HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0210 PEC
TH[S tT~M MAY AF'~~CT YOL}R PROPERTY
PUBLiC NOT6CE
NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmentaf Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a
ublic hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Tawn af Vail on F@bruary 10,
7, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipai Building, In consideration at:
fr919"--quest for a conditionad use permit ta a!!ow for a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver Darn Circie/Lot 4, B(ock
3, Vai1 Vi!lage 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Howard Koenig
Planner: Tammie Wiffiamson
A request for a major amendment ta SDD #17 to change the number of fots, tocated at 1502 8uffehr Creek
Rd.ITracts A-1 & A-2, Parcel 2, Lians Ridge 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Harold Brooks
Pianner: Lauren Waterton
A request far additional GRfiA ut+lizing the 250 ordinance, located at 778 Patato Patch Dr,lLot 18, Block 1, Vail
Potato Patch.
Applicant. Fred Bartlit
Pianner: Tammie Wiliiarnson
A request far a residentiai additlon for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at
1998 Sunburst DrivelLot 19, Vail Vailey 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Planner: Lauren Vt/aterton
A request for a worksession to discuss variances fram Sections 18.22.060 (Setbacks), 18.22.140 {Parking},
04.130 (Carnmon Area) and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the
iss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Fi(ing. i
Applicant: Sonnenafp Praperties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt
Planner: Lauren WatertQn
~
A request for a conditional use permit to allow a Fractiona! Fee Club to be lacated at 242 East Meadow Drive/on ~
a part af Tract C, Black 5-D, Vail Village First Fifing. ~
Applicant: Sonnenalp Praperties, 1nc., represented by Gordon Pierce !
Ptanner: George Ruther ,
A request tor a final review wi#h the Design Review Board for the establishrnent of a Special Development
District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract G, Biock 5-D, Vail Viliage First
Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenaip Properties, Inc., represented by Gardon Pierce
P(anner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession to develpp a preferred alternative for Gross Residentiaf Fioor Area {GRFA}.
Applicant: Town of Vaii
Planner: Russ Forrest
The applications artd information about the proposais are available for public inspectian during regular office
haurs in the praject planner's office lacated at the Town af Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
rontage Road.
'ign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour no#ification. Please call 479-21i 4 voice or 479-2356 TDD For information.
Gommunity Deve(opment Department
Published January 24, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
tlgunda last rcvisect 215197 Ra«7
~ PLANMNG AND ENVIRC?NMENTAL COMMISSION
Nlonday, February 10, 1997
AGENDA
Pro,j._ect tJrientation / LUiVCH - Community Development Departmen# 12:15 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Brooks - 1502 Buffehr Creek Road
2. Swiss Chalet - 62 East Meadaw Driue
3. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive
Driver: Gearge
. _
~ N4TE: If the PEC hearing extends untii 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner fram 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Pubiic Hearinq - Town Cauncil Chambers 2:00 p•m•
1. A request for a worksessian to develap a preferred a(ternative for Gross Residential
Flaar Area (GRFA). {2:00 - 3:00 p.m.}
Applicant: Tawn of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
2. A request for a worksessian with the Design Review Baard for the establishment of
Special Develapment District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a
part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Praperties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
3. A request for a frant setback variance to allow for a new garage, Cocated at
1034 Harnestake Gircle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Viliage 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Keltan
> Planner: Dirk Mason
4. A request for a worksessian to discuss variances fram Sectians 18.22.060 (Setbacks),
18.22.140 (Parking), 18.04.130 (Cammon Area) and 18.22.020 {Percentage af Accessory
~ Uses} to al6ow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadaw
DrivelPart of Lot K, Black 5-E, Vail Viliage 1 st Fifing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp F'roperties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt
Planner. Lauren Watertan
As*enda last rcvised 215;97 R.un
5. A request #or a major amendrnent #o SDD # 29 ta rnodifiy the platted building envelopes
and create 1 primarylsecondary lot, located at 1502 Buffehr Creek Rd./Tracts A-1 & A-2,
Parcel 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing.
Appiicant: Narold Brooks ~
Planner: Lauren Waterton
6. A request ta amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford
Park Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vaii, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer,
Pianner: George Ruther
7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow aFractional Fee Club to be located at 242
East Meadow Drive/on a part ofi Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Viilage First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Proper#ies, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 24, 1997
8. A request for an interior remodel to the secondary unit utilizing the 250 ordinance, located
at 778 Potato Patch DrJLot 18, Biack 1, Vail Potato Patch,
Appiicant: Fred Bartlit
Planner; Tammie Wiiliamson
STAFF APPROVED
9. A request for a residentiai addition for an expansian of the living room, utilizing the 250 ~
{Jrdinance, located at 1998 Sunburst DrivelLot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Planner: Lauren Waterton
WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA
10, A request far a conditional use permit to ailow for a Type II ENU, located at 392 Beaver
Dam GircielLot 4, Block 3, Vail Viilage 3rd Filing.
ApPlicant: Howard Kaenig
Planner: Tammie Williamson
WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA
1/lil!ll111
11, Information Update:
i 12. Approval of January 27, 1997 minutes.
5 The applications and information about the proposais are available for public inspection during
regufar office hours in the pro3'ect planner's office located at the Tawn of Vail Cammunity
, Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation avaita6le upan reques# with 24 hour notification. Please cal) 479-21 i 4 voice or 479-2356
~
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published February 7, 1997 in #he Vail Trail.
t ~
Agenda last rcvise(i 211 1/97 14 an)
~ PLANNING AND ENViRONMENTAL C0MMISSf{3N
Monday, February 10, 1997
F1NAL AGENDA
Project Orientation / LUtVCH - Gommunity Development De..partmer?t 1:30 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBEFiS ABSENT CdR6 MEMBERS PRESENT DRB MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Ted Hingst Michaei Amet
Greg Amsden Brent Alm Ctark 8rittain
Henry Pratt
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
5ite Visi#s : 1;15 pm
1, Brooks - 1502 Buffehr Creek Road
2. Swiss Chalet - 62 East Meadow Drive
3. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive
L7river: George
= f < a>~'_:. ~
tVOTE: If tha PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dirtner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearina - Town Counci0 Chambers 2;00 p,m, ,
1. A request for a worksession to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA). (2;00 - 3:00 p.m.)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
WQRKSESSiAN - NU VOTE
2. A request for a warksessiQn with the Design Review Baard far the establishment of
Special Development District #35, Austria Haus,located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a
part of Tract C, Black 5-D, Vail Village First Filing,
Appiicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Pianner: George Ruther
~ WURKSESStON - NC3 VOTE
1
Agei;da ia.t revi;+ad 2ii 1%97 10 si7l
, v
3, A request for a front setback variance to aClow for a new garage, located at
~ 1034 Homestake CirclelLot 5, B1ack 6, Vail Viltage 7th Filing.
~ Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
F'lanner: Dirk Mason ~
'I MOTION: John Schofield SECOND; Gene Uselton VOTE: 4-2 (Henry Pratt and
Greg Moffet opposed)
~ APPRC}VED W17'H Nt3 CUNDaTIt3NS
~ 4. A request for a worksession ta discuss variances from Sections 1$.22.060 {Setbacks},
18.22.140 (F'arking), 18,04.130 {Common Area} and 18.22.020 (Percentage af Accessory
I Uses) to a19ow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow
DrivelPar# of Lat K, B1ock 5-E, Vait Village f s# FiHng.
i
' Appiicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt
Planner: Lauren Waterton
W4RKSESSlC3N - NO VC1TE
5. A request for a major amendrnent ta SDD # 29 to modify the platted building envelopes
and create 1 primary/secandary lot, iocated at 1502 Buffehr Creek Rd.lTracts A-1 & A-2,
Parcel 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Fi14ng.
Applicant: Narald Brooks
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MC?TtON: Greg Amsden SECONC}; Gene lJselton VQTE: 7-0
RECOMMENl3 APPROVAL TfJ THE VAIL TC1WN CC}UNCIL. WITH THREE '
CONDITI{JNS (#2 AMENDED) - ~ I
j
1. That a minor subdivision, elimanating tne comrnon lot line between Tracts A-1 and
A-2, be approved by the PEC,
2. That the exisfing viewing deck (noc approved by the Town) be rernoved by~r-il 4,
49R June 1; 1997.
3. That the {ot line discrepency between the final plat and the mast current survey be
resolved to the Town's satisfaction.
6. A requsst to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford
Park Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Parn Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer.
Planner: Gearge Ruther
TABLED UNT1L FEBFtUARY 24, 1997
7. A request for a canditiona( use permit to allaw a Fractional Fee Club to be located at 242
East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenafp Properties, Inc., represented by Gprdon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTlL FEBFtUARY 24,1597 ~
2
. A ~_=er,da last reviscd 2- 1 I /97 10 am
8. A request for an interiar remodel to the secondary unit utilizing the 250 ordinance, located
~ at 778 Potato Patch Dr./l.ot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Rpplicant: Fred Bartlit
Ptanner: Tammie Williamson
STAFF APPROVED
9. A request for a residentraf adclition tor an expansion ot the living room, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Pianner: Lauren Waterton
WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA
10. A request for a conditional use permit to afPow for a Type EHU, located at 392 Beaver
Dam Circl2lLat 4, Block 3, Vail Vi!lage 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Howard Koenig
Planner: Tammie Williamson
W!T'HDRAWN FRfl AGENDA
lJIIIIIIIII
11. Information Update:
~ 12. Approval of January 27, 1997 minutes.
The applications and infarmation about the proposais are available for pub(ic inspection during I
regu1ar office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vaii Community ~
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign languaga interpreTaiion available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
Community Develapment Department
Is
3
F
R
MEMORANDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commissian
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 10, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives
Staff: Russell Forrest
t. PURPOSE:
The purpose of this worksession is ta review the analysis far three aiternatives to the existing
GRFA pa(icy for single family, duplex, and primary/secandary type structures. This worksession
is intended ta describe: how ta irnplement each of these alternatives; what hornes might look like
under each alternative; and to identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each of
these alternatives. The PEC will be asked to comment an the effectiveness and appropr+ateness ,
of each alternative. In additian, the worksession provides an opportunity for the PEC to request '
additional information that will further clarify and describe the cansequences of an alternative. '
On February 28th, the PEC wiN be asked to select which alternative they would like to
recammend to the Vail Town Council.
11. BACKGROllND.
~
The Vail Town Council directed staff ta evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine '
whether this is an effective and apprOpriate tooi when compared to other aiternatives. Three '
reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which inciude: 1) Is GRFA an effective I
tool in controlling mass and bulk? 2) Is it appropriate that the Town shouid be reviewing interior
floor space? and 3) is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)? In
October 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which
addressed the foHowing:
1) Reoccurring concerns/issues with the existing system,
2) Objectives of having mass and bulk controls,
3} Mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass,
4) History of GRFA in Vail,
5} Analysis af how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and
6} Analysis of five alternatives.
At the public meetings bn October 30th and 31st, Tom Braun presented the findings in the
background paper. A majority of the tirne at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the
public on the existing system, discussing pros and cans of alternatives, and identifying new
alternatives. Approxirnately 45 people attended these meetings.
~ 1
k T
f
The PEC reviewed this analysis on Novernber 11, 1996. Four members feit that alternative three
{eliminating GRFA} was #he best alternative with certain conditions. The PEC felt that if GRFA ~
was eliminated, additional design guidelines wouid be needed. 'One cornmissioner that
supported alternative three, feft that at least two architects should sit on the Design Review
Board.
The other three members of the PEC felt that some farm of GRfA should continue. One mernber
felt strangly that GRFA does effectively control buik and mass and eliminating the system would
increase the size of structures in the Town of Vaii. The other two members were interested in
pursuing alternatives 2 and 4(allow interior modificatians and dan't count basement space in
GRFA calculations, respectively), 4vera1l, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission
that home owners, particularly owner occupied hames, should be able to do interior remadels
without GRFA being an issue. Cauncil reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed
stafifi to examine #he following alternatives (not listed by priori#y/preference) in more detail:
* Allow interior modifications #o exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing
structures, provided such addi#ians do not add ta the bulk and mass of the home.
* Amend the definitian of GRFR to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA.
• Elirninate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex, and
primary/secondary type structures.
The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative should not significantly increase bulk
and rnass, The Council was also very sensitive ta any recommendation that might inhibit
creativa design solutians. In addition, several Council members were interested in exploring
how vaulted space could be better addressed in the Town's regulations.
I11. PRtJCESS OVERVIEW: 40
The process for this project is broken into three phases 1} identification of alternatives; 2)
analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following are
specific steps in the process.
Phase 1 Identification af Atternatives
1) Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives, September &
October, 1996
2} Pub{ic meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th &
and alternatives. & 31 st, 1996
3} Presentation to PEC and Town Cauncil to review proslcons and November 11 &
(PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to November 26
determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. 1996
2
~
Phase il Analyae how to implement alternatives and identify the impacts of each atternative
~ 4} Complete analysis of alternative approaches. december & January
1996/1997
5} PEC Worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997
6} PEC Meeting ta recommend an alternative February 24, 1997
7} Council Worksession ta select an alternative February 25, 1997
Phase Ilt Legisdative review o# preferred alternative
8} Staff prepares ianguage to madify Town Code March 1997
9} PEC: worksession to consider cade revisions March 24, 1997
10} PEC: public hearing April 7, 1997
11 } Town Council: worksession ta review proposed revision to April 22, 1997
the existing GRFA regulations
12) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance May 6, 1997
13) 7own Council: second reading of an ordinance May 20, 1997
~ These dates are tentative and subject to change
N1. SUMMARY
The attached paper by Tam Braun is intended to assist in evaluating the three rernaining
alternatives in the GRFA analysis. The goal of this paper and the presentation on February 10th
is to help provide a picture of what each alternative might look like if it were impiemented in Vail.
Please make note of any additiona( information or graphics that might assist the PEC in making a
final recommendation for the Tawn Council on February 24th. There is a discussion of
additional design guidelines that are discussed in the "eliminate GRFA" aiternative which staff
feels shou(d be examined under any alternative. Staff feels these guideiines would provide much
needed criteria to assist the Design Review Board in its decision making process.
f:\eve ryunelrusstmemos;grfu.2 10
~ 3
BA II/ IQRA UN ASSOCIIATiES9 IlNC,
~ PLANt^dING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NIElYIORANDUM
TU: Russ Forest
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: February 6, 1997
RE: Phase II of GRFA Analysis
Attached you will find the Phase II GRFA Analysis which provides further analysis of the three
potential alternatives to the current GRFA system. These three alternatives, as selected by the
Town Council, include 1) ihe conversian of interior space in homes that rneet or exceed allowable
GRFA, 2) the exclusian of basement space from calculation as GRFA, and 3} the elimination of
GRFA. The fallowing information is pravided for each of these alternatives:
1 } Descrit)tion of Alternative
A brief description of the alternative is provided in this section.
2} Issues to be Acidressed
This section highlights some of the pertinent camments and considerations raised by the
~ Council, Commissian and public during previous discussions regarding GRFA.
3} Proposed Language
This section outiines how and where each alternative could be incorporated into the Town's
zoning code and presents preliminary language for implementing the alternative. This
should not be considered "~'inal ordinance language". Rather, it is intended to provide the
Council, Planning Commission and community with a better understanding af how each
alternative could be implemented and additional issues that will need to be resolved during
the impiementation phase of this process.
4) Issues to Consider
Outstanding issues and implications relative to each alternative are highlighted in this
section.
As we have discussed, the purpose of this phase in the GRFA Analysis is to further understand the
issues and implications relative to each potenTial alternative. It is important to understand that it is
not the intentian of this phase to resolve all potential issues related to each alternative. Rather, this
report identifies autstanding issues that would need to be addressed during the thzrd and final step
in this process. This report will hopefully provide the PEC and Town Council with the information
needed to identify a preferred alternative to the existing GRFA system.
~ Minturn iranworks Suilding Phone - 970.827.5797
201 Main Street, 2nd Floor Fax - 970.827.5507
Post Office Box 776
Minturn, Colorada 81645
, .
Alternative #1 - Interiar Canversians
~
Description of Alternative
Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently
exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass af the home.
Similar to the 250 Ordinanca, this alternative would only apply ta existing hames. There would be
no change to the review process {i.e. GIZFA system} far new construction. This appraach is
intended to a11ow flexibility ta owners of existing homes by allowing GRFA to be created within
the interior space of a home {i.e. loft additions, conversion of crawl space, etc}.
Issues to be Addressed
• Alternative must provide assuz•ances that modifications to homes da not increase building
bulk and mass.
Proposed Language
This alternative would be implemented with the addition of a new chapter in the zoning code
similar in the manner in which the 250 Ordinance has been structured. This chapter would have
the following major sections:
1) Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces
within existing single-family and two-family structures that meet or exceed allowable
GRFA by aliowing far the conversion of interior spaces ta GRFA pravided certain
conditions and standards are met. ~
2) Applicability
* Any existing single-family residence or any existing dwelling unit in a structure
cantaining no more than twa dwelling units shall be eligible ta add additianal
GRFA in excess of existing or allowable GRFA provided that the additional GRFA
complies with the standards outlined in paragraph 3 below.
* Multi-family units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the provisions
of thzs chapter.
3) Standards
• Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision sha11 not add
to 4r increase the building bulk and mass of the existing structure. Examples of
exterior modifications which add to or increase building bulk and mass include, but
are nat limited to any expansion of the existing exterior form of the structure, re-
grading around a structure in a manner which exposes additional exteriar walls, the
~ expanslon of existing roofs and the addition of roof darmers. Examples of exterior
~ madifications which are not considered ta add to or increase building bulk and mass
include, but are nat limited to the addition of windows, skylights and window-
wells.
• Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall comply
with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards.
* If the proposal involves the conversian af a garage ar enclosed parking space to
GRFA, such conversion shall nat reduce the total number of enclosed on-site
parking spaces.
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
4} Process
~ • Applicatian made to Department of Community Development ta include applicable
forms, fees, and existing and praposed floor plans. Design review application shall
be required for all proposals involving modifications to exterior of huildings.
• Community Department staff shall review application for compliance with this
chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations.
• Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this
chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations shall be
approved. Proposals deezned to not comply with this chapter and alI appiicable
zoning and development review regulations shall be denied.
~ Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this chapter, applicants shall proceed with
securing building permit prior to initiating construction of project.
Issues to Consider
The "mechanics" of implementing the interiar conversion alternative are fairly straight forward.
Outstanding issues pertain primarily to when this option could be utilized by a homeowner. For
example, the language autlined above states that the purpase of this alternative is to "pravide
flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces within existing single-family and two-family
structures". This begs the question of when is a home "existing". The following summarizes
implications relative to the applicability of this alternative:
• Allow interior conversions for all homes
The potential concern with allowing interior canversions far a11 homes is that new hames
will comply with GRFA but wi11 be designed to allow for the conversion of space in the
future. For example, it would be relativeiy easy to design over-s'rzed void spaces in
~ basement levels and to design additional ar larger vaulted spaces an upper levels, both of
which could then be converted to floor area in the future if this alternative is available ta a11
homes. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are larger than they would
atherwise have been if interior conversions were noT permitted.
• Require new construction (homes completed after adaption of this ordinance ta wait a
certain time period prior to utilizing ordinance
If there is concern with the scenario outlined above, an alternative would be to require a
waiting period (i.e. the five years required for the 250 ordinance) before new homes could
apply for interiar canversions. Having to wait a period of time couid be a disincentive for
people who would otherwise design a home to accommodate future interior conversions.
However, this scenario does raise a question - if an interior conversion (and the potential
impact of larger homes designed specifically to utilize this provision) is deemed to be
acceptable after a five-year waiting period, why is it not acceptable after a one-year waiting
period, or a one-month waiting period?
• Limit interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance is adopted
This is the cleanest way to implement the alternative. Limiting interior canversions to
homes in existence at the time the ardinance is adopted eliminates any patential concern
with homes being designed for future interior conversions. However, limiting interior
conversians to homes in existence a[ the time ordinance does raise an equity question - is it
fair to deny an awner who builds in the future the same apportunity available ta other
homeowners?
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
Alternative #2 - Basement Space ,
. ~
Descri.ption of Alternative
This alternative would arnend the definiCion of GRFA ta exclude basement space from calculation
as GRFA.
Issues to be Addressed
• Develop a clearly stated definition af basement space, ensure that grades cannot be
artificially modified to allow for space to be interpreted as basement.
Proposed Language
The definition of GRFA includes paragraph 18.04.130 A. which excludes certain areas from
calculatian as GRFA in buildings containing two or fewer units. In order to implement this
alternative, this paragraph would be modified with the addition of the following:
5. The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below
naturai grade (or existing grade prior to construction) at all paints around the structure.
While this language is prabably the cleanest, most straight forward way to exclude basement
space, is only excludes space that is 100°lo belaw grade. This alternative would not exclude
basement space for walkout ievels. An alternative for addressing walkout levels is the following:
5. The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below ~
natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) at a11 points around the structure. For
any level which is partly above and partly belaw grade, a calculatian of the portion of the
subject level which is below grade shall be made in order to establish the percentage of the
level which shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. This percentage shall be made by
determining the total percentage of lineal exteriar wall of the subject ]evel which is located a
minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) which
sha11 then be multipiied by the total floor area of the subject level, and the resulting total
shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA.
Issues ta Cansider
• Excluding basement space from calculation as GRFA will create the opportunity for new
"above grade" GRFA for new canstruction and for homes with basement space that was
II previausly caiculated as GRFA.
* One of the goals of this process is to simplify the GRFA system. The second alternative
~ which addresses walkout levels would add to the complexity of the existing system.
Should the exciusion of basement space include walkout levels or be limited to basement
space that is 100°Io belaw grade?
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
. ,
CALCULATIQN OF I3A.SEMENT SPACE
~
q~
~
~
•r" f
/
~ i
l
I ~
BuiZding Cross-section _
~
Point where basement '
~level is 6' below grade S1ab on
grade Point where basement
level is 6' below grade ,
i
Basement Levet 25'
1,250 sq. ft.
50'
Basement Level F1oor Pian
CALCULATION
I50' - LINEAR EXTERIOR WALL AT BASEMENT LEVEL
50' - PORTION OF EXTEIZIOR WALL 6' OR MORE BEL4W GIZADE
33%- PERCENTAGE OF BASEMENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE $ELOW (5071S0')
~ 1,250 (SQ. FI'. BASEMENT LEVEL) X.33 = 412 SQUARE FEET EXCLUDED
~
Alternative #3 - Eliminate GRFA
Description of Alternative ~
This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a toQl for cantrolling the bulk and mass of single-family,
duplex and primary/secondary buildings. In order ta prevent the development of large, non-
descript boxes, this alternative would also include more restrictive site coverage standards for
larger lots and new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. Existing
GRFA regulations would rernain in place for structures that con#ain more than two dweliing units.
Issues to he Addressed
Based on input from the community, the PEC and the Tocvn Council, the major issues to address
relative to the potential implementation of this alternative are:
• Assurances/cantrols must be established to prevent the design and construction of large,
non-descript box-like structures.
• The DRB must be capable of interpreting and implementing any proposed modifications to
the design guidelines.
• Any measures proposed to prevent large, non-descript bax-like structures must not stifle
design creativity.
Proposed Language
This alternative would involve four major elements;
1) Initiate a"global search" of the zaning code to identify a11 references to GRFA pertaining to
single-family, duplex and primary/secondary development. Examples of these references
include:
• the definition of GRFA for buildings containing twa ar fewer units, and
• the reference to GRFA in the density section of single family, duplex and ~
primary/secondary zone districts.
2) New parking requirements for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary units:
• A minimum of three (3) off sfireet parking spaces shall be provided for each single
fainily unit ar for each dwelling unit within a duplex or primaxylsecandary
structure. Parking requirements for Type II, III and IV EHU's shall be as per the
EHU Ordinance.
3) New site coverage regulations to limit the site cavexage (and size) of hames on large lots:
Site coverage shall not exceed the total of:
1} 20% of the total site area for Iots 25,000 square feet or less, plus
2) 10% of the total site area for any portion of a lot in excess of 25,000 square
feet.
I With the exception of lats that exceed 30% slope, site coverage af 20% is currently
permitted on a11 lots regardless of size. The praposal below would introduce a graduated
scale similar to the existing GRFA formula whereby allowable site coverage would
decrease relative to the size of the lot. Refer to the accompanying chart for an analysis of
how this new regulation varies from existing site coverage standards.
4) New design guidelines for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings which
specifically address bulk and mass:
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
Bizilding Height, Bulk and Mass
~ The size and scale of single family, ciuplex and primarylsecondary homes play an important
role in defining the character of neighborhoods and the overall visual image of a
community. Building height and site caverage regulations outlined in the Vail Zoning Code
establish quantitative standards which limit the overall size, or bulk and mass of buildings.
Notwithstanding these quantitative standards, site specific features such as vegetation and
topography and architectural solutions significantly influence the perceived bulk and mass
of a building.
An underlying goal far the design of single family, duplex and primarylsecondary hoznes in
Vail is to ensure that buildings convey a human scale and are sensitive to their site. Large,
monumentai buildings which in the determination of the DRB dominate their site and
express excessive bulk and mass are not permitted. The follovuing guidelines are designed
to accoinplish these goals by establishing parameters to ensure apprapriate building bulk
and mass. These guidelines apply to a1 single family, duplex and primary/secondary
homes:
Building Height
Buildings should convey a predominantly one ar twa-stozy building mass. Three-stary
massing may be appraved by the I7RB, however, large expanses of continuous three-story
buiiding mass is not permitted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed
50% of the floar area immediately below and horizontal and/or vertical building off-sets
should be provicied ta reduce the perceived bulk and mass af the building.
Buildinng Form
In lieu of large, monumental building mass, buildings should be designed as either a
~ composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consists of one
primary building mass in conjeznction with one or mare secondary building forms.
Ridgelines
Changes in the height and arientation of roof lines add variety and interest ta buildings
which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations in the hEight and
orientation of ridgeline elevations is dependent Llpon the characteristics of a site and the
design of the building. Generally, the maximum length of any continuous ridgeline should
not exceed 50-70' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at
least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline.
Sloping Lots
Buildings ott sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours af the site in
order to maintain a predominantly one to two-story building mass.
Buiiding Sca1e
A variety of architectural details can be incorparated into the design af a building to
reinforce human-scale and reduce the averall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the
fallowing should be considered in the design of homes:
• Dormers
• Decks and balconies
• Roof overhangs
• Fenestration
Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more
clearly expressed in graphic form.
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
Issues to Consider
• In order to not limit architects design cxeativity, qualitaCive guidelines are propased in lieu ~
of quantitative standards. This alternative places a great deal of responsibility in the hands
af the DRB, is the Board capable of this task?
• Are design guidelines explicit enaugh and will they prpvide the DRB with the tools
necessary to prevent "large, non-descript boxes"?
• Is it necessary ta reduce allowable site couerage for larger lots or will a reduction to ,
allawable site coverage encourage taller buildings?
• Are three parking spaces per unit adequate or is s4me other formula (i.e. based on number
ar bedrooms) necessary?
• Is there a need for design guidelines which address bulk and mass regardless of whether or
nat changes are made to the GRFA system?
~
~I
~
~
~
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
'I'owti or Vai[ CRFA Analysiy
Potential Design Uuiclelines/No GRFA A.Iternative
~
I3uilding Heigtit
Buildings should canvey a
predominantly one or twa-story
buitding mass. Three-story
massing may be appraved by
the DRB, however, large
1J_J
expanses of contznuous three-
story building mass is not 4"D~"~
permitted. Generally, the
faotprint of a third floor should
not exceed 50% of the floor 4I J
area immediately below and ~
horizontal andlor verticai - -
building off-sets should be
provided to reduce the
perceived bulk and mass af the
building.
Three stories are appropnate because fZoor arecz of tliir~d level does not exceed SO°lo of level below.
~
'
- i - - - .
i t ~ ` - , - - ~ ~.,~,4.~:~-• _ ~;X.:_ " ~ ~ ~
''I
r t t~:
t ~
.r
i
Variation in ridge line elevations, building off.set.s, use of dormers and decks reduce bulk anel
mass, building does not "read" as three stories.
0
. 9
Town af Vail GRFA Analysis
Potential Design GuiclelineslNo GRI'A Alternative
~
Building Form
In lieu of large, - - ° l-~
monumental building
mass, buildings should f
Y~
be designed as either a
. compositian of smaller,
integrated building forms
or in a form which
consists of one primary
building mass and one or • - '
more secondary building
fQrms.
Composition of building forms reduces bccilcling bulk and
IYtCISS.
r
. ~
Secondary form
.--,.-F-: - _ - Primary forrn
. ~ -
. tl! S . '4'•
W{~r.
Primary form
_
Secondary forfn
r
f.~; , •
Examples of primary and secondary building forms.
These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact
sketches be used far GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the ~
design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative.
'I'own of 'tTaii GRFA Analysis
Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative
~
Ridgelines
Changes in the height and orientation of roof Iines add
variety and interest ta huildings 3 y~ '
which can i-educe building bulk
and mass. The extent of variations
in the height and orientation of
ridgeline elevaCions is dependent
upon the characteristics of a site '
and the design of the building. '
Generally, the maximum Iength of any continuous ridgeline should ~
not exceed 50-70' withaut a Ridgelines greater than SO'-70' should be Off- !
change in the orientation of the set at least 3'-4'. ~
ridgeline ar a variation of at Ieast l,
3-4' feet in the elevation of the
ridgeline.
t
~
Variations in raof ridgelines ~ provide variety and breaks-up
building iraass created by
COntinuous rzdgelane.
`a t ~~l~• ~ • • ~
- ~ _ ` •
Change in ridge lzne elevation and orientation creates two distinct
building fornzs and breaks up building mass.
These sketches are from design guidetines for projects outside of the Town af Vail, it is not suggested that these exact
sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches cauld be used ta reinforce the
design guidelilies proposed for the "na grfa" aiternative.
Town of Vail GRTA Analysis
Potential Design GuidelineslNo GRFA A:lternative
~
Sloping Lots
Buildings on sloping lots
should be designed to "step"
with natural cantaurs of the
site in order to maintain a
predominantly one to two-
stary building mass. '
~
r
i
r
r
' .
!
{ .
Building mass should be "benched" into the hillside. ~
~
-
II
li+
.r^*
r ~
z,' 5,~/~r^- t % ~ ~r. . 1....r ' ~
Building steps with the natural contours of the site to maintain one-two story massing.
These sketches are from design guidelines far projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact ~
sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example il(ustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the
design guidefines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative.
'rowt1 of Vaii GRFA Arialysis
Potieritial Design Guidetines/No GRFA Alt:crnative
~
Building Seate
A variety of architectural details can be
incarporated into the design of a building ta
reinforce human-scale and reduce the
averall bulk and mass of a building. Use of
the following should be considered in the ~ -
design of homes: • . •Dormers • • .
•Decks and balconies
9Roof overhangs
•Fenestration . •
-
• . ~ -
. . ~ .
i
f
0 A
~
_
Building offsets, rooftine and dormer
~ czll contribute to reduce the mass of
this building.
~
.
i
. i~ •A Bay window and balcony r-einforce
human-scaCe.
7'hese sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact
sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the
design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" a(ternative.
TOV GRFA AnaiysislSite Coverage Comparison
- - - - _
~ - _ _
Allowable Coverage ; Allowable Coverage % coverage wt :Difference between existing
Lot Size ~ at 24% (sq. ft.) I. w/proposed amend. proposed amend. proposed regs (sq. ft.)
9,000 1,8001 1,$00; 20.00% ; o
- -
10,000 20001 _2,000 ; zo.oo%I _ o
11,000 2,2001 2,200 i zo.oa%; o-~--
12,000 2,400 ! 2,400 J 20.00% ; 0
13,000 2,600 2,600 L 20.40% i 0
14,000 2,$00; 2,8001 zo.oo%I ~ a
1 5,000 3,000 3,000 za.oa%i a
- - - _
16,000 3,2001 3,200 ; Zo.ao%; o
17,000 3,400 3,400 20.40%'; 0
- -
18,000 3,600 3 6{}0; 20.40%; 0
19,000 3,800~ 3,840; 20.(}0%'; - 0
20,0004,0401 4,400~ 20.00%1~ 0
21,000 4,200 4,200' 20.00%; 0
_
22,004 4,400; 4,400~ 20.00%~
23,000 4,6001 4,600 i 20.00%; 0
24,000 ( 4,8001 4,$00'; 20.00% I_- - ---0
25,000 50001 5,0401 20.00% ~0
26,000 5,2001 5,1001---- --19.62%-140
27,aaa 5,400 5,200; 1925%; -200
28,400 5,6001 5,300 ~ 18.93 W -300
29,000 5,800 5,4001 18.62%; -400
i 18.33%-500
30,000 6,0001 5,500
31,000 6,200 5,640; 18.06%11 -600
32,000 6,4001 5,700 ; 17.81 % i
-700
33,000 6,6001 5,80011 17.5 -800 34,000 6,800 5,900% 17.35%-900
35,000 7,000 ( 6,04 17.14%; -1,000
36,000 7,200 ~ 6,100- 16.94% `I. -1,100
- - -
_r
37,000 7,400 j 6,200 16.76% _1,200
• 38>OOQ 7,6006,3001 ; 16.58%''; - - -1,300`
39,000 7,800 6,400; ^ 16.41%; -1,400
40,004 8,000; 6,5401 16.25%; - -1,500
-
41,000 $,2006,600' 16.10%1 1,600
- -
42,000 f 8,400; 6,700 i 15.95% -1,700 ,
~ ~ ~ t,
+
(Jther Issues Relative ta GRrA Amendments
~ I. Amendments for EHU's and Permanent Residents Only
During previous discussians comments were made ta allow the provisians of these alternatives in
conjunction with the developrnent of EHU's or only for permanent residents of Varl. These are
Town Council policy decisians. The information outlined above addresses the technical aspects af
each alternative. Limiting the applicability of these provisions to only EHU's andlor permanent
residents could be done. This woulci not, however, further the original intent af this process
which was to:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of GRFA as a means for controlling building size
• Address the time required to administer the current system
• Resolve the appropriateness issue of the Town regulating interiar floor space
Limiting the applicability of any GRFA amendment to either encourage EHU's or far the benefit of
permanent residents only could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives.
2. Vaulted Space
One recognized short-coming af GRFA is that it regulates floor area and not building valume and '
as a result GRFA daes not effectively cantrol building bulk and mass. Aspen is the only
comrnunity that has been identified which adciresses vaulted space with floor area regulations. The
~ Aspen code essentially applies a multiplier to the floor area of vaulted space. For example, floor
area with 10' plate heights or less count at a ratio of one square foot for each one square foot. For I
interior areas with a plate height which exceeds 10', the ratio increases by .OS feet for each foat
over 10' up ta a maximum ratio of two square feet for each one square faot (i.e. an interior space
with 15' ceilings is calculated at a ratio af 1.25 square feet for each one square foot of floor area). '
~
Phase IUGRFA Analysis 13
~ 0211011997 11:42 19704762789 HONEYWAC-ON/DOFIDVAN PA6E 02
Aprfl z, 1996
~ -
Dea~t Couazcit, Susan, gob M and those concerned, reOjw 4,WOrk4F
I z°ead with great aiixiety and fear the foltowuag statement in the Mghligh~ts foz Mar°ch 12:
"...saying it consum:es too rnuch tirne on the part of the appEcaut and staff, the Council
agreed to beg,in a process #o eliminate or modify Vail's CsRFA, xequirements „
Where does tktis comem come frozn.? Zt did not come out of the two T.A.C rnmings. 'T`fie
onty commozi c;omphaint from that gxoup was that the staPs feedback on applicatiozts
c e tvv late tv rnake adjustrnents before scheduled hearzngs. Thez'e was not a general
feeling tbat the basi,c rules that govem Vail wez'e wrongt
The coneem did tios com from the public who generally have expressed a desire for the
rules to r ° strong as #.be, pzessures on the towm, as a result of near buildout,
incr . Zt seems only developen's, r ors, and a few people whQ have eveu told t`rio"
bave expressed ' concem over the years.
The Sast bxg review of GJEtFA produr,ed the "250" fiasco. That was specifically £ozmulated
to e Ie people to make small pxoperties s 1'attle re livable and refore stay in the
comnounity. I3owevez', it was poorly written by tb.e lawyer and ended up being used fbr ~
xrdevqlopment.
~ I beJieve the earfiest effart at experimexiting with hu]k and mass niles produeed the
Mountaiu House which I xeauember being built undez' P,AR definzti.ons. That clearly dxd I
not work. GRF,A. is the closest you cazi com,e to legislatzng gaod axchitectwre but it is not ,
foal proof Notlzing is. Something worth doang well is not necessau'i,ly the easiest either!!
There are many issues ta be dealt with in the T4wu of V4 but I da uot believe dds as a
produe#ive way for this groixp to spend their tirne. The previous couzxcil was heavity
criticized fox $efflng into Lvsuues that the community had not xdezrtified and did nat buy
i.nto. I do not believe any of yau, with o-ne possible exception, have enough undezsstanding
of the £ar reaching impacts oftevissing, much less throwing out, GRFA. Most of yau da
not yet have a grasp o£'the .Ianguage of plaxuaing and zonixig, ancUox, its application aud
i.mpli+catiotts in. VaiL
I respectfultiy suggest that you praceed with sorne of fihe recommencla~tions in the
Development C.ode Revisxon Repart o£ 1991 that xdentified many of the iz'consistezxcies,
. typos, and errors in ocu' zoning reguMons; as well as suggestiions for greater effc~ency.
Tbat would be tame well spent?
You need ta idernify e%actly what tlae pzoblem is in ordcr tv fiuc it. Spezzding staff tbm an
itssues that have already tad extensive review, rules tha.t have stooci up in court and
guidelbies that have produced a vezy beautiful town seems wrasteful to me. Isn't that wbat
yau alJ, aCcused the past council of doing?
~
, O211011997 12:42 19704762789 HONEVWAGONlDOPOVAN PAGE 03
~ Same af the issues that could be worked an are:
l. How to acquare pro;perty to build affaxdable housing on without rohbing other
fiznds. How to p,et those units built.
2. Affoxdable housing clearing house whexe Zoszg tezm zentals could be registered
anci cQmpl,aints logged by propezty witb,out azzy responsibility or processing on the part of
the tawn. Having a tips sb.eet for renters Iike video the premise.s first.
3. Many of the approved caretaker units are not beixg zentecl. Cau we requke
ca,t'etaker units under certain.guidelines? Can we furnash a lease for "reStricted unit"
owners to use the meet tpwn z'equkements?
4. T'he town is dirty and pedestzxan areas in pQOZ zepa.ix..
5. Cetting absentee buszziess pxopezty vwuezs to £xup t3aezr pxopezties wxthout
douts £roaaa the town or b' ' g their tenarns.
6. Getting somc unity aacross social tines in Vail.
7. (iet the word to arcbitects to apply for -what they want and nat include 14 to 30
perceYnt to negotiate avvay. S apPly ozly zules and xegulations to applicatians not
esthetics...lbkB does thh,at. Applicants do not zzaind the pzocess and feel their prajects are
generalty imQroveci by it. The frustration cames v,it]G feedback that is too late and f~om
petty ap .
8, Speeci lirrrits that make sense year azound.
9. Camplete the "tree protection" regulatiozas. '
10. Cozxzplete the "last 10 pezcent"i
~ As of 6 AM today, 4 council membezs have xeturned my call of last Tuesday. Twa of
you just wairt to undersl:anci GhFA, one As wwing to changc it and the otlaer just wanted ,
to please evezyone,
It is clear fronot comments in the gaper that people, especially developezs azd those who I
generally have nmde lictle oz° n4 effort to help themselves, are putting the pressurc on a
vexy inexperienced cauncit . Rules and xegulations have grotected the town from people
wha axe here simply to profit and who have zzo concern for the town as a whole. It is tiooQe
these people put theitr own rnoney and efforts oaa the line and stop aslsxng the council to
risk the emire towm ox V,A to pay for it. Free parking and watered-down regulations wxll
not serve Vail. Pay in lieu has a puWse and is not a p+enalty. Get fuUy Wormed bEfore
yau start rnaking pzoznuses azid statements based on one-sided informatxom.
At this point, al! you have dozze is tuadezmine the eurrent system with nothimg to repla.ce it.
Tb,at is i.rr.responsible azxi no way to gaiz.t coedence from auyone, I3on't let certadtz
factions take advantage ofyour ineacperiezzce. Tackie some of tb;e srnaller but moze
important issues tbat wil] tnily benefit the towm but have lvzag been ignored. ,Ahhough
there wiU be zto pl.aique for yaur efforts you will be doing the job Vail caumczis slould be
doing.
Although Susau seem intent on revising tlze town's rules axzd zegu2ations and Bob M
keegs saying he is tuei ofhearing abaut tb.e past...samething about our rules and past
~
~ 02.l1011997 11:42 19704762789 HdNEYWAGON1DONOVAN PAGE 04
~ ba.ve created a hugely successfW town. Z`he past is something to learn i'ram and
apPreciate...no4 soznetharag to disregard or go back to.
Piease stay in touch Take advantage af my maitty yeaars of experience and the exQerience
of others who served the town and uot themselvcs. Thcre is nothing wmng with that...in
fact, there is a whole lot tightr!
Siincezely*xndmast respectfuity,
Diana Do vaia
~
~
MEMoRAMDUM
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRON1: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 10, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession with the Design Review Board far the establishment
af Speciai Development District #35, Austria Naus, lacated at 242 East Meadow
Drive/on a part of Tract C, B1ock 5-D, Vail Viilage First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, fnc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION 4F THE REQUEST
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented fay Gordon Pierce, is requesting a
worksessian to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District at 242 East Meadow
Drive/an a part of Tract C, Biock 5-D, Vai! Village First Filing. The applicant is proposing to
establish a new Special Devetopment District overfay to the undardying zone district of
Rublic Accommadation, to facilitate the praposed redevelopment of the existing Aus#ria
~ Haus. The purpose ot the worksession is ta discuss the landscape design, employee housing
requirements and Jeff Winston's urban design cornments.
I1, DISCUSSION ISSUES
As th+s is a warksessian to discuss the applicant's proposal to establish a Special Development
District, staff wiil not evaluate all of the details af the praposal at this time. Staff, however, has
identified three major issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) and the applicant. Staff believes that in order for the applicant to continue
forward, direction must be given on each of the discussian issues. Each of the issues is briefl
described below:
1. Urban Desion Camments
The Municipal Code permits the Town of Vail ta retain the services of an Urban Design
Consultant to pravide cansultation on matters relating to design, scale, mass,
architecture, site planning, etc. for development projects in the core areas. Staff has
forwarded a complete set of plans ta Jeff Winston, of Winston & Associates, lnc., the
Town's Urban Design Cansultant. Jeff has reviewed the revised plans and will be
providing his cornments at the February 10, 1997, PEC worksession meeting. In general,
Jeff's only cancern after rsviewing the revised pians, is the treatment af the northeast
corner of the buifding. In his init+al comments, Jeff recommended that the applicant step
the northeast corner of the building baek ta open the Austria Haus up to Slifer Square.
The applicant has revised the plans and stepped the building back, however, Jeff
~ ~
s believes that more of a step is needed. Jaff does recagnize that the recommended step
in the bui(ding is somewhat limited by the two large Spruce trees Iocafed on the south ~
property tine. A copy of Jeff's initial camments from the January 13, 1997, meeting have
been attached for reference.
Staf# is requesting that the applicant respond to the comment that there is a need
fcar a bigger step in the building at the northeast corner and indicate how they might
address this issue. Staff is further requesting #hat the PEC provide direction to the
applicant regarding Jeff Winston's comments on the revised plans.
2. Landscape Desian
The Public Accommodatian Zone District development standards require that at least
30% of the total site area shall bs landscaped. In addition to trees, shrubs, flowers, turf,
etc. (greenscape), up to 20% of the required landscaped area can be walks, decks,
patios and like features (hardscape). The applicant has proposed that approximately
3,775 square feet (15%) of the Austria Haus property be landscaped with trees, shrubs,
flowers, turf, etc., and an additional 1,445 square feet (20%) of the landscaped area be
wa(ks, decks, patios and iike features.
While the appl+cant is proposing a develapment which daes not meet the minirnum
landscape requirements prescribed by the Municipai Code, they are proposing significant
off-site iandscape improvements adjacent to their property. For example, the applicant
wiii be implementing the suggested streetscape impravements along East Meadow Drive
recornmended in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, improvements fo the western
portiqn of Siifer Plaza and (andscaping along the wes# property (both on and aff the
property) ta buffer the developmetit impacts to the Viilage Center residential units. A ~
copy of the landscape plan has been attached for refereraee.
At the d'arection of the Town Council, the staff has requested that the appiicant prepare
conceptual designs of a streamwalk on the Town-owned tract of land soufih of the Austria
Haus. The applicant has worked with the Town's pubiic warks staff and is praposing a
conceptual streamwalk design. The praposed design indicates the new segment of
streamwalk will connect #o S(ifer Square an the easf, and to an adjacent Tawn-awned
tract of land south o# the Village Center Condaminiurns. The streamwalk design also
praposes revegetation of ihe Gore Creek streambank adjacent to the Austria Haus. The
applicant has agreed, only if it should become necessary as a condition of apprQVal of the
Austria Haus Special Development District, to escrow up to $100,004 to be used by the
Town of Vaii for the construction ot the streamwaik adjacent ta the Rustria Haus.
Staff believes the applicant has done an excellent job of irnproving the landscape
surrounding the Austria Haus. Staff would recommend that the app(icant pravide
additional improvements to the exterior of the building. Staffi recommends that the
appficant incorporate irrigated flower baxes and ground Pevel plant containers into the
design of the exteriar of the building. The flower boxes will reintroduce some of the
architectural interest and detail lost as a result of the removal of the balconies an the
north elevation.
Staff is requesting that the PEC provide feedback and direction ta the applicant
regarding the praposed on-sete and off-site landscape improvements.
~
2
3. Employee Housing Requirements
• As indicated in a number o# the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans,
providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed
through the planning process for Special Oevefopment District proposals. In reviewing
the Austria Haus proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail
Employee Housing Report.
The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall,
Remmen and Cares. The report was completed in December, 1991. The report provides
the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use,
and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in
the Employee Housing Report, the staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees
(square footage per use), that result from the Austria Haus redevelopment. A copy of the
" Suggested Emqloyment Categ.ories and Ranqes for Vail Expressed as Emplovees aer
1000 Square Feet" has been attached for reference.
The figures identified in the research completed by Rosall, Remmen and Cares are based
on surveys of commercial use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain
resort communities. Telluride, Aspen and Whistler B.C. all have "employment generation" ,
ordinances requiring development to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the
"new" employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined
as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial
redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable
housing a developer must provide for the "new" employees. For example, Tel(uride
requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the "new" employees, Aspen I
~ requires that 60% (0.60) of the "new" emptoyees are provided housing and Whistler
requires that 100% (1.00) of the "new" employees be provided housing by the developer.
In comparison, Vail has determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15)
or 30% (0.30) of the "new" employees resulting from commercial development. ,
When determining employee housing needs, the multiplier of 15% ( 0.15) or 30% ( 0.30)
is used in the calculations. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by
the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is
proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15)
figure is used. The Austria Haus Special Development District proposal exceeds the
density permitted by the underlying zone district, and therefore, the 30% figure shall be
used.
In 1997, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., will employ 36 individuals to operate the Austria
Haus in its current configuration. This employee figure takes into account the maximum
staffing requirement for the Christmas and PresidenYs Day weeks. Of the 36 individuals,
five are needed to staff the front desk, 13 are required for housekeeping purposes and,
16 are needed to operate the bar and restaurant, with the remaining two individuals
providing other facilities support functions.
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. has provided proposed employment figures for the operation
of the redeveloped Austria Haus. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. estimates a need for
approximately 32 employees, plus an unknown retail need. This figure indicates a slight
reduction in the employment need. The reduction in employment need is due to the
removal of the bar and restaurant operation from the Austria Haus. After redevelopment,
• the Sonnenalp will only be providing continental food service to the guests of the Austria
3
Haus. A copy of the "Austria Haus Staffina Roster" has been attached for reference.
EMPLOYEE HOUSlNG GENERATION ANALYSIS
The staff analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges, as
well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing
needs of the Austria Haus. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Ana(ysis is
~ as fo{lows:
Bottom of Range Calculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,887 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) =19.4 employees
b) Office: Real Estate = 750 sq. ft. @(6/1000 sq. ft.) = 4.5 employees
c) Lodging* = 25 units @(0.25/room) = 6.2 employees
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees
Total =38.9 employees
(-36 existing employees) = 3 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) = 1 new employee
i
Middle oi Range Calculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,887 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=25.3 employees ~
b) Office: Real Estate = 750 sq. ft. @(7.5/1000sq. ft.) = 5.6 employees
c) Lodging* = 25 units @(0.75/room) =18.7 employees
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees
Total =58.4 employees
(-36 existing employees) =23 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) = 7 new
employees
Top of Range Calculations:
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,887 sq. ft. @(8/1000 sq. ft.) =31.1 employees
4 •
b) Office: Real Estate = 750 sq. ft. @(9/1000 sq. ft.) = 6.7 empioyees
• c) Lodging` = 25 units Qa (1.25/room) =31.2 employees
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 employees
Total =77.9 employees
(-36 existing employees) =42 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =13 new
employees
Staff Recommended Range Calculations:
The staff believes that the Austria Haus redevelopment will create a need for 35
additional employees. Of the 35 additional employees, 11 employees (30%) will need to
be provided deed-restricted housing by the developers of the Austria Haus. The staff
recommended range is based on:
1. the type of retail and office use proposed in the commercial space within
the Austria Haus;
2. the size of the Austria Haus lodging component; and
• 3. the high-level of services and amenities proposed by the developers for
the guests of the Austria Haus.
a) Retail/Service Commercial = 3,887 sq. ft. @(6.5/1000 sq. ft.)=25.7 employees
(middle of range)
b) Office: Real Estate = 750 sq. ft. @(7.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 5.6 employees
(middle of range)
C) Lodging* = 25 units @(1.25/room) =31.2 employees
(top of range)
d) Multi-Family (club units) = 22 units @(0.4/unit) = 8.8 emptoyees
(range does not vary)
Total =70.9 employees
(-36 existing employees) =35 employees
(X 0.30 multiplier) =11 new
employees
'Lodging has a particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of
service/support services and ameniiies provided.
•
5
Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit provided, it is possible to have up ~
to two employees per bedroom. For example, a two-bedroom unit in the size range of
600 - 900 square feet, is possible of accommodating three to four employees. A two-
bedroom, with a size less than 600 square feet, would only be capable of housing one
employee per bedroom. Each of these figures are consistent with the requirements for
the varying types of employee housing units outlined in the Municipal Code.
Based on the analysis provided above, staff is requesting that the PEC provide
direction to the applicant regarding employee housing requirements.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development
District to the property located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail
Village First Filing, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and
Environmental Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at
this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicanYs proposal at the time
of final review.
•
•
6
• ~ • ~
MEMORANDUM
To: George Reutlier
From: Jeff Winston
RE: Design Review - Sonnenalp Austria House
Date: 7 January, 1997
All in all I think the building fits Qie site wcll, it accomplishes a major objective of removing the surface parking, and it fills
in a major piece of dhe pedestriaii loop from tlie Village Cenier to Slifer Square. The building is tall, but that is consistent
with the direction of the Village Master Plan to put the taller buildings on the north periphery of the Viilage, stepping down
toward the south. If anytliing, the bui(ding couid even be siightly tatler and would still be consistent with the size of the
Mountain Haus and Village Center. Witllin tliis overall context, there u-e a few aspects of the building and site plan to
which I would dircct attcntion:
: I think the bui(ding could be steppcd more, both vertically and horizontaiiy, to give more variety and more
consistency with the surroLmding buildings.
Witit respect to tlie vertical aspect, tliere are a few steps in the building heigitt, 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
tallest heighL It also has a munber of flat roof sections, presumably to stay wiQiin a heiglit constraint. A number of
tt?ese flat arcas wilt bc visible from public spaces due to the chamfering of Ilie end sections of the roof, I would
strongly favor carryii?g the roof to a full gable for some distance at the ends of the building, even if it meant
grlnting a height variance. This would eliminate flie visibility of the flat roof sections as well as providing more
vcrtical variation.
Witli respect to the horizontal alignment, it seems that the east end of the building, the turret, cotzld be stepped back
slightly (to the Soutli) to open up East Meadow Drive to Slifer Square - sort of a mirror image of what the
Mountain Haus does. On the ottter hand, the west end of the building , the portion that also steps down, could be
stepped slightly fonyard (north) toward East 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 illustrated this massing
suggestion below:
V,~G
,
303-440-9200 • FAX 303-449•691 I• WIN1320QAOL.COM • 2299 PEARL STREET, $UITE 100 • BOULDER, CO 80302
m
, .
Dcsign Revicw - Sonnenalp Austria Hotise
O 1/07/97
Page 2
~ .
2. I support the idea of incorporating the bus shelter in the turret at the east end of the building, however I
wonder if it can be mlde rnore visible and accommodating for people tvaiting for a bus. Suggestions
include enlarging the sheltered area slightly (extending a canopy around the turret), opening the corner to
Slifer Square (removing some of the planter, may be accomplished by stepping this section of the building
back too).
3. I support moving East Meadow Drive to the south. It gives the street a more gracious, serpentine flow, and
will allow tapering and landscaping of the parking structure embankment. One of the objectives of the
Streetscape Plan is to eliminate pedestriaii conflicts along bus routes - such as East Meadow Drive. The
wide sidetivalk created along the front of the building is impeded by the street tree planting shown on the
plan. This being the north side of a tall building, it will receive little sun, and is probably not a great spot
for deciduous trees anyway. I suggest moving East Meadow Drive a little less south, creating an even
wider walking area, and then clustering tree planting (evergreen, as shown in rendered elevations) in
several pockets that still leave a broad walking surface out from under the arcade of the building.
Complimentary planting clusters could be created on the north side of East Meadow Drive. (see diagram
attached)
It may not be necessary lhat East Meadotiv Drive be a full two lanes wide in this area. Buses can see each oflier
from Slifcr Squarc to the gate and tend to wait for each other to pass tlirougti the gate anyway.
4. To create a stronger pedestrian connection from the Village Center, I suggest paving the auto drop-off area •
with the pedestrian pavers, merely demarcating the drop-off zone 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 ranlp down to the garage has the potential to open the window well on the opposite wa11 ofthe Village
Center building, This Village Center window will now be looking into car headlights at night. This may
be significantly overcome 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 rnore connections through to generally open up the
~ full extent of the plaza.
' If there is a possibility to accomplish upgrades to the plaza (paving for example) I suggest we also take the
opportunity to revisit the fountain - particularly the plumbing and heating system. "In the old days" arriving at
Slifer Square at night in winter was a magical experience, with lights illuminating the cascades in the fountain, a
gentle fog rising from the water. As I recall, winter operation was ceased primarily because large leaks in the
plumbing created a very high cost for heating the water. If heating the plaza is a possibility, with a boiler already in
place the addidonal cost of heating fountain water might be significandy less than before. •
WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. •303,440,9200 •FAX 303 449,6911 •2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80302
Dcsign RcvicNv - Sonncnalp Austria Housc
0 U07/97
' Pagc 3
•
7. The plan should include provision for continuation of the streamwalk, as close to Gore Crcek as possible
(just above tlle high water level). It may requirc cantilevered boardwalks to get around trees in a few
sections.
8. Finally, a small but I think important point. Although I nornlally believe in giving maximum deference to
tlie architect in mltters of design, I raise a question about the use of the chamfered gable-end roof detail. I
realize it is utilized on the other Sonnenalp building. It is also used on Bishop Park, Golden Peak base and
several other buiidings in Vail. It is a very visible architectural `signature' and in fact, it has the potential
of becoming a dominant thematic element in the Village.
One of the primary traits of Vail is the continuity of the whole - that no individual building stands out, but
somehow the overall impression holds 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 variations to
be sure, and too much uniformity can be sterile. I raise the question as to whether this building cannot be
designed with primarily gable roofs to blend in better with the surrounding buildings and the Village in
general.
•
•
WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 9303.440.9200 •FAX 303 449.6911 •2299 PEARL S7REET, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80302
( ApL~/.U
~ ±6?
r-
i, i <s~
r + • l _ -
-S py' ' t t 1 '.4 tCl
~
fj1 d;r ~ \ ~ ~ ` ~ • " t rY r ' X r~ 5'~ . • ~ , r ~
. f ' Y'
~ ~ •b-~.•~~ .d'_"' ~ - ~~~~rc+.~r.. ~ m~ ~a-»" ~
.
R
`
m.ra f
y
~ i
J"
t
- - - _ , _ _ i
i .l'.~4rrLurq ~
( AnsoGn:~s
~ An ARecla
P C -1lA
~
? ~
~ 1 I ~ ~ 1 , wm~ r:rlae I ~ l I ~
- - ~ - ~ . - ~
F ---r---- ~ ' ~ -1 ~ J
i '
~ 5 i . ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ r ~ I . n ~e i ~ ; , .a n i~ ~
o-~-- -r- - ---r-- - - ---t---- - - ~ - ~
- T--,-
1
. ,
_ _
~
f
..a . . ,
: . ' . 1 ~
• ro
. ~
- - - - - J
Z - ~ ~ ~ - ' a'
°v'
i
^ WS6'lPt~\ ~GO1iDRL
LT-T - " lfLll3SCL t2Gi[6{fS= ^
'
\J ~
6i
rn
~
!
v
J
/
O
44 ~3.a1 U
J
P1yM ~a MflDC~ 41
N
~
Dn~e M '1rn O~^~ U
T'
rn°a~°° ro
; / ;1 CzARAC=E LEvEL FLOOR PLAN ~ ~ ~N
~„e•.~~-m• ,42.0 a
~
~
- , ~ OL
~ ~ tinAerLurp k
- ~ YR; \ ~ \ ' \ Arch~tecla
Yc.-kIa
- W9
t--
r
8110
ia'cFFser FrzcM
PROP£RTY LINE ~
-C~r-
. ` ~ _ / uo.ev ee~ev mn Looccf LoocM =Tefdei yret ~ ~
~
til ' -~-~-r-----~-~-- - ; _ _ ---7"---- ' ~
. ...6j•_6.`. "
u.
~ - - _ _ - - - ~
.
----A6LStL--- i i16,•
~
~•T~ ~ _ ~
~
_ - - _ . i
~ . _ ^ n
0---4 - - - - - ;
° ~p „
1$9•
°OSCD WdLKL'i' T•~'~ ~ ~ ( I • m'~ ~ ~ • ,
A
F '---'<iyr ~ ~t "T~', ~T' :>v . r~,~ I r._ - =r ~ r .
WI. i ^
fr, DROP OFF A~4 }TI' o
n~ e9 cc
EA97 MEADCLLT'JRiYE
a ( ~
1 ~I
d
en rt. cu.an~*nr.n i ~
WiD y ~ppR ~ O
J
TO*K ' ~N y/v -
' N14 ]9.O1 C)
/
CO~s~Pi~~~ 4.:I p2 I heFd Ila 1•AII N
tD.v. ~ on.. y w.i M o
GAiE-+ =i
" ~cx...r erx+~ ~
A"1 G L
~FIRST LEVEL- FLOOR PLAN ~
~ Ve'.~~-0•~ ,A2.1
~
~
o~ a
• -i "
Pkrrn, i
:eyerhng 6
Arociqra
j MchMrn
rc..uti
I M~
I
azir
i ~ Y i 1 Y
{ 1 1
~
~ o ~
G7--- ~ I
_ _ - ~
COA+J `~CG4t MTL
- ) tlGRU LCOC Off 7fGSiR4 7) GGNiJ LGUt 4Tt ~la~~i'II , ~ I~ II
o------- ~ ~
- ~
- ~fQ
o---- - . '~--.J~ .
- - - - -
o-------- ~ , ~ , -
; - - -
~ - _ r _ _ _ T
~
- - - I
_ ----j ^ '
~ ~ - i ,
- ___--m.._ eow,.
- - - - - •a
0
-r
0
n
ii
w
!GS rt. ULG4J.•rA.
uurs Dx ~a~A ~+o~R waal 9 w prt N
`N ~v pn o
cc'rK~.ux~e w'c.qn. y ~ 'o. zz~ws
irnat MT Kti U
{Pya~4 I]011p0 ~
- o
• ~ SEGOND LEvEL FLOOR PLAN :22 = .
a
,
` a
- 0.
u_
' • ~ ~
i
i - - _ - ~ - ' - - ~ - ~ - - - - ~ t y,R r~.~ r
- • j Arvou~ ! ~
i ArcAitucla
~C-41a
~iu+eq
~r~~~ ~r~
~f
Q Q Q Q 4 ~ 4
~ '
~ !
~ ~ .
a-------- - - - - _ ~
~ ~
o-------- -T---
~ - ~
- - - -
_ ~ wa_ ~,,2-~_ ~
+ aoRi ::aeR~ evwc Tr m.+i ~ou a• ~ooc o+ iax wf A ~°c.c °rr ~--n- Q
~ m. v J~ ?
' ' _ _ ' ~m- ltea?taaFr ' _
5 -I- --v~^Y- ~
~
~
- - ~
eowy. >
_ _ _ _ _ ' ~ . _ _ i
ci • i , J ~ ~ ~ \ ,
( ~
I ~ooc a. a
Q'_.-----._._ ; . - _ oi
~ w-'~a°,T woc w. ~i t~k` s ~ ~,~e ~C.v {'~t I t6~y ~ J
~
_~I= I `
_ _ v
v
U ~r~. - o
I ' _ = loGdlf 1~7a
' _ _ _ v
I o
a~i
~ ~ I ~ LL
a~
I I ~ I
I I I I i
I ~ ( ~I
go. cxac~ ae.
uL» .qn «rnrL w~u1 µ sn «{lt a~
~ ~ ~ •qn n! ~ qn J
. I ~ o.qqn. n avp~qrni ' ~
IK]pWM1. 'p V pM1 p4: ~3.1!!1 U
~ tO.X ~ !M. ~y.M1 ~r', i'e'ro,^ /
~'w4~ti R.~wl Ms. 1lDn ~
'~i4 =ql ~
MORL N?ai L'fOe r~ On.e !1 ef.~~ Ow SI
RNM yXn ~
COTI~N.UT~D O!)Mh
~M.t p L
~ THIRD ~Ev~L FLOOR PLAN _ ~
~ ~~e•.~,.m„ ~
l~2.3 ¢
a~ a
1 {~Inlfe.
~ { :i.•RefLerR .k
f Aytoclatef
j Arcpl:ocl.
PC. -AIA
IrV Vrtt
Yr~r r
49r
~ 4 Q Q Q Q Q
N
~
- - - ~ ~
= - - ~ fY
- ~
~ - -
~
(0------- - - - ~ ~
wr t'_ Loac a. lux c.- Y+•'r wT ~a Looc cw ~ooc Pa kirt
~ ~ yy;.~ 7a" ma+..~at, 7~ bc~ev{ce+) Ti's:vi.~- - 7recwi~lnc~! ` I
'y`ayt" ~i. I
"!"3Y3' uac ni
CD
` I A
w
v. _
i i - - - - . - f
- - _ .
~
r -~r, - - ~ - - _ ' L~
Q----------- - - - ~ - ! -1- - _ - -
~ n
- - ~i
I I 1 ~ a~
~ I I 1
v~
!¢R T y
~ 1e Cx W/s~ N
~f e~s ~ryry'4 ~
70~ U
~ ~ ~ ~ i TOI.LL9) 41? , Alc ]~.L, ~j
/
GOI'~$.~QN OUpA MnhdlK TiM1 j
u..e M T~~~ 0+~+ o
=i
~e..ta srsx ~
' ~ FOURTN LEVEL FLOOR ~'LAN =
' Ve"~'~~m' A2.4 ~
J
~ ' . ~ ~
YoRrrberg Y
~ A..ocietaf
' i Archlteclr
PC. All
r r
~
p Q Q Q 4 Q Q
21-
~i
; - - z~ ~
c- - - ~ ~ ~
i Jty' IL JtlL •i _W-n ?L ~-T
icsr
~ - ------I-' - - - - ~ ~
o------- - - - - - - ~ - ~ ~
~
o----------- - - :
~
~ - !y-~ - ' ' _ )
i -
_
- - - ~
~ _ - = ~ = °
ti ~ -
- - - - - - - - U
r' '--r• ---rt •T---r = I ri
t-- ~ -
_ _ I -
- ~ - - ~ ~ -I--- - ~
-
- - LL
~ - I
n~
~
J
0
V
i
~
s... y w.~ o
w.ar am ~
ww a ~
~1~(FTH LEvEL FLOOR PLAN ~
A2.5 ¢
Q- I j
. 1 LL
J
~ Arcnii-i,
IC.-AI,.
rr~~ ~~r
JSi~'Y
y3~.1 r
Q 4 4 4 Q Q ~ ~I
I
~
; . , - ~ ; ~ - ~
• ,
a--------- ' ' - - - ~ - - ^Q s
- - ~ - - - - - - - - _ _ - - L~ _1
- ~ - --L ~ ---L---- - ` - cn >
; - ' ~
~ ~ 00"3 r-• ..~.,o~,.o„e ~
( . '
1- ~ i - - - - -
Q---------- - - - - - - - rt
~ ~
I ~ i i
o ;~-I ~ - j
s ---J-- - - - - - - - ~
~ - , (
- - ~ - -
i.i ~ - ~ - - ~ _ '
- - - - - - -
- r' r -~--T ~ ~-r - ~ • -r- i~i
- v
Q------- - L _1 - 1 - -J , -~1. - _ ~ . ' °
I -i ~ - ~
I ! I ! ! i ~ LL
I I !
I I I I ~
I o
~ I cr
r s>.roe~ ~
u
vnM ~s non v
N
I enw 7~~ 0~+ O
SI
W~A.a 11'+w ~
a..~ a y
I n ROOF PLAN Q
~
i ~
I -a ~ ~ •
i /
S1 !
e1~
~ A~~ Ile~h
I ( • 1.~.
~ O w~u~m
I ~
8.- ~ -
i~r
- - - - ~ ~
- - - - .
- . . ~
~ NORfH ELEVATiON
' M~ww
I IJL11
~ G~ 1 Q ?
4 '
Q ' r 1 rr~ Cj - . . •
_ 0111 - (fi
--"~~a-
MLLL~Lu
~ f
~ -r ^,.f gii
l11 Ft I
i • , 3 ~ rvAl
' • ~ , . o,,.. e - _ ~
, I------------------------------- ~9-
~ L3-0 SO(fIH FIEVATION ]j
m <
rlerw.
I I[ t
~ Arc?I~~c4
~C..~A..~.
I u w~~
• I
I
I I
. vJ
a
~ ~
~
i ~ 8
~ • ! ! .r
PI.
- ~ _ZMs
LZU{
. . ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~4 - _ • ~°:~m'
I
I .
FASi FJEl7AT70N ~ .WE5i E1fVATlOlI
.~.:~.M.
ey
~ . • . .
I '
L?
~ • . ~ . ~ ' . In"'' r~
~ , . • r~
~ . • ~ " . I~__~.I F~ .
• . Lr~ p :
A 3.1
~
-
~ .a i ! ~
i
LOT o
-
- -
C~tySE~. - " ~Aof*~
-GORE CREfK----'
$ •
' • 6tEJ " - - " " ' S`
ix . ~ ~ ~i_~..y~ ..,..•t pU~Gfl¢. ; ~
~ ~ , 99 ~ _ / P"_~er^"_'~•m~.f~.-_"~..~-"~'" _ - • ' ' . [~I ~V ~ ~ _.i _ ~ 1 ' I
~~;J, .;Y;~.:;;•;>,.<<~ . ~;~,S~Mr_~,. y;`,4 _ - .
t ~ ~ K?~` 2 rf '~f~'`i~„ : ? ' : ~~r: ~ t~~ ~sna
S
• \ , ~ , f ' J'!_ Y ~
~.~y,'~ si 4~ "i t
~ ~y4 , i ~ ; ` N. ~ ? ` ~ ' i • # . _ Y~,yM I , "
- ~ k
/ ~ `
~
~ r~.:?MN'~• III 'f ~ ~ ~ ~ l ' _
4 t
s 4 ` ~ a t / i~ ~ , ~ ` ! v+~~. ` t(. ~ y - . M 5. ~ ~ ~ " ~ 1 i~ ...-1.-~...;; ~ ~ ' . \
h. S4 ~ ~ f c~ , ...1 , J ,~r. L~ ~ ~ ~ i 5"'1~- I . j ~`v-~ ~i 4 5,} ~ +~n?
rV
ti t^',4s '.t~ , •-y".,.~: . . ~tar.~;Z~'~ ~ t
~Q~j y. < / ~ L . ' + y4 y..~+~^1'°~ N . : r, u?'
- 00*'" . - ' s :'y~ t . `~.~..~+^~~~.1:= . " ' , Z• S~J,-rr. > S: K..iy s ?!`''FG f.r , i t ~f.~` _J
~4Q+~.. • - ~.r~ ~r,~, ~y Z ~ ~:..J.=``, . M ~.,,w~,.,~w.~ , i , J~ ~ ~-..'7 ti~~ .rN t f4 S~t J 'h .
. r•a"'' _ S v*.~ 'rw S ~ ~ ~ 4ti~5~. ~ ; J"` . . . i . ' /
- . ai cr""A ~ _ . ~S~` ' . . . 5 iSL''~ ^~~,.a~i+.~ K ~Q : ~ 5.~
~ w~ ~,ui+ra
_ ~ ' i...~, n~.. , .~'^'"S_ 's ? J ^ } 't : 4Yr,s.;-,^'.~}a 2 , ? -.,cN ~ v h ~
~ • ~ ~ -t , z' ~ s 2 2 ~ ~ ~,s~ , S, s,,. ~5~ . ° • ~ S. v':~> :i"`~s, s
~ ' . _ t _ ~ , t . ;~r.r•?RMa , S ~ ~~...d^°~..sf f,~,• J6~1
1 ~ ~i ~ ~ LL .f• w~^~ '~'S~E~ y.t
` e~~ou~.;w~c;
~,o
~ 00"
NV~
r~,1°'" c**
-00
N_
cl ~ ~py,qNMM.6 yr t .
Q~}AfNTK ` ~~w }yy.Y. t
. ~ y~cnTflxM~' ~ycwi^^T
CpyORAD~
~ « «*V "'"'~~Y~ Yl?Ii,
= Mm gp13S
t A'~~TR'I p YR~PSR''~Eg' INC'
~
~
~ FMPI.Ol'hiFKt' GENEFLl770N TtATES
L- xirrBzT A
SUGGESI-ED EhiI'LO]'T1ENT CATEGORIES AND R_ANGES FOR ViIIL
ExrxEssED As Enrrr oYErs PE ii 1000 SQuaRE FEr r
RRC RESF-ARCx
O VERALL SUGGESTED
AVERAGES RANGE
Bar/Restaurant 5,7/1000 s.f. 5-811000 s.f.
Retail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-8/1400 '
Retail: Grocery/Liquor/Convenience 1.8/1000 1.5-3/1000
Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-9/1000
' Office: Financial ~ 3.1/1000 2.5-4/1000 '
Office: Professional/Other . 6.6/1000 5-8/1000 I
• Conference Center NA 1/1040 !I
Health Club NA • 1-1.511000 '
Lodging* 1.3/room .25-1.25/room I
Local Government 6.5/1400 5-8/1000 '
Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1400
, Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit
Single Family N/A 0.2/unit
Other: To be determined through the SDD . . '
process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the app'lication
materials. .
* I.odging/accommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room, depending
upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support facilities and amenities provided.
The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated th'at a definitive report
will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be ; evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~
r ` . .
_ Multiplier based on density •
• . ; ' . - ' .'30 if exceeding density
` .15 if at or below density
ROSALL RE?ArfEN CARF.S ' , PAGE 6_.
t
Austria Staffing Rostcr ~
I'osition hours of opcntion 199C-1 11 L) 1 1998 cliip.l, commcnts
I Managcr tloating 1 1
Assistant floating I 1
}'ront Dcsk 7am to I 1 pm 3 5 24 hour dcsk
I3ellstaff floating 1 3 parking & sizc
I-Iousekeeping 81m to Spm G 10 size and # of rms
turndown 2 3
I3ar 31)m to midniglit 1.5 1.5
'
Restaurant Sam to noon _
I wait 5 • 3.5
kitchen 2• 0 contincntal only
4pm to midnight wait 4 0
kitclicn 3.5 0 -
Retail varics 5 tunknuwn f3uzz'z B&B
Engincering 7am to l lpm 1 2
Concicrgc 7a111 to 111111
3pm to 7pm 0 1.5
.36 31.5
Scrviccs providcd from Main I-totcl Complcx: •
Sp.t
Golf
Activitics
Markcting & Salcs
/lccounting
Rcscrvation
'1'clcphon
I I.aundry
Uniforms
Itoom Servicc
Conference Services
Employee Cafeteria
~
I-Iuman Resources i ~
rloral & Dccoration
Landscaping . , ,
Employee Housing . Purchasing .
, ~ • .
~ ~ r t ~ , ' f i , • , ' .
. ...•n^~~ ' ' • ' ,
. • ' •
MEMORANDUM
, •
! TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 10, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a front 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
Planner: Dirk Mason
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants, Art and Elaine Kelton, are requesting a front setback variance of approximately
6-6", to allow for a 14'-6" front setback, in order to construct a garage addition of 206 sq. ft. This
site is currently improved with a two-story single famiiy structure with a 452 sq. ft. two-car
garage.
This site originally had two dwelling units, a single family structure with a detached two-car
garage and secondary dwelling unit above. The current structure consists of only the original
single family dwelling unit and has since attached the garage into a single structure.
• This site currently meets the Town of Vail Municipal Code's off-street parking requirements by
providing 3 parking spaces. The current parking regulations do not require enclosed off-street
parking for residential units. However, enclosed parking is encouraged by allowing a 600 sq. ft.
credit for enclosed parking on this site.
I!. ZONING ANALYSIS '
Zoning: PrimarylSecondary Residential
Use: Single-Family residence
Lot Size: 11,983 sq. ft.
Standard Aflowed 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. (1 g.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 enclosed) 6 spaces (3 enclosed)
' Includes 425 sq, ft. credit
1
`
. - . ~
I!!. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vai( Municipal Code, the •
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback
variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that providing enclosed parking for residential units is a
benefit to the neighborhood. Most homes constructed in this
neighborhood have two-car garages. Eight homes have access off
Homestake Circle. Seven of these homes have two-car garages and the
eighth 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 of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff believes that the layout and orientation of the existing structure do
not make this site unique. The site exhibits no physical characteristics or •
constraints which constitute a hardship, therefore, staff believes the
proposal would be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on fight and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubfic facilities and
utilities, and pubtic safety.
Statt believes that this proposa) has minimal impact on light and air,
however, it is not significant enough to effect adjacent properties and the
right of way. This proposal does not have any impact on the other factors
of consideration.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the fol(owing findings
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
} improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified •
2
r
s. , .
I regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
• physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to 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 enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicants'
front setback variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privitege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2. That there are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or canditions
applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District.
3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners Qf other
• properties in the same district.
f:\everyone\pec\memosVice11on.210
I
i
•
3
y
i S
'E RIVER NATfONAL FOREST
~
JNDARY
UNPLATTED ~ ,
•
TOWN OF VL11L
MAtNT. SHOP
~
1NTERSTATE 70 7 ~
( Nor tH r.o,v. )
• VAIL VILLAGE 8th. • !
TENNIS COURTS OO .
OO 1
CREE~ 1055 I 6 III5 1 II83
N63 ~t. 4
• EAST VAIL WATER 967 1031 104 g~ 9 10 • 1193
SANITATION 8LD TRACT I 2 3 f25 1153 =
c 1001 • 1045 0 7 (7 2 • 3
I • 1007 '-1194
W ~ 4034' 1106 ~1VSILVER 1 C ~ TR
W ~
~ z 3 9 10
~ • 6 1022 U II 7 I136 I12 ~13~ ~ I195 t
NATURE 7 ~
CENTER 2 ~S~P 1081 • il~~ O VALLEY
~ 601 ~ pp1p &
rota
620 O 992 ~ VA1l.
3
~ SOCCER FIELD 3 TRACT D O2 24
TRACT A 994 \GP~ ~ 1220
P 1200
2 5 e ,t7o
017~. 2 I 7 4 I 75 j.,6,9 ' I 3 7 TRACT F
~ >iL VILLAGE 7th. FILING
,
$ ' 2 5 0~• 3 5 PARCEI D
~ 925
'
FAIRWAY
I • 90
L LL GE IOt Fi IN .
, elo 10 9 8 7 6 5
' 880 890 920 930 950 970
TRACT A
t ~ , • .
. ~••1•, . . ~ •
. ' % ` . • . . . . '
' ' . . . . . . . . •`••`••:1' ~=.,1.. • . ' . I~ , ` .
' " • : , . : ' Gv~ r ~ ` • • , ' .
~ . • ' ' ~J~. . . - 1 ~ -
. . . 'V % 'k ' • ~ ` " . • • • ' .
' . ' i~ ~~..2' • - ~.'1
1.•
' ~ . . e;cr~n?Jq ~ ` . ' . , . . .
~ ~O~ "fc. / t'~ • ~e ~ . - . ~ / . . - '
~ . ' ~i; ~ ~ • ~ P.L',7~ . ; . -j' .
~ ` / ~ ' . ~ : / • i .
% . ' • . . . . . :
~ ~ .
. - j .11~8' AL2GN
~ ~ ~ . . ~ / •
. / ~ j . . _ , / • , ~ .
~ . ~ + ~.'r,7ry-;.%„ ' ~ . . . ' ~ • , . . ! . - • . ~ .
flfl78.B $Q. FT. ~ / ~i' . . % •
~ 6; i 2282 SQ FT 4nRFA "?RPA _
. . • \ , , i- ~~:iii.~. . ' ' . . . . . • ~ . . , . ' .
~ ~ . ;;~!~jti, _ . , , /I ; . . . . ' .
• " - • . . ' : . . ~ : . . . .
- . ' _ . . ~ ~ - ' . ~ ;
, . • . ~ ' rxr-'n'~+-~~.^ ~
. . . - . . ' \ • ~ ~ • °~±'~``.j.. I . . _ : . •
• . • . • : ~ • ~ , . : , • , ~ ' , .
, ~ , , . . • \ \ • . ~ . ~ ~
, _ ' . . ~ . , . . ^:~r• . . • ' "
. . . . . ^ , , . . . . ~ ' :
~ , . -'r~ ~ ~ ~ .'I~~ •Y..:`'/'1~• :t,y. l ? 7 ~:i'
' i . a . , . . ~ / •~~it' : , .
i: t `~,..r,•;: • ,r;;•
r~~ . - . _ / ~~%1 ~ ~
~ =t ; ~~~i~~ ~
_ . f i ~t C`~ . - • ' - . . ~ : • l'' , i ~ ' , : ~ ~ ~ r t
• . ' •'l.~f 1 ' •Y. . ~:~'~r,~{'.?!':.•~'• '
. , . ~ '^~"w '~•r:'
. • ` ,:q~` ~ .i i - ~i,tfr•„t. v=` :i~f.';j•~::• y:. ~ -~:~k l,~c~,.
y.~ :r_ r~ a~ ~7~.t. r i ~t~:~~ ~i.'..~.,~i.a~•j~~.'i ~
o - eS<. •"'~:~f~,tl '~~:.^^t:.~:;:;~• :t.,;::i~ '~,r,r ~ r..r':4ee„•.~,«t,~.~
: r r' ~ ` ~ i t. h. ~c:t •C ~ ~ y .
L ;.~;.;,~~;~°:i~~t ~ ° f i ti-T <.~r' r•y ~t~. . ti. io .i •°,t~.%,: ~~";~..,'~~L:~~" r ti~.%`..
r~l n ~ r 1 ~ ~ f~- ns V:' ~ li~y~t~ ti"" , a 4^ ..~~Jv.. 4'~,r r,~,
1
If'= t`.. .7 ~.4?:1 ' ,.1~ 4 `4. t` ,TM~~l+~.~~ 5y'1'.?t0.i~ ~„i ~ i,~
-,~,r ~ ~ f s. • F . 2. ~ r * ; c ~
r ~ ~ ~ y r { C~ ~ s 1,r r i r ~ y . ~A~ ~ t i
• h~ .ti ,+y t. :t~ .f ~..~4.:,,~,<:Jrr.7rt u^~.a~-~~i:• 7 .r ~ Y2 ~F
Y'N . .C. 3 .'1; • ' . / ~ r .f . x]~ .017 yf•,, ~ e~y:.;..j x
'Y} C d ..1•!',( .~7 'r_'~ s7b.• ~:(:Y ii Ti. 'I~i.4.S'•5ijs,4F,~ i .~~~1Y t.
J +e~li K t ,z • ~ . i r . 'w.a J ~ i . L ~ i ..T ~ . Y . Y~'_C'.s ~ ~t i'~~.,t F{~ j .1'
K..i . i k ~r : , .J - ~ 1 Ky. ~ SF r t aY1
F s,e
•r \ ~ S. } y1 5 ~S ~ 6 ,M, '~i I r ~ f. ,t C i S ! .j. i~-• • t ~ Y4:
c ~x i,,,.
~ ~ ;K .C ...r. .:7 ~ • A 1 ' ~ y. 4 l ~ e ! ~r y ti ry . .t +v
~ " J k . . 1. 'F w ~ . s~ t ~ . 'v t 3 : ~ F ' t • 'i. J 1 ~ ;v i
, ~ ~ y i/l6~`~ ~'~-Q~~ Y 5 . ~ `a . ~ J' - x , . " ` '
~ l ..X"' + ~ , `~•r' t Y . ~ s ~i )~i ;Y! t ~'y', . La
` • , -
Y . . ' e .
~ .•y Y r -`,~r.s'L .s.+~;; s~~ r^ i`LT
`ti •,4 ~ ~n ~~i` ~ ~~~k. i.,i {i y :y,y;. ~ r . F.i r..~.iF -tr..~N ~i~^~"•S+~~fg`,y, l,;~1,5
.;13 .~"4. r1~ty'7T'~ti e . ~s.~. ~ .a y? .w, • ? t'Ir~.J . p . sr,}'~~`1t4 t_ ~ i. ~~..t( • c~+m t~.ipi fl.r l
. np w.. ~ ~ ...~T+ tS~:a ~ Ir,~, ~ K'h r. 2 t ; i.? . -k~~ + t ~.,-r t .y ..P~~a 3 j yi
e t..-•. ( x~~. ' 'v t?'ti ~~y J ~ ~ . . , ~ ~ -i .95 ~ ~f u.S. S ~'t ?a t .c .+~xy,. r3 F "1' r' i r.. •
~ ~ ~ , n~~2f tiY`~ :.A h t"~'~~~ .ft r? ~ r.. ~
3~'4ta~ , .L 'y',~-41~;`~fa'a. ~ v 7~,+ l V+, ~a y''. e w . Rs i . . , , • u r7 ti.r~, aT'a ~q ,.t.
y~ ~r.~f;':x: a ~,p_ '~.u~.~ ) -u1 ?'t:• i w i?~:~ r a 1' ,{c... ~+..`.~Y.r r~.«~ P' t!-
' .1~t.•- .r~. ~~:~Y~~i73i14'S.rt71~i~~:~,!^wi'`` 1 <,.~Ty{.;~'. ~a~;}, ~r `_Y',.ni:i-*yi; :ti~-:,;. ~„tt`.t rc~ati''~~:,~;y, F~.L-k ,~ti.a,. 3.' y,..'
~51 .1~:.i? h:,~. :..~ii?~ „A?~i:~..a.`"9..}.^s..~~~,'.~![c.. ~~vT'':7~n"~'{w"' C`~a~.`h'fy`~-..6' t r*~h~t,'y~ ~~~`7~FF °3:~'.
~P: .bd!~,c...k i'..,~?'ti.YwLrXr_.~~~.~.".~.~• .'W"*6~~~~'~.5, 2~~Mr
' , . . ~ ' . . ' ' , ' . } .
i - - - - - ~
-4 • I ~I
i
i
i
!
~ ~[RSCt riuy~t~Y 6~.vi' ~ 4t~~ crc¢
~ i
? k ~ _ LL_
W RfN W (
00 _ _ ~Hf1rY
(1 OO
wNCOUe m wtul ~ I ~ ~ a~- orr~
~t9i roG0¢cN'1 ' - J • - •
. I --n-d---~- ~
L. ~f'~
`..~lJ
/~''~j ~ ~ •l:a-Y:,+a+cF
~ " . rk Lj/ K,
pl\
I"y
LNiNG
.JAqI~Lr'/c+aC/> . /~,II~Mw6 t+~.XIN4 LietL . ~ I _
' ~ ~ ~~a,cts.E~/*uo•~f+~) ~ i
' _~_'t. _ \ _ I ~ ~ 1~er.aT+ou o ~•m-w co~~ ' ~ ~ i I
T_`"
;I • / I ~ ~ ~ S: ~
~ I
I ~
I F~V ~
~L' . - ---._._l_I.! _i.--~---- - .
~ r-=.- _ - 1-~ •
~ ~ ~ :
. ~ / 1 ~ 1~ •
. _ ~ .
J -
4 - .
~ . _ . . • ~ ~
~11
~ I
t
I
I
Z•yfLYW.U~ i ' }f:r~ ~
~ ~ I ~ ~~,~11+' ,
~ ' ~
_ - _ . _
yl_
`
ti
r , .
• l?q:7
~
~
Jt~, • i
,
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .
~ 1o17 ti:Z~ L66T,/z~/tg
68L~9LV0L6~
~ . ~~t,,~aar~•~"
~ 41L %
~
C.r~~%C~/" _ ~ «r-~~ ~
L
~
~j~~~~,~~ ~'j~ ~
.l ~
~
~
~ ,•~---~''n ~~G~-~' ~ 1.~-- ~ .
T•ci~~ ~'L~ ~l~~ ~~J>'1/Z-~ ~
~ ~ • ~ ~ " J
G~~ • .
~ • .
dyr , ~ ' ~ ~
. , ,
(41
~
, .
~
~
i
,
) , 4 ~ ~ !
t ~
Y ~e. cx
.f Lf3 / 1991 `
, . .
Tov
'
f -
- - _ _ 1 -`_7-`-"-'3 ~S-/-- 4ac 4u_2- X17v_D_--C--~ L.Ini-~)_ ~ C- f w r-Vu L--IN -0- .
t 3 4 f~ne -S
f
- ~
- - - / -
W1_y _ _kA_n?_.~ e-_0---.~
I(~ -
. 1 -
' -
-
. ~
- - - - . _~d _ D_~ _ h _ o"~ P_s-?~_1.~-_~ _t°~,2±~~ c- ~ -'~r`'--~- ~vv~ c~ ~ S ~ ~ ~L-~--
_ +tA,,4-i L-L- C - vtos S o J -e
~
-
AS \f A2 ~ vA,~ c~---'---
- ~ - - ~
CA-;_ai-3~--------____ '
iM
~
- l_v_~S__"~ -
-0-t3-- ~6v_?nes
as c A 2 `TtA~C ~ -%~C - _~t-~~ `~S _ _ ,~-R?~c~ w o u ~ lj>
- _
Y_
~.,nA,e s w IneAn
- - - - ~ ~ _ _ _
v
Pa,04~,Q 0~4-tn.- S`~'.ee_t -
t3 C) ozs~ 1 ~ kec,~
i -
't-k S C- ,Q%~ ti1_~° ~ t o.~J 0.'~ tn~c;~.~.~s
o [k ,n._ \(ILM`j9n. - -
-VA
C
t) <L- _r6
L.o W I
-
~
- - 2
- -
- -
~ .
- 3= --~b u_'_ ~ ~ - v
-f -~S - - --~~f~-~G ---1n.Q~ 'ro ~
S ve t~-,
- - - - -
,
.
i ~
`Tb- -YVA-e--_ d a- --,C- Nc
- - - - -
r'1 ..j~
I
-
N
1Y\ Cd QctSe- Pl'~`- ~ p~ -
- - ---Y-- . _ _ _ . _ -
_
-
~ - --H~e e ~e- P
I ~
~S
--S__-~`? ---~.-~v ~ ~ c~__ P~-
c~(~
~
- ~ - -
- ' - - - - - -
-e/L
~
;
tO
i
• t ~-;1 . ,
DONNA GIORDANO
1107 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
Mr. Diric Mason
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 So. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mason: I
~ The Keltons have shown me the plans for their proposed garage at 1034 Homestake
Circle, which I find both workable and in keeping with the feeling of the Golf Course.
As a neighbor,(we share backyards) I enthusiastically support their request for a
variance .
I do, however, strongly object to the alternative of putting a garage in the backyard
behind their existing East garage, as it would require the cutting of trees, and be unsightly
for us as we enjoy the use of the decks on the backside of our home all year.
~
,
.
•
.
~ PEC Meeting, February 10, 1997
Transcription of motion on Item #3, Kelton Front Setback Variance Request
(Tape 3, - 1813)
John Schofield - made a motion to "approve the request in accorda.nce with the plans
submitted with the Staff memo.
Greg Moffet - " John, just because this has been a little bit contentious, would you
John Schofield - "specify that the square footage is
Greg Moffet - " no, actually, would you specify that you don't find the special privilege...
that the
John Schofield - " I would definitely specify that we find a pra.ctical difficulty in locating the
garage in any other location on this lot."
Gene Uselton - seconded the motion.
~ Discussion followed regarding minimizing the encroachment in the setback by reducing the
length of the garage.
Greg Moffet - " Greg, as I understand it, are you asking John to amend his motion?"
Greg Amsden - " No..."
The motion passed 4-2, with Greg Moffet and Henry Pratt opposed.
~
,
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 10, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss variances from Sections 18.22.060
(Setbacks), 18.22.140 (Parking), 18.04.130 (Common Area) and 18.22.020
(Percentage of Accessory Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt
Planner: Lauren Waterton
l. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGI ESTS
The applicant is proposing to add approximately 725 sq. ft. for two additions to the main level of
the Swiss Chalet. The addition will reconfigure the main level of the building in order to separate
the entry of the hotel from the entry of the restaurant and bar area. A conversion of common
~ area to a lounge/bar will provide a waiting area for the restaurant. An elevator shaft will a(so be
installed to provide accessibility to all levels of the bui(ding.
in order to accommodate this addition, the following variances are requested; setbacks, parking
and percentage of accessory uses. The applicant originally requested a common area variance.
However, because there is available GRFA, any common area beyond the maximum of 35% of
the GRFA must be counted as GRFA. Therefore, part of this addition will be considered
additional GRFA (although there is no expansion to any of the existing hotel rooms, nor any
additional hotel rooms proposed).
In conjunction with this addition, a new one-way drive will be added access+ng from East
Meadow Drive. This new drive wiH aNow for two temporary parking spaces to be located in front
of the hotel and will modify the existing fire lane. New access gates will replace the existing
bollards that designate the fire lane.
A formal bus stop for the in-town shuttle will be provided along East Meadow Drive. The location
of the bus stop will not change, but the addition of low planter walls and a heated walk will ;
provide pedestrians a place out of the road to wait for the bus.
The existing wood retaining walls wili be replaced with a landscaped berm and stone veneered
walls. Two new landscape pianters will be added to create an island in the new entry driveway
and a new heated walk will be provided around the building.
~ 1
i
I
' The applicant is requesting the foilowing three variances from Sections 18.22.060, 18.22.140,
and 18.22.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. ~
~ 1. To allow for an encroachment of approximately 12' into the required 20' front
setback of the Public Accommodation Zone District.
Section 18.22.060 -
I "!n the PA District, the minimum front setback shalt be 20'. The minimum
side setback shall be 20' and the minimum rear setback shal( be 20'."
, 2. To reduce the amount of required parking to be provided on-site; to allow for
parking to be located in fhe front setback; and for less than 75% of the
parking be located within the main buitding.
Section 18.22.140 -
" Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with
Chapter 18.52. At least 75% of the required parking shall be located
within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No
parking or loading areas shall be located in any required front setback
area."
Section 18.52.100
"Off -street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with
the following schedule: ~
Eating and drinking establishments: One space per 8 seats, based on
seating capacity or building code ;
occupancy standards, whichever is '
more restrictive."
3. To allow for accessory uses in the structure to exceed 10% of the total Gross
Residential Floor Area. Section 18.22.020 -
" The foliowing uses shall be permitted in the PA Zone District:
a. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational
or retail establishments located within the principal use and
not occupying more than 10% of the total Gross Residential
Floor Area of the main structure or structures on this site."
2 •
• l0. ZONING ANALYSIS
Lot Size: 34,325.3 square feet
Zoning: Pubfic Accommodation
Standard Allawed Existinq Proposed
Density: 19.7 units 25 No Change
GRFA: 27,460 sq. ft. 23,728.5 sq. ft. 24,006.4 sq. ft.
bU's: 3,098.7 sq. ft. No Change
AU's: 15,783.4 sq. ft. No Change
Excess Common Area 4,846.4 sq. ft. 5,124.3 sq. ft.
Accessory Uses*: 2,746 sq. ft. 8,074.8 sq. ft. 8,696.6 sq. ft.
(10% of GRFA) (29.4%) (31,7%)
Common Area"': 9,611.1 sq. ft. 14,457.5 sq, ft. 14,735.4 sq. ft.
(35% of GRFA) (52.6%) (53.6%)
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 0' (below grade) 0' (below grade)
19' (above grade) 8' (above grade)
Sides: 20' 0' west No Change
21' east No Change
Rear: 20' 9' No Change
~ Landscaping: 10,297.6 sq, ft. 12,183 sq. ft. 12,870 sq. ft. ,
(30% of site area) (35%) (37%) I
Parking: Per Code 14 spaces 12 spaces '
Required with addition: 6 spaces
" Accessory Uses are defined as eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments
Common Area includes common hallways, stairs, elevators, airlocks, lobby areas, mechanical areas and meeting
facilities. All excess in common area, in compliance with Section 18.04.130, shaii count as Gross Residential Floor
Area.
Note: All of the above development statistics were provided by the applicant and shall be verified by staff
prior to the final PEC hearing.
III. CRITER(A AND FINDINGS
Since this is a worksession, staff wiN not analyze the request for compliance with the variance
criteria. However, staff believes it would be helpful to the PEC to be aware of the criteria, while
discussing the issues identified in Section IV (Discussion Issues) of this memorandum.
~ 3
The PEC sha(( review a variance application based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors: •
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safety.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fotiowing
findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: ~
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to 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 enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES
Staff has identified the following issues that the PEC may wish to discuss regarding this
proposal:
1. PrQposed entry r configuration
The proposed reconfiguration will create a new curb cut into East Meadow Drive to allow
for a one-way drop off area. The proposal will allow for a more formalized bus stop with a
heated sidewalk, low planter walls (that will also be heated to provide a seating area
while waiting for the bus), and provide a focal point for the new entry into the hotel. This •
4
new entry will remove 4 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to redesign the
• remaining parking so that there will only be a net loss of 3 spaces.
According to the Streetscape Master Plan, benches are recommended for bus stops.
The applicant is proposing to heat the planter walls to provide seating. Staff, however,
has concerns with the proposed configuration of the new planters. Staff believes that one
large planter to separate the bus waiting area from the driveway would be more
appropriate. The PEC should discuss the configuration of the new entry and the design
of the new planter island.
2. Variances
The proposed building addition encroaches 12' into the required front setback. Because
of this addition and an interior remodel (conversion of common area to an accessory
use), there is an additional parking requirement of 6 spaces. The applicant is requesting
a variance to not provide this additional parking requirement on-site. A variance is also
requested to not provide at least 75% of the parking within the structure. Currently, no
parking is provided within the buitding. In accordance with Section 18.52.180 any parking
variance granted must contribute to the Town's parking fund for all required spaces not
provided.
The existing parking is considered to be legal non-conforming because in this zone
district no parking is allowed in the front setback. The applicant is actually reducing the
non-conformity by reducing the number of parking spaces (by one) located in the front
setback.
Concerning the setback variance request, the Vail Village Master Plan identifies this
• corner of the Swiss Chalet as a commercial infill area, as shown below. This addition
meets the intent of Action 1-4 of Vail Village Master Plan.
C:::D
ME Aoow 11-4 Sonnenalp East (Swiss Chalet)
Inf ill Commercial infill of north facing
alcove of existing structure to
provide shops and pedestrian
,
rt~ activity. A plaza with greenspace
shall be developed in conjunction
AOSMAN ~
SaNNBN with the adj acent plaza at the
AI.P
Vail Village Inn. Fire access and
P 04, on-site parking are two issues to
be addressed in the design and
. • ~ development of this project.
Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1; 6.2.
~..t~:.. •
. . . . _
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses.
~ 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
5
' 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordabie housing units
through the efforts of the private sector. •
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Vi!lage to the
greatest extent possible.
4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas
with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different
roles of each type of open space in forming the overall
fabric of the Village.
5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities.
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
6.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police
~ and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically
pieasing resort setting.
The request for a variance for the percentage of accessory uses is to allow for the
conversion of common area to a new bar/waiting lounge for the existing restaurant.
The PEC should discuss each variance with regard to the review criteria. •
3. Architecture of new addition
The applicant has provided a schematic design for the proposed addition. A more refined
plan wiN be provided at the final hearing, however, the PEC should discuss whether or
not the proposed addition is architecturally compatible with the existing building.
4. Landscaoing and retainina walls
The total landscaped area will increase by 687 sq. ft., primarily due to the addition of the
planters in the center island of the new driveway. The Streetscape Master Plan also
recommends removing the railroad-tie retaining walls and replacing them with boulder
walls and (andscaping. As shown on the site plan, the applicant is proposing to do these
improvements. The PEC should discuss the landscaping of the new island and the
planters along Willow Bridge Road.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will,
however, provide a recommendation on the applicant`s proposal at the time of final review.
•
6
~
~ ~ -
PQ ~e a~ ~Q ~ ~ " ~ .
~
i / ~~Gj yJR6~f~x /l
? • ,i~ ~ ~,e,~na+^ i j~~y`~ r '.C~. +
~
1`. /
D VJ;','Y~~i.~
7
~ / % • `
7~}~
_ - - . ~ ~p'~ ~ / • / f~'~ f
~ , ~r , ` / r>. ~ r~~~ / / ,;4.v~:.?', ~~~~ht• /f;~ p
~ . ~ ~,J ~ ~ % • e` . . ~N B
. t'.' Q ` , $ r / ~ O •`~i;?'',/
f~ ~ ,p~'~~~'~a , P ~,i ~ • ? ~'r`• ..t-/--%. / % lJwr~SCn~'~~tt
~ • 4-;.:? ~ ` ~f~
.r ~
.
; • ; .c~'~ tNk ~qk~C ab ~7 AT 1 Z
I 3` 6EL'M
?
Q(1 ~7
t ~
V~
. j l V t 4 A '
\ „ ~..;;~~;`•'~;i''
~ ~
¢
WAU-
~
1
,
~J
i ~ . - . ,
- - - - -
,
i ; •~;w ~
i - ` ....i i i ;
e Af~iR iL V. I.OpOY I~ • 0 ~ W~fINi' ICOOM I
i
' O `f • ~ . ~ i W
' JOs
~
F7~
I w s• o.Y.a wr~ ~ Q i Oc O
f i1~•ivwroR sou~/. ~ ' I ~ C J
r
I rsw sxrsc~ac co¢ueme I~I ' ~ t - - - ~ ~ ~ . '.c.• mm
~
co
o
w'
~ {I{I~fIMi 11AK O ~
~
I ' ~ - - - - =W W
-
MI~~M~y~HN1bI {LfG1R GI1L M/1 Z I
I I lfORAi{ ~ ~f0. ~ , ~ I
vN. II w bwl4 fvl. (~~W ~t~~e ~ www wycx ' ; Wv,^ O
i Z '
I Y~M[ fi ~~tlWM. ~ ; 1AGFHCG ?OG1cfR! ~ ZL/) Z 03-
Ncn~
II ; ;
I SfGON~IiYRSO WsTINi SOOM I I I I fR10fINi ICIfLM{N I '
•t;sR-
' I fY/I.OV+.{I 01NINi +
I
I I f%I~fIN1 I ~ • ~ ' ~
f{LI/NONS ROOM i
~ i W i ~ ~
- - - -
I '
~ ~ ~ Pew C-4-f6
~ ~ 6 6.
LOWER LEVEL
DRAWtNG I.EGEND ~ F=HOOR . PLAN
~O. K.
~ ~~~~N i~ eYr. 7wt M1nM
~~R oN ~~MINII[~fI M
~ ~ ~ -
~ ..y • .
. ;
~ MAIN 4iVS{. • 16ilXi LOVGa i .
4.. . . .
1 1
~ TICASYI~ iAllf~ 1 1 I`
~ lfA1R
~~r ~ ~ ~ •x~sr~Nr ~
A11~ Nf~' ~ ~'~mtAYRANT ~
Q !j
~
~ ~ ~ ~ I~' w~.."°y'^.'~ • i l e 100 0 o
W o
,
-"p ~
J-w.i
Mv i
~ ~ _~_..~__----j~- -
~ V
eAt ~ ~ o >
o
er;.x~..Fc. z
I ~
L-~~ 430
cn V)
I
i ti d~ ~ ~ •~eeo~~ f
( ~ N{F 11A~f~Ni W{lNl~f N{V OA! IAUNif
Y ~ ~ ( i • ~
!;g ~ m.~.~. ~ ~
;
- - - --Q
, o.~,. tt•a-.~
R.w..
i? l~i
ENTRY LEVEL
FLDRAWINC3 LEGEND OOR . PLAN
N. K.
~ MIMM~ ML ~s ~1fwo
M~~ iMf%~~iM~ M• ~MI! M1~1fpM
~ I! ~Ib1K/.~11 V
~ A 2 . 2
:9, b. I .
. . ° _ -r;,.~:' I~~ m~
+°T ' I~ ' t.~-~r'~~'~'~`"'''q'"~ , ,,3 , k~ % I "
_ .5''.^,y :}F'r_ ~
i
~ . Y;
g~ 1x~ .
. ~ ' .._.a::~::. vK4, a''=,~" A r.:~i.'w3~.r ~
t ` * 'f ~ ~ - I IS. I>
: t~. t ~ M1 ~4. ~ '~r. K.
i
. • .~i ~j ti^ f
i, .x, ~ .r. . ~
-.'~E~ ~ ~ 'F - _ ,~f . ey~
t i~'_ i u" ..h, s y.
a ~ ~ r~r t~~r ' ~
~`x ~ ~ - ' \ ~ ~ .v
.~'~~'~H[: a ' \ 4.~ _
~
_ ~ ~h .
x . ~ , ~ ti~.
~ -
_ ~
L~+~~~~y~~:~ ¢ . ~ \ 4,i~ .
,t,r~s~ s . I ' ' ` i ~ '"4. _
~
~ ~ = i
; I . , ~
~ti 1 -
' i
„1 ~ I,' ~ c - '
f, e 1
__.~-y \ - ° ~
_ ' ~c~.. ~ .~v.~.,
(
= 7 ~ 1!`~ ~
. ~ ~ 11 iT
` ~ ~ I
I '
_ `7 ' ` j' , ' I~ ~ !
~ 9 ~ ~ I I
I~
I X
f•
1 ,
_
~a
,
j' : I , ~
( ,~r ,~~i:~°' ~i ~ % N 4
- ~ ~.~i~~" ! ~ ~ ~ r~.,~.~ !
I ` I ~ ~
i~ '
~.x; ~ ~ :`t„ ~ ~
t~ ; f~ I ~ f :r
. .
~ ~ + ~ ,
_
'
. 1 -
~~i ~ Y . ~~e/
" , i.~. . ' . _ ' }'v. 4;.:.
~1
I - __.s. _'f:K:'z:. F
~ 4' ~ y.> ~1
~ ~ ~
- ~ I
~4+f ...e~i' ~ ~e ~ } J
-F., : •f J I ~ ~ •1`..
r :e'~
~ a.' 1
~ ~ :
~ .
_ - _ ~~I,~~
~
~
_
. ~ca , .
- - - ~
- ~ ' ~ ~ _
• • • `
,
rJ
3Xt~•.'~'. .
0~~N:. k • ~ yJ ~ ~~~_~A } .~t `°Y .
,;a _.A~7~ -^an ~.•y~`.~~s*'~`~ . . r ~ t. q -
r ` • r`,fet.ki'r+_ "'Y.-' . ' f~..'•<'?a '.g~ _ , .
wC.
.'Sw`VI'f` It~r.,,r~r~~
f.~ F ~ _ K Y.K'. ~7•.` ~ r~ ~ I ~ , ~5
Y 'f
. ~ ,
.
. ~ Qa •
. .
's:•. N2i%~ .*'t I ~ I .y,' "t•'~~~~Y-'Gr~~~4f~i
i Y~`
r.pi C~ -R~l;.t tk~M~,' ~ ~ - I r: r ' ~ • ~l x , y
z ~ a• .sl +!y
r ,r ? ' ~ _ ;i'^'~'.r`.
M'•rA;A:~ y~ • ~ 7 ! ~ ,.~xL " " _ ~ ~V~~
. 4 a. ~ , ? y ~c;.~_~ . _ -
~
.n -
5r,; .
° ~ ~~-c:~ ; , -
v ~~ea... - •
~......,....~.^~......-...........:«..m........ e .
. R
Are:n ~eJ:S» aT EC.~~~?l~a~!
Pc.t: i?fficr 3ox 2238 ~ - ~
ji nrojccr Pro~cct ~
L'Dil. C;A?or.k;o 8 : ( ; ;
~ SoNNE~vIl~P
Scale
~s wiSS~(o~SC na« ~2 6
~
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 10, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #29, to modify the ptatted building
envelopes and to create one primary/secondary lot, located at The Valley, Phase
II, 1502 Buffehr Creek Rd./Tracts A-1 & A-2, Parce! 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Harold and Barbara Brooks
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is proposing a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) #29 (The
Valley, Phase II), to decrease the number of lots, modify the platted building envelopes and add
primary/secondary and two-family dwellings as permitted uses. Tracts A-1 and A-2 are known as ,
the upper development for The Valley, Phase II. These two lots each have a platted building
envelope, which allows for a single-family residence. Both lots share a common access from
. Buffehr Creek Road. The applicant is proposing to combine these two lots into one lot (known as
Tract A) and to expand the two existing building envelopes into one envelope (see attachment).
In addition to the major amendment, the applicant must submit a minor subdivision application
for review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). At this time, the
PEC is reviewing the request for a major SDD amendment to:
1. Decrease the number of lots;
2. Change the size of the building envelope; and
3. Add primary/secondary and two-family residential as permitted uses within this SDD.
The number of allowable dwelling units will not change. The applicant is proposing that no more
than two units be permitted on the newly created lot, with the allowabte GRFA remaining as
originally approved (6,443 square feet). All other zoning requirements will remain the same.
II. BACKGROUND
Special Developrnent District #29 (The Valley, Phase II) was approved by Ordinance No. 17,
Series of 1993. The purpose of adopting SDD #29 was to allow greater flexibility in the
development of the land than would be possible under the existing zoning of the property
(Residential Cluster). This SDD varies from the underlying zoning in 4 aspects:
•
1
~
i
I 1. Development on slopes greater than 40%;
i 2. 10' front setback in the lower development, where 20' wouid have been required:
3. Walls 4' in height in the front setback in the upper development, where 3' wou(d
have been required; and
4. A iot in the upper development which does not meet the minimum building
envelope (Tract A-1).
In order to preserve the natural and scenic features of this site, building envelopes and driveway
alignments have been established which designate the areas where development will occur. The
public benefits, realized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17 include:
1. One deed restricted emp(oyee housing unit on-site; and
2. The dedication of access easements for common driveways and a pedestrian
access path.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following analysis is for the upper area development of SDD #29, Tract A, showing the
approved zoning standards, as weil as the proposed standards.
Existinq Proposed
Tract A- T ct A- Tract A •
Loi Area: 0.485 acres 0.375 acres 0.935 acres' '
Uses: single-family single-family single-family
primary/secondary
two-family
Type II EHU
Building Envelope: 3,000 sq. ft. 2,370 sq. ft. 6,750 sq. ft.
GRFA*": 3,397 sq. ft. 3,046 sq. ft. 6,443 sq. ft.
GRFA for EHU: 0 0 500 sq. ft.
Garage Credit: 600 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft.
* At this time, there is a discrepancy between a recent survey and the 1994 approved and recorded final plat. Prior to
the minor subdivision review, this wifl be corrected.
This includes a 225 sq. ft. credit for each allowable unit, per Section 18.14.09.
.
2
~
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
• Upon review of Section 18.40.080, Design Criteria, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the major amendment to SDD
#29. The recommendation is based upon the following factors:
As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the special development district is to:
encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to
promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of
new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of
open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in
the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a speciat
development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included
in the special development district."
The following are the nine Special Development District criteria to be utilized by the Planning and
Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD amendment proposals:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale,
bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and
orientation.
• Staff believes that the location of the proposed building envelope is reasonable
and fits into the site and is compatible with the existing environment. The existing
requirement that the building be "benched-in" to the hitlside will keep the scale of
the building in character with the neighborhood and will limit the site disturbance.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The use of this property as a residential lot is compatible with the existing
structures and uses in the vicinity.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
Should this major SDD amendment be approved, the applicant must submit an
application for Design Review Board approval. At that time, staff will verify that
the proposal meets Chapter 18.52.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plans.
This site is designated as Open Space (OS) in the Land Use Plan. This
designation allows development at densities of 1 unit per 35 acres. However, this
land is zoned Residential Cluster and the development plan, which was accepted
by the Town of Vail upon annexation, has an approved SDD overlay. Therefore,
• the previous rights for development on this property have been recognized by the
Town and are recognized by the current zoning.
3
~
i The toNowing Land Use Plan goals directly address the subdivision of this land:
Goa11.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated •
on a case by case basis. Limited development may be
permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not
visible from the valley floor. New projects shouid be carefully
controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment.
When this SDD was originally established, the development was required to
bench the homes on Tract A into the hillside to reduce site disturbance. This
requirement wiN not change as part of the amendment and therefore, staff
believes this proposal implements this goat.
Goal 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic
hazard areas.
Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth shou(d continue to occur
primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new
areas where high hazards do not exist.
This site is already platted ior two single-family lots. The proposal will make one
primary/secondary lot from the existing single family lots. Although the Town of
Vail hazard maps identify this area as high hazard rockfall and debris flow, a site
specific analysis for this property indicates that the area is actually located in a
"moderate" hazard debris flow area. The proposed building envelope does not
encroach into the debris flow area. Staff believes this proposal implements the ~
intent of this goa(.
Goai 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.
Staff recommends that a Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU) be an optional
conditional use for this site, but that it not be required as a part of this major
amendment. One EHU was required when the SDD was originalfy approved and
is part of the lower development. Staff believes that the major amendment does
not create a requirement for any additional empioyee housing, but that the option
should remain available for this site. Staff recommends that an additional 500 sq.
ft. of GRFA be available for this EHU.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
According to the Town of Vail hazard maps, the site is located in a high severity
rockfall and high debris flow hazard zone. The proposed building enveiope is
located away from the debris ffow, although access to the site must cross the
debris flow area. According to a study by Nick Lampiris, geologist, the rockfall
hazard is actually moderate and the property can be mitigated from this hazard
with a substantial foundation wall and limited windows on the north side of the
structure.
•
4
~
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
, #o produce a functionat development respons+ve and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
Staff believes the proposal accomplishes this criterion by limiting development to
the platted building envelope.
G. A circutation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
The proposed pedestrian and vehicular access to the site remains unchanged
from the 1993 approval and s#aff believes that the proposal meeis this criterion.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The proposed building envelope wilt limit the development to preserve the naturaf
features and open space of the site.
i. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, tunctional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
No phasing plan is proposed.
~ V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PEC recommend approval to the Town Council af the applicant's
request for a major amendment to Special Development District #29, subject to the following
findings:
That the proposed SDD amendment complies with the nine review criteria as stated in
Section IV above.
The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. That a minor subdivision, eliminating the common lot line between Tracts A-1 and '
A-2, be approved by the PEC. 2. That the existing viewing deck (not approved by the Town) be removed by April 1,
1997.
3. That the lot line discrepency between the final plat and the most current survey be
resolved to the Town's satisfaction.
i 5
~ . .
y50~ rtNCE
FiV.ND 5 A" ,__y` ft7(•ND 9~ RE6AR WIA L M
L~
~T~OB4d (bA$/S Of~- L AR/NGS) ~ ; • l __CdF'_-L..S 168?;
ss~ ~ 8e79 41` w 1
13490
- - - - - - - - - '
zz ay- - r- ' ~,o~-~ ` o
' . s+3r L~/ vP`i~.~-~-~------•--- v
.05 4q G 2X2'ORA/N /NLET
' .n w
VILO'Tl_~ C~' A, ~ ~YwroO S/a' S'[Bna`~,v v~ >
O P00) CAP ~5-~Tf 13901
p U K
PpS~' aoc tv,~L
BaTO pR0 pR~YEGpNS fCt,Np s/~
~NpER cna ~E ~6
-27 i n'
- " ' I„- ' _a - - = 04 I
~.QCr A
>--11461 ~a»nr s,x,na£ ~ f-/ ~ ~ OR!VE i 4,r
I
= 22.21'
J 9.55 dCFES EDGE 5 r ui L= 44.39'
/
~ 0 8450 r f~ ~p ~PL \ CB N
= 6g79 01 " E
01 1 CH = 44..T9' I
U1~LjTy _~iA~N~NG W 6 l I
PART OF---' ~ . 35
m ~ aNp !
PARCEL A xi51~NG
~ ~ / .
- 8<L
"'aL.
n(, cESS 1 `
/ ,gaJQ
1~420
_ ~EK
5 ~0OI )
e~~auNo s/e" .vfena. ~AS. , 66.~ 2 0
-r~"~ GR IpGE
~ , 5 R
([-10 ~
U F~~ F~XlST7 t~ G~8ut L.D 1]~G n.1dE1-~P~
~
~ ~
T"'ROF'L%Fij ~9j t L-D tt~G. EX ELvPF-=
~
. . . . . . , . ,
~
~
FEB-10-97 12:44 PM JAMIE DUKE SCHqEFFER OIL 303 722 5707
P.02
Cn
I~ V u.t I~T ~n Gow.r,c~ ~
I '
i t~~c V a. V~ I R a.~ e,. st-+~ a~., w~, t k Lx~K ~ ~ v?a,~
tQ" Z W G S ,C, r
' ~ .t,. l.ce. s 3s ~ V'0
S o. t Y'c.~ Ic. +ko., , CO
r
'~,'.,G~,+h,,t IrVa,•~, ~C7 ,r' PG irr.
1. ~e r'h?~~t.c+i v4- ~ i 1~ I; k..c.L^, t-~.'t" •
t~Je,•• ~4. ~ ve.a,r-: ,TIL,L
V rt- r~ -~'f` W t~./ ~ I c~ t, w~ i r-a~ h n~.~ ~t's i•%~ a.~ r1 ~~t,.r i~*-~.
a- r'rti I w 1wG t hbr, ! ~t'?+tr~w ~~Z~
a. A I't c.i n i't"- ; i-~' i s V i r t~.a..•~.t t i
s
'i1~c, 1~tn+- rc.~ n.•~,h c~~- u,.A.0+ sP 0; leA +Iftc.
~ ti ~ 11.R.~..... . 1~ s{''r~c~a,r,,~ s~c, p~~•~+~ ~1yv ~rt' , d ct.~`
~ Y~~ ~y 1'}~' b rl.,~,~ ~ ~-+wr'r ~ j •t; q-,,,a 61%r AS ~
j1~,~t„~'- t.?~. ~,a.~'~e. '~Y't~~.4~ l ti ~
ti~ d
LttC4, i F-
I
vG 'P W ~'e. G{"'d~ ~ l t I
• ~ I \ d•~+. c ~ ( S +%Il' %p CkACit S'i
A
44"x
, ~t, ~ ~ i ~n. ~.t~-c. ~
s.~ O G-~ pS.G l1t,G- t'U t'
fi'o
~ j' ~-~{^i o v~ ~ ~ ~.-C~ ~ ~GG'hb'-rj ~'~'z s ~.frf.~-c~ct ~+~..~s~ 4r? ~
6.e, 4aa A. t~•tc~ 1 n~`o s~!~ "aaM
~ R t ~1-f a~ ~ ~~~n k.: n~ ~ n t~a S ~s. ~-~.'o ~ c~ ~e.r?~s+~' a'~`
~,c,~ 1' n, p
~C. Gdi+-s t'r' k.c.h"a vt o~- a. fir ~s.: l wo wt c'? •-FA s o
""rs h` .-ID w'!-t-t a... As
~i ~4t~C ~"'~C- t a~Y ~ G4~,~, ~ '~Z~.I,~t,~1'4•• ~ ~ew?"~' b vl '~Lc~Gvr~ .
FEB-10-97 12:45 PM JpMIE DUKE SCNAEFFER OIL 303 722 5707
P. 03
K .
i~ro h ~~„w+ S %4 r~ / ta 0. c+~ t S G 1.,
, t .~.r"'1 q.~. ~
~tGS? t1'f -C..P1 C S . ~
Ca,tCi.c ~.,~+r-M IVor, U aAc.A- •el l = w1
t S~~. ~ lo ~~«.c.~„ S~4r'.~.?e...f- l c~,. ts retcIrc
~~~1"~S. r, ~G.tic u'C.+~?-~v..'C t.t..~ c~ ~ tis,c.d 4 c.~-cs s~1-~
~or ; v ~.o +~+.~-~c. s c~.,,,"c~ t.c~. wti ~ ~ ~ s . C44e, p
A c~~ ~•a r+~,ws t"' ~r~c. )~e..~-i- ~?'h,. o~.,.lr- ~ ~ ~,~lt
fi~, ~ br ~,~'+r'rt~. si a n, t~,c.~ t> i 1 ~(r~~,~ ~a.~•.L,..,o t-
~rl O~ l~-'~: l h ~l u~~JL ~ i?-Gtli..~' C?,~.- O~ C~ ~
irvsPrv~Gwt~.~'s~~ i-~' •s,~'r~~•~
3 . A
ih.c-
1.~,.c- ,c. s~t~c..a.,c..~. FwH. F` ~ roktl~
. '
~ rwo ~J ~ ~ ~ .,t, ~4.c. t~~. t~.1~t ~an ~•t
~
wt4 1-- M~.c...~,.~.,.,~ ~ r~.~c„ oc.cc~c.rs ~ L- ?a?vt s t-4~ f b~? .
i~?.w Jc.w~.~w.~-
i+c.. ~l
t~„ ~L,r, ~ '~b ~,.a~ '~..r.~' s' •
Lt, Tu%a.t-c,,
t~S?ti ~C~ x P~c ~+~'G•t.~t.{ p ro k i, bi#s ~,,,,,7 ~.~tv'4-& si taK suc.ti
a.s ~ ~ r prnp o=-~.~ 5-YV
~
Cathie £c P4organ Douglas
• 11.~2 W4st Nieadow Dr3.vo
vail, colo. 81657
D 4TE: Februarg 7, 1997
' T0: Vail Town Council
Vai1 Planning Cornmission
Vail Town Manager, Bob McLaulrin
FROii: Cathie and I•Ior6ah Douglaa
SUBJFCT: Streaxnwalk and Streescane
?•!e are sorrg we will not be at the planriing commisaion I
• meetin;, hence this letter.
. The issue of the streamwalks has been brouQht up in the
p4.at; vre do not understand trhy it is coming up again. As
befora., vre want to express our thoughts on this subject.
Many of the streamside lots are not deep enough for a
suita.ble building, park3.ng PL•US streamoralk. Frori Ford Paxk
to the covered bridge, the buildings are set back fax enough,
, as are those trest of the library, to afford privacy and/or
a. fence.
Our lot is not deep. Had we known in 1963 that there tJas a
possibi].ity that there would some day be a streamtialk, we
would have placecl aur house ftiirther back from the easernent
and built a fence or planted a hedge for privacy. As it is
now there tiaould be no privacy from our bedroom i•rindows which
are on the ground floor, facing the stream.
Tn the winter snowshoers and crosscountry skiers go along
• the stream. Fishermen and children w'no innertube in the
summer walk from the stream across our latirrn to the street.
We laave no objeation ta thia. ~
We alreadT have n large amount oY traf fic along West Meadow
Dr3.ve « b3,cyc1es, skate bonrda, rol3er skatea and cars
' tu.rning around in our d.riveway. It' a atreamwalk wa.s to ba
i canstructed, whs.t I.ittle privacy we hnve wauld be ended..
I PleQae put -yovrse3ves 3n aur positioza. 14ou1.d you like th3.s?
In our m3.nds the a. ssue is a was te af every*ane s time and
' money. It wi7.l a3.ao reduce property values.
We consider it a crima factor - and our wildlife (yes, we soe
doer, porcupines, akunk) would be diarupted.
What has happened to the streetscape plan? I. Cathie, went
to planni.ng meetinga several years ago and have hopad that
aomething could be done like the,new attractive walk west
of the 13brarg.
•
Yours sincerely,
"A
Cathie and Morgan Douglaa
i
I
~
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 10, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Mike Mollica
Greg Amsden Russ Forrest
Henry Pratt George Ruther
John Schofield Dirk Mason
Gene Uselton Lauren Waterton
Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearin$ 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:10 p.m.
1. A request for a worksession to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA). (2:00 - 3:00 p.m.) '
• Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
Russ Forrest explained the purpose of this worksession. Referring to the memo, Russ said we '
were in the second phase of a 3-phase process. He said that the Town Council had whittled down
the alternatives to three, but wanted a level of assurance that the homes would not get any bigger.
He said that staff felt strongly regarding exploring additional design guidelines. Russ asked the
PEC to discuss the impacts of the three alternatives and explained that once an alternative was
reached, it would be put it into ordinance format and go through the legislative process.
Tom Braun, a consultant, said the alternative decided today would come back in 2 weeks as a
recommendation to Council. He then went over the three issues, including the objectives. He
said the comments made by the public were to tie change into promoting keeping locals in the
valley and promoting EHU's in the Valley. He also said that the consensus was to allow interior
conversions and existing homes to add on, so long as they didn't increase the bulk and mass of the
existing structure.
Diane Golden asked if dormers could be added.
Tom Braun said, yes. He said a level of detail would not be addressed until the alternative had
been chosen. He felt, regarding the first alternative, that people would design new homes with the
interior conversion in mind down the road. Tom asked the PEC for their input, if they considered
~ that to be a problem. The second alternative was to limit iterior conversions to existing homes,
but the issue would be the fairness of that alternative. If basement, attic and crawl space were •
excluded as GRFA, those three areas would need to be defined. He said a split-level basement
could cause problems. He explained the concern of not counting the basement in existing homes
which would allow more available GRFA. Thus, the homeowner could build a larger home and
Council direction was not to allow or encourage larger homes. He cxplained the third alternative
was to eliminate GRFA. He said this might dictate where architecture would go with further
quantative measures, in other words handcuff the architects. He said this would cause trophy
homes on larger lots, but could be remedied by reeling the site coverage in for the larger lots. ,
~ Tom said right now in the Design Guidelines, there was very little that defined good massing and
bad massing. He said site-sPecific solutions were in the Design Guidelines and quantitative
, requirements were defined in the Zoning Code. He then went on to explain the concepts, using
the illustrations in the memo. Tom went over some suggestions of breaking up the mass of the
buildings with some conceptual guidelines. He said the relief and offsets could bring down the
scale of the building. Tom explained the renderings to help the PEC visualize in theory, how
using offsets could break up a box structure. Regarding the quantative requirements, Tom
wanted input as to what was appropriate and what wasn't and told the PEC that he was interested
in their comrnents to help process a11 the information.
Gene Uselton asked if Tom would comment on the amendments.
Tom Braun said that they were a policy issue and not a plan issue.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. .
Mike Young explained he was currently building a house in Glen Lyon and went through the
process last summer. He said that his lot fell between alternative 1 and 2. He said he designed
the house with a walk out basement, but he had to spend money to build a crawlspacc.
I Greg Moffet said it was mandated that people fill in crawlspace area.
Mike Young said he wasted 300 sq. ft. to build a tunnel to use the deck attached to the walk-out
basement. He then showed his plans to the PEC and said windows were added in the crawlspace
to break up the architecture of the house. He said if a basement was allowed, you would never
know it was there. He said that this was a mix of the first two alternatives.
Pat Dauphinais, a builder, encouraged the PEC to eliminate GRFA. He said that people who
build in this Town were going to get what they wanted. He stated that his customers wanted their
20% site coverage allowance. He pointed out that using the minimum lot size of 15.000 sq. ft., a
, 3,000 sq. ft. home could be built and that 2,400 sq. ft. for a first floor was not exorbitant. He said
that when built out, 80% of the lot remained open. He explained that the vast majority of lots in
Vail were sloped and so the height limitation of 33 was used. He stated that GRFA had no
impact on the bulk and mass, or site coverage. He said as it was now, he had to butcher the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes ~
February 10, 1997 2
• inside, after he built the outside in order to keep within the constraints of GRFA. He said once
the Code was broken into, it became complicated. He felt that designing houses was technical
and GRFA was a political solution, since Council felt houses in Vail were too big. He said the
"big box theory," when repeated enough, took on a life of its own. He stated there were big
homes in Vail because people wanted big homes. He advised not to limit the size of the homes,
nor limit the site coverage. He stated that it was not appropriate for the Town government to be
in this arena and that GRFA was a political response to a technical issue.
Diana Donovan thought these GRFA rules had served us well and that GRFA had defincd the
parameters for a success, since GRFA was meant to control density. She said the huge trophy
homes were not lived in and warned that when the income turns, the trophy homes would be
turned into Bed and Breakfast operations. Diana was concerned with homes that people don't
live in and these changes would lead to more huge, not lived in, trophy homes that would not add
to the benefit of Vail.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Horneowner's Association (EVHA), asked Tom what
the spaces were that were being talked about in alternative 1.
Greg Moffet gave an example of a 20' garage that was converted.
Jim Lamont questioned if we get out of the inside of the house, would we still intervene in the ,
inside of the house.
~ Tom Braun said that a loft addition or an expansion or dug-out crawlspace would require
intervention.
Jirn Lamont said that loft space presented the highest demand for conversion of additional GRFA.
The Town of Aspen dealt with volumetric space and still kept GRFA. He said alternative 2
presented a worry about buildings that were not there taking advantage of this. Right now GRFA
dealt with everyone and alternative 2 would introduce a two-class system. Jim said this was
totally unacceptable to the EVHA. Jim said we had to have laws to remain a desirable
community. He said if the system was thrown out, then it would be treating each other
differently. Jim said we have had 30 years of good design and asked how was consistency going
to be guaranteed if GRFA was eliminated. Jim urged the PEC to find out more about alternatives
1 and 2, because alternative 31ed to more arbitrary action on the part of the government.
Greg Amsden asked how alternative 3 would affect multi-density.
Jim Lamont said it would become totally chaotic with box structures. He said Lionshead went up
and maxed out and that GRFA was the sole control over mass.
Greg Amsden said in recent years he had seen voluminous rooms in homes.
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 3
i
Jim Lamont said control could happen by using the volumetric method, the way Aspen had done.
Jim said currentlY the staff was Young and inexPerienced. He did not know how manY Planners
•
had degrees in architecture and urban design. He suggested retraining the staff, in order to
evaluate proposals as they related to architecturai designs, since the new staff was just out of
school with landscape degrees. He said a two class, multi-family and single-family, would be
created. He advised keeping the same site coverage for different size lots. He stated that if the
DRB Board was weak wrt 'h no architects who wanted to serve on it, then it would prove
inconsistent.
Pat Dauphinais said for 30 years GRFA managed to get good architecture, which happened in
spite of GRFA, not because of it. He said that one of the Council members said people were
doing inside their houses whatever they wanted. He advised getting out of the closet and on the
~ table to make sure the buildings were safe, and let people do what they wartted to do. He said
there were no compelling arguments for GRFA, since site coverage, setbacks and height
~ limitations were the controls. He said that Lionshead was all boxes, but there were few boxes in
primary/secondary, duplex or single-family districts.
Barbara Bingham, a homeowner, said there were a lot of other Towns that were just as beautiful
as Vail without GRFA. She stated that she had crawlspace and attic space that were closed up
because of GRFA. She stated that it didn't hurt anyone to open up these spaces, and it would
make it more comfortable for families.
John Schofield said this was a very controversial topic. He said the current system had lots of ~
problems, as it promoted people putting in spaces that didn't comply and were dangerous since
they were not inspected or built to code. John said he strongty supported alternative 3, but with
improved and strengthened guidelines. He was in favor of keeping site coverage as it was. He
didn't want to penalize people who bought bigger lots that could handle bigger homes. He felt
the rnarket would control not having boxes. He felt expensive homeowners would spend money
on an architect and we should work on the Design Guidelines.
Gene Uselton said he remembered the Bingham case and that he was forced by code to not vote
for a variance. He said site coverage and height permitted the large mass and bulk. He said
limiting GRFA was an inconsistency of the code. He felt the idea that an owner can,t utilize their
' space was the reason that something needed to be done. He felt alternative 1 didn't solve the
problem, in general and alternative 21eft the problem the same. He said alternative 3 was a true
solution, since it would eliminate requests for variances, would please residents, was more user-
friendly, would reduce the flight down valley for cheaper homes and would free up time and staff.
Greg Amsden asked when GRFA was introduced.
Tom Braun said in a 19731egislation.
PlanninS and Environmental Commission
~
I Minutes
February 10, 1997 4 '
• Jim Lamont corrected Tom by saying GRFA was introduced in 1974 when the ordinance was
adopted.
Greg Amsden said multi-family was a different bird from residential. He felt the inexperienced
staff comment from Jirn was an insult to staff. He stated that staff was very professional and he
was a little put off by that comment from Jim. He said GRFA did not control design. He felt you
could create a huge home with GRFA. He felt alternative 3 was viable, but a requirement of two
architects on the DRB at all times, should be implemented. He said to shorten an unbroken roof
to a 55' length for all single-family home ridge lines. He said that GRFA tied up a lot of staff time
and alternative 3 simplified the process. A strengthened DRB, with good, solid guidelines could
act as teeth, which they have never had. Greg said, being in the Real Estate business, a ranch
home was limited. He said restricting the site coverage took away the flexibility and the growing
number of retirees needed to be able to get what they were looking for.
Diane Golden said GRFA was an emotional topic. She said, as a homeowner, she was concerned
about the future of Vail. She felt GRFA, as it was now, was stifling people and making families
rnove down valley because of all the regulations. She believed height and design were the
controls and therefore, Diane supported alternative 3. She said many homes had illegally used
interior space, which was dangerous, as well as a tax money loss. She said we needed people
living and working in Vail. She felt the people that we were punishing were those that couldn't
afford trophy homes, but just wanted family rooms.
~ Henry Pratt said Tom had done an excellent job. Henry liked alternative 1 as an add-on to the
, existing regulations, but he suggested omitting "homes in existence" and the 5-year rule. Henry
said alternative 2 scared him, because it would drive buildings up and therefore, it should be for
existing homes. He said alternative 3 was only as good as the DRB enforcing it. He felt the
Design Guidelines could be strengthened, but again, it would only be as good as the DRB. He felt
Greg's idea to have architects on the board was good, but since this was a small town, Henry
didn't know if that would work. Henry liked alternative 3, if the DRB could get the technical help
needed. He also said there were good architects and bad architects.
Greg Moffet agreed with Henry. Greg felt that alternative 1 was solid and that it was not the
Town's job to restrict. He felt alternative 2 presented a basement issue that could be resolved if
included in alternative 1. Greg said he didn't want to see the basement add to the bulk and mass
of the structure. Greg didn't want to see bigger homes. He said he was not real comfortable with
alternative 3. He said if we tried to subjectiveize, we would create headaches leaving all the bulk
and mass decisions to the DRB. He said that most communities have some kind of regulation.
He felt that alternative 1 would solve the problem of keeping full-time residents here. Greg said
alternative 1 could require inspections to bring illegal conversions up to code.
Tom Braun asked the PEC which was the one preferred alternative.
. Planning and Envuonmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 5
i
Greg Amsden asked about new construction building lofted rooms. •
Henry Pratt stated that if a time period was not included, then you have eliminated GRFA.
~
Gene Uselton asked if adding GRFA, after the fact, was more expensive.
Henry Pratt stated that infilling existing cavities was slightly more expensive, but the basics were
there.
Gene Uselton asked about having it built at the beginning and why was there a need to regulate it.
Greg Moffet said it would be regulated with objectivity or subjectivity.
Henry Pratt said it would result in bigger houses and that GRFA limits you on what you can do.
Greg Moffet said the DRB was fluid, since members were appointed every other year, which
means the DRB keeps rolling over. He said decisions had to have some guidelines, as it can't get
objective enough by leaving it to the discretion of the DRB.
Gene Uselton said bigger houses were limited by the height and footprint.
Greg Moffet said applicants would squeeze in as much as possible.
Gene Uselton again said size would be limited by the height and footprint. ~
Jim Morter stated alternative 3 would allow you to get closer in controlling bulk and mass. He
said you would be dependant on the quality of the DRB, but he would rather take a chance with
that than the way it was now, by legislating so much control.
2. A request for a worksession with the Design Review Board for the establishment of
Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a
part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
Greg Moffet thanked two of the DRB members, Brent Alm and Ted Hingst, for joining the PEC.
Andy Knudtsen invited all present to attend an open house next Monday, February 17, 1997, to
discuss two different alternatives for the Public Works employee housing project. He said there
would be displays, and the meeting would be from 4-8pm.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes •
February 10, 1997 6
• George Ruther identified the three discussion issues for the worksession; landscape design,
employee housing and Jeff Winston's Urban Design comments. George gave a summary from the
last meeting and advised the PEC that at this meeting they would discuss the changes using thc
model that reflected the latest proposal.
Jeff Winston, the consultant, said that in the Village Master Plan, taller buildings and the more
dense projects were meant to be towards the freeway, backing up along the Frontage Road. He
' said there was quite a bit of variety in the roofs in the surrounding area and that he felt it
important that the Austria Haus to be stepped down at both ends of the builciing. He said the
tower at the entryway helped do this. Jeff said the building moved less horizontally in order to
preserve trees in the southeast corner, which were a restraint on the site. He felt the height would
blend in and was not highly visible from I-70, nor did it block view corridors. He explained that
views would be blocked coming down on the west end of the structure, but he felt the flat roof
was the bigger issue and more significant. He said that since the building was highly visible, flat
roofs would be against what Vail was about. Jeff illustrated the Core experience, in the early
years, as being at the intersection of Bridge St. and Gore Creek Drive. He said that throughout
the years we had developed a variety of corners with something around each corner. He said the '
biggest hole in the system was between LaTour Restaurant and the Covered Bridge, as a
pedestrian was not drawn around thc corner. He said this project would accomplish that. He said
this project was creating a new wall to Slifer Square. He thought the Covered Bridge should
draw people around the corner and it could be done by scaling down the northeast corner of the
buiiding, to a pedestrian scale. He said that East Meaclow Drive should have the pedcstrian way I
~ as broad as possible for buses to be able to pass. He thought the pedestrian way could be made
wider with an alley for the buses. He said pedestrians should be on the building side of thc
landscape buffcr. He stated as the garage area got excavated on the west side, car lights would bc I
a problem, so landscaping needed to be increased. He felt this was another opportunity to takc a
look at Slifer Square as not just a way to get to the parking structure. Jeff said the large trees .
were an asset. !
George Ruther said that 30% of a project should be landscapcd. He said as proposed by the
applicant, there would be 15% landscape and the rest hardscape. He explained that the applicant
reduced the south side patios in order to bring the project out of the 50' stream setback. He said
that along the west property line was a landscape buffer, and stated that a letter was received from
Village Center approving this landscape buffer to be planted partially on their property. He said
that staff would like to see regrading further between the two properties. He said he was
working with the appticant and Public Works to devise a path for the streamwalk. He said there
was a conceptual design that would be shawn and the ability to construct the streamwalk was
there. He said that staff was requesting that flower boxes be installed on the building. George
said with the elimination of the patios in order to come into compliance, staff felt the need to
bring some green into that area. George asked the PEC to provide direction for on-site and off-
site landscape improvements.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 7
Gordon Pierce said he had been agreeing with staff for four months now and they have come up •
with good solutions. He said that he was apposed to the streamwalk, but in order to move on
with this project, he would escrow money to get the project through. He felt it was better use of
the funds and more beneficial to make improvements on the Bridge Street side or in Slifer Square.
Greg Moffet opened up the urban design landscape issues for any public comments.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association (EVHA), submitted a letter
from Maude Duke regarding the streamwalk issue. He asked George how the Council dealt with
No. 2 in the staff inemo.
George Ruther said staff inet internally with the Department heads and the direction was to
pursue the streamwalk at this time. Bob McLaurin took this direction to the Town Council and
Council directed the applicant to come up with a conceptual design for the streamwalk.
Jim Lamont said to define plans as referenced in No. 2 in the staff inemo.
George Ruther stated the Recreation Trails Master Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, the
Streetscape Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan.
Jim Lamont said in 1993, the Council designated this not to be removed from the Open Lands
Plan.
George Ruther said he would have to check into that. ~
Jim Lamont said the Council did not fully understand the issue and wanted the streamwalk
removed from the Open Lands Plan. He said the neighborhood, unanimously, did not wish to see
the streamwalk completed, since it was wildlife habitat and should be preserved. He said thcy
were against it and advised to maintain the integrity of the natural habitat that the stream tract was
to protect. He said the Town, by taking ownership became the property owner, and it was clearly
understood that the Town would be a protectorate of that property and that was the reason that
VA took so long to sell the property to the Town. He said by doing a streamwalk, the Town
would be in violation of that covenant. He said if the Town and VA would rescind the covenant,
they would move to incorporate the provisions of the covenant. He said the area needed to be
returned to some level of habitat and not become a public park, as it didn't blend itself to heavy
traffic. He mentioned that the Ford Paxk walk didn't have a high quality level, nor was it properly
maintained. He said not to encourage any more areas of streamwalk, when we can't maintain
what we already have, i.e., lights kicked out and sand all over the place. He said unless you can
figure out the GRFA on this site, as it relates to density, the volumetric alternative has justification
and he also mentioned that the EVHA would continue to argue for the PA-1 Zone District.
Placming and Environmental Commission
Minutes .
February 10, 1997 8
Robert Preeo, an attorney from Denver on behalf of the Village Center Association, explained
that he was here in lieu of Rick Rosen who would be back for the next meeting. He said the
Village Center Association opposed the streamwallc. He said in 1972 restrictions were placed on
the stream tract and in 1989, the City Attorney questioned the legality of it, but did not challenge
it. He said in 1975, the Village Center Association wanted to landscape and entered into an
agreement with the TOV to landscape. He stated that $22,000 was spent by the Town and the
I Village Center to do the landscaping and if a streamwalk was included at that time, the Village
Center would not have done the landscaping. He went on to say that for 21 years the Viltage
Center has maintained the landscaping. He said that in 1978, the property was deeded to the
Town, with the provision that it would be open space and if any violation of this provision
occurred, it would go back to VA. He explained that there were environmental impacts, costs
~ involved to maintain it, issues of security, as well as the economic impacts to the businesses on the
, other side of the creek. He said in 1989 it was a dead issue, but in 1993, it was brought back
before the Council and soundly defeated to pull it from the Open Space Master Plan. He said it
was back again in 1996 and staff, at the direction of the Town Council, was asked to revisit it. He
said there were legal issues with enforceable covenants. He stated that twice the Town looked at
it and turned it down. He felt if the plan that had been out for 21 years was now no tonger appropriate, the beautification that had already occurred along the stream would be hindered or
hurt. He also felt that the money could be spent in more appropriate areas.
John Hardy, President of the Edelweiss Condominium Association, said the Edelweiss building I
was never designed to have people on the back side and so they were opposed to the streamwalk.
~ Fred Hibbard, an adJ'acent PropertY owner, said that Progress had been made on the walkway I
from the Village Center to Slifer Square. He said the paved area was the same elevation as the I~
road and that pedestrians were forced off by the buses now. He stated his rccommendation was
the 14' wide bus-way should be madc wider with a step up to the pedestrian walkway. He
encouraged staff to talk with Public Works. He said the Town needed to be a good administrator '
of the property they owned, as well as being in the best interest of the Town. He said a major issue was that the building was twice the size of what the PA zoning allowed, with only half the
landscaping that was required in the PA Zone District. He felt that the cuzrent zoning should
remain, plus a percentage.
Greg Moffet asked if the Council addressed mass.
George Ruther said Council had a general discussion of the bulk and mass, but the issue at the
time was the ordinance.
David Kenyon, a consultant to the applicant, said the pavers and width of the street had been
dictated by Public Works to be a 14' wide asphalt bus lane with a 10' wide pedestrian paver and
curb.
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutas
February 10, 1997 9
George Ruther said this was 2' wider than the residential requirement and the width was mandated ~
by the need for emergency vehicle access.
John Schofield asked what Public Works said regarding the change in grade and the planters.
David Kenyon said there were no comrnents fram Public Works. He said Design Workshop was
~ in agreement with 3eff Winston. He said they would like to separate pedestrians ftom vehicular
traffic and that this was a result of their discussions. He said that the streamwalk was prepared as
a separate component. He stated that the site was not made for an ongrade pedestrian walkway,
as it was 34' above the water. He said it would terminate at a dead-end and would encourage
people to walk across property that didn't have a walkway.
Roy Plum, President of the River Haus Association, said at their annual meeting this past Friday,
they were against the streamwalk and they didn't want any bridges.
Joe Treleven, the director of the Village Center Condominiums, said he had lived here since the
condos were constructed and he represented 56 Village Center owners who were also taxpayers.
He felt the reasons the streamwalk was turned down in 1989 and 1993 were still applicable. He
said there was already public access between the Covered Bridge and the International Bridge.
He said the Gore Creek Promenade had public access and that the Town spent $70,000 upgrading
the bridge so people could look down on the creek. He said that another $200,000 to be spent on
this streamwalk should not be a priority, when there were not enough buses and housing. He said
the Town had provided access to Gore Creek. He said that if there was not a legal restraint with ~
the landscaping agreement entered into with the Town and VA, then there should be an ethical
restraint. He was against putting a lighted sidewalk where a"natural area" was supposed to bc.
Gordon Pierce showed a drawing of the Vail Athletic Club with an overlay of the Austria Haus
project. He explained that the VAC had a larger profile, with less GRFA. He said this site had
doubled the GRFA, but quadrupled the number of warm pillows. He said if the building was
smaller, they wouldn't be able to pay their tax bills.
Ted Hingst, a DRB member, was not passionate about the streamwalk. He said that the
promenade across the way gets a lot of use and the improvement should be directed towards
Slifer Square. He felt that people should be walking away from the buses and closer to the stores.
Brent Alm stated the streambank should be restored to its riparian habitat and he agreed with Jeff
that the northeast corner be stepped down. He said to soften the north side with additional
landscaping or pots.
Gordon Pierce said flower boxes had been added to the windows, similar to the Bavaria Haus and
that the entire pedestrian area was heated out to the planter.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes .
February 10, 1997 10
• Fred Hibbard said he had experience with heated sidewalks and they were excellent, especially
with shaded buildings.
Diane Golden said the streamwalk would be invasive and the existing landscape didn't lend itself
to a streamwalk.
George Ruther explained the $100,000 landscape money had been retained for the streambank
improvements. Diane Golaen asked if we didn't build the streamwalk, did that rnean we didn't get any money.
Gordon Pierce said the money was earmarked for off-site improvements on the east side of the
building.
Diane Golden said it was a shame to lose the view of the mountain, but it was a wonderful
pedestrian connection from Crossroads into the Town. She said the heated sidewalk would make
people walk on the sidewalk and that the large trees needed to be preserved in Slifer Square .
Henry Pratt said in terms of the turret being stepped down and made smaller, that it didn't benefit
anyone, as well as destroying usable space in the building. He said that putting pavers in the
street encouraged people to walk in the street and it was a waste of moncy, since they were not ,
heated. He said the planter was there to meet the landscape requirement. He felt that the
~ pedestrian flow broke down by the bus stop. He said he was a proponent of the streamwaik with '
the $100,00 slush fund, but if there were legal issues, he would want all the money spent on Slifer
Square.
John Schofield said to maximize the sidewalk in front of the building, but not at the expense of the
planter. He said if the streamwalk was not a possibility, then the area adjacent to the stream had
to be addressed with landscaping. He encouraged the Town to work on Slifer Square and the
stream area in conjunction with this project, since everything would be torn up and it would be a
good time to do it.
Gene Usetton said everyone would walk on heated sidewalks. He agreed with Henry regarding
the northeast corner of the building. He said there should be landscaping where the streamwalk
would have been built, as he was not an advocate of the streamwalk. Gene said the irrigated
flowerboxes were a nice addition.
Greg Amsden was not an advocate of the streamwalk once he heard the legal end, the feelings of
adjacent property owners and the elevations not working. He felt the applicant could look at
putting a strong, irrigated mck garden with perennials to beautify the area. He said to eliminate
the pedestrian area on the north side adjacent to the street and delineate pedestrians and the buses
with a planter. He felt the northeast corner of Slifer Square needed to be modified to lend itsetf
for people to go around.
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
1 ~
February 10, 1997
f
Greg Moffet summarized to Fred that the Commission expressed a good degree of comfort with
~ size of building, with the exception of Henry and Galen. Greg wanted the really big trees .
I unmolested during this process, so they would survive. He said if the building was stepped back,
the trees would be history. He said not to confuse the pedestrian pavers in the street and to move
~ the whole planter towards the parking structure and widen the area between the planter and the
building. He stated that given the degree of opposition and Iitigation that would flow, he woutd
~ like to see the streambank fixed up since you could see it from the Promenade.
~ Todd Oppenheimer stated that the Streetscape Master Pian designates this area as pedestrian ~
shared with buses and that was the reason for the 10' wide pedestrian area along the street. He
I said that moving the planter out will only gain a couple of feet because of the minimum road
width.
Henry Pratt said he didn't like the flush nature of it and he agreed with Jim that we hadn't
addressed the pedestrian going west. Todd Oppenheirner said there was a trade-off with the wider asphalt for buses to pass and that a
curb would give pedestrians a feeling that buses would not jump the curb.
David Kenyon said pavers at the same level would allow snow removal at one pass through.
Gordon Pierce said the applicant's preference was not to have pavers, and it was silly to have 12'
pavers in the street, so he recommended dropping the pavers in the street. .
Jim Lamont said to work on the interconnect between Lionshead and Vail Village and get thc
Meadow Drive done with the Lionshead project. We don't need to get tied up in this detail for
that portion.
Greg Moffet asked for additional comrnents on the Urban Design concept.
George Ruther addressed the employee housing issue, per the staff inemo, with the recommended
caleulation of figures showing the number of employee housing units. George recommended that
the top and middle of the ranges be used and he stated that the number of employees per housing
unit were not codified, but only a staff recommendation.
Johannes Faessler said he had always been against the government solving the employee housing
problem and that he had always taken care of his employees. He stated that if you wanted to run
a business you had to take care of your employees and he didn't believe in deed restrictions.
Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. There was none.
John Schofield said to assure a reasonable supply, he tended to refer to staff s calculations.
George Ruther went aver the square footage/ tenant ratio occupancy.
Planning and Environmental Commission i
Minutes
February 10, 1997 12
• Gene Uselton asked George, in calculating the number of employees, was that the way the Lodge
or the Red Lion was calculated and why only 30% of employees.
George Ruther said in 1991 the Council decided on a policy requiring developers to provide
housing for 30% of the employees generated by redevelopment.
Mike Mollica said in the TOV we do not have this requirement; only through an SDD ,
redevelopment do we use this methodology.
Greg Amsden agreed with staff
Diane Golden said employee housing was critical and it was disheartening that Vail had such a
low ratio in comparison to other places. She felt the employee housing needed to be new, so as
not to take away from other housing that a smaller business might use and also be within the
Town of Vail.
Johannes Faessler asked what Diane meant.
Diane Golden said buying an existing house for his employees would displace someone else and that it needed to be new units that were deed restricted.
~ Greg Moffet suggested taking something out of a short-term pool would work.
Henry Pratt said he would be willing to reduce the required number of deed resficted units by
about 60-70%, if the housing would be new construction or taken from the short-term pool.
Greg Moffet said how woefully inadequate our multiplier is in this Town in comparison with other
towns. He said he was clearly in favor of the 21 employee units. He said net new housing should
count more, however, he disagreed with Henry's weight of 60-70%.
Mike Mollica said the memo was for a Type III and the number in the rnemo was generated from
staff. He said code requires 450 sq. ft. for a unit housing one employee.
John Schofield had no comment.
Gene Uselton had no comment.
Greg Amsden said once the deed restriction was in place it had to be occupied by a local person.
He felt the appliGant should have flexibility to buy an existing home and deed restrict.
Diane Golden asked who followed up on deed restrictions.
Mike Mollica said Andy Knudtsen.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 13
. t
Greg Moffet summarized and told the applicant that staff had a sense of what the PEC wanted .
and to work with staff.
Gordon Pierce said he assumed this matter needed to be taken care of prior to the issuance of a
CO.
Mike Mollica said prior to a TCO.
3. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a new garage, located at
1034 Hamestake Circle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Planner: Dirk Mason
Dirk Mason gave an overview of the staff memo and said that staff was recommending denial, as
they believed that this was a grant of special privilege. Dirk said that they had received S letters;
one in opposition and 4 in favor, however, two of the letters came from the same property.
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record, that he was contacted regarding this request.
Greg Amsden said he was contacted.
John Schofield said he was contacted by Jim Morter. .
GeneUselton said he was contacted.
Diane Golden said she was contacted.
Henry Pratt said he was contacted.
Jim Morter, with Morter Architects, pleaded the Kelton case by stating that Art and Elaine Kelton
with their two daughters had a total of 7 cars used by the whole family, with 3 of them on the
property at all times. Jim stated that the property was originally zoned in 1973. The reasonable
alternatives, suggested by the PEC, were neither desirable by the Keltons or the neighborhood.
He then showed illustrations of the two alternate locations. He explained the first as being a
tandem arrangement that would take out a grove of aspens and the second alternate location was
a tandem arrangement taking out an existing spruce tree. Jim felt it was unreasonable to take out
landscaping. He said both alternates wouldn't work from a functional standpoint, as they use the
cars every day and the alternates would be for storing the cars. He said the backyard is shared
visually by the neighbors and the neighbors were not in favor of either tandem arrangement. Jim
said the applicant felt they had a hardship, regarding destroying the mature landscaping, as the
reason for granting a variance. He said, regarding the three findings that 1. a grant of special
privilege - 95% of the sites were larger than this site in the zone district; 2. that the neighbors
wanted to see this happen; and 3. - it presented a practical difficulty to maintain desirable living
standards. i
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 14
• Dirk Mason said, regarding the proposed locations with the garage in the rear, that staff hadn't
evaluated any proposal with a tandem garage. He clarified that 7 out of the 91ots were less than
15,000 sq. ft. and many were between approximately 11,500 sq. ft. to 11,000 sq. ft.
Jim Morter said that another house in the neighborhood had violated three of the setbacks and
violations did exist.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
Diane Golden said she felt the garage proposal was within reason and that it wouldn't look
obtrusive. She said she felt uncomfortable with the regulations, as the Town wanted to get the
cars off the street. She felt this was a minor variance and she would approve it.
Henry Pratt said that there was a lot in what Diane said, however, he had a hard time getting past
the special privilege finding. He suggested putting a heated parking pad in.
John Schofield shared Diane's philosophy. He demonstrated the practical difficulties of parking
enforcement and said that they did not want to be overly restrictive when a goal was to get cars
off the street and under cover.
Dirk Mason read from Section 18.62.010 regarding a practical difficulty and how it related to the I
~ size of the site or a site that had physical limitations.
Gene Uselton said he was in favor of this request, since Section 18.62A 10 provided justification. i
He stated that this was not a grant of special privilege. '
Mike Mollica mentioned staff had used existing, mature landscaping as a hardship in the past.
Greg Amsden said the existing landscaping made it difficult, thereforc, he was in favor of this
request.
Greg Moffet stated that there was a practical difficulty, however, he still thought it was a grant of
special privilege, especially when there were practical alternatives. He stated that the setbacks
were there for a reason and he didn't see a compelling reason to go into the setback. He said that
if this was granted, he didn't see any way not to grant everyone the same in Homestake Circle.
Gene Uselton said if other people were able to show a hardship, they could have the same.
Greg Moffet stated the PEC would see everyone wanting the same and then a front setback
wouldn't matter.
Mike Mollica said if this site didn't have a garage, it would be different, but he said that a 3-car
• garage was pushing the envelope.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Fabruary 10, 1997 15
Greg Moffet said the applicant could put in a covered carport. •
Jim Morter stated the carport would encroach into the setback.
Mike Mollica said a carport would fall under the deck category, as it was open on three sides.
Diane Golden asked if the applicant would consider a heated carport.
4
Jim Morter said the Kelton's would not be interested in a heated pad. He agreed with Gene's
argument. Jim advised to use the rules to improve the neighborhood and that particular
neighborhood needed what was being done.
Greg Amsden said, after hearing Greg Moffet's comments, that a carport would work.
Gene Uselton felt that the neighborhood would object to a carport, over another garage.
Greg Moffet reminded everyone that the PEC was constrained to act within the code.
John Schofield moved that we approve the request to allow for a garage, in accordance with the
plans and that the PEC found a practical difficulty on the site.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
Greg Amsden asked what the minimum requirement was for the length of a garage. ~
Dirk Mason said there was no minimum requirement.
Mike Mollica explained that it could be as small as 16', since it was not a required space.
Greg Amsden said a shorter length would minimize the encroachment into the setback.
Jim Morter suggested going from 194" to 17'4" in length.
Dirk Mason said if it was flush with the front of house, it would encroach 2' into the setback.
The motion passed 4-2 with Greg Moffet and Henry Pratt opposed.
4. A request for a worksession to discuss variances from Sections 18.22.060 (Setbacks),
18.22.140 (Parking), 18.04.130 (Common Area) and 18.22.020 (Percentage of Accessory
Uses) to allow for an entry addition at the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East Meadow
DrivelPart of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: 5onnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Henry Pratt
Planner: Lauren Waterton
.
Planning and Environmantal Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 16
Henry Pratt recused himself.
~
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and said that staff had identified discussion
issues.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Johannes Faessler, the applicant, stated that the Swiss Chalet was an incomplete hotel, as it did
not have a lobby area and with 60 rooms there was nowhere for people to sit. He said the main
idea was to make this a good small hotel, as opposed to a building with a bunch of rooms. He
said the new lobby, living area counted as a bar area, but that they didn't anticipate more bar
customers, as it was really being designed to be a living room for the hotel. He said that this was
an interim solution for this hotel for the next 5-10 years.
Mike Mollica said Action 1-4 of the Vail Village Master Plan took precedence over variances. He
said that staff advocated the planter configuration to be one large planter, rather than 2 smaller
planters.
Henry Pratt said that connecting the two planters into a dogbone shape was to create a focal
point. He said they did not want a tall tree to ruin the view. He said that given the fact that this
was a bustop, the applicant wanted to keep it as open as possible to allow filtering into the shops.
He asked to reduce the required number of parking spaces. Henry said that everything about this
. was an improvement and that comments from the Public Works and Fire Departments, have becn
reflected in the plans.
John Schofield had no problem with the request.
Gene Uselton had no comments.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Diane Golden said she liked the bus stop and didn't mind losing parking spaces.
Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the loss of parking.
Henry Pratt asked if the applicant could have a reduction in the pay-in-lieu paxking requirement.
Lauren Waterton explained that there was a net loss of 3 parking spaces and the conversion to a
bar would require an additional 6 spaces.
Greg Moffet stated that there would be 9 pay-in-lieu's and he also asked what would happen if a
wall was put there.
Mike Mollica said there was no ability to negotiate on the number of spaces.
• Diane Golden asked if the applicant could get credit for building a nicer bustop. Planning and Environmental Commission .
Minutes
February 10, 1997 17
il
Johannes Faessler stated that if he had to pay $100,000 into the parking fund, he wasn't sure he •
would go forward with the improvements, as this was a non-revenue space. He felt the
roundabout entry area was a much better solution to parking.
Greg Moffet asked staff about the loss of parking on this site and if the applicant could provide
parking on another site.
Mike Mallica said the Bavaria Haus could not squeeze another parking spot in. ~
Henry Pratt said that there was no provision in the code that allowed for compact parking and
also that there was no line of demarcation between a bar and a lobby.
Greg Moffet advised figuring out a way to make more parking because this was a very desirable
improvement for the Town and a way to make it work should be found.
Johannes Faessler again said that this was an amenity for the people on the property and not
additional bar service.
5. A request for a major amendment to SDD # 29 to modify the platted building envelopes
and create 1 primary/secondary lot, located at 1502 Buffehr Creek Rd.lTracts A-1 & A-2,
Parcel 2, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Harold Brooks .
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Henry Pratt rejoined the PEC Board.
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant if he had anything to add.
Steve Isom, from Isom and Associates, said he had no objection to the conditions.
Diane Golden asked if the adjacent neighbors had been notified, otherwise, she had no comments.
Lauren Waterton said the adjacents had been notified.
Henry Pratt had no comments.
John Schofield, Greg Amsden and Gene Uselton had no comments.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval with a change to condition #2 to read June 2, 1997.
Gene Uselton amended the motion to read that the PEC recommend approval to the Town
Council and seconded the motion. •
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 18
i + •
• The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
6. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford
Park Management Plan.
i
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer.
Plaruner: George Ruther
.
Todd Oppenheuner said the last time he was here was in October and at that time they had just
completed the focus group. He said that the public part of the process really made this work and
he then went over the preliminary final report from the booklet. He explained that the reason the
appendix was so thick was to consolidate documents, so they could be easily located. He
explained that the financial obligations had always been a problem. Todd went through the goals
and policy statements and that they had come up with a list of uses that superseded Section 18.
Gene Uselton asked if a Type I or Type II EHiJ was allowed.
Mike Mollica said that the VRD could not move into the existing structure.
Greg Moffet said it would eliminate the Alpine Gardens, since they could not have administrative
offices. !
~ Pam Brandmeyer said that this would have conflicts with the uses grandfathered in. She said that '
she had seen a letter that stated the VRD wanted to expand their offices from the VRD in the
basement of the Library over to Ford Park. '
Todd Oppenheimer said staff offices and administrative offices were different. ~
Mike Mollica advised Todd to define the difference between the two offices. '
Todd Oppenheimer said that administrative offices generate traffic, deliveries, etc.
Susan Connelly said administrative offices are not generally tied to a specific site.
Todd Oppenheimer said the Aquatic Center was in response to a petition that it be deleted from
the Ford Park Master Plan.
Gene Uselton asked as judged by whom.
George Ruther said, depending on the application, the PEC, the staff or the DRB.
Todd Oppenheimer said that the schoolhouse was homeless and that the Alpine Garden
Foundation wanted to take on the schoolhouse and preserve the artifacts that were there. Todd
then went over Goal #2, to reduce the vehicles that come into Ford Park. Todd said, on Helen
• Fritch's behalf, that she requested to have "disabled" include the elderly.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 19
Susan Connelly recommended specifying handicapped and elderly as two separate entities. .
Todd Oppenheimer said Goal #3 was the biggest problem and they wanted to take on the master
schedule to manage the overlap of venues. He said that it was a community park and the Vail
Town Council would have the final say. He said they wanted to take a more proactive approach
to managing.
Mike Mollica asked if they were proposing to pave the gravel parking lot.
Todd Oppenheimer said yes, that it was one of the action steps. Todd said there were two funds
to draw on for Ford Park; the revenue sources from the parking fund and the Real Esta.te Transfer
~ Tax.
John Schofield asked what the formula was for the current stakeholders to contribute.
Todd Oppenheirner said there was no formula. He then explained the illustrations and said that
the drawings were not construction documents, but only concepts.
John Schofield said he was told this afternoon that the streamwalk was deeded into its entirety.
Jim Lamont said that this was the 7th Filing and the portion of streamwalk that was discussed
earlier was located in the 1 st Filing. He said it couldn't be assumed what filing the streamtract
belongs to. •
Todd Oppenheimer said that he would research it. He said that new lights along the streamwalk
were on the plans. He explained moving the tennis courts to get the parking that was needed and
that with this plan, there would not be any loss of parking spaces. He said that right now there
were 199 parking spaces and this plan had 209 parking spaces, or an addition of 10 spaces.
Mike Mollica asked about snow storage for wintertime use.
Todd Oppenheimer said they would push the snow down to the eastern end. He said he wanted
to install a storm water infiltration system, as this water goes right into the creek and to haul snow
was more expensive than storing the snow on-site. He said signage through Manor Vail was
needed and both approaches to the Manor Vail Bridge are very steep. He said to correct the
steep approaches, height needed to be added to the bridge, which would also provide additional
room for kayakers under the bridge.
John Schofield asked if the soccer field parking lot was going to be managed.
Todd Oppenheimer said that hadn't been addressed yet.
Susan Connelly said she would recommend managed parking on an event-by-event basis, as she
felt you could not rely on a managed parking solution.
~
Planning and Envuonmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 20
~
• Todd Oppenheimer said that thcy would be looking for partners, as the Town would not bc
paying for it all.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
~ 7im Lamont, representing the EVHA, said the plan stated no net loss of parking and the
neighborhood said they wanted no increase in parking. Regarding the electronic signage on the
Frontage Road, the EVHA didn't want any more "looky-loo" traffic or any more traffic. He said ,
that the EVHA wanted no parking structures, but rather a managed parking system. He said a
referendum would be needed regarding the parking structures. He asked why, if the Council had
said they would not have a structure, was a structure in the plan.
Pam Brandmeyer said the Alpine Garden would show a potential 2nd level parking in their plan.
Pam said she the focus groups had been assured that there would be no parking structure, but in
the soccer field there would be the possibility of 2nd level parking.
Greg Moffet said the Alpine Garden was a stakeholder.
John Schofield asked Jim Lamont to differentiate between his being a stakeholder and a
representive of the EVHA.
Jim Lamont said he was representing the condo owners as the EVHA. He clarified stakeholders ,
~ as a term used about people who had a vested interest. He said it should be clearly stated that
there was unanimous agreement among stakeholders and he thought "tenants" should be the
language used instead of stakeholders. He asked why Vail Valley Drive was to become a 30' F;
major thoroughfare emptying into a residential neighborhood. He said that the soccer field had ,
access by bus and there should be no reference in the plan to a parking structure, but rather to
study thc parking necd and the reference to a parking plan should be taken out.
Todd Oppenheimer agreed with Jim that parking should not be promoted, but if there ever was a
need for a parking structure, this would be the site at Ford Park that could be addressed in the
future.
Jim Lamont said he didn't see the need for a parking structure and there should be no reference to
it. He said a structure should be close to commercial. Jim said as long as the Alpine Garden
didn't expand the use and increase traffic, there would be no impacts associated with the use for
the Alpine Garden. However, he did say that being on the bus route was the most important
thing.
Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, said in the event that one parking structure was needed in the
future, it looked like the plan addressed the parking structure with two locations.
Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. There was none.
.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 21
John Schofield noted that the parking issue was controversial. He said that parking was a
~ prohlem in the soccer field area. He said that Golden Peak would genera.te more traffic and he .
would like to know where the different stakeholders stood. He said that the Frontage Road access
was a serious problem and he also asked how far the bike path was going into the park and if it
would connect with Vail Valley Drive.
Todd Oppenheimer said the bike path ended at Ford Park, but a 6' path, that woutd be tooked at
this year, would continue to East Vaii, with the Highway Dept. looking at an overlay.
John Schofield said he was interested in the streamwalk and that it should be researched further
before it goes forward.
Greg Moffet asked if this document should not be voted on.
John Schofield said this was a draft.
Pam Brandmeyer said this was ready to go to Couucil.
John Schofield said that this was not ready to go to Council and he felt shaky about it going to
Council at this point.
Gene Uselton asked about vandal-proof lights.
Todd Oppenheimer said the Hanging Lake area had bollard lights that cast light downward. He ~
said they were near bullet-proof and very attractive with a brown patina.
Gene Useltan asked about the concrete bike path. i
Todd Oppenheimer said that asphalt paths were cheaper and more flexible, but not as durable. He
said that the 6' bike lanes would start at the Blue Cow Chute and continue to East Vail with a
separate sidewalk to Ford Park. Todd said landscaped islands might help delineate the traffic.
Greg Amsden said the west bound lane was dangerous with the 16' turn lane. Greg said he
assumed that the Education Center was to be a year-round facility.
George Ruther said the Education Center would come before the PEC on February 24, 1997.
Greg Amsden said he was in favor of future parking structures. He asked why the width of the
pedestrian walk along Vail Valley Drive was 12' wide.
Todd Oppenheimer said the wider walk services bikers, rollerbladers, walkers and other
recreation path users. He said the 8' standard was on its way to becoming a 12' standard.
Greg Amsden said he would discourage bikers to be on the walkway, as he felt it not good to mix
bikers and walkers on a raised walkway. •
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 22
. «
. ,
Todd Oppenheimer said that this was conceptual and it was being studicd.
•
Diane Golden said that all the parking was being moved away from the Soccer fields and there
were children's activities all suminer long which would make it very inconvenient for parents.
~ Diane said she felt that the PEC was being asked to approve a lot of conceptual ideas.
' George Ruther said if the PEC was not ready, this item could be tabled until February 24, 1997.
Pam Brandmeyer said that vows have been made to stakeholders for over a year and that we want
this exemplary.
Jim Lamont said that some of the other stakeholders should be here, as there were a lot of
unanswered questions. He said the issues raised here have got to be answered and he would like
to know where the Rec District and VA stand on this.
Diane Golden expressed concern with the parking being so far away.
Pam Brandmeyer said invitations had been sent out to all the adjacents.
Jim Lamont said the adjacent property owners should respond.
Henry Pratt said he had no problem with #1, #2, #5 and #6, but he had a tremendous problem • with 60 feet of asphalt on the Frontage Rd. He wanted to eliminate 50% of the paving and
suggested working with CDOT. He said not to pave over more of the Park. Henry suggested
alternate paving, like grass block, which would be better aesthetically for the last two seetions of
thc parking lot. He felt that the Educatiou Center was to promote and the Nature Center was to
preserve, but that the Education Center building had gone way beyond what we originally thought
it was to be. He fett thc scale of the building would generate traffic and Henry questioned
whether the Mastcr Plan should allow development of this scale. He was skeptable about a 12'
path from Northwoods to this facility. He said the wide road goes nowhere. He said there were
great pains taken to keep it that way and now this wide road is going against that.
Todd Oppenheimer said Greg Hall said this should be a 30' wide road.
Greg Moffet advised talking to the homeowners and asked for a dollar nurnber on page 21.
Todd Oppenheimer said it would take 5 to 10 years to complete.
Greg Moffet asked who would prioritize.
Todd Oppenheimer said either staff or the public process and we hadn't assigned any dollar
figures, but rather just a list of the projects.
George Ruther said the ultimate decision would rely on the Council.
~ Greg Moffet asked what the PEC was voting on.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 23
r ~
.
George Ruther stated that the PEC was taking on an advisory role with its recommendation to ~
Council.
~ Greg Moffet asked when Donovan Park was dropped from the Master Plan. He felt the plan
needed tightening up. He stated that he had a real problem voting on a capital expenditure when
I we needed to see answers on the other side of Town at Donovan Park. He said that "this thing
ain't broke", but Donovan Park is broke and to "find something broke to fix."
.
Mike Mollica said the confluence of 2& 6 and 5& 7 had not been talked about and should be
included in the Master Plan.
Jim Lamont said they should just expand the garden.
Todd Oppenheimer said it was included in the legal description of the garden.
Henry Pratt said that the Alpine Gardens should come before the PEC, before this was
recommended to Council.
Pam Brandmeyer said her personal preference would be to have a recommendation to the
Council, but we would delay our hearings before the Council to address the PEC's concerns.
Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item
Gene Uselton seconded the motion. •
Greg Amsden said to focus on the areas that the PEC commented on.
Gene Uselton said we needed a measurement from the athletic fields to the parking.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a Fractional Fee Club to be located at 242
East Meadow Drive%n a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
I Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
' TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 24,1997
, Greg Amsden made a motion to table item #7.
' Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 24
r
~ 8. A request for an interior remodel to the secondary unit utilizing the 250 ordinance, located
at 778 Potato Patch Dr.lLot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Fred Bartlit
' Planner: Tamrnie Williamson
STAFF APPROVED
F
9. A request for a residential addition for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Planner: Lauren Waterton
WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA
10. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver
Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Howard Koenig
Planner: Tammie Williamson
• WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA
11. Information Update:
Susan Connelly announced that the Lionshead public forums had submitted the best and worst of
Lionshead.
12. Approval of January 27, 1997 minutes.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval of the January 27, 1997 minutes.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Greg Moffet abstaining.
Henry Pratt made a motion to adjourn. ~
I
Greg Amsden seconded the motion. "
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
• The meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 25