HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0825 PEC
• THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmenta! Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a pubfic hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipai Code of the
Town of Vail on August 25, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for wireless communication antennas with
accessory equipment, located at Solar Vail Condominiums, 501 N. Frontage Road/ Blk 2, Tract
C, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Fiting.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a conditionat use permit, to allow for the installation of a new roof-top air har+dler,
located at Vail Valfey Medical Center, 181 West Meadow Drive/ Lots E&F, Vail Village 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Clinic, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a minor subdivision, to afiow for the subdividing of two existing lots into three lots,
located at 1521 8uffehr Creek Road/Lots 3& 4, The Valley Phase V/ SDD #34.
• Applicant: James Flaum, represented by RKD
Planner: Dominic Mauriello i
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park), on the top
level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located ai 395 E. Lionshead Circle/ Vail Lionshead
First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for bedroom and sunroom additions, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2945
Booth Creek Drive/ Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Village 11 th Filing.
Applicant: Jorgen Hintz, represented by Craig Snowden
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a minor subdivision, a major exterior alteration, a common area variance from
Section 18.04.130 and a density variance from Section 18.24.130, allowing for 5 dwelling units,
located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-13, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer
Planner: George Ruther
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in ihe 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 cal! 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD tor iniormation.
Community Development Department *VAIL
Published August 8, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
TOWN
Agenda last revised 8/ 119/97 ] 0 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISStON
~ Monday, August 25, 1997
AGENDA
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 11:45 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:30 pm
1. Solar Vaif - 501 N. Frontage Road ,
2. Vail Valley Medical Center - 181 West Meadow Drive
3. Lionshead Parking Structure - 395 E. Lionshead Circle
4. Gramshammer - 231 East Gore Creek Drive
5. Hintz - 2945 Booth Creek Drive
Driver: George I
of".-
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
• Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for bedroom and sunroom additions, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at
2945 Booth Creek Drive/ Lot 3, Block 2 Vaii Vilfage 11 th Filing.
Applicant: Jorgen Hintz, represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Lauren Waterton
2. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the subdividing of two existing lots into
three lots, located at 1521 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 3& 4, The Valley Phase V/ SDD #34.
Applicant: James Flaum, represented by RKD
Planner: Dominic MaurieAa
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for wireless communication antennas with
accessory equipment, located at Solar Vail Condominiums, 501 N. Froniage Road/ Blk 2,
Tract C, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Western Wireless PCS
Planner: Dominic Maurielio
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the insta{{ation of a new roof-top air
handler, located at Vail Valley Medical Center, 181 West Meadow Drive! Lots E&F, Vail
Village 2nd Filing.
• Applicant: Vail Clinic, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
~
T09YNOFVi1D,
~
Agenda last revised 8/119/97 10 atn
5. A request for a conditional use permit, to aliow for a recreational facility (skate park), on
the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle/ Vail
Lionshead First Filing. .
Applicant: Town of Vail and Vail Recreation District
Planner: Lauren Waterton
6. A request for a minor subdivision, a major exterior alteration, a common area variance
from Section 18.04.130 and a density variance from Section 18.24.130, allowing for 5
dwelling units, located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village First
Filing.
~ Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer
Planner: George Ruther
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence
to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest RoadlLot 11, Block 7, Vail
Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8,1997
8. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to
allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-
1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. •
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13,1997
9. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 Easi Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
10. Approval of July 28, 1997 and August 11, 1997 minutes.
11. Elect a 4th quarter DRB representative. (Oct. 1 st - Dec. 31 st)
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.
Communiry Development Department •
Published August 22, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
2
~ ' . : _ _
Agcnda last revised 8/26/97 10 am
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
, Monday, August 25, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
ProJect Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 11:45 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden (arrived at 2:00 pm) (left at 3:00 pm)
Galen Aasland
John Schofield
Diane Golden
Gene Uselton
Ann Bishop (arrived at 2:00 pm)
Site Visits : 12:30 pm
1. Solar Vail - 501 N. Frontage Road ,
2. Vail Vafley Medical Center - 181 West Meadow Drive
3. Lionshead Parking Structure - 395 E. Lianshead Circle '
4. Gramshammer - 231 East Gore Creek Drive 5. Hintz - 2945 Booth Creek Drive ;
~ Driver: George '
• rK';
i
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for bedroom and sunroom additions, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at
2945 Booth Creek Drive/ Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Village 11 th Filing.
Applicant: Jorgen Hintz, represented by Craig Snowdon , Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED
2. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the subdividing of two existing lots into
three lots, located at 1521 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 3& 4, The Vafley Phase V! SDD #34.
Applicant: James Flaum, represented by RKD
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: John Schafie{d SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7-0
~ APPROVED
,
~
;'TONNOFYAI~
1 r ~t,
` ~
Agenda last revised 8/26/97 10 um
3. A request for a conditionai use permit, to allow for wireless communication antennas with
accessory equipment, located at Solar Vail Condominiums, 501 N. Frontage Road/ Blk 2,
Tract C, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Western Wirefess PCS ~
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
' MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WlTH THREE CONDITIONS.
1. That the antennas be painted to blend with the hillside and the false chimneys, the
access ladder, and equipment boxes be surfaced and painted to match the
building.
I 2. That the dumpster enclosure be enlarged to accommodate the dumpster (at least
7' deeP x 10' wide) and be covered with a sloPin9 roof to Prevent the dumAster
from "creeping" out of the enclosure during the winter months. The dumpster
enclosure shall be finished and painted to match the Solar Vail building. Due to
the lack of conformance, the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed prior to any
cellular e4uiPment bein9 installed or Post a cash bond in the amount of $10,000 to
i
i ensure construction of the dumpster enclosure pnor to obtammg a buiidmg permit
for the project. The dumpster enclosure shalt be constructed within 30 days of
' building permit approval.
3. The proposed concrete slab on the east side of the building shall not be in excess
of 6' x 12'.
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of a new roof-top air
handler, located at Vail Valley IVledical Center, 181 West Meadow Drive/ Lots E&F, Vail •
Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vai! Clinic, lnc.
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS:
1. That the app(icant install a six-foot tall metal or wood screen around the perimeter
of the new roof-top air handler mechanical equipment. The screen and exhaust
' fan shall be painted the same dark brown calor that currently exists as an accent
color on the exterior of the Vail Valley Medical Center. All screening and painting
shall be completed within thirty (30) days of the installation of the new air handler
.
unit.
2. That the applicant remove all the existing roof-top mechanical equipment that is
i proposed to be eliminated as part of this request within thirty (30) days of the
instaIIation and operation of the new air handIer unit. All building areas affected
.
~ as a result of the removal process, shall be repaired and/or repainted within the
' same 30-day period. Upon the completion of the removal of the old equipment,
the applicant shall contact the Town of Vail Community Development Department
to schedule an inspection of the medical center roof-top to insure compliance with
the conditional use permit approval.
~
~
,
2 #4
. . .
. .
Agenda lasl revised 8/26/97 10 am
~ 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park), on
the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle/ Vail
Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vait and Vail Recreation District
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS:
1. That the skate park be adequately secured and closed after dark to prevent use of
the park at night.
2. That this approval is valid only for September and October, 1997. Should the
applicant wish to reinstall the skate park in the future, a new conditional use
permit must be applied for and be granted by the PEC.
6. A request for a minor subdivision, a major exterior alteration, a common area variance
from Section 18.04.130 and a density variance from Section 18.24.130, allowing for 5
dwelling units, located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village First
Filing.
Appficant: Pepi Gramshammer I
Planner: George Ruther
• MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 I
APPROVED - Minor Subdivision I
APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS - Major Exterior Alteration:
1. That the applicant use mullions in the wood windows and doors to divide the
panes of glass per the building elevation drawings and that the design be ,
approved by the Design Review Board.
2. That the applicant increase all the roof overhangs to at least three feet to increase
' the shade/shadow on the building and that a detail of the soffit and fascia be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. That the applicant submit a detail of the wood balcony pickets and railings to the
Community Development Department and that the detail be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Board.
4. That the Design Review Board to review and approve the proposed roof plan.
5. That the applicant submit a roof-top mechanical equipment plan to the Community
Development Department for review and approval prior to submitting an
application for building permit. If the Community Development Department does
not staff approve the plan, the plan shall be submitted to the Design Review
Board for review and approval.
3
Agenda last revised 9/26/97 10 am
APPROVED WITH TWO FINDINGS - Density Variance: ~
1. The strict literal interpretation of the density regulation will result in a practical
difficulty and unnecessary physicaf hardship (a (arge percentage of unbuildable lot
area due to the existence of the 100-year floodplain) inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Code.
2. There are exceptions and exiraordinary conditions (27% of the applicant's site is
prohibited from development due to the 100-year floodplain) applicable to the
applicanYs site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Commercial
Core I Zone District.
APPROVED WITH TWO FINDINGS - Common Area Variance:
1. The strict literal inierpretation of ihe common area regulation will result in a
practical difficulty (recreational amenities are difficult to provide and required
building code standards are difficult to adequately address) for the applicant which
is inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code.
, 2. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the common area regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other lodge owners in the
Commercial Core I Zone District. 7. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence
to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11, Block 7, Vail
Village 1 st Filing. •
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
8. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to
I allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-
1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. .
I Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13,1997
9. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
10. Approval of July 28, 1997 and August 11, 1997 minutes. ~
' MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-1 (John Schofield
abstained.
- 4 ,
, .
Agenda last revised 8/26/97 10 atn
• 11. Elect a 4th quarter DRB representaiive. (Oct. 1 st - Dec. 31 st) - Ann Bishop
RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNClL:
John Schofield made a motion that the PEC endorse the streamwalk concept from Vail Village to
Lionshead and that the PEC pass this recommendation on to the Town Council. John mentioned
the overwhelming support for the streamwalk in the most recent community survey.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion, with the modification that it extend from Ford Park to Vail
Village as the top priority and then from Vail Village to Lionshead as the second priority.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Ann Bishop and Gene Uselton voting against, due to the .
consideration to the streamwalk property owners not being included in the motion. Although they
both support the streamwalk concept, Gene Uselton and Ann Bishop felt that 80% of the people
whose property does not back up on the stream would be in favor of the streamwalk and due
consideration was needed for the people who were going to be immediately affected.
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 ca11479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department '
.
5
i
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 25, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration in CC1, a minor
subdivision and a variance from Section 18.24.130 (density and common area) to
- allow for the construction of 8 accommodation units, 1 condominium with a lock- _
off, 5,787 square feet of common area and 625 square feet of new retail space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek DrJPart of Lot A, Block i
5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. 'i
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg of Pierce, Segerberg, '
& Associates, is requesting a final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District (CC1), a
minor subdivision creating Pepi's Parcel, and variances from Section 1824.130 of the
~ Municipal Code to allow for the construction of a hotel addition at the Gashtof
Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Drive.
To facilitate the proposed hotef addition, a minor subdivision of the property between the
Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside Building (Pepi's Parcel) is necessary. The
applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to redefine ihe size of "Pepi's Parcel". The
minor subdivision will relocate the common property between the Creekside Building and
Pepi's Parcel. The relocation of the common property line wi{{ result in a net increase in
the square footage of the Creekside Building property by 678.5 square feeU0.0156 acres
and a net decrease in square footage of Pepi's Parcel by the same.
The hotel addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer is proposed on the existing surtace
parking area located between the Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside
Condominium Building. The addition wiil contain an underground parking structure for up
to twenty (20) vehic{es, 625 square feet of expanded retail space, 1,940 square feet of
spa/exercise facility space, eight accommodation units (3,283 sq.ft.) and one
condominium with an attached lock-off unit (1,652 sq.ft.). The total density proposed for
the project is five dwelling units, and 5,787 square feet of common area.
If. BACKGROUND
• On February 24,1997, Pepi Gramshammer, submitted an application for a major exterior
alteration and a minor subdivision to the Gasthof Gramshammer. Upon preiiminary
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
• 1
a
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 • I
prescribed in the Municipal Code.
• On April 14, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld (6-1 Bishop
opposed) an appea{ of an administrative decision regarding the applicant's proposal,
finding that,
"A private and public unstructured (surface) off-street vehicle parking is 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.
• On May 12, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession
meeting with the applicant to discuss the proposed hotel addition. The PEC was in
general agreement with the plans submitted by the applicant. The PEC indicated that the
increased density proposed by the applicant seemed reasonable, that the excess site
coverage had to be reduced to the maximum allowed by the Municipal Code, that the
applicant had to conform with the maximum height limitations, and that construction was . ,
prohibited in the Gore Creek floodplain and the 50' stream setback, unless otherwise
provided by the Municipal Code. The PEC further indicated that the proposed minor
subdivision relocating the common property line between the Gasthof Gramshammer and
the Creekside Building seemed acceptable.
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 Proposed
GRFA: 5,722 sq.ft., or 80% 5,722 sq.ft., or 80%
(includes 787 sq.ft.
of common area)
Common
•
2
.
~
~
Area: 2,003 sq.ft., or 35% 5,000 sq.ft., or 87%
of allowabie GRFA
• # of Units 4 DU's 5 DU's (1 DU & 8 AU's)
Site Coverage: 5,722 sq.ft., or 80% 5,719 sq.ft., or 80%
Landscaping: no net reduction no net reduction
in existing landscaping in existing landscaping
Parking/Loading: eleven parking spaces eleven parking spaces
& one loading berth & one loading berth
Building Height: 40% = 33' - 43' , 40% = 33' - 43'
60% = 33' or {ess 60% = 33' or less
(42.5 maximum)
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
One of.ihe 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, and therefore, this criteria has been met. The
Creekside parcel will continue to meet the lot area requirement.
B. Fron a - Each !at in the CC{ Zone District shaH 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
appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities
proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other appiicabfe documents,
effects on the aesthetics of the Town, enviranmentai integrity and compatibility with
• surrounding uses."
3
.
~
~
The subdivision purpose statements are as foliows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and . •
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
Staff Response: One 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 Response: The applicanYs 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 Building, have been developed up to their
common property lines. The Creekside 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 Response: 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 minor subdivision is in compliance with the Town of
Vail Land Use P1an.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance,
to achieve a harmonious, eonvenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent
with municipal development objectives.
Staff Response: 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.
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.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have
any adverse impacts on any of the above-described criteria.
4 •
.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures.
~ S aff Rgs,ponse: As required, the applicant has submitted a final plat prepared by
a iand surveyor licensed to practice in Colorado. The final plat shall be required to
be executed by signature of all the appropriate parties and officially recorded by
the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy af 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 Revonse: Staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision will have
any negative impacts on the above-described criteria.
i
V. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA
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 compatibiliry with the zoning code, the II
Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village ~
Design Considerations and the Vaii Comprehensive Plan. '
A. Comqliance wFth the Town af Vaii Zoning Cade
• Pursuant to Section 18.24.010 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
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on
pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building
scale and architeciural qualities that distinguish the Village."
• Staff Response:
A complete zone check was completed for the proposed Gasthof Gramshammer
addition. Staff has concluded that the proposal is in compliance with the purpose
of the CCI Zone District and the development standards prescribed for the site,
with the exception of common area and density. The applicant has requested
variances from the common area and density standards. Please see Sections I&
VI of this memorandum for details on the variance requests and staff's review of
the variance criteria and findings.
• 5
r
l
B. Comqliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Pian
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan was adopted by the Town of Vail on .
June 11, 1980. The Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of the
improvements desired for Vail Village and to guide current planning in both the
public and private sectors.
The Gasthof Gramshammer is located within the Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street
Sub-area. According to the plan, the only urban design concept affecting the
applicanYs property is the construction of the Gore Creek Streamwalk. The plan
suggests the construction of the streamwalk from Lionshead to Ford Park.
• Staff Response:
The construction of a streamwalk through the Village Core was discussed at
length during the review process of the Austria Haus SDD (1997) The result of
the discussions with Council concluded that the streamwalk did not need to be
constructed through the Village Core at this time. Staff continues to agree with
this position on the streamwalk and does not believe that an approval of the
applicanYs request should include a condition requiring the construction of the
streamwalk.
The relevant portion of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been
attached for reference.
C. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village and the
Exterior Alteration Criteria. •
• 1. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
a. PEDESTRIANIZATION
A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation
through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways.
Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans,
and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the
quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village.
Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes,
delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable
throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of
pedestrianization have been identified. The level of pedestrianization most
appropriate for the proposed Gasthof Gramshammer development is the
joint vehicle/pedestrian use of the roadway near the Children's Fountain.
• Staff Response:
Staff does not believe that pedestrianization will be negatively impacted by
the proposed development. The existing development site is currently
used for guest parking. The new addition will slightly increase the number
6 •
.
,
of vehicle trips to the Gasthof Gramshammer, but the increase should not
be detrimental to the pedestrian nature of the Village.
~ b. VEHICLE PENETRATtON
To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be
routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Viliage/Lionshead Parking
Structures.
In conjunction with pedestrian izatio n o6jectives, major emphasis is I
focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail
Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village.
Road constrictions, traffic circies, signage, and other measures are indicated '+n the Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage afl but I
essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Raad. Alternative access ,
points and private parking relocation, where feasible, shoutd be
considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village.
• Staff Response•
As discussed in Section Ii of this memorandum, on May 6, 1997, the Town '
Council approved a change of non-conforming use aliowing the applicant
to construct an underground parking structure beneath the proposed hotel
addition. The approval permits the applicant to park up to twenty (20)
• vehicles in the structure.
In addition to vehictes entering the Viilage Core to park at the Gasthof
Gramshammer, there can be an expected increase in Ioading and
deliveries to the hotei. The increase in loading and delivery is anticipated
to be proportionate to the increase in hotel use. The increase is expected
to be mininal and wi!l not negatively impact the Village Core.
- c. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK
To improve the qualiry of the walking experience and give continuity to the
pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of
improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered:
1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree
planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian
routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal
points along those routes.
2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or
new infitl development to create new commercial activity
generatars to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at
key locations along pedestrian routes.
It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core
areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets open and in a
~ somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail.
7
R
)
•v
Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both
built and landsca ed which create a stron framework f r '
p, g o pedestrian
, walks, as well as visual interest and activity. ~
, • taff Response:
The development of the site between the Gasthof Gramshammer and the
Creekside Building will better define the perimeter of the Children's
Fountain Plaza. Staff believes that by better defining the perimeter of the
Children's Fountain Plaza, the pedestrian experience in the vicinity of the
Gasthof Gramshammer will be significantly improved. Replacement of the
surtace parking lot will enhance the pedestrian character of the area and
create an improved public space.
. d. STREET ENCLOSURE
While building facade heights should not be uniform from build+ng to
building, they should provide a"comfortable" enclosure for the street.
Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the
buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety
of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the
visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules,
about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by
designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest
that:
"an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are •
approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the
ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the
height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon".
In actuai appiication, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides
of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the
_ application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both
sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure
being created.
In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable.
For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give
variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often
advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north/south direction.
Long canyon streets in an easUwest direction should generally be
discouraged.
When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration
should be given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis
to overcome the "canyon" effect.
Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a
pedesirian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and
"canyon" effect. •
8
. • Staff Response:
• The proposed addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer complies with the
building height limitations prescribed for the Village. The bui{ding has
been designed to "step down" towards the Children's Fountain and the
Creekside Building. The "stepping down" of the building insures a
comfortable pedestrian experience and does not result in an undesirable
"canyon" effect at the property line. The greatest impact of the addition
will be on the views from the residential units in the northeast corner of the
Creekside Building. The applicanYs architect has taken steps to reduce
the impact by incorporating a lower, flat roof design on the portion of the
addition nearest the neighboring residential units.
e. STREET EDGE
Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the
street.
Unlike many the Towns other zone districts, there are no standard setback
requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for
intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near
the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the
pedestrian streets.
This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A
strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectiy aligned facades
• over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few
exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and
landscaped areas, give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian
travel.
Where buitdings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used
to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree plantings, raised
sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades and raised decks.
Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering,
resfing, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due
consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and
pedestrian activity.
• Staff Response:
The street frontage of the new addition is approximately twenty feet (20') in
length and is in different horizontal and vertical planes, than the existing
Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside Building. Staff believes the
proposed addition will have positive impacts on the street frontage in the
Village.
. 9
f. BUILDING HEIGHT
Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although •
I there are also fourand five story buildings. The mix of buildmg heights .
. gives variety to tMe street, which is desirable. The height criteria are
i intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform
building heights along the street.
~ - • Staf_ f Response:
As mentioned previously, the building height of the addition complies with
the re uirements of the Munici al Code r ri
q p p esc bed for the CCI Zone
District. The 600/o/40% roof height requirement for the Village results in
variations in heights and massing of the addition.
~
I g. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of
I the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders
to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are
orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide
important orientation references and visual foca( points. The most
significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of
Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted
should not be considered exhausted. When evaluating a development
proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on
public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major ~
pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain,
the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other
important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of
place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by
~ ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an
aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for
pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any
_ adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted
corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether
affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed
development on views from public ways and public spaces must be
identified and considered where appropriate.
• S#aff Response:
The proposed hotel addition does not encroach into any of the five
adopted view corridors in the Village, nor will it obstruct views from public
spaces to any major visual focal points. To a limited degree, the addition
will block the existing view from the Children's Fountain Plaza area north
to Gore Creek. Overall, staff believes the proposal complies with the view
point criteria.
10 •
I
~
,
h. SERVICE AND DELIVERY
• Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service
alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely
important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use
of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except
where functional afternatives are not provided.
In all new and remodefed construction, delivery which avoids or reduces
' impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever
practical, for immediate or future use. Rear access, basement and below
ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection
increases delivery efficiency substantially.
Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village
(Sitzmark/Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village inn).
Consideration should be given to extending these corridors, where
feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or
remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future
system.
• Staff Response:
Presently, trash from the Gasthof Gramshammer is picked up from a fully-
screened trash enclosure on the west side of the building, south of the
front entry. Food service deliveries to the restaurant are made directly
~ from Gore Creek Drive. The appiicant is not proposing a change to the
existing delivery and trash removaf plans. Staff believes the existing plan
functions as well as can be expected given the central Iocation of the
Gasthof Gramshammer in the Village, and we do not see a reason to
amend the plan as a result of the proposed addition.
i. SUN / SNADE
- Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important corrifort factor, especially
in winter, falf and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures
substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the
warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below
comfortab{e levels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas.
All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring
and fall shadow line (March 21 - September 23) on adjacent properties or
the public right-of-way.
In all bui4ding construction, shade shalf be considered in massing and
overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations
are not intended to restrict building height aUowances, but rather to
influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be
granted to meet this criteria.
~ 11
r
• Staff Res onse_:
Due to the location of the addition and the existing conditions of the site, •
staff did not require the completion of a sun/shade analysis. Staff does
not anticipate any negative impacts to the sun/shade locations in the
Viflage as a resuit of the hotel addition.
2 ARCHITECTURAIJLANDSCAPE CONS{DERATIONS.
a. R F
Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural
elements in any built environment. In the Village, roof form, color and
texture are visibly dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify
the building diversiry to a great degree.
The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a
consistently un+fying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian
streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or
distract visually from the overall character.
Roof Forms
Roofs within the Village are rypically gable in form and of moderate-to-low
pitch. Shed roofs are frequently useci for smati additions to larger
buildings. Free-standing shed roafs, butterfiy roofs and flat roofs, can be i
found in the Viltage, but they are generally considered to be out of
character. Hip roofs likewise, are rare and genera(ly inconsistent with the
, character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and
pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local vernacular-
style which should be respected.
• taff Res onse:
The roof form of the Gasthof Grasmshammer additiori has been revised
several times from what was originally proposed. The original roof design
had significantly more sloping roof area than flat roof area. The majority of
flat roof area has been added to insure the addition complies with the
building height restrictions (60/40 ratio) and to preserve views out of the
neighboring residential units.
Pitch
Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3/12 to 6/12, with slightly
steeper pitches in limited applications. Again, for visual consistency this
general 3/12-6/12 range should be preserved.
• $taff Res oa nse:
The pitch of the sloping portions of the roofs on the proposed Gastof
Gramshammer addition is 5.5/12 and is in compliance with this guideline.
•
12
Q-ve-rhanor?
• Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in
the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments.
Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Specific
design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways
adjacent to buildings. Snow slides and runoff hazards can be reduced by
roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc.
Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation.
Structural elements such as roof beams are expressed beneath the
overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof.
• Staff Response:
Staff suggests that the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the
addition where possible. Currently, the overhangs vary from two feet to
three feet. Staff would like to see all the roof overhangs at least three feet.
Staff will review this consideration with the Design Review Board.
Com ositions
The intricate roofscape of the ViNage as a whole is the result of many
individual simple roof configurations. For any single building a varied, but
simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a
. complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become more
complex, the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and
the total roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop
composition.
• Staff Response:
The roof form on the Gasthof Gramshammer addition would be considered
a grouping of a simple composition of roof planes. Staff believes the roof
composition proposed by the applicant is consistent with the intent of this
architectural consideration.
Stegped Roofs
As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof
steps should be made where the height change will be visually significant.
Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional,
and out of character with the more straight-forward roof design typical in
the Village.
• Staff Response:
The development site is relatively flat (by Vail siandards). While the
building does not need to step to follow the topography, vertical and
horizontal steps have been incorporated into the roof design. The vertical
~ 13
and horizontal steps provide a reduction in the overall mass of the building
and add to the architectural and visual interest of the addition. .
Materials
Wood shakes, wood shingles, and built-up tar and gravel are almost
exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. For visual consistency,
any other materials should have the appearance of the above.
• Staff Res onse:
The applicant is proposing to wood shakes on the sloping portions of the
roof of the addtion and gravel on the flat portions. The staff believes these
are appropriate roof materials to use on this project.
Construction Common roof problems and design considerations in this climate include:
- snowslides onto pedestrian walks
- gutters freezing
- roof dams and water infiltration
- heavy snow loads
Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as
familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and
Town ordinances. •
For built-up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For
shingle roofs, pitches of 4/12 or shallower often result in ice dams and
backflow leakage under the shingles.
Cold-roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm-roof benefits for
a specific application can be demonstrated. Cold-roofs are double-roofs
_ which insulate and prevent snow melt from internal building heat. By
retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced.
Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the
design.
Roof gutters tend to ice-in completelY and become ineffective in the Vail
climate, especially in shaded north-side locations. Heating the interior
circumference with heat-tape elements or other devices is generally
necessary to assure adequate run-off control in colder months.
• Staff Response:
Through the review of a building permit, staff will ensure that the roof
construction complies with the standards prescribed for the Vail climate.
14 •
b. FACADES
• M ri I
Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in
the Village. Whife not wishing to restrict design freedom, existing
conditions show that within this small range of materials much variation
and individuality are possible while preserving a basic harmony. Too many
diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the
streetscape.
Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material.
Most of the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are
virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to
preserve the dominance of stucco by its use in portions, at least, of all new
facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion
of stucco in any sub-area within the Village.
• Staff Response:
The exterior materials proposed for the Gasthof Gramsahmmer addition
are a combination of stone, stucco and wood. No one material is
proposed to dominate the exterior of the addition. Staff believes the
applicant has complied with this particular architectural consideration. ~
Color
~ There is greater latitude in the use of calor in the Vi{{age, but still a
discernible consistency within a general range of colors. ,
For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - i
browns, greys, blue-greys, dark olive, slate-greens, etc. Stucco colors are
generally light - white, beige, pale-gold, or other light pastels. Other light '
colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case-by-case basis.
Bright colors (red, orange, b{ues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for
major walf planes, but can be used effectively (with restraint) for
decorative trim, walf graphics, and other accent elements.
Generally, to avoid both "busyness," and weak visual interest, the variety
of major wall colors should not exceed four, nor be less than two.
A color/material change between the ground floor and upper floors is a
common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street.
• Staff Resnonse•
The applicant has proposed an exterior bui{din9 color that is comPatible
with the color of the existing building and with the buildings in the vicinity
of the Gasthof Gramshammer. Staff would like to point out that the
applicant is required to obtain Design Review Board (DRB) approval prior
to construction, and that any concerns of the PEC on this topic will be
brought to the attention of the DRB.
~
15
Transparency
Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the •
openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground .
floor facade of adjacent buifdings. Transparent store fronts are "people
attractors," opaque or solid waiis are more private, and imply "da not
approach."
- On pedestrian-oriented streets such as in the Vfilage, ground fioor
commercial facades are proportionately more transparent than upper
floors. Upper floors are typically more residential, private and thus less
open.
As a measure of transparency, the most characterist+c and successful
ground floor facades range from 55°lo to 74% of the totai fength of the
commercial facade. Upper floo'rs are often the converse, 30%-45°!0
transparent.
Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet oi facade) on
ground level.
- Covered Bridge Buiiding 58%
- Pepi's Sports 71 °Io
- Gasthof Gramshammer 48%
- The Lodge 66°10
- Golden Peak House 62%
- Casino Building 30% ~
- Clock Tower Building 51 %
- Austria Haus 55%
• Staff Res ou nse:
Win w
In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an
important souree of pedestrian scale-giving elements. The size and shape
of windows-are often a respanse to the function of the adjacent street. For
close-up, casual, pedestrian viewing, windows are typically sized to human
dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass-wall store-
~ fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of
intimate pedestrian sca(e is diminished). Ground floor display windows are
typically raised slightly 18 inches ± and do not extend much over 8 feet
above the walkway level. Ground floors, which are noticeably above or
i below grade, are exceptions.
~ The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving
~ pedestrian scale (human-related dimensions). Glass areas are usually
i subdivided to express individual window elements - and are further
i subdivided by mullions into sma41 panes - which is responsible for much of
the old-world charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are most often
clustered in banks, juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing
i rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements, especially over ~
long distances, should be avoided.
' 16
i
i
i
Large single pane windows occur in the ViNage, and provide some
contrast, as long as they are generally consistent in form with other
• windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, bow and box
windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to
facades - and are encouraged.
Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or other metal frames are
not consistent in the Village and should be avaided. Metal-clacf or plastic-
clad wood frames, having the appearance of painted wood have been
• used successfully and are acceptable.
- • Staff Response:
The proposed addition has no commercial space located along the street
frontage, and therefore, has no street-fevel pedestrian-oriented glass. The
windows on the upper floors wi11 be wood with mUllions to divide the panes
of glass. Staff believes the use of wood windows with mullions adds to
the architectural charm and visual integrity of the Gasthof Gramshammer.
Staff recommends that the use of mullions in the windows be a condition
of approval.
Doors
Like windows, doors are important to character and scale-giving
architectural elements. They should also be samewhat transparent (on
retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing with windows and I~
• other facade elements.
Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transparency. Due to the
visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat
more effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades.
Although great variations exist, 25-30% ± transparency is felt to be a
minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants,
and other non-retail establishments have different visibility and character
- needs, and doors should be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are
also a means of introducing door-transparency as a complement or
substitute for door windows.
Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors,
light aluminum frames, plastic applique efements aff are considered
inappropriate. As an expression of entry, and sheltered welcome,
protected entry-ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed,
extended, or covered.
• Staff Response:
Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described
criteria.
Trim
Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly
~ at ground floor levels, doors and windows have strong, contrasting framing
17
elements, which tie the various elements together in one composition.
Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass-wall ~
detailing for either is typically avoided.
• Staff Res op nse:
Staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the above-described
criteria.
c. DECKS AND PATIOS
Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people
to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally
contribute to the liveliness of a busy street-making a richer pedestrian
experience than if those streets, were empty.
• Staff Res oR nse;
The Gasthof Gramshammer already has one of the most successful and
popular dining decks in the Village. The proposed addition will have no
negative impact on the existing deck. No new dining decks or patios are
proposed with this application.
d. BALCONIES
Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Viflage which have at ieast a •
second level facade wall. As strong repetitive features they:
. - give scale to buildings.
- give life to the street (when used).
- add variety to building forms.
- provide shelter to pathways below.
• Staff Response: ,
The majority of the balconies (decks) on the Gashtof Gramshammer
addition are located on the south, west and north sides of the building.
The balconies are for the use of the guests of the Gasthof Gramshammer
and not the general public.
Calor
They contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim
colors.
• Staff Response-
Like the exterior colors of the building, the DRB will be reviewing this
aspect of the proposal.
~
18
ize
~ They extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow
pattern. Balconies in Vail are functional as will as decorative. As such,
they should be of useable size and located to encourage use. Balconies
less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in shade,
not oriented to views or street life.
• Staff Response:
- Staff believes this criteria has been met.
Mass
They are commonly massive, yet semi-transparent, distinctive from the
building, yet allowing the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid
balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be too dominant obscuring
the building architecture. Light balconies lack the visuat impact which ties
the Village together.
• Staff Response: I
The baiconies on the addition are proposed to be semi-transparent in 'appearance.
M eri I
~ Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members
are the most dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative
wrought iron balconies are also consistent visually where the vertical
members are cfose enough to create semi-transparency. Pipe rails, and
plastic, canvas or glass paneis should be avoided.
- Staff Res onse:
The material to be used in the construction of the balconies on the addition
will be wood, with vertical structural members. A detail of the railing will
be reviewed by the DRB.
e. ACCENT ELEMENTS
The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of
accent elements which give calor, movement and contrast to the Village.
Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are
encouraged, such as:
Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors.
Flags, banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even
across streets for special occasions.
Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios.
Annual color flowers - in beds or in planters.
~
19
Accent lighting- buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even
Christmas lights all winter). ~
Painted wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, compositions,etc.
Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer
character.
• Staff Res nse:
Accent lighting on the building, annual flowers in flower boxes are
proposed to provide colorful accent elements on the Gasthof
Gramshammer addition. It is anticipated the new addition will be•accented
and appointed as well, if not better than, the existing lodge.
f. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
. Landscape considerations include, and go beyond, the placement of
appropriate plant materials.
- plant materials
- paving
- retaining walls
- street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.)
- lighting
- signage
Plant Materials
Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a ~
premium on the plant selection and design of the sites that do exist.
Framework planting of trees and shrubs should include both deciduous
and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest.
Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are c{early best able to
withstand the harsh winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its
_ mountain setting.
• Staff Response:
A landscape plan has been submitted by the applicant. The proposed
landscape design takes into consideration factors such as the location of
the plantings (sun/shade), maintenance, climate, etc. Staff believes the
landscape design for the Gasthof Gramshammer addition complies with
the above-described criteria and will be reviewed by the DRB.
P vin
' The freeze/thaw cycle at this altitude virtually eliminates common site-cast
' concrete as a paving surface (concrete spall). High-strength concrete may
work in selected conditions. Asphalt, brick (on concrete or on sand), and
concrete block appear to be best suited to the area.
In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the •
adjacent public right-of-way. The Town uses the following materials for all
new construction:
20
- asphalt: generai use pedestrian streets
~ - brick on concrete: feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.)
• Staff Resaanse:
The paving material used in the public areas around the addition wi11 be
the "Vai4 blend", concrete unit paver, laid in the "Vaif-pattern" (herringbone)
with a double soldier course edge. These surfaces will be heafed and will ~
include the access ramp to the parking structure and the front entry drop- '
off area.
Re aining Wails
Retaining walls, to raise planting areas, often protects the landscape from
pedestrians and snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities:
Two types of materials are already well established in the Village and
should be utilized for continuity:
- split-face moss rock veneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typ+cal).
. - rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not
already estabiished nearby.
• S#aff Response:
~ Landscape retaining walls are proposed in the construction of the Gasthof
Gramshammer. The new landscape retaining walls will match the existing
walls in terms of both type of materials, and application.
Li htin
Light standards shou4d be coordinated with those used by the Town in the
public right-of-way.
• Staff Response:
No streetscape lighting is required with this request.
Siongge
Refer to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance.
• Staff Response:
No new signs are proposed with this application
D. omoliance with the Town of Vail Streetscane 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.
~
21
E. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan
Vaii Viliage 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 Pian
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 applicanYs 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 Objective: 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 Objective: , - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-
term, overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 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.
22 ~
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 Policy: 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 watking
experience throughout the Village.
3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the
greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 Policv: Vehicufar traffic wi11 be eliminated or reduced to
absolutely minima{ necessary levels in the
pedestrianized areas of the Village.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the ,
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. -
5.1 Qbiective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities. a
5.1.3 Policy: Seek locations for additional structured public and ~
• private parking.
5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly
encouraged to provide underground or visually .
conceated parking.
5.2 (Jbjective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the
use of private automobiles throughout Vaii.
52:2 Policv: The Town shall facilitate and encourage the
operation of private shuttle vans outside of the
pedestrianized core area.
5.3 Objectivg: Concentrate the majority of interconnecting transit activity
at the periphery of the Village to minimize vehicular traffic in
pedestrianized areas.
5.3.1 Policy; 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.
• 23
. _ I
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development. . '
6.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police
and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically
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 I
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. TFiis 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 and adoption of the
Vail Village Master Plan. As discussed in Section II of this memorandum, the Vail Town
Council approved a request by the applicant to change an existing non-conforming use (a
surface parking area), 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 ~
proposing eleven parking spaces in the underground structure.
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 properry to achieve a pedestrian link between the Covered Bridge pocket .
park and the Gore Creek Promenade. However, the timing on the construction of the
streamwalk, if it is ever to occur, is uncertain.
A Building Height Plan is an element of the Vail Vi!lage Master Plan. The goaf 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 ptan 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
I and the Town Council.
24 .
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 Streamwaik Study Area. The area is identified
as an area to stutly 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 42. ,
VI. QFNSITY and COMMON AREA VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested density and
common area variances. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: '
A. Consideration of Factors: '
1, The retationship of the requested variance to other existing or I
• potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Density:
The Gasthof Gramshammer is located in the center of Vail Village. The
majority of the area defined as Vail Village is zoned Commercial Core I.
As previousiy mentioned, the intent of the Commercial Core I Zone District
is to provide sites in Town for lodges and commercial establishments.
StafF believes the applicant's request for a density variance wi11 have a
positive relationship with the other existing or potential uses in the vicinity
of the Gasthof Gramshammer. The increased density will provide
additional quality lodging opportunities for guests of Vail, and will
therefore, further many of the Vail Viliage Master Plan Goals and
Objectives. Increased lodging opportunities benefits the merchants of Vail
particularily and the Town generalfy.
Common Area:
The staff does not believe that the common area variance request will
have any negative impacts on the potential or existing uses and structures
in the vicinity of the Gasthof Gramshammer.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
• to attain the objectives of this titfe without grant of special privilege.
25
i
Density:
According to Section 18.24.130 of the Municipai Code of the Town of Vail, •
tha maximum ailowable density for the proposed development site is four
(4) dwelling units (25 dwelling units per buiidable acre X 0.1642 buildable
acres). The applicant is proposing to construct eight (8) accommodation
units and one (1) dwelling unit. For density calculation purposes, an
accommodation unit counts as 1/2 of a dwelling unit. Therefore, the
applicant is proposing five (5) dwelling units [(8 A.U. x 1/2) + 1 D.U.)].
The applicanYs lot is significantly impacted by the 100-year floodplain.
Approximately 27°l0 or 2,622.5 square feet of the lot is located within the
floodplain, and therefore, unbuildable pursuant to Seciton 18.69.040 of the
Municipal Code. Staff believes that the floodplain is a physical hardship
. and that relief from the density regulation should be granted. Staff
believes the request to increase the allowable density on the property to
five dwelling units is reasonable and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare. The applicant is not requesting any additional
density beyond that which would otherwise be permitted if the entire lot
were buildable. The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum
amount of relief necessary in order to achieve compatibi{ity and uniformity
among sites zoned Commercial Core I.
Common Area:
Pursuant to Section 18.04.130(B) of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail, commons area is defined as, in part, .
"The areas excluded from calculation as GRFA including:
1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking.
2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such
spaces are common spaces and that the total
square footage of all the spaces does not exceed
_ thirty-five percent (35°!0) of the allowable GRFA on
the lot.
a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator
shafts and airlocks;
b. Common lobby areas;
c. Common enclosed recreation facilities;
d. Common mechanical equipment space;
e. Common closets and storage areas;
f. Meeting and convention facilities;
g. Office space."
Based upon the common area definition, the maximum allowable common
area in the proposed hotel addition is 35% of the allowable GRFA on the
lot or 2,003 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct
approximately 5,787 square feet of common area. The majority of the
common area proposed in the new hotel addition is to accommodate a
26 ~
new recreational facility. According to the applicant, the recreational
facility wifl serve as an amenity to the guests ot the lodge. Currently, no
~ recreational facililty amentities are available to the guests of the Gasthof
Gramshammer. The remaining common area square footage is allocated
to accommodating stairways, storage, hallways, mechanical rooms and
offices.
The staff has worked with the applicant and his representative to minimze
the amount of common area necessary. Several spaces within the
proposed addition have been reduced in size or eliminated with the intent
of minimizing the common area square footage. Staff believes the
applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the common '
area regulation necessary to achieve compatibility amongst the applicanYs ,
lot and other properties in the Commercial Core I Zone District. Staff '
further believes that similar to the density variance request, the common I
area variance is warranted due to the physical hardship of the floodplain
and its impacts on the development standard percentages. '
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. `I
The proposed variances will have little, if any, effect on these factors. ~
B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the fiollowina findin4s I
before grantina a v~riance: I
• 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulaiion would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same s+te of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
~
27
Vil. STAFF RE MM D `
CO EN ATION:
Minor Subdivision: •
The Community Development Department Staff recommends approval of the of the I
applicanYs request for a minor subdivision to redefine the size of "Pepi's Parcel" and to '
relocate the common property line to both Pepi's Parcel and the Creekside Building. ,
Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon our review of the request as outlined
in Section IV of the memorandum.
.
Majar Exterior Alteration:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a
major exterior afteration in Commercial Core I to the Gasthof Gramshammer. The
recommendation for approval is based upon the stafYs review of the major exterior ~
' alteration criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum. Staff believes the applicant
has met each of the criteria.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the
major exterior alteration request, staff would recommend the folfowing conditions:
1. That the applicant use mullions in the wood windows and doors to divide the
panes of glass per the building elvation drawings and that the design be approved
by the Design Review Board.
, 2. That the applicant increase all the roof overhangs to at least three feet to increase
the shade/shadow on the building and that a detail of the soffit and fascia be •
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. That the applicant submit a detail of the wood balcony pickets and railings to the
Community Development Department and that the detail be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Board.
4. That the Design Review Board to review and approve the proposed roof plan.
5. That the applicant submit a roof-top mechanical equipment plan to the Community
~ Development Department for review and approval prior to submitting an
application for building permit. If the Community Development Department does
not staff approve the plan, the plan shall be submitted to the Design Review
Board for review and approval.
Density Variance:
The Communiry Development Department recommends approval of the applicanYs
i request for a density variance to allow for an increase in density from four dwelling units
to five dwelling units. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staff's review
of the variance criteria and findings outlined in Section VI of this memorandum. The staff
believes that the density variance should be granted since the granting of the variance
will not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant, nor will the granting of the
' variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or will it be materially
injurious to other properties in the vicinity of the Gasthof Gramshammer. The staff
believes the density variance is warranted for the following reasons: .
28
f. The strict literal interpretation of the density regulation will result in a practical
difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship (a large percentage of unbuildable lot
~ area due to the existence of the 100-year floodplain) inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Code.
2. There are exceptions and extraordinary conditions (27% of the applicanYs site is
prohibited from development due to the 100-year flaodplain) applicabie to the
applicanYs site that do not app{y generally to other properties in the Commercial
Core I Zone Distrfct.
Common Area Variance:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the
applicant's request for a common area variance to allow for an increase in
cammon area from 35% of aliowable GRFa to 87% of allowable GRFA within the
Gasthof Gramshammer addition. The recommendation for approvai is based
upon the staff's review of the variance criteria and findings outlined in Section VI
of this memorandum. The staff finds that the common area variance should be i
granted, since we believe that the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege to the applicant, nor will the granting of the variance be ~
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or will it be materiaHy injurious i
to other properties in the Village. The staff believes that the granting of the ~
common area variance is warranted for the following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation of the common area regutation will result in a I
practical difficulty (recreational amenities are difficult to provide and
required building code standards are difficult to adequately address) for ~
~ the applicant which is inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code.
2. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the common area regulation
wouid deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other lodge owners in
the Commerciaf Core 1 Zone District.
~
29
FINAL PLAT
0
. ~ CREEKSIDE CONDQMINIUMS - GASTHOF GRAMSHAMMER
A RESUBDIVISiON OF CREEKSiDE CONDOMiNIUMS, LOTS e,f,g,h,i, AND PART OF LOT a, BLOCK 5-B
SuBJEC% SITE .
VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILINC, TDWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
_.~=~x .
~ , .
o • . ~ .
n . K....,..o.....d. » „ b
~aee.. eS 4J0~ eawr. ai t(t% w, ei i~a i~... ~ ~.ww frw
-
tt~11r1~~~1 ~...v~.x,v..w'« ~
"
. "
. a xs~<.no- «rt ~.w.en.n . _ e _ . s
n..w. ,
, -y;~.v ,
r.,w s..a, u.n. w.. n...w.. o..~r c. r n
_ . ...~.a+wa.» .
e-
" a
~a...au~. w. ~ w...wn., ova~ « w..wm
rw e....~. t :e.~.~ws w ?
~s
,
Gi~-NO. fa..~w ~r re~~w~ . " _ _ _ " " • t+rt M +i a.a r. .
wNau.~~...
n!
s .
fYr•ra +w•~."•••
~w~~~' R•ywee"i
~n• Ma. ~~M ir rre t~~ ~~r N [.v~r fe~vs+e. rM ~~Ki Y~i.• !C I:a% b4-~ N~ :
M bera~
" . .
tan e a n, facw 1-1. ~~.~yr ~,.r ti~.i, 2>r ! lvr f.r« b.w • av>rn.e S•~~t !f.Pll~tt 6 EB.J .R 4r .~n e ~0.
.s Ca~swe C~~~~~~>:•~~ wf~w. b~pp
Gs+~~. [~IS~e n~ CD ~~c]B @n+• V ...............r iw.,~n r~ry N~..v~.n.. er ?
~r.._..."_""..___"....._".
w~ e~ . i
, .p
Im p ,
Ma rrto~M ~n bb 211. ssI li Im~ Pt). Po{M~ b. :v.•~ •w~ . 1. CY ta/m~~+.un • 2 UMM1 ~~wrt
t~t. M1p Nv xn N~.<. er ~~v [qri Cwi. Ce~r~A t~r.~ :a~, W w+~.~e ~,xe'+q fto ~ t?~
<s ~w w 2 . ~
r~e~•.+ . .ecrws )m. tl:. ~O 22~ J .
~;.~ir~ •..~rf~ -i w.a e+~ r+r
,a'•"'-"• - [o~e-~~e. Cir~a ma M~vr
M . '
Yy~~n~~Y ~t wtMn~~~~ :s~e~ ei w e (r~wf • M11~~: Ts rrw~ . -
»
~ ' . la~n• a ~~'N w~' • ~~'ew
pern~ M 4rM.4 CwV ~.~n+. u~mtr. nwt.n0 v.> C^M~.~ rrepa;+¢ .~repn Mvr ~r • s. d ~
tn ra~lo-.. ~n ~wv~ mr ~sw~ ~ ~,r 1re ..~~.w•t ws u~e
CwM~n~~nt. ~r.i~
.a..
e• w,>w .p e.~.~a..
o-.. M
. ~
.
a -
...~..o... .c o~.
3»~11'0~ H1~'~0'C ISt.St ~wt t:} M o~~t'. tr 0 IM n~. i. t~r n. „ ~ t M e r~ sro.
• u .m ~x n u..: ~e o-. ,r«..n<r-,.
~
H~.y
w..
~w >
..r ~o.. -r»r « i.~
r i.. u.~. s.~. .~~ww .,o,v w c.......~ . . . ^
.e....w t i..~:~
».b.~~ u.. m«~aie:.. u`•.i ww:~ e'9.'n.. ~o K,..,~ w
ce..... ~q t«s.,...... .~:>...o.. ~ . ~
...m..n..i~ .w« w r . e.- .r... ..o.... + m ~.:~~W e e w. > r....
. ..n.> . .
.
tiw Or~e uwM r«o-w~ Nv e~~ie~ v~ w fe0:~ fv<r. +ae..~ ~r~.~ w~w~e~ ~~r n~~e~ ~M
h~ N . • 0
Celr~l, ~rh Mnu. ~1
ua Ir[>wi vy ae ~nre•~~ ~~~r ar Vrr~a bt~.~ ~u~.e Cmr~w a.s IM..
w~~Camw t~'N~ [uew~..iuw. Sn'~1'N'v Y K rer~. .
it~tt Q....._""..__"_'.»~ " Ms:~ ~qey
' ~
uy w~~ U~ H>•1~'~0'( N.A ~ee~~ w ~e~i~.~.0 Sr~rt Y. Mr~~~
b
O_'_.'...'."."". Ryr~~ O
Y~~ 1~ tai~ ~tw-txP^I ~vn e~~v ~Ka. ~y < e t ~pw Mrr H fr ~ e - -
p Me~~ ~.~s
2~'S~'t1'. w1 ~~ws-I~ Mt Mvs Sfl'Y'!~'C 1v.~) ~nf. b W-....."--..."~"". ~ f~.. ~ w~ )rr rwRe••u t.u++~ n p~~Y~V~rVo-~ r.r M'M _ 3
. x..a ~ ,.tt v......__..._.._~
SN•~f•t1•t R Y~r~t~ t~ FS r~~ .~up M. er r~vw rs. a • e 1
~e W.~{nt, ti...0 ~ nii.n N ~P.N lert. ~ tnnri ~.yy vr Ca+:~~,a ~ro- •n ~v
~~•4V'If'. «Y ~<~w~ Wa NYa Su•!~'N'v fi ~rr~: p w.ueaa Y~a+e sw v+~ :w.~f.a .w~-e~ LWr~. 6
tn.• .
~ 9..a-~.. .~....:w - a:•'< - e °
-
.,.:~b.. u.~ - . . . u..,~..
w... ~w•»~u•~ n w r«~. er.~c «o...~.q ..,e wu..,. s~.r<>.. . _ _ ~o..,...P .
,
.u•n~a•v a x +n.~.:n~ma:. u n r..~ rnwn v
b~M wu~n~~~er~~ <»w N H~~ 4MS•~ ln1w.~.vv~ Iw ~srM••0 w CQh~. y _
t r«~•
~
• ~
H~aw1Y N w~~Grh~~ twa~a,w I~ S)1•Ii wr ae t~IN. ~~r R4
wr.>i
n~f .
~~~a. C>.~~.> rro..rs
r~ rs. , a ere ~~c~
wn.~ ee~
..'i:a.. .
e+a si
~
'•.s r~.a~ o~~~ .s+b~ ~[p
~[.rni:w CmM.niu.r ~ G~~re~ G~.t+~.~r'. • . as~...t~..~v wr er _ ~
~.e ryn eI G~swa. ~.M~.~~.m f•~i[ R......
r~~ i. Qir Centy. r~~ wa wr~q ~atM+ t-.
ye~i~e.~i~~ •s ..wi.ra .ve.mn~.. [M~r V ~
St~•f C.._.._.. •
+rNry ws~ts~r ~na ~~t ~w~t t~~ W 1'+ p.e~.< rtea~
ws sMn m tv
~na 01rw Mli[ .Yre•ne~~~ ?1 P~urs liv ~e-pas.Q .~a~.w~~ .a ~~ay! Mla: v . tAf`~ p
~<tsp.>.W O~~e te tN ~f~ e( 1r~ M~~c er~.r. awt •~ct+a. . 4[~.r
...w. ,.oa..e~.~a, a ..u..u wm~.~, e• . e ~w.. s ~ . . .
w..<n.
e.. m
,«..>.y..,.~ ...n,e.~..w :,p.e.
n n..~.,~e. n
~i. ww« .w~ ~..w,: ee.. ~+~•n r.., .o .m..... . r . : . . , ~a...«
,..an ..w..~...~. ,.......r ~~.Kw... ~.......~.r . v........e e,....,
~.c>.s..a..o....
r.+ cnn.run n uas euo
ww.,. m.
.e..., < .b..< <
....,w.. k ~..»r ~«..n ~
_ .a.~...
..~~.w m,. w. _ . surc a.
a s... .,e o+ne„ ~
'
_ . .
~a»~. s~.•~ n . , wp .n e,.r.~. r,..~ a,~.. ..l . . .
_
ha'. i S.~ttri na•<~ I S.~~rr. rra ey.q...p ...~.w n~r.pr~ ~pv~ r
•Y~r~r',_._.'.." Ys~fv'".Il-------------
Ilrcule.~. it ext~wd 9 ~r Mr. ~
Hf or ~ .
W[m.~t~.w rw~r~~ +r ~e+,~~•e~ ~.or.r~ ttfp ~rE RCP9Ce-S C<~ilrit~~!
M
ar~~ na.a ..s r~i
..~,~s~ nr ro.n ~w
wr~~
~ . ?
~er~~~.._...."""'"'""""....... ts va w. ? < e.a . h
tew~~, at ^
" snrt n._ •,a ~
;
s..r~ v_._...'_"""_~
v""~e.".,.., aw... y <o..~, a
.
w..~•.......,'_"_""" ......:=::k;::::..._.. .
:Y~ASVETNC~'~R~ eie;;,....
. , . . :,i• , ~
~
• ~ ~ .
FtNAL PLAT
CREEKSIDE CONDOMINIUMS - GASTHOF GRAMSHAMMER
A RESUBDIVISION OF CREEKSIDE CONDOMINIUMS, LOTS e,f,g,h,i, AND PART OF LOT a, BLOCK 5-B
VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING, TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
GORE LHEEN
f~
CAFE CREEN
SCA_C 20'
l0T 0, BIOCI[ 5-8 w . . . , in ~.e.
~ wc ~ • ni ~ .
~ r.K"ena-~w. i~~-f. a~.ra. '"-::<roi"s~- I
PMCEI
, '
, ~ .
~ -
_ ~
.
. casnco awaE
„ CONOCEI~MIWS
, .
~
x.. ~
. . , s ......w . . rU '
• . a.a~s r
~ COCOOKSOE
~r
ior a •Y x..,. ..~,,.a. w~.r. ao-.. a
. , . w..oi ~ ro..
, s xea~ov' w _r ...e o~
c. . um . a. ~
M ~ ~
4 .
~b-
~ _ >\'p h -e~veo _s I<tis
~~+y 5'~~~ y CAS11f0i
G(NIISMWbER I~I ~ 1~W ~ 4i[T
GIRC[l
l ~ ww R~~ `22~ ~Itz~S^I.
, . . x ( `d~ ^ • .s • .a.c... ~a+~e.a t2lews t ~cY ?ra c'OxfM
w. . ~ Cos~rvr 4r..en»r ..~e~ 2)~ Go~ > .r
. . . - 5 N'"YV R
• ~ GSOI'I1 l. f41
11 . {tf.lf i . ~1m
u~ GONE CNF£K ONNE (b') ca . 5 w'ftW r ~s.a)
n . i ~ror~r . :x.ro
,
ES4tf-~-vAEiE'fs~lrE~Yltls~-OtE:~. - - . ~
_ _ . . . . . ~ . . . . _ a~z
na«,
t
Artbktctg
. I.C.•AJA.
~tt~snRUtt
YNtM~r~1M
~4A~m
orw a/~r
nna.[~WYf1 '
~I
I
• 1~ ~ W
l~ • ' , /
u. Q
O
~ ,b,~T~' OOVEr" ..WM OOfO01Q.UK.
CFAUuCME wnbaa
\
Mhiae:
F
1~M0 _-io ~tYJ y
P
~
~~y ccrek~aY e~+
rwLbuY
P+» _ ~ ~1i4
ew~rFlr,
' ~R a•~ c.axrt sei+e
D~1e. 1 / N ) ~I
~ICIK
~ SITE;PLAN
_
~ a
i oc~
1
a
• i ~
~
SeLtcbni
N~ecU
T.c.•ni~. ,
H~ 1
Fl~
r r ~
~ f 1 ~l sa'-t ~ ' Q
.
~ ~
( ou /I
;
y
~ ~ 1'} ~1~~.. •
Ir
` e~ 1 'i ~ 9 ~ fFt
i ~ . } 1r A.,,f ~
FTON- ~ M _
PA~KnNC' ~Kf~'iE
r•-~-
_ - ~ •
~ - ~
~ .
~
I
f
pkfce' !
d
M heete
P.C-•A.IA.
~~awrtRU~t
~lAMN1~E
Mi~a1Rt
wlf++l~tl~
/ \ ,dwrv0lw,~~T]
ci:
ui
~ ( ~ ~ O
°'"a 0 Q
.IM,.0 sr.,,,"O. a
.
.
JWNK
;41 ~ i poid-
~
>
- ~
axe~+r %
09,'
up t L,-N-r, ~
~ ; - - - ~
- , ~ -
rh
nne: aiwin
LEVEL 7'WO FLOOR PLAN °r"" °j
; ,1 Y~•_i._o• C~u~N A"
( 7- p
~ o~..... 3
~
,
• s ~ .
~
~
m
,u na
~.f.•A.I.A.
MfICN~t
•~~LIImIwG
mrz~q~s
m.~.fJwr~A
1
~
~
, • v~~, z
E 7
~
i
. 1
NO!}}~ Ons: i i a. i n
~roiea ~o
- t.EvEL tttReE FLooR Pt.Av
) 9.a a
t o~...w. 4
{
~
~ ~e t
~.C.•A.I.A. ' claTtCiu~e ~
?•IIAlInP1l.
. f~~ M1~ti 11~ r~
Rnw.C,+W
lytumf
~ I
a
a
CC 'c
" c
o a
I! I- ~ ¢
i
i7 r` i
~ Mbiw.
I
~/oR on<~ i n
~4 naK~ ~
Dn.a A: ~
LE17F.1. FOUR FI.OOR PLAN c~W b,
~ - - - -
,
• • " • .
~
7.C.•A~~' I
~ c
• ~ ~
I
' ' ~ I t? p
~i t t ~ 7 ~ ~ d
j ! C9
~ _
t .
'y ~r a ' . ~ ~ ~ R'~ t:•
q Y~W'rt
1` ~ { ~ ',1 t ~T , \ ~ ~ r`..r~ ~ ? ( TN pNc
~ ~ ~ = i i ~ ~ _ _ ~ ' \ ~ n~..,a ef~ , : . ~ ` ~ ~.~^c` t \ ~ _ '
~ \ \ 1 ,n•. ,..a.-- o~....w
V
t
t
t
e I
~k
ru~~mc I
w~awas ii
~ rs+r.++ w"' .
a
,
JE
~ o
ELE'VATiON C9
~e. ~ r ~P•
- - -
~f ~
r~~ - ycva.a
MIN
=l+a -
- - I ! i
1L1~4
DHwP bY. ~ ftT'EI{A3 . ~ . cnea~a M.
WEST ELEVATION
___---ppR'rH-E1IE1?A770P1
!
!
~
t
' • r .
•
~
i-
~ ~
. l
Pkfee,
SA~t
?.C..A.IA.
a~cwKtto~t
•rta~au
£ ~ ....~..~r....
+
/ ~wo~m I
~ ~ ~ 5p`~+ran ,c1e?.-s_ ~
v,-o.iu
~z ,
/ { 20
~
a
-LANDSCAPEIMEW
0'c R.~crn~ ~ s9o-sk•1a e•a~.ir.RI~ •
M'siwe:
' ~ •tl ~ ~~!-`?tt - I/~ 1 rn~ ~srs. -to K
L'~J
~ 'xD
/ xK..w.~..
O ~
--T i
1
aa: e-~.,o
hMaa m.
1
LANDSCAPE PLAN a
~ CR~E ~I1<DOIf I y~rcr•p~.. CM1~ckM b:
) aex a
I
~
~
COVERED
. BRIUGE
4
\
00 ~ ' .
• • O • • 0
e • ~ -1.1~ ~
. ~ 00 0 • o s
~
. - ~ ~ -
~ .
. ~ ;
PEPI'S co
~
~
m
c .
~ : ~
~ . . - .
~ • Y ~ ~ /
.
, QHILDREN'S
FOUNTAIN
~ • ' ~ .a~ ~;j::, ~ . RE~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ; ~ .
Go~~ 17
.~A' ;~~3 .~Y • ~ ' ~ ~
Jl~r3,~. f! ~ •
.,;;i{ii ~ ,
C~^ :;~,t•
~ ~ 7"': •
` ' ~ ` t,~fl(••~~~; '
, _ ~ ~
I
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: August 25, 1997
I SUBJECT: A request for exterior additions to the living room and a bedroom, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 2945 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Viilage 11 th Filing.
' Applicant: Jurgen Hintz
Planner: Lauren Waterton
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 dwe(lings
units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit.
• The applicant is requesting to use 50 square feet of remaining GRFA and 136 square feet '
Additional GRFA to add two additions to the upper level of the south unit. 90 square feet will be
added to the master bedroom and will be cantelevered over the existing driveway. The second 'addition will be a 96 square foot sunroom on the southeast corner of the building, where a deck is
currently located. An additional 208 square feet of site coverage will be added to the property. '
The duplex received a Final Certificate of Occupancy in 1977. Both units have completed several
additions over the years. The north half still has Additional GRFA to use. The property is currently
subdivided into two lots for ownership with a common parcel. The applicant is proposing to expand
the unit into the common parcel. The Town of Vail is currently reviewing an amended plat that
would eliminate the common parcel and create two separate parcels for ownership. Once this is
complete, the addition would occur solely on the applicant's property.
• -
~
1q?WNORY~UL
~
, . ,
II. ZQNING ANALYSIS ,
Lot Size: 15,316 square feet .
' Zoning: Two-family Residential
Hazards: None I
AliowedlRecuired Existin Proposed 'I
GRFA: 4,632 sq. ft. 4,582 sq. ft. 4,768 sq. ft.
w/ two 250's 5,132 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 3,063 sq. ft. 2,698 sq. ft. 2,906 sq. ft.
(20%) (17.6%) (19.0%)
Height: 30' 30' 30'
Landscaping: 9,190 sq. ft. 9,702 sq. ft. 9,494 sq. ft.
(60% min.) (63%) (62%)
Parking: 6 spaces 6 spaces 6 spaces
' Should ihis request be approved, ihe south unit will have 114 sq. fl. of ihe 250 remaining.
" The norlh unit has the entire 250 sq. ft, of ihe 250 remaining.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors: •
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect upon the existing topographv, vegetation, drainage and existina
' structures.
The proposal will have little impact upon eAsting topography and vegetation.
The addition on the west side of the building will be cantelevered over the
existing driveway and the addition on the east side will infill an existing deck.
The applicant is proposing to add a new deck which may impact an existing
aspen tree. The applicant has stated that should the tree need to be
removed, it will be replaced with three 2-1/2" caliper aspen trees.
The applicant is proposing to match the existing architecture of the building.
Staff believes that the proposed additions will not negatively affect the
existing structure. 2. Impact on adjacent properties.
The addition should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by
adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have
a negative impact on adjacent properties.
= .
_ ~ 2 .
3. Compliance with the Town's zoninargquirements and applicable
• development standards.
Sect+on 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any
dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the
Town of Vail Design Guideiines 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 that the property is in
compliance with the applicable development standards listed above.
Additionally, all exterior lights are fuily cut-off and conform to the current limit
on the number of fixtures allowed. The driveway is paved and all utilities are
befow ground. Staff believes that the site is adequately landscaped and no
additional landscaping is required.
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 '
~ ef6ect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA wouid 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 RECOMMfNDATION
,
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for 136
square feet of additional GRFA (under the 250 Ordinance) subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing
topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact
adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additianal GRFA wiN comply with all Town zoning
requirements and applicable development standards.
The recommendation of approval is subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant record with the Eagle
~ County Clerk and Recorder a plat to resubdivide the property into two parcels in
order to eliminate the common parcel.
,
~ 3
?
v. ~
- . . - ~ . ~ ; . . .
. • . ' ~ ; ~
°4 ~ -
vk
o
{J
~ sij
pr, clfi
~4VIA
~ •
z p~ ~
~ . :•y~<P,~~`'';~ ~pt
' ~,~,ap~ ~ - . C'/` ~
' (A ~ : • - ' K'' ~ - . t/ ~ P~!
/ • ~ • e~ • T /
; 4•_.:~~~1; ~ ~ ~ • / ~~~~q~~.~o~~0`t `
^1 ~ • ~ :r~ ~~'~'i_''=~ • . . t r ~ tGI^,
. , 's:• t f~ ~ V ~.i ~1b~ .
,b'1 t
~ S ~ I , ~ • ~ .a~!
w
• i •
- . 1 a -
dµa-'r ~ • _ t~!wa
:
,
~ . ~ `y ~ ~ ~ "~c -
~ f G
y~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ r ? _ y~.- _ ~
1 . . I ~ Y~V ~ O .
r
1
i ,
!I - -
1 r~ . • 5;~~ °
:::s - -
. ~
~
I - -
t
~ ~ rp b~'~ I
~
,
,
1 - ~
. ,
~ - - - _ .
1 ~ - ti7'N~~ f
_ ~
_ S4UTH ELEVATION
• t/4
~ - - _
t4t-44
~
•
. . . - ' •:~t. ~ ~ . -~~i'~? . ' .
. _ . _ - - = . - . ` , r j • .
444
~.~~ti.. , , .
~ • ~ w-~-
hr-,~4~~~
t4ti';~oY-~~a~<"""'~
pr-
~ ' 14~
~
_
_ /
' ~~~~Yy~b ~ _~_f-~_:---_-'- •
p-~ ~r5
EAST ELEVAI-tCJN
~ ~`~,~s j ~ • D N ° i~
~ _ -
. I
i ,
~
. _ . ' " II
_ ^ ' . ~L . . ~ I
- ' . ~ . . I
. Y
r
~j~t{Vo1`-> > \ tiL14
' . • ~ ~ / ' t, • ~ •
'1!~p„ ' • - " . .
r
~ ' . - .
i • MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 25, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the subdivision of two existing lots
into three lots, located at 1521 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 3& 4, The Valley Phase
V/ SDD #34.
Applicant: James Flaum, represented by RKD
Pfanner: Dominic Maurieilo
1. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST
On February 18, 1997, the Town Council approved SDD #34 (Ordinance 2, Series of 1997). This
SDD allowed for the development of 3 single-family homes on 3 lots, thus allowing the
subdivision of Lots 3 and 4, of The Valley Phase 5, into 3 lots (Lots A, B, and C).
Each lot is allowed a maximum of 2,933 sq. ft. of GRFA and one EHU is required for the entire
development.
• II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Listed below are the development standards as prescribed by SDD #34:
Development Standard Maxtmum Allowance/Llmitation
Number of Lots: 3 single-family lots
Dwelling Units: 3 dwelling units
Density: 1.66 dwelling units/acre '
Employee Housing Units (EHU): i Type II ENU per lot allowed. One Employee Housing Unit is required for
_ the entire development which must be provided prior to, or in conjunction
with, the Building Permit for the third dwelling unit constructed on-site.
Buildable Area: Per approved development plan and building envelopes
Site Coverage: 25% of lot area (per lot)
GRFA: 2,933 sq. ft./dwel(ing unit -
Type li EHU GRFA: 500 sq. ft. allowed per lot for development of an EHl1, per Type II EHU
requirements. Planning and Environmenta! Commission review is
required per conditional use requirements for Type 11 EHU.
Garage Area: 600 sq, ft. allowed per dwelling unit (exclusive of the EHUs)
• =
,
1YIWNO
*VAIL
` p
II
EHU Garage Area: 1 enclosed parking space required per EHU per lot, which must be deed i
restricted for use by EHU oniy. Up to 300 sq. ft. garage credit allowed per . ~
EHU per lot.
Setbacks: Per building envelopes delineated on development plan. No GRFA is ~
' permitted within 20' of the front property line. Garage area is allowed ~
within 20' from the front property line within the established building ~
envelopes. i
Parking: Per Chapter 18.52 Oif-street Parking and Loading, Zoning Code Exterior Lighting: Per Chapter 18.54 Design Review Guidefines, Zoning Code
' Building Height: 30' for a flat roof, 33' for a sloping roof
lll. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the
creation of a new iot must be met. This subdivision 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 criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission
for a Minor Subdivision application is:
Lot Area - The lot size standards are prescribed in SDD #34.
, Staff Response: •
As proposed, this minor subdivision meefs this requirement.
Frontaae - The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum street Frontage of 30'.
Staff Response:
As proposed, this minor subdivision meets this requirement.
' The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request, as outlined in
, the subdivision regulations, is:
:
"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 Subdivision Regulations 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 appropriateness 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."
•
2
~
,
,
~ The subdivision purpose statemenis are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
, proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
' Staff Response:
The revievv of thrs request has followed 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 Response:
The proposal increases the number of lots but will reduce the total number of
dwelling units allowed. The proposal will not conflict with development on
adjaceni properties.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of
buifdings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response:
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.
• 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance,
to achieve a harmonious, canvenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent
with municipal development objectives.
Statf Response:
The proposed subdivision meets the minimum zoning requirements as outlined in
SDD #34.
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.
Staff Response: -
Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have any new adverse
impacts on the above-described criterion. The proposal reduces the number of
allowable dwe!ling units and therefore will reduce any impacts on these issues.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures.
Staff Response:
The proposal will create an accurate legal description for the subdivided land.
~ 3
_
/
7. To prevent the poHution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage •
, facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of
naturai resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability
' and beauty of the community and the value of land. 'i
~ i
~ Staff Response: ~
, Staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision will have any negative ~
, impacts on ihe above described criterion.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
i
~ The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed minor
subdivision subject to the following finding:
1. That the proposed minor subdivision plat complies with the review criteria and
requirements of Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and development
standards as outlined in Ordinance 2, Series of 1997 (SDQ #34).
•
F:\EVE R YON E\P EC\M EMOS\97\FLAUM.825
I t
I
•
-
. •
~ 4
,
~
v ` • • • "
F ,
.
AVZUL
TSB qALLSY p PHdSN V, I
d RESUBDIYISION OF LOTS 3 ara,d 4
roB?x a?F rAM raoUavri? aF JUcrs. Brars aP caZaJUm i
RM ~ w~L OIV ~i. OI~~ ~K/ r I~~I~i 1 I.iM ~ W V~ b iW \i1r p~t y snc~ w s~YY rY ~ M~YAL M1~r1 Ili~
e LIM tuW Mb W Y1~ OwM v ti~ M V rr~Y ~r~9 ~~N
~ r w a. a. w~ - w.: r. .~u~ ~ w r~.. r. .~.~u~. r~« rw. ~
r~~ w ww./...~r/..
.~.~.w~rw...w.n~~~Mrw...w n•n~r..rtr.~~rrrn.~wu_~.rr
wbr•A.w~w-wr~.~rrma~rbvaws~. ~a~~ ~.1..~~.
ti'~ ~1 w~~N~ II` 1~ y s~lAl~ ~I /1~ey w~ ~ 1~~ iH~Ar r w~ Il ~ ti D Mt MY~ rw4~~ ~Ill F/~ ~ r r^1w ~ r
IM ~s r~l
~w N MI~?
.w
I~~i W Ir 1~~?' ~ti rlMl Y IMYII h~~~M I~Y~ ~ It r ~ Y Y~Yt~ M~ ?+YW
_u~ ~f ww~ r ~i1hr ~~i~Y I? r~ w ~r ~Iw~ <1Y~ ~n1~V
~wN~Y w wr I~ ~IU~ ~ r~n ~l~wr. ~W `M~~ rw~ w, Y+~M w~lw~/ wr 11Y0~ M~ OY~IMK ~O~~I atfA1R
~ tw. r A y1 w ti 1~w M O•) ~r 1~~ Iir1 NM r~wr IY 1~ Y~~I ~rw W
Ori1~ W~ M~I I~J.. 1~4 y~ r-MQ u~ i4w~ ~rN rr ~~yl Or~r M~~ ~~I r Y..
O MI r,Y M Y~MI~ r?~ \I I=`.n YRh~~
rs xr~ o+r`.wr ~ r wwr .r ..r:w ~w
w~l. m M~ o M1^1 ~rWr~ I~I~ w sl . ~rL 1~ r w~~ {.~OIwY ti~ wrl r1~y ~Y
lti.
arrt s
mrsms s w nv
ir ~.~w~y ~~j r M=. ~u~ ~ M wr wr.~~.a ? wIM w.~ w..~w .r~ r
w ?..u~y i.w. Lr.r.~wr~w+r..r
T._' T[at mrslom w~i~ •u rw~. r...i wrw rr ~ u'i'r~w r~Tr
jr.-v~
Wr~, 11 r M1~
m r ma+ mrrm.a
suw~..nww.....l!owvn..r~.nwr
' 1~4 a Mr
~ M
I
~ 1 a~ 1w-r
~
I
~
- .
1rIXAL PI.+L'l'
TSZ YA,LLBY - PSAS,S Y,
a RBSUBD.IYISION OF LOTS 3 acnd 4
rnWN a?F vAM CVuNrr aF staU. 8s.trs a?n cnr,ruP"
77N0I A
~s•
v
» w.~.. r...~.~i.. im. ....s~~ .....,..,w
wrt ry b wrMr ~ i~N M t~t ~ 4iy ~M'lt'Y'Y lM
~v~~ ~1. ~ w Mrw~plrsr Y flw Nn>. 1 •
S) Yf~Y. ~N~M p blanr tw Y~ YI mw.~G wr 1~1 (
rf~~ Yw~ w ~I MM u M~~ ~+w1 ~~wx Mrw Y~r"~ I 00"Y-W
wr W ywt ha~ M NY M~M M~Iiwt~a /qn ~
t 1e IAf A
~ ri
_
f~
`
- _ ` a`
wW A
~
a
a ?
r
ROAII (70•R0.imj
i~~01Mf~
l~
CFM 4WIWL \
Ild/61s \
ltA01.b
T-061r
°~wait r
aisr: ar s
~ s r. sr
+o
~
~ ~ ~
«
I
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 25, 1997 .
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for wireless communication
antennas with accessory equipment, located at Solar Vail Condominiums, 501 N.
Frontage Road/ Blk 2, Tract C, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faesler, represented by Western Wireless PCS
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant proposes to install a third cellular phone receiving and transmitting site at Solar
Vail. The PEC previously approved Conditionaf Use Permits to allow US West/New Vector and
OneComm Corporation to install cellular facilities at Solar Vail. The site is zoned High Density
Multiple Family. Cellular services and antennas are considered a pub(ic utility or service
requiring a conditional use permit in this zone district.
• The proposal includes adding a false chimney (with cap) which will house a parabolic dish, two
whip antennas (4" diameter x 10' tall), and two accessory cabinets (32" high x 32" wide x 15"
deep) located at ground level on the east elevation of the building (painted to match the building).
The plan also includes an access ladder on the west elevation of the building and a 6' x 12'
concrete pad on the east side of the building. The applicant has agreed to move the access
ladder to one of the side walls of the recessed entryway. See proposed plans and photos
attached.
If approved, combined with the two existing cellular facilities there will be a total of 3 false
chimneys and 8 whip antennas on the roof of the Solar Vail building.
.
A condition of approval of three previous PEC and DRB approvals (1990, 1992, and 1995)
required a dumpster enclosure with "substantial" wood doors. This condition of approval has not
been complied with as the doors have not been provided. Further complicating the issue, the
dumpster enclosure was not constructed of an adequate size to accommodate a dumpster.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1990, the PEC approved a conditional use to allow US WesUNew Vector to
construct a"cell site" adjacent to Solar Vail. This included a mechanical building 12' wide, 24'
long, and 11' high, and 3 whip antennas mounted on the roof of Solar Vail. The PEG approved
the conditional use request with the following five conditions:
~ - 1
~
110WN
*VAIL
.
.
' 1. The appiicant shall screen the dumpster with a 5-foot high fence, or other acceptab{e .
solution;
2. The applicant shall plant seven spruce and five aspen trees in the area between the '
' mechanical building and the North Frontage Road; ~
' 3. The applicant shall treat the antenna with non-reflective material, if needed; I~
4. The applicant is to ensure that none of the retaining walls are built over 6 feet high; and
5. The applicant shall submit a plan to improve the existing timber walls which will be acted
on within one year.
On May 11, 1992, the PEC approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow US WesUNew Vector
Group to install satellite dishes on the Solar Vail building in order to improve the cellular
transmission quality from the East Vail area to the Dowd Junction area. The dishes were
mounted on the west side of the building. The dishes were enclosed within a false chimney.
On August 28, 1995, the PEC approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow OneComm to install a
false chimney and three omni whip antennas.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The sub}ect property is zoned High-Density Multi-Family (HDMF). According to Section
18.20.030 of the Zoning Code, "Public Utility and Public Service Uses" can be permitted in the ~
HDMF zone district as a conditional use.
IV. CONDfTIONAL USE CRtTERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review af Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval
of the conditiona{ use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration af Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
.
Staff believes fhat the proposed use is compatible with the existing condominium
use, and is generally consistent with the purpose of this zone district as long as
the cel{ular transmitting and receiving equipment is adequately screened. The
antennas should be painted a flat (non-reflective) tan to blend in with the hilfside
behind as do the existing antennas.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
, transportation facifities, utitities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
, Staff believes there will be no impact on the above-referenced issues.
- 2 •
~
I A.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian satety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes there will be no impact on the above-referenced issues.
, 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff believes the proposed false chimney, which will enclose the receiving and
transmitting equipment, has been designed in a way to compliment the existing
Solar Vail building. The proposed chimney and whip antennas should have little
or no effect on surrounding properties and uses.
B. Fin in
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the
~ district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the criteria discussed above,
subject to the folfowing findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purpose of the
HDMF zone district. -
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
~ 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
~
- 33
/
.
The recommendation is aiso sub1'ect to the followin9 conditions:
•
1. That the antennas be painted ta blend with the hiliside and the false chimneys, the
access ladder, and equipment boxes be surfaced and painted to match the
I building.
' 2. That the dumpster enciosure be enlarged to accommodate the dumpster (at least
7' deep x 10' wide) and be covered with a sloping roof to prevent the dumpster
from "creeping" out of the enclosure during the winter months. The dumpster
enclosure shall be finished and painted to match the Solar Vail building. Due to
, the lack of conformance with this enclosure, the dumpster enclosure shall be
constructed prior to any cellular equipment being installed.
3. The proposed concrete slab on the east side of the building shall be reduced in
size to a maximum of 3' x 12'.
F:\EVERYONE\P EC\MEMOS\97\W IRELESS.825
•
~
_ 4
,
June 23, 1997 w e s t e r n'
Dirk Mason wireless
Town of Vail Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Application for "Conditional Use Permit" to aliow whip antennas and accessory equipment at the
Solar Vail Condominiums; 501 N. Frontage Road West; Vail, CO 81657
' Dear Mr. Mason:
Western Wireless PCS proposes to install wireless communication antennas with accessories on the Solar
Vail Condominium Complex in the (HDMF) High Density Multiple-Family zone. The purpose for this
facility wilt be to transmit digital data transmissions to PCS (Personal Communication Service) customers
and complete an integral link in a coordinated network required to fulfitl FCC license obligations within
the Town of Vail.
As required, the following is a description of the precise nature of the proposed use per the Town of Vail
Development Criteria:
1. Relatioirsltip aiid impact of t/ee crse on develnpment objectives of t/re town - Wireless antennas are
already an established use in this area north of I-70 and on this structure. The complex is across the
interstate from the primary commercial and tourist areas of mid-Vail and in a primary location for
wireless cominunications. Excellent PCS service with minimal impact to the residents and guests
within Vail will be important for the commerce objectives of existing and future residents and
~ businesses.
2. Effect of 1/te use on light and air, distribution of popirlation, traiisportalio?i frrcililies, rrtilities,
sc/lonls, parks artd recreatiofl fncilities, and otlier public facilities aiid prrblic facilities iteeds - The
proposed antenna attachment will have no effect on any of these criteria. However, Western Wireless
will pay lease revenue to the owner of the Solar Vail which will help the landlord with maintenance
and upkeep of the building and contribute to the commerce of Vail.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particulnr refereitce to cotigestiar, autorrrotive and pedestrirrn safety aird
convenience, traffic flow and caitrol, access, maneaverability, aiid reitioval of snow frorn the streels
nnd pnrking nren - The proposed antenna attachment wiil have no effect on any of these criteria.
4. Effect upon t/ie clearucter of tbe rrrea in whic% tlie proposed use is to be locaterl, inc/u(ling the scale
nrrd btrlk of tlee proposed use in relation to surroun([ing uses - The proposed facility will consist of
two whip antennas on the roof (4" diameter x 10' tall), two accessory cabinets (32" high x 32" wide x
15" deep) within an architectural screen, and one parabolic dish also within the architectural screen.
The visual impact witl appear to be two small flag poles attached near the front facade (much like the
existing antennas on top of the roofl with an architectural screen bui(t in symmetry to a similar
screening device to the West. Other antennas (whip and parabolic) are found on this building and the
adjacent Red Sandstone Elementary School. Therefore, effects will be minimal and consistent with
adjacent land uses.
Western Wireless PCS feels the proposed facility is an unobtrusive design that will provide needed service
to the Vail area with benefits such as safety, PCS technology, low cost mobile communication, and
attraction to future and existing businesses and residents.
Respectfully
• Rick Holpp
Western Wireless PCS III
i
_ ~Westem Wireless Corporation 2323 Delgany Street Denver, CO 80216 Office (303) 313-8000 Fax (303) 313-8010
~
~ \t. ~1. t~ 1 r ~ \$v ~ .~{.r,~
~ _ .iG; ~ • Y~~'.--~.~a ~`y`~~~5!~ ~h1` +1_~ ~st_~ _ ~ •7
Photo Simulatzon Existing - - - ~g~
y~y\~c# _4'~
_ • t. , . ~ ~ s ~ . L~ ~ t . ~ ~ ' b
~ ~~y' t- ;y_`~ .~~i- _ ~y- - :.l~ -
i 1 ~J5 ~r,"t r-1. ~ = ~ ~ ,,ac 'L_^• ~ v~ .
W, C.
~ r. • r, ' ~ ~ ~ ?~i t~ ~ ~ !t ~ ~ ~ , ~
t ~Y_ "
~
t~ >~X^-i_t"L~ yj~`-°. ~~~a.~' 4'- 'L'~.~~ Fs-i. ~ ~ ~ t ~
' . ~
- Proposed
~.~'t` , ;
~ j , ~ r ~ + .r.t`4~• ~ ~y,:.,r~c,~
_ - - - - ~~.•~p~ . "'L-Z;"'~'. _ _ t- . .
-'y7- :~1~et,~~
L s.,• ~y~~~;~~~~'~,,' ~~t
y~ y~ ' ~
r ` I- i.L S. ~l•,^.:~~-a. '?.~y ll~,v j::. _ . 1y' ~"l;~'-! ~
.~'t. S~@.~ - . _
western~
wir
4 eiess
i. ~ . .Ya ~ yF1 `J.4 `~`},i` 3~Vr~ ~T.'ra\)..7~y x~r"~.~`' s'cY. .,~-`3~~ . ar atr `Y.'~ ].~a.-.s,.'3 ~ ~~,1`~ ~ " •
~ _ 1... ~.`~!'C~i•~a. , L. }~-;L•~`~$~•$l~~A~.~. ~ i~;!'~~a•~~}?.-Y. _,Y~1_ ~a'.i'~3..' a~.:.•~ ._,r Il'^CY~a..•t„ ,1_.~i: ~i~•+ ~
. • • \ •
t\
\
,
~
.
t, r,~ ~i~. n'~ v.. ~ t"VS'!~ . n K• K
Photo Simulation :I Existing
tt
, , .
- ~
NI.'
; . \ -i;y', -;y. ~ _ - •.i~l~*~'i Oy-
' ~ ` "t'ti v ^ ~ ; Vs • - ~ _ ~ 'Y ` Y~/_~~yT
~ ~ T~"~. ~,y ..t~e ~ i`~,.
• t ,•,~1~ •
~~~'1; ~ a
5t~ p~ y1, > F~ ~ 'o,\0.s"~Srt , , 1\ s-~ ~]t~;.'.~r~Crf ~1\Y - 1 ?~a
e ~ .~1:~~~ . 1 h~~ i~ 'J x~-i•.~~ G_ ~ ~Cr. - ' .^a Y „ .
~ t • ~
` •
L~
I X r.r ~ `x ~ ~ .y, s~,r~ i ~~s~,,,~-~° °r y.r.~,~,r "s'~.'w:~~~'~"-k,,,, '~s..-"~.` ~ ,.~q " I I
`1~ ~~•'1 *JI~•'°~s '`~~~S,.ti l''~`'~ ~,J\~_ ;i ~ _ "t ; ~ Z - - ~
. " ' i i~l.+ . ~r ~ z. ' -1 L f.+~ 1
~
- Proposed ,
Slt.i~~~~ ~
,1 i +Y~ ~ . ~ Y, v t.4~ :vfl. • ~4' • - ,
4 ` ~ \ ~.k+ J ~i
~ti
,
. ~
c. o . . - . n~- -
J
.
' . ' ZY
, {
L. . . t . ~~~'~,v'.~er~ , i ~ ~ y•~~
'y'tYtn
r~''t~' ~v~.. ? ~ s~.'-,"~ ~ ~ `M"'- ' v~a~~ ~ \,y+y e~~~ ~ ti~ i .\~s~ y ~ tiFt
~~l . •~Z,~,y,'9 ' '4 " '~i.^=, ~&ac_ , ` { ~ h- r. ~ _~.s,?~ .!y s~ r ~ ~ yy{~." ' ~7~ja,
~ 'aw ~ . ~.t ' i ! , r-. ~E [ t l.
v a'." ~ k' ~ -z' . "`~F>+7, ~3'"' 7'~- 1"" \ _ V ~ `~c t a~~,• - ~~y,~ - V ~ ~
Ay'ht -'•l s~'rb' ' ~ '~fc~•°''t~ - l~.i ,
~ r.Yk 'F~s- ~ - - ~ . 4 j•
F ~ ~
, ~.,Y.~~~~,~ 1 1 w e s t e r n ~
1/ w i r e i e s s
.rc• ` ~ a
-%n-„ i • ~ " ~ -
western
: I / iwireless
WEBTERN WRELE88
. 2323 OELOANY BTiIEET
' DENVEfi, C0, .
_ 80218
~ western pHONE 303.313.8000
fAX 303.313.8010
SOLAR VAIL
¦
twireless DN 1334-E
DA7E JULY 1997
REVt570N5
N0. OAiE
SITE NAME
,
SOLAR VAIL ~T
0
0
GROlJNR-BASED BTS CABINET, ROOF-MOIJNTED OMNi ANTENNAS ~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION I
SITE NUMBER :
~
NEW ROOF-MOUNTED DMNI ANTENNAS
NEW E4UIPMENT CABINEf DN 1334-E, VINCETIC LEIFER
IIOWARD R. MARTER
POWER FEEDS & COAX CABLE TO CABINET lN'I'EHIOIt DESICNER
NEW EvERG00D RAGK LCSLIE J. HAMES
. , zozo cxnrau sTaeFr
snw'ra narzBnaa, cA ss:aa
005130t) .3022
O05 .(19U.9(126 FN(
iH15 OIEAWINC IS COPYRICHTED AND IS
TrIE SOIE PH01'ERiY 01 R1E OYMER, li IS
PRCfHICCD SGY.ClY Fq! USE 9Y iHE OMNER AND
Ii5 AfFlLtAIES. RCPRCOUCTICN OR USE OF
ARCHITECT SITE NAME:
7HIS U17ANiNG ANO/OR 7HE INFptMAiION
S01AR VAIL SHT. DESCRIP710N w~i~~~~r w aenuis~orRi~o~n+e oweia.
LMA LEIFER MARTER ASSOCIATES N0.
VINCENT LEIFER, or MIKE BROWN SITE NUMBER:
2020 CHAPALA STREET , ~T[ NAM[ ~
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 DN 1334-E r-t tinE sH~ PHONE 805.896,3822 SITE ADDRESS SOLAR VAIL
:
FAX 805.898.3826 501 N. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST c-t 5ire sumtr
SURVEYOR VAIL, CO 81657 ' s~rc NuMaeR
S6, T5S, R80W
ATIAS IAND CONSUUANTS A-i SiTE ww MIKE FIEGENBAUM
1955 W. 35th AVENUE a-z Cierarrons SIT DN 1334-E
DENVER, co 80211 NDLORD:
PHONE 303.477.7477 SONNENALP RESORT OF VAIL SITF ADDRESS
FAX 303.477.7596 20 VAIL ROAD ' f~,~uB to e 0
VA!!, CO 81657
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 601 N. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
MKK PHONE: 970.479.5444 > VAIL, CO 81857
LISA HUGHEI' fAX; N/A Y Meadow J Fr04t° Rd S6, T5S, R80W
7350 E. PROGRESS #100 APPLICANT:
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 E~QdO~ sNeeT nr~e
WESTERN WIRELESS
PHONf 303.721.6600 2323 DELGANY STREET TITLE-SHEET
FAX 303.721A200 DENVER, CO 80216 '
STRUC7URAL ENGINEER OFFICE 303.313.8000 Fa+`est Rd i
fAX 303.313.8010
KLP
CHRIS PORCELLO ~ SHEET NUMBER
A.D.A. COMPLIANCE;
• 5995 GREENWOOD PLAZA #240 FACILItt IS UNMrWNED ANO NOT ~
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 FOR HUMAN RABVTA710N. NpRTM
PHONE 303.741.1300 ~ T-•1
FAX 303.741.1014
~ CONSUL7ANT TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP
DRANN BY: CLH
i '
1 T weswire~ern
ess
WE3TERN WIRELE88
2323 DEL(UWY STREE?
' UENYER COIOHADO 80218
..--~..-~..~..19 _9.74. S8676'05'E
pHONE (3 031313-8 0 0 0
FAJ( G90330-BOIO
~
DOWD'S JUNCTION
SONNENALP CONDO'S
i I
~ I DN1334E
m~ rrcww-x ar im e
1N
~ I , I p I o W f DAIC JJIY 7, 1991 90% I
RENSIONS II
Z I I ~ I~ Q N0. OAIE ISSIIE
o mumwa„ ~ ~ d
~ I SONNENALp C~
a Cvoos ~
~
we ry~ ° I m . FRON1q~ ROAD W ~ ~
507 N p O
£ I ~ (~m~~r (E7(IS11NC BUIL DINC) 0
i ux m.un I .
g~ 0 r„ +
0 0 0
1 s
Atlas Surveyinq Company, Inc.
~ - ~ rw Ye 1955 Wes! 35th Avenue
Denver, CO 80227 'i
?e02'5J'07" R=7990.00' ~ ~ (303) 477-7477
m200.95 I
v""""'~w.•`" IN~`NRSTAIE OR1M FRION AA'CE ROAO) W .
l wevErat's cLRuncnnON: ~
I. IIICHAEL fCICENOAUM, A PAOfE5A0NN.
IRUE MACNEiIC LANU 51MVEYOIt N THE S7AIE p' COLqRA00.
, ~M NORiH CfR?(Y 1NA1 11115 NAP flFPRESENi$ THE
l~ RCSULiS Of A AI@YFY YIDE UNOER MY
D n E dESR m S 4r A xemnFOCE MID C~ORRECI
a
uimua rFwo+omu
~ 7L5 29015
iIIF LECA D[SCN1'7IIXJ 810NN NENEfN WAS
OAIAINC[1 fH(NA I1L{DS Af.COADCD MIN ME
QFHK ANO AfCOHUCR CF GGiE CWNIY.
IIllS 4M OCCS Nf71 RUNESEN7 A 117L(
0 30 60 0 10 20 sEencn ar uc µo/aR etus meKnec
COManNr.INC
oHLr erPnumi (Suiana tMowa)
SCALE: 1° = 30' SCALE: 1" = 10' E o~N RS~e~ ao ~ ~ un ~atrustuEr+rs
51TE PLAN SCaLE: t' = 30' l ENLARGED SITE PLAN 'Prs"'oP°Rr" or'sn`°PawNCeEDi~isIaeoouceoE
SCALE: 1" = 10' Z ~LY ~ Uu or ME mn[R aNro irs eFrnJerzs.
AEPAOOUCIIqJ Ofi USE Q` 7H15 DRANINC FNO/OA
THE 1NFptIAAiION CONiAINED IN li IS FORBIpDEN
MMWI 1HE WRIIEN PERUISSION Oi THE 0'MiEF.
A POA710N OF LOT B. BLOCN 7, .
YNl/POiAiO PATCH, A SUBpIY510N RECOROED BOp( Y)J A1 PACE SIh NAME: SOJNENALP CONOO'S 97E NA4E ~
619, Cf iHE EACLE COUNiY, COLpRADO CLFAI( ANO RENNMAS
eccoaos, snro aoenoa oF Luro eciec Mat[ anRncuueLr SITE Nl1MBER: DN1334E Q uaeusT vwr
ocscRiam as Faiows.
EECINNINC A7 THE SWiHEASIERLY CCRNER Of SND LOT B. W7iICH IS AiE MORE55: 501 N. {RDNfACE R9AD W. 0 VENt DOWD'S JUNCTIQN
A PpNi CN THE NORiHERLY RICHi-OF-WAY UNE Oi IN7ERS7AlE
HIGHNAY N0. 70; 7HENCE WLSIFRLY J~LONG $ND NORIHERLY RIGHi- YAIL CO 91657 CRAN7Y MOUNT ONNI AN7ENNA SONNENALP CONDO'S
OF-WAY WE AN PAC OISTANCE OF 200.93 FEET ON A 3,990.00
F001 RPDR15 CUR'r£ i0 THE LEF'f MWSE LENiRAL ANCLE IS 753'07'
AND XNOSE CHORD BEARS SqITH 82'36'28' YIEST A qSTM'CE ONNERS NAME: SONNENMP AESOAi Cf VNL o IELPryONE RISER ~h NUMBER
OF 200,91 FEET; OlW(R$ ADpR[SS: 20 YIJL ROM
iHENCE NOR1H 0'07'12" KEST A DISTANCE OF 278.05 FEET TO
A POINi ON iHE NOftTHERLY gOUNpMtY LINE: pF SAIO LOT B;
iHENCE SWiH 867609' EAST ALq/C SND NORh1ERLY BOUNDARY _ VAIL, CO 91651
IINE A p57ANCE Of 199.74 fEET TO THE NOARIEASIERLY CpRNEA OF DN1334E
SAID LdT & ixENCf SWiH Otl'IY EAST ALONC THE EAS7EALY ASSESSOAS PARCEL NUNAER(5): N/A
BIX1NDAftY I1NE Of $AIO LOY 8 A DISTANCE pG 200.00 {EE7 TO
THE PpNT OF BEQNNMC,
COUNtt OF EACIE, '
STA7E OF Lq.OttAOO. NET AP.EA OF UNDFAYINC PARCEL(S): 4.1559.7 5o Fi / I.o AGffS (u/L) SIIE AWAESS
~
unnot: n as'Je'u' LOvpNOE: w 1060271s' KEY 501 N. FRONTACE ROAD W.
caouNO Euvanox: ezas' - ecw za
eooF ¢~vAna~: 6270' - xcw 29 Y~~ VAIL, CO 8i657
BA4S OF EIfVA71CN5; C.D.O.T. NONUNENi - 8783.57' - NGNI 28 (Q"~~~) USA
BAAS CF BUJENGS: ON $nE SOIPR OBSERVAPON ~y SHFf! 11RE
$R~ SURVEY
GENERAL SITE
"0}FS INFORMATION
~ . r. sictr Huuece
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAR~~""G LEGAL DESCRIPTION R~"E~sWA"~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRaecr nRen i PROJECT fNFORMATION VICIIYITY MAP C'1
• PLOT SCAlE: 1• = 1•
. ~ ~ western
i i jwireless ~
. WEgTERN wR0.ES9
• 2323 DELOANY STREET
. DEN4EA, C0.
80218
• PHONE 303.913.8000 ~
FA% 909.313.8010
- SOLAR VAIL
ON 1334-E ~
' DATE JULY 3, 1997
REVISIONS
N0. DAiE
(N) CABLE TRAY Q 'I
(E) ANTENNAS (N) EVERGOOD BOX 0 - i
I 0 ~
(E) ANTENNAS • ~ I (N) 6' X 12' 4
(N) ACCESS CONCRETE SLAB ~
LADDER ~I
(N) S2000 BTS CABINET
I
~I
p ~ 0 E) EQUIPMENT i
I
o , . L-_
r---=- i _j -j
0
o o n R c H i T E C T S
I I -J VINCBN'f G. GEIFER
~I )I '
4 _ II (N) EQUIPMENT SHELTER HOWARU R. MARTER
INTGHION DC5IGNER
~ 4~~ I:
~ I ° L1sSL1C J. HAMES
p I 2020 CIUI'ALd STftEEf
• SANTA IlAlt[IARA. CA 93105
805 .09l3,9022
005.000.982G FA7I
~
~ TNIS DqAWINC IS COPYRICH7E0 AND 15
(V 111[ SdLE PROPERiY Oi RIE ONNER, li IS
PNODUGD SaFIY fqt US[ Bf RiE OVMEF M7D
I15 AFFILIAIF.S. N[I'RODVCIION OA USE Of
7H15 ORANINC ANWOF iHE MFORIUATON
CONTAINEO IN li IS FIXtOIpDEN'MTMWT
THE V5ftIt7EN FFRM]SSION OF 7HE OWNER.
(N) OMNI ANTENNAS
SIiE NANE ~--_I
'
(E) CONDUIT SOLAR VAIL
(E) EQUIPMENT SHELTER
- SITE NUfA9£R
DN 1334-E
SITE ADDRE55
~ 601 N. FROHTA(iE ROAD WE3T
VAIL, CO 81657
SB, T6S, RBOW
SHEET TI11.E
SITE PLAN
+ SHEE7 NUMBER
NORTN
q-1
' SITE PLAN 3/16' - 1'-0• ORANN BY: CLH
.
. ~ ~ western
. ~ I iwireless
• (N) EQUIPMENT SHELTER WEBTERN WiiELE88
_ (E) OMNI ANTENNAS (E) EQUIPMENT SHELTER 2323 Dp.OANY 81AEET
oENVHR Co.
~ (E) OMNI ANTENNAS (N) OMNI ANTENNAS (E) EQUIPMENT SHELTER .(N) OMNI ANTENNAS 8°Z"
(N) ACCESS LADDER (E) OMNI ANTENNAS P~+E 303.319.8000 T 1~ F~x 803.919dOq
SOLAR VAIL
I DN 1334-E ,
u
u ii '
II DATE JULY 3, 1997
(N) MICROWAVE SHELTERii
II jj RevisioNS '
~INo DATE
II ~q fl q
q ~
I~-c-z ABLE TRAY 2000 BTS CABINET (BEYOND) VERGOOD 80X ON CRE TE S
7"(N ~ ~
LAB
QUIPMENT T AftCNITECTS
' VINCENT E. LEIFER '
FIOiVARD R. MARTER
NORTH ELEVATION EAS7 ELEVATtON 1/4°=1'-0" 2 IN'rj,Riae DESIcNEa
~ I.GSL[G J. HAMES
2U20 C}UPAW 9TRSET
SANTA OARIlARA, CA 07I45
O05.tl80.3022
If0.r.09tl.3029 FA%
(N) EQUIPMENT SNELTER ,"'s °"""""°'S °°P""°"'Eo AND15
1HE SOtf. PHIX'ERfY OF 1HE ONNER,IT IS
~E~ ~MN~ ANjENNA$ Pnaoucru saE.rvan usE er nrcawan eso
Ii5 AinLIniCS. ftCPRWUCIION OR USE OF
(E) EQUIPMENT SNELTER (N) OMNI ANTENNAS (E) OMNI ANTENNAS ~o~r°IHE~~~ " ~a o~°~+~r
(N) ACCESS LADDER (N) OMNI ANTENNAS ,„E M,,,TEN PcRM,54~+oF ,HE o~,Ea.
(E) OMNI ANTENNAS
'
$ITE NAME
SOLAR VAIL
' SIIE NUMBER
(E) EQUIPMENT SHELTER
(N) EQUIPMENT SHELTER DN 1334-E
517E ADORE55
' 501 N. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
YAIL, CO 81857
S8, TSS, RBOW
sHeeT nne
NORTH / 90UTH / EA3T /
(N) ACCESS LADDER WE3T ELEVATIONS
~ (N) LOCKWG SAFETY
DOOR SHEET NUMBER
A_2
~ SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4"-1'-0" 3 WEST ELEVATION 1/4"=1'-0" 4 pRA~ BY: CL„
.
MEMORANDUM r
•
TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 25, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal
Code of the Town of Vail to allow for the installation of a new roof-top air handler
on the Vail Clinic located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E& F, Block 1, Vai!
Viilage Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail Clinic, Inc., represented by Dan Feeney
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Clinic, represented by Dan Feeney, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for
the installation of a new roof-top air handler on the Vail Clinic. The new air handler is intended to
provide improved air handling capacity for the first floor surgical suite within the clinic. The new ~
air handler wili be located on a flat-roofed area of the building, located near the east end of the ;
~ Vail Valfey Medicaf Center. The instaltation of the new 32' long x 8' wide x 6' high air handler will ~
allow for the removal of an existing gooseneck air intake duct, three smailer air hand(ers, two
condensers and one air relief damper. The existing roof-top mechanical equipment that is to be
removed is scattered in various locations atop the medical center.
tL BACKGROUND The Vail Clinic is in the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive.
According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the medical center complex is located within
the General Use Zone District. The intent of the General Use Zone District is to,
"provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special
characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards
prescribed for other zoning districts. The General Use Zone District is also intended to
ensure that public buildings and certain quasi-public uses are appropriately designed to
meet the needs of the community and to harmonize with surrounding uses."
While a new roof-top air handler may not necessarily be construed to be a separate land use
from the existing medical center (quasi-public building), staff believes that due to its potential
impacts, the installation of inechanicai equipment on the roof requires review by the Town of Vail
and the Planning and Environmental Commission. The staff believes that the most appropriate
process for the review is a conditional use permit request. The Town has used this process in
the past when similar requests have been made by property owners within the General Use Zone
District. Past examples include the installation of a waste incinerator and the construction of a
well pump station.
• -
~ f:leveryone\pec\nemos\wmc.825 1
TO{VN
*VAIL
.
' I
According to Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code, conditional use permits are intended to, in part, •
"provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Code by allowing
specified uses in certain zoning districts subject to the issuance of a conditional use
permit. Due to their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require additional
review and evaluation by the Town so that they may be located properly with respect to
the purposes of the Zoning Code and with respect to surrounding properties. The review
process is intended to insure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town as a whole. Conditional uses
may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by the
Town to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional use will not be
detrimental to other uses or properties. If conditions and limitations can not be devised,
the request for a conditional use permit shall be denied."
If{. CRITERtA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval
of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of ~
the Town.
The staff believes that the new roof-top air handler will have positive
impacts on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed
mechanical equipment will consolidate and integrate much of the existing
air handling equipment and result a total reduction in the number of air
handling units on the top of the medical center. The proposed location of
the new air handler is set back far enough on the roof that it will be
substantially out of the view of pedestrians walking along West Meadow
Drive and the owners and guests of the Evergreen Lodge. Staff believes
the proposal will aestheticly improve the appearance of ihe medical center
' which we believe is in the best interest of the appficant, surrounding
property owners and the Town in generaf. Additionally, staffi does not
believe ihat this request is inconsistent with the land uses that are
customarily incidental to the General Use Zone District.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other pubfic facifities needs.
Staff believes that there will be no impacts on the above-described criteria.
. •
i f \everyone\pec\nemos\wmc.825 2
,
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
• and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removai of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes there will be no impacts on the above-described criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
The Town of Vail Community Development Department has received calls
and letters from surrounding property owners expressing their concerns
regarding the amount, location and the unslightly nature of the mechanical
equipment on the roof-top of the medical center. Staff believes the
applicanYs proposal to install a new air handler addresses many of the
concerns expressed. While the new system may be larger in size than
the total combined size of the six pieces of equipment that are proposed to
be removed, we believe the new location is more condusive to locating
mechanical equipment and as such, is a positive improvement. The Staff
does not foresee any negative effects of the applicanYs proposal upon the
character of the area or its relationship to surrounding uses.
B. Findin s
~ The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the air handler is in accordance with the
purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the General Use Zone
District.
2. That the proposed location of the air handler and the two conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity of the Vail Valley Medical Center.
3. That the proposed air handler would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
N. STAFF RECOMMfNDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Vail Clinic's request for a conditional use permit, to allow for
the construction of a new roof-top air handler on the Vail Valley Medical Center. The staff
believes that all the findings have been met, since the proposed use is compatible with the
existing use of the applicanYs property and will not be detrimental to surrounding uses or the
Town as a whole. In fact, staff believes that the consolidation and integration of the roof-top
mechanical equipment on an area of the roof substantially out of view from the surrounding uses
and properties, is a beneficial improvement. Furthermore, staff believes that if the use is
• operated in accordance with the two conditions outlined below, the use will be consistent with the
deveJopment objectives of the Zoning Gode and the character of the surrounding area.
~
f \everyone\pec\rnemos\wmc.825 3
Staff further recommends that should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to
grant an approval of the applicant's conditional use permit request, that the following conditions •
be attached to the approval:
1. That the applicant install a six-foot tall metal or wood screen around the perimeter of the
new roof-top air handler mechanical equipment. The screen and exhaust fan sha!l be
painted the same dark brown color that currently exists as an accent color on the exterior
of the Vail Valley Medical Center. All screening and painting shall be completed within
thirty (30) days of the installation of the new air handler unit.
2. That the applicant remove all the existing roof-top mechanical equipment that is proposed
to be eliminated as part of this request within thirty (30) days of the installation and
operation of the new air handler unit. All building areas affected as a result of the
removal process, shall be repaired and/or repainted within the same 30-day period. Upon
the completion of the removal of the old equipment, the applicant shall contact the Town
of Vail Community Development Department to schedule an inspection of the medical
center roof-top to insure compliance with the conditional use permit approval.
•
•
~
f:\everyone\pec\memos\wmc.825 4
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: Au
gust 25, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary recreational facility
(skate park) on the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E.
Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead First Filing
Applicant: Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to add a temporary skate park on the top level of the Lionshead
Parking Structure. The site is zoned Parking. A skate park is considered a recreational faci?ity in
the Parking Zone District and therefore, requires a Conditional Use Permit.
The applicant is proposing to block off an area on the top level of the parking structure to
• establish a temporary skate park during the months of September and October, 1997. The skate
park is intended to be used for skateboarders and in-line skaters. The area would be 160 feet
long by 60 feet wide and would contain approximately 10 "obstacles" and a beginner area. Each
obstacle would be constructed primarily of wood with metal supports. The area will be have
Jersey-type barriers to enclose the skate park. Additionally, there will be net fencing along the
south side to prevent the occasional loose skateboard from flying out of the area. There will also
be signage to indicate the rules and the responsibilities of the skaters.
Because this is located on Town of Vail property, it was necessary to receive Town Council
approval for the application to proceed through the process. On August 5, 1997, the Vail Town
Council unanimously approved this request to proceed through the process.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The subject property is zoned Parking (P). According to Section 18.34.030 of the Zoning Code,
"Public or Private Parks and Recreational Facilities" can be permitted in the Parking zone district
as a conditional use.
111. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval
of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
• - 1
`
*VAIL
T019N O~,
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the •
Town.
Staff believes that the proposed use is compatibfe with the existing uses within
the parking structure and is generally consistent with the purpose of this zone
district. Currently there are a variety of uses within the structure, including offices,
a youth center and a restaurant. Staff believes that the proposed use is
compatible with the existing uses.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes there will be limited impact on the above-referenced issues. The
proposed location of the skate park will temporary eliminate 40 parking spaces on
the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The temporary elimination of the
parking spaces has been approved by the Town of Vail's Public Works Director.
Staff believes that given the time of year the skate park would be in operation, ihis
will have little impact on the supply of parking available to the public. Staff further
believes that the addition of a skate park will enhance the Town's recreational
facilities.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, •
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes there will be limited impact on the above-referenced issues. While
this skate park will interrupt the established traffic flow on the upper deck, traffic
can easily flow around this use, without congestion (see attached site plan). The
stairwells in the middle of the structure will remain open for use and therefore,
pedestrian traffic will not be impeded.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in w?hich the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff believes that the proposal will have little impact on the character of the
parking structure. The applicants are proposing to locate the skate park in the
middle of the structure to limit impacts on adjacent properties. There will be no
additional lighting proposed as a part of this request. Staff believes that the only
impact on the adjacent properties may be noise. Staff recommends that the
hours of operation be limited to daylight hours in order to reduce this impact.
2 •
,f'~
B. Findinas
• The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use ermit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the criteria discussed above,
subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
. conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purpose of the
Parking zone district.
2. That the proposed lacation of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
:
The recommendation is also subject to the following conditions:
1. That the skate park be adequately secured and closed after dark to prevent use of
the park at night.
2. That this approval is valid only for September and Octaber, 1997. Should the
applicant wish to reinstall the skate park in the future, a new conditional use
permit must be applied for and be granted by the PEC.
• -
.
3
~
` . • ~ - .
r ~
.
'
-~r0 Wrw isT'l<` Gw
cnr cw
~ LL_ C1n+lLT f.s.~~
l'4' VALVE 80X CAP 4" SAAI. SEWF.R 6' FIRE tin~C.
F F M
_ rIo
F Iii~ HYDRAT7T -.1- L
T
'~rk G1Fv ~UCAT,ON _ L -4M7T!
~ TT III i FT - 7
l
I ~ -
. . ~ ;
i - - - ~ - ! ~
,
I I f ~
11111 Jill I Fr
~ - - - a
c~ FUTURE ,`,r ~s' vcn
~V ~ AUXIUFRV OWIDi~.1G - Er15T C 8
tm ifiC, O~
~ . i~ • FACA ~ - -
UW7Vl!AVCir-c(e,
, - .
f4~ x ~r~ • . : : ' -
'
S-('-ia~n~
,
,
- ~ - -
j1 I-A ti $ w x L
~
-'p -.~ur, ~~7iC 1• N x W•d^' x"~,L ,
i ' ; ~ _ 2 ?.t x ~'w x 10 ~
. C. SpiY-Se,
t r7Pc.~rr~
'S'Bbc L, +-A
I ~,~Ye (1_ 0: g. Rati„R
~r _ . .
~ ~._..Y ' 4/ ~
IQ L,
. ~ . . _ _ _Y._ ..t . . - _C . .
F
IA _
,
f;
, , .
;
,
;
~
,
,
. ,
; ,
_ : _ _ _ , ; : , . ; , _ - .
_ . . _
~
~
Tf t .
. . ~ ~ ~ , ~
,
I . . ~ . .1.. _ _ F-~'~ ' _ ~ 1 _ _ _ _ _ ' _ . .
` l !
` - , ~ . . _ . _ . . _ ' ' , . . _ . . . . . r .
~ '_*`T.y__ ~«-t__r_ . _ ._~._.Y . ; . . . . . . . . . . . ~
, a
•
i
~ { Y N l i`iY^^^j
J ~
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 25, 1997
Minutes
~
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Susan Connelly
Greg Amsden (from 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm) Mike Mollica
Galen Aasiand Lauren Waterton
Gene Uselton Dominic Mauriello
Diane Golden George Ruther
John Schofield , Judy Rodriguez
Ann Bishop (from 2:00 pm)
Pubiic Hearinn 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for bedroom and sunroom additions, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at
2945 Booth Creek Drive/ Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Village 11th Filing.
Applicant: Jorgen Hintz, represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Lauren Waterton
• Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the memo and stated that the condition in the memo had
been met by the applicant.
Greg Moffet asked if there were any applicant comments. There were none.
Greg Moffet asked if there were any public comments. There were none.
Gene Uselton asked if the existing tree that might be impacted should die, within what time frame
would it need to be replaced?
Lauren Waterton stated that the PEC could place a condition requesting that should the tree die
within 1 year, the applicant would have to replace it.
John Schofield, Greg Amsden, Galen Aasland, Ann Bishop, Diane Golden and Greg Moffet had
no additional comments.
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with no
conditions.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Planning and Environmental Commission
• Minutes
August 25, 1997
1
p
2. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the subdividing of two existing lots into
three lots, located at 1521 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 3& 4, The Valley Phase V/ SDD #34. •
Applicant: James Flaum, represented by RKD
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo.
Greg Moffet asked for any applicant or public comments. There were none.
Gene Uselton asked about the number of curbcuts. -
There were no additional comments from the Commission.
~ Greg Amsden asked for clarification on the EHU. ,
Dominic Mauriello said that prior to obtaining a building permit for the third unit, an EHU must be
provided.
~ Greg Moffet had no comments.
John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for wireless communication antennas with •
accessory equipment, located at Solar Vail Condominiums, 501 N. Frontage Road/ Blk 2,
Tract C, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Western Wireless PCS
' Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo and said that staff was recommending
approval with three conditions. He stated that the second condition had been carried since 1990
and needed to be complied with before the applicant could proceed.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Rick Holpp, from Western Wireless, said he was aware of the dumpster issue for the first time on
Friday.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none.
I Gene Uselton asked whose responsibility was the dumpster enclosure.
Rick Holpp asked, since the dumpster was the owner's responsibility, that they not be required to
wait for the construction of the dumpster, prior to installation of the antennas.
Planning and Lnviromnental Commission
Minutes •
August 25, 1997 2
~
,
y- - - -
• Dominic Mauriello said that this condition was 7 years old and still had not been complied with.
He said there would be no incentive to comply with the condition, if an approval was granted
without this condition.
' Greg Moffet said not operating the antennas would prevent dollars from flowing and that would
be the incentive.
Mike A/lollica said the Town would not be able to enforce the usage once it was installed.
John Schofield asked if the installation required a building permit. -
Dominic Mauriello stated that a building permit would be required.
John Schofield asked if a cash bond could be another, option.
Mike Mollica stated that it would be.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Galen Aasland said that Condition #3 should be flexible and agreed that Condition #2 should be
done.
Ann Bishop said that this was the time to enforce Condition #2.
Diane Golden agreed with the other Commissioners. '
• Rick Holpp said he had no problem with the dumpster issue, just that waiting for it to be done
would immobilize him.
Diane Golden asked how the ladder would be protected from public access.
Rick Holpp replied with gates and locks.
Dominic Mauriello said a lock-off• box prevented people from getting up there.
Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the slab, but agreed with the dumpster enclosure and
stated that the PEC could choose this enforcement method.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Ann Bishop amended the motion to change the 3' slab to a 6' slab.
John Schofield amended the motion to include a$10,000 bond, in lieu of the dumpster enclosure
being constructed, prior to the antenna installation.
Galen Aasland seconded the amended motion.
Mike Mollica asked about the time frame ot the bond.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
August 25, 1997 3
~
- - - 'r
John Schofield clarified that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the
dumpster enclosure shall be constructed or a cash bond be posted in the amount of $10,000 and •
that the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed within 30 days of building permit approval.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of a new roof-top air
- handler, iocated at Vail Va11ey Medical Center, 181 West Meadow Drive/ Lots E&F, Vail
Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Clinic, Inc.
~ Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. He said that staff received a letter from Jim
Lamont and that staff provided copies of the letter to the PEC.
Joan Norris said that the public had been assured by Mr. Feeney, that there would be no noise.
Galen Aasland stated that this was an ideal location, but he questioned Condition #1, explaining
that the noise could escape on the south side and the language should say more than a wood
screen.
Ann Bishop said she read Mr. Lamont's letter and asked Mr. Ruther if these issues were
addressed.
George Ruther said staff received the letter at noon today and discussed all the issues with the
applicant, except the filtering. •
Ann Bishop asked Mr. Feeney about the noise problem.
Dan Feeney stated that the air handler couldn't be seen and as far as the noise, the handler was
surrounded on three sides by the building. He said he was not sure what the filtration issue was,
as there were no noxious odors or bacteria and it just provided filtered air into the surgical suite.
- Ann Bishop again asked about the noise that it would generate.
Dan Feeney said it was not that big of a unit and he felt the noise from the running fan
associated with it would not carry beyond the property line.
Diane Golden asked about the huge dumpster on the east side of the building.
Dan Feeney said the applicant was getting ready for a joint inspection and the dumpster was to
be used for the housecleaning to get ready for this inspection.
Gene Uselton asked, referring to Mr. Lamont's letter, if all the hazardous materials were
disposed of in another way.
Dan Feeney explained that "red bag" waste was hauled off-site to the front range and that their
contract was with BFI.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes •
August 25, 1997 4
~
- - -
• Gene Uselton asked if Mr. LamonYs reference to noxious materials was a miscommunication.
Dan Feeney said, yes.
Greg Moffet asked if this was an intake air system.
Dan Feeney said that it was.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff recommendation and
conditions.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. ,
5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park), on
the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle/ Vail
Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail and Vail Recreation District
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the memo, stating that staff was recommending that the
hours of operation be in the daytime and the use be for September and October of 1997. '
She said that, since it was on public property, Council had to approve this to proceed through the
• public process.
Tom Moorhead, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said that the skate park would have no
conflict with pedestrians. He said the Vail Tomorrow Youth Committee had looked at amenities
with the research done by Diane Johnston. Tom said previous experience for this kind of skate
park had been good in Grand Junction, Boulder, Idaho Springs and Glenwood Springs. He said
the kids were willing to take the responsibility and they understood that this would be monitored
for two months and the success for this in the future would depend on how weA it worked. He
said that the Town's insurance carrier had been consulted to make sure the obstacles would be
in compliance and that the Police Departmsnt would patrol the area to make sure safety
equipment was worn. He said there would be signage and monitored, but not supervised. He
said that this was an excellent location, since there were restroom facilities. Tom said it was well
received by the Town Council, with a vote of 6-0. He said funds were donated by VA, the Vail
Rotary and the Rec. District. He said they were looking for cement dividers to place around the
perimeter, so there would be no conflict between the automobiles and skaters. Tom stated that
with PEC approval, this was ready to go.
Greg Moffet asked if the Vail Recreation District had anything to add.
Diane Johnson had nothing to add.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none.
Galen Aasland asked if the signage would state that users would have to wear protection and he
also asked how it would be secured at night.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
August 25, 1997 5
~
- - - ~ I
Diane Johnson said a chain across it would deem it unridable and with PVC tubing, skates '
wouldn't work. • ,
Galen Aasland questioned the location and thought it might be safer on the northwest corner.
Tom Moorhead said the location was discussed with Mike Rose, Todd Openheimer and Larry
Grafel and ihere was no safer area in the parking structure.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Diane Golden said this was Vail Tomorrow at work and thanked Diane Johnson for being a
tireless worker for the youth in the community.
Gene Uselton hoped this would encourage skaters to come up to the park and not skate on the
steps in the Village or the ramps in the structure. ,
Tom Moorhead said there was no ordinance to prevent this, but the park would draw activity to
the park and this had been the experience from other communities. He said it was reasonable to
expect that kids would respond to the location, as kids were actively involved in the design of the
park.
Gene Uselton asked about kids jumping over the snow fence.
Tom Moorhead said they won't be around the outer edges, as obstacles around the perimeter
would be designed to bring them back to the center.
John Schofield said there was adequate on-site parking for this activity. •
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Greg Moffet thanked Diane and was delighted to see this in Town, as kids from all over the
County could get here as this was a transportation hub.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff inemo.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
Greg Moffet asked if this would be in daylight only.
Diane Johnson said, yes.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
6. A request for a minor subdivision, a major exterior alteration, a common area variance
from Section 18.04.130 and a density variance from Section 1824.130, allowing for 5
dwelling units, located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer
Planner: George Ruther
•
Planning and Enviromnental Corouussion
Minutes
Augu.et 25, 1997 6
~ - - -
I Greg Moffet stated for the record that Greg Amsden left at 3:00 pm.
• George Ruther gave an overview of the memo.
Diane Golden asked what the common area in the buiiding was.
George Ruther said page 26 of the memo defines the common area.
John Schofield asked if the recreation facilities would be used by the new as well as the old
additions.
' George Ruiher said, yes.
John Schofield asked what the allocation of the space woufd be.
George Ruther said the breakdown of the common area was 2,200 sq. ft.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Kurt Segerberg mentioned that the common area could be up to 70% relative to GRFA in the
buildings. He said that Pepi had 28 units and what was being put in was supporting the
additional units, but the common area was primarily what was going in. He said the land which
went down to the Creek was in a floodplain and that constitutes a hardship. He said therefore,
quite a bit of land was not being calculated in ihe formula for the density. .i
John Schofield clarified that with the addit+on of 8 new units with the 28 origfnal units, gave a li
• total of 33 units and the rest was common area.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. !
Michael Ditch, a tenant in the Creekside Building, mentioned there was an impact on the I
easement on page 30 of the staff inemo, line L5, with the easement dropping down by 4 1/2' at
the property line. He asked how this drop in elevation would be addressed, since there was no
resolve on this issue as of yet.
George Ruther said there was an access easement ihat changed slightly and that the minor
subdivision required the co-applicant to participate'in a discussion between the two property
owners. .
Michael Ditch said the Creekside Building was no longer an applicant.
Greg Moffet said the Creekside 8uilding woufd have to sign off on the plat.
Michael Ditch said the grade change was in a defivery area and a definition of the property lines
was needed, as the grade change would affect deliveries and trash pickup. He explained that
the grade change was where the dumptsters were iocated and he just wanted to make sure ihat
this issue was not overlooked. Michael went on to explain that his new May Palace location had
redesigned the dumpster location and now it wouid have to be shelved. He said he was not
interested in funding Pepi's project.
Plamiing and Environmentat Cotrvnission
. Minutes
August 25, 1997 7
i s
Galen Aasland said the access easement had a 12% slope and he asked if it would work.
Michael Ditch stated that he supported Pepi's project, however, the project would greatly impact •
what he was doing now.
Galen Aasland asked if the access would be heated .
Pepi Gramshammer stated that he owned all the land and he never found out what Michael Ditch
wanted to do. Pepi stated he had to go down in order to build.
.
Michael Ditch said there were not supposed to be any grade changes. -
Pepi Gramshammer said he could do nothing if he could not go down in grade and this was his
land and he was going down. He said he would not be pushed by these people on his own land
and would take legal steps if necessary. .
Ann Bishop told Pepi that Michael Ditch seemed to want to discuss the issue.
Greg Moffet said that this issue was for the property owners to work out, not the PEC.
Michael Ditch said that he would not be put in a position to have Pepi do what he wanted just
because it was his own property, as ingress and egress are governed by law.
Ann Bishop stated that this problem was between the property owner and Pepi.
Galen Aasland said it was between the Creekside Buiiding and Pepi.
Greg Moffet agreed it was between the private parties. •
Galen Aasland advised Pepi that it would be wise to sit down and work out the trash issue, since
he would be mad if the trash could not be picked up. Galen said the addition of the short term
units were good for the Town. He said the scale was appropriate and it met the goals of the
Town. He said the common area would serve all the guests. Galen had concerns about the
parking plan with 11 spaces. He did nat want to have cars backing out and asked if the applicant
' was going to try and park 20 cars there, which would make it into a maze.
' George Ruther said the Council restricted the applicant to no more than 20 vehicles and Council
didn't care how they got in or out. He said that Council's desire was to see on-site parking,
rather then paying in lieu for parking.
Galen Aasland said the north wall of the addition looked like the decks were only 3'deep, which
would make them seldom used, but they would add interest to the building. He said he would
like to think the trees would survive, but they are very close to the building. Galen suggested
stepping back 3', where the jacuzzi's were and he suggested chopping back two of the units.
Galen stated his last concern was a streamwalk and he would like to see it addressed.
Ann Bishop commended Pepi and Sheika, but her one concern was on page 7 of the staff memo
regarding the north elevation. She asked if the roofline was going to be flat.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes •
August 25, 1997 8
A' - - -
Pepi Gramshammer said it was a big flat roof because he couldn't go any higher and he asked
• how the Covered Bridge Building and the Sonnenalp could be 4 stories high and he couldn't.
Greg Moffet explained that they were in different zones.
, Pepi Gramshammer stated his building was built in 1964.
George Ruther explained the original plan that was presented to the PEC at the worksession, did
not meet ihe roof height requirement in the CC1 Zone District.
Ann Bishop asked if the applicant could get a variance to have a roof that was not fiat. -
Mike Mollica said it would be unusual for a 60/40 variance to be approved, therefore, staff
encouraged Kurt Segerberg to meet the standards.
Ann Bishop asked if there was a requirement that theroof be interesting.
George Ruther said matching the addition to the existing building was difficult, since the addition
was being attached to a building built in 1964.
Ann Bishop asked if there was a rufe to have consistency to enhance and make roofs
aesthetically pleasing.
George Ruther said the applicant could apply for a variance, but a 60/40 building height had
never been approved before.. George explained the flat roof and said that unless you were in an ,
airplane, you would not see the flat side of the roof.
~ Diane Golden said there were a number of trees there to screen it.
Ann Bishop said the beetle-bug may not guarantee the trees would remain there.
Kurt Segerberg said this roof compiies with the 60/40 height requirement.
Greg Moffet assured the PEC that Galen was now on the DRB and he was a roof man.
Diane Golden said she was fine with the two variances and the common area, as mosi of this
was a recreation area.
Gene Uselton asked if balconies extending over the flood plain was legal.
George Ruther said, yes.
Gene Uselton suggested that the Council consider rewriting the code to state in the core areas
that common areas wouldn't be counted. He asked Pepi that if his trees die as a result of the
construction, would he replace them.
Pepi Gramshammer said, yes.
Gene Uselton suggested the PEC making it a condition.
Planoing and Envirorunental Commission
• Minutes
August 25, 1997 9
' i
Pepi Gramshammer said he wanted to keep this project pertect, as all the lodges were getting •better and to be competitive, he had to have this.
John Schofield said he found it very easy to grant this request, as a flood plain location
constitutes a hardship, which gives a basis for granting a variance. He advocated that this
Commission take a stand on the streamwalk and pass it on to the Council.
i Greg Moffet agreed on the streamwalk issue. He asked how to justify the variances and the
I
density as not being a grant of special privilege and said the PEC had to keep havmg to grant
Icommon area usages. He felt keeping a competitive edge compelled Pepi to do this and the j
PEC needed to address this code change when Daminic Maurielfo has time to work on it. i
' Ann Bishop made a motion in accordance with the staff recommendation, including the ,
conditions expressed therein. ,
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
, George Ruther asked if the motion included all the requests.
Ann Bishop said, yes.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 (Greg Amsden was not present).
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence
to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest RoadlLot 11, Block 7, Vail
Village 1 st Filing. ~
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8,1997
8. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to
aNowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-
' 1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward
Planner: Dominic Maurieflo
,I
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
9. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 1822.140 (On-Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
, Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
~ WITHDRAWN
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
August 25, 1997 10
I
i'
.
' ~ - - -
John Schofield made a motion to tabie items 7 and 8 until September 8, 1997.
! Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
, The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
10. Approval of July 28, 1997 and August 11, 1997 minutes.
Greg Moffet stated there were no minutes for August 11, 1997, as the meeting was canceled.
. Ann Bishop made a motion to approve the July 28, 1997 PEC minutes.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1, with John Schofield abstaining.
11. Elect a 4th quarter DRB representative. (Oct. 1 st - Dec. 31 st)
Ann Bishop volunteered as the 4th quarter DRB representative.
John Schofield made a motion that the PEC endorse the streamwalk concept from Vail Village to
Lionshead and that the PEC pass this recommendation on to the Town Council. John mentioned
the overwhelming support for the streamwalk in the most recent community survey.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion, with the modification that it extend frorn Ford Park to Vail
~ Village as the top priority and then from Vail Village to Lionshead as the second priority. '
. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Ann Bishop and Gene Uselton voting against, due to the
consideration to the streamwalk property owners not being inc(uded in the motion. Although they
both support the streamwalk concept, Gene Uselton and Ann Bishop felt that 80% of the people
whose property does not back up on the stream would be in favor of the streamwalk and due
consideration was needed for the people who were going to be immediately affected.
John Schofield made a motion to adjourn.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion:
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm.
Plaiming ajid Environmental Commission
~ M inutes
August 25, 1997
11