HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0512 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on May 12, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a conditional use permit and variance from Section 18.26.040 (J)(E), to allow for a
brew pub, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe
Planner: George Ruther
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 major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), 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
A worksession to discuss the proposed Development Review Improvement Process (DRIP)
development standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and 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.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
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 25, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
PO Agenda last revised 5/5/97 4 pm
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, May 12, 1997
AGENDA
Proiect Orientation-/ NO LUNCH - Communitv Develonment Department
MEMBERS PRESENT
Site Visit
1. Gasthof Gramshammer - 231 E. Gore Creek Drive
2. Bannister - 2943 Bellflower Drive
Driver: Dominic
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
12:45 pm
1:15 pm
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and 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.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie Williamson
2. 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/Dominic Mauriello
3. A worksession to discuss the proposed Development Review Improvement Process
(DRIP) development standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail "
Community Development, Fire, Public Works
1
MEMBERS ABSENT
a
TOWN OF YA1L
Agenda last revised 5/5/97 4 pm
4. A request for a conditional use permit and variance from Section 18.26.040 (J)(E), to
allow for a brew pub, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
5. Information Update
6. Approval of April 28, 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 May 9, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
is
2
Agenda last revised 5/12/97 5 pm
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, May 12, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / NO LUNCH - Communitv Develonment Denartment 12:45 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Gasthof Gramshammer - 231 E. Gore Creek Drive
2. Bannister - 2943 Bellflower Drive
Driver: Dominic
•''..
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
EM?lic Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and 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.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie Williamson
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0
TABLED UNTIL JUNE 9, 1997
2. 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/Mike Mollica
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
1
TOWN OF 9AI113'
Agenda last revised S/12/97 5 pm
3. 'A worksession to discuss the proposed Development Review Improvement. Process
(DRIP) development standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Community Development, Fire, Public Works
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
4. A request for a conditional use permit and variance from Section 18.26.040 (J)(E), to
allow for a brew pub, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
5. Information Update
6. Approval of April 28, 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
W
0
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
171
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 12, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18. 13.060 (Setbacks) and 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.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie Williamson
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #4, Series of 1985 which created Chapter
18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This chapter
allows for up to 250 square feet of additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) to be added to a
dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the
additional GRFA ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling
units, which have been in existence for a period of at least 5 years, by permitting up to two
hundred and fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit.
In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended
Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a
dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional
GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission.
The applicant is requesting to use 30 sq. ft. of the 250 sq. ft. of Additional GRFA to add a dormer
to the second floor of the house. This addition is located over existing floor area and therefore,
does not add additional site coverage.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting that part of the additional GRFA (15 sq. ft.) be located
within the front setback. The existing structure encroaches 7 feet into the required 20-foot
setback and has approximately 104 square feet of GRFA located within the front setback. This
structure was originally built in Eagle County, and became legal non-conforming when the Town
annexed the Intermountain Subdivision.
In June 1996, staff approved a request for 23 sq. ft. of the additional GRFA (250) to remodel a
portion of the interior, which was an expansion of the loft area.
f:\everyone? mVnemos\bannister.428
1
II. WNING ANALYSIS
Lot Size: 0.2129 acre/ 9,274 sq. ft.
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
Allowed/Reouired Existino Proposed Remaininq
GRFA: 2,743 sq. ft. 2,766 sq. ft. 2,796 sq. ft.
With 250 2,993 sq. ft. 2,766 sq. ft. 2,796 sq. ft. 197 sq. ft. remaining of
250
Site Coverage: 1,854 sq. ft. 1,523 sq. ft. No change 331 sq. ft.
(20%) (16%)
Height: 30'133' 30' No change
Setbacks Front 20' *13' *13'
Sides 15'/15' *1275' *12'15'
Rear 15' 41' 41'
Landscaping: 5,564 sq. ft. 5,861 sq. ft. No change
(60% minimum) (63%)
Parking: 3 spaces 5 spaces No change
* Existing non-conforming because of deck and patio encroachments
Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
•
Variance
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback
variance. The recommendation for denial is based upon on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The structure currently encroaches 7 feet into the front setback and is 17
feet from the edge of asphalt. This proposal will create more bulk and
mass. Staff believes this constitutes a negative impact on other existing
structures and potential uses in the vicinity. Setbacks are intended to
provide a buffer between structures and the right-of-way. A 13 foot
setback does not provide the necessary relief.
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 the title without grant of special privilege.
While the proposal is minimal, in terms of the square footage (15'), it is
proposed to be added within the front setback. Staff believes there are
f:leveryone\pec\memos\bannister.428 2
other opportunities on the site to place this additional square footage.
Staff is concerned with the front setback encroachment.
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 believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on light
and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before nrantino a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation 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 and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exemptions 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 district.
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.
Additional GRFA
Upon review of Chapter 18.71, Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department
recommends denial of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect upon the existina_ tonooraohv_ . vegetation. drainage and existing
.$tructures.
The proposal will have little effect upon the existing topography and
vegetation, because the addition is located above existing floor area. Staff
believes the addition is generally architecturally compatible with adjacent
f:leveryonelpecVmmos\bannister.428 3
structures. However, staff believes the proposal will negatively impact
existing structures. •
2. Impact on adiacent orQoerties.
The addition should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by
adjacent structures, however, the addition of GRFA within the front
setback would increase an existing non-conformity by adding bulk and
mass to the structure. The fact that the house was built under Eagle
County regulations does not prohibit the applicant from making
improvements to the structure or utilizing other portions of the site.
Therefore, the applicant is not being denied an opportunity to make
improvements to the property.
3. _Comoliance with the Town's zonino requirements and applicable
development standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that
any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall meet the Town of
Vail Design Guidelines, as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal
Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in
accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance
and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site,
including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design
Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping,
undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of
the property. •
Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find the property is not in
compliance with applicable development standards listed above. The
driveway on the west side of the property is not paved and there are illegal
floodlights on the south corners of the house. These items should have
been addressed when the applicant received approval to utilize 23 square
feet of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA in June, 1996. Staff
believes that the property is adequately landscaped and no additional
landscaping is required.
Section 18.71.010 of the code states in part:
Purpose:
This Chapter does not ensure each single-family dwelling or
dwelling unit located within the Town an additional two hundred
fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder
shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on
adjacent properties, and applicable Town development standards."
B. Findinas:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting approval for Additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
f:leveryonelpeolmemoslbannisler.428 4
affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
impact adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of this application for
a front setback variance subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary
Residential Zone District.
3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
• The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of this application for
30 sq. ft. of Additional GRFA under the 250 Ordinance, subject to the following findings:
That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would negatively impact
adjacent properties.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not comply with all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
f:?everyone%pecMemos\bannister.428 5
1
i
7
•1
p?,M4 5
LUf'?
?;? urf3 j i
FAIWAl
\ ,d cm
Iw
uvru? ?uR'+ \ . / aarcmt u"t'? 1 ?: ? y%t w',t?1
LAwlj
v\'\\1\ e nc`T' `
VA"Y
is ,? •` v?
MAVAM?
?`'?\? ` a h\ C3 Lit ,emu
UP.
1 c?? ? ? • ? \ C,? Ora ? ?" li ? ?7''.•Q? ?1 ?`` ? r'a"'?? w?;x - _..
•
f
?N
._.7- -TT hry,fC ?D JWI I
11 ?i. '1 -? ? I?TI?R
i
r
r
10 Oo
56 ? F-W ScAa. W-P-O
.a
41,
I
r
I?+IAJ?
Z. ? 1
I'r?^, N ??'KW'1?
FEW
! O
fez
art
i
l rrf,e nmr- 43rxw W- I'-Do
ADDITIONAL 30 SQ. FT OF GRFA
4ss. rWm S' Or lf&AP OwK *A.I
•
/141- MUM
30 SQ. FT GR
w
r '
? t
N
k
E
/` ? LLI I I I I ICI
{
strn?
Y ,DORMER ADDITION--SIDING TO MATCH
(,vsRrY? ? ? L ,
REPLACE WOOD SIDING WITH
STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH
NEW pLoF
14"D Kr c' rN Jb CN IN,`
NG4/
o w*N N1 cos.a w ecpr
CF PA''JnN(s aMEPLAct,
i
LONTwU I ?{' 2 _ ? t -- - _ -_ - _
Zz'?,
/ ?--- _ - _ - - -- _ - _ .__? REPLACE WOOD SIDING WITH
i ; = --- -- ----- _ STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH
I % JIU II II1JL11 J!!Ii1011N l! !
NEW Hmilis, RCWILT
wuma+ 1 / /? . / \ RWJNINb WALL
?o
nGr/SrAdcS?? - A\ x/21/97
LZATIOR x-WC DI rJ
at -4m cP ut. WEST Eti-EVATI pN y+' a p.p?
•
••
r?tnNU? 4.i2 rMF M4
To wrhr WALL.. -?
• t
j? ! I
UNCFj.NEv CCR. TO
- - - - -- r 6E hula up IN or
1b MA1LH NL
I-
/, Ilj???l?!ili?!?Li;?i?- iiVlll; ii?1? lillilllli Llli!!?, J w??`?`?o?
NEW NOf117b^'?
CSC. MUNC
ftwt W/ gIVWG - - - ` - - ?? -
?I?i
nZYNTION
Isn.,as ?w?t aa-
DORMER ADDITION---CONTINUE ROOF PITCH' mr- f To r? ev
t - hcr..v vFJt', F'( G/.k..r
- ,c - -_-_ -_ - - __- - erf eaE of H.T.
P
?sugNC. ra.x? rood
- I - - - I -- + I !' To CEGK
3/2017
GONG. t'o?ND ?,}\-U ! . L8.L.1-l?, .. ?L JAY-?.? A -
W/?aGItJG \ _..
REPLACE WOOD SIDING WITH STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH TDMAtGIt
SAS? E!-NATION y4'=I' a° \ I I'. `FIJI ?l? i
ti ,
\ O O
r
RICH AND KRUSEN DESIGN, INC.
ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
rood Lionsridge Loop #3d, Vail, Colorado, 8657 phone:(97o) 476-9228 fax: (97o) 476'9023
Tammie Williamson
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Department of Community Development
April 30, 1997
RE: Bannister Remodel, Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision-2943 Bellflower
Dear Tammie:
We are requesting a front setback variance for the above named property on the basis of the following:
•
-The original plat for this properly was completed in 1970 when the property was located in Eagle
County. At the time the plat was issued, a 5' front setback was applied to the property. When
property was finally annexed by the Town of Vail, a 20' setback was assigned to the site. This
placed a small amount of GRFA of the building(as well as many other buildings on the street) in
the front setback. In fact, eight(8) of the nine(9) buildings located on the north side of Bellflower have
GRFA located in the front setback. Three(3) of these have been granted variances in order to make .
improvements.
--We are asking for reasonable interpretation of the specified regulation on the basis that the zoning
history of the lot places a hardship on the Bannisters. Almost all of the other buildings located on this
street are in violation of GRFA in the building setback, due to the above mentioned annexation of
these properties. It does not seem reasonable to prevent all of the property owners from making
improvements to the fronts of their homes.
--The variance has no effect on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic
facilities, utilities or public safety.
--The addition of the dormer is a visual improvement on the house and to the neighborhood.
-The addition of the dormer does not increase the existing nonconformity of the home. The
encroachment into the front setback will remain the same distance.
Both Mr. Bannister and I would like to thank you for your time on this matter. In the past few years Mr.
Bannister has put a great deal of money into bettering his home, and hopes that his neighborhood will
continue to improve. We look forward to working closely with you on this project.
Jack K. Snow, Architect
cc Frank Bannister
C7
!. a -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 12, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in CCl and a
minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 8
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 1st Filing.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant, Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg of Pierce, Segerberg,
& Associates, is requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) to discuss a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 1 Zone
District (CC1) and a minor subdivision creating Pepi's Parcel, to allow for the
construction of a hotel addition at the Gashtof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore
Creek Drive.
The proposed hotel addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer is proposed on the existing
surface parking area located between the Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creeksidc
Condominium Building. The addition will contain an underground parking structure for
up to twenty (20) vehicles, 622 square feet of expanded retail space, 1,940 square feet of
spa/exercise facility space, eight new accommodation units (3,411 sq.ft.) and one new
condominium with an attached lock-off unit (1,692 sq.ft.).
The purpose of the worksession is to familiarize the PEC with the proposed major
exterior alteration and minor subdivision requests and to provide an opportunity
for the PEC and the staff to give feedback to the applicant on the issues identified in
Section VI of this memorandum.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 24, 1997, Pepi Gramshammer, submitted an application for a major exterior
alteration and a minor subdivision to the Gasthof Gramshammer. Upon preliminary
review of the proposal, it was determined by staff that the removal of the existing, legal,
non-conforming, unstructured (surface), off-street parking area and subsequent
r
construction of a structured off-street parking area, constituted a change in land use, and
therefore, the property must be brought into compliance with the development regulations
prescribed in the Municipal Code.
On April 14, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld ( 6-1 Bishop
opposed) an appeal of an administrative decision regarding the applicant's proposal,
finding that,
"A private and public unstructured (surface) off-street vehicle parking i a
different land use than private and public structured (underground/enclosed) off-
street vehicle parking."
and therefore, the property must be brought into compliance with the development regulations
prescribed in the Municipal Code, or a change of non-conforming use must be approved by
the Vail Town Council.
On May 6, 1997, the Vail Town Council approved (5-1 Johnston opposed) a request for
a change of non-conforming use, thus allowing for the construction of an underground
parking structure, with one condition. The Council's condition restricts the on-site vehicle
parking to no more than twenty (20) vehicles.
0 III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following analysis summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this request:
Legal: 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Part of Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village
First Filing.
Zoning: Commercial Core I (CCI)
Lot Area: 0.2244 acre/ 9,774.8 square feet
Buildable Area: 0.1642 acre/ 7,152.3 square feet
Development
Standards: Allowable
GRFA: 5,722 sq.ft., or 80%
# of Units 4 DU's
Site Coverage: 5,722 sq.ft., or 80%
Pronosed
5,103 sq.ft., or 71 %
5 DU's 0 DU & 8 AU's)
5,783 sq.ft., or 81 %
• 2
Landscaping: no net reduction 3,737 sq.ft.
in existing landscaping
Parking/Loading:
No parking shall be
provided on-site. All
parking requirements
shall be met via pay-in-
lieu.
The applicant will
pay into the Town
Parking Fund.
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the
creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision
Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental
Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as follows:
A. Lot Area - The minimum lot or site area shall be five thousand square feet of
buildable area. The proposed lot area will be 7,152 square feet of buildable area
and 9,774 square feet total. Therefore, this criteria has been met.
B. Frontagp_- Each lot in the CCI Zone District shall have a minimum frontage of
thirty (30) feet. The proposed lot has slightly more than thirty feet of frontage
(31.21'), and therefore this criteria has been met.
C. Site Dimensions -Unlike other zone districts which require minimum site
dimensions and configurations, the CCI Zone District does not require minimum
site dimensions.
The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as
outlined in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other
pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to
the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted
under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its
apj,.,,yriateness in regard to Town policies related 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."
r
3 S
•
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
I . 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 Resnonse: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well
as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the
PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process.
The review of this request will follow the regulations prescribed for minor
subdivisions in the Municipal Code.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development
on adjacent properties.
Staff Resnonse: The applicant's lot is bound on three sides by developed property
and by Gore Creek on the fourth side. Pursuant to the development standards
prescribed for the CC1 Zone District, each of the developed properties, with the
exception of the Creekside Condominium Building, have been developed up to the
common property line. The Creekside Condominium Building could potentially be
expanded within their property boundaries. The staff does not believe that the
proposed minor subdivision will negatively impact or conflict with future
development on adjacent properties. To ensure that future conflicts do not arise,
access easements and agreements have been platted prior to this minor subdivision
application.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of
buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Resnonse: Staff does not believe that the applicant's request will negatively
impact the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, or in the immediate area
specifically. The applicant's plans are in compliance with existing zoning and the
adopted Town of Vail Land Use Plan.
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 Resnonse: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision will negatively
impact the desired harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
4
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.
SWffRejponse: Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have
any adverse impacts on any of the above-described criteria.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures.
Ntaff Re pQ_nw: As required, the applicant has submitted a preliminary final plat
prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Colorado.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of
natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the community and the value of land.
Staff Response-, Staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision will have
any negative impacts on the above-described criteria.
V. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA 0
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. The emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the zoning code, the
Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village
Design Considerations and the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
A. Comnliance with the Town of Vail Zonine Code
Pursuant to Section 18.24.0 10 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the purpose of the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District is,
"To provide sites and maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial
area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly
pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 Zone District is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the
permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site
development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and
5 0
a
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on
pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building
scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village."
B. Comnliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan
Staff will not be addressing this criteria at this time. Staff will provide a detailed
review of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan at the time of final review by
the PEC.
C. Comnliance with the i Irban Design Considerations for Vail Village and the
Exterior Alteration Criteria.
1. Urban design considerations.
a. Pedestrianization
b. Traffic penetration
c. Streetscape framework
d. Street enclosure
e. Street edge
£ Building height
g. Views
2. Architectural/Landscape considerations.
a. Roofs
b. Facades
c. Balconies
d. Decks and Patios
e. Accent elements
f. Landscape elements
g. Service
D. Compliance with the Town of Vail Streepe Master Plan.
Upon review of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, staff has determined
that no recommended improvements or opportunities are directly related to the
applicant's proposal.
E. Comnliance with the Vail Comnrehensive Plan
6
Vail Village Master Plan
The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use
laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail
Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Most
importantly, the Vail Village Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards,
and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in
legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. For the citizens and guests
of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how
the Village will grow in the future. Upon review of the Vail Village Master Plan, the staff
believes the following goals, objectives and policies are relevant to the applicant's request:
Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.1 Obiective: Implement a consistent Development Review Process to
reinforce the character of the Village.
1.1.1 Policv: Development and improvement projects approved in
the Village shall be consistent with the goals,
objectives, policies and design considerations as
outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Plan.
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.
Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic
health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Obiective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas
throughout the Village and allow for development that is
compatible with these established land use patterns.
2.3 Obiective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-
term, overnight accommodations.
23.1 Policv: The development of short-term accommodation
units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that
are developed above existing density levels are
required to be designed or managed in a manner that
makes them available for short-term overnight
rental.
7
2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1 Policv: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting
facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and
enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging
properties.
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the Village.
3.2 Obiective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to
the greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 Policv_ : Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to
absolutely minimal necessary levels in the
pedestrianized areas of the Village.
3.4 Obiectivei Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.1 Policy Physical improvements to property adjacent to
stream tracts shall not further restrict public access.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village.
5.1 Obicctive: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities.
5.l .3 Policv;. Seek locations for additional structured public and
private parking.
5.1.5 Policv: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly
encouraged to provide underground or visually
concealed parking.
,5.2 Obiective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the
use of private automobiles throughout Vail.
0 8
22 Policv The Town shall facilitate and encourage the
operation of private shuttle vans outside of the
pedestrianized core area.
5.3 Objective: Concentrate the majority of interconnecting transit activity
at the periphery of the Village to minimize vehicular traffic
in pedestrianized areas.
5.3.1 Policv: The Vail Transportation Center shall be the primary
pick up and drop off point for public transit and
private shuttle vans and taxis.
Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements
of the Village.
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
6.2 Obiective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police
and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically
pleasing resort setting.
6.2.1 Policv: Development projects and other improvements in
Vail Village shall be reviewed by respective Town
departments to identify both the impacts of the
proposal and potential mitigating measures.
The Vail Village Master Plan contains a Parking and Circulation Plan. The Parking and
Circulation Plan recognizes the established pattern of parking and circulation throughout
the Village. The parking and circulation system is an important element in maintaining the
pedestrianized character of the Village. This is to be accomplished by limiting vehicular
access at strategic points, while allowing for necessary operations such as bus service,
loading/delivery and emergency access.
The Gasthof Gramshammer is in many ways unique. The hotel was built in the center of
the Village prior to the adoption of zoning in Vail and the formulation of and adoption of
the Vail Village Master Plan. As discussed in the background section of this
memorandum, the Vail Town Council approved a request by the applicant to change an
existing non-conforming use (a surface parking), to another non-conforming use (an
underground parking structure). The underground parking structure proposed by the
applicant is designed to accommodate as many on-site parking spaces as possible. To
maximize the number of on-site parking spaces, the applicant is proposing valet parking.
The applicant is tentatively proposing seven to ten valet parking spaces in the underground
structure (in addition to the regular spaces).
9
LJ
PA
The Parking and Circulation Plan also discusses. pedestrian circulation as a functional
consideration of the plan. A long standing goal for the Village has been to improve the
pedestrian experience through the development of a network of walkways and paths. A
path of significant importance and identified in various planning documents is the
streamwalk. The streamwalk expansion has been contemplated to be constructed across
the applicant's property to achieve a pedestrian link between the Covered Bridge pocket
park and the Gore Creek Promenade.
A Building Height Plan is an element of the Vail Village Master Plan. The goal of the
Building Height Plan is to maintain the concentration of low-scale buildings in the core
area of the Village, while positioning taller buildings along the Village's northern
periphery. According to the Building Height Plan, the Gasthof Gramshammer is located in
an area of the Village intended upon having buildings with a maximum range of 3-4 stories
in height. A story is defined in the Plan as nine feet of height, not including the roof.
Lastly, the Vail Village Master Plan defines ten sub-areas within the Village Core area.
The purpose of defining the ten sub-areas in the plan is to identify and be sensitive to the
opportunities and constraints that may exist on a site specific basis. The ten sub-area
concepts are meant to serve as advisory guidelines for land use decisions by the PEC and
the Town Council.
The Gasthof Gramshammer is located in sub-areas #3-6 and #3-7. The opportunities for
development identified in sub-area #3-6 are commercial expansion on the west side of the
Gasthof Gramshammer. The intent of the commercial expansion is to improve the
enclosure proportions of the Children's Fountain area and to enhance the existing plaza
with greenspace. The opportunities for sub-area #3-6 have special emphasis on plan
objectives 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1.
Sub-area #3-7 is identified as the Village Streamwalk Study Area. The area is identified
as an area to study the opportunities of a low-impact, walking-only path along Gore Creek
between the Covered Bridge and Vail Road, connecting to an existing streamwalk, further
enhancing the pedestrian network throughout the Village and providing public access to
the creek. The specific design and location of the walkway shall be sensitive to adjacent
uses and the creek environment. Special emphasis shall be given to plan objectives 3.4
and 4.2.
VI, DISCUSSION ISSUES
Since this is a worksession, staff has not prepared a formal recommendation conceming
the proposed major exterior alteration request. However, the staff has identified the
following issues which we would like to discuss further with the PEC and the applicant:
10
1. lmnacts on the 100-near Floodplain
`The applicant's property is impacted by the 1404year floodplain. Approximately
2,625 square feet of the applicant's property is in the floodplain of Gore Creek.
This area is considered unbuildable by the Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section
18.69.040 of the Municipal Code, in part, "no structure shall be built in the flood
hazard zone (100-year floodplain). This includes cantilevered areas of buildings
and stairways.
The applicant is proposing to construct two exterior stairways in or cantilevered
over the 100-year floodplain. The applicant shall be required to remove those
portions of the building proposed in the floodplain.
In addition to the encroachment upon the floodplain, the applicant is proposing to
build right up to the 50' Gore Creek stream setback (centerline). The staff would
request that the PEC provide direction to the applicant as to whether increased
distances from the centerline of the creek should be maintained to reduce the
negative impacts on the stream discussed in the Environmental Impact Assessment,
2. Envimnment4llmU=
A Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared on behalf of
the applicant by Design Workshop, Inc. According to the information contained in
the report, most of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the hotel
addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer will be temporary in nature and are a result
of construction activities. Minor temnorarv imps may fall within the following
areas:
• Decreased water quality, increased erosion, runoff, and sedimentation.
• Decreased air quality.
• Disturbed aquatic and terrestrial environments.
• Heightened noise levels.
Environmental impacts caused by the completed project are most likely in the area
of water quality, groundwater, air quality, and biological resources. More
significant impacts may be associated with vehicular circulation, parking, and
visual quality issues. Potential impacts which may result from the comnleted
project include:
• Slight reduction in available parking for the Gasthof Gramshammer's
guests.
• Slightly increased vehicular traffic in Vail Village.
• Restricted service and delivery areas and access.
• Removal of several mature conifers in the stream setback.
11
According to the report, these impacts can be addressed by the implementation of
mitigation measures including protective erosion control, construction
management practices, a tree protection plan, an on-site traffic management plan
and revegetation of the streambank area.
Staff would like to discuss the issues addressed in the Environmental Impact
Assessment with the applicant and the PEC to better understand the mitigation
measures and identify any opportunities for changes. Staff is particularly
concerned with the impacts to the stream bank and the proposed removal of three
mature spruce trees. A copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment has been
attached for reference.
3. Loading/Deliverv/Parking
The applicant is proposing an underground parking structure to accommodate the
existing parking needs for the Gasthof Gramshammer. The legal, non-conforming
status of the existing surface parking area and the Council's approval granting a
change in non-conforming use does not permit the additional parking demands,
resulting from the hotel addition, to be met on-site. The additional parking need
resulting from the construction of the hotel addition shall be met through pay-in-
lieu into the Town Parking Fund, as required pursuant to Section 18.52 of the
Municipal Code.
Currently, no loading and delivery area is designated on the applicant's property.
The loading and delivery of goods at the Gasthof Gramshammer takes place on
Gore Creek Drive. The uses proposed in the hotel addition generate the need for
one loading and delivery berth on-site. A loading and delivery berth is not
proposed by the applicant.
The staff would request that the applicant and PEC discuss the need for loading
and delivery and where it should be located if it is deemed to be necessary. Staff
would also request that the PEC and applicant discuss the appropriateness of
constructing a central trash facility for use by the applicant and the businesses in
the adjacent Creekside Condominium Building and the Covered Bridge Building.
4. Zoning and Development Standards
The applicant's proposal deviates from four of the required development
standards. They are:
• Landscape Area - reduction of landscape area by approximately 200 square
feet.
• Site Coverage - over by approximately 61 square feet.
12
• Density - over by one dwelling unit._
• Loading/Delivery - One berth is required and no berth is proposed.
In addition to the above-described deviations, the proposed building height may
exceed the required 60140 building height requirement prescribed in the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan.
Staff would like to discuss the above-described deviations with the applicant and
the PEC to understand how these issues will be addressed prior to final review of
the major exterior application.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since this is a worksession, no formal staff recommendation will be provided at this time.
However, staff requests that the above-listed issues be discussed with the applicant, so the
applicant can receive specific direction on how to proceed with the proposed hotel
addition and minor subdivision. If the applicant wishes to receive final PEC review of this
major exterior alteration and minor subdivision request, at the June 23, 1997 PEC
meeting, all revised information must be provided to staff no later than 5:00 PM, Monday,
June 9, 1997.
13 0
0 0
GASTHOF GRAMSHAMMER HOTEL ADDITION
SQUARE FOOTAGE ANALYSIS
Floor Common Area - Commercial Area - Accommodation Dwelling Units - Parking Area -
Levels Square Footage Square Footage Units - Square Square Footage Square Footage
Footage
Parking 772 sq. ft. --- --- --- 4,308 sq. ft.
Level
1 st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
TOTAL
3,684 sq. ft.
651 sq. ft.
504 sq. ft.
5,611 sq. ft.
•
Total - Square
Footage
5,080 sq. ft.
622 sq. ft. 956 sq. ft. --- --- 5,262 sq. ft.
--- 2,040 sq. ft. --- --- 2,691 sq. ft.
--- 415 sq. ft. 1,692 sq. ft. --- 2,611 sq. ft.
622 sq. ft. 3,411 sq. ft. 1,692 sq. ft. 4,308 sq. ft. 115.644 so. ft.
F.IEVERYONSGEORGE%GASTGRAXSQF
I 1'1•rcr,
tie[ufi.r[ 4
tip rA
Archluus
P,(..* LA.
Ir1
CDVF,LO L,IU?L .. .
4
o y ?? •?wl I I?'
LortGR vou-r -
I?
? yillYV ATb ? ?\
4.'r10 ? I L1J.r.t1?R
?? L4LIC q[I'AG
SITE Pl- ?4
C.-
1.4
W
r?r1LL.?
rr.
Q
xz
o
?F
?o
o¢
H
1
1
111,.-. h I
1
)l)
I
r
I
.urw...n ...u... iu?. ?ii?... ???. ?..r..r .w.. e..„li,u iii. iiai. ?.... ei. i?wn,a.l: i... ?.., ..., u... uw..,.u?.ll...,?.. ... ul.......,. _.. ...w...w. .. lun??...r?_.....w??iw..a.?..l...uwi w.?w.ww..a?u?......?....o.,....li.. ru ?hll,in? ....??.. ?....w.?.??.
it t ^
i ?7 so st, u , wja.
rm ll srs nay M AA
TrLL to m
? ? S 0 acr-aviw...
1
t
r '
tr roKl..a
J!t _.
"'.e T' 6F
RCMOr/•q
I .
r !o? /
+L
CAL9"t%AuLb 6 (?
LANDSCAPE-LEGEND
5 n1Jt eNL 7nYr?ac- TS[¢Y.
W 'S1u., N, la
rt'
t4'
A;..1 ?VLJ Tl.Ra.y
it O fri'Ie 7 ser/.a
rrr?W` )
?rp
?o
LANDSCAPE PLAN
I' rMrrtl•
Sr?eprber? k
ArahUr[h
r.c.•e.l.e. ?.
I n.wwu ?
a
w
Q
?z
Ia F
V 0
C) Q
t
I
i
cn.n.a m ?_ t • .,
An It
I
,i.tsgcad«
PAKKIMO "lace ?•? /6
-?
15
it is
CKLEKSIDE stMJXNG
i
1
1
C?T'f <
PARKING GARAGE PLAN
Y%.. -o
, rltrrr.
1eprAtrt k
?ppuA
Arthlltth
r 4- 1A.
a
w
Q
sz
0
r-
¢
0
9
i
nnr rrr.rv
fCblkld b,
?r o? 1 2
y
-1 ^
I
?,,,.n??,,,.,?,.,,eu.:.m?•_..-,....£i?'-'tl66,o,•, a?Y?li ?......,...??.....?.,.....y....?a??._,....?.?..?.,??... ,. ... _..., .??.. ?. .... ? .?.a.. ..?..?..W .?w?...:. ? ...._ .,?.??.. ,... ............??„•..._.?...,•. ? .....? ...?.... ?. •... ??.,.?..... ??..?.?..?.. .. lu... ?.? .?
?f6TP?-
OA1
tq.1
O
Y1'? w 0 SM
?• , IIA6lA`[ ? `JI `71411 p1t _.
it A/ Rr
N
•1
LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLAN
np b n
ArchllecM
Nl..w<s
Ib.,.Y??w•ra
a
w
?o
Q
cl
a.• a
oQ
E-•
t-
,.? 3 p -
0
Plrrtr,
Seterlurj 4
Sp h
Archhrct,
PA'.-A. r.A.
UI ? lu
O `T
G
r?
N Z
0 0
U.
O
C7
R .x.
LEVEL FOUR FLOOR PLAN
.r ?
I
.- O?e
tRq'y.?b RY u.te?•.•+a?e• '? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? f
c"Moom i
L
min"*
lotJ
ROOF PLAN
Merce,
S,I,.,b rg A
tip•eA
Archllccb
e.C.•A.I.A.
L7
o
E
?a
o¢
c?
2- Of
a...w. 6
? / A/ ?ttl_iy'J
i k r 1q
• i`- 4INNAtpllft?_119LILI1111R1{II
l?
TI -
1 I( IIII y??
f1 ?1 I® j2_? i
NORTH ELEVATION
L i' .. -..
A
?5 -IV T
SOUTH ELEVATION
ye-- -V,01 .
_- -?_ ?I I!Ilnl II
1Ti I.LLI j 4 -=1 all i it I?r __J?
V-7i;kZ7
777- ?,0 _
o
4lMLJa I.L CL
WEST ELEVATION
Ptcrcc,
tie?.rber? lc
?pp eA
ArcAIlec1+
t.r .-A.I.A.
trl lr •t
W
z
0
?Q
0
V
IM,rw
1
N??`TC? W'PINW- H71 Ocw
•SWIi ?, .. i ?. i Ili III 1 i A I
i`Irrtt.
titRtrbt,j Q
byy tb
ArcAU<cl.
a
w
X
?O
Q 8
1.10
W
{ •/IInC CL 1 ? /?I? i
?Y r
-9-Sh? o ? I - i
INS w niw «ea>F rraa+b arylatt ¢ - `;
4
? pl (hgee. m 'Z
BUILDING SECTION
Clwd.e e, _ ? `I u.
•Fs ??y?
Ci-X y
QUQu
?ttp AM /
W17?EB sousTIC Y
a
i
I
i
i
vORT?
Z>=xle-fa?orc??
L_
!I
ct?cane ?.rbvsrJq
SHADING DIAGRAM
Oc..,.Yr
? Mrrrr,
SetrrLrrt d
Sp rA
ArrAltrrt.
w
?z
0
E
c? Q
U.
¢
0
z
F
Q
C7
M?uun.
r
L ?
hcclca y 'i.
?. .?. 4
10
1 Ar S
° 11? rii yf?''aJ, LIE. I' I
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
GASTHOF GRAMSHAMMER ADDITION
Vail, Colorado
n
LJ
Submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail
on behalf of Pepi Gramshammer
• Prepared by Design Workshop, Inc., Vail, Colorado
March 24, 1997
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
GASTHOF 'GRAMSHAMMER ADDITION
Vail, Colorado
Submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail
on behalf of Pepi Gramshammer
Prepared by Design Workshop, Inc., Vail, Colorado
March 24, 1997
•
The purpose of this document is to provide the Town of Vail with a preliminary assessment of
possible environmental impacts related to a proposed addition to the existing Gasthof
Gramshammer property in Vail Village. As a preliminary review, an environmental assessment
is not intended to quantify the severity of impacts nor provide definitive solutions, but simply to
identify issues that may require further consideration and response during the development
planning and review process in order to assure adequate mitigation.
This preliminary draft is based on a review of schematic architectural plans submitted to the
Town of Vail on February 24, 1997 as part of an application for a major exterior alteration per-
mit. The assessment of environmental issues may change as these plans undergo revision in the
development review process.
Summarv
The proposed addition to the existing Gasthof Gramshammer is unlikely to cause serious envi-
ronmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. In fact, by resolving existing problems, the expan-
sion of the hotel will likely result in several benefits to the environment.
Most of the potential environmental impacts will be temporary and will result from construction
activities. Minor temporary impacts may fall within the following issues:
• Decreased water quality, increased erosion, runoff, and sedimentation
• Decreased air quality
• Disturbed aquatic and terrestrial environments
• Heightened noise levels
These impacts can be addressed by implementation of mitigation measures including protective
erosion control and construction management practices. Mitigation recommendations are pro-
vided in a separate section of this document.
Environmental Assessment - Pgpi' Addition
3124197
Design Workshop
1
Environmental impacts caused by the completed project are most likely in the areas of water
?_ . quality, groundwater, air quality, and biological <resources.. Mare significant :impacts maybe
associated with circulation, parking, and visual quality issues. In sum, potential impacts which
may result from the completed project include:
• Slight reduction in available parking for the Gasthof Gramshammer guests
• Slightly increased vehicular traffic in Bail rillage
• Restricted service and delivery areas and access
• Removal of several mature conifers in the stream setback
In general, and from a less purely environmental perspective on community impacts, the likely
outcomes of the addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer will be beneficial to the existing site
and the immediate street environment. In addition, the expansion of the hotel facility is consis-
tent with the Town of Vail's Comprehensive Plan, one goal of which is to increase the number
of `hot beds' and thereby provide a positive economic impact to the community in the form of
tax revenues from increased lodging and sales.
•
ground.
Environmental Assessment - Penis Addition ne_sien Worksh,QL
3/24/97 2
0 Background
The Gasthof Gramshammer was built in the early 60's and has become an important landmark
in Vail. Built in the Tyrolean style, it has played an integral part in the development of the
character and ambiance of Vail Village and is one of the town's most popular gathering spots.
The present three story structure has 28 hotel rooms, an indoor/outdoor restaurant and patio, a
retail ski and clothing shop, a nightclub (Sheika's), and a surface parking lot for approximately
18-20 cars on the northwestern side of the building.
While the hotel structure and its architectural style are harmonious with the aesthetic quality
and pedestrian context of the Vail Village core, the existing surface parking lot is not. On the
contrary, cars intrude on the streetscape and interrupt the pedestrian experience. Adjacent to
one of the main pedestrian destinations of Vail Village, the Children's Fountain Plaza, the park-
ing lot is a visual and physical detriment. The parking configuration within the lot is haphazard
and unclear, and maintenance and delivery activities take place within view of the Children's
Fountain Plaza. In addition, drainage in this space is problematic, as snow melt and storm
runoff laden with sediments and pollutants drain directly into Gore Creek.
0
•
Environmental Assessment - Peni's Addition Desinn Workrhon
3/24/97 3
View from existing parking lot of Children's Fountain Plaza with Vail Mountain in the background.
0 The Exnansion Pronosal
The proponent proposes to expand the existing Gasthof Gramshammer by construction of an
addition in the space presently utilized as the surface parking lot. This addition will include 9
hotel rooms, an apartment, a small office, a spa and fitness area for hotel guests, and additional
retail space. The basement level of the existing hotel will also be remodeled by replacing
Sheika's nightclub with an enlarged ski storage locker facility. A new exterior stairway will be
designed to replace the existing stair to this facility. In addition, an employee lounge and locker
area will be provided in the basement.
The expansion proposes a total 10,962 square feet of new space.
The lower level parking garage will be accessed by a heated, 12% ramping driveway. Current
plans show 15 spaces in the new garage, although some reconfiguration of spaces may be nec-
essary for easier maneuvering.
The proposed addition conforms to the Town of Vail Commercial Core 1 (CC 1) zoning ordi-
nance and the Urban Design Guide Plan. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) restrictions for
10 units and common area have been met. The 50' stream setback from the centerline of Gore
Creek will not be violated.
Temnorarv Environmental Imnacts Related to Construction Activitv
Environmental impacts may be caused by one or more phases of development activity: the
demolition of the existing paved lot, the construction of the new building wing, and site devel-
opment. The following discussion highlights potential temporary environmental impacts related
to the construction of the Gasthof Gramshammer expansion which may require further investi-
gation.
1. Water Quality
The primary issues related to water quality are erosion and sediment control, runoff, and
stormwater management.
Erosion and sediment control will be of greatest concern during demolition, construc-
tion, and sitework. Construction activities on the site will need to be carefully managed
to prevent the discharge of sediment over the bank and into the creek. Snowmelt and
stormwater runoff from the construction site will need to be diverted away from the
streambank and into a detention pond, where sediment can settle out before runoff
enters the creek.
Environmental Assessment - E?ai s Ad?
3/24/97
Design Workshog
4
t 1 1
E
2. Air Quality
It is possible that during excavation and construction of the new building, there will be a
slight but temporary increase in airborne particulates and fugitive dust as a result of con-
struction activity and increased trips to the site by diesel-fueled construction vehicles.
3. Biological Impacts (Riparian Habitat/ Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments)
Riparian habitat is present on the bank of Gore Creek adjacent to the proposed develop-
ment site. The quality of this habitat would need to be evaluated by a qualified special-
ist, such as a wildlife or fishery biologist. Along the creek's edge, in particular, there
are a number of willows that provide cover for insects and shade for fish. This side of
Gore Creek offers substantially better habitat than the opposite bank. Pockets of ripari-
an habitat are important because they facilitate upstream and downstream migration of
insects, fish, mammals, and birds.
Although the proposed parking structure does not encroach into the 50' stream setback,
excavation for the foundation walls will necessarily extend beyond that line and force
• removal of some riparian vegetation in the excavation area. During construction, the
remaining riparian vegetation and the edge quality of the streambank will need to be
protected to prevent impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Runoff and erosion con-
Environmental Assessment - Peni v Addition Design Workshon.
3/24/97 5
View from northern bunk of Gore Creek of riparian vegetalion on southern hunk, below the exisling parking lot.
trol measures, such as a silt fence, will help to protect the creek-side vegetation. An
E - erosion-control plan will need to be provided bythe project proponent. A replanting and
tree replacement program should be developed in coordination with town staff to com-
pensate for the removal of any significant trees and shrubs.
Impact to wetlands is difficult to discern, as no wetland delineation has been done for
the project site. It is likely that the measures taken to avoid impacts to the terrestrial
and aquatic environments will also prevent impacts to wetland vegetation, should it be
present on this site.
Environmental Impacts Related to the Comnleted Proiect
Environmental impacts resulting from the completed project are not likely to be severe. Water
quality, groundwater, air quality, and biological resources may be slightly affected by the pro-
ject. Modified urban character and circulation patterns will likely result from a slight increase
in the visitor population, the building mass, and the enhancement of the pedestrian streetscape.
1. Water Quality
When completed, the expansion of the Gasthof Gramshammer can be expected to
• improve water quality. The replacement of the existing surface parking lot with an
enclosed parking area will allow better control and filtration of runoff tainted with vehi-
cle pollutants. The project presents the opportunity to redesign the site's stormwater
management system and to add a proper filtration mechanism to eliminate direct dis-
charge of runoff laden with contaminants into the creek.
2. Groundwater
The development of the new addition along the upper part of the streambank will alter
the current regime of groundwater infiltration and surface runoff. The below-grade
parking level may affect groundwater quality. Impacts are difficult to determine because
no data exists on seasonal depths to groundwater. Meltwater from the new driveway and
within the proposed parking garage will be controlled and filtered. In addition, an engi-
neered dewatering system may be necessary. These measures should minimize potential
impacts to groundwater quality. Additional information would be necessary to clarify
the magnitude of these impacts.
3. Air Quality
Air quality degradation in a mountain resort community originates primarily from win-
ter road maintenance (materials used to sand the roads become airborne as traffic pul-
verizes them and stirs them up), from increased vehicular traffic, and from wood burn-
ing fireplaces. The relatively small amount of incremental traffic associated with the
additional nine hotel rooms is not likely to adversely affect existing air quality condi-
Fnvirnnmental Assessment - Pe_ni'v Addition Pesivn Wnrkvhon
3/24/97 6
t tions in Vail. None of the hotel rooms will have fireplaces; a gas burning fireplace is
proposed in the apartment. -
4. Vegetation
There are a number of mature and infant conifers within the 50' stream setback. It is
not yet clear how many of these trees may have to be removed, but current architectural
plans show foundation walls so close to some of the largest trees that they may not sur-
vive. Permanent removal of any trees will be mitigated by a tree replanting and replace-
ment plan. The applicant will work with Town planning staff to identify the trees that
must be protected and to agree on a mitigation plan to replace those that must be
removed. No removals will be done without the consent of Town staff.
The extent to which riparian vegetation in the stream setback is dependent upon ground-
water flows and surface runoff from the project site is unknown. Because the new
structure will block these flows, some supplementary drip irrigation in the setback may
be needed to sustain existing and newly planted trees.
5. Geologic and Other Natural Hazards
No geologic hazards have been identified on this site. The majority of the property and
• all of the proposed building expansion are above the active high-water mark and the
100-year floodplain. An exception, however, is the stairway proposed on the northeast-
ern corner of the site, which encroaches into the 100-year floodplain. Further modeling
and floodplain analysis will be required to determine the severity of risk posed by this
design. This element may require reconfiguration to reduce the risk of flood damage.
Transnortation and Traffic Imnacts
Traffic Volume
A slight increase in vehicular traffic is expected as a consequence of the anticipated
increase in the number of visitors generated annually by the addition. However, it is
difficult to project the number'of additional guests arriving by private or rental vehicle.
It is likely'that the majority of guests will continue to visit in the winter and to come by
van from the airport rather than by private car. Van deliveries to the project willt
..: •'; doh' •, \`-' ? }..... v:.. ;... N 3 ."• .:"-'. ?.;:;
increase in proportion to the additional number of visitor days. The central village loca-
tion of the Gasthof Gramshammer largely eliminates the need for a car once a guest
arrives.
Road capacities at the Frontage Road intersection and at the entry of the project should;
be able to handle the slightly'-increased traffic load If there is a potential for congestiori
..,v: a S,i 4 en 3 5 • r.. f'J `rr.,'Y U'... . ,>: , -x4 .a.. INy.V
anywhere, it will most likely be in "the entry area, where check-ins, parking, deliveries
and pedestrians converP ,.,. .
R, ge..To some extent, this can be mitigated by efficient and speedy
Environmental Assessment - Penis Addition Design Workshon
3/24/97 7
• 4_ a
guest valet service, careful management and scheduling of deliveries, greater clarity in
• the streetscape design, `and incentives to encourage guests to leave vehicles at home.
2. Parking
Based on the existing parking requirements of the Gasthof Gramshammer and the addi-
tional needs posed by the proposed expansion, there will be a deficit in parking for this
operation. With the addition of nine rooms and other guest services, at least 12 more
parking spaces are necessary under the parking requirements schedule stipulated in sec-
tion 18.52. and 18.52. of the municipal zoning code for the Town of Vail. The
proposed 15 space parking structure does not satisfy the additional need and is slightly
smaller in capacity than the existing lot.
Parking demand in excess of that being provided by the expansion is likely to occur,
under the current proposal. This issue will need to be addressed, perhaps by the provi-
sion of some parking in the village structure and/or a parking in lieu fee.
3. Trash and Deliveries
At present, trash from the lodge is picked up from a fully screened trash enclosure just
south of the existing lobby entry on the southwest side of the building (facing the
Children's Fountain plaza). Food and beverage deliveries to the restaurant are made
• from the Bridge Street side. These trash and delivery methods work as well as can be
expected in the village core, and no change in them is contemplated.
4. Pedestrian Circulation
Although no site landscape plan has been submitted as yet, the project addition can be
expected to improve pedestrian circulation patterns and directional clarity around the
Children's Fountain. The development of the area between the Gasthof Gramshammer
and the Creekside Building will frame and define the perimeter of the plaza, thereby
developing a better sense of enclosure and enhancing the pedestrian experience. Paving
materials will be in keeping with the existing paving design, reinforcing the space and
completing the design of the plaza. The improvement of the stairs leading into the new
ski locker area will also help in defining the pedestrian transition from the street into the
building.
During construction, pedestrian circulation will be unavoidably, but temporarily, dis-
turbed by the presence of heavy machinery, construction traffic, barriers and other relat-
ed construction equipment. Adherence to a strict and efficient construction schedule can
minimize these impacts. Proper informational, directional, and cautionary signage will
also ensure that pedestrians are aware of the addition.
•
Environmental Assessment - Pe_n_ i s Addition Design Worbhon
3124197 8
.1 t
• Visual Imnacts
1. Building Mass and Height
The addition will not be taller or larger in mass than the existing building or those adja-
cent to it. The south building face, as proposed, is low in profile at the Fountain Plaza
and continues the theme of the existing entry canopy. The main bulk of the structure is
to the north of the property along the creek, where pedestrian scale is not as critical.
The architecture of the proposed development will be in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood and will match the detail of the existing Gasthof Gramshammer. A
scale model of the new addition in its village core context would assist the Town staff
and review boards in considering this issue during the development review process.
Z View Corridors and the Creekside Building
Established view corridors will not be affected. The highest point of the building is
below the Gasthof structure and fits tightly behind the Creekside Building. The pro-
posed addition cannot be seen from Bridge Street. The greatest potential impact of the
addition will be on views from units in the northeast corner of the Creekside Building.
The proposed addition leaves very little space between the Creekside Building and the
new Gasthof addition. Coordination in the design and development of this edge must
occur between owners of both buildings to avoid poor views from one building into the
other and to maintain adequate access to uses in the Creekside Building.
3. Quality of Public. Spaces
The location of the proposed addition is currently utilized for visitor parking. The site is
characterized by haphazard accessibility and circulation and a weak visual and contextu-
al identity in relationship to adjacent spaces. The resulting aesthetic quality of the space
is poor. A primary goal for the Vail Village core set forth in the 1991 Town of Vail
Streetscape Master Plan is: "to enhance the existing streetscape framework."
In keeping with this goal, the proposed expansion of the Gasthof Gramshammer will
have important beneficial impacts on the quality of the adjacent Children's Fountain
Plaza. The expansion will resolve and clarify the circulation patterns in this plaza of
Vail Village by framing and better defining the existing public space. Replacement of
the surface parking lot space should greatly enhance the pedestrian character by screen-
ing the vehicular use area and finalizing the delineation of the Children's Fountain Plaza
public space.
F-1
gnvironmental Assessment - Pe_ni'v Addition 9r.viow Workchon
3/24/97 9
Unresolved Issues and Ouestions
At this stage in the design development process there are a number of unresolved issues. These
have been raised throughout this document, but are summarized here to guide further investiga-
tion. They are:
1. Parking and Service Needs
Parking alternatives should be explored to resolve the deficit of guest parking that is
likely to occur during peak season. Likewise, an area for service deliveries and trash
pickup should be designated, as the current architectural plans for the expansion do not
address this need.
2. Construction Staging and Scheduling
Due to the tight space in which the addition is being proposed and its proximity to the
Children's Fountain Plaza, construction activities may pose significant visual disruption
and physical hazards to pedestrians. Careful management and scheduling of construc-
tion will be required through the duration of the project in order to minimize such
impacts.
Environmental Assessment - Peni.v Addition DesiQ_n Workshop
3124/97 10
View of existing parking lot entrance between the Gasiltol'hnilding and C'reekside Bitildini?.
? .
3.
4.
Interface with the Creekside Building
Coordination between the owners of the Creekside Building and the Gasthof building
should occur in the development of the parking lot space. There are opportunities for the
sharing of required service spaces, such as a trash area, a delivery area, and short-term
parking.
Groundwater Impacts
Consultation with an engineer should be undertaken, as it is likely that an engineered
dewatering plan will be required in the construction of the parking garage. Since
groundwater information is not available for this site, a survey establishing the depth to
the groundwater table and other important hydrologic information would be useful.
Recommendations for Mitigation
While the environmental impacts this project poses are deemed to be minor, proper mitigation
planning will need to occur in order to maintain and enhance the existing environmental quality
of this site. What has been provided in this environmental impact assessment is a brief survey
of the range of impacts which may occur during construction and after completion of the pro-
posed addition. In order to guide the development of an adequate mitigation plan for the pro-
ject, the preparation of the following program elements is recommended:
• Erosion control plan
• Tree protection and replacement plan for the riparian corridor
• Stormwater management plan
• Construction staging and scheduling plan
• On-site traffic management plan (during construction)
• Temporary pedestrian barrier and signage
• Revegetation plan for the stream setback area (for habitat enhancement)
F'nvironmental Assessment - Peni :c Addition Design Workshgp
3124197 11
,r
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 12, 1997
RE: A worksession to discuss the proposed Development Review Improvement
Process (DRIP) development standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
•
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Public Works Department, the Fire Department, and the Community Development
Department have been working together to clarify and consolidate the development standards for
the Town of Vail. This process has been referred to as the Development Review Improvement
Process (DRIP). Please refer to page 3 for the DRIP problem statement, goals and givens which
were adopted by Town Council at its April 1, 1997 meeting. The attached document represents
phase one of this consolidation and includes standards for:
Residential Access, Driveway and Parking
Residential Fire Department Access
Parking Lot Design
The document also clarifies when a geologic hazard report must be submitted. In the next
phase, staff will be analyzing the geologic hazard section of the code to see if these regulations
need any modification.
The document also includes a summary of zoning setbacks and development limitations for all of
the Town's zone districts. This table is meant to supplement the Zoning Code and allow the user
to more easily access the code requirements.
The proposal, in many instances, is a relaxation of the existing codes. For example, under this
proposal, a driveway to a three dwelling unit development must have a minimum width of 12'.
Under the existing regulations, access to more than two dwelling units requires a 20' wide
driveway.
This draft document does not include a complete list of definitions. However, a definition section
will be added to the document prior to final review by the PEC.
The final document will also include an administration section. The concept is to create a
"handbook" which includes all of the Town's development standards. As this document evolves
and is added to, staff will be modifying the existing codes to remove these standards so that all
conflicts are eliminated.
TOWN O*VUL
Staff utilized model codes, professional reports, and standards from other communities in the
evaluation of these standards. Staff believes these are the minimum standards necessary to .
protect the public health and safety and provideforwefficient and°adequate community
development.
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE PEC
Staff is requesting that the PEC review the standards to ensure they meet the goals of DRIP
(clear and concise).
Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed DRIP standards, staff will not be providing a
formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at
the time of final PEC review.
E
2
0
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IMPROVEMENT PROCESS (DRIP)
Problem/Opportunity Statement:
In Vail, proposed construction projects undergo a series of reviews and approvals known as the
Development Review Process. The Development Review Process is the process through which
a proposed construction project is reviewed, approved and building permits are issued by inter-
departmental staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission and
Town Council, as applicable. The Town's annual community survey indicates long held
frustration with this process.
Both customers and Town staff experience frustration with the application of unwritten standards
and conflicts between existing codes. Standards for the development of property in the Town of
Vail are codified in numerous sections of the Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, the
Uniform Fire Code and other documents adopted by reference in the Municipal Code. Some of
these standards are unclear and have required "interpretations" by Town of Vail staff over the
years. Our customers need to have a clear understanding of development and design standards
in order to obtain approval in an efficient manner.
In response to these concerns, the Town staff has initiated "DRIP," the Development Review
Improvement Process. DRIP is a collaborative effort that will involve Town boards and interested
members of the community to clarify standards and improve the review process. Through DRIP,
the Town has the opportunity to create a process which is predictable, efficient, and fair, with
standards that are clear, concise, and codified. All this, while providing for the protection of the
• health, safety, and aesthetic quality of our community.
The following are the GOALS of the DRIP effort:
1. Clarify all aspects of the Development Review Process so that it is more efficient
and predictable.
2. Consolidate, clarify and define development standards so that both Town staff
and customers have a clear understanding of what is required in order to build or
redevelop in the Town of Vail.
3. Educate the users of the process on the need to accept responsibility for providing
complete and accurate submittals and required revisions in a timely manner in
order to fully benefit from the Development Review Process improvements.
3
The following are the GIVENS fort! eDRfP-effort:
1. Existing Staff Interpretations and unwritten requirements will be eliminated or
codified as part of this process.
2. Staff will seek, and is committed to, continuous improvement in inter-departmental
coordination and cooperation to promote efficiencies in the Development Review
Process.
3. Requirements and standards required for the general health and safety of the
community will not be compromised through this effort.
4. The Town of Vail encourages and seeks public involvement in the clarification of
development standards and improvement of the Development Review Process.
5. The Town Council will have the final decision making authority on adoption of any
Municipal Code modifications required to implement DRIP.
fAeveryone\pec\memo\drip1.512
4
DRAFT
"0"1"
•
•
Development Standards Handbook
Town of Vail Development Standards Consolidation Phase 1
Key:
1. Items which are ;shdd. are new standards not formally codified many of
which are a relaxation of an existing standard.
2. Items which are italicized are standards applied today but are not formally
codified or are located in a code adopted by reference (i.e., UFC, UBC,
Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards).
3. Items which are in normal font are existing codified standards being
consolidated.
Note: New standards will not apply retroactively to projects being reviewed at the time of adoption.
Section 1. Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards.
This section (Table 1) specifies the access, driveway and parking standards for residential development (including single-
family, two-family, and multiple-family development). These standards are subject to all conditions and exceptions described
herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or more standards conflict, the more
restrictive standard shall apply.
Standard Single-family, Multiple Family Multiple Family
Two-family, -access to 4 to I I dwelling unite -access to more than 1 I dwelling units
Primary/Secondary -feeder road only -feeder road only
-access to not more than 3 dwelling units
(including EIIUs)
-structures and all portions thereofwithin
150' from edge of street pavement
Driveway/Feeder Road 12' 20' 22'
Min. Width -Access from feeder road to units -Access from feeder to units shall
Normal shall comply with single-family comply with single-family
(Detail 1) requirements contained herein requirements contained herein
Driveway/Feeder Road 15' 24' 24'
Min. Width
90* corner
(cross-over)
(Detail 4)
Driveway/Feeder Road 16' (/fare to 16') 24' (flare to 24' with 10' curb- 28' (flare to 28' with 15' curb-return
Min. Width return radius) radius)
Entrance/Curb-cut
(Detail 1)
Driveway/Feeder Road 24 (renI if Wk auc:p rktng is ttiioata 36 3
Max. Width then up 10::4$
Entrance/Curb-cut
(Detail 1)
Driveway/Feeder Road I)SS}'e t1S' ?5ti
Min. Grade
Centerline
(Detail 2)
TOW*VAIL
r ,
DRAFT
VV
4 ??
.{yY.yF.'vi.47?(`'•h ', ,',
4.N.h Wti.
t
h¢SW \ y45U4u
,,, `•''?.` +:,
^ hi
44
4
\
k
^
'
}
{ 4
t
•
,
`
'
-.
L
..
vv: 4
...
.
,
ti,.,
4,. ., .. v\±.}:.. ,
,+,..
„
\ ` •. 4+'::,{:
:, 4
+,
•U:...v+.,
::wvvUr: \.v,
h:.+•
.•
. •:::: v:•i:iv......., h..., ........ ... .r M, n':v.....r:,v:4 v •.. .: ; \\, •. \ \441 M n4 .. .. ? ::• •:: i •``• .:............:. .".. `v.:.\
,.
......... .... ... ... ...:'•:•:;•.:.... ..: ... ,..4 , ...v .: rq}::}:.i•:'•i4•`.v4•,•.i: •:^.. :v'+"'•"i'$ii 4. •+`4::.:..
, .;;+.? .. ..:..+y...v...v.. \::: :.; .... .. \; ...,••.r.:.• .v ... \ .,. :. .<•.\1 .x:4?:•'•x::.,;\\:"ui;:+ri;•i\.v.:.i%vv?4+:}+.'{,1:
yy y?? +? ?y ....'•>
•
?
..:::•.:.
?::•: ..... ../?.?{ yet . +., }?,?{?y??p(??, „
`
.
:A•t
'AIf7.i7?:7:}ai +?IIiR i.'N?:•
,
`
va:
:
ti};?,•
\•
'\hv
••::,:1::?FTi
'7R'F
`
4'i•:ii
+
•
?
x
1
`?
'
?
v.
.
.
.
:
::.,
r.;
p
i
71iM
RRR
. ?:....
; ...... \'}`?.14v?>;?:ii:v.. m,:.n•.:,y„•?,.i;.4v`ii?i+x: \d:h •: ). C ,. .
•:ii;}:i•::j:\\^.vvv _. .., 44 .•}:: \\::...\\ .. _.. r:\4v .,.,,•.;,.:...+., ?
,
.
.
.
.
.
` n..:::}x:•:tiv. 4, ,
...:..........•,: _' •.?.. .v 4.: ++
}
,
...
..
.
.. ...:\\v
..... 44 \1.,.. .. ..,'\
y
Standard Single-family, Multiple Family Multiple Family
Two-family, -access to 4 to I I dwelling units -access to more than 11 dwelling units
-feeder road only -feeder road only
Primary/Secondary
-access to not more than 3 dwelling units
(including EHUs)
-structures and all portions thereof within
150' from edge of street pavement
Driveway/Feeder Road 1 u ttftlfeaSesl e U 1g`
%
he
Max. Grade 12% heated 12% heated ated
he
I2
%
Centerline 3 u E Bit l d$i ............
(Detail 2) Ce±'tY eii§
Driveway/Feeder Road yuiittaatel $alt>{1at0d $:°?u iiheatiel
Max. Grade
o.¢i{
;414ptCd
tlaiMeo?t1
Centerline
Corner/Cross-over
(Detail 2)
Driveway/Feeder Road
Max. cross-slope
grade
(Detail 1)
Driveway/Feeder Road
0.
41
7Q°
76,
- Entry angle
min. deflection
(Detail 5 & 6)
q l •
Driveway/Feeder Road It"? d?lq a
Max. centerline break-
over grade
(Detail 3)
Driveway/Feeder Road afu S°yo `a"
Max. grade at edge of
asphalt
(Detail 2)
Driveway/Feeder Road
Max. length of max.
grade at edge of
asphalt
(Detail 2)
Driveway/Feeder Road 20' 30' 35'
Min. centerline
turning radius
(Detail 4)
Curb cuts ermitted >'.' <8teeG: ?era fn izessac%`o li$
(number) l.aaiiriu.... ciits;pcriot aceta
(Detail 6)
Min. horizontal 24' N/A N/A
clearance between
garage doors (parallel
to road) to edge of
public street pavement
(Detail 5 & 6) _
•
2
TOWN OPY?iIi
DRAFT
:;'.,v,.ti..'1; ?.v}U.\"v\•v.? 1 : ?L\»v.: w.,.n ,..:.::: n•.i?:.,, •.\;3, \?.v?.,S:?.v ?4 ..' ..... ..:`: •??p,?; '\M Y•„\..,IX ,\.. ,\ S 4 \ \ k.v..'.. \. \ ? :}::!+•;i\
................ .......... .......................n.... .. , .. ..... ... ............................. .......v...? :•:. ?: ::.;'::5;•i:U".......:. ......\.: .:......:. i::^::•iid"4i:::i......:•::::.;P•,?:::;.,•;:;..5?'vv:S\ii:•:;:•::
::::::.•::: v,vv.: ?::::::::::. .....:...w;:.: :•...........v.v•.•: nvv .. w; n• \. v: .::: v. v:::::: ?v: •;v•: ?:::n;•.. •;•; :.•.. :, ..... .
:{F?F::i:::::::t:::.:::???'isii:'vi:»'r'r:?i'{'::ijC.:;:;:?i:?•jTjjit.::?;:ij;:;?i?;?
,r
u
Standard Single-family, Multiple Family Multiple Family
Two-family, -access to 4 to I I dwelling units -access to more than I I dwelling units
Primary/Secondary -feeder road only -feeder road only
-access to not more than 3 dwelling units
(including LHUs)
structures and all portions thereof within
150' from edge of street pavement
Min. horizontal 5' 5' 5'
clearance between
required parking
space and edge of
public street or feeder
road pavement
(Detail 5)
Min. horizontal
2 frrini uirstftfetiotis
$ frtitn o6skntetiuits
clearance from feeder 5' from buitdin from buiitiAigs
road to structures
/obstructions (e.g.,
guardrails, trees,
retaining walls, etc.)
(Detail 5)
Parking space size 9'x 19' surface See Table 3, Commercial/Multiple- See Table 3, Commercial/Multiple-
(Detail 5) 4'.':x 1$ ettclgs4ii, Family Parking Lot Standards Family Parking Lot Standards
Sight distance triangle 10' perpendicular x 250' lateral (.strict 10' perpendicular x 250' lateral 10' perpendicular x 250' lateral (strict
(Detail 5) compliance may not be required on sites (strict compliance may not be compliance may not be required ors
not able to physically comply) required on sites not able to sites not able to physically comply)
physically comply)
Back-out/Turn-around 12' wide Back-out into right-of-way Back-out into right-of-way prohibited
area 20'centerline radius prohibited
(Detail 4) Designed for 3 point turn or less Turn-around area:
Turn-around area: 12' wide
)€equircd wfien< 12' wide 20' centerline radius
cross o? er angle to greater tttau 1206 20' centerline radius Designed for 3 point turn or less
attryangle is loss than 70,; Designed for 3 point turn or less
a.GGG6?lU$8 CQIleGt4r, itrtCFfaf.3?OC,
commeiOa! street; at
Stgilt;tt7a11gie t'S.Ytui i': ; Q9t A7e(;
Driveway Pan 4' wide concrete part at edge of asphalt 4' wide concrete pan at edge of 8' wide concrete pan at edge of
(Drainage) for the full width driveway pavement asphalt for the full width driveway asphalt for the full width driveway
(Detail 1 & 5) including returns pavement including returns pavement including returns
Nonconforming sites.
Nonconforming sites and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these standards may
continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code. The paving of existing legal
nonconforming (unpaved) driveways shall be allowed without strict compliance with these standards. However, a reasonable
attempt shall be made to adhere as closely as possible to these standards when paving existing driveways. Demo/rebuilds, as
defined by the Zoning Code, shall be required to adhere to these standards.
Surfacing.
All parking areas shall be an improved paved surface.
rOWNOFV
DRAFT
Snow storage.
A11 required parking an- d access areas shall be designed to accommodate on-site snow :storage (i.e., within boundaries of lot
and not within the right-of-way). A minimum functional area equaling 30,,00 of the paved area shall be provided contiguous
to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and other areas without trees maybe utilized for
this purpose. If driveways are heated, then the minimum snow storage area maybe reduced to 10% of the requiredparking
and access areas.
•
•
TOWN OFYAfL
DRAFT
Section 2. Residential Fire Department Access Standards.
This section (Table 2) specifies residential Fite Department access standards for residential development (including single-
family, two-family, and multiple-family development). These standards are subject to all conditions and exceptions described
herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or more standards conflict, the more
restrictive standard shall apply.
Not required if structures are sprinkled in accordance with the Building Code and Fire Code.
Min. pavement radii for fire truck 1. For structures with the highest floor level 30' or less in elevation from
access and min. pavement cross- staging area:
over width 29' inside radius
(including curb-cut accessing site) 44' outside radius
36' centerline radius
20' cross-over width
2. For structures with the highest floor level greater than 30' in elevation from
staging area.-
3 1' inside radius
. 48' outside radius
40' centerline radius
22'cross-over width
Note: The Town of Vail reserves the right in unique circumstances to utilize a
computer modeling technique to determine radii needed for access.
Turn-around area Required if Fire Department staging area is 150' or more from edge of roadway
pavement.
Min. on-site Fire Department 12' wide and 35' long pavement area
staging area 32' wide useable clear area inclusive of paved area
(Detal) 5) For structures with the highest floor level 30' or less in elevation from
staging area, the staging area must be located less than the minimum
distance required to reach all areas ofstructures using a 150'radius.
12' wide and 50' long pavement area
32' wide useable clear area inclusive of paved area
For structures with the highest floor level greater than 30' in elevation from
staging area, the staging area must commence a maximum of 20' from the
face ofstructure.
•
ma
Standard Single-Family,
Two-Family, Primary/Secondary, and Multiple Family
-requiring on-site Fire Department access (structures or portions thereof greater than 150' from edge of
street pavement)
DRAFT
Section 3. Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards For All Uses (excluding residential uses of 3
dwelling units or less).
This section (Table 3) specifies the parking lot standards for all uses, including, but not limited to, commercial, retail, office,
restaurant, institutional, hotel, accommodation, and multiple-family development. These standards are subject to all conditions
and exceptions described herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or more
standards conflict the more restrictive standard shall apply.
Angle of Minimum Minimum Minimum
parking space One-way drive aisle Two-way drive aisle Parking stall size and clearance
0° (parallel) 12' 22' 9'x 24'
450 12' 22' 9'x 19' surface
9'x 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
parking
600 16' 24' 9'x 19' surface
9'x 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
parking
750 22' 24' 9'x 19' surface
9'x 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
parking
.900 24' 24' 9' x 19' surface
9'x 18' enclosed
8'x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
parking
Cross-over drive 18' 24' n/a
aisle
•
•
•
6
TOWN OF V
DRAFT
' ,:,u::Q,:.\\\U:C.y.\•'•i,'i.,Y'i:'vi}:: }:i»:.?n:.:. ?.. T........,. \`\? .:.h:?`: t': ,.::i: i}.v.?::;,a;• : :?.,:'?.i:i'•:i•:;
.,........ ,. ... ... . .. ... . ...... ... .. .......n:,.............., ,... '...:..........:::::.v:v:::;J:•i:•i:v., v.»::?. _:. ?:4., \.,.: +: iii:^'•..: ?,.......::?:: 'a•.:,.:•::+.,....
\'•:•: }.; ;:ti;:>;:ai:n.?.,-»•:.,,':r .. .,....,:•y^i:i:•?: i::::';'?:.?{i is .....,.. :::..:. •.
Angle of Minimum Minimum Minimum
parking space one-way drive aisle Two-way drive aisle Parking stall size and clearance
Drive aisle with 12' 22' n/a
no parking
Min. opening for a 12' 20' n/a
parking structure
entrance
Nonconforming sites.
Nonconforming sites and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these standards may
continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code. Expansion to existing structures or
expansion to existing parking lots shall require existing parking areas to be brought into compliance with the standards
contained herein.
Surfacing.
All parking areas shall be an improved paved surface.
Trail head parking.
Trail head parking lots accommodating up to 15 parking spaces may be improved with gravel, but shall adhere to all other
requirements contained in this section.
• On-street parking.
On-street parking is not permitted for private developments. All public on-street parking provided in the right-of-way shall
meet the standards included in this section (Table 3).
Snow storage.
All required parking and access areas shall be designed to accommodate on-site snow storage (i.e., within boundaries of lot
and not within the right-of-way). A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous
to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and other areas without trees maybe utilized for
this purpose. If driveways are heated, then the minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 10% of the required parking
and access areas.
Landscaping.
Not less than 10% of the interior surface area of unenclosed off-street parking areas containing 15 or more parking spaces shall
be devoted to landscaping. In addition, landscape borders not less than 10' in depth shall be provided at all edges of parking
lots containing 30 or more parking spaces. A landscape berm, wall, or fence of not less than 4 ft. in height, of the same
architectural style as the building, in combination with landscaping may be substituted for the landscape border fit
Drainage.
Proper drainage and storm water management shall must be provided in all parking areas.
Valet parking.
Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed 50% of the required parking on-site. Valet parking shall be calculated
utilizing a 8'x 18' parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9'x 20'). Cars may be parked tandem in a valet lot.
0
TOWN OF V
DRAFT
Backiag Intothe street/right-of-way. •
All parking for commercial and multiple family developments shall be designed to allow 'a vehicle forward access to any street
or right-of-way.
Fire lane.
Afire lane shall be required and must be located within 150' of all areas of the parking lot.
•
0
TOFNOFTandem parking.
kv,
Tandem parking is not permitted for commercial uses unless approved as valet parking.
DRAFT
• Section 4. Geologic Hazards.
This section (Table 4) provides a summary of the geologic hazards mapped by the Town of Vail. This table describes at what
point in the review process a site specific hazard study is needed. Chapter 18.69, Hazard Regulations, should be review for
more specific requirements and details.
Hazards Submittal Requirements
Geologic Hazards See Chapter 18.69 of the Zoning Code for detailed requirements.
See hazard maps for the
following hazards.
Snow Avalanche ;Submtt0'.90,"specificstu4y)wi[h<DRBc?t;PECapphcat?on.
I7RI3 t€u1b»
Debris Flow Submit site specific study prior to building permit application or prtar to
fai i.1 ' .
Rock Fall Submit site specific study prior to building permit application or 0O to :l)'"A,t"W
Unstable sails Submit site specific study prior to building permit application or p ar aa)!RB: €: t . .
farriily
Nonconforming sites.
Nonconforming sites, structures, uses, and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these
. standards may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18.64 and Chapter 18.69 of the Zoning Code. No
existing nonconforming site or structure shall be issued a building permit for an exterior expansion, alteration or addition in a
geologically sensitive area except for windows, skylights and other similar minor alterations unless allowed by a site specific
hazard study in accordance with Chapter 18.69.
Hazard Maps.
The following is a list of hazard maps officially adopted by the Town of Vail:
1. Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Ilazard Analysis Map prepared by Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., Inc. and dated
November, 1984.
2. Rockfall Map prepared by Schmueser and Associates, Inc. and dated November 29, 1984.
3. Geological Hazard Map, Figure 3, prepared by Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16,
1982.
•
9
TOWN OF VAX
DRAFT
Section 5. Summary of Site Development Standards.
This section (Table 5) specifies site development standards for all Zoning Districts in the Town of Vail. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or
more standards conflict, the more restrictive standard shall apply. Additional and special standards may exist in accordance with the Zoning Code.
r••:
.. .:..9 ,:. .... ....... n...
v?r:
•+r+
+.y r:
}
r.-s
..{G:± r{I% '?jf.•...:•:: ` yYJ%:?ii %:::;'{'':;?%?:+.:'??s:y:::':jv:::::i.'?'?i'isii:?: i'ii%'?:L:%i?i:?iii? :?'= is ii'>v::::% ?{•'r ?lv:i
f•.
,lJ. : r
f. r ..l.
... •r.l .::JJ,•....r-+,+.r,::r.,.vi.:.., ?,:a•. _....:+..:r•::::::ir•:::,•;..... ,.•f::%+a•;..:..::...•:.::...v;-x.:..?,
/J ? r .%.,: ••r•Y:.,+1.:. , ..J rld: .. J.. ... :.. ':j''%i'.:' .. f.. .JJ.{:{:.,:: :4:::,.::.+.::: r .::.yJ.".rd
+?L,,d?i„1,-F„1b,: -. ':......::.+..,.. ,. :,..n: v,.. •i:•% JJJ •.'{r,.. --3 •:±- : :::2?1fHiifL][i'f AiliSilil!16!-.-?LGOiIk:??:??'1KGiirIIt?iR:'?gfltf.2i?? .: ., .:.. ..+...,..:...:..r..::,..}......n ...:.........+........... r.. x.....,. -- -.
Zone
Districts
HR 2 units per 20' front
Hillside lot 15' rear
Residential 15' sides
SFR 1 unit per , 20' front
Single Family lot 15' rear
Residential 15' sides
R & P/S 2 units per 20' front
Two-Family lot 15' rear
Residential & 15' sides
Two Family
Primary/
Secondary
RC 6 units per 20' front
Residential acre 15' rear
Cluster 15' sides
LDMF 9 units per 20' front
Low Density acre 20' rear
multiple 20' sides
Family
0
....:. :^..':: "-.-....r -, ., .J{,,
Max. Min. :J.•,rni:::::.•:i .::.:'ii:,.- .. :.:r::r{
Min. ...,rrr :...:.:.....:.:... -
Min. - ...
Max. :.. ... .. -
Max. .,
Min. ... .. .. .......-
Min.
Density Building Deck Deck Architectural Site Landscape Lot
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projection Coverage Area Size
Setback Setback into (buildable area)
Setback
0' t May project not May project not 4' 15% 70% 21,780 s.f
more than the more than the lesser
lesser of 10' or of 5' or % the
%2 the required required setback
setback
May project not May project not
more than the more than the lesser
lesser of 10' or of 5' or %2 the
Y2 the required required setback
setback
May project not May project not
more than the more than the lesser
lesser of 10' o r of 5' or'h the
%2 the required required setback
setback
May project not May project not
more than the more than the lesser
lesser of 10' or of 5' or''/2 the
%2 the required required setback
setback
Nfay project not May project not
more than the more than the lesser
lesser of 10' or of 5' or % the
'h the required required setback
setback
Min. Mtn. Max.
Frontage Square Building
Area Height
50' 80' x 80' 30' flat roof
33' sloping roof
4' 20% 60% 12,500 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 30' flat roof
33' sloping roof
4' 20% 60% 15,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 30' flat roof
33' sloping roof
4' 25% 60% 15,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 30' flat roof
(min. 8,000 s.f. of 33' sloping roof
buildable area)
4' 35% 40% 10,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 35' flat roof
38' sloping roof
10
iQWNQFV'tlLi?
v>ff.•'f.:f!/':_- -.... if. -f. +.•::::::.::::'ii':'ii?i.:^iv::•i:,: r.:?i:::. ?:: __ ....:..::::::::•:. ?::::.: ?:::.?:::::. :. ... .. .... _. .... __.._ .:...... ...... .__
Zone Max. Min. Min. Min. Max. Max. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Districts Density Building Deck Deck Architectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square Building
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projection Coverage Area Size Area Height
Setback Setback Into (buildable area)
Setback
MDMF 18 units 20' front May project May project not 4' 45% 30% 10,000 s.f.
Medium per acre 20' rear not more than more than the
i
m
ulflpie
20' sides
the lesser of
lesser of 5' or'/
Fiery 10' or %z the the required
required setback
setback
HDMF 25 units 20' front May project not May project not 4' 55% 30% 10,000 s.f.
High Density per acre 20' rear more than the more than the lesser
F k
le 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %x the
y lZ the required required setback
setback
PA 25 units 20' front May project not May project not 4' 55% 30% 10,000 s.f.
Public per acre 20' rear more than the more than the lesser
ccom- 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or 1/z the
modation 52 the required required setback
setback
30' 80'x 35' flat roof
80' 38' sloping
roof
30' 80' x 80' 45' flat roof
48' sloping roof
30' 80' x 80' 45' flat roof
48' sloping roof
11
Zone Mal.
Districts Density
CC1 25 units
Commercial per acre
Core 1
CC2 ' 25 units
Commercial per acre
Core 2
•
Min. Min.
Building Deck
Setbacks (ground level)
Setback
DRAFT
Min. Max. Max. Min.
Deck Architectural Site Landscape
(not ground level) Projection Coverage Area
Setback Into
Setback
None N/A N/A N/A 80% No
(unless
otherwise
designated
by the Vail
Village
Urban
Design
Guide
Plan and
Design
Considerat
ions)
10' fiont May project not May project not 4'
10' rear more than the more than the lesser
10' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or '/: the
(unless '/2 the required required setback
otherwise setback
designated
by the Vail
Lionshead
Urban
Design
Guide
Plan and
Design
Considerat
ions)
12
(unless reduction in
otherwise existing
designated landscaping
by the unless
Vail sufficient
Village cause is
Urban shown
Design
Guide
Plan and
Design
Considera
tions)
70% 20%
(unless (unless
otherwise otherwise
designated designated
by the by the Vail
Vail Lionshead
Lionshead Urban
Urban Design
Design Guide Plan
Guide and Design
Plan and Considerati
Design ons)
Considera
tions)
Min.
Lot
size
(buildable area)
5,000 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
i
Min. Min Max.
Frontage Square Building
Area Height
30' N/A
As regulated by
the Vail Village
Urban Design
Guide Plan and
Design
Considerations
30' 80'x 80' 45' flat roof
48' sloping roof
(unless
otherwise
designated by
the Vail
Lionshead
Urban Design
Guide Plan and
Design
Considerations).,
TUWRVYA2
i
0 0'
DRAFT
Zone Max. Min. Min. Min. Max. Max. Min. Min.
Districts Density Building Deck Deck Architectural Site Landscape Lot
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projection Coverage Area Size
Setback Setback Into (buildable area)
Setback
M 12 units 20' to May project not May project not 4' 40% 25% 25,000 st
Commercial per acre YQ, "eter more than the more than the lesser
Core 3 of zone lesser of 10' or of For 72 the
district %x the required required setback
boundaries setback
CSC i8 units 20' front May project not May project not 4' 75% 20% 20,000 s.f.
Commercial per acre 20' rear more than the more than the lesser
service 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or Y2. the
Center th the required required setback
setback
•
Min. Min. Max.
Frontage Square Building
Area Height
100' N/A 35' flat roof
38' sloping roof
100' N/A 35' flatroof
38' sloping roof
F
13
DRAFT
Zone Max. Min. Min. Min. Max. Max. Min. Min. Min. Min.
Districts Density Building Deck Deck Architectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projection Coverage Area SIM Area
Setback Setback into (buildable area)
Setback
ABD 25 units 15' front May project not May project not 4' 60% 25% 25,000 s.f. 100' N/A
Arterial per acre (for no more than the more than the lesser
Business more than lesser of 10' or of For'/ the
60% of Y2 the required required setback
frontage setback
along
South
F,--ge
Road 20'
for
remaining
40%)
15' side
(building
height less
than 20')
20' side
(building
height 20'
or more)
10' rear
HS N/A 20' front May project not May project not 4' 75% 10% 10,000 S.f. 50' N/A
Heavy Service 20' rear more than the more than the lesser
20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or V2 the ,
Y2 the required required setback
setback
14
•
0
flax.
Building
Height
32' (up to 70%
of roof)
40' (other
portion of the,
roof)
Mim slope shall
be 3' in 12'
10% of roof
may be flat
35' flat roof
38' sloping roof
E
TOWN oFVuc '
Zone Max. Min. Min. Min. Max. Max. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Districts Density Building Deck Deck Architectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square Building
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projection Coverage Area Size Area Height
Setback Setback into (buildable area)
Setback
A 1 unit per 20' front May project not May project not 4' 5% N/A 35 acres N/A
Agricultural 35 acres 15' rear more than the more than the lesser (1 acre buildable)
and open 15' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or yZ the
Space Y2 the required required setback
setback
' OR N/A 20' front May project not May project not 4' 5% As N/A N/A
Outdoor 20' rear more than the more than the lesser determined
Recreation 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or V/2 the by the
(except as %z the required required setback Design
may be setback Review
further Board
restricted
by the
PEC in
conjunctio
n with a
condition
I use
permit)
P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Parldng
GU Set by Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by
General Use PEC PEC PEC PEC
NAP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Natural Area
Preservation
15
N/A 30' flat roof
33' sloping roof
N/A 21' flat roof
24' sloping roof
N/A N/A
Set by Set by PEC
PEC
N/A N/A
A
TOWN OF VAIb
DRAFT
i
Zone Max. Min. Min. Min.
Districts Density Building Deck Deck
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level)
Setback Setback
SBR 1 unit per Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC
Skl Base 8 acres PEC
Recreation
SDD Set by Set by
Spedat Council Council
Development
Mtrict
Terms Defined.
Set by Council Set by Council
Max. Max. Min. Min.
Architectural Site Landscape Lot
Projection Coverage Area Size
into (buildable area)
Setback
Set by PEC Set by Set by PEC 40 acres
PEC (1 acre buildable)
Set by Council Set by Set by Set by Council
Council Council
Min. Min. Max.
Frontage Square Building
Area Height
N/A N/A
Set by Set by
Council Council
35'(60% of
building
coverage)
40'(40% of
building
coverage)
Set by Council
Architectural Projection Into Setback:
Distance which an architectural projection (i.e., roof eave) may encroach into setback.
Building Height:
The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof or eave to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the roof or
eave. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof.
Building Setbacks:
A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted location of uses, structures, or buildings on a lot.
Deck Setback (ground level):
A line or or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted location of an at grade deck or patio on a lot.
Deck Setback (not ground level):
A line or or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted location of an above grade deck or balcony on a lot.
16
ro??
VY
0 0' 0
DRAFT
Density:
The number of dwelling units allowed per lot or the number of dwelling units allowed per acre.
Frontage:
The portion of a lot which fronts on a public or private street.
Landscape Area:
The area of a site not covered by buildings, driveways, and covered walkways. Core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features shall also be considered
landscape area as long as they do not exceed 20 percent of the landscape area.
Lot Size:
The required size of a buildable lot or site.
Site Coverage:
The ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any
building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the
greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck
shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered
deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns.
Square Area:
The area required to be accommodated completely within in a lot's boundaries in order for the lot to be buildable, expressed as a square.
Nonconformities.
See Chapter 18.64 Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements for details with respect nonconformities.
FADOMMOSTAUND"MSTINAI3.STD
17
AP P v Pig 19 1997
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 12, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Susan Connelly
Greg Amsden Mike Mollica
Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriello
John Schofield Tammie Williamson
Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez
Gene Uselton
Ann Bishop
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residential
addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition,
located at 2943 Beliflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain.
• Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Planner: Tammie Williamson
Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the staff memo and said that staff was recommending
denial of the requests for additional GRFA and a front setback variance.
Jack Snow, with RKD Architecture, said he had disagreements with the 5 items on page 5 of the
staff memo. He said it was not a grant of special privilege, as eight of the nine houses on the
street have the same GRFA and three of the houses had been granted variances for
improvements.
Diane Golden asked if the variances were in the front setback.
Jack Snow said, yes.
Tammie Williamson disagreed with Jack Snow and stated one other house had variances for
density and setbacks for parking and other variances granted were not setback variances for
GRFA.
Jack Snow said he believed there were extraordinary circumstances, as the setbacks were
changed during the annexation. He disagreed that it had a negative impact on the neighbors.
He then showed a photographic overlay with the unusable space and stated that they just wanted
to pop up the roof top. He said that it was very minimal, but would result in usable space for the
Bannisters.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997
1
• Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none.
Galen Aasland said he could see it if the adjacent neighbors had the same. He advised the
applicant that his position would be stronger if more research was done. He said he saw other
opportunities on the lot to put the addition.
Tammie Williamson said the Town had nothing on file for the north side addition.
Jack Snow said the applicant had the blessing of the Town.
Galen Aasland said he found it hard that 3 other variances were unsupported.
Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments.
Diane Golden said she would like to grant the variance, but can't because the need to have it
hasn't been shown.
John Schofield said he shared Diane's concerns and that the applicant definitely had a hardship
on the lot. He said there was a practical difficulty when building under one set of regulations that
changed during the process. He said he couldn't support an expansion of a non-complying use.
Gene Uselton asked about the 3 other variances granted on the block and if this was a special
privilege. He said it was risky for the PEC to toss out the Zoning Code just for this appeal. He
stated there were places where more GRFA could be added. He then asked Tammie if the
applicant was adding more floor space.
• Tammie Williamson said, no.
Gene Uselton said he saw the same conflict as John did.
Greg Amsden asked if house was to be painted or stained, as it looked unfinished.
Jack Snow said, yes and stucco would be added.
Greg Amsden asked about the satellite dish on the roof.
Jack Snow said the dish was staff approved, but probably would have to be relocated.
Greg Amsden said the west side was in the front setback by about 3'. He said that if the
applicant could show some proof that other neighbors on Bellflower had the same situation, then
that knowledge would be critical to getting his vote.
Greg Moffet echoed Greg Amsden's comments and thought the back of the house was in the
floodplain. He said there was lots of room on the north side of the lot and it would help make a
decision to know about the floodplain.
Tammie Williamson said that Terri Partch had the survey that showed the floodplain.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997
2
Greg Moffet said he was hung up on the special privilege and this separate burden needed
` evidence that had to be met by the applicant.
Mike Mollica said the attached letter from Jack Snow indicated that the County had a 5' setback.
He said that this might be a non-conforming structure and advised the applicant to get a
confirmation from the County.
Greg Moffet suggested tabling this item.
Jack Snow agreed with tabling the item.
John Schofield made a motion to table this until the first meeting in June.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
2. 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/Dominic Mauriello
Mike Mollica gave an overview of the memo. He said regarding the minor subdivision, that the
• minimum requirements had been met. He said staff had concerns regarding the exterior
alteration, as outlined on page 11 of the staff memo and Mike proceeded to go over the
discussion issues. He said that staff was not recommending a variance to encroach into the
floodplain. Because of the environmental impacts, staff was encouraging the applicant to do a
wetlands analysis and receive approval from the Corp of Engineers. He said there was a
question of bringing in a fishery or wildlife biologist to determine the impacts and issues of
ground water on the site. He said a permanent pump to pump out ground water was a possibility
and that Russell Forest concurred with the environmental analysis. He said that parking will be
taken care of by pay-in-lieu and that no additional parking will be on-site. Mike said that staff was
concerned about any vehicles backing up the ramp into the Children's Fountain area. He said
the applicant could have up to 20 vehicles in the parking structure and they need to have a
turnaround in the structure to be able to come out front first, as they would need be coming up a
steep, 12% heated ramp. He said that loading was another issue and that presently, loading was
done through the front door.
Kurt Segerberg, of Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, said the dumpster was under the deck by
the entry.
Mike Mollica said a zoning analysis was done on the property and 4-5 issues for discussion were
identified. He said a need had to be shown for them to remove any landscaping and that site
coverage was over by 61 sq. ft. and density was over by 1 dwelling unit. Mike pointed out that
the PEC needed to discuss a loading berth, since no loading berth existed now.
• Planning and )environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997 3
Kurt Segerberg stated that with regards to the floodplain relative to the building footprint, he
thought cantilevering could be done into the floodplain area.
Greg Moffet said that would require a variance and therefore, a hardship would need to be
shown.
Kurt Segerberg said relative to the stream setback, the building was designed to meet the
setback.
Mike Mollica said staff's goal was to preserve the large trees down by the creek.
Kurt Segerberg said a wetlands analysis could be done and that the applicant had proposed to
revegetate and put a path for the owner's use, not for the public. He said the owner was not in
favor of a streamwalk. He explained that two different schemes for the parking would allow a 3-
point turnaround situation. He said that a valet situation would have to be managed. He said the
concern Pepi had regarding the trash, was what other people would do if it was a shared facility
and that concern would require it to be managed. He said there would be a fence to let
Creekside take care of their own trash. He said he would like to check the density number of 9
AU's and 1 condo in the analysis. Kurt said that now unloading was serviced at the front door,
as well as the trash, since trash trucks couldn't fit anywhere else. He said they could look into
using the underground structure for holding areas where deliveries could be made. He said that
the retail space would be expanded and a spa added for the guests. He said there were five
rooms on the second floor and two rooms on the 3rd floor, as well as an apartment.
Diane Golden asked if the applicant was providing his managers a place to live.
• Kurt Segerberg said a portion of Sheika's would be used for an employee lounge and employee
locker room.
Ann Bishop asked about the floodplain issue.
Mike Mollica said the floodplain was treated as if it were a wall from the ground up, with regard to
the balconies. No structures, or portion of structures, are allowed to encroach.
John Schofield said he generally agreed with the staff comments. He said the streamwalk was
an important problem with the owners who didn't want it in their own background, but they would
find that it would be good for their business, as well as for the Town. He said he was concerned
with vehicular traffic, since even a slight increase would translate into more traffic throughout the
Village. He said it was optimistic to have parking underground, with a not quite valid turnaround.
He was also concerned with more traffic around the fountain, as it would be exaggerating a bad
problem. He said the stream setback and flood setback were sacred issues and that staff needed
to clarify density.
Gene Uselton asked if there was ground water, would the underground parking need to be
abandoned.
Kurt Segerberg said there were ways to handle it, like the Vail Athletic Club did.
Gene Uselton asked if any variance would be required with a reduction in landscaping.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997
4
Greg Amsden said he was comfortable with the 50' stream setback and would like to preserve
• the trees. He asked if the path for the Creekside Building loading, delivery and trash was a 129/6
grade.
Kurt Segerberg said in an effort to cooperate with Creekside, they were working together for joint
access and would then remove the wall.
Greg Amsden stated that fill couldn't be added to the floodplain, as it would wash away, but
landscaping could be added and trees could be put in. He felt the applicant didn't see an
increased need in loading and delivery. Greg disagreed with John regarding the streamwalk and
questioned whether a pedestrian path in that location, with not much ground between the
proposed building and creek in a low lying area was a good idea.
Galen Aasland liked the spa for hotel guests and had no trouble with the one nearly-dead tree
being removed. He said that the streamwalk was logical because the pocket park was there and
from the Town's concept, a Town streamwalk would be good. He advised the applicant to come
back with a safe parking scheme. He thought the floodplain and stream setback were fine and
he was not bothered by the density. He was in favor of a wetlands analysis and advised to solve
the trash problem with the neighbors. He said he knew Pepi wanted to control his own thing, but
this presented a good opportunity to solve problems.
Ann Bishop said an excellent job was done on the memo. She said according to the goals
outlined, they met the goals in the Vail Village Master Plan. She said regarding Goal No 3, that
this was still private property and the owner could do what he wanted. She said obviously,
people have used the path and to work on the trash issue with the neighbor. She said she was
not bothered by the traffic that went into that area and hoped this project succeeded.
• Diane Golden stated it was tough to have a communal trash, as it was hard to count on the
neighbors being as good as the applicant was, so she could understand if it was kept separate.
She echoed the commissioners on the parking being kept safe and that it was a great project.
Greg Moffet said in the CC1 when asking for variance, it would be a challenge to show a
hardship, or that it not be a special privilege. He stated the 50' stream setback was the way it
was. He said there was no way we could deny an application for the applicant's failure to provide
a wetlands analysis.
Mike Mollica said it would be in everyone's interest to have the Corp of Engineers work with the
applicant.
Greg Amsden said lots in East Vail were required to have an analysis.
Mike Mollica said the PEC could require them to have an analysis, but he would be happy to talk
to the Town Attorney.
John Schofield said the applicant would be wise to protect themselves. He said in the past, if an
analysis was not done, the applicant might be asked to contribute to a wetlands fund.
Dominic Mauriello said, according to the code, one of the factors would be to say a wetland was
a marsh.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997
5
• Greg Moffet said that children loved to run around the fountain and to make the parking
turnaround work. He said if the applicant was proposing a human solution to the parking issue,
there needed to be a way to make it enforceable. He said he was in favor of the streamwalk with
the depletion of any landscaped area. He thought if the Gramshammers would dedicate the
streamwalk to the public, this might be a way to overcome the landscape loss. Also, he
questioned the value, in condemnation, of easements of land in a setback.
Galen Aasland saw merit in Pep! controlling the trash.
Mike Mollica summarized that Galen was ok with the density and that John wanted the applicant
and staff to confirm the density requirements. He said that the 60/40 roof height requirement
may require a variance.
Greg Moffet said regarding density, that several Town policies were in the applicant's favor, but
he was still not sure it overcame a special privilege. He suggested showing a hardship and that
it was not a special privilege.
John Schofield said a clarification was needed regarding the number of units.
Gene Uselton said he had no problem with 5.5 units, but would require showing a hardship on
the 60/40, as well as why it wasn't a special privilege.
Galen Aasland said that density was a benefit to the Town, as long as they were not
condominiums.
• Mike Mollica asked if the free-market condo in the project was a non-issue.
Galen Aasland said if there was potential to be sold, then yes, but it didn't appear as if it were
going to be sold.
Ann Bishop said the Gramshammers were encouraging tourism and also that they were living in
the Village and should be applauded.
Diane Golden said she was comfortable with the density.
3. A worksession to discuss the proposed Development Review Improvement Process
(DRIP) development standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Community Development, Fire, Public Works
Dominic Mauriello explained that the worksession was to help write down and consolidate the
standards, as now there existed conflicts between the standards. He said a goal was to make
the standards more user-friendly and easier to understand. He also explained that this would be
the first set, with Council being able to change it yearly. He said the outcome would be a book to
give to developers; for example, if a developer built a parking garage that met the standards, the
PEC wouldn't have to discuss the issue of backing out, as just happened in the previous request.
He said he would like to open the discussion with the residential fire access standards, as Mike
McGee was present, but had to leave. Dominic explained that the size in the radius differed
based on the size of the structure. He said a larger structure might require a larger truck and it
. Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997 6
• was also dependant on how far away from the street the structure was, as a staging area was
needed without a cliff or retaining wall in the way.
Galen Aasland asked if the staging area had to be on-site or could it be on a public road.
Dominic Mauriello said staging could be from the street. He also said that this had been sent out
to over 400 developers and real estate people, with an open house following. He said there had
been no response to the mailing and only a small showing at the open house, which indicated
people may be comfortable with it.
Mike McGee said that the pre-application meeting handled a lot of this, which made it a more
efficient process.
Dominic Mauriello said it shortened the loop.
Mike McGee said the Fire Department was comfortable with the draft. He explained that
previously the Fire Department reviewed one lot at a time. He explained Mini-Max was the
maximum grade and minimum width that could be met.
Galen Aasland asked staff if an applicant could use an aerial map or will the applicant still need a
survey of the road.
Dominic Mauriello said, yes, a topographic map is required
Mike McGee said by handing the applicant a packet to explain the plan submittal process, this
• would expedite the process at the planning and building level.
Dominic Mauriello explained that step 2 would detail specific issues and that most of this
document was existing now. He then went over the staff memo with the significant changes in
the draft.
Greg Hall explained that everyone was requesting a 10% driveway grade and getting it, so that is
why it was changed from the previous 8% grade.
Dominic Mauriello said the changes would not compromise health and safety .
John Schofield noted that a fair amount of the Town would not be in compliance.
Dominic Mauriello said this would not require compliance, for non-conforming situations.
John Schofield said that it needed to be spelled out, if that's the case, as the PEC was now
wrestling with folks saying they couldn't do something.
Dominic Mauriello said the language would state, " to make a reasonable attempt to conform."
John Schofield stated that this document applied to new projects and the Town was built out, so
the majority of projects would need language that was sensitive to that issue.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997
7
• Galen Aasland said it was unclear and his neighborhood wouldn't be able to meet this. He said it
was ambiguous in what was written up. He said people who might want to repave would end up
in a situation that they didn't want to be in at all.
John Schofield gave the example of his snowplow driver who couldn't plow the way he's done for
the past 8 years, since he can't store snow where he used to.
Dominic Mauriello said there will always be situations that need to be looked at on a case-by-
case basis.
Russ Forrest said that this went hand-in-hand with the development process and if the applicant
met the standards, the applicant could proceed.
Gene Uselton asked if the building height section could be clearer.
Dominic Mauriello said he pulled it from the code section verbatim. He also explained that this
was a summary.
Gene Uselton said the matrix approach was good, but it would be a thick document.
Dominic Mauriello said you would be able to download information.
Galen Aasland said the driveway requirements could not be met by about 1/3 of the Town.
Dominic Mauriello said that this was a relaxation from the existing code.
• Gene Uselton asked about backing out into the street.
Dominic Mauriello said if the site requirements were not met, then you couldn't back out into the
street, as it would create a hazardous situation.
4. A request for a conditional use permit and variance from Section 18.26.040 (J)(E), to
allow for a brew pub, located at 600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Thorpe
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
5. Information Update
Susan Connelly gave an update on Lionshead and said that Lucian Lane wanted to delete one
item on the list and that Council disagreed. Susan explained that Stage 3 would get more
involved and it would come back to the PEC.
Susan Connelly reminded the PEC of the Vail Tomorrow strategic meeting tomorrow night.
Mike Mollica reminded the PEC that there would be a PEC meeting next week, back-to-back with
this week's meeting.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997 8
• Diane Golden stated she would not be at the next meeting.
6. Approval of April 28, 1997 minutes.
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval of the amended minutes.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Greg Amsden asked why the Town was abusing lower Donovan Park by using it as a
construction staging area and he said that if the Town was a private developer, they would not
be allowed to do this. He said that this had been going on since the `89 Championships, or
expansion of the Village parking structure.
John Schofield made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
May 12, 1997
9