HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0428 PEC
l
~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmentai Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on April 28, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Vail Run), to eliminate the requirement for three
covered tennis courts, located at 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/Lions Ridge Filing #1.
Applicant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor
subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1
condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore
Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the modification to the existing platted building '
envelope, located at 1082 Riva Glen/Lot 3 Spraddle Creek Estates.
~ Applicant: Lee Kirch, represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a skier bridge and
modifications to allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven
Lane/Lots 39-1 & 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorwood
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a
dormer addition, Iocated at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie Williarnson
A request to remove a condition of approval, from an approved setback variance, requiring that
the exterior walls and roof remain during the remodel process, located at 226 Forest Road/Lat
11 A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: John Kredeit
Planner: Lauren Waterton
~
It A request for a final review for a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs for seasonai
, housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive, Public Works Facility/legally described as: ~
beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth
Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a
point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet, • thence S78°1302" W 1534.29 feet to a point of curvature; thence
' 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears
S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence departing the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following the Westerly line of
said Section 9 N000021 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
,
A request for a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor seating at the Red Lion Building
(Cleaver's Deli, The Chocolate Factory), located at 304 Bridge StreedLots E, F, G, & H, Block
5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development
Planner: Tammie Williamson
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in
the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage
Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department ~
Published April 11, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
, i
Agcnd:? last revised 4/22/97 11 am
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
I Monday, Aprii 28, 1997
AGENDA
Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community DevelQpment Department 12:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
.
Site Visits
1:00 pm
1. Vai! Run - 1000 Lions Ridge Loop
2. Kirch - 1082 Riva Glen
3. Kredeit - 226 Forest Road
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
~ Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. j
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the modification to the existing platted r ;
build'mg envelope, located at 1082 Riva Glen/Lot 3 Spraddle Creek Estates. !
Applicant: Lee Kirch, represented by Gordon Pierce '
Planner: Lauren Waterton
2. A request to remove a condition of approval, from an approved setback variance,
requiring that the exterior walls and roof remain during the remodel process, located at
226 Forest RoadJLot 11 A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Fiiing.
Applicant: John Kredeit
Planner: Lauren Waterton
3. An appeal of an administrative decision determining that the Vail Run tennis bubble is a
seasonal structure. The property is located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop (Vail Run).
Appellant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Maurieilo
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Vail Run), to eliminate the requirement for
three covered tennis courts, located at 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/Lions Ridge Filing #1.
Applicant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1 4Ya
TOW
Agenda last revised 4/22/97 11 am
, 5. A request for a final review for a conditional use permit to allow for Type Iii EHUs for
; seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive, Public Works Facility/legally ~
' described as:
beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth
Principal Meridian thence S$9°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a
point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the
; northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence
456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius af 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears
i S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence departing the
northerly right-of-way tence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following the Westerly line of said
Section 9 N000021 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning.
,
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Maurie(Io •
6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor
subdivision, to a!!ow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1
condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231
E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTtL MAY 12, 1997
7. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a skier bridge ~
and a major amendment to allow for modifications to the allowable GRFA and the building
height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-1 & 39-2, Glen Lyon '
Subdivision. ~
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorwood
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MAY 12, 1997
8. A request for a residential addition utiiizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the
construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vaii
Intermountain.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie Williamson
TABLED UNTIL MAY 12,1997
x .
2 •
Agenda last rcviscd 4/22/97 11 am
' 9. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance from Section
~ 18.24.150 to a commercial storefront on Hanson Ranch Road and to al(ow for an
expansion to the outdoor dining deck and conditiona( use permit to allow for outdoor
seating in the CC1 Zone District at the Red Lion Building (Cieaver's Deli, The Chocolate
Factory), located at 304 Bridge StreeULots E, F, G, & H, Block 5-A, Vail ViAage 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Landrnark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
10. Information Update
r
11. Approval of March 10, March 24, and April 14, 1997 minutes. ~
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notiFication. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published April 25, 1997 in the Vail Trail. °
f '
I I
~
. 3
' r
Agenda last revised 4/29/97 1 pm
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, April 28, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Projgct Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv DeveiQpment Department 12:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Diane Goiden
Gene Uselton
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
Site Visits : 1:00 pm
1. Vaii Run - 1000 Lions Ridge Loop
2. Kirch - 1082 Riva Glen
3. Kredeit - 226 Forest Road
Driver: George
•
s 'i r.~ g•,~~;;
ofr~d~yz.~'':
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the modification to the existing platted
building envelope, located at 1082 Riva Glen/Lot 3 Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: Lee Kirch, represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. That the applicant submits to the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development, a letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 3, from
the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee.
2. A requsst to remove a condition of approval, from an approved setback variance,
requiring that the exterior walls and roof remain during the remodel process, located at
226 Forest Road/Lot 11 A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: John Kredeit
Planner: l.auren Waterton
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0
I~ENIED
*AIL
TOW
~ •
Agcnda last revised 4/29/97 1 pm •
3. An appeal of an administrative decision determining that the Vail Run tennis bubbie is a
seasonal structure. The property is located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop (Vail Run).
Appe(lant: Vaii Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic MaurieNo
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 3-3
MOTION FAILED, SO STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION HOLDS.
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Vail Run), fo eliminate the requirement for
three covered tennis courts, located at 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/Lions Ridge Filing #1.
Applicant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 2 AMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. That any changes to ~or~ e.numerat~d;"recreational uses" wfii be evaiuated by the
staff as a minor amendment to the SDD and be subject to the 9 SDD criteria as
stated herein.
' 2. That any future "recreational use" shall be available to the general public.
5. A request for a final review for a conditional use permit to allow for Type III EHUs for •
seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive, Pub(ic Works Facility/legally
described as:
beginning at the Northwest corner of Seciion 9, 7ownship 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89031'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a
point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence ,
456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius ot 5580.00 feet, ihe chord of which bears
S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on ihe Westerly line of said Section 9: thence departing the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following the Westerly line of said
Section 9 N000021 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Pianner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 2-4
FAILED WlTH 3 CONDITIONS AND 3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant pravide 8-12 decks on the south, east or west elevations of the
building. The final location and size of the decks shall be subject to DRB review
and approval.
~ 2. That the applicant provide a roof over the dumpster and appropriately secure the
facility ta lessen potential impacts from bears. •
2
• Agenda last revised 4/29/97 1 pm
3. That the applicant pravide a revised landscape plan which ref(ects ail of the
changes made to the site pian prior to DRB review and that the Design Review
' Board ciosely review the iandscape pian, among other design issues, to ensure
that the mass of the building is appropriately broken-up.
Tttat.a 4vtal.c~f 35 parkir~g ~pa~es be designat~cl for tl~ie project.
,
Tht~~ a bus st0~? be d0si~nate~ pr~or:to a:CeCiificof; Qcc~pancy:k) esng issu~~Y
Tf~at any fht4ngesin ~ise or 4wnersh?p b0;subject to review;by.the PEG_
MOTION: John Schofieid SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 3 AMENDED CONDITIONS AND 3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
. ,
and-a~elta}:
1: That iibe stro~gfy.recomrne~d~d #t~" ~,pp3t~ant.inGfucte:d~ks ifpo~s;ibi~;
2. That the appticant provide a roof over the dumpster and appropriately secure the
facility to lessen potential impacts from bears.
• 3. That the applicant provide a revised landscape plan which reflects all of the
changes made to the site plan prior to DRB review and that the Design Review i
Board closely review the landscape plan, among other design issues, to ensure
that the mass of the buiiding is appropriately broken-up.
4; Tf~at a tvta~ of 35 par~~~tg spaces be::~t~s~gi~ated #or it?e,:prp~~ct, t~ ac~arr~~radat~
.4rksn
gu~st P.
Tha~ tt~e ~itlis ~r(dge bu~ stnp k4designated prior to aCer~if(caie vf' (J~ctap~ancY
beirig issue'd:
G; ~`f~~t;arly ~h~nges ii1 use c~r owne r~hip ~f thia prp~e.f:kae subaeCt to review #~y fih~
6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor
subdivision, to allow for the constructian of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1
condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231
E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village 1 st Fiting.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTtI. MAY 12,1997
. Y
3
. .
Agenda last revised 4/29/97 1 pm •
i 7. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the
construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Be(Iflower Drive/Lat 4, Block 6, Vail
Intermountain.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
i Planner: Tammie Williamson
TABLED UNTIL MAY 12,1997
I 8, A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Vi(lage), to aliow for a skier bridge
and a ma1"or amendment to atlow for modrfication s to the allowaale GRFA and the buildin
9
height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-1& 39-2, Glen Lyon
Subd'+vision.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorwood
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JUNE 9,1997
9. A requesi for a minor exterior aiteration and a site coverage variance from Section
18.24.150 to a commercial storefront on Hanson Ranch Road and to allow for an
expansion to the outdoor dining deck and conditional use permit to allow for outdoor
' seating in the CC1 Zone District at the Red Lion Building (Cleaver's Deli, The Chocolate
Factory), located at 304 Bridge Street/Lots E, F, G, & H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Fiiing.
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects •
Planner: Tammie Williamson
WI7HDRAWN BY APPLlCANT • ~
10. Information Update
11. Approval of March 10, March 24, and Aprit 14, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are availabie for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's oFfice fveated at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
~
4
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Susan G. Connelly _SC9e-
DATE: April 25, 1997
RE: Austria Haus Update
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, Austria Haus Redevelopment Group LLP fited two new
applications on Apri121: one to rezone the Austria Haus property to a new zone district, PA-l,
and the other for an adjusted SDD. On Apri122, the Town Councii discussed the Austria Haus
and gave additional direction as to what the Council members would like to see on the site.
Please refer to the attached letter from Marc Thornburgh and attached memo from George Ruther
for details.
The Town Council also requested that staff present infarmation on the pros and cons of
pursuing an SDD in the PA district vs. rezoning to a new PA-1 zone district. Community
Development staff and the Town Attorney will present that information to Council at the
Tuesday, May 6 worksession. Your participation in that meeting is requested by Council.
- We will make available for your pick-up and review on Friday, May 2 the staff
• memorandum to Council and the agenda (including tentativc schedule) for the worksession, ieft in
the Community Develoment vcstibule as with PEC packets. If you prefer to have the merno faxed
to you, please call Judy Rodriguez at 479-2139. Thanks!
i
C.C. Town Council ~
Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
All planners
~ _41
. '0 415 291 9629 PO1
AUSTRlA HAUS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLP PHONE: 415/291•9947
18 Wt4ALESHIP PLA7A FACSiMiLE, 415/291-9623
SAN ERANCISCO, G 94111
• kc; Go,,_j
. . ?
April 21, 1997
, Mr. Bob Armouc, Mayar .
'l'own of Vail
75 South Frontage koac!
! Vdit, CO 81657
1 ViA Facsimile
Dear Mr. Armour•
lt is my hope that this communication wi}t enable us to clearly define our pracrical and ~I
financial constraints for the Austria Haus rcdevelopmenc project and, in respunx, io I
• receive a clear reaction from the Town Council so that we may either continue the pmcess I
ur abandon the project.
As you are aware, we have filed two new applications for the `Austria Haus Ciub: one for
. PA-1 cezoning and the other for an adjusted SUU. In both cases, we have incorpurawd •
Changes to the previous SDD request in an attempt to satisfy most of the critieisms ot' the
. project, while still retaining the possibility of obtaining financing. A summary of snme of !
those changes fofiows: !
. 1. Reduction of the number of club units from 22 to 20. - 2. Reduction of the number of floors from 6ve to faur. 3. Reduction of the height of the building to 48 feet maximum. .
4. Provisian of space for additional support for the hotel raoms.
5. Desikn of an amenity package to include an outdoar poat, excrcise room with
sauna, lounge and bar, etc. . . .
6. Redesign of the size of the loading ramp and incrcase in fandscaping on the
wcst sids of the building. '
Whereas I am sure that these changes will not quiet every critic ar criticisini, I believe that
the changes represent the maximum reductiAn in the seope oFthe project tLai is finnncially
feasihie fnr nur (ar any) financinK source. As per the attached letter frnm our lender's
~Al cepresen[ative, Textron Financial Corporation (who has financed the majority of the
existing Club projects tind is the major iender in that business), I am reot sure that the ncw
. proposal will mW their collateral criterial. ETnfortunately, we will not have a definitive
answer to that question until the Town of Vail approves the project and the complete
: permitted package is reviewed by Textron's loan committee.
Ir 415 291 9623 P02
. i •
Mayor Bob Armour
Apri121, 1997
+ Page 2
~
Prior tn last Tuesday, we were io the process pf receiving a commitment from Textron for the necessary $27,500,000 to develop the previQUS project. That commitment did noc _
cnnsider the hotel rooms a,s collateral for any part of that finanncing hocel rooms are a -
cash flow business, with a1l of the risks of any business in seasonal resort areas. 'tlie
commercial space and the 22 club units were the orily couateral, with each unit
representing abaut $1,200,000 of average collateral value. This new version will require
' each of the 20 ciub units to represent over $1,300,000 in average coltateral value, and wc
are dramaiica0y changing and reducing the value of our four penthouse units. Textron has
indicated that they will not accept an increase in our origi.nal projected sales prices for the
. club memberships, since these prices already represent the highest in che industry by quite
~ a bit.
We have an additional problem witb the timing of this project at this point. 7'he closing
date of our purchase agreement with the Sonuenalp, which has been extended two times in
the past, is July 22nd. The seller has indicated that they will not g,rarn anather extension, .
, which means that we would need Town Council approval a minimum af thirty days before
that date. , .
We woutd appreciate direction from the Town Councu with reguds to the above •
mentianed issues. tf you wish for us to develop this product in Vaii, please tcll us which ; .
proCess (SDD orPA-1) you prefer. The club concept is txpanding rapidly in resorc areas
in the US and internationally to the benefit of the host communitics, not only providing a
, new type of bou[ique hotel but also replacing a substantial amount oi' seasonal sccond
home development. We continue in.our firm belief that the Austria Haus Club will be af
~ tremendous value to Vail and will set the highest standatd in the industry. .
~ Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Si cefely,
'
. Marc C. Thornburgh
Managing Genetal Parrner
Attachment (1)
MCT\cat . •
~
`B" 41:3 2fl1 0623 P02
. '
Mayor 6ob Armour
Aprii 21, 1997
i Page 2 '
~
~
Prior tv last Tuesday, we were in the process of receiving a commitment from Textron for , the necessttry $27,500,000 to develop thc previpus project. That commicment did noc _
conyider the hotef rooms a,5 coltateral for any part of that tinancing hotei rooms are a -
cash flow business, with a!( of the risks of any business in seasonal resort areas. 'Che
commercial space and the 22 club units were the only collateral, with each unit
representing about 51,200,000 of average collateral value. This new version wi11 require
each of the 20 club units to represent over $1,300,000 in average collateral value, and wc
are dramalically chanj&g and reducing the value of our four penthouse units. Textcon has
indicated that they will not accept an incrcase in our original projeetcd sales prices for ihe
: club memberships, since these prices already represent the highest in che industry by quite
a bit.
We have an additional problem with the timing of this praject at this point. 1'he closing
date of our Purchase agreement with the Sonnenalp, which has been extended nwo times in
• the past, is July 22nd. The seller has indicated ihat they will not grant another extension,
which means that we would need 'Tovm Council approva; a minimum of thirty days before
that date. -
, .
We would appreciate direction from the Town Counctt with regardsto the above
mentioned issues, tt'you wish for us to develop this producc in vail, please tell us which process (SDD or PA-'I ) you prefer. The club conccpt is txpanding rapidly ia resort areas - in the US and internationally to the benefit of the host communities, not only providing a
, new type of boutique hotel but also replacing a substantial amouttt of seasonal sccond
home dcvclopment. We continue in.aur firm belief that the Austria Haus Club will be of
~ tremendous vafue to Vail and wilt set the highest standard in the industry. .
~ Thank you for your attention to this (etter.
Si cerely,
'
Marc C. Thorn burgh
. Managing General Parrner
Attachment (1) ,
MCT1cat
• ,
' , . , . .
~
;
. '0 415 291 9623 p03
Map 19 •97 09:45 REAt.n• t Tr•1c~:.74. P. i
• .
REALTY FfNpNC1AL RESOURCES, lNC.
. Z50 Z.FMM UNS
$T. HaEwA, CA 04571
To-ior+oNe (707) 9e7•1160
PAx (707) 087'-1736
. MArch 19, 1997
I Marc Thornburgh
~ . Auitria Hau' Devefopment Group, LI,P
f . 18 Wtualoship Plaza
~ 5an Francisca, CA 94111
•
~ RE: Austria Haus, Vail, CO ,
Deu Mr, Thornbwgh,
4ver the ptst three months, we have beaa assccossfut in eauaing a mqjor netional lender ta
i68uC 4 pz'opoeal fpr finanCing ofthls devqiapment and aale of your Ansuia Haus p:ojocc,
and tho lende!' is most anucipus to procoed with wbat they envision co be an cxcellent
eddition to tbe Town of Vul, Thu pt'Opoeal is bssed on the corsstruction of 22 Club units,
approximatoly 10. 100 aquazv foet of hotol rQOms, and approximately 4,637 sque.re feei of commercinl space '
Aa your planning process hae evolved, the numbet of Club unics hu decreased, the hotei
epdcx haa incroasad, and tho commorcial spec,a tis decraued. In the cvent thix trond
eontinues, especially fuithet' loss of Ctub unite or roduetion in s:ze of the Club unitc, it ia
: vory probable thnt the financing propoul witl be withdrawn.
Pldaae adviae de tn where we go from he,re.
~
. : Ocorge David, (;RL
Presidcnt
~ -4
• MEMORANDUM •
TO: 13ob McLaurin, Town Manabcr ~
~
FROM: Gcorgc Ruthcr, Town Planncr ~
DATE: Apri123, 1997
SUI3JCCT: Town Council Dircction to the Austria Naus Dcvclopcrs
Thc purposc of this mcmorandum is to documcnt thc convcrsation thc staff had ycstcrday
lftcrnoon witli the Town Council rcgarding thc Austria Hauti rcdcvclopmcnt. Picasc rcad thrqu'gh
the ite?ns listcd bclow and makc ariy corrcctions or additions. '
Toivn Cotlncil Direction
1. Reclucc the proposcd GRrA within the Austria Haus by 5,000 squarc fcct.
2. Thc mlximt?m building hcight for the Aush•ia l-laus shall NOT cxcccd 48'.
• 3. Rc?novc the pcIIthousc Icvcl to rcducc the numbcc of building storics from fivc to fouc.
4. No Icss than 10,100 squarc fcct of accommodation unit squarc footagc shall bc
constructcd in the Atistria 1-Iaus. 'Thc 10,000 squarc fcct sh11( bc apportioncd into which
cvcr nu?nbcr oC izilits the dcvclopcI•s fcc) arc appropi•iatc to succcssfully opcratc a hotcl.
r, •
,
5. Two 20' foot sctbacks on the propcrty shall Uc maintaincd. Prcfcrcncc should bc givcn to <<
the wcst and sout)t sclbacks. '
6. Thc proposcd 4,649 sRuat-c fcct of commcrcial spaccs shall bc maintaincd as it providcs
the ncccssary comincrcial link bctwccri the Villagc and Crossroads.
7. A11 parking shall bc on-site and a land trade is an acceptable means of accommodating the
necessary arca of the parking structurc.
8. A community room shall be provided within the Austria Haus for meetings, brcakfasts and
the like. 9. The Ioading and delivery plan shalt be redesigned to rcduce the negative impacts on the
street scapc (peds, guest vehicles, etc.)
10. The staff wili make brief presentations to the Council during the normal PEC reparts.
^ Thesc presentations will include fu11 size plans and copies of alt memoranda.
.
*IL Thc proposcd dcadlinc5 of Junc 22 and July 22 arc cxtrcmcly aggressivc. Thc dcvclopcrs .
should rethink dcAcilincti and requcst cMcnsions as nccctisaiy.
12, Tfic;staff+w'i~il makc ti presci~tation to thc Town Council and PCC on May 6th rcgarding
thc Pros and Cons of both SDDs and thc PA-1 zonc district. On May 6th, thc Council
will dccidc which application thcy will rcvicw. .
13. Thc Town Council ciid not fccl it was appropriate to cxpress thcir prcfcrcncc on the
1rcllitcctural dcsign. Instcad, tlicy fclt dcsign of the building should bc fclt to thc
11'Ci11tCCt.
. ~ !
~
•
+
, . ~
i ,.r .
. . • ' .
, , - , . , , . , . ~ , . _ ' ~ . . , ,
~ MEMORANDUM. _
TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 28, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to allow for a shift in the location of a platted
building envelope located at 1082 Riva Glen/ Lot 3, Spraddle Creek Estates
Subdivision.
Appticant: Lee Kirch, represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Lee Kirch, represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a minor subdivision to
allow for a modification to the existing building envelope platted on Lot 3, Spraddle Creek Estates
Subdivision (see Attachment 1). Specifically, the applicant is proposing to modify the location of
the existing building envelope boundary lines. The building envelope will shift to the north and
east of the existing platted building envelope (see Attachment 2). The proposed change in the
. building envelope location is intended to facilitate construction of a new residence currently being
• designed for Lot 3. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of
the proposed residence and access thereto (see Attachment 3).
II. BACKGROUND
r
The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential, and is generally located
northeast of the main Vail roundabout. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved °
the final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision (PEC) on February 11, 1991. The final
plat illustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for the fourteen building sites within
the subdivision boundaries.
On October 9, 1995, the PEC approved a minor subdivision request to modify the building
envelope platted on Lot 3. The purpose of modifying the building envelope was to accommodate
a new residence that was being designed for Lot 3.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the PEC with an understanding
of the impacts on the development standards for Lot 3, prescribed as plat notes on the Spraddle
Creek Estates Subdivision final plat.
~ ~
; istin Proposed •
I Lot Area: 88,619 sq. ft. 88,619 sq. ft
Buifding Envelope Size: 14,824 sq. ft. 14, 824 sq. ft.
GRFA allowance: 8,548 sq. ft. 8,548 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 7,698 sq. n. 7, 698 sq. ft.
'I
No development standard will be affected by the proposed change to the building envelope. The
only change that will occur will be the reconfiguration of the envelope.
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRlTERIA
One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a
new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment involves a minor replatting of
an existing lot, ihere is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor
subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria, pursuant
to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be
considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision appiication is as follows:
A. Lot Ar
The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a •
property located within the Hillside Residential zone district, shall be 21,780 sq. ft.
(1/2 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any
site, lot, parcel or any portion of it, which does not contain designated fioodplain,
red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope. The existing Lot 3 r
currently meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth above and the "
proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the existing size of Lot 3. r
B. Fr n e
The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Hillside Residential zone district
have a minimurn frontage of 50'. Lot 3 currently has a frontage of more than 50'
and the proposed building enve(ope amendment will not affect the frontage of ihe
tot.
C. Qite Dimensions
The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape capable
of enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 3
currently meets the size and shape requirement for lots in a Hillside Residential
Zone District and the proposed bui(ding enve(ope amendment will not affect the
size and shape of the boundaries for t,ot 3.
The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined
~ in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows:
a
"The burden of proaf shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in •
compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the zoning ordinance and other
2
.
• pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shail be given to
the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted
under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its
appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities
proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents,
effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding uses."
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any
development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the
PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process.
Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision,
or a resubdivision of an existing parcel or parcels of fand, it is the
appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent property.
. Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendment would not
appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff
has not yet received a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Estates
Architectural Controt Committee showing their approval to the applicant's
proposed building envelope amendment request. Additionally, staff has _
not received any input from the adjacent property owners to whom (etters ~
of notification were sent, as required by Section 18.66.080 of the Town of
Vail Municipal Code.
r
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the
value of buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to
the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of
land in the immediate area of Lot 3.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning
Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among
land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope
amendment proposed for Lot 3 will not preclude a harmonious, convenient
and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal
development objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational
and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public
facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
3
Staff Response: The purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended' •
primarily to address impacts of {arge scale subdivisions of property, as
opposed to this particu{ar proposa4 to amend a building envelope. Staff
does not believe that this proposal wilf have any negative. impacts on any
of the above listed public facilities.
6. To prov+de for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to
establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and
procedures.
Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision reguiations that
is not applicable to the proposed building envelope amendment for Lot 3.
7. To prevent ihe pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of
drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use
and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to
preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of
land.
taff Response: Staff feels comfortable with the appHcant's proposed
bui(ding envelope amendment on Lot 3. Currently, there are several large
aspen trees (1' in diameter) within the envelope. Because of the shift in
the building envelope to the north, two of these trees will no longer be
within the envelope. Staff believes that the preservation of these two trees
is a positive benefit of this request. •
Staff believes that shifting the enve(ope closer to the road will decrease
the amount of site disturbance due to a potentialiy Iong driveway to access
the building envelope. The applicant is now proposing to share part of the ,
driveway with Lot 4, to the north. Staff believes that this wi11 result in less site disturbance on both lots.
r
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the applicanYs request for a minor subdivision to amend the
platted building envelope on Lot 3, Spradd(e Creek Estates Subdivision, subject to the following
finding:
That the request has met the criteria as outlined in Section IV, Minor Subdivision Review
Criteria, of this memorandum.
The recommendation for approval is subject to the foilowing condition:
That the applicant submits to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a
letter of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 3, from the Spraddie Creek
Architectural Control Committee.
~ ~o?
•
4
~ .
1 ~
USForest 5er'r`ce _ l
~ 1 - - y~ , i "t
~ ~ (~`iJ l"j•. ~ ~ t t~„ ~L..~ ; r'
~ot t
NOtth a-...r-~ Y ~ ~i t t v . _ I •rC",~ ` : l' ~ J
~ ~ J ~ 1}~~ _ _ ~ '~J (t` ~ c31C: ' l • ~I ; ~ ~ ti ~ Y .C•' t- "1 ) ~ ` ,
~ f!~.•- C. }a S` J~ • J'* ` . ` ~ ~
r ` t `C. ~ • • ~ tot ~ 'v' t C'C. `
~ ~ ( (~-C ~-j'~I` 4.`~-ti. " i_. ' ~ j"~ J ,
I Lt'--E„
V~! '`l r t~
/~p
f-~-'n.,~
No-
2
~ , c a t ~y ,y `1 t t{ 15 I ~j1~ -I .p " I ..y
' f ' f I /~5~/ ` ~ ,;L ' _ ~ I
.ot ~ • _ - ~1..~ 1r1
1-7
•v,y ~ n~(~~ ~,..-...y(~' ^w`.} ~ `.i ~
i Q~ .c.,. `.'4a; t" Loi T ~....,~'.....~~F~ X^ "~...'?~~i'~~ ,~J Vlr~~.,/. ~
~ r i ~]'4 ~-r~•• ' ' 't.h
Z E 1-i R ~ / L.`'`'• s° ti -
•.`-p{t...'~ t` : :"r
`
~s octetts~at ~„"T°a y 4
~"O s ..~'s / `'F a t. 4~ 7 ~,',s,~t'" ~ rr' ~ _ ` 3
~t"" ~ t ! ~ \\~v to ~^-_r ,t„c t , " ^ j . . • _ ~
.._'si ~ y?.. 4, . ~ti,.
r:
~ , , ~ ~
-1
' ~I £i { ~ ~ R `~J , ` 1 +::1.~ J tr `
/ , • .s ' _ ~
C
- ~ 4At
,~„ij ~ ~••,,,1 t~^- r~~~ ~ ,i ~ ' , ~ j~: . . x+,~_ \
{ J ~Y'~, ^ ,J . . - . ~~_.,,.4 t ~ t
~ .1,4,..i~/ ` {Lt^+, 'X`. \ t ` . ""^-~~,.-~,.~+.tf' .Yi '~l_~.~`,~''~..`~.--• = =~`"`~::^'r t`a~~•
~.,.r~7• ~ , t ''S''ti_r-~.`~ 4..~:-=~.- ~ - _-.1 • ~~...,..,..~,;~4~-~. w
r~ . `Z, LC '1 LO '~gl... L i,. • . , j ~
. ~.l7' ` i~ ~p ~ ~ _ ? ~ ` t 'c ` "~.._2~,`
L.Ot t
/ 1.... ^ ~F ~ ~~'4.. lot
S'~ ~ _ 1 "l-`.~.~~..~.,`'c ' ~ • r`'1.: . 4 ~ °~pks RO ~ V , - - . • ~ ~
,t' ~ "`^-'.~,~:~`"L) "",,T.-..+..~., ' _ c ~
.
~ 1 1~1 ' ~
..rar v 1 " " . , f-.-.,t"` ~
• - 't: ~.Jc...l`~ ~ ~L; t ..e-.... ~ ~ ~ ti..r.-.y~ ~ ~r, ~ ~ e~~' ~ 4.
~ ' ~ y~`•, t. . ~ ~ ~`J`? t
~~".,,.y_ ' - ~ ' •z
~ t • . ~.J'r : .
1`' ~ . ~ •
. tnterstate 70 4 ~ -
1
~ccc:s \ °'l`tisse•
, lT ; ENEu~~, t \ f 1~ \ i ~ ~ 1\
f
{ ~ + f l~N PtD \
~j ' SEw-u w.vr+0:'•
s~6~ i Riv f'.-r. 6~t
a 383.54' pH~:7 Pw • se.s~f
~y gg*p1'35"
\ ~ gt ;
wATER ~
YA:.`!E
E - .^29.D8' /
~ISC-0
t.0'
~ ,,,fru o~ 44p ,
r P.~ES
/ . ACCESS
_Hi -
1.<' S 3T55'2t'~9 ~4Sa E/SEuc
i ~ 10,
e
I
20 71'
EDf%C ~REELiNP£N ~ N ~-r,~ fFf~_ I
ISGTTER£D t-
S td' E
~ BujtO+K,, £rNEIOPE 1.6'
O, \ \ ~ ~
\
k
84,2~ ;~1.SS , .o• ~ N
(9410 LOT
,.o, 3
~.o•
L[ N ~
•
NY
840Q
3 ,
~
~
O, ` p I
N,
9 I
o n ~ w
al
pp„TXO ~pA I
. ` ' ~ l ~
t z
.
ILP ~
1 ~
~
1 II 1~~'~' D ~ /
~ s,rzt'-+` aQ ~
8,¢' 3• s, 22 ` ~ ~ Z
La W 3z ss` j ~ k-~
P~~~ ~~.t s1ZE TO ``-j
84Q0
I
r L. ,
4 •
~ MEMORANDUM ' .
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 28, 1997
SUBJECT: A request to remove a condition of approval from an approved setback variance,
requiring that the exterior walls and roof remain during the remodel process,
located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11 A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: John Kredeit, represented by Bob Zeeb
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST
On March 13, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a front
setback variance of 13.5 feet to allow approximately 2/3 of an existing carport to be infilled with
new GRFA. Roughly one-half of the existing structure is located within the required 20-foot front
setback. GRFA exists above the carport and the approval of the variance allowed the carport to
be enclosed no further than the existing GRFA above. The north face of the remodeled house at
~ grade level would be 6.5 feet from the front property line. The variance was approved with five
conditions. Condition #5 states:
"The north-facing portion of the existing roof that extends into the front setback, and the
existing roof ridge beam, shall not be demolished or altered except as expressly needed
to attach the dormer that projects off the south side of the ridge beam. The main .
structural elements of the existing house that form the perimeter, or exterior structural
walls of the unit, may no be demolished or altered, and must remain in place throughout
the remodel process."
The applicant is requesting to remove the above condition from the approved front setback
variance.
On February 25, 1997, the Town of Vail issued a building permit for a garage addition, remodel to
the existing residence and infill of the carport area. The contractor, Zeeb Construction, began
demolition of the interior walls and became concerned regarding the condition of the structure.
Zeeb Construction hired an independent structural engineer, The MJ Mueller Co., to review the
structure. It is the conclusion of ihe consulting structural engineer that "the proposed remodel
could be more effectively accomplished if the building were completely demolished and rebuilt..."
(see attached letters).
The applicant is requesting that the Gandition, as listed above, be removed from the original
appraval t4 allow the contractor to dsmalish the walls and roof, and recanstruct the building, with
the addition, in its previously approved location (in the front setback).
k
. ,
II. BACKGROUND ~ •
•
On September 9, 1991, the PEC approved a setback variance to infill the carport area in the front
setback. The proposal also involved building a new garage, with a one-story addition, that would
be directly connected to the main structure.
On June 22, 1992, the PEC granted a two-year extension to the approved front.setback variance.
On May 23, 1994, the applicant returned to the PEC with a modified version of the earlier
approval. This proposal involved an extensive remodel of the existing unit. The carport infill was
proposed, along with a stair tower additon to the west end of the house. Part of the stair tower
was within the front setback. A buried garage and buried carport were also proposed. Retaining
walls greater than the 6-foot height limit were necessary to construct the carport, and the carport
was located within the front setback. The PEC unanimously rejected the location of the stair
~ tower and carport in the front setback, but expressed support for the carport infill.
On February 27, 1995, the PEC held a worksession to discuss a revised plan that included the
infill of the carport, dormer additions on the north side of the structure and a new garage. Part of
the addition involved using Additional GRFA (250). At that time, staff was requesting that the
applicant reduce the height of the roof by two feet, to bring the building to within the maximum
building height requirement. At that meeting, the proposal was revised to eliminate the dormers
from the north side of the structure. According to the applicanYs architect, Steve Riden, the
remodei (without the dormers) would not affect the roof or other major structural elements of the
existing house.
According to the staff inemorandum to the PEC on March 13, 1995, staff was in support of the ,
variance request. Staff stated that the request to infill the carport area, which was below existing
GRFA already located in the front setback, did not exceed the current setback encroachment,
and would not negatively impact any adjacent properties, and therefore, the request could be
supported. The condition of approval was placed on this project because the granting of the ,
approval was based upan the location of the existing structure. Therefore, it was important that
the structure remain in place during the remodel process.
The Design Review Board (DRB) approved the Additional GRFA (250) and the remodel on April
19, 1995. On March 5, 1996, staff granted a one-year extension of the DRB approval.
~ 111111. ISSUES
The applicant is requesting that the above-listed condition of approval be removed, but that all
other aspects of the PEC approval remain in place.
It is important ta note that this project is nonconforming in several ways. First, it is
nanconforming regarding setbacks. As mentioned previously, approximately one-half of the
structure is within the front setback. Second, the main ridge of the building exceeds the
maximum building height (33') by approximately 1.7 feet. Third, this is a primary/secondary lot in
which the existing two units are not attached, as required by Chapter 18.54 (Design Review).
Chapter 18.64 (Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements) of the Vail
Municipal Code permits nonconforming structures to remain until the structure is substantially •
altered, removed or replaced. Once that occurs, the structure must comply with all applicable
development standards.
I
2
r i
• There are also issues regarding the use of the Additional GRFA (250), as it relates to a .
demo/rebuild. An existing structure that is demolished is not eligible to apply for Additional
GRFA.
The action requested by the applicant will have impacts on the nonconformity. In addition to the
action requested, staff has identified three other options that the applicant may pursue, although
the applicant is not requesting any of the three options at this time. Staff believes that
understanding all the options may be helpful for the PEC in order to evaluate this request.
Option 1- Request to remove the condition of approval relating ta the walls and the roof
(ApplicanYs current request).
Should this option be approved, the applicant would maintain a valid approval for a
setback variance. Removing the roof affects the building height. Because the applicant
did not receive approval for a building height variance, the removal of the roof would
require that the applicant comply with the maximum 33' height limitation, or apply for a
building height variance. The original approval did not require that the roof be brought
into cornpliance with the height requirement because the roof was not proposed to be
altered. However, in this option, the roof is proposed to be modified, and therefore, must
be brought into compliance. Additionally, should this be considered a demo/rebuild, the
applicant would have no right to use the Additional GRFA (250).
Staff response: It is staff's belief that had the applicant originally requested to remove
the walls and roof, staff would not have supported the request. Staff's original
• recommendation for approval was based upon the location of the existing structure as a
unique circumstance for granting the variance. Should the existing structure be removed,
the unique circumstances no longer exist.
Option 2- Request a new setback variance.
The applicant could request a new front setback variance. If approved, this would allow
for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new struciure in a location
approved by the PEC. As with Option 1, building height would have to comply with the
maximum 33'. Additionally, the applicant would need to provide a connection to the other
half of this duplex. Because this would be Gonsidered a demo/rebuild, the applicant
would not have the right to apply for the Additional GRFA.
S~aff res_.ponse: Staff believes that should the existing striacture be removed, no unique
circumstances pertain to this site that would allow for a uariance to the setback
requirement. Staff could not support a proposal for a variance of this kind.
Optian 3- Submit a new plan that complies with all aspects of zaning.
The applicant could submit a new plan for Design Review Board approval. This would
involve removing the existing structure and proposing a new plan that involves no
variances, and all nonconformities would have to be addressed. These incfude,
setbacks, height and connection. No Additianal GRFA (250) vtirould be available since
demolishing the structure would be considered a demo/rebuild.
5ta,ff response: This resolves all issues regarding the nonconforming structure. Should it
be determined that the building must be demolished, this is staff's recommended course
of action.
3
Option 4- Build the addition and remodel as approved. ' • •
In this option, the applicant continues construction and builds the addition to comply with
the original approval and the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
Staff response: Staff believes that it is possible to build the addition and remodel within
the existing structure. The structural engineer states, in his letter, that the remodel could
be more "effectively accomplished" if the building were demolished. It is not stated that
the remodel cannot be done if the structure was not demolished.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the applicanYs request to eliminate the condition of approval. Staff
recommends that the applicant abide by the original condition, or if the structure must be
demolished, revise plans to comply with all development standards, including setbacks, building
height and connection.
•
i
I
I
h 'i~ •
4
t ZEEB CONSTRUCTION, INC.
C` P.O. Box 1997 - Avon, Colorado 8 i 620
303-949-3292
March 24, 1997
Dan Stanek, Town of Vail
Lauren E. Waterton, Town Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Krediet Residence
226 Forest Road ~
- Vail, CO 81657
• As you know, Zeeb Construction, Inc. has been awarded the bid to rebuild or remodel the I
Krediet residence, referenced above, and is currently under contract to perform the wark I
of construction. In regard to that construction, I find that I am caught between the ,
requirements of the building department and the conflicting requisites of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. In the past, I have always diligently complied with any and all
conditions set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the 25 years I have been
building in the Vail Valley, I have, however, never before been confronted with a
situation quite like this, where compliance with the Commission's requirements would be
adverse to the best interest of all involved, including the Town of Vail and the adjacent
neighbors.
Out of concern for the mutual welfare of all parties, I have retained an independent
engineer to evaluate both the proposed project and the existing structure. I have further
asked of the engineering consultant to help me formulate a plan to reasonably comply
with the Town's codes and concerns. Enclosed for your review, please find a copy of MJ
Mueller Company's report, detailing its findings. Sadly, it appears that the only
resonable ways to proceed with the project of construction is either to demolish the
existing structure in stages or else, more efficiently, to completely demolish the existing building. The latter alternative runs contrary to the conditions imposed upon the project
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, I believe, unfairly burdens the homeowner,
Mr. Krediet. Too, the conditions unfairly and unnecessarily burden the adjacent '
•R homeowners. If we are relieved of these burdensome requirements and are allowed to
Dan Stanek, Town of Vail " • •
' Lauren E. Waterton, Town Planner
March 24, 1997
Page Two
proceed with total demolition, we would thereby minimize any and all impacts upon the
nearby existing residences.
Additionally, if we are to proceed under the "makeshift" requirements imposed, I am
genuinely fearful for the safety and welfare of my workers. Further, I fear that if an
injury were to occur, that the Town itself my be brought into an action. I feel that the
more reasonable and prudent approach would be to consider this project on its own
unique merits and subject to its own unique deficits. I believe that this more
well-reasoned approach would lead any fair-minded person to conclude that total
demolition would have by far less impact upon the community, contribute significantly to
the safety and welfare of the workers and serve Mr. Krediet more fairly.
I assure you that with the aid of a competent surveyor, we can locate the new residence in
precisely the same spot upon which the existing structure now resides. In so doing, we
would be in full compliance with all relevant planning and zoning requirements.
Please consider that any and all delays contribute significantly to Mr. Krediet's costs, as
well as to Zeeb Construction's bottom line. Accordingly, may I respectfully implore you •
to contact me at your earliest convenience so we may discuss a mutually saisfactory
resolution to the unfortunate set of circumstances as they now exist.
full s, '
4RobZeeb,
President
' sw
cc: Rohn K. Robbins, Esq.
Rebecca Givens, Esq.
John Krediet
. A,
•
e ,
oltmo
the mj mueller co., inc.
21 March 1997
Mr. Robert Zeeb
ZEEB CONSTRUCTION, INC.
PO Box 1997
Avon, Colorado 81620
Subject: Construction Feasibility Inspection
THE KREDIET RESIDENCE
226 Forest Road
Vail, Colorado ,
Dear Bob: ~i
At your request, this office has conducted a visual inspection of
the existing structure of the above referenced project, and
reviewed construction documents as prepared by Steven James Riden
~ dated 1-31-97 and approved by the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, for the proposed remodel. The purpose of
the inspection and plan review is to determine the feasibility of
the proposed remodel with respect to the present condition of the
existing structure and approval conditions of the Town of Vail.
The drywal.l has been removed from the upper two level.s of the
structure for visual inspectiQn. The following items are to be
noted:
a) CONDITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
The existing building was constructed in or around 1963, and
was constructed in accordance with the building codes as
adopted at that time. The 1991 Uniform Building Code as
presently adopted by the Town of Vail Building Department is
significantly more consciences of life-safety items, than the
code that the original building was constructed under. As an
example, the design snow load was 40 psf, the present design
snow load is 80 psf. Many areas of structural distress have
been exposed in the existing roof framing system, including
the roof supporting structure down through the building.
Inadequate 2x4 exterior wall construction, substandard
diaphragm insulation, failed framing details, and undersized
structural members are some of the other major concerns with
this existing structure that will require structural review.
The engineer-of-record and the general contractor must
coordinate the extent of structural upgrade that will be -
civil architectura{ and structural engineering 9 p.o. box 2747 vaif, coforado 81658 476-2627 476-2637 (FAX)
~ •
Page 2
Mr. Robert Zeeb
- 21 March 1997
required by the Town of Vail Building Department for this
, particular project, if a partial remodel is to be completed.
b} APPROVED BUILDING CONCEPT
The existing structure is a 3-story wood framad building
bearing upon a poured-in-place concrete foundation with a
' slab-on-grade walkout basement level. The approved proposed
structure is a 2-story wood framed building, with all the
floors at elevations different than the original floor
elevations. The basement slab-on-grade f loor elevation has
been dropped 2 feet further into the ground than presently
exists. The exterior finishes including but not limited to
windaw units and their locations, stone wrap, siding, roof
fascia, etc. are all being removed and upgraded. Condition .
#5 of the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of
the front setback variance tor this proposed remodel, states
that, "The main structural elements of the existing house that
. form the perimeter, or exterior structural walls of the unit,
may not be demolished or altered, and must remain in-place :
. throughout the remodel process."
c) APPROVED BUILDING PROCESS
The building process for this remodel, when following the appraval conditions mentioned above, requires that all the
elements of the existing structure be temporarily supported _
while each structural element beneath is replaced or
reinforced. Condition #5 is nearly impossible to conform with
since the floors are being moved to different elevations,
portions of the exterior walls will have to be replaced to
maintain wall continuity from floor to floor. The lowering
of the b asement flo or requires that the existing foundation
wall be segmentally underpinned to maintain the existing
foundation system. The modification of the interior floor
elevations causes the degree of complexity and difficulty in '
this remodel to increase dramatically. When such a scope of
remodel in the interior structure occurs, it is an industry " standard and general.ly more realistic, to consider the option
of completely rebuilding the entire structure. Especially,
when considering the overall condition of this existing structure.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of this office, that the proposed
~ remodel could be more effectively accomplished if the building were
completely demolished and rebuilt in the exact same position as the +
. 4
• Page 3 I
Mr. Robert Zeeb
21 March 1997
_ existing building. A local surveyor could be retained to verify
the exact location of the existing building, correct placement of
the new building before pouring the concrete footings, before
pouring the concrete foundation walls, and after completion of the
roof framing. The new building can be• constructed more safely,
quickly, cost-effectively, and in camplete compliance with the
present 1991 UBC as adopted by the Town of Vail, than the proposed
remodel of the existing building. Potential site concerns such as
bedrock and groundwater can be addressed more properly when the
existing building has been completely removed. The overall quality
of the campleted project, will be increased by completely
rebuilding the original building, rather than completing a piece-
by-piece remodel of the existing building.
This office was not involved with the design, planning, or approval I
process with respect to this project. The involvement of this
. aff ice regarding the feasibility of the proposed remodel, daes not
in any way warranty the architecture or engineering represented in
e. the construction documents, or insure compliance with any past or
present building or zoning codes. The architecture and engineering
~ represented in the construction documents are the responsibility
af the architect-of-record and the engineer-of-record.
If you have any questions regarding this inspection and report, or require additional services, please contact this office at the
phone number shown on the cover sheet.
Sincerely yours,
THE MJ MFJELLER CO., INC. -
N Ax-
Mark J. Mu ' President
cc: Mr. Dan Stanek-Town of Vail Building Official .
~ , • - ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environmental.Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 13, 1995
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to ailow for a major remodel and
addition to the existing primary residence located at 226 Forest
, Road/Lot 11-A, Black 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appiicant: John Krediet
Planner: Randy Stouder
:':,Y:.:•;>::::::5
1. DESCRIPTiON OF THE VARtANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is proposing a major remodel of the existing primary residence. The proposal
involves filling-in approximately 2/3 of the existing carport with new GRFA, and constructing a
' buried garage with a two-story addition on top. The garage addition would be connected to
the main house by a two-story enclosed walkway. The garage would be accessed with a
new, relatively flat driveway (see attached site plan). ~
Roughly the front 1/2 of the existing structure is located within the 20-foot front setback.
Although the applicant is not proposing to add GRFA any closer to the front praperty iine than
the existing unit, the applicant is proposing GRFA additions to portions of the existing '
structure that are currently located within the front setback. The GRFA addit+ons include
areas on the side of the existing chimney (second floor only) and the infill of approximately 2/3
of the carport area. The applicant also proposes to add stone arches, columns and stone ~
veneer to the first story of the remodeled house, adding mass and bulk in the front setback,
producing a minor additional encroachment toward the front property line.
i
The existing carport is located within 7 fee# of the front property line, in the front
setback. Thus, the request to infill the carport with new GRFA would require approval
of a front setback variance of 13 feet. The stane veneer, supporting columns and stone
arches proposed at the first floor level would expand the exterior of the house an
additional 0.5 feet into the front setback along the north elevation. The stone arches
and columns would also widen the first floor of the house up to 1.5 feet (east to west)
in the front setback. Thus, the request to infill the carport and add stone work to the
first floor level of the house adds GRFA and mass and bulk in the front setback, and
requires approval of a front setback variance of 13.5 feet. The north face of the
remodeled house at grade level would be (ocated 6.5 feet from the front property line.
The existing chimney is located within 5 feet of the front property line, in the front
setback, at the second level of the house. Thus, the existing front setback ~
i
• encroachment, related to the chimney, is 15 feet. The request to widen the chimney at
the second level does not produce further encroachmen# toward the front property line,
but it does add GRFA and additional mass and bulk within the front setback and thus
requires approval of a front setback variance.
11. WORKSESSiON ISSUES (2/27/95 PEC)
At the previous meeting the PEC gave the applicant specific direc#ion. The PEC was
unanimous with regards to the following:
1. The carport infill in the front setback was acceptable as proposed;
2. The addition of a dormer in the front setback, above the plane of the existing
roof, was not acceptable;
3. The small additionat encroachment into the front setback for the stone veneer
on the first level addition was acceptable;
4. The encroachment of the expanded or widened chimney (second level only)
into the front setback was also acceptable.
III. ZONtNG CONSIDERATtONS
The property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential, with a site area of 22,263 square feet.
Allowed/Required Existin Proposed
• GRFA:
Primary: 3,111 sq. h. 2,196 sq. ft. 3,361 sq. h."
Secondary: 2,215 sq. ft. 1,875 sq. ft. 1,875 sq. ft.
Total Allowable: 5,326 sq. R. 4,071 sq. R. 5,236 sq. ft. i
Site Coverage: 4,453 sq. ft.(20%) Primary: 918 sq. ft. Primary: 1,994 sq. it. 1,076 sq. ft.)
SecondaN: 1,096 sq. ft. Secondary: 1,096 sq. fl. (no chanqe) •
Total: 2,014 sq. ft. (9.05%) Total: 3,090 sq. ft. (13.88%)
Landscaping: 13,357 sq. ft. (60%) 19,444 sq. ft. (87.3%) 18,368 sq. R. (82.5%)
Height: 33' 34.7"` 34.7"* ,
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 7' (second level building overhang) 6.5' (carport infill plus stone veneer)""
5' (chimney) 5.0' (chimney-widen 2.5 feet sideways)
' 6.5' (arches and columns-firsi levet
facade widened)
Sides: 15715' 15118' 15718'
Rear: 15' 67' 67'
Parking: 4 spaces required 4 spaces provided 6 spaces proposed (2 enclosed)
* Use of a 250 additional GRFA allotment for the primary unit is proposed in order to preserve the secondary units remaining GRFA (up to 40%
of total altowed GRFA plus the 425 sq.R. credit). The secondary unit has not used its 250 GRFA allotmeni. If approved, this remodel to ihe
primary unit will use up all the available GRFA and all of its 250 GRFA allotment.
" Existing ridge on primary unit exceeds current height limit and is thus legal nonconforming by 1.7'. "fhe applicant does nat propose io alter
that portion of the existing roof that is nonconforming. All additions to the structure conform to the current height restriction.
The applicanl is requesting variances of 13.5', 15' and 13.5' into the front setback for the carpon infill with stone veneer, the chimney
~ widening, and the addition of supporting columns/arches, respectively.
• .
2
{V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - . ~
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipa! Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances
based on the following factors:
A. Considerat+on ot Factors:
/
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The requested front setback variance for the carport infill, if approved, would
not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties. The existing
structure encroaches 13 feet into the required 20-foot front setback. Previously,
a different driveway configuration existed which allowed residents of the primary
unit to pull-through the carport area and continue across the adjacent
secondary unit fot and exit onto Forest Road. The owner of the secondary unit
approached the PEC to reconfigure the driveway and eliminate the pull-through.
The PEC granted the request, which reconfigured the parking area on the
secondary unit and eliminated the pu!!-through drive. This approval produced
an ur+desirable situation with the primary unit, since the applicant currently
backs out onto Forest Road via an extremely steep driveway section. Staff
` feels that the proposal to change the driveway as reflected on the proposed site
plan, is a significant improvement to the existing situation. The new driveway
and garage render the current carport area unnecessary. Thus, staff feels that •
infilling this area with GRFA is acceptable. The additional GRFA in the front I
setback would not be perceived as additional mass and bulk due to its location ,i
under the cantilevered living space above and due to the openness of the entry '
patio area. '
Adding a stone veneer, widening the chimney and adding supporting
columns/arches produces an additional 6-inch encroachment into the front
setback. Widening the chimney and the first story facade adds a small amount
of additional mass and bulk in the front setback, but does not produce further
• encroachment toward the front property line. Staff feels that the encroachments
are minor and will have no impact on adjacent structures or uses.
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 feels that approving the carport infill is consistent with treatment given to
other applicants throughout the Town. Where existing structures already
encroach into setback areas, the PEC has allowed minor GRFA additions to be
placed in the setback as long as it does not exceed the current limits of
encroachment, nor does it negatively impact adjacent properties. This has
occurred on a limited basis throughout Town and has generally been supported .
3
• by staff and the PEC. Granting a setback variance to infill the carport is
considered by staff to be acceptable since GRFA already cantilevers over this
area.
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.
Staff feels that the addition of the garage and new driveway are positive
improvements that will improve public safety, since the current unsafe driveway
configuration and slope will be eliminated.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinqs
before qrantinq 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 fiteral 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variances based on our review of
the application in the criteria and findings section of this memorandum. If the PEC decides to
approve the variance requests, staff recommends that the foNowing conditions be placed on
the approval: -
1. Final Design Review Baard (DRB) approval of an additional 250 GRFA
~ a(lotment shall be obtained.
4
2. Finai review and approval of the site pian by the Public Works lDepartment shaii •
be obtained prior to issuance of a bui(ding permit.
3. An exterior lighting plan shail be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
4. The remodeled house shall not encroach further into the front setback than the
existing building overhang depicted on the property survey, with the one
exception that a six-inch stone veneer may be added to the first story facade.
5. The north-facing portion of the existing roof that extends into the front setback,
and the existing roof ridge beam, shall not be demolished or altered except as
expressly needed to attach the dormer that projects off the south side of the
ridge beam. The main structural elements of the existing house that form the
perimeter, or exterior structural walls of the unit, may not be demolished or
altered, and must remain in-place throughout the remodel process.
~
i:\everyone\pec\rnemoslkrediet.313
. •
5
. • , • `
~
- - - ~
I
(so• R.o w.)
' ROAD
fOREST
~ _ - OO = _
I ` ~
o ~
_r• u~ ' - ~ = - 3
2 ~ _ ~ oe /s240 250 ~
~ ..u+c~ B5U E ` ~ ...i ~ ~ I
I, ' I •-~a_~.. ~
.
' ~ ~ • - l- .M ~
• CURVE DATA scue: i' ~ io•
MTE OF SURVEY: 6/28/94
Ct LOT 9 ~ .
- lrsvsr ~.~.a
L ~ 143.82'
i
~ R ~ 637A0' ~ ~ • ~ nam..c
~ C2 07-1 T•21'
L ~ E1.05'
~ R ~ Q7L10' '
C7 ? ~ 05-37•37, i L ~ 62.57' _
~ ~ Y~
_E
8170
LOT 7~1-8
LOi 12
i l0T 11 ~-A ."~'•...`r'~ '.r.w'+...""...'... r"~.,...,,
~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~-.r...
t
O
~ ceaw~ ~ xme
1 -
I
I
~ munpv~r
~
_
1 ' 0
l
92g
~ ~ 6.6
"
u...:,o
02.37 5 /0 }p af W•"165.00
LOT 9-A
I I
i "
~ LOT 70
Pcc LOT 73 -
~
~ S~af 0 1 AHIC ~ VT~
LSL ~A'L t t, BLOCK 7 701VNVi~rtv nnr nn~n~ e v. i+
. . I
f I
}x II
I
p.,+. +A'~ ~ ~ • ary M1P I
~ t~ 6s~H"~i' ' .i _ ~ ` y1 ~~,w,~.•µ^'
`
~p 4
x
MiJ G/LLACbM ' ~ ^J ~ ~ t M
1 ~
WJ 8,~+~5'?~^,
W~ ev
~aevNa' ot ~o
t
~
I
. • • `
3- . '
.
~;.°t' .
~
~
- -
i• .
~
BLUUM
~ .
t." .
:
~31~
, ' . <e~W~Q JMKwi~ f l ~
~ • • • ~ ~ ( 41 Q LMli~f vMOn.ly~ ~ `
T ' .
• " ..::i , " R'f 46 ws .,r,1K ~
• .
~ _ ' • T ~ • ~+wrv e.... .i.i.n.. - .
n ~ ~ ~..r~+• . , I ~ ` st+1?*7
~ . _ ' ' ' - ' _ " .
I • _ W 1 M ^ F ~ . 140
I
r
:
~ .
~ . . -
' ~TAi~t .l'1 ~ 1.4~_ T
r~ .
~ ~ D p ,
j
1) L i . _ -
c~.....r. ,s,..
P+.u.+s sn'~ ` ]
~ ~ ~-~1~ -n~i.- ' !oa>ar
• L• .rj Y J Y92.f ~"T FIoQ Oi1NtW~
M S E X N~t /p~~
. ' V - . ~~~M +~e
, i - ' . ~ nR.+~.~'~uv.
' _ M ~ J~ tl frr
, _ _ . _ ~ . ~ - . - . ~l
. l+mlu I , ur ' • ~1. 1M't.yl. Tu. A
~ ~ Z - ~ . ~'y ~J/'. Y L ~tMY~41Y Ivov.
Tr~.. , ~ „ J'J 1
r..ra-t` . , 'tt}w.~w~ + ~~`r
• ' t y` ~Mw nir~ ~ ~i. i.: .p .
. j ' 'j i• , `-~CaT ==`-j(
, pn... w.f~ sar~. ~ 1rse.Rr.~rm~ ~ ~ -~I~•a ,+..sor- r«.t+ e ~i ..c
` Qw~Ti'_w,. es? ' . I'' ~
~ . ~ ~ __:~.hh ,l ~ 0+
(i ~ : ~ ~ i ~ w>
, , l. ~I ~ j _ ~ ~ ( J 4y *a ~
~ ~ w"t' ^'f*..~...' F,
. _ .r.~__
. - - j 4ir ~Y
u~+E~,~..q' .p,~. Y ~ --1~-- --I --i ~ "~a'~ <
}l ~
• Ca„sr ' ~ ~r ~M-~• ~-r rit ~
~i.t' v~ ~ i t . .
i- ~y /
y~~ srt x't.
/ ~s -oT~~~'
~F-1 T ~ ~_j~. I.:~; ! . ~t st "
ti.P ~ . , , . .!R,.
_ ~ ~ 3
VR ~ 4th 1
.w~rin~ae.. eew? +J+~++:F. ~r?)L:~ .
, . .R•.~...wa : •~m•.w w~.~~.
. r`Mu ~f.~. n{~e.V~k ~O
. ~ ' •
s ~ .
~ ~ 4 1
L
\
Yy
low
, • _ ~
. ,
~ ' . ! u 1
~~~,+~•r ay~ 1 ~y~,r,• 1
. . '`~;t r~ i•~ t, to+Mr' E N Nr~"~K ,
M ' *Af~.+
• << t_
S ~ ~ K' l ~
- ~ - ~
6~. t "f r"i ro
le,
~ ~ p'~t l ~ S ~y~y.t3 41-0
F~ y
cti
t;
!~Y
I
~
{
i.
I b~:.
.
3-
-
. 4a~.- -
` u ~
n 4
~w4 yt
. 6 V i
AN1L '
t j
. +
_ ~
1 I
itw~lir pw~Mf~
~ N ! l N
Y~I~` ~ NO I
Y !YY
1 dy~
- - ~ ~ : ~Mli~
N.i.~rw+,l5' i~~ 1{ ~
V ~
n
~4'~~
I ~ ~ ~,w V
~
t4NRk ~ a~ . i • C-~~..~s~F ~'i
~ ~
.vnn+w.~,~, ~ ~ ~
i ~
` - 1
~~I
,~r~MsU~'(bwAti~ . 1L ' ~
~ .s.,e..3C^-°•.a~' ~
' .>I
r i..-.,...' e}~•...w.R ~ r•~ - ty
/ ' \ 1 F
~ . - - - - ' =,;,,r ---7......,«'~- ~
r= - j - ~ ~ +
.ir~~r u""~ ~l - ` ,~s.
1 p
4
oi•=1~
~s~~ ~ sr cl+ri
X~--~- ~ -
h _ o GstA9
~ ~ . . . ~2 13..~~.
~y ,~,.:o l .,e..,~
we~,L` ~ ~1'~ppK~`"~ ~ ~n
pGS,ma~+••_ sir ~Y~iTYf'f'~l
I • e
~
-
T
I .
t
/ ~
<v
~
• J" r. _ _ ,i
~ ~~~y~+1~L` aM~t~'
~ peA
r> { ;
D3A'
, s..5 f~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~„'l'"
~
i b. Ys•~
~ ,o,?,,~,,, °r~,w„ - - ~~,s B ~y,,.1 ~a~4'~'M~
~ • t` `j J~-~
r-
~ yr
~ ~,~,~}pJ F~ 1
.yy f:kE
't .
1 ~
,
Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the request for an outdoor dining deck, with ~
' instructions to the applicants that a streetscape bench or benches be piaced against the
wall of Pepi's as originaily approved by the PEC, noting also that the standard viilage
trash receptacle should be placed in the aicove a(ong with the bench(s). The appiicants
wondered what size the streetscape benches were? Staff described the benches. Bob
Armour seconded Jeff Bowen's motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-1-1.
Henry abstained; Kevin voted against the motion, however, he liked the idea of the tables
if the issues could be worked through.
5. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Ricci Residence
located at 2576 Davos Trail/Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Nancy Ricci, represented by Galen Aasland
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy presented the project per the staff memo. Andy presented, on page 2 of the memo,
five other examples requiring this type of approval. Andy expressed concern about the
original size of the variance and that the applicant had decreased square footage to bring
the site coverage variance within the range of previous projects. Staff recommends
approval with three conditions on page 5.
Greg Amsden asked for public input, there was none. Bob Armour motioned that a
request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Ricci Residence
located at 2576 Davos Trail/Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing be approved with
the staff's conditions on page 5 of the staff memo. Jeff Bowen seconded. Vote 6-0. •
6. A request for a front setback variance to allow for the redevelopment of a residence
located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet, represented by Steven Riden '
Planner: Randy Stouder
Randy presented the project per the staff inemo. Building overhang is 7' from front
property line, chimney and stone veneer is .5' from frant property line, stone work extends
beyond overhang. This would allow more of the front building in the setback. Three
areas of intrusion into the front setback 13'5" and 16' for front of house. Conditions, level
of demo, nonconforming currently. No additional height in front setback, applicant has
removed dormers that would have extended above that level. Staff recommends
approval, reshingling roof.
Greg Amsden stated the Commission hadn't had many questions since items were
addressed from the last meeting. Bob Armour asked about driveway elevation.
Steven Riden, project architect, replied that Forest Road is about a foot and a half down
from garage.
Jeff made a motion to approve a request for a front setback variance to allow for the
redevelopment of a residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village
1 st Filing in accordance with the conditions which are contained on page 4 and 5 of the
staff inemorandum. Kevin Deighan abstained due to a conflict of interest. Vote 5-0-1. •
Greg Amsden requested a 15 minute break before the next item.
Planning and Ernironmental Commisston
March 13,1995
Minutes 4
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environrnental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 28, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of an administrative decision determining that the Vail Run tennis bubble
is a seasonal structure. The property is located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop (Vail Run).
Appellant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
. •
1. SUBJECT PROPERTY SDD #5 Vail Run/Simba Run, located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Staff believes the appellant has standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owner of ihe
subject property.
, IN. BACKGROUND
On December 16, 1975, Vail Run and what is now Simba Run and Savoy Villas was annexed into
the Town. Upon annexation, the existing development consisted of the Vail Run Building, a
swimming pool, and three tennis courts, two of which were covered. Upon annexation the property J
was zoned Residential Cluster. The owner of the property at that time filed a lawsuit against the
Town charging confiscatory zoning because the zoning did not recognize the Eagle County approved development plan (effectively a down zoning of the property). ~
The property owner, in order to resolve the court case, applied for an SDD and received approval
on March 2, 1976 (Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976) for 2.54 acres (only the Vail Run portion of the i
property). This approval simply recognized the previously nonconforming uses, as conforming.
SDD #5 recognized the 55 dwelling units, 18,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, a swimming pool,
and three tennis courts (see Attachment A).
On December 20, 1977, the Town Counc+l approved the first amendment to SDD #5 to add lots
cornprising 6.3 acres for a total of 8.84 acres. The Vail Run portion of the site is referred to as
Development Area "A" and the remainder af the site was referred to as Development Area "B."
This approval (Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977) allowed the developments on this property to be
joined together as a unified development. Under Section 8"Special Provisions," Subsection C
"Recreational Amenities" it states the following:
(1) A minimum of five additional tennis courts (Development Area A presently has three
tennis courts two of them covered during the winter season). [emphasis added] (see
Attachment B)
. ~
In 1993 (Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993) and 1995 (Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995, see
1
TOWN
*VAIL
.7.. L a
,
' Attachment C) amendments to SDD #5 were approved and both contain the exact same language •
i as indicated above.
In the period between the establishment of SDD #5 in 1976 and the date of the first amendment in
1977, the Town adopted a definition of a"recreation structure" and a''seasonal use or structure."
The following are the definitions for these structures as found in the code:
"Recreation structure" means any covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as
a swfrnming pool or tennis court, which is not a seasonal structure. For the purposes of
this Title, recreation structures shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to
building bulk control standards. Any recreation structure shall require a conditional use
permit in accord with Chapter 18.60.
"Seasonal use or structure" means a temporary covering erected over a recreational
amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their Lase to
~ the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven
; (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a
seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to
building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional
use permit in accord with Chapter 18.60.
According to Town records, the tennis "bubble" has never been removed during the summer
months.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
On April 4, 1997, during the review of an SDD amendment affecting the tennis courts submitted by •
the appellant, staff determined that the "bubble" is a seasonal structure based on the language in
the SDD ordinance for this development. The ordinance states that "two of them [tennis courts] ~
[are] covered during the winter season." Staff believes that although the language does not r
specifically state that the structure must be "a seasonal structure," it does recognize the covering "
(tennis "bubble") as a seasonal structure.
,
The appellant has filed an appeal of this decision contending the following (see appeal form
Attachment D):
a. The cover over the tennis courts is a prior existing legal nonconforming structure
which is not required to be removed at any time.
b. The cover over the tennis courts is a Recreational Structure as defined by the
Zoning Code which states: "Recreation structure means any covering erected over
a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis courts which is not a
seasonal structure."
Staff Response:
Staff beiieves that once a parcel of land or a development becomes incorporated into a Special
Development District it can no longer be considered "nonconforming" due to annexation or any
other code modification, uniess specifically made nonconforming in the ordinance approving the
` SDD. The deveiopment plan and ordinance for an SDD allows those uses and structures
contained in the developrnent. Therefore, once these structures became part of SDD #5 they are
considered part of the development plan and hence conforming. ~
The fact that the structure has never complied with the ordinance (by not being removed for 5
months of the year) does not mean that it therefore becomes "grandfathered."
2
ti
^ a .
• V. RECIUIRED ACTION
Uphotd/Overturn/Modify staff's interpretation of the covering over the two tennis courts located at
Vail Run as a seasonal structure.
The Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance
with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below:
! 5. Findings. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals
make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to
it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and
conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
,
Staff recommends that the PEC uphold the staff's decision and recommends that the PEC make
the following findings:
1. The language contained in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995, requires the cover over
the two tennis courts, to not be erected more than 7 consecutive months in a 12
month period.
, 2. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning)
and Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995, have not been met.
~
FAeveryone\pec4nemo\vail run 1.428
I
J
r
f
l~
3
J
a "
•
ORDINAiJCE PaO. 6 •
Series of 1976
AN ORDINAf•ICE ESTA6LISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPi4ENT DISTRICT 5
AND AMENOING 7HE ZOWING QRDINA;dCE Ah1D THE OFFICIAL ZONING
h1AP.
4lHEREAS, Article 1, Section 1.201, of the Zaning Ordinance, Ordinance
\ iVo. 8, Series of 1973, of the Toti•rn of Vail, Colorado, as anended, established •
thirteen zoning districts for the municipality, one o` which is the Special
r
Development Oistrict.
YIiiEREAS, Coiorado Investment Service, Inc., a Colorado Corporation,
submitted as owner an application requesting that the Town establish Specia]
Development District 5, hereinafter referred to as "SD5" for the development
on its parcel of land comprising approximately 2.54 acres in the portion of the
Lionsridge area more fully described as Lot ll.and the..southeasterly partion of Lot 10, Resubdivision of 6lock C, Lionsridge Subdivision, County
of Eagle, State of Colorado, which was annexed to tne Toern effective on the i
16th day of December, 1975. -
~
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDS will ensure unified
~
t~ and coordinated development and use of a critical site as a whole and in a
~
manner suitabie for the area in which it is situated. ~
41HEREAS, the Tovm Council considers that is is reasonable, appropriate,
and beneficial to the To4m and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to ,
establish said SDS; • ,
(yOW, THEREFORE, EE IT ORDAIi`IED [iY THE TOWi'1 COUPICIL OF iHE TO!vi1 OF '
VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title
This ordinance shall be knowm as the "Ordinance Establishing Special
Development District 5". Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fuifilled; Planning Commission Report.
The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 21.500 of the Zoning
4rdinance have been fulfilled, with the report of the Planning Comniission re-
commending the enactment of this ordinance. •
• Section 3. Special Uevelopment District 5 Established; Amendments
to Zoning Ordinance and Official 2oning htap.
Pursurant to the provisions of Articles l, 13, and 20 of the Zoning
Ordinance, Ordinance tto. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as
amended, Special Development District.5 (SDS) a special development zoning
~ district, is hereby established for the development on a certain parcel of land
l comprising 2.54 acres in the Lionsr9dge area of the Toam, and the Zoning Ordinance
and the Official Zoning P-1ap are hereby amended by the addition or" the following
provisions vrhich shal] become the Sixth Chapter of Article 13, the caption ,
of which shall be "Special Develooment District 5" and a map whicfi snall be-
come an addition to the Official Zoning htap:
A. Purposes.
Special Development District 5 is established to ensure comprehensive I
development and use of an area in a manner tliat will be harmonious with the
general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational
. amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The development
is regarded as complementary to the Tovrn hy the Tovm Council and the Alanning
Commission, and there are•significant aspects of the special development which 't
~ cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the
area.
Q. Special Development District 5 Established. (1) Special Development District 5 is established for the development
on a parcel of land comprising 2.54 acres in the Lionsridge area of the Town; Special Development District 5'and said 2.54 acres may be referred to as "S0511.
(2) The existing buildir.g consisting of 55 dwelling units, ap- .
proximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space, a s:•rimming pool and three
tennis courts, sha11 be known as SDS.
•
C. Perrnitted Uses.
(1) In SD5 (existing building and recreational facilities), the following uses shall be permitted:
(a) Plultiple family residential darelling;
(b) Accessory retail and restaurant and service establishments
not occupying more than 18,000 square feet including the following:
Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries
i -
Eook stores • •
Camera«stores and photographic studios
Candy stores
Chinaware and g1assware stores
Specialty food stores
Florists
~ Gift stores
HobUy stores
Jewelry stores ,
Leather goods stores
Liquor stores
iJewsstands and tobacco stores
Sporting goods stores
Stationery stores
Toy stores
. Variety stores ~
Barber shops.
Beauty sfiaps
Travel and ticket agencies
\
Oelicatessens with food service
f
Cocktail ]ounges, taverns and bars '
Coffee shops •
Fountains and sandwich shops '
Restaurants
Additional businesses or services determined to be similar
to permitted uses in accord ti•lith tne provisions of Section
' 21.200 of this ordinance.
0. Conditional Uses.
- ~
I~I (1) In 505 the following conditional uses shall be permitted, ~
subject to issuance of a Conditiona] Use Permit in accoi•d with the provisions
of Article 13 hereof;
(a) Public utility and public service uses;
( . (b) Public buildings, grounds, and facilities;
• -fa ~
(c) Public or private schools;
(d) Public park and recreation facilities;
(e) hleeting rooms.
_3_
I '
• E. Accessory Uses.
(1) In"SD5 the following accessory uses shall be permitted:
(a) Indoor and outdoor recreationa] facilities, including
but not 1 imited to, swir.uning pools,. tennis courts. '
(b) Hone occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 hereof,
~
(c) Qther uses customarily incidental and accessory to
pennitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. '
F. Development Standards.
(1) Genera7 Oensity Plan. ,
Development
S05
' Existing Bldg. ,
tdaximum gross residential floor area 43>000
(square feet)
Maximum number of dwelling units 55
hlaximum gross commerciai floor area 18,000
. (square feet)
G. Additiona7 Amenities.
(1) The developer shall provide adequate transportation services ~
to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the •
developnent to Village Core area andl:ionshead area.
~
Section 4. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect five days after pubiication following
the final passage hereof.
IidTRODUCED, READ Otd FIRST READING, APPROVED, APiD ORDERED PUBLISHED
OiICE Itd FULL, this lOth day of February, 1976, and a public hearinq on fihis
ordinance sha11 be held at the regular meeting of the To-;rn Council of the Town ~
. ~
of Vail, Colorado on the 2nd day of March, 1976, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipa]
Building of the Town of Vail.
TOWPd OF VAI L
S G~%rtit, /
Y:
-4+ " hn A. Gobson, hlayor
ATTEST:.:.'-,
, ~ .
c4z .
own C erk j •
~ (
• •
INTRODUCED, READ,,.AOQPTEQ, and OROERED PU3LISHED in full this 2nd
day of I•1arch, 1976
TO1-JN OF VAIL
~ eY:
4nADobson, f•tayor
ATTEST:' •
.
• 6 ~L uG •-tic~.X,t/l; i.(/
Town Clerk • i•! ~r
. • I!
r
, .r
l
'
~
\
I
i
`
" -~k ' .
. ( ~
~
oRD2rrANCE No. 29 ,
Series of 1977
AN ORDINANCE AMENDIidG SPECIAL DEVELOPiSEt+T
DISTRICT 5 AND PROVIDING FOR A DEVELO??ME21T
PLAN AI1Q ZTS CONTENTS; PEf2MITTED, CONDI-
TIONFIL AAtD ACCESSORY USES; DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, RECREATIOtd 11MEVITIES TA:{, AND
OTfiER SPECIAL PROVISIONS; SETTING FORTEI
DETAILS RELATING THERETO; RMENDIDIG TfIE
VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 18.45; A?QD
AMENDING THE OFP'ICIAL ZODII.IG MAP O° "_'fIi
TOWV OF VAIL ,
WHEFtEAS, thc Tovrn established Soecial Development I
District S, hereinafter referred to as "SDDS", for the develop-
nent on a parcel of land comprising 2.59 acres in the ?ortion
of the Lionsridge area more fully described as a oortion of
Lot 10, and Lot 11, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridae
Filing I1o. 1, Town of Vail, Colorado;
~ WFIEREAS, Colorado Investment Services, Inc., has I
submitted an apnlication requesting that the Town amend SDDS
i
to include Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and a portion of Lot 10, Block C, ~
Lionsridqe Filing No. 1, comprising 6.3 acres in the Soecial
• t
Develonment District;
1•71IEI2EAS, SDDS will ensure unified and coordinated
development and use of a critical site as a whole and in a manner
~ suitable for the area in which it is situated;
V7IiEItEAS, the Planninc Commission ar.d Town staff have reco;nmended approval of said application; and '
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reason-
able, appropriate, and beneficial to tlie Town aad its-citizens,
inhabitants, and visitors to amend said SDDS; .
NOW, TIiEI2EFOFtE, BE TT ORDATNED BY THE TOS•fi1 COUNCIL
OF TIiE TOWN,OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
. (1) Purposes.
Special Development District 5 i.s established to
ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner
that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and
. . , . - - ~ ~
Ord. 29 Page 2
promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The develop-
ment is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council
and the Planning Commission, and there are signi£icant aspects
of the special development which cannot be satisfied through
the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area.
(2) Special Develapment District 5 Established.
(A) Special Development District 5 is established
for the development on a parcel oE land comprising 8,84 acres *
in the Lionsridge area of the Town; Special Development District
5 and said 8.84 acxes may be referred to as "SDDS".
(B) The existing building consisting of 55
deaelling units, approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial
space, a swimming pool and three tennis courts, shall be known
as Development A. The remainder of the property containing approx-
• imately G.3 acres shall be described as Development Area B. • I
(3) Approval of the Development Plan Required Prior
to Development.
(A) Defore the developer commences si.i:e prepara-
r
tion, building construction, or other improvement of ooen space
within SDDS, tliere shall be an npproved Development Plan for
said district. ,
(B) The Proposed Development Plan for 5DD5 in
accordance with Section D hereof shall be submitted by the devel- oper to i:he Zoning Administrator who shall refer it to the Plan- '
ning Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly
scheduled meeting, and a report of the Planning Commission stat-
iiig its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to
the Town Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of .
Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code.
(C) The Apgroved Development Plan shall be used
. as the principal guide for all development within SDDS.
(D) Amendments to the Approved Development Plan •
which do not change its substance and which are fully recommended
in a report of the Planning Commission may be approved by the
Town Council by resolution.
~ ~ .
• Ord. 29 • Pace 3
(E) -Each phase of the developmcnt shall require
the prior aporoval of the Design Review Board in accordance with
the aoplicable provisions of Chagter 18.54 of the t•iunicipal Code.
(4) Contcnt of Proposed Develop;nent Plan.
The Proposed Development Plan shall includc, but is
not limited to the following data:
(A) The Lnvironmental Impact Report which shall
be submitted to the Zoning Aclministrator in accordance with
Chapter 18.56 hereof. !
(B) An open space and recreational plan suffici-
ent to meet the demands generated by the development without
undue burden on available or praposed public facilities.
(C) E:cisting and pzoposed contours after grading
and site development having contour intervals of not inore than
five (5) feet if the avexage slope of the sitc is 20 ner cent
• or less, or with contour intervals of not more than ten (10)
feet if the average slope of the site is greatcr than 20 per cent.
P
(D) A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller r
than 1 inch = 50 feet, showing the locations and dinensions of
all buildings and struct.ures, uses therein, and all orincipal ~
site development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational
facilities, oedestrian plazas and walkwavs, service entries,
driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas.
(E) A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not
smaller than 1 inch = 50 feet, showing existing landscape features
to be retained or removed, and showing oroposed landscaoing and
landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational
facilities, bicycle paths, trails, gedestrian plazas and walk- .
ways, water features, and other elements.
• (F) Preliminary building elevations, sections,
' and floor plans, at a scale not smaller than 1/8 inch = 1 foot,
.r„ in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross resiclential
floor area, interior circulation, locations of uses within build-
ings, and the general scale and appearance of the proposed
development. .
( ~ .
Ord. 29 , Pagc 4 ~
(G),YA proposeci plan of parking, loading, traffic
circulation, and transit facilities; and a Aroposed program for
satisfying traffic and transportation needs generated by the
development.
(H) A volumetric model of the site and the pro- '
posed development, portraying the scale and relationships of the
proposed clevelopment to the site illustrating the form and mass
oE the proposed buildings.
(I) An architectural model of each prooosed !
building, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 90 feet, portray-
ing design details.
I
(J) A proposed program indicating order and timing
of construction phases and phasing of recreational amenities and
additional amenities.
(5) Permitted Conditional and Accessory Uses. (A) Tn Development Area A(existing building and ~
recrcational facilities), the following uses shall be permitted:
(1) Multiple family residential diaellings; ~i
r
(2) Accessory retail and restaurant and -
service establishments not occuAying more than 18,000 •s f
square feet including the following: Apparel Stores Art supply stores and galleries
Book stores '
Camera stores and photographic studios
Candy stores
Chinaware and gla$sware stores ~
I~ Specialty food stores
Florists •
Gift stores
Hobby stores
- Jewelry stores •
, . 4r
Leather goods stores
Liquor stores
Newsstands and tobacco stores .
~ Ord. 29 ' narc 5
•-Professional and business offices
Sporting goods stores
Stationery stores
Toy stores
Varicty stores
Barber shops
Eeauty shops
Travel and ticket agencies '
. ~
Delicatessens with food sezvice
Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars
Coffee shops
Fountains and sandwich shops
Restaurants
Additional businesses or services deter-
mined to be similar to permitted uses in
accord with the provisions of Section
21.200 of this ordinance.
(B) In Development Area F3 the following uses shall
be permitted:
(1) hiultiple family residential dwellings
(C) In Development Areas A and ,3 the follocaing •r
f
conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issua:zce of a ~
Conditional Use P.ermit in accordance *ith the provisions of
Chapter 18.60 hereof:
(1) Public Utility and public service uses; •
(2) Public buildings, grounds, and facilities;
(3) Public or privatc schools; .
(A) Public park and recreation facilities; ~
(5) Meeting rooms.
(D) In Developmenti Areas A and B the following
accessory uses shall be permitted:
(1) Tndoor and outdoor recreational facilities,
" includi.ng, but not limited to, sc•rimr,iing nools, tennis
• courts, handball and squash courts and similar recrea-
tional facilities.
( ; (
- Ord. 29 . Page 6 •
,_(2) Home pccupations, subject to issuance ,
of a home occupation permit in accord with the pro-
visions of Section 18.58.130 hereof.
(3) Other uses customarily incidental and
accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and nec-
essary for the operation thereof.
(6) Development Standards.
The following development standards have been submitted
to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommenda- `
tions and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards
shall be incorporated in the Approved Development Plan pertinent
to each Development Area to protect the integrity of the develop-
ment of SDDS; the following are minimum development standards
and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are incorpor-
ated in the Approved Development Plan. The standards set forth
in this Article shall apply only to Development Area B. Develop- • '
ment Area A may be modified provided that no such modification
shall increase the discrepancy between the structure or site i
r
improvements and the development standards set forth in this Article for Development Area B.
(A) Lot Area - Develooment Area B shall consist ~
of approximately 6.3 acres. ,
(B) Setbacks - The required setbacks shall be as .
indicated on the Approved Development Plan, being a minimum of ,
20 feet from any perimeter property line of the total site.
(C) Distance Between Buildings - The minimum
distances between all buildings on the site shall be as indicated ~
on the Approved Development Plan.
(D) FIeight - The maximum height of all buildings
I shall be 45 feet.
' (E) Density Control - The floor area of all
" buildings and number of dwelling units shall not exceed the .
. ~4r
following provisions:
a ti
\ ~ . \
• Ord. 29 Pacc 7
Deve1. Devel. Totals
Area A Arca Ei SDDS
Ext. Bldg.
6laximum gross
residential
floor area
(square feet) 43,000 135,000 198,000
hiaximum number
of dwelling
units 54 135 209
bia:cimum gross
commercial
floor area
(square fcet) 18,000 -0- 18,000 '
(F) Building Bulk Control - Building bulk, maxi-
mum wall lengths, maximum dinensions of building grouns, and
requirements for wall off-sets, shall be as inc:icated on the
Approved Development Plan.
(G) Site Coverage - Not more than 20 per cent of
. the Development Area B shall be covered by buildings.
(H) Landscaping and Natural Open Spacc - A mini-
mum of 60 per cent of Development Area B shall be landscaped or t
natural open space in accordance with the Anoroved Development
Plan. .
~
(I) Parking and Loading - '
(1) Offstreet parking shall be provided in
accord with Chapter 18.52 of this ordinance; at least '
85 per cent of the required parking s:iall be located ,
within the main building or buildings, or beneath
accessory decks, terraces., plazas, o: tennis courts
and shall be completely enclosed and screened from •
~
view.
(2) No parking or loading area shall be
located in any required front setbac4 area or on the
south side of any building, and no parking or loading
shall be permitted at any time in areas designatied .
for recreation or open space use on the Approved
Development P1an.
f w
Ord. 29 Page II
•
(3) Driveways, oassenger loading areas,
and parking areas not ].ocated within a building shall
be permitted only as indicated on the Aporoved
Development Plan.
(4) On-site oarkin,g shall be provided for
common carriers Aroviding charter service to the
development; said oarking sites shall be indicated
on the Approved Development Plan.
r
(7) Recreational Ar.ienities Tax.
The recreational anenities tax due to the development
within SDDS, shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75
per square foot of floor area and shall be paid in conjunction
caith construction bhases and prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
(8) Snecial Provisions.
(A) Conservation and Pollution Controls. • I~
(1) If fireplaces are nrovided within the I
~
develooment, they must be hcat efficient through the r
use of glass enclosures, and heat circulating devices
.r
as technolocy exists at the time of development. f
.
(2) Developer's,drainage Dlan shall include
provisions for prevention of pollution from surface run-off.
(3) Develoner shall include in the building
I construction in Develoor*.ient Area B energy and water
conservation controls as general technology exists
. .
at the time of construction. '
(B) A minimum of 10 employee housing units shall
be provided. This requirement may be satisfied by provision of a
conLmunal living room - kitchen area, which shall constitute a dwel-
. ling unit; and attached accomr.iodation units which shall constitute
~ 1/2 dwelling unit each. •
(C) Recreational Amenities - The Approved Develop-
ment Plan shall include the following recreatioaal amenities:
(1) A minimum of five additional tennis
courts (Development Area A presently has three tennis
courts with two of thec:i covered during the winter
~
~ Ord. 29 ' Pagc 9
season.) •-Said tennis courts shall be madc available
to the general public on a fee basis, subject to
reasonable regulation in favor of owners or guests
of the development.
(2) Tot Lot - Desi,ned in accordance iaith
existing Town facilities as to materials uscd in
construction, play ground equipment, etc.
(3) IIike and oedestrian path traversing
?
property from east property line of Development Area '
A to west site line of Development Arca B shall be
provided by developer with eYact location to be
mutually acceptable to developer and the Town.
(A) Swimming pool (in addition to c::isting ~I
pool in Development Area A) of adequate size to reason-
ably serve the needs of the develapment and shall be
• open to the public on a fce basis subject to rcasonable
regulation in favor of owners or guests of the develop-
i
ment.
r
(D) Additional Amenities -
(1) Developer shall provide adequate trans- f~
portation services to the owmers and guests of the
development so as to transport them from the development
to Village Core area and Lionshead area.
(2) Developer shall provide in its Approved `
Development Plan a bus sheltcr of a design and location
mutually agreeable to developer and Town Council. Said
shelter to serve the Lionsridge area generally.
(9) If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, .
or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining por-
. • tions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares
it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, sub-
section, sentence, clause or phrase thereoE, regardless of the
fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
• l ~ `Ord. 29 Page 10 •
(10) Ttie repeal or the repeal aad reenactment
of any provision oi the Va.il ttunicipal Code as provided in
this ordinlnce sha.ll not affect any right tivhich has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurxed prior to the
efiective date hereoi, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceedinb as commenced under or by virtue ~
of the provision xepealed ox repealed and reenacted. The
xepeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions
or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
sta.ted herein.
INTRODQCED, READ OV FIRST READING, APPROVED,
AVD ORDERED PIJBLISHED ONCE IN I'ULL, this 20th dny of October, •
• 1977, and a. public hearing on this ordinance shall be held • I~
~
at the regular meeting of the Tolvn Counci.l of the Town of Vail,
Colora.do, on the 3rd day of January, 1978, at 7:30 P.bi., in ~
r
the Aiunicipal Building of the Totivn.
•t f
. ' •
C
' hiayor
.
.
ATTEST; '
,
Town Clerk ~
» .
~ . ~ .
• ~ ,
NTRODUCED, READ , ADOPTEQ_.A~IO ENACTED OPa SECOr10 READIPIG Ar 1o oROCREo
PUBLISNEO (I,1 EtSLt) (8Y TITIE ONLY) I1ii5 D%lY
OF 19_Z
' .
M R
. • .
~ . • •
, , .
' ATTEST,: ~
~~~•i
TWt9 CLERK r
• . '
. . . ~
. 'f f
. . ~
. ~
~ ~ • . . •
(3) The Developer's drainage plan shall inciude provisions for prevention ot ~
poliution from surtaee run-off.
(4) The Developer shall include in the building consVuetion in Deveiopment .
~ Area B energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the
time of construction.
(S) Phase fl of Development Area 8 shall include two (2) employee housing units,
and said housing units shall satisfy the requirements of a"Type Iil EHU" according to the Tawn's adopted housing ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). Additionally, five (5) of
the existing six employee housing units (numbers 1201, 2205, 2207, 2401, and 2402, as r
identified on the Simba Run Candominium Map) shaff be permanentty deed restricted
according to the requirements of a"Type III EHU" as specified in the Town of Vail's housing
ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). The remaining employee housing unit (number
1205,) shall become a"tree-market" dwelling unit upon such time as the above seven (7)
permanentiy restricted employee housing units meet the restrictions as indicated in the Town
~
of Vail's housing ordinance and have been issued Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
(C) Approval of Subdivision and Interval Ownership - Intecval ownership of muftiple- .
,
family dwelling units, with the exception of the required employee dwelling units and the
dwe)ling units in Phase II of Deveropment Area 6, is hereby approved. Subdivisian of the ~
multiple-family dwelling units (not designated for employee housing) permitted in Development
•f
Area B into interval ownership fee interests shall require no additional approvals from the Town of Vail P{anning and Environmental Commission or from the Town Council for the Town
of Vail.
(D) Recreationa! Amenities - The Approved Development Plan sha(I include the •
~ foliowing recreational amenities:
i (1) A minirnum of five additionai tennis courts (Development Area A
presentiy has three tennis courts with two of them covered during the winter season). ~
Said tennis courts shall be made available to the generai public on a fee basis, subject
~ to reasonable regulat+on fn favor of owners or guests of the deve(opment.
• (2) Recreation amenities fund contribulion of $10,000 to be used for general
recreational improvements by the Town of Vail.
. a+ •
P 9 Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995
•
.k
~'OWN OF YAIL
APPEAL FORM
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND EIVVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
A. ACTION/DECISIONBEINGAPPEALED: A staff decision that the air structure over I
two Vail Run Tennis Courts may not be in place more than seven consecutive
months of any twelve month period. DATE OF AC"I'ION/DECISION: April 4, 1997
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECIS[ON/TAKING ACTION: 'r
Dominic F. Mauriello !t`
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Vail Run Condominium Association '
.
MAILING ADDRESS: 1000 Lionst?ead Loop, Vail, Colorado 81657
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: same PHONE: 970-477-2929
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Vail Run Community
Book 249, Page 534, Eagle county land records
E. SiGNATURE(S): Lawrence A. Eskwith, Attorney for Applicant
. Ar
.
Page 1 of 2
, .
F. Docs this appcal involve a specific parcet of land? yeg If yes, please provide thc following inforniation:
arc you an adjaccnt propcrty owner? Ycs no XX_
If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affectcd pcrson." "Aggieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with ather members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
Applicant is the owner of the pertinent property ,
. •
,l
~
G. Providc thc names and addresses (both pcrson's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owncrs of property which are thc subject of the appea( and all adjaccnt property owners (including progerties
scparated by a right-of-way, stream, or othcr intervening barricrs). A(so provide addicsscd and stamped envelopes for
cach propcrty owner on the list.
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appcai. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
1. FEE: $0.00
.
.tM ~ •
Page 2 of 2
•
NATURE OF APPEAL OF STAFF ACTION
The Community Development Department Staff has made a decision that
the air structure covering two tennis courts on Vail Run property is a
seasonal structure as defined by the Zoning Code, and as such may not be
in place for more than seven consecutive months of any 12 month period.
Applicant contends that the cover over the tennis courts is prior
existing legal nonconforming structure which is not required to be
removed at any time. The pertinent Code Section is 18.64.020.
.
~
s
~
•
AMENDED NATURE OF APPEAL OF STAFF ACTION
The Community Development Department Staff has made a decision that
the air structure covering two tennis courts on Vail Run property is a
seasonal structure as defined by the-Zoning Code, and as such may not be
in place for more than seven consecutive months of any 12 month period.
Applicant contends that the cover over the tennis courts is a
Recreational Structure as defined by the Zoning Code which states a:
"Recreational Structure means any covering erected over a
recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis rourts
which is not a seasonal structure."
I The pertinent Code Section is 18.04.280.
~
D ~
APR 21
Toraw
f
I
I ~ $ ' •
~
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: Aprii 28, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Vail Run), to eliminate the
requirement for three cavered tennis courts, located at 1000 l.ions Ridge
Loop/Lions Ridge Filing #1.
Applicant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Mauriello '
1. BACKGROUND AND DESGRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST
Vail Run was annexed into the Town of Vail in December of 1975. Soon after (March of 1976)
the owner of the properry applied for and received approval for a Special Development District on
the properry (2.54 acres). The SDD contained the existing improvements; the Vail Run Building,
a swimming pool, and three tennis courts, two of which were covered. The ordinance
~ (Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976) simply recognized the existing improvements, placed
limitations on the fioor area of the building and provided for permiited, accessory, and conditional
uses.
On December 20, 1977, the Town Council approved the first amendment to SDD #5. This ,
amendment added 6.3 acres to the SDD and provided a unified development for the entire site. ~
The 1977 ordinance repealed ihe previous ordinance and required recreational amenities f4r the ~
entire site. The current regulating ordinance for this development, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995 (attached), contains similar language regarding recreational amenities on the property. f
Throughout Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995, tennis facilities are referred to or required. On Ipage 9 of the ordinance, paragraph (D), there are requirements for recreational amenities. This
section specifically requires tennis courts.
The applicant is requesting to remove the language requiring that the recreationa( amenities be ~
tennis facilities so that other recreational uses can be substituted for the tennis courts.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting that the two covered courts be converted to other
recreational uses as permitted by the accessory uses in the ordinance. Section 6(D) I of the
ordinance (page 5), provides for accessory uses:
1. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including, but not limited to, swimming
pools, tennis courts, handball, and squash courts and similar recreational
facilities.
1
A
TO~YIVOFYAIG
- AThe applicant contends that these tennis courts are no longer used by the public or the guests of •
Vail Run. Many other tennis facilities exist in the Town of Vail, and they would like the
opportunity to cliange recreational uses in order to respond to the needs and desires ofi their
guests (applicanYs statement attached).
It should be noted that the SDD requires that these tennis courts be available to the general
public on a fee basis. This development was allowed to pay a lower recreational amenity tax
based on the existence of these facilities.
It. GRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING TNIS PROPOSAL
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 qualiry of
new development within the town; to facilitate ihe 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
ihe Vai! Com rehensive Plan. An
a roved develo ment I n r i
p pp p p a fo a spec al
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 ut+lized 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 does not believe that the proposed amendment will have negative impacis to
this criterion. Staff be(ieves that the tennis facilities could be converted to other
recreational uses and appropriately planned and buffered to be compatible with
the neighborhood. Staff does have a concern about the use of the "bubble" for
other uses. The "bubble" does not currently meet Building Code requirements for
accessibility and other safety standards. Also, the SDD ordinance treats this
structure as a seasonal structure and therefore any other use of the "bubble" will
be required to adhere to the seasonal structure requirements (removed part of the
year).
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff believes that other recreational facilities can be provided which will be an
asset to the community, as well as to this development. Through discussions with
the applicant, staff is concerned that the applicant will return with a request for a
"recreational use" which may be a commercial operation and not a pub(ic amenity.
Although we have not received an application, staff believes that it is the intent of
the applicant to use the bubble as a skier training facility (the facility is currently a
2
•
under construction and has been red tagged). This is a facility where one could
pay a fee the learn how to ski. We agree that skiing is a recreational amenity, but
we have concerns as to whether this commerciai operation is, in fact, a
recreational amenity.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
Parking couid be impacted by a change in the type of recreational use. The
existing site does not provide parking for the tennis facilities. These courts are
available on a fes basis to the public as required by the ordinance. These tennis
facilities have a low parking requirement due to the number of potential players on
a court. Other recreational uses could generate the need for additional parking.
For example, a soccer facility (indoor or outdoor) would have a greater parking
need than tennis, due to the number of players and potentia( vehicles. Any ~
request for a change in recreational use will need to be evaluated for parking
implications.
D. Conformity with appticable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plans.
Staff believes this criterion is not affected by this proposal.
~ E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geotogic hazards that affect the
property on which the special devetopment district is proposed.
Staff believes this criterion is not affected by this proposal.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural ~ •
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
f ,
Staff believes that the existing "bubble" may have a negative aesthetic impact on '
the area. Any subsequent changes to any recreational facility will require analysis
as to the impact to this criterion and the neighborhood.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffic circulation.
Staff betieves that this criterion could become an issue if a change in recreational
use creates the need for more parking. Any change in use wi11 require an analysis
as to parking and circulation impacts.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Staff believes that this criterion could become an issue if a change in recreational
~ use creates the need for additional buffering or screening due to impacts to
4 adjacent properties. Any change in use wi11 require analysis as to open space and
" landscape screening.
3
~ T
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan #hat w111 maintain a workable, functional and •
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
This criterion is not applicable.
IIt. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ The staff is recommending approval of the applicanYs request for a major modification to Special
Development District No. 5, subject to the foilowing finding:
; 1. That the proposed SDD amendment complies with the nine desi9n criteria as
stated herein subject to specific review of proposed changes to recreational uses.
The recommendation is a(so subject to the foltowing conditions: ,
1. That any changes to "recreational uses" will be evaluated by the staff as a minor
amendment to the SDD and be subject to the 9 SDD criteria as stated herein.
2. That any future "recreational use" shall be available to the generai public.
f:leveryoneXpeclmemos\vailrun2.428
•
t,
f
I
I
I
i
4
. 'ORpiNANCE N0. 7
Series of 1995
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDiNANCE NO. 16, SERIES OF 1993;
AN ORDtNANCE AMENDlNG SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND PROVIDING
FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ITS CONTENTS; PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND
ACCESSORY USES; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RECREATION AMENITIES TAX, AND
OTHER SPECIAL PROVISIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETA{LS fN REGARD THERE70.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipaf Gode authorizes speciat development
districts within the Town in order to encourage tlexibility in the devetopment of land; and I~
I
WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Specia! Development
i
District (SDD) No. 5 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described in the
~
attached Exhibit A, and commonly referred to as the Simba RunNail Run Special '
Development District; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Pianning and Environmental
Commission, on February 27, 1395, heid a pub{ic hearing on the amended SDD, and has
submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, aii notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
~ WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and
. ,
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend SDD No. 5; and
• ' r
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Town of Vail to modi(y and amend •
.
certain sections of Speciai Development District No. 5, which relate to Development Area B, i
and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District
No. 5 as they specifically relate to Development Area B; and ,
WHEREAS, the Town Councii has heid a pubiic hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaii.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE• IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN • '
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THA7:
. ~
SECTION 1 The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development
Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipa! Code of the Town of Vail havp ha.Pn fl oiiy CO+;&c,,,.+. SECTION 2 - Purposes.
- Speciai Development District No. 5 is established to ensure comprehensive
-iievefopment and use of an area in a manner that wi11 be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreationai amenities, and promote
1 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
the objectives of the Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to ~
the Town by tha Town Councit and the Pianning and Environmental Commission, and there
are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through ihe
imposition of standard zoning disuicts on the area.
SECTION 3- Special Development District No. 5 Established.
(A) Special Development District No. 5 is estab4ished for the devefapment on a
parcei af land comprlsing 8.84 acres in the Lionsridge area of the Town; Special Development
Districi No. 5 and said 8.84 acres may be referred to as "SDD Na. 5".
(S) The Vaif Run buiiding, consisting of 55 dwelling units, approximately 18,000 ,
square feet of commercial space, a swimming pool and three tennis courts, shall be known as
Development Area A. The remainder of the property containing approximately 6.3 acres shall
be described as Development Area B(Simba Run and Savoy Villas).
SECTION 4- Approval of the Devefopment Pfan Required Prior to Development.
(A) Before the developer commences site preparation, building construction, or
other improvement of open space within SDD No. 5, there shall be an Approved Development
' P1an for said district. ~
(B) The proposed development plan for SDD No. 5, in accordance with Section 4
hereof, shall be submitted by the developer to the Zoning Administrator who shall refer it to ~
the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regulariy
• f
scheduled meeting, and a report of the Planning and Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the Town Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code. '
(C) The Approved Development Plan shall be used as the principal guide for all ,
, development within SDD No. 5.
(D) Amendments to the Approved Development Plan shall confoan with Chapter
i
18.40.100 ot the Municipal Code. ~
(E) Each phase of the development shall require the prior approval of the Design ' .
Review Board in accordance with the appiicabie provlsions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal
C.ude. •
SECTION 5- Content of Proposed Devefopment P1an.
~ The Proposed Development Plan shall include, but is not limited to the fo(lowing data: •
.
2 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
. (A) An Environmental Impact Report, which shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Chapier 18.56 of the Municipal Code. .
(B) An open space and recreationai plan sufficient to meet the demands generated
by the development without undue burden on avaiiabie or proposed pubiic facilities.
(C) Existing and proposed contours after grading and site development having
contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet.
(D) A proposed site pian, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 20 feet, showing the
iocations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and ali principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and ol
,
walkways, service entries, driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas.
(E) A landscape ptan, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 20 feet, showing existing
landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and
landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths,
trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features, and other elements.
(F) Buiid+ng elevations, sections, and fioor plans, at a scale not smaller khan 1/8
~ inch = 1 foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross residentiai floor area, interior
circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general scale and appearance of the
proposed development. 1
(G) A proposed plan of parking, Ioading, traffic circufalion, and transit facilities; and '
4
~
a proposed program for satisfying traffic and transportation needs generated by the development. •
(H) A volumetric model of the site and the proposed devefopment, portraying the scafe and relationships of the proposed development to the site illustrating the form and mass • ,
of the proposed buifdings.
(I) An architectural modei of each proposed building, at a scale not smaller than 1
inch = 40 feet, portraying design details. -
(,f) A proposed program indicating order and timing of construction phases and .
phasing of recreationai amenities and additional amen'rties.
5EG + iON a- rermitted Conditionai and Accessory Uses.
(A) {n Development Area A- Vail Run, the fallowing uses shall be permitted:
(1) Multiple famiiy residential dwetlings;
~
3 Ordinance No. 7, Sezies of 1995
(2) Accessory retail, restaurant and seriice establishments not occupying ~
more than 18,00I2 square feet including the following:
Apparel Stores
Art supply stores and galleries .
Book stores
Camera stores and photographic studios
Candy stores
Chinaware and glassware stores
Specialty food stores
r
FIOfIStS Gift stores
Hobby stores
Jewelry stores
Leather goods stores
Liquor stores
. Newsstands and tobacco stores
Professional and business offices
. Sporting goods stores
r
Stationery stores •
Toy stores. . , ~
Variety stores ,
Barber shops Beaury shops
Travel and Gcket agencies .
Deiicatessens with food service
Cocktail tounges, tavems and bars
I .
Coffee shops
Fountains and sandwich shops
.
nc
5iaut tu ii>
Additional businesses or services determined by the zoning administrator to be
similar to permitted uses. •
4 Ordinance No. 7, Sezies of 1995
. (B) in Deve{opment Area B- Simba Run, the following uses shall be permitted:
(1) Multiple family residentiaf dwellings which may be condominiumized for
sale as intervat ownership fee interests and the empioyee housing units required . according to Section (9c), which shall be rentai units.
(C) In Development Areas A and B the following conditional uses shall be
permitted, subject to issuance of a Conditiana4 Use Permit in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 18.60 of the municipal code:
(1) Public utility and public seroice uses;
(2) Public buildings, grounds, and facilities;
.
(3) Pubiic or private schoois;
(4) Public park and recreation facilities;
rr ting rooms. ment Areas A and B th e following accessory uses shall be permitted:
or and outdoor recreational facilities, includ'+ng, but not limited to,
ools, tennis courts, handball and squash courts and similar l facilities.
(2) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a Home Occupation Permit in
accord with the provisions ot Section 18.58.130 of the municipal code.
r
(3) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or .
•f
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. !
SECT1013 7 - Development Standards. .
The following development standards have been submitted to the Planning and '
Environmental Commission for its consideration and recommendations and are hereby
approved by the Town Council; these standards shall be incorporated in the Approved
Development Plan pertinent to each Development Area to protect the integrity of the development of SDD No. 5; the foilowing are the minimum.development standards and shall
ti
app{y uniess more restrictive siandards are incorporated in the Approved Devefopment Plan. .
Development Area A may be modified provided that no such modification shall increase the
~'ssc~aNar~~y liCiween fne scructure or site improvements and the devefopment standards set
forth in this Ordinance.
(A) Lot Area - Development Area B shall consist of appraximately 6.3 acres.
, 5 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
(B) Setbacks - 7he required setbacks shall be as indicated on the Approved ~
Development Plan, being a minimum of 20 feet from any perimetes property line of ihe totai
site. _
(C) Distance Between Bulidings - The minimum distances between all buildings on
the site shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan.
(D). Fleight - The maximum height of al1 buildings shall be 45 feet, with the
exception of the buildings located in Phase II of Development Area B, which shall have a
maximum height as indicated on the Approved Development Plan.
(E) Density Control - The ftoor area of all buildings and the number of dwelling ,
units shall not exceed the following provisions:
- Dev. Dev.
Area A Area B Totai SOD No. 5 Maximum gross residen6al floor
area (sq. ft.)
Interval Ownership Units 43,000 126,309 169,309
• Maximum gross residential floor area ~
Emptoyee Dwelling Units (sq. ft.) 0 4,955 4,955
r)
Maximum number ot dwe4{ing ,
,
units, not including the employee `
dwelling units 55 . 110 65
Maximum number of employee
dwefiing units 0 7 7
Upon the approval of thls Ordinance 7, Series of 1995, there wllf be no remaining ~
' dwelltngs units, Employee Houstng Units or avallable GRFA for any portion of .
' this SOD.
~r; I;uJ;u;ny ouiic Gontroi - Bwlding bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum
d'+mensions of building groups, and requirements for wall off-sets, shall be as indicated on the
Approved Development P1an. ~
. A.
6 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
, (G) Site Coverage - Not more than 20 per cent of the Development Area B shall be
covered by buitdings, with the exception of Phase II of Development Area B, which shall be as
designated on the Approved Development Ptan. .
(H) Landscaping and Naturai Open Space - A minimum oE 64 per cent of
Deve{opment Area 8 shall be landscaped or natural open space in accordance with the
Approved Devefopment P1an, with the exception of Phase ll of Development Area B, which
shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan.
(I) Parking and Loading -
(1) Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 af the ,
municipal code; at 4east 85 per cent of the re uired parking shall be located within the '
main buitding or bulldings, or beneath accessory decks, terraces, plazas, or tennis ~
courts and shall be completeiy enclosed and screened from view, with the exception of
Phase II of Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved
Development Pian.
j
(2) No parking or loading area shall be {ocated in any required front setback i
area or on the south side of any building, and no parking or {oading shall be permitted I~
~
• at any time in areas designated for recreation or open space use on the Approved ;
Devefopment Plan. • . r
(3) Driveways, passenger loading areas, and parking areas not located
,r
{
within a bui4ding shall be permitted only as indicated on the Approved Development "
Plan. .
(4) On-site parking shall be provided for common carriers provid+ng charter service to the development; said parking sites shall be indicated on the Approved ,
Development Plan.
(J) The Approved Development Pian for Phase II of Development Area B shali
consist of the foilowing drawings provided by Morter Architects: ~
• Sheet No. A1.2, dated April 4, 1994, and revised January 16, 1995 (Grading .
Plan)
• aneet No. A1.2a, dated April 4, 1994, and revised January 16, 1995 (Driveway
option plan #1)
.w ~ • Sheet No. A1.2b, dated April 4, 1994, and revised January 16, 1995, (Driveway
option plan #2).
7 Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995
• Sheet No. A1.2c, dated April 4, 1995, and revised January 16, 1995, (Grading ~
P1an with pedestrian path options)
• Sheei A1.3, dated April 12, 1995, and revised May 13, 1993. June 14, 1993
and January 16, 1995 (Viciniry PlanlSite Section)
• Sheet No: s A2.1, A2.2 and A2.3 dated January 16, 1995 (Floor P1ans for
Bui{ding Five)
• Sheet No. A2.4, dated January 16, 1995 (Elevations for Building Five).
• Sheet No's. A3.1 and A3.2, dated January 16, 1995 (Floor plans for building
six) ~
• Sheet No. A3.3 dated February 3, 1995, (Elevations for building six)
• Sheet No. L.1, dated June 16, 1995 (Landscape Plan)
SECTfON 8- Recreational Amenlties Tax.
The recreational amenities tax due to the deve4opment within SDD No. 5, shall be
assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square foot of floor area and sha11 be paid in
,
conjunction with construction phases and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
- SECTION 9 - Special Provisions. ~
(A) Conservation and Poiiution Controis.
(1) Afl sofid fuel buming devices shall conform wlth the Town of Vai{
~
Fireplace Ordinance (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991) and as amended in the future.
,R
/
7he basic criteria as presently identified in the Ordinance are as follows: a7 Construction of open hearth wood burning fireplaces is not permitted
within the Town. b) Dwelling units may coniain: ,
i) One (1) EPA Phase 11 certified solid fuel burning device and no
more than two (2) gas app4iances (B vent);
OR . ~
ii) Two (2) gas log fireplaces and no more than two (2) gas
' appliances (B vent).
(2) ii suiid iuei burning aevices are provided within the development, they
must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures, and heat circuiating devices
• as technology exisis at the time of development. •
.
8 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
. (3) The Developer's drainage plan shall include provisions for prevention of
poliution from silrface run-off.
(4) The Developer shall inciude in the buiiding consVuction in Devetopment
Area B energy and water conservation controis as general technofogy exists at the
time of construction.
(B) Phase 11 of Devetopment Area B shall include two (2) empioyee housing units,
and said hausing units shall satisfy the requirements of a"Type III EHU" according to the
Town's adopted housing ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). Additionaliy, five (5) of
the ex(sting six employee housing units (numbers 1201, 2205, 2207, 2401, and 2402, as
identified on the Simba Run Condominium Map) shall be permanently deed restricted
according to the requirements of a"Type Itl EHU" as specified in the Town of Vail's housing
ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). The remaining employee housing unit (number
I
I
1205,) shall become a"free-market" dweiling unit upon such time as the above seven (7)
permanendy restricted empioyee housing units meet the restrictions as indicated in the Town
of Vaii's housing ordinance and have been issued Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
~ (C) Approval of Subdivision and Interval Ownership - Intervaf ownership of multiple-
famify dwelling units, with the exception of the required empioyee dwelling units and the
~
dwei{ing units in Phase II of Development Area B, is hereby approved. Subdivision of the ,
muttiple-famify dweiling units (not designated for employee housing) permitted in Devefopment
t
Area B into interval ownership fee interests shall require no additional approvals from the '
7own of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission or from the Town Council for the Town
of Vail. .
(D) Recreationaf Amenities - The Approved Development Plan shall include the .
fotlowing recreational amenities:
(1) A minimum of five additionai tennis courts (Development Area A
presently has three tennis courts with two of them*covered during the winter season).
Said tennis courts shall be made avaifable to the general public on a fee basis, subject •
to reasonable regulation in tavor of owners or guests of the development.
(2) Recreation amenities fund contrlbution of $10,000 to be used for general
recreational improvements by the Town of Vai1.
4f
9 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
(3) Bike and pedestrian path traversing property from east property line of ~
Developmenf Area A ta west site line of Development Area B shall be provided by
deveioper with exact location to be mutuaity acceptable to developer and the Town.
(4) Swjmming poo! (in addition to the existing poot in Development Area A)
of adequate size to reasonably serve the needs of the devetopment and shall be open
to the public on a fee basis subject to reasonable regutation tn favor of owners or
guests of the deve{opment.
(E) Additional Ameniiies -
(1) The Developer shall provide adequate transportation services to the r
owners and guests of the davelopment so as to transport them from the devetopment
to the Vitiage Core area and the Lionshead area.
(2) The Developer shall provide in Its Approved Deveiopment Ptan a bus
shefter of a design and location mutually agreeable to the developer and the Town
Councii. Said shelter to serve the Uonsridge area generally.
(F) Additional Requirements -
- The developer agrees with the foliowing requirements, which are a part oi this ~
amendment to Speciai Development District IVo. 5: ;
. 1
. r
t
I 2205, 2207,
(1) The Town shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for ,
any unit in Building #3 (according to the Savoy V111as phasing plan) until such ttme as
I
deed restrictions have been executed for untts 1201, 2205, 2207, 2401 and 2402 in the
I Simba Run Building as Type !!l EHU's. Additfonaliy, the Town shall not issue a ~
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ior ahy unit in Butldfng #4 or Buildinq #5 .
(according to the Savoy Vitias phasing plan) untll such tlme as Temporary Cert(ficates
ri? G"UuNaiicy and deed restrictions have been Issued for both of the'Type 111" EHU
units in Buliding #5.
- (2) The applicant agrees to permanently restrict the seven empioyee •
. Ap
housing units as "Type Ill" EHU's, according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance.
10 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
I
. (3) 7he applicant agrees that if they are unable to obtain the permission
necessary to locate the bike path on the western portion of the Simba Run property,
they will go back to the Design Review Board with an amended stte plan which shows
the triplex buifding being reiocated approximately 10 feet to the west, in order to aflow ,
the bike path to continue in a southerly direction through the property until it connects
with the existing bike path adjacent to the North Frontage Road. Irregardless ot the
ultimate location of the bike path, the appiicant agrees to construct and maintain a
public pedestrian paih through the property (north to south) and will arrange for the
grant of a public access easement to the Town of Vail prior to the Town's issuance of ,
any TCO for any of the Phase ll condomin'sums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing
pian).
(4) The applicant shalt obtain a Colorado Department of Transportation
access permit for the proposed triplex driveway prior to ttre Town's issuance of any I
building or grading permits for the three townhomes located on the lower bench of the I,
development. I
~ (5) The appficant shall add additional landscape plantings sub}ect to the
review and approvai of the Design Review Board.
i'
' (6) The applicant shall grant ihe 7own of Vail a drainage easement through ,
the property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the site .
:
between the proposed amployee housing building and the eastern condomin+um building on the upper bench. The developer shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approvai betore the Town will release any Temporary Certificate ot Occupancy for units in the Phase il Condominiums (according •
to the Savoy Villas phasing plan).
{7} The applicant shall provide a bike path easement for any portion ot the
existing bike path located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be ~
submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer and executed ,
before the Town will release any Temposary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the'
P; iasC ;i Gundominwms (according to the Savoy Vi{las phasing pian).
(8) The rockfall hazard report pravided by the applicanYs geologist in
conjunction with the 1993 approved development plan, must be amended to identiy
~ Ar.
11 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995 ,
any additional mitigation necessary as a result of the amendments proposed in the ~
1995 pian, prior to the Town's issuar?ce of any building permits for the project.
(9) Prior to the Issuance of a building permit for the three townhouse units,
the applicant will receive final approva( trom the Town of Vail Engineer regarding the
driveway relocation plans.
. (10) Prior to the release of any Temporary Certittcate ot Occupancy for
units !n the Phase H Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan)
the appiicant agrees to provide a 10' wide public access easement across the
property, parailel with the southern property Une.
SECTION 10 /
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not afiect the validiry of the remaining
portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. ~
SECTION 11
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
r
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the 7own of Vail and its inhabitants
thereof.
SECTION 12 I The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed,
any violation that occurred prior to the efiective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor
any other actlon or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions or ~
any ordinance previousiy repealed or superseded uniess stated herein.
. -4r
I . ~
12 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
~ iNTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 7~`' day of /~"t.cruC.. , 1995. A public hearing on
this ordinance shali be held at the regular meeting of the Town Councii of the Town of Vaii,
Colorado, on the X/-4-day of /-"7 44 e-/- 1995, in the Municipa! Buiiding of the Town.
Mayor
Attest:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Cterk ~
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOP7ED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF /j'1 u.taX, .1995.
a.
~ Mayor
Attest: ' .
. 1
Hof{y L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk ~
' ORD95.7
• ~
-AV .
13 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995
~ itc~a n~ 6
PP
i
STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF
A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO
SPECTAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 5
Development Area A of Special Development District No. 5, known as
Vail Run, obtained a deve].opment permit from Eagle County prior to
annexation into the Town of Vail and its construction was completed
prior to its annexation into the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail
Ordinance establishing SDD 5 described existing uses and development
standards for a fully constructed building.
Section 3(B) of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995, which amended. and
restated Special Development District No. 5, describes the Vaii Run
building as consisting of 55 dwelling units, approximately 18,000
square feet of commercial space, a swimming-pool and three tennis
courts... "
Section G(D)(i) of Ordnance No. 7 provides that, "Indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to swimming
pool, tennis courts, handball and squash courts and similar recreational
facilities", are permitted accessory uses for the Vail Run development.
" Section 9(D)(1) of Ordnance No. 7 requires Development Area B
(Simba Run) to have "a minimum of five additional tennis courts and ~
refers to Development Area A(Vail Run) as presently having "three
tennis courts with two of them covered during the winter season".
r
.--Two of the Vail Run tennis courts are covered by an air structure, •
while the third is not covered. Since the construction of the Vail Run
tennis courts, numerous other tennis courts have been constructed in the'
Town of Vail, including both uncovered and covered courts at the Racquet
; Club and the Cascade Club and uncovered courts at the Cascade Village
Hotel, Recreation District courts throughout the Town and courts at the
Potato Patch Club. Consequently, the tennis courts at Vail Run are
almost never used by the members of the Vail Run Condominium
Association, their guests or members of the general public.
Applicant would like Ordinance No. 7 amended to eliminate any
language compelling the applicant to use the area under the air
structure for two tennis courts. The Vail Run Condominium Association
would like the ability to utilize the area within the air structure,
presently occupied by the tennis courts, for other recreational
facilities permitted by Section 6(D)(1) of the Ordinance which would
enjoy more use and be of greater benefit to members of the Association
and the general public. It makes no sense to compel the Vail Run
Condominium Association to keep and maintain tennis courts which are not
, used. Moreover, to allow the Condominium Association to utilize the
area within the air structure for recreational facilities, which would •
"hAd more appeal for members of the Association and the general public,
, and therefore generate more use, would be beneficial and in no way
detrimental to the Town of Vail.
w
~
ZONING ANALYSIS
The Vail Run Building presently consists of 54 residential units
containing a total of 47,074 square feet, approximately 18,000 square
feet of commercial space, a swimming pool, and three tennis courts. A
total of 118 parking spaces are presently appurtenant to the Vail Run
Building. 61 of the parking spaces are uncovered and located to the
north of the building, 14 are uncovered and located to the south of the
building, and there are 43 covered spaces in a garage under the
building. The Applicants's Amendment to the Special Development
District proposes no additional densities, and no additional parking.
The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Ordinance establishing
Special Development District No. 5 which would allow the Applicant to '
utilize the area inside the presently existing air structure for
permitted recreational purposes other than tennis.
~
~-1
r
1
w
• q ,
MEMORANDUM ~
TO: Pianning and Environmentai Commission
I FROM: Comrnunity Development Department
DATE: April 28, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow twenty-four Type III EHUs for
seasonal employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as
(Public Works Facility):
beginning at ihe Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the
Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said
Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70
thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78013'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature;
thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which
bears S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Section 9: thence
departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following
the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21 "E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
~
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
This site is zoned General Use (GU) which aliows Type III Employee Housing Units as a
conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction
of 24 Type I11 Employee Housing Units at the Public Works site. The proposed dwelling units are
intended to accommodate the Town's (Public Works') seasonal housing needs. The employee
housing standards require a minimum GRFA for a Type III EHU of 450 sq. ft. The proposal
consists of 21 studio apartments (451 sq. ft.) and 3 one-bedroom dwelling units (528 sq. ft.).
The dwelling units are proposed in one, three-story structure. The proposed building is 30.8' in
height from existing grade at both the east and west ends of the building. The proposed building
will be 34.8' in height from finished grade at both ends of the building.
The proposal also includes 26 parking spaces, 2 of which are handicap parking spaces. One of
the handicap parking spaces is required for the Public Works Administration Building. Therefore,
25 parking spaces are available for this development. The parking required for the development
is 24 parking spaces (one space per unit). There are 3 guest spaces on the proposed lower level
parking area for day use and an additional 9 spaces available in the evening hours.
1
TCIWN
*VML
The proposal also includes a durnpster which is accessibie from both the upper and lower lev_el ~
parking areas. The dumpster is below the upper-level parking area grade and alfows tenants to
~ drop trash into the dumpster. The proposed enclosure does not include a roof.
The proposal also includes a 5' wide paved pedestrian access from the south side of the lower
level parking area to the South Frontage Road.
I IL ZONING ANALYSIS
The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEC must
determine what development standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed
standards are as presented on the site plan and building plans for the site.
Zoning: General Use (GU)
Use: 24 Type III EHUs
Lot Size: 740,520 sq. ft. or 17 acres (entire sfte without USFS addition)
Standard Allowed/Required Existin ro osed
Sfte Coverage: per PEC 48,921 sq. ft. (6.6%) 54,071 sq. ft. (7.3%)
(w/admin. addition)
GRFA: per PEC 0 sq. ft. 11,055 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
` Front: per PEC N/A 85'
Sides: per PEC N/A 500' (east), 1,000' (west) •
- Rear: per PEC N/A 90'
Parking: 24 spaces N/A 26 spaces (includes 1 handicap + 1
additional handicap for admin.)
Guest Parking: per PEC N/A 3 spaces + 9 evening spaces Internal Parking
Landscaping: 908 sq. ft. (10%)" N/A 963 sq. ft.
Snow Storage: per PEC N/A 3,370 sq. ft. (300%)
Building Height: per PEC N/A 30.8' from existing grade
34.8' from finished grade
Note: 'required by code for all other zone districts but not necessarily for the GU disirict
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REGIUEST
In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the
zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request.
The Public Works employee housing is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According
to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the GU district is:
. •
2
• "to provide sites for pubiic and quasi-public uses which, because of their special
characieristics, cannot be apAropriately regulated by the devefopment standards
prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especiafly
prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The
General Use District is intended to ensure that pubiic buildings and grounds and certain
types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed
to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses,
anci, in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open
spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses."
Type III Employee Housing Units may be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the
PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that:
"in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title* sAecified
uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so
that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with
respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such condiiions and
limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the
conditionai uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and
~ will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised,
to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied."
The conditional use permit consideration of factors are as follows:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town.
Staff beleives that the proposed development will have a positive impact
on the development objectives of the Town. The Town has deterrnined ~
that the provision of employee housing and seasonal employee housing to
be goals in several planning documents, including the Vail Land Use Plan.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
The proposed facility will have minor impacts on these issues. The
propasal will provide housing far workers wha will generally work out af
this site, therefore reducing traffic impacts especially during peak hours.
The development includes some areas for recreation which wil( be an
asSet to the project and the Town as a whole. The proposal wili have minima(, if any, impacts to utilities or schools.
3
, 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and controi, access, - i
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
, As stated above, the proposed iocation allows occupants to essentiaAy live
at work. This wiil reduce the need for workers to travel to and from the
site during peak hours. However, pedestrian access through the I-70
tunnel will likely increase. The proposai includes improving vehicular and
pedestrian access through the tunnel, by improving lines of site, grades,
and providing a 5' wide paved pedestrian path. Additionally, the
development has been properly planned to include areas for snow storage.
' Overall, staff believes the project design has adequately addressed these
issues.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The proposed building is a three-story structure that appears as a typical
apartment building. The other buildings found on-site are industriaf in
nature and therefore this building wiil be compatible with the other
structures on-site. The character of the building is not "Alpine" in nature
and would not probably be compatible in other areas of the Town. The
building appears to be well suited to the site and for the purpose it is being
° constructed. However, the building will be visible across the valley and
. the DRB and PEC should consider this in their review of the project. ~
The building is one single structure and therefore presents a large mass
on the site. Staff beleives that the correct use of landscape materials and
other building accents, such as decks, could help reduce the perceived '
bulk and mass of the structure. •
Overall staff believes that this criterion has been addressed by the
development.
The conditional use permit findings are as follows:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinqs before
qranting a conditional use pe~rmit:
1. That the proposed location af the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
afi the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
impravements in the vic+nity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
•
4
• IV. tSSUES ADDRESSED
Below are issues brought up at the March 24 and April 14 worksessions with the PEC.
1. Building Location/Building HeighiNiew Analysis
The building is proposed on the east end of the Public Works property. The building is proposed
along a natural bench area on this portion of the site and appears to be the iogical location for
this structure. Staff also believes this is the appropriate area of the site for housing as it is
located farthest away from the more industrial eiements of the site.
The applicant is proposing a building height of approximately 34.8' from finished grade and 30.8'
from existing grade. For reference, the High Density Multiple Family zone district allows up to 48'
in building height for a sloped roof building and the Medium Density Multiple Family zone district
allows up to 38' in building height for a sloped roof building. Staff believes the proposed building
height is appropriate for this site.
The applicant has provided a cross section through the property showing the relationship of
building height to the elevation of I-70. The view analysis provides 3 photographs taken from 3
different public locations along Vail Valley Drive. The proposed structure was superimposed on
the photographs at the proper scale. It is clear from this analysis that the upper two floors of the
structure will be visible from this area of town. It is also clear from this analysis that the parking
will not be very visible on the site from the "public" spaces across the va(ley.
2. Architectural Compatibility
~ The site is currently developed with industrial type buildings and administrative offices.
Therefore, architectural compatibility with ather structures on-site is not necessarily desirable.
The proposed building form is a three-story structure. The building has been further articulated
by providing off-sets and voids which help to break-up the perceived bulk and mass of the
structure. The PEC had some concerns regarding the suitability of the overall architecture in the
Town as a whole. The applicant has provided more wood elements on the fascia and around
windows to make the building appear more in character with the Town of Vail. The PEC, '
however, should concentrate on the overall bulk and mass of the buifding and any issues related
to materiafs should be left with the Design Review Board.
The issue of exterior decks came up at the Previous meetings. It was discussed that decks
would serve several purposes. To help break-up the overall bulk and mass of the building, to ,
make the dwelling units more livable and to improve the design of the building. The applicant
has chosen not to provide decks on the building. Staff believes that decks in some areas would
be an asset to the project by providing variety and interest to the building, making these very
srnall units more livable, and further, that decks would provide additional wood elements to the
building making it more "alpine" in nature.
The roof line of the building has not changed since the last PEC worksession. A flat section of ~
roof has been provided in order to break the building into what is perceived as two structures. Staff believes the previous roof line, which contained a sloped roof over this proposed flat area,
was more appropriate and aesthetic.
A lighting plan and color samples wi(I be required as part of the DRB review of this project.
5
• S .
3. Landscape Plan .
The applicant has provided a larrdscape pian which provides 29 evergreens, ranging in size from
6' to 10' in height and 19 Aspens at 2" caliper. The pian provides for planted landscape areas
within the parking lot. Staff believes the landscape areas are a very positive addition to the
project. The PEC/DRB suggested at a worksession that the proposed trees should be
substantial in size, especiatly in front of the building.
The plan also provides site improvements to the recreation area to the west of the building.
These improvements include a volleyball court, picnic tables, and a grill. Access to this area is
provided via a foot path.
4. Snow Storage
The site plan shows areas to be used for snow storage on-site. The areas provided are
appropriately planned.
The current standard being applied on private developments is that snow storage areas shall
equal 30% of the paved area. The driveway and parking area for this development equal
approximately 11,300 sq. ft. and the proposed snow storage areas equal approximately 3,370 sq.
ft. (30%).
5. Retaining WaNs
The proposed plan will contain several retaining walls. The standard applied to developments in
the Town (in accordance with Section 18.58.020 "Fences, hedges, walis, and screening") is a
maximum height of 6' for retaining walls. The GU district (Section 18.36.060 "Additional
` development standards") requires compliance with this standard. All proposed retaining walls
are less than 6' in height and the majority of the walls are less than 4' in height. .
6. Solid Waste Disposal
The plan provides for the location of a dumpster for this development. The proposed location is
below the upper-level parking grade and is enclosed on 4 sides. Tenants will drop trash into the
durnpster from above, as the dumpster enclosure does not have a roof covering. Staff is '
concerned about not having a roofed enclosure. Without a roof, snow wi!l accumulate in ihe
enclosure and cause a maintenance problem. Siaff is also concerned that without a roof the
wind will blow trash out of the dumpster. A roof will also provide an extra level of screening for
occupants on the upper stories of the building. Consideration should also be given to "bear-
proofing" the enclosure.
7, Sife Access
This site is accessed via the tunnel below I-70. This tunnel is a constrained roadway with a width
of 20'. Ideally, this access should be wider, however, to widen this tunnel, if allowed by CDOT, it
would be very costly. Staff and the applicant have met with CDOT and have received approval
from CDOT for the development without additional requirements, either to the S. Frontage Road
or the underpass.
The approach to the tunnel has been improved (on the north side of the tunnel) which will
impravs visibility, lessen grade, and reduce the chance of accidents. Improvements are also
proposed along the S. Frontage Road in order to improve (ines of site when exiting the Public
Works site.
a,
6 •
• 8. Pedestrian and Bus Access
As expla+ned above, the access through this tunnel is less than perfect. By providing housing on
this site, the EHU occupants must have safe pedestrian/bicycle access through this tunnel. The
applicant is proposing a 5' wide paved pedestrian/bike access through the tunnel to the S.
Frontage Road.
The persons occupying the emp(oyee housing may rely on public transit to get around Town
(probably more so than the general public). The applicant has indicated that a bus stop will be
provided near the Pulis Bridge on the Golf Course route in order to allow convenient bus access.
This stap will be known as the Pulis Bridge bus stop. There will not be a bus stop structure
provided.
This witl be a"request only" bus stop.
9. Environmental Hazards
A portion of the Public Works site is located in a High Severity Rockfall Hazard and Debris Flow
Moderate Hazard. The proposed site for the housing is not located in the identitied hazard area
and staff has reviewed a preliminary hazard report which states that the proposed housing site is
not affected by the hazard. A final hazard report will be provided prior to the issuance of a
buiJding permit.
10. Hisforical Resources
There is a remnant of an old log cabin on the site. This structure may be from the turn of the
century. The applicant has shown this structure on the site plan and it is outside of the area ,
being graded on-site and therefore wili not be disturbed.
~ 11. Phasing Plan ;
!t has been indicated by the applicants that some of the improvements may be phased over the
next two years in order to have enough capital to complete the improvements. The Town has
allowed other developers to also provide such phasing as long as the improvements are
guaranteed by a Letter of Credit.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATtQN
The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for 24 Type ill Employee Housing Units, subject to the foAowing findings: '
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the GU
zone district.
2. That the proposed (oGation of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditianal use permit section af xhe zoning cade.
The recommendation af approval is subject to the following conditions:
7
1. That the appiicant provide 8-12 decks on the south, east or west elevations of the ~
building. The final tocation and size of the decks shall be subject to DRB review
and approval.
2. That the applicant provide a roof over the dumpster and appropriately secure the
facility to lessen potential impacts from bears.
3. That the applicant provide a revised landscape plan which reflects a!) of the
changes made to the site plan prior to DRB review and that the Design Review
Board closely review the landscape plan, among other design issues, to ensure
that the mass of the building is appropriately broken-up.
f:\everyone\pecMemos\pubhous3.428
~
.
~
$
~
` V
a~
~tA"'w~w z
~ 41
QO~W
e r o„ w ' ~ ?
Y. Y,~,,, r~.~ ..~r r~,,, T~ t, •
""'""f• ~ Y'Z
0 Q ~t
~.o ~
' 0 wz
~~yy~~ ~~.~?~"'.r~"~ $t4dbY~~~ J ~ 1.~J
(p pielaM ~ ~ a ~ stw ~ tdY ~ ~ ~i, for
folu
. cnn ~r+~' ~ r+ ~ ~ Z WN1~N r ~ ~ 6 IM1~ ~ ~~t ot
x
•-.,'w'"`~~ , J~ ~ ~ w~ ~ 3' ~ Qq„u~' b loe.4 ~
r.~..
~ ~
~ :y~- ~ ~ ~Apt rion Fn~, a „port. U„ O
~
n,,•,•r~ ~ ~ ~j,• ~ °a/~ ~ q~°a^4 a """'"U°"~d P-r h ~ ~
mw~ R'~P E~°"4 Q•• ~ ,
~ ~ i IM M~~ a prodrq orw"d~qU"_ dran°9~ ~ ~tYW IM ~ r..~
W
~ A II~ ol V ~
~t W bSfono IM ~ tauU~°~ V„
°t wast
Na pw+K''a+d pa,UH; d Q 4
~ ' ` 'r,~•-c ~
~
~ ~ Ud V'~ tlu a~'°mdrw~~°^ ~d
~ q~ot oooofACW Ca'tli~~ ~ld
.
~,,r''" . . ~ . ~ wl a ~
~ ° , " . • ~ .w ~ ~,,,Mata anr u+r
7, ~d per t* ut~t ,rqQm~ MY ~ ol 1M F~'"~
/ / • J; ~ •,,...r "'~;`....~.,.......i moY dq yN utt~^ ~ mY
won
~ ~ ~u iua k4t a ~ ~ a ~
~1.. • - rJ ~
/ ~aw~ a~ ~ ~
nw a'°e
~
uQ
/1~Or . 1"?fi""''"".- _...r~`~...- r...~~ ..~---?-~NO~ _ ~0~ P y'y,~ mYra tY~ ~ yt1{tMr~~a, pa++o9a
.
4w,
,
1 ~ . ' ~ ..~''~t~~p . ' - pr°~ y""~c~~ta ° ~ d
,,,r, oM h+~°~tb".
, - , . ..M_,..._ ~
~
abldM el AN e ad
.
VycWr b Or°F°~ ~pdere~
~d ~ asar~ey y~
! /'f ~ ~ +KiyR"_~`'.' r' C . ...--^~?.~s d ~ ~y t, W.- 1h
~ • i/ -"".-i ' I "'c`-" ~ +hfd' ~wnM""~~9oa ~~d~~ oePY
f._.._r w„~ 1~ 9' ~paptlar~4y~d ~
mu^fcqd ,..°^4ra1 hM ~ j aoPy~
- •`y`w~ r 1 ~ A ~ rf ' ~,5 ~ ~i ~M~t ~ };p'troctd•
,
~ * m
45~ Ml
d
0-0
t ~ ^ . 3'' ~0~» , --..•f,yp, l trada ~ pa~ 1w a tl p~~
~
ot r, M
y ' ~ f~ `r,, r ~ k k P ? ,.---•-_,,,`~N1I~f t / 10. ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ C N~-[tAwu
tl+d~~~W~!t ~ ~ vA0'°ut YrMAt'9 nol to ~
N`' prA on',U 4.ltl Or*
IM ~y
N of 1M ~ pb ~ ~ t~~ ~ 'i
w.,
1t. w°°^~,,.bikW~ to at hi,rd+
t~•"-
N
tx , Ca~lro~a ~ a d~ ~ ~M+d !Y
tan
steb'A' R" ~°"fra~
n ~ ~ /fj / i' ~ ~ r d°r"'' ~ b;" et~o"'tlN`;10M1+idu',, R~ m• ,
. r~• .r 1 1M 0~ ~M P~'f ~ d1 t~"
'
CY)
~ m~c / y.- J/1 ~ a~ ,~yp"p"! l'• ~ ~ ~ror add` ~ ~a pw Fn9 ~ a ~ot
~K~°f~11M~r
M ~.o~' Sta r~ / ~A- • ~.1 14 , So(41Y la F' • p yty
~ ~ ~ ~„i ~ ~i trr * : 1 ~11K~ ,wva"ld' yy uw aP~ p~,~n a
twftodo-o-~ n1U~
O ~ ~Q? ~.-f"' .j~/ j.•r'~, r 14. 1M C°^^~aY W P~ C~nbd
'f'~ ds~ an Unilam~ y p a F'
otlNr
~can~ M'"w' ,r~nd~ ~p y„ C~ c«~^a
13 ~ r"°~ ~J ' !i~, C,~A'~. ~ ~ ~ ta µ~'"wtKon4 flyWct ~ ~
~.Q r•
a
I CD $Cm+E ~
$HEE
N .,'a Y~/.-;~~ 1~ rrt ~ 11r, ~~0 l
tr?"p i~~~
~pp~ u ~ L
wx
~
3
O
- ~
- - . - ~
Accwnnr.roMaNaeNWAL ~
ru VxurrM~,aM OFACR nRAL
ueoaAccm,wM wa
LCMffMi GIPIGIY Q 1-1/ RMR
»°~o~c,~'. """a~'oa~°'r~a'
u c~rw cJPVcrtr a um un.mn Nore: SEE cIvIL EtJ~SNEElefrlG a
GRADING PLAN POR ALL MFORMATION
a2so PERTAINING t0 G1Q,4pING, DR4INAGE,
AND RETAINIWG lilALl.3.
~W'ce
~
ro ~ ~ >
$270
0270 G"o oNopo
-
~
b. e250 - E,
w
~ w~~ ~
~ ~
~ptIOH ~ ~0 y vaL vautr oiavt ( I I I
KAM '
. J •
ATA**
~
~ •
. N 01
N~wa~r~ ewe~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ • °
lL>W
,
z~
. . . . 0
~ i BCHEMA7IC SITE PLAN Y
~ ~ ~ a ecx~, r.~a.a Q
. ~
.~~~A~E o
11`~ LANDICAM AMAO
pIJILCM4 A•~J STORIES V
ro~ie B UNIT9 PER STCRY >
sa u~Re rara.
PARKMGs
~ PUBLIC U?ORIGB a 15 SPAC.EB
' FIOUBMG n 2181°ACES fINCI.UDEB 3 Gl.067) •
• FWNDIGAI° a 4 6PAGE8
?O1AL FIAltlCM a 124 8r Q
NO $TRIICTUIEREp PARKING ~
~
~~ti~
i
4
a~
-
IID
~
~
~
ow~~
UNIT ImIA UNIT 101C UNIT 103C LAUNpRI' I,WIT 104C lAdIT Im5C LNIT IPJ6C UNIT 101C UNIT 1PJBG
LNIT 201A LNIT 40115 IAJIT 2038 LAUNpRY LNIT 20415 lNIT 20515 LNIT 206l3 UtJIT 20'16 UNIT 2988
LNIT 30IA LNIT 3028 LNIT 3038 MGHANICAI IIMIT 3048 WIT 305B UNIT 9008 UNIT 3018 UNIT 9086 Ore,
BIJIlDING PLAN - TNIRD LEVEL 6' p a
uAu- Nr - r-a Gt,
~ I
i
~ araeN ,
woNOan
CCX(
~nca nupa ~
. ` I
4N1q
_1L
0
a ~ na
TNIRC I.EvEl.necK moon THIRP 1.EYEL wrt -a- (mro wrt) wtr b, rLwr umn 7HII"Zp LEvE6 uMr ti'aaart unn
$CALM iarr. r-W w , ScAuu w. r-r e?1~ 6r. tda,u Sexa wr.a ' o
$13 6P.01110eb 4e6D bt. tiROEE AeeD br. 41e0E0
W ~
~3
Iky V s
a a sATM aATM a' O
N =
a Z
0
~,oro .iurab o
u
Y
GN11o ~6 ~ ~
>
~ FIRBT LEvEL Lawoxr Roon FiRBT I.EYEL wtt 'a' (tro wft) uur c, «.wr uao FIR9T LEvEL uar w nacwr wrn
WAw w& r-a !o . 1eAM w. r-r 571.1 eP. (611PA) IcAM w- r-r
613 bR 4R0o6 1l08 8J°. dR066 48" bf. 4R0l6 ~
~
$ ~
_ ~I IZ~
- ~ ,
F .
o i
t~+asr ~
~ ~ ~
~
MT RoOr
NIL.p00!'
k ~
~
~ @I,III.DINCs ROOF F1.AN
AenftTaMHwn rerK LOur+a ~ euue, W • r.a ~ ~
viceM, za~?naer~cv~ ?aoonsarn
~uiw•~ n~T NooF R b
~q
mP pun tti p 4
ezeok-e vr
~ ~
r~ s,v~ I I I~
aaa~~e ea•
r ~
4r fer~. raesr ~evn.
871YLOMKL 6'IG~DSDI~ E~S/~0'
\\-LFAWP W-4" --8 •
Ni1C VMfI./oOdV6
~p 4' K70D'INM
~M ~ H" 70M z FRONT (3olaTH) EI.EvATioN
~ ~ -
ac,ai.e. va , r.W ~
luP MT! a«~ n
~~'D y trw n1111! ~ q p?I
q y A
ror ru~re a~i~b V~~ N a
EDe~V7` 7NND IE~, U~ p~
~T IA' 4 ~7 YT W ~
= a
V .
~LY~olo IML 9ELwD tNlS. Q ~
~0061W 9N~ ~ A16qy!/{~ 2
~ SBCdD LEV9'~ 6
NEL AGb7'-0EN' Q
lEGOIDL
s 26~ p ~
1'IR4T LML ~ fW44T LLYR. J
rwsr ~eve. e2e0o~ Z
nat tMe. Q
• °.TION
x s WES7 ELEYATION 4 EAST El.E1/a' T~_ n gEGTION ~
eca~, u~~ r~ a
as eca~e~ ve' . ti~,a ,y iuw ue~ - r,p, Q ec~58 w' . e.o~ • ~
a
n a~CWis
e~ee~e ur
~
-~~,,d~ ~Ur
TM~~.~ d
~ NORTN ELEYATION
A3 6C,aI.116 U8' • 1'-0' rM~irve.
~ I
J ~
~ i
• eoee o~ raeaw '
~
~a Kru. w~.
r~ caw ?wi
~
ena
>
~ - ~
rouoA ~tae e2W Gl
nA"TCVE
~ MOM&~ ~ ~ w
~
'b a246b= y ~
4YfeuL ~ ~ C~ ~ O
eounetAer,uaNS w+P raooocoM
s 3011TH (FRONT) ELEYATION nEAST ELEYATION ~ '
M lCALEi V4' • 1'•0' A4 lCN.B- V4' . 1'•p' q
~ I
017G' Q ~ ,
TIWNCMII! ~.e~
b770' ~
O.M.
I I I I
•
• '
~ ENCL03URE FI.DOR PI.AN
e~±e~a~~ ~ ec~~ u~~, i~.a
~ NORtH EI.EvATION ~111~5T Pl.EYATIDN ,
U4' ~ 1'•p' A4 lCAln, 1/4' . p.p~
Us$N
a: nn
A
emw ' o ~
V
W
~3
~
o~
Q
Z
~ J
~ CTION
~ Y
SCALE. 1J4' . N.p'
0012~7 YJ'~
~ 0
1 V
~ eetalo teve~
W41 >
. ~
I
I
. / s ~ !'IR3TttM6
~ W"W
~ A
-i 91TE SECTION
/
ru ac,uM W • r.a
. ~
~ IZ~
va I
o ~
~
N &
, rW~
~ 4 - ` ~ ' ~ ~ ? ~ ~ - - - _y , r 'r ~ ~ ~ y i t!1 I
. J.~'' (j'f_.-- ~ - / ~ ~ ~'~,r~J ~ r ~
~ ~J~,~/1~ M t~j~ .~'i~ 'I~ G'~ ~`.'i,Si-~_Y,J/, ) '
~.i•- rU•~~rt~ .
~ -
~yy v r ~ 'L ? ~ ~ / ~
~ . ; • . 1 _Y- ~ - _ ~ f
~i ~,4? I / w ~ 'I ! ~ tf ~ 'G,/.( 1' A ~ ,
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i4n . " ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ o
; f•' ~ , ~ 1 x ~ • ~ p
„ 1' ~ ~ 8 / ~ / ;o ~
` ~ . f= y. > 50 .snP"' 1 / a'`
H 4
~
~.a
y ~ ~t,~ "S
r
t'LLw
31Gh \t
M
~If
YLANT LEGE
~
\ r- J / , / ~ ~ ~pNNK ~ Stt~4~ ~ - ' ~ ( / ~ ~ pL Np',S ,Id~'??'~ er,n"fl,v,~ ~v~- PcojectNn.x6L--~
~I. '1 a Gd~p~Ttl~~Pf~ts ~1
«
Fe
1.'M~pr,u,~"~dh+~"'`°oYr,~~r~ R u~~
; ° ,~,~r•~~1~~ j/~ / / i,w~`~a"~~.,M..w~iui.~irv"'rw ~ 1~
~.kb+u~p"'ou°~ ,bo is
~ f / ~ ,~a;y'y+`+~;r,~`r_r_r~"'.~wMW'~'`" «atrtt+
`
C ~ ' ~ » ~ f, ok~plPa° •~="a.a.ai~~r¦ Slicet
CewMK ~yyWu Y~pu~' ry~
?
JJ,~,~,,// 1 , ~~~MW~ ~tMb~M
y~
/
~ ~MA~~~aw
/ / ~ '
J' /
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 28, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Tom Moorhead
Galen Aasland Mike Moliica
Diane Golden . Lauren Waterton
John Schofield Dominic Maurieilo
Gene Uselton Judy Rodriguez
Ann Bishop Pubiic Hearina 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that Greg Amsden was not present.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the modification to the existing platted
building envelope, located at 1082 Riva Glen/Lot 3 Spraddie Creek Estates.
Applicant: Lee Kirch, represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and stated that the request had met the
subdivision criteria and that staff was recommending approval with 1 condition. 1
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There was none. He then asked if the
Commissioners had any comments. There were no comments from the Commission. I
John Schofield made a motion for approval with one condition in accordance with the staff
memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
2. A request to remove a condition of approval, from an approved setback variance, '
requiring that the exterior walls and roof remain during the remodel process, located at
226 Forest Road/Lot 11 A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: John Kredeit
Planner: Lauren Waterton
• Planning and Environmentai Conunission
Minutes
April28, 1997 ~
J6hn Schofield disclosed, for the record, that he had coniact with Mark Mueller, but he feli it
would in na way affect his comments. .
l.auren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that the applicant was requesting
removal of the condition of approval, as stated in the staff inemo. Lauren said that the project
was non-conforming in severa{ ways and she listed them, saying that once the structure was
altered, it would have to conform to the deve(opment standards. Therefore, staff was
recommending denial, since staff felt that the applicant shoufd comply with the original condition
of appraval.
Rohn Robbins, an attorney on behalf of the applicant, asked for common sense to prevail, as the
building was to be built in precisely the same location. He stated that nothing about the existing
walls or roof was in compliance with the existing building code. He said he was concerned about
it being a non-conforming structure; that you could grab a wall and shake a(I three fioors. He
said the applicant was simply updating the materials and recreating the buifding in exactly the
same location, with no impact to the adjacent neighbors. He stated that in order to construct as
staff had recommended, it would be costly, as the applicant would have to suspend the members
of the walls whife construct+r+g. He said that this would cause considerable delays in
construction, would cause a safety hazard and the staging would impact adjacent property
owners. He said it was a silly exercise having to suspend the walls in order to stay in
conformance.
Mark Mueller, a structural engineer, stated that he had been in the valley for 15 years and he said
. he would (ike to explain what saving the existing wall would entail. He explained some illustrated
drawings and why Bob Zeeb, the contractor, needed to remove the walls and roof. He said that
to excavate underneath segmentally around ihe building was very time consuming, laborious and
very dangerous from a safety standpoint. He also said to temporarily support the upper floors •
and the roof was very time consuming without a guarantee of the quality of the building. i
Steve Riden, the applicanYs architect, said that this project was initiated in August of 1992. He
said, as a practical matter, the client would like to maintain what he had enjoyed on the property
prior to the restrictions that had been placed on it now, with a practical resolution.
Rohn Robbins emphasized that what was being asked for was a new, structurally-sound, non-
conforming building. He said getting out of the setback would result in a loss of the view entirely
to the west, with no benefit to the neighbors and be detrimental to the neighbor on the east.
John Schofield asked Dan or Mike if the existing 2X4 walls comp(ied with the UBC.
Dan Stanek said, no, but there were other ways to construct leaving the wall intact. .
Mark MueNer agreed that it could be done, but was beyond the point of practicality.
John Schofield agreed that it was possible, although not smart. He asked for some alternatives,
as this was a clear example of the PEC setting forth a condition that was in opposition with the
code of the TOV. He asked what portion of the building would be removed if it was torn down.
Bob Zeeb said 100%.
Pianning and i:nvironmental Commission
Minules •
April28, 1997 2
~ Mark Mueiler said the basement slab had to be lowered 2'.
Steve Riden said GRFA had been removed from the upper levels.
John Schofield said it would be a demo/rebuild if 100% was removed.
Gene Uselton said it would then become a new building needing a granting of a new variance for
this new building, which would mean the PEC needed to look for a hardship.
I
Bob Zeeb said it would be a hardship on the neighbor to the east.
Mike Mollica said the application was not about a setback variance, or its merits. He said that
staff's response was to the applicant's request to remove the condition. Mike stated that the
building should conform to the zoning and that nothing on that site was unique to the
neighborhood.
Gene Uselton said if this condition was removed than in fact a variance would be granted.
Mike Mollica said a series of variances would then be necessary.
Galen Aasland said although syrnpathetic, the applicant was asking for significant benefits,
having been grandfathered from an existing building into a new building. He said that zoning
said it didn't have to be practicaf, but it had to conform.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
• Diane Golden said the PEC's hands were tied.
Greg Moffet said the basis of the variance was the existence of the structure and that granting
the variance, given the structure, was not a grant of special privilege. He stated that if what was
requested were permitted, then a precedent would be set. He said the structure had to become
conforming over time and it was now a special privilege.
John Schofield suggested tabling this until the applicant could come back with a specific request.
Rohn Robbins stated that really what we were doing was arguing semantics and that we could
give an illusion of retaining the wall. He said there was a hardship with the view that was lost,
ihe cost and for the community not using the full and best use of the property. He asked what
sense it made and that regulations said to bring it into conformance, but it made no sense.
Steve Riden said in 1992 the demo/rebuild rule was not in effect and he had been working on
this project since that time.
Galen Aasland made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo.
Ann Bishop secanded the motion.
The motion for denial passed by a vate of 6-0.
• Planning and I;nvironmental Commission
Minutes
Apri128, 1997 3
.
3. An appeal of an administrative decision determining that the Vail Run tennis bubble is a
seasonal structure. The property is located at 1000 Lionsridge Loop (Vait Run).
Appellant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo and said that the existing structure had never
been removed during the summer months, according to Town records. He said although it was
eluded to in the ordinance, what was stated was nat necessarily clear.
Larry Eskwith stated that he filsd this appeal immediately. He said he didn't consider it to be a
non-conforming structure, using the argument that it was a year-round recreational structure,
rather than the seasonal structure. He then proceeded to hand out a letter from Peter Patten.
He stated that it was a landmark on the Frontage Road. He said it had been there for 23 years.
He asked how anyone could ignore enforcement of an ordinance that was passed in 1976 and
one would assume that the Town Council wauld have asked Mr. Fleicher to take down the bubble
through all the amendments, if it was indeed a seasonal structure. He said that nothing in the
ordinance said the iennis courts were to be removed in the summer. He said it never was
intended on the part of the Town Council, according to Ordinance 29 in 1977, to make it into a
temporary structure. He told the PEC if they bought the staff's argument, then what you would
have now would be a legal non-conforming structure, because it was legal prior to the time a
change to the zoning law occurred.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There was none.
Dominic Mauriello said the staff decision was not made in a vacuum. He said that if a •
reasonable person would read this, the same conclusion could be made. He asked why the
phrase "during the winter season" was put in the ordinance. He said it would be negligent of staff
to not bring this forward to the PEC for an interpretation.
Larry Eskwith said that SDD's in the Town of Vail in the past were contractual types of devices
between the developer and the Town Council and that there was no evidence that the developer
of Vail Run had agreed to any concessions. He said if it was the intention of the parties, then
they would have put in specific prohibitions. He said it had never been taken down, since the
Town Council or staff had never requested that it be taken down, and therefore, was a
recreational structure.
Mike Mollica explained that staff does not review the entire SDD ordinance when specific
amendments are made to other portions of the ordinance. He said that staff only focused on the
changes suggested.
Galen Aasland asked if this received a building permit to hold the snow{oad or wind. He asked if
there was a change in use, do they have to demonstrate the effects of wind or snowloads.
Dominic Mauriello said that if the bubble was allowed to stay, it may have to come into
compliance for any change in use.
Planning and i:nviromncnlal Commission
Mineites •
April28, 1997 4
• Galen Aasland said he saw nothing that said it had to be taken down. .
Ann Bishop said she had no comments and would uphold the staff's decision.
Dominic Mauriello expiained the different ordinances and said that only 3 amendments deait with
the SDD as a whole.
Diane Golden said that she saw the courts covered during the winter months as an amenity and
therefore, could see it as a recreational facility.
John Schofield stated that non-enforcement didn't hold a whole lot of water, just because it had
been wrong for 23 years and he agreed with staff that it was seasonal.
Gene Uselton said Larry's argument was interesting and almost persuasive, however, he
interpreted it as a seasonal structure, which meant not covered during the summer season.
Greg Moffet said he saw this as an amenity and saw nowhere that it had to have the covers
removed, but that both interpretations were reasonable.
Larry Eskwith said that the word "presently" was the key word, or what existed at the time the
ordinance was passed.
Gene Uselton made a motion to uphold the staff determination that it was a seasonal structure.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
• The motion failed, by a vote of 3-3.
Mike Mollica said the staff decision would hold.
Tom Moorhead clarified that the applicanYs request to have it overturned had failed. ,
;
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Vai! Run), to eliminate the requirement for
three covered tennis courts, located at 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/Lions Ridge Filing #1.
Applicant: Vail Run Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dorninic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. He said the applicant was requesting to
change the use to a use that would benefit the community. He said that staff had concerns that
a change would have parking implications and that the structure needed to conform to code. He
said that staff was recommending approval, subject to the SDD criteria with two conditions.
Larry Eskwith asked why it was necessary for the applicant to have to come back to the PEC if
they wished to go forward with a permitted use. He asked for the rationale for it to be a minor
amendment to the SDD. He asked if they were teaving the tennis courts in why they can't go
forward with the permitted use. He said they just wanted a buifding permit. He said they wanted
the same treatment as the Cascade Village and would iike any part of Vail Run to use permitted
uses without filing a fee and going through a process.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April28, 1997 5
Mike Mollica said it would go before the PEC f9ar information purposes only. He said there would
be no public hearing and that was the process. •
Dominic Mauriello said it would be a staff review.
Larry Eskwith said a permitted use should be permitted.
Dominic Mauriello said some recreational uses had different parking requirements.
Mr. Fleichman, the General Manager of Va+l Run, said he should be able to do what he wanted in
that bubble. He said that ihere had been rollerblading on the tennis courts, shooting hoops on
courts and athletes playing soccer. He stated that the Homeowner's Association would never
allow anything that affected their parking and that 26 new parking spaces had been added.
John Schofield agreed with the change of use, as long as it was a recreational use. He stated
that a movie theater could be considered by soma to be "recreational" and was a use that would
change the need in parking and should be reviewed by statf. He said that the review should not
be too restrictive in the parking requirement.
Gene Uselton asked if an owner could do anything he wanted according to the ordinance.
Dominic Mauriello said these were the zoning allowances for this property and that it didn't say
you didn't have to get approval.
Galen Aasland asked about the reasonable fee basis to the public.
Dominic Mauriello said it had to show public benefits by being available to the public. He •
mentioned that Vail Run paid a lesser recreational tax based on the public availability of the
facilities, but there was no limitation on what the fee should be.
Mike Mollica said there was not a requirement to charge a fee for the use of the recreational
facility, but that it was at the discretion of Vail Run.
Galen Aasland agreed with the staff inemo, that it should have to come back to the Town for
public safery requirements.
Ann Bishop supported the staff language, which she said was fairly explicit. She said it should
not have to come back to the PEC and they could do what they wanted.
Diane Go(den said they should be able to do what they wanted to do and if it became available to
the generai public, then that would be the only reason to come back to the Town. She stated
that the PEC was here to help the applicants.
Greg Moffet said there was no line between similar and dissimilar recreational facilities and
would not require subsequent review by staff. He said public amphitheaters or movie theaters
were not sirnilar. He suggested limiting the review by staff to non-enumerated uses and to
change the recommendation.
Larry Eskwith said he would iike to be treated the same as Cascade and it was unfair.
Planning and Environmentai Commission •
Minutes
April28, 1997 6
• Diane Goiden said the Cascade didn't have to be apen to the general pubfic, as you had to have
memberships.
Greg Moffet asked at what point did it become dissimilar and how could it be regulated.
Larry Eskwith said sports were not dissimilar.
Greg Moffet said, "what about an equestrian center."
Mike Mollica said, " what about a rifle range."
Dominic Mauriello said the process in the Zoning Code was for ihe PEC to make that
determination between similar uses.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff inemo.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
Greg Moffet asked to amend the motion to include "non-enumerated" recreational uses.
Ann Bishop seconded the amended motion.
The amended motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Larry Eskwith said he would go to the Town Council regarding the interpretation.
• 5. A request for a final review for a conditional use permit to allow for Type III EHUs for
seasonal hpusing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive, Public Works Facility/legally
described as:
I
beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the Sixth '
Principa( Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said Section 9, to a
point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 thence along the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature; thence
456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which bears
S80033'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westeriy line of said Section 9: thence departing the
northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following the Westerly tine of said
Section 9 N000021 "E 565.11 feet to ihe point of beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request and stated that the applicant had put in more
wood elements. He advised the PEC to concentrate on the bulk and mass and that the DRB
would concentrate on the colors and materia(s. He mentioned that in the pre-meeting, the
applicant said he would be bringing this within budget, so these improvements could be done.
Greg Moffet asked, given the lack of public input, if the next step would be to go to the DRB, then
to request a permit.
• Planning and I'snvironmental Commission
Minutes
April28, 1997 7
Mike Mollica said it would go before the Town Cauncil a week from Tuesday.
Andy Knudtsen stated that it was significant that there was not a lot of public here, as there have •
been efforts to reach oui to the public to put them at ease. He said that this site was the only
one in Town that works well for seasonal housing and the use and the location were a very good
match. He said that CDOT was tough to work with and that CDOT had approved a proposal
without conditions. Andy said that the TOV would be providing a bus stop on a will-call basis.
He said the site had been cleared on all the debris and rockfall conditions, as they had worked
with a soils expert to put the building up oFl. ihe hiilside. He explained the lack of retaining walls
and said when you see retaining walls, you know there is too much building for the site. Andy
said hurdles have been cleared and we were now looking for approval from the PEC.
Mark Donaldson said regarding the soil conditions and grading, that there were major constraints
on the site that they had to overcome, such as bedrock conditions and drainage. He said
although the project could handle more stone and better materials, seasonal workers were being
targeted here and the cost of the rent was important. He said they needed to see a financial
return and the cost to add a balcony was $1800 per balcony, with just the change from a window
' to a stiding glass door at $500, therefore the balcony construction would add $55 a sq. ft. more.
Mark asked that the PEC not require the decks.
John Schofield said bears love to chew on wood and the dumpster doors needed to be changed
to metal. He asked if painted concrete was permitted.
Mark Donaldson said he wou(d do that.
Bob McLaurin said this project was critical to the viability of the Bus Department and that it was
an important step, given the lack of bus drivers. He said that the Dept. of Transportation would •
use the units for plow drivers, if not used by the bus drivers. Bob said that balconies were not
absolutely necessary and that this project had gone way beyond what it originally was supposed
to be.
Dominic Maurielfo said that Community Development thought this project was a great project.
Galen Aasland said he would like to see decks.
Ann Bishop said she would like to see decks if possible, but not make it mandatory.
Diane Golden said she didn't think decks were needed, nor landscape islands, but more parking
spaces.
.1ohn Schofield said he liked the landscape islands, as there was an abundance of parking on the
site. He asked if ihe power lines verere going to be underground.
DominiG Mauriello said transmission lines were not required to be underground, but service to the
individual houses must be underground.
Mike Mollica said the scope of development determines the burying of lines and in this case it
was not appropriate for this type of development.
Planning and Environmental Commission •
Minut$s
Apri12 A. 1997 8
. Susie Hervert said in 1999, the transformer wouid be relocated.
Mike Mollica stated again that all the service lines wouid be underground.
John Schofield asked if the bus stop could be included in the Golf Course/East Vail route.
Susie Hervert said the bus schedule was too tight to do that..
Greg Moffet said if we solved the bus driver problem, then that would be moot.
John Schofield said he supported decks and suggested an opening, rather than a full deck,
which would be architecturally more attractive and that a full balcony would give us what the PEC
wanted.
Mark Donaldson said there was a$300;000 contingency fund and if it could be done, it would be
done.
John Schofield said that full balconies gave the best of both'worlds.
Andy Knudtsen said that from a distance, this project was attractive .
Mike Mo)lica said that Eagle Bend on Highway 6 had faux balconies, which were not very
attractive.
Gene Usetton said that ba(conies would be nice, but seasonal workers wauld be there in the cold
• weather and so he liked the faux balconies. He felt the money could be better spent on
something else. Gene said he liked the landscape islands.
Greg Moffet said a good job had been done and he was happy to be seeing this for the last time. 'I
He said that he thought there should be a possible deed restriction, so if the Town ever so(d it,
that they would need to come before the PEC for a review, since it was a conditional use. ;
Andy Knudtsen said that the current Council and staff wanted it for TOV employees and that they I
were fully committed to see this in perpetuity. '
Greg Moffet asked if there was a mechanism to draft into it a statement saying to continue to use ~
it as employee housing.
Mike Mollica stated that a change of use would trigger a conditional use permit. '
Dpminic Mauriello said a deed restriction would have to be carried forward.
Greg Moffet said it could be sold to the Sonnenalp for their employees, for example, and he
would like it designated for TOV employee housing.
Mike Mollica said a future Council could sell it, but they would need a public hearing and to put a
deed restriction on the deed didn't accomplish anything further.
Greg Moffet said he wanted to overcome the saleability of this project.
• Planning and Environmental Cominission
Minutes
April28, 1997 9
,
I
~Andy Knudtsen said language could be included to strongly recommend decks and when the bids
I come back on May 6th, we would include that as suggested. .
Greg Moffet reminded the PEC that there had not been a full winter bus schedule for the last
three seasons and asked the PEC to summarize their preference for decks.
Gaten Aasland wanted decks.
r Ann Bishop strong(y recommended decks.
;
r
! John Schofield wanted decks.
~
Gene Uselton did not want decks. .
Diane Golden did not want decks.
; John Schofield made a motion for approval with the 3 conditions stated in the staff inemo with
the additianal 3 conditions that a total of 35 parking spaces be designated for the project, that a
, bus stop be designated prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued and that any changes in
use or ownership be subject to review by the PEC.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Susie Hervert said the parking spaces on the south side of the berm would be a staging area for
Public Works. She said that in the winter the buses stage ior about a haif hour and that they did
not have an area during the day to designate for the staging.
John Schofield said suggested restricting 9 of the 49 spaces shown. • i
Dominic Mauriello said there were 37 spaces.
Susie Hervert said during the administration remodel, summer was the worst time and parking
could potentialiy could go down to the tunnel.
Mark Donaldson stated 3 units could be lost due to the finances of adding decks.
Ann Bishop said if fiscally possible, she would like to see decks.
Mark Donaldson said he did not want to be left with that condition.
Mike Mollica noted that the applicant had agreed to add metal doors on the dumpster and also
stucco.
The motion failed by a vote of 2-4.
John Schofield amended the motion with a new condition 1 to state that it be "strongly
recommended the applicant include decks if possible" and to include all the other conditions of
the previous motion.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
Planning and L'nvironmentai Commission •
Minuies
Apri128, 1997 10
~ The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor
subdivision, to allow for ihe construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1
condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231
E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Lot A, Block 56, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL MAY 12, 1997
7. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the
construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail
Intermountain. ,
Applicani: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie WiNiamson
;
TABI.ED UNTI! MAY 12, 1997
8. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a skier bridge
and a major.amendment to allow for mod'+fications to the allowable GRFA and the building
height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-1 & 39-2, Glen Lyon
~ Subdivision. "
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorwood !
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JUNE 9,1997 I
Ann Bishop made a motion to table items 6 and 7 until May 12, 1997 and item 8 until June 9, I
1997. ~
Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed by a vote of 6-0. '
9. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance from Ssction
18.24.150 to a commercial storefront on Hanson Ranch Road and to a!!ow for an
expansion to the outdoor dining deck and conditional use permit to allow for outdoor
seating in the CC1 Zone District at the Red Lion Buitding (Cleaver's Deli, The Chocolate
Factory), iocated at 304 Bridge StreeULots E, F, G, & H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
Planner: Tammie Williamson
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
~ 14. Information Update
Planning and F.nvironmental Commission
Minutes
April28, 1997 11
. * S a •,y ~
E J ' Diane Golden gave an AIPP update on the Seibert Circle art project.
`
; 11. Approval of March 10, March 24, and April 14, 1997 minutes.
E
4
Diane Golden made a motion to approve the amended March 10, 1997 minutes.
i Gene Useiton seconded the motion.
~
It passed by a vote of 5-0-1 (Ann Bishvp abstained).
k
` Diane Goiden made a motionto approve the amended March 24, 1997 rrtinutes.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
It passed by a vote of 5-0-1 (Ann Bishop abstained).
` John Schofieid made a motion to approve the amended April 14, 1997 minutes.
~ Diane Golden seconded the mot'ion.
It passed by a vote of 6-0.
_ Diane Gofden made a motion to adlaurn the meeting.
'Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
It passed by a vote of 6-0. ~ I
T h e m e e t m g a d jo u r n e d a t 5: 0 0 p m.
~
Alanning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Aprii 28, 1997 12
s. ~
, May 14, 1997
RE: 1997 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Members
, To whom it may concern:
' Below Please fnd the current Planning and Environmental Commission members. Please update your
mailing list.
1997 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Galen Aasland
Greg Amsden - Asst. Chairman II
I
Diane Golden ~
I
Greg Moffet - Chairman ~
I
Ann Bishop I
John Schofield
Gene Usetton
All mail ta the Board members can continue to be mailed to: Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 S. FFOntage Rd., Vail, CO 81657. Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to
this matter.
Sincerely,
Judy Rodriguez
Planning Secretary
i American Planning Association CLE International Colorado Municipal League
1776 Massachusetts Ave. NW 1541 Race Street, Suite 100 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100
Washington, DC 20036 Denver, CO 80206 Denver, CO 80264
Center for Public-Private Sector American Planning Association APA Colorado
Cooperation 122 S Michigan Ave Suite 1600 2150 W. 29th Ave., Suite 200
University of Colorado at Denver Chicago IL 60603-9604 Denver, CO $0211
I 1445 Market Street, 5uite 380
Denver, CO 80202 -1727
State of Colorado ReNews Colorado Community Association for Commuter
I Department of Transportation Revitalization Assoc. Transportation
4201 E. Arkansas Ave. c/o Colorado Municipal League 1518 K 5treet, Suite 503
Denver, CO 80222-3400 1660 Lincoln St., 5uite 2100 Washington, DC 20005
Denver, CO 80264
The Chuck 5tevinson Center for the Colorado Lottery Colorado Commons
study of Local Government at the P.O. Box 7 PO Bog 417
Independence Institute Pueblo, CO 81002 Longmont, CO $0502-0417
14142 Denver W. Pkwy., Suite 185
Golden, CO 80401