
. ~
.
. , '1_ i . ~ . ~ E j ~ ~ - ,t
Sl~FEF Pt t.2,:.Y- / \ ac
~ , . , . r 2 " . - ~ • - '+y. ~ viLLK+E GENTEft
• Y~.-.. . 1 ~ ~ ~ 5 4,FtOt'S /
w ;tI- , . ~ °°~m-.e.~ / ~ t
'rEy.~iCW~iy.E n 4 t "
~ sl.~._ ~ ~ G~='^CCrlCJ'.a b"iie:~ i.•Y~~
2-1~.t
AUSTRIA HAUS vML, cowx.arso LANDSCAPB pLA?
$ONNBNALP PRQPERTIPS, ItdC. nmc a~o ~'w o Rs H o rM!
' IANU~xT 4 Nf~ o > ~a
4 ~ ~
l ? '
MESilO.... A. . 1 iDUM
To: George Reutller
From: 3eff Winstan
RE: Design Review - Sannenalp Austria House
Date: 7 January, 1997
All in all I think the building fits the siTe welt, it accomplishes a majpr objec#ive of removing the surface parking, and it fills
in a major piece of the pedestrian loop fronl the Viilage Center to Slifer Square. The building is tall, but that is consistent
tivith the direction of the Village Master Plan to puT the taller buildings on the north periphery of the Village, stepping down
toward the south. If anything, the building could even be slightly taller and would still be consistent wifll the size of the
Monntain Haus and Village Center. Within tllis overail cantext, #here are a few aspects of the building and site plan tcs
svhich I woutd direct attention.
1. I think the building could be stepped more, both verticaliy and horizontally, to give more variety and mcsre
consistency with the surraunding buildings. ~
Witli respect to the vertical aspect, fliere are a few steps in the building height, and I have not seen a 60%-40%
calculation for the design, but it appears to be rather uniform in height, with the majority of the building at the
talicst height. It alsa has a number af flat roof sections, presumably to stay within a height constraint. A number of
tliese flat areas cvilt be visible from public spaees due to the chamfering of the end sections of the roof. I would
strongly favar carrying the roaf to a full gable for some distance at the ends of the building, even if it meant
granting a height variance. This tvould eliminate the visibiiity of the flat roaf sections as well as prpviding mare
vertical variation.
With respect to the horizontal alignment, it seems that the east end af the building, the turret, could be stepped bacl-
slightly (ta the South) to open up East Meadaw Ihive to Slifer Square - sart of a mirror image of what the
Molmtain Haus does. On the other hand, the west end of the building , the portion that also steps down, could be
stepped slightly fonvard (north) toward Bast Meadow Drive, possible covering a portion of the drop-off area,
bringing it a little closer to the alignment of the Village Center building (La Tour). I've iliustrated this massing
suggestion below:
_ V, 'Alle,
303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449-691 I+ WIN 1320QAOL.COM • 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 •$OULDER, CO 80302
0
. ,
DLsigii Review - Sannenalp Austria House
01 /07/97
~ Page 2
2. I support the idea of incarporating the bus shelter in the turret at the east end of the building, however I
wonder if it can be made more visible and accommodating for peaple waiting for a bus. Suggestions
include enlarging the sheltered area slightly (extending a canopy around the turret), opening #he corner to
Slifer Square (removing same of the planter, may be accomplished by stepping this section of the building
back too).
3. I suppart moving East Meadow Drive to the south. It gives the street a more gracious, serpentine flow, and
will allotv tapering and landscaping of the parking structure embankment. One af the objectives of the
Streetscape Plan is to elimirrate pedestrian conflicts along bus routes - such as East Meadow Drive. The
wide sidewaik created along the front of the building is impeded by the street tree planting shown on the
p1an. This being the north side of a ta11 building, it «ill receive little sun, and is probably not a great spot
for deciduous trees anyway. I suggest moving East Meadow Drive a little less sonth, creating an even
wider walking area, and then cltlstering tree planting (evergreen, as shown in rendered elevations) in
several pockets that stiit leave a broad walking surface out from under the arcade af the building.
Complimentary planting clusters could be created on the north side of East Meadow Drive. {see diagram
attached}
It may not be necessary that East Meadow Drive be a fuli two lanes wide in thrs area. Buses can see each other
from Siifer Square to the gate and tend to wait far each otlier to pass tlu-ough dle gate anyway.
404. Ta create a stronger pedestrian connectian from the Village Center, I suggest paving the auta drop-off area
tivith the pedestrian pavers, merely demarcating the drop-aff zane with bollards so that it feels like an
extension of the sidewalk when not being used by cars. The fact that it feels like cars are parked in a
pedestrian areas might also tend to reinforce the notion of short-term auto usage.
5. The ramp down to the garage has the potential to open the window well on the opposite wa11 of the Village
Center building. This Viilage Center window will now be looking into car headlights at night. This may
be significantly overcame by a very dense evergreen planting screen or, as a last resort, a free-standing low
wall.
6. The expansion of the building creates a need, and opportunity, to make improvements to Slifer Square.
One of those is to open the plaza to Austria House. Some trees will likely need to be removed, but it
should be done very carefully, with a strong justification for each one removed - the mature evergreens are
a real asset. The planters could be reduced in size, with more connectians thraugh to generally open up the
fizil extent of the plaza.
If there is a possibility to accamplish upgrades to the plaza (paving for example) I suggest we also take the
apportunity ta revisit the fountain - particularly the plumbing and heating system. "In the oId days" arriving af
Slifer Square at night in winter was a magical experience, with lights illuminating the cascades in the fountain, a
gentle fag rising frorn the water. As I recall, winter operation was ceased primarily because large leaks in the
plumbing ereated a very high cost for heating the water. If heating the plaza is a passibility, with a boiler already in
~ place the additional cost of heating fountain water might be significant2y less than before.
WlNSTC>N ASSOCIATES, INC. •303.4409200 •FAX 303 449,6911 •2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CC7 80302
* .
Desigia Review - Sonnenalp Atistria l-Iouse
01107l97
Page 3
~
7, The plan should include provision for continuation of #he streamwalk, as clase to Gore Creek as possible
(just above the high water level). It may require cantilevered boardwalks to get around trees in a few
sections.
8. Finally, a sma11 but I think important point. Although I normally believe in giving maximum deference to
the architect in matters of design, I raise a question abaut the use of the chamfered gable-end roof detail. I
realize it is utilized on the ather SQnnenalp building. It is also used on Bishop Park, Golden Peak base and
several other buildings in Vail. It is a very visibie architectural `signature' and in fact, it has the potential
of becoming a dominant thematic element in the Viilage.
One of the primary traits of Vail is the continuity of the whole - that no individual building stands out, but
somehow the overall impression halds together as a village that evolved with a consistent palate of
materials and design character. The simple gable end has been a'hallmark of Vail. There are variatians to
be sure, and tao much uniformity can be sterile. I raise the question as to whether this building cannot be
designed with primarity gable roofs to blend in better with the surrounding buildings and the Village in
general.
~
~
WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC, •303.440.9200 •FAX 303 449,6911 •2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 BOULDER, G(J 80302
i
7'0
2"L6'tA
~
Ij I~ ~
. s ~ ~ ~ .i . r . . 1 ~+I - . . -.~=•=_r.' _
.
,
~
~
.
;
+i t • ~ ' e ' ' ~ ~ `~f: ~ ~ ~ k i i ~ j i t : x '-r+~~ t
- • • ~ t t , ~ . .~r:, i~.-,~ j,'.'-~ , c ~ -
~ . .
• t~ _ ; t~~-~--~-~--~--; i-.~F ~ ~ w-71t--
7T
_ ~ .
_.v_. . . .
- ' - - - -
A h',}'Y
i
~,n } p ' ~ • . 1 F
.
~
. ' ,
i
r ~
`
~ t
tT'i;i
. { - n - ! ~ ,
- -L__I . ~ ~
ru»t
~
a.,~` } . ~ _ 1 I ~ ~P~v f" `
Y7 71'
w
_ x - :•'-e ; ; ~ 0 t $
.s.
, . • , ~ ~
- _ _ ~ti ~ ~ r
- - - • - ~µ-ri~~ ti ~ ~
c•=°T
• ~ - ~ ~ ~
41 t
t _ p
_ ~ _ -
\
~N
a
~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~ x
AU5TRIA HAUS REDEVELOPMENT
1995/96 GOMPARAT(VE ANNUAL OCCtJPANCY RATES
INTERVAL VS. HOTEL
AVERAGE RVERAGE VAIL
SANDSTJNE MARRIQTT ST. JAMES VAIL VALLEY AVERAGE VAlL tNTERVAL uALLEY HOl'EL
CREEK' STREAMSIDEZ PARK PLAZA3 PLACE4 1NTERVAL VALLEY HOTELS DIFFEREtVTIAL ADRS
JANl1ARY 94 % 90 % 90°la 97% 93 % 79 % + 17 % $229
FE$RtJARY 92 °fo 90°ta 90°l0 98 °la 92 % 83 °lo + 11 °lu $267
MARCH 92 °l0 95 % 90 % 9$ °fa ' 94 % $2 °1cr + 14 °lo $268
APRIL 92 % 75 % 50 % 45°l0 66 °Jo 55 % + 19 °lo $132
MAY 70°l0 65 °l0 35 °lo N!A 57 °!0 25 °lo + 127 °lo $76
JUNE 94 °lo $Q % 90 % 60 °l0 81 °l0 55 °10 + 37 °lo $172
JULY 94 °l0 90 °10 90 % 85 % 90 % 72 % + 25°lo $121
AUGUST 94 % 90 °l0 90 % 85 % 90 °lo $1 °lo + 11 % $126
SEPi'EMBER 75 % $0 % 90 °lo $0 °l0 81 % 60 % + 36 % $99
OCTOBER 75 °fo 70 °/a 35 % 40°l0 55 °la 41 % + 34 °lo $75
NOVEMBER 75 % 80 % 90 % 45 % 73 °!0 43 °lo + 89 % $92
DECEMBER ' 90 °lo $5 % 90 % 85 % $8 °l0 77 % + 14 °lo $208
ANNUAL AVERAGE $6 °la 83 °!0 78 % 74 % $0 % 63 °lo ± 27 %o $150
FOOTNOTES:
1) Average monthly occupancies for the 63 unit property as pravided by Sandstone Creek manager Rnn Suftivan.
2) Average monthly occupancies for #he 150 unit property as provided by Marriott Streamside manager Beth Matthews.
3} Average monthiy occupancies for the 36 unit property as provided by Park Ptaza manager Tamara Cartmilt.
4) Average monthly occupancies for the 60 unit praperty as provided by St. James Place manager Greg Finch.
5) Average monthiy occupancies for eight hotel properties as pubiished by Tashiro Marketing & Advertising.
These hotei praperties include: Cascade Hotel & Club, Ladge at Vait, Marriott Resort Vail, Sitzmark at Vail,
Holiday tnn Chateau Vai(, Hyatt at Seaver Creek, The Pines, and Inn at Beaver Creek.
6} Average daily hotel rates for the same eight hoteE properties as published by Tashiro Marketing & Advertising.
austria haus permitting data.xis
AUSTRlA HAUS REDEVLOPMENT
1995196 COMPARATIVE ANNUAL VISlTOR NIGHTS
INTERVAL VS. HOTEL
IRIDIVIDUAL ROOM COMPARCSON
TUTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL
ANNUAL AVA(LASLE OCCUPANCY TpTAL ANNtJAL VtSlTOR NIGNT
ROOM TYPE PlLLOW COUNT AVRILABILITY VISITOR NlGHTS RATE' VISITOR NIGHTS COMPARISC?N
FlCJTEL ACCOMMODATiON UNIT 2 365 DAYS 730 63 % 460
INTERVAL ACCOMMODATiON kJNIT 2 365 DAYS 730 80 °l0 584 t 124
AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB COMPARISON
TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL
ANNUAL AVAILABLE OCCUPANCY TOTAL ANNUAL VISITOR NIGHT
ROOM MiX PILLC}W COUNT AVAILA8ILITY VISITOR NIGHTS RRTE' VISITOR NlGNTS COMPARISON
05- '
37 HOTEL ACCOMMODATION UNITS 74 274 DAYS 20,276 63 °l0 12,774
20 NQTEL ACCOMMODATION UNITS 40 365 DAYS 14,600 63 % 9,198
16 2BR INTERVAL UNITSZ 64 365 DAYS 23,360 80 % 18,688
8 3BR INTERVAL UNITSZ 48 365 DAYS 17,520 80 °l0 14,016
- CLUB TOTAL 152 365 DAYS 55,480 41,902 + 29,128
FOOTNOTES:
1) Average annual occupancy rates as presented on 1995/96 Comparative Year-Round Occupancy Rate table.
2} Does not include use of living raom murphy bed.
austria haus permitting data.xls
~ ' • ~ ~ Tsskxo:tlttg fi Rchr ~
~.~.~xa~~
~ '~ail ~lalte~ ~~t~t3~~u~anc~
~~~,co e16 32
~
303-926-67UQ
1892 1493 1884 1995 1996
,lanuery 83.4% 82.89b 78,3% 61.9% 73%
Fefiruar 80:3.°0
March 88,99'< 88.2% 88.7% 84.6% 829'.
A r1! "57:0R'.*, . . 49.5% 49.8'?'. SS%
Ma 30. r°la 27.8 : 24, 3% 29.2~''. 25'Ye '
3t11te 6'9.5°15 5S.7 °."al 59.6x°le 54.1% 59°fe
Ju 79.3% 73."s, 19.9% 62.6% 7
Aat tt s$ 8#1. i'fe 72. 74`. ?S, B°: 53.1 °r6 B i 9G
Se iember 53.3% 55.3% 68,? 0;10 57,8% 60°G
{?ciober 33.?"1'~ 47,0% 49,0% 4l.0'f$
November 26.9 % 28.4ttQ 40.3% 43_3*4
0ececrtber 7fi.9°1a 77.9% 8t}.6% 77.2%
Yr Aversge 54.2116 63,0% 65.4°l4 50.5`7. 67°l0
liiit@I C}ccUj73nG?~
~
~
,
.....................».._e._.... ._.....s........._.:
70.0°fn
~ YL.Y%
i
` ~9'f 892
6Q.0:uo
;
40.4°ti E] t 494
; : i : - : ?1935
30.0".b 99f.
~O.O~e ! ! { ; ~ ~ ~
U. tt9&
. ~ te °f c~s Q~ ~
~ Z E@1
S15
f
~ - •
AUS7RIA HAUS REDEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
~
EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SDD
COMMERCIAL SPACE PRC?FILE
. TOTAL CQMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 497 Sq. Ft. 5,000 Sq. F#.
GROSS RETAIL SALES REVENUE $400,000 $2,500,000 - 4,000,000
TAX REVENUE GENERATICIN
~
TOTAL ONE-TIME TRANSFER TAX REVENUE l $456,550
a 43
ANNtJAL SALES TAX REVENUE @ 4.00°lo ON:
Gross Rental income $51,08~ $47,829
~ Gross Retail Sales Revenue 16 Q00 $100,000 -160 OOQ
TOTAL ANNUAL. SALES TRX REVENUE $67,085 $147,829 - $207,829 ~
e1
r} a
~
FOOTNUTES:
(1) Gross Rentai income: Hotel Rooms - 20 Rooms x 365 =?,300 Available F2oom Nights x 63% Occupancy = 4,599 Room Nights
x Averege Daily Rate af $200 =$919,800 Annuai Revenus
Club Suites - 24 lockoifs x 385 = 8,760 Avaiiabie Room Nights x 25°!o Avaiiebility = 2,190 Avaiiable Room Nights
x 63°/a 4ccupancy =1,379 Ropm Nights x$200 Average Daily Rate =$275,940 Annual Revenue
NOTE: The projections indicated above da not include the following:
1} Club Unif rental income and associated sales tax revenue
2} Guest expenditures and assaciated sales tax revenues
3) Property tax revenue
~
k
y
/
~
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
~ January 13, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Susan Conneily
Greg Amsden Mike Mollica
Henry Prat# Gearge Ruther
Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriella -
Jahn Schofield Lauren Waterton
Gene Uselton Tammie Williarnsan
Diane Golden Dirk Mason
Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
The rneeting was ca6led to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. The sefection of a Planning and Enviranmental Commissian Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson. The selected persons shaii serve one-year terms expiring December 31,
1997.
Greg Moffef designated the representatives for DRB; John Schofiefd for the 1 st quarter, Gene
Uselton for the 2nd quarter, and Galen Aasland far the 3rd quarter. The 4th quarter has yet to be
determined. Greg also stated that procedurally, the PEC needed to have elections today to elect
a Chair and Vice-Chair for the PEC.
Kathy Langenwaiter asked when the boards were changing.
Greg Moffet said that three terms were expiring after ski season. Greg then suggested making a
motion to have the elections at the end of March.
Gene Useltan made a mateon to extend the election date untii the end of March, 1997.
Greg Amsden seconded the rnation.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. i ,
2. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a new garage, located at 1034 Hamestake Circie/Lot 5, Biock 6, Vail Viliage 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Planner: Dirk Mason
.
Dirk Masan stated that the applicant requested that this itern be tabled until February 10, 1997.
Plarming and Environtnental Cotnmissiott
~ Minutes '
January 13, 1997
4
Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item untii February 10, 1997.
John Schofield secanded the motion. ~
It passed unanimously by a vate of 7-0.
3. A request for a variance #rom Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1, 4, 6, to
allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vaii Commons
property, iocated at 2099 N. Frontage Raad Westi Vai1 Commons.
Applicant. KTUN Radio
Planner: Tammie 1Nilliamson -
Tarnmie WilliamsQn gave an overview of the request and said that today staff had amended the
request to be a worksession. She said the applicant was being represented by John Banks, who
was present, and he would like to have some guidance from the PEC at this meeting.
Greg Moffet asked if, during the site visit, something changed to request this be changed to a
worksession?
Tammie Wiiliamson said she understood the location of the equipment was to be inside, but that
naw the antennas were on top of the building and visible and s#a#f would need to further review
the new location af the antennas. She asked if, because of this change and staff needing a
chance to review the request, should we tabie the item?
Mike Mollica said #he PEC could tabie the item, but since the applicant was here and wanted
guidance, he suggested rnaking this a warksession for #he request. ~
Greg Moffet said, for the record, that KTUN was a custamer of his and if anyone saw a confiict
he wouid recuse himself.
John Banks, Director of Engineering for Moss Entertainment (the parent company of KTUN), said
there was a potential impact on aesthetics with the relocation of the antennas. Ne explained that
some of the antennas were on the Vail Run site. He said that there were two locatians on the
site for installation. The first installation wauld have twa dishes on the northwest corner dug inta
the hi!(side with screening. The second installation had a dish laoking at a different sateilite
which was needed for programming that might be required in the future. This location was near
the Frontage Road, installed on the frant cflrner (af the west side) af a false stairwell. John said
that two antennas needed to be installed that were,smaller than a large satellite dish, or the size of a lawn chair. Ne exp(ained that the stairweN was the only place on the I.ot that could relay to
Dowd Junction, since the view fram theI Vail Cammons site was blocked by a hill. By locating the
antenna on this stairwell at Vail Cammons, the relay would work. Greg Maffet asked for any public camrnent. There was none.
Galen Aasland said the two dishes by Chamonix had ho mitigatian and were extremely visible.
He said that the towers needed to not look like a navy ship. `
. John Banks said that they were not intended to be higher, just put~an the west face.
Planning and Enviramnental Comznission
Miuutes ~
lanuary 13, 1997 2
Greg Moffet asked abaut cutting inta the stairweli?
~ Diane Golden said we needed ta get input frorn the neighbars to the narth and asked if they had
been notified.
Tammie Wiiliamson said they had been contacted, however, to date there had been na
response.
Diane Golden asked if the antennas were mesh.
Jahn Banks said the antennas were solid fiberglass, as mesh were used for consurner use and
alsa rnesh was not recornmended with a heavy snowload. -
Greg Moffet asked how the appiicant would keep kids off of them.
John Banks stated that #hey were up off the graund.
Greg Moifet saw it as a great place for kids to hang out and therefore, needed an enclosure with
a wall.
Mike Mallica gave the example of the Holiday Inn and stated that they used a low fence to screen
the dish and to keep kids aut.
Greg Moffet wauld like to see a wall.
Diane Gaiden said a wall was a great idea.
Henry Pratt said that a fence and landscaping were not adequate enough to screen the dishes
and he alsa sncouraged the applicant to paint them, as white was too stark. He suggested that
the appiicant cut a hole in the roof of the stairwell and hide the antennas in there, as it was a
false stairwell.
John Schofield echoed Henry's comments. He would fike information on the height of the dishes
and if they were 15' from the right-af-way.
John Banks said the satellite dish antenna wiif not be higher than the stairwell and that it would
not work inside, because the stairweil was steel.
Gene Uselton agreed with Greg regarding the fence and that to obscure it,from any views from Chamanix was good. He asked if it would be under the eave so it would disappear.
John Banks said it would have some depth. Greg Amsden asked if the locatian of the pedestrian walkway was fixed because as it was now,
the applicant would have to go anto the adjacent neighbor's property to plant trees.
Mike Mollica said this would be an opportunity to modify the bend in thewalkway. He said staff
could talk to Andy Knudtsen regarding that.
Planning and I;nviromnentai Coirnnission
~ Minutes January 13, 1997 3
Greg Amsden was in favor of a fence and aiso strongly was in favor of painting anything exposed
to tie into the surrounding landscaping. ~
Greg Mof#et said it was not a problem to grant a variance, since our goal was to keep businesses
in Town. 1n terms of the piacement of sateilite dishes, he didn't see a probiem with placement
under the slaped raof and painted a rnatching cofor. Greg liked Henry's alternative of cutting out
a window and having it enciosed.
Jahn Banks asked staff what ths fence height allowed in Town was?
Mike Mollica said 6'. Mike also asked about snow removal from the dishes and was in favor of a
mesh dish.
John Banks said they wouid sweep off any snow that accumulated.
4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a two-car garage, located at
4532 Streamside Circle East/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition.
Applicant: Lillian and William Bresnahan, represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Lauren gave an overview of the request.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
Diane Larson, an attorney representing Ed Padilla, the owner o# the east half of the duplex,
stated that Mr. Padilla did not receive any wri#ten notice of the hearing. Mr. Padilla has also been ~
working on a garage addition with Kathy Langenwalter, She said that if the Bresnahan addition
was approved, he would nat be able to do his addition without a site coverage variance. Diane
asked, since Mr. Padilla's lot was larger, how the square footage shauld be aNocated? She said
she was asking to table the reguest, ar vote na and allow both parties to propose a joint addition.
Greg Amsden asked if #he party uvall agreement addressed future development.
Diane Larson said, no.
Greg Amsden stated that because nothing was in the party wail agreement, that wouid be a civil
matter.
Mike Moilica said develapment rights were allocated an a first-come, first-$erve process on
duplex lots. He aisa stated that he just looked at the list of adjacent property awners in the file
and that Mr. Padilla was not on the list. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she did not interpret Mr. Padilla as an adjacent property owner.
She stated that it was her error, however Mr. Padiila v+ras aware af the request. Kathy also
stated that anather adjacent property owner, Sally Lowe, had her envelope returned as it had an
incarrect address,
Planning and Enviromnental Comznissivn
Minuics
January 13, 1997 4
,
Mike Moilica said we either need signatures on joint applications, or we need to notify the other
~ owner of the public hearing. He stated that technicaliy, Mr. Padilia was not notified, nor was
Sally Lowe because of a wrang address. He added that addresses corne from the County
recards.
Kathy Langenwalter said that Sally Lowe was sent a notice using her physical address. She said
that there was just under 1,000 sq. ft. of site coverage available and the Bresnahan's would take
up slightly less than half, with this proposaL Kathy explained that Mr. Padilla could also add a
garage, however, he wanted to build something larger which would require a site coverage
variance. She said Mr. Padilla didn't want to oppose the Bresnahan request, but he didn't want it
to ruin his project.
Greg Mofifet asked if they could do a joint appiication.
Kathy Langenwalter said the Bresnahans were first and would like ta go forward with their plans.
Greg Moifet advised if Mr. Padilla wanted to stop construction, he would need to go to civil court.
Mel Brodie, the property owner to the west, was very concerned about the loss of light on his
property, with such a big structure to the east. He stated that moving it back was a hefp, but he
asked if it could be moved further back and have a lower roof pitch.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that what the applicant was proposing was a ane-story structure with
a 4;12 pitch, which was the minimum they could do. She stated that the garage was located as
far east as possib(e. She said that the applicant had done the best he could to keep the impact
minimal, as compared to the rights the applicant was al6awed. She also said that this was only a
~ 20' wide garage.
Mel Brodie said he stiil continued ta have these cancerns.
Bili Bresnahan explained that he was going to be a fuil time resident as of February i, 1997 and
that he had owned this property for 20 years. Ne said that this was the smallest garage he couid
build. Ne stated that he recommended that Mr. Padi)la use Kathy Langenwaiter, so that they
would have a unified plan. He said tiiat he was ready to do interior canstruction within the next
three weeks, which would be about $50,000 and without a garage the property, with these
interior improvements, wouid be exceeding what it was worth. He said that as of December 16,
1996, Mr. Padilla had no plans for his addition. He said Mr. Padilla's garage was now 20'X24'
and that the proposa{ wou{d use less than 50% of the availabie site coverage. He afso said he
would put in tandscaping. , •
Mike Mollica said he had a concern regArding the pubiic notice not being received by the
adjacent property owners. He said that since Diane Larson was here today, he would 4ike Diane
ta comment, as he wouid not like the PEC decision to be thrown out due ta a technicality, as staft
was obligated to send notices out to all adjacent property owners.
Greg Moffet asked if the PEC approved it, could it be thrown aut on a teehnicality?
.
Diane Larson said Mr. Padilia was hoping the applicant would voluntarily table this and that Mr.
; Padilla would need to receive the notice. •
Planning and Environmental Commission
~ Minutes '
January 13, 1997 5
4
Greg Moffet said his concern was that this would be a voidable approval, which was like having
no approval at all. ~
Mike MoNica advised the PEC to table this, since a 15-day notice was needed to be received by
all adjacent property owners.
Diane Larson said that this may be a iegal issue, and asked if there was a taw on the first-come
first-serve order?
Mike Moilica said that was a civil matter and also advised that should the PEC approve this
I project, the Padilla's would have 10 days to appeal to Town Council.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that if this was tabled, the appiicant didn'# need 15 days, as the next
rneeting was in #wo weeks,
John Schofield asked Diane Larson if she could waive the 15-day notice.
Diane Larsan stated that she did not have the authority to do that.
Kathy Langenwaiter then asked if the appiicant cauld have a straw vote by the PEC.
Galen Aasiand said something along the west wall should be done.
The rest of the Board members stated that they would say yes on the straw vote.
Kathy Langenwa(ter said she didn't want the applicant to have to come again to another meeting.
Greg Moffet thought the applicant had presented a very good alternative. ~
Bill Bresnahan said he had no problem with Mr. Padilla's addition.
Greg Amsden rerninded the applicant that in the past, site coverage variances were looked at
very strongly and he saw no hardships on this property to warrant a site coverage variance.
Greg Moffet said we had a technicai failure by not providing notice. He told the applicant that he
didn't have to do the application jaintly and that his sense was that this current proposai would be
approved. Greg said if the applicant and the neighbor could come up with an appiication that
didn't require any variances, this would be good.
Bill Bresnahan asked if he varould lose hls first-come, first-serve status.
Gene Useiton said he felt that Mr. Bresnahan shouid be first. Kathy Langenwaiter said the appiicant would like to table this itern.
Greg Amsden made a motion ta table this item until January 27, 1997.. ,
t
The mation was seconded by John Schofieid.
Plailning anci I:uvironmental Couunission
IVII7lutes ~
Janliary 13, 1997 6
Henry Pratt reminded the applicant that they could table this item until the next meeting, if they
~ cauid rnake the notice deadline.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0.
5. A request far a new Special Development District, No. 34, located at 1521 and 1631
Buffehr Creek Road/Lats 3& 4, The Valley, Phase V.
Appiicant: Jim and Ronna Flaum
Planner: Daminic tvlauriello
Dominic Maurieilo advised that this request should be SDD No. 34; that SDD No. 33 was Red
Sandstone. Dominic proceeded to give an overview of the request and stated that the appficant
did not want the EHU ta be a requirement. Dorninic said 43 large trees would be impacted and
that staff had proposed mitigation, since this was heavily forested, by asking for 7 additionai trees
per site. He said that staff felt that this would not be onerous for the applicant. Darninic
proceeded to go over the deviations from The underlying zoning and he said that staff was
recommending appraval with 8 conditions. He said that the only dif#erence since the 4ast meeting '
was that staff inciuded language from the Code for canditinn #8.
Jirn Flaum expressed cancern aver the requirement of an ENU, as a candition of approval.
Greg Moffet asked for any pubiic camrnent. There was none. !
John Schofield said if there were na problems with the 8 conditians, he would suppari this i
project. He stated that he didn't believe an EHU should be required.
Gene Useiton said he was enthusiastic about the EHU's and to let the market determine whether I
or not the EHU's were built. ,
Greg Arnsden stated that because this was an SDD situation, he wanted one EHU required. Ne I
asked, regarding the slope of the site, what the chances of coming back for variances would be?
He also felt Lot C was toa close to the road. ,
Dominic Mauriella said he expressed that to Bill Reslock earlier. Bili Reslock was camfortable
that they could provide the project within the building envelope. The building envelopes have
been increased in size to ensure construction within the envelopes.
Kurt Segerberg said that since this was a steep site, he fe4t they cauld canfarm, as they had .
done this before. He also said that Lot C was a challenge.
Galen Aasland said an EHU should be required. Diane Goiderr supported the project, but a4so felt at Ieast 1 EHU should be required, with the
EHU allowance of 500 sq. ft. of GRFA.
Henry Pratt stated that since there was no bus service, he would not like to encaurage any more
car traffic. He wouid prefer to mandate an ENU where there was bus service and sa would nat
; require an EHU in this locatian. .
Pianning and Environmental Commission
~ Minutes '
January 13, 1997 7
e i
Greg Moffet wanted to see at least 1 EHU in this subdivision.
~ Jim Flaum requested #hat the ENU not be a requirement. ~
! Greg Moffet said because it's an SDD, the next Board this request would ga before would
probably require it and ihe EHU would be deed restricted.
Diane Golden, havin9 lived in an SDD, resPonded to Henry's camments, bY sayinJ that when
II
more people moved into an area, a bus stop could be added.
I
il Galen Aasland made a motion to recommend approval in accordance with #he staff inemo,
including the 8 conditions and added tne additional condition that one ENU be reguired for the
' entire development which must be provided prior to, or in conjunction with, the Building Permit
' for the third house eonstructed on-site. Five hundred (500) sq. ft. of additiona! GRFA shall be
aliowed for the construction of an EHU on each lot.
Gene Useiton asked if the PEC was recommending approvai to the Town Council?
John Schafield secanded the motion.
The motian passed unanimausly by a vote of 7-0.
6, A request far a minor subdivision to relocate the common property iine between Lots 7 and
8, located at 666 and 696 Forest RaadlLats 7 and 8, Block 1, Vaii Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Vllaterton ~
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and said that the southern line of the building
envelope was 45' frorn the existing edge af the deck. She said that the applicant may chaose to
make the building envelope far l.at 7 smaller and that this request had met the intent of the zaning
ordinance.
,1im Wear, the attorney far the appiicant, wanted to verify that the propased buiiding envelope
foilowed the setback line on the east and west sides, as shown an the itlustration.
Lauren Waterton said, yes.
Greg Moffet asked far any public comments. There were none. , There were no comments from the Baa~d.
Jim UVear stated that Lat 7 may be further restricted.
Lauren Waterton stated that when the final plat comes in, staff would verify it.
Greg Moffet had na comments. `
, Gene Useiton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff rnemo.
Planniug and Enviromnental Cacnmission
Minutes ~
January 13, 1997 8
Greg Amsden secanded the motion.
~ The rnatian passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0.
7. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Specia{ Deve{opment District aver{ay
to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vaii Village First
F'iling.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: Gearge Ruther
Greg Moffet stated that the Baard would give a quick consensus on the density issue. -
Gardon Pierce said he would like ta give his presentation, as some new things had been added.
George Ruther gave an auerview of the request and went over what wou(d 6e discussed in the
worksession today. He said that definitions of fractional fae club and fractional fee club units have
been provided. He said that staff had defined what interval ownership vuould be on page 1 of the
memo. George advised that on January 7, 1997, Council approved, on first reading, Ordinance No.
22 that inciuded the definitions of fractional fee club and fractional fee ciub unit. He then proceeded
to ga over Sectinn 3, on page 2 of the staff inemo, regarding the amended Conditionai Use Criteria
and Findings.
Gordan Pierce said Councii wanted the fock-o#fs to be designed to loak iike hotel rooms.
George Ruther then went over the changes Cauncil made ta the Ordinance and the discussion
issues for this meeting, as stated in the staff inemo. Ne said that the 7 parking spaces not on-site
would be provided for by $16,333.38 being put in the pay-in-{ieu fund. He mentioned that the 1997
pay-in-lieu rate would be available by mid-February and the figure for this project would be adjusted
ta the new 1997 rate. George stated that the applicant was here today to respand ta ,leff Winston's
comments and that Jeff will be available on January 27th.
Greg Moffet said the discussion issues would be addressed one at a time and density and unit mix
would be addressed first.
Bill Suliivan, representing the applicant, explained the chart that George Ruther handed out for hirn.
Ne said it showed accupancy rates as being 27% higher for intervais than for hotels. He explained
that the secand page showed interval vs. hotel nets and that you had 124 more people per room per
year with the intervai. The Austria Haus provided 2,9,128 additianal people in the Village and this •
figure did not include use of the living room being accupied. He explained.that page 3 showed the
Vail Valley hotei occupancy and page 4 showed the tax revenue analysis.
Greg Amsden asked what percentage of a time-share was rented to someane other than the owner.
Biii Suilivan stated 20% of the owners rent at Sandstone Creek; 15% at Streamside and 15% at St.
James Place. He mentioned that it was broken down'evenly between sumrner, and winter.
Planning and Environmentai Coninussion
~ Mintites 3anuary 13, 1997 9
Gardon Pierce pointed ou# the history of the density of the building, as well as the volume of the
' building and what cauld be supported by tearing down the buitding. He said when going through the ~
process, the applicant dropped retaii and created more hatei rooms, as asked by the PEC. He said
Council realized that this was not a totally proven product, but that they felt this was in the goals of
~ the Town ta increase the bed base. He said by increasing the GFiFA, we were mare than doubling
#he keys and warm piilows. Gordon praceeded to show color-coded illustrations with the units
broken down. Ne said that many times people wouid rent an entire unit, but the applicant had
created Iock-offs to supporC the AU approach, which was what Council wanted. He showed
i photographs of the Swiss Haus (one a# the Sonnenalp properties) to illustrate the amenities of the
roorns. He mentioned that the Iock-of#s and #he AU's were very similar. He said that Council
reatized these roorns were important to the Town as rental units.
~ -
Johannes Faessler said that connecting hotel roorns, with one larger suite and a regular hotel room
' attached, were requested often. Fle said that this configuration was good and the season dictates
the type of customer room requirements. He said that at Christmas the units rent as one to farrtiiies
with children, but during an off-vacation time, the inside connectian room could be so(d to anybady,
' He said the small kitchen allowed flexibility. Johannes said a room between 360 and 400 sq. ft. was
a good size hotel room and that the present Austria Haus had rooms ranging in size from 200 - 250
sq. ft. He said that the Bavaria Haus had 500 sq. ft. rooms.
Greg Maffet asked for any public carnments.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Norneowner's Associatian ( EVNA) asked Gordon how
many sq. ft. were on the first flaor?
Gordon Pierce said 4,000 sq. #t.
Jim Lamont asked where the maid's rooms and laundry were. ~
Gordon Pierce said laundry would be taken off the property, but that there wouid be maid's closets
on the different f(oors.
Jirn Lamont asked if this was a stand-alone facility, without the benefit of the Sonnenaip
maintenance, could it be property serviced without the Sonnenalp as a partner, or could tacilit+es be
accornmodated at a later date?
Gordon Pierce stated that there was quite a bit of space on #he 1ower floor that had not been
reserved for anything and he rnentioned that rnany of the other hotels send laundry off-site.
' Jim Lamont stated that the services of 9 hotel were what he had in mind. ,
Greg Moffet reminded everyone that we were focusing on density. Jim Lamont stated that services were a part of this.
Greg Amsden asked for a comparison on what the exPsting building had and w,hat was being
proposed. ` .
~ Plarming and Envir<>nnlental Cniruiiission
Minutcs January 13, 1997 10
~
Johannes Faessler said to keep in mind that 30 hotel roorns and 150 hotei roams were a big
~ difference and that services were very minimal now. Fie said that this project had a lot more space
to include more services in the future, with the exception that the restaurant was there naw. He
said that maid's closets needed to be on each fioor and that the lobby and front desk area had
enough space. He mentioned that there was a fot of room dawnstairs for expansion or for a
lunchroom that could accornmodate 25 employees, which was the same number of employees as
there was now without the extensive foad service. Johannes said there was a very large laundry in
the Bavaria Haus that couid easily handle the laundry needs of this project.
Gordon Pierce sa+d neighbars have asked not ta have a restaurant or cafe.
Pam Nopkins stated that she had been following this project all along and had concerns regarding
the added density and she felt that the appiicant wouid benefit more than the Town did. She felt the
applicant wouldn't need site caverage variances if they lowered the density and the Town could get
more variety in the old style. She said that the walkway was a concern and that a wide walkway
was needed to go from the Viliage to Slifer Square in order fior skiers to pass carrying skis. 5he
said the walkway needed to be expanded more to the narth, so that pedestrians wouldn't walk into
the bus route. Pam feit that 4' and 6' wide wa{kways were toa narrow and that 10' to 12' wide
walkways were needed.
Gordon Pierce stated that we were ready to address exactiy what Pam has brought up.
Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments. There were none.
John Schofieid was comfartable with the mix at this point in time, but uncomfortable with the
parking. He said the density was a hair on tne high side.
~ Gene Useiton asked if owners of fractional fee units or club members could have a specific unit?
Bill Sullivan said na, they could only request a 2 or 3-bedraom unit.
Gene Uselton asked if there would be any storage space?
Bill Sullivan said yes, for skis, etc.
Gene Use(ton was curious about the definition of a fock-off unit. He asked if the suite was the lock-
off or was the bedroom the lock-off and were we under-valuing by not knowing which was which.
Gordon Pierce said there were 77 keys that coufd aii be rented. , •
Bilf Suliivan stated that the fractional fee~ unit could not be counted, because of the definitian.
Gene Useiton thought if that unit was available ta rent, then it could be counted as a hotei room.
Bill Sullivan stated that because of the ordinance language, it wou(dn't count.
George Ruther then gave the definition of a fractianaf fee unit and exp(alned why it coufdn't be given
any credit as an accommodation unit. He said that there was some consideration to give one-half
; credit, but in reality, it could be considered an AU. • ,
Planning and Enviromnental Corrunission
~ Minutes '
1 Z
7anuary 13, 1997
Gene Useiton said he didn't have a problem with the density issue and stated that this praject would
add to the Tawn af Vaii. ~
Greg Amsden didn't have a problem with what had been established by the Council. He said that
outside of the unit mix, he had no problem with the density.
Galen Aasland said the applicant did a good job at rnaking the lock-offs laok like hotel raams. Galen
still fel# it was slightly tao dense and was driving sorne of the issues. He felt that 206°la over density
allawed was too high.
Diane Golden said that counting the lock-off unit as half a unit was good and stated that she was
comfartabie with the density. -
Henry Pratt said the bui8ding fit the si#e. He said if the Athietic Club came in and asked for mare
density and this density was driving the height, he would like to see less density. He stated that
counting half af the AU's, which would not be avaitable 50% of the time, would nat be equivalent to
an AU and there#are, would like to see one or two more lock-offs, as the applicant was not meeting
the 37 hote( roams required.
Greg Nloffet said he was more comfortable with the building on this site and that he was fine with
the square footage, given the location of the site on the north end of the business district. He said
he wanted to see full compiiance with the square footage and would I+ke to see the 112 unit short
made up. He said that Cauncii had spoken, so he advised the applicant to get the 1/2 unit back.
He wanted to have it made real clear regarding the food service restriction, that the applicant would
nat be putting food service in. He asked, with the amaunt of AU's, where would these peopie go for
breakfast? Greg said, regarding the excess 100% zaning variance, that one employee housing unit
would nat cut it. Greg was adamant that a lot of employee housing be attached to this applicat+on. ~
Gordan Pierce said that the manager's unit was an site and we would have an employee hausing
unit.
Mark Thornberg said currently the Austria Haus had 36 AU's and one dwelling unit.
George Ruther said last week he walked thru the Austria Haus and asked how many rooms were
available for ren#. The front desk said they had 33 hotel raoms and 4 suites available.
Johannes Faessier explained that once a unit has a kitchen, the name changed and technicaily it
would be a dwelling unit.
Gearge Ruther explained that the use shouid be taken into consideration.
Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said there was 100% GRFR overage. He said that the Va91
Athletic Club had 50% overage and mare non-GRFA uses. He said if we were looking ta draw lines
and be mare concerned with volume than GRFA, what happens when the Vail Athietic Club came
back to ask for more GRFA, coufd we laok at volurne ?
Gordon Pierce suggested converting volume back ta GRFR.
Planning artld Environinental Conunission
Minutcs ~
January 13, 1997 12
Jim Larnont said regarding the arguments being made, he would still advocate rezoning to a
~ different PA according to the design standards.
George Ruther said if fractionai fee units were given same consideration, the applicant would have
37 AU's.
Greg Maffet said Councii said we couid count lock-offs at a 1/2 unit apiece.
Mike Moilica asked what the kitchen unit should be counted as, a DU or an AU?
Jahn Schofield stated that a 1/2 unit was not a critical factor and he felt either way was OK.
Gene Useltan interpreted 33 hotel raoms and 3 suites as 36.
Greg Amsden said he felt it had 37 units.
Susan Connelly mentioned to use the word equivalency.
Henry Pratt felt the project had 36 units and the rest of the Board felt it had 37units.
Greg Moffet said it vvas unanimous with the Board expressing the project had 37units.
George Ruther said the applicant was proposing to repiace the 37 units with 36 and 112 units in ,
terms of equivalency.
Johannes Faess4er said the Austria Haus used to have 41 units. He felt that the key was not to I
maximize the number af roorns, rather the occupancy number and he feit that the quality af the '
room was a more important measurement. Johannes said that 25 hotel rooms at 219 sq. ft. wou(d i
fit the farmula, but would not be quality rooms. ,
Greg Moffet mentioned that lock-offs were being spiit, but no divisian of lock-offs wouid count wholly I
in the equivalency caiculation. ,
Susan Conneily said that Councii did nat address that point, but we could have thern address it if
you would like to.
Greg Moffet said 37 was a benchmark density and summarizing the consensus stated that 36 1/2
was going to cut it.
George Ruther gave an averview of the`parking discussion issue and said,that the applicant had the
ability to pay into the parking fund.
Greg Moffet asked Johannes the percentage af guests that didn't have cars.
L
Planning and Environmental Commission
~ Minutes '
Janitary 13, 1997 13
Johannes Faessler said he had a fairly accurate count, as they have coun#ed cars for 3-4 years.
He stated that summer was a bigger probiem than winter and that in the surnmer employees were ~
required to park in the structure. He said that parking lats were difficult to controi, as people sneak
in. Ne stated that in winter 70% af the guests arrive in vans, with the opposite happening in
summer, or 70% arriving by car. He did say however, that he had no experience with fractional fee
units, but that pick-up service at the Eagle Airport wouid be o#fered. He said the Austria Haus
always had sufficient parking, but he did not have a good feel for the camrnercial.
Gaien Aasland felt cornfortable with the cambination of parking on the iower level and the pay-in-lieu
fund. He did want #he applicant to take some height out of the building.
Diane Golden asked where the 15 legal nora-conforming spaces were. -
George Ruther said the 15 spaces were grandfathered in and credit given. He said the project had
48 parking spaces. Since #hey were required to have 70, with a credit for 15, they were 7 spaces
short.
Diane Goiden said 29 spaces are aii they reaily have and since parking was very tight, she wau(d
like to see a few more spaees. She said more spaces on-site wauld free up spaces in the structure.
Henry Pratt felt parking was adequate and he had no problem with the pay-in-lieu.
John Schofield said that with the addition af commercial, he was not camfortable with ihe parking
and would like to see a few more spaces squeezed in.
Gene Uselton agreed with Galen and Nenry.
Greg Rmsden agreed with Galen and Henry. ~
Greg Moffet agreed with Galen and Henry.
Henry Pratt said valet parking was a realistic option and that employees of the commerciai space
would be closest to the door and could be blocked in.
Gardan Pierce said more spaces could be added downstairs, but commercial custorners wouldn't'
park downstairs. Ne said the pay-in-lieu was a winlwin for the Town and could help reduce the debt
on the parking structures.
Greg Moffet said since food seruice would be kept out, the parking demand wauld be reduced. .
i
Johannes Faessler said the Sonnenalp bverflowed in the First Bank parking structure and that the
parking probtem in the Town was caused by something else and we did not have a solutian to that.
Diane Galden asked if some of the 44 parking spaces were far empiayees.
Johannes Faessler said for years they bussed their employees around.. He said it would be difficult
ta get a parking number for their emplayees, as they don't a!l wark at thb same time, nor do they ail
drive.
Planning and Environnlental Cotmnission
Minutes ~
7anuary 13, 1997 14
Diane Golden said parking was a tough issue.
~ Johannes Faessfer thought parking money would be better used to build more parking.
Greg Moffet said on-site parking at the fadges was desirabie. He asked if valet parking as a solution
would eliminate the need for pay-in-lieu.
Gordon Pierce said that valet parking was counted in the fuil number.
Greg Moffet summarized that Diane Golden and John Schofield wanted more parking or pay-in-lieu,
while everyone else was ok with the parking on-site.
Greg Amsden deft at 5:20 p.m.
George Ruther went over discussian issue No. 3, or the Urban Design Comments.
Gordon Pierce said, regarding item No.1, that adjustments cauld be made to the building to
accommodate the view into Slifer Square and that the building cauld be pulled into the street. He
said that No. 2 was nat a problem and that the bus sheiter could be made smailer.
Greg Moffet said the bus sheiter wasn't used that much and could be rnade smailer.
Gordon Pierce said that Na. 3 was not a prob8em and that he hadn't a chance to review No. 4.
Gordan said the drop-off wouid be more of a 5-10 minute operation and peopie rnanning the frant
desk could police that. Regarding item No. 5, Gordon said he had been working with Village Center
regarding the landscaping on the ramp. He said he concurred with Item No. 6 and item No. 7 was a
~ separate issue, that would not be discussed tonight. He said that item No. 8 had the adjustrnents
made per Jeff Winston's suggestion, with the exception of running the gables out.
Jim Lamont, of the EVHA, was unclear as to the width of the sidewalk between the landscaped area
and the curbline on Meadow Drive.
Gordon Pierce said the curb would be 20' away from the building and the pianting areas were within
that 20' area. He said that 10'-12' wouid be for pedestrians from Karats to Slifer Piaza.
Jim Lamont said his concern was having the skier close to the street, cfearly separated from the
shopper.
George Ruther said the applicant was trying to have twa pedestrian paths; one in the Arcade for the .
window shoppers and one for the skiers in passing. He said that staff was working with Pubiic
Works regarding the needs of bus traffic as defined in the Streetscape Master Plan.
Jirn Lamont thaught, with the new Golden Peak Ski Base, that there may be an increase in use for
the eastbound bustop, which they were trying to make smaller and that we shouid wait and see.
George Ruther said staff was warking with Public Works regarding the.bustap;
~
~ Planniilg and Environinental Comnvssion
Minutes
January 13, 1997 15
Galen Aasland agreed with Jeff Winston, as to stepping down the building with regard to the parking
structure view. Galen said with regard to No. 3, that one side of the buiiding was in a shadow all the ~
time and he expressed concern about snow removai. Galen supported the previous plan as it
related #o item No 4. Galen thaught that the ramp needed some landscaping and Galen mentioned
that very specific reasons wouid be required for any large tree remaval in Slifer Square. Galen said
regarding the south elevatian, that he was concerned with i# being repetitive and this presented an
appar#unity to be originaL
Diane Golden agreed with Jeff Winston that the bus shelter was under-used. Diane thanked Pam
Hopkins #or bringing up the wider v+raikway and agreed with k2eping the #rees.
Henry Pratt agreed with most of what Jeff Winston had said. Henry said regarding No. I and
stepping back, he didn't want to close off any access to the creek, or privaCize it. He said to make
sure there was good public access ta the stream. Regarding No. 3, Nenry said to make sure that
East Meadaw Drive was anly one lane wide, with a wide sidewalk and close to the commercial tQ
generate tax revenue. Nenry said regarding No, 6, that Slifer Square was a piace of transit and not
a place to hang out, sa when `tt was undergaing improvement, dan't make it something it was not
going to be. Henry feit there was too much pavernent and by taking out some af the trees it would
make it an urban space. Henry feit #hat ehanging the ridge line was gaad.
John Schofield was agreemen# with the previous camments. He said to enhance the smooth flow of
pedestrian traffic.
Gene Useitan asked if Gordon was hea#ing a1l the sidewalk up to Slifer Square?
Gordon Pierce said, yes,
Gene Useitan said a Iot of people hang out in Slifer Square in the summer. ~
Greg Mo#fet agreed with Henry regarding Meadow Drive, but liked Siifer Square in the summer.
Greg felt that the bus stop didn't need to be that big, as there was never a great deai of traffic on
the bus gaing to Gold Peak. Ne said regarding No. 8, that he personally didn't like to see Beaver
Creek architecture in Vail, sa he suggested getting rid of some of the hips,
Gardon Pierce stated that this was closer in design to the Bavaria Haus than to Beaver Creek
architecture.
Jim Lamont said the Golden Peak Master Plan anticipated a 53°lo increase in bus ridership.
Greg Moffet respanded that the problern was that there were not enough buses because there were
not enough ernployees, so therefore, th6re was a need to increase employee housing.
Gordon Pierce said if we were to add one more AU, it would foul up one other unit quite badly.
Gordan again brought up the warm pillow theory and said that this praject would be bringing more
people into Town. He asked the PEC to consider the 20 AU's in this project as adequate.
Greg Maffet summarized that the majority of the Board said that 36 or 37 units were fine.
; Galen Aasland said 36 was fine, if something could be done with the ridge.
Plaiining and Enviromnental Connnission ~
Minutes
January 13, 1997 16
e Greg Moffet said accomrnodatton units become critica( a couple of weeks a year when Vail hosts big
~ conferences. He said the fractional fee units would be unavailable at these times of the year.
' Bill Sullivan said lock-offs become critical and when known in advance, occupancy cou{d be
guaranteed.
Johannes Faessler said typicaily there are only a handfut of groups and they came at the most
undesirabie times of the year. Ne said these groups were not what Vail was about. He thought
instead, ta create the types of programs where people want to come ta Town. He said that the
Wartd Wide Church of God had never rented a room at the Sonnenalp and he felt that this was a
long way away trom becoming an issue.
Greg Moffet asked if 150-persan groups ever came into Town? Johannes Faessler said no, but large groups usua(ly rent conda units in the L.ionshead area.
George Ruther summarized that the configuration of East Meadow Drive be ane lane wide for bus
traffic and the rest be dedicated to pedestrian traffic.
The PEC Board ald agreed with Henry.
John Schofield thought the more East Meadow Drive could be narrawed down to discaurage the
tourist in a vehicle who wanted to get through that way, the better.
Greg Moffet said the feeling was unanimaus, with ane abstent+on.
~ George Ruther asked for comments on page 5 of the staff inema.
Henry Pratt said a direct vent fireplace wasn't worth the troub(e and he didn't see that as a way to ,
solve the problem. '
Mike Moliica stated that staff was not trying to sofve the probfem, just identify some architectura!
concerns. '
Henry Pratt said he wauld like to see some AU's on the south side. i
~
Gordan Pierce said, regarding Na. 1, that a change could be made through the use of material or '
color and that it wasn't a major view corridor.
Greg Moffet said the site issues shou(d be addressed in a meeting dedicated anly to the site issues. ;
Mike Mollica asked if he meant at a future worksession, as Gordon was hoping for a final review at
the next meeting and that this would change the app)icant's schedule.
Greg Moffet asked how ciose we were to the #inaL George Ruther stated staff pubiished this praposal far a final review and that assumes Gordan
could change the plans around by 8 a.m. tomorrow. George said the PEC had the abitity to tab(e it
; thaugh.
~ Plamling and Enviroivnental Cotntnission
Minutes
January 13, 1997 17
F e
Greg Maffet said Sherry's site plan couldn't be addressed in the final review.
8. A request for an arnendment to the Vaii Vipage Master Plan and the Vaii Land Use Plan, ~
located south of the Lodge TowerIT.SS., R.80W., Sec. 8, Lot 2.
Applicant: Ladge Praperties, lnc.
Planner: Dorninic Mauriello
APPLICATiON WITHDRAWN PENd1NG ADDITIt3NAL INFC?RMATION
9. A request to amend section 16.20.420 and to add section 16.04,065 of the Sign Code to
allow for electronic signs as Public Information Signs. -
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Dirk Mason
APPLICATION 1NITHDRAWN
10. A request for a canditionai use perrnit utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type II EHU,
located at 186 Forest RaadlLat 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mike Fiannery
Planner; Dirk MasQn
APPLICATION WITNDRAWN
ll1/illlll!
11. )nformation Update; ~
Status of the variable message sign proposed - Dirk Mason
Dirk Mason said the Vail Associates variable message sign proposal was wi#hdrawn at this paint.
Ne said that at the December 18, 1996 DRT rneeting, the types of inessages to be dispiayed were
discussed, as well as Town af Vail invaivement. He said Greg Hail was researching the technolagy
of other signs and was alsa researching haw other cammunities handie variabie message signs.
Mike Mollica said the AIPP board met the second and fourth Thursday af every manth, fram 8:30
a.m. until 10:30 a.m. and a PEC representative was needed on the board.
Diane Golden said she would, but couldri't promise to rnake every meeting but wauld do it.
Greg Moffet naminated Diane Gaiden as the PEC representative for AIPP.
Henry Pratt seconded the rnation.
The nominatian passed by a vote of 6-0. (Greg Amsd,en was r?ot present).
12. Approvai of December 16, 1996 minutes. `
~ Henry Pratt and Galen Aasland had changes to the minutes. • ,
Plamzing and Environmentai CQinmission ~
Minutes
January 13, 1997
. ~ $
~
Henry Pratt made a motion for appraval as amended.
~ The motian was seconded by Gene Uselton.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Henry Pratt made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
John Schofield seconded the mation.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
~
~
E
~ Planning and Enviraivnental Coimnission
Minutes
January 13, 1997 . 19