HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0922 PEC. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on September 22, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site Coverage)
and a request for a residential entry addition, utilizing the remaining GRFA of a previous
Additional GRFA (250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village
8th Filing.
Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District # 22 Grand Traverse, to allow
for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts to be
unpainted copper.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a side setback variance of 7'- 6" from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for
the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing.
• Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
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 Haus, located at 62 East
Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published September 5, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
• -
TOWN *VAIt
• Agenda last revised 9/16/97 8 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, September 22, 1997
AGENDA
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 am
MEMBERS PRESENT ' MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:15 pm
1. Vail Commons Tour (1 hour)
2. Gillberg - 1045 Homestake Circle
3. Ackerman - 967 Vail Valley Drive
4. Krediet - 226 Forest Road
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District # 22 Grand Traverse,
to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts
to be unpainted copper.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
Planner: George Ruther
2. 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 Haus,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
3. A request for a side setback variance of 7.5' from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow
for the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail
Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
•
TOW4YU
Agenda last revised 9/16/97 8 am
4. A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site
Coverage) and a request for a residential entry addition, utilizing the remaining GRFA of a
previous Additional GRFA (250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block •
1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
5. 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
6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the
Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13,1997
7. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Initial presentation of Stage 3 Alternative Master
Plan concepts - Susan Connelly
• DRB invited to attend •
8. Approval of September 8, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published September 19, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
2
•
Agenda last revised 9/23/97 gam
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, September 22, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden (arrived 2:05 pm)
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
Site Visits : 12 pm
1. Vail Commons Tour (1 hour)
2. Gillberg - 1045 Homestake Circle
3. Ackerman - 967 Vail Valley Drive
•
4. Krediet - 226 Forest Road
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District# 22 Grand Traverse,
to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts
to be unpainted copper.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6 -0
APPROVED
• 1
IVW4VU
Agenda last revised 9/23/97 gam
2. 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 Haus, .
located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7 -0
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION:
1. That the applicant pay into the parking fund for the parking required for this use at
the time of building permit or occupation of the space.
3. A request for a side setback variance of 7.5' from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow
for the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail
Valley Drive /Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0
DENIED
4. A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site
Coverage) and a request to utilize the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA
(250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger •
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6 -0 (Ann Bishop
abstained)
DENIED
5. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the
Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13, 1997
6. 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 1st Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Lauren Waterton
WITHDRAWN
•
2
Agenda last revised 9/23/97 gam
0 7. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Initial presentation of Stage 3 Alternative Master
Plan concepts - Susan Connelly
DRB invited to attend (Ted Hingst and Bill Pierce were present)
8. Approval of September 8, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
•
0 TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
September 22, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District #22,
Grand Traverse, to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the
street and requiring all down spouts to be unpainted, weathered copper.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
Planner: George Ruther
I. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Pat Dauphinais, is requesting a minor amendment to Special Development District
#22 to allow for Lot 14 in the Grand Traverse Subdivision to have a garage door which faces the
street and to require all the down spouts in the development to be unpainted, weathered copper.
According to Section IV of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, (the ordinance approving the SDD) in
part,
"No garage doors shall directly face the street, except on Lot 24"
Section IV of Ordinance #10 further lists the building standards and materials required for all
construction in the Grand Traverse development. The applicant is proposing to add to that list
the additional requirement that all down spouts be unpainted, weathered copper. The list already
contains the requirements that chimney caps be installed, that exterior walls be stucco or vertical
siding, that all windows have a minimum recess of two inches, etc.
According to Section 18.40.020 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part,
"Minor amendment means modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do
not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and
are consistent with the design criteria of the Zoning Code."
A minor amendment is reviewed by the staff and the results are reported to the Planning and
Environmental Commission at a public hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission
may uphold the staff's action or call -up the item for additional review.
Staff believes the applicant's request is a minor amendment consistent with the minor
amendment definition above.
II. STAFF ACTION
The Community Development Department staff has approved the minor amendment request to
Special Development District #22 subject to the following findings:
• 1
TOWN OF M
That the requested amendment neither alters the basic intent, nor the character of
Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse. •
2. That the requested amendment is consistent with the design criteria outlined in
Section 18.58, Design Guidelines, of the Municipal Code.
•
Pq
r,
Q
c
0
ACE a c, 5�
OPENS CAPE
• ` L ANOS
EASEMENT
3
G Clp Y ` n
V U
m
U t�fl
N
5 24 �`� --
3 n1
0
` 0_ d i
V a
23 Q3
0.210 A y (b I II
113'6
0.216 Ac'
C2
�w� 2
/0
L2G LA 0.275 Ac.
• '.
C / / `
14 0.2 48 Ac.
0.256 Ac-
/2 Y 2�
• 0.298 Ac. a '
G• /3
0.348 Ac.
M
^J `
�,y
SECTION IV, ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1991, IN PART,
(2) _Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stucco with
chimney caps of weathered copper.
(3) F111es. All flues shall be galvanized or
"paint Lols" sheet metal, painted to match
the roof.
(4) 17ain Fascia. The main fascia shall be a
solid color stain, with brown, taupe, or
gray.
(S) Secondary Fascia and t4etal Riilina above the
First F1OOr. The secondary fascia and metal
railings above the first floor shall be a
muted accent trim color to be reviewed by the
DRB.
(G) walls. walls shall be of stucco and
horizontal or vertical wood siding. Stucco
colors shall be gray, beige or off — white.
Wood siding colors shall be gray, brown or
taupe.
(7) Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a
two foot high stone wainscot in rainbow mix
with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of
the structure except under decks where
-substantially concealed by landscaping.
(0) windows, windows shall be recessed a minimum
Of two inches from the outside wall plane and
have a sandstone sill. Trim shall be white,
taupe or brown.
(9) _Outdoor Liahtina Outdoor lighting shall be
indirect with a concealed source except for
an entry chandelier which may be exposed
globes with a fixture of black or weathered
cooper, look, metal. All exterior lighting
shall be reviewed by the DRB.
(10) Garages. No garage doors shall directly face
the street, except on Lot 24.
9
•
•
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 22, 1997
SUBJECT: 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 Haus, located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K,
Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to convert an existing retail space to a real
estate office. The property is zoned Public Accommodation (PA) which allows professional and
business offices subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed office is
approximately 624 sq. ft. which requires 2.496 parking spaces. The existing retail space required
2.08 parking spaces, therefore the proposed office generates an additional requirement of 0.416
parking spaces. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the on -site parking requirement
for this space to allow the parking to be paid -in -lieu ($7,032.50).
The proposed office will be located in the former Cosmetique retail space on the east side of the
building.
11. ZONING ANALYSIS
Lot Size: 34,325.3 square feet
Zoning: Public Accommodation
Standard Allowed Existing'
Parking: Per Code 18.64 spaces existing
(1.64 spaces via pay -in -lieu)
Retail: n/a 1,388.7 sq. ft.
Office: n/a none
Based on the February 24, 1997 approval for expansion
•
Proposed
19.06 spaces required
(2.06 spaces via pay -in -lieu)
764.70 sq. ft.
624 sq. ft.
TOWN
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal •
Code. In addition to the Conditional Use criteria, staff has included purpose statements from the
Public Accommodation (PA) zone district and the Conditional Use sections of the code:
The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and
residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi - public facilities and
limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor -
oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district. The Public
Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other
amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of
the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional non-
residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a
winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are
intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The
Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at
densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre.
A professional or business office shall be permitted in the PA zone district subject to the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For
the PEC's reference, the Conditional Use Permit purpose statement is as follows:
In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified
uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so
that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with
respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and
limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the
conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and
will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised,
to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request to allow for a real estate office
based upon the following factors:
A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
The proposal will make available floor area for professional and business offices.
It has been recognized that there is a shortage of this kind of office space within
the Town of Vail and this proposal helps to alleviate the problems of businesses
moving down valley. The Vail Village Master Plan also recognizes the need for •
2
street level retail spaces in order to keep the core area vital and active.
10 Therefore, the proposal may have some negative impact on the pedestrian
commercial nature of the core.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues as the space already
exists and no exterior improvements are proposed.
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.
The proposal will have little on these issues as the space already exists and no
exterior improvements are proposed. However, the proposed use as a real estate
office will likely increase the vehicular traffic to the site. The site does have direct
access to a public street and has parking available on -site.
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.
0 The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues as the space already
exists and no exterior improvements are proposed.
B. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the 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.
•
3
V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR VARIANCEREQUEST
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance. The
recommendation for approval is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The existing building is located in a pedestrian oriented area adjacent to the
village core. The site does not have space to provide the required parking on -site.
The applicant will satisfy the parking requirement by paying into the parking fund.
The variance will have little effect on potential uses in the area or structures in the
vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Although the PA zone district does not specifically provide a provision that allows
parking to be paid -in -lieu, the location of this site is very similar to that of
structures and uses located in the CC1 district which requires that parking be
paid -in -lieu. The applicant had a similar variance approved in February which •
allowed parking associated with an expansion to this building to be provided via
pay -in -lieu. Other similar variances have been approved adjacent to the village
with similar circumstances and Section 18.52.180 of the Zoning Code requires
that any parking variances be "paid -in- lieu." Staff believes the granting of this
variance will not be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues as the space already
exists and no exterior improvements are proposed.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
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.
•
4
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
to allow a professional office at the Swiss Haus, subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the PA
zone district.
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.
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the parking variance
allowing the parking to be paid -in -lieu of providing it on -site, subject to the following findings:
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 strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition:
1. That the applicant pay into the parking fund for the parking required for this use at
the time of building permit or occupation of the space.
• F:\ EVERYONE \PEC\MEMOS \97\SWISSCHA.922
5
0
fm
UNIf 1
1
O
41 I O
to
I1
UNIT 110
uNit'1
y w, 3 Cc+ t �•�
r
I
i ►t
{.AtIN I'KV
Ir
Co Ve.
9
NIAI N LEVEL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 22, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance of 7'- 6" from Section 18.13.060
(Setbacks), to allow for the construction of a new primary /secondary
residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village
7th Filing.
Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance of 7.5' (15' required) to allow a 7.5' side setback (from the
north lot line) for a new primary /secondary residence to be constructed on a vacant lot.
The property is zoned Primary /Secondary Residential and has a lot size of 19,602 sq. ft. (15,000
sq. ft. minimum required). The site previously contained a water treatment facility.
On March 5, 1995, the Town Council approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 1995, which allowed
the land use designation on this property to be changed from Parks to Low Density Residential.
Subsequently, on June 6, 1995, Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995, which
rezoned the property from General Use to Primary /Secondary Residential. During the review of
both of these requests, the PEC found that the property met the minimum dimensional
requirements to allow development of a primary /secondary residence. Specifically, the PEC
found that it met the minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 sq. ft., that the site met the
minimum frontage requirement of 30', and that the site was capable of containing an 80' x 80'
square on the site.
The applicant received DRB approval of a primary /secondary residence on this site meeting all
setbacks on December 18, 1996. On August 25, 1997, the applicant made application for a
similar residence as is being proposed for a setback variance which meets all of the setback
requirements. This application will be reviewed by the DRB on October 1, 1997.
The applicant's statement is attached.
•
MWNOFVA[L
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential
Use: Two- family residence
Lot Size: 19,602 sq. ft.
Sta ndard Allowed Proposed
Site Coverage: 3,920 sq. ft. (20 %) 2,448.7 sq. ft. (12.5 %)
GRFA: 5,060 sq. ft. 5,060 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 20'
Sides: 15' 15' (east)/7.5' (west)
Ill. 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 denial of the requested setback variance.
The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 0
Variances on other properties in this same zone district have only been
granted when a unique physical hardship impairs a reasonable level of
development on property. On this lot, there are no extraordinary
circumstances or any physical hardships which effect the owners ability to
construct a reasonable duplex. The lot does have a unique shape for this
area, however, the lot was determined to be large enough to meet all of
development criteria in the code to be platted as a residential lot. There
are many lots in Vail with unique shapes and slopes that do not present a
physical hardship for development. Staff believes the grant of this
variance would be a grant of special privilege.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The applicant has demonstrated with two DRB submittals that the site can
be adequately developed within the setback requirements. The applicant
has been able to utilize all of the available GRFA for the site. Staff
believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by other lot owners in the area or in this zone district.
r�
U
2
,a
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.
The proposed variance will have little, if any, impact on these issues.
B. The Planning and Environmental commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's
variance request subject to the following findings:
That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2. That there are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary /Secondary Residential zone.
3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulations do
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential district.
F:\ EVERYONE \PEC \MEMOS\97\ACKERMAN.922
•
3
/
nanvEercaxd
WILPFLOWM, `
SugILOEFLANTE�
_
fOK 11 - 1 1URBEP AKeAS
Ap
rK,9 EK;TY Llry
6 tI ETTUG K � r 1
\j \ i 4f�
c
-O .
t OTF - GARr -
�/ PATH
1
r I I � � u2w• v � ' /
PROPERTY WIF
✓�, `� •\. / \ ' ,� \� 1 Inc �vELI azst
\\ .•\ � \ � \ `` — `` Ju ^yF
b2✓l l -` `oee ow ` / TunCV Levi]._: 8251'
62y1
L Ke QoFtT FOR VAUAW-E
lrfg M62 -MO) Or hETErIGK
• l711A1 ARTY !AM J ExI �nn r,TKEf gv rvc.9lre VKCPrCRTy W ILLPKOV roe
IB• GUIVEK EtTITK LAMMIC.A7 AHP
61RCATLR- OTAMC,O TWtEri
t1lN ASTCH tR[.. — -- — — — ExIJr lrA JI(A/•I' fm O^lv) FT1 ANp RE7It7EIT( L
neLI gtAAtS . � /WT F -KHATE `Al PLAN
Pierce,
Segerberg k
Associates,
Architects
P.C.-A.I.A.
AMCMITACTURI
►LAMMING
IV il�l0 \1
N•.. IMfv
V - V A , M•u
al, GaW III
D1i 114M)I
u•wrr d!
1 !.N• [•u•r -Sri• 111
IDOIM 31
Il..r•, CWM. MID}
W
Z
W
00
W
w
Q O
LU
U
Q
Ilevlllonl
"41 O JT -
VAKIAROC of
tnreAr,K , Air",
whim NOE Or of 1
N. K
0
MEMORANDUM
i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 22, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control),
18.13.090 (Site Coverage) and a request to utilize the remaining GRFA of
a previous Additional GRFA (250) request, to allow for the construction of
an entry addition, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertleger
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 25.7 sq. ft., a density (GRFA) variance of
6.7 sq. ft., and is requesting to utilize the balance of a previous 250 request (of 19 sq. ft.) in order
to construct a 25.7 sq. ft. entry to this existing single- family home.
The house is currently nonconforming with respect to GRFA, site coverage, and setbacks. On
February 2, 1994, the owners of this property received approval for 231 sq. ft. of a 250 request.
. The house at that time contained 4,433 sq. ft. of GRFA or 1,124 sq. ft. over what is allowed
(3,309 sq. ft.). This GRFA is considered "grandfathered" for the purposes of the 250 Ordinance.
The existing site coverage on this house is 2,423 sq. ft. (21 %) or 116 sq. ft. over what is allowed
(2,307 sq. ft.).
The existing house encroaches approximately V into the side setback and 5' into the rear
setback.
II. DISCUSSION
Site Coverage and GRFA:
The applicant states that as it relates to this building and the impact on those in the surrounding
area, the existing roof form and stone walls on the approach to the entry define the bulk and
mass of the area in question. The proposed walls which define the added site coverage will
have no impact on the perceived bulk and mass of the building.
Staff Response: While the proposed addition is small, this site already exceeds the site
coverage allowance for this zone district. The addition will add bulk and mass to the building.
While other site coverage variances have been granted on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. in size,
they were all for garage additions. Again, while the proposed addition is small, this site already
exceeds the GRFA allowance for this zone district by 34 %. The addition will add bulk and mass
to the building. No other similar GRFA variances have ever been granted by the Town.
•
_'" _ r
T
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential •
Use: Single - family residence
Lot Size: 11,535 sq. ft.
Standard Allowed Existing Proposed
Site Coverage: 2,307 sq. ft. (20 %) 2,423 sq. ft. (21 %) 2,448.7 sq: ft. (21.2 %)
GRFA: 3,309 sq. ft. 4,433 sq. ft.
w/ 250: n /a. 4,664 sq. ft. (231 sq. ft. of 250) 4,689.7 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 28' n/c
Sides: 15' 14'& 15' n/c
Rear: 15' 10' n/c
IV. 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 denial of the requested site coverage
variance and GRFA variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity. •
The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. Staff believes that
there is no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances on this
property which would justify approving the requested variances. Other
structures in the area and in other areas zoned for two- family residences
are able to comply with the site coverage and GRFA requirements. The
house on .this lot already exceeds GRFA and site coverage limitations and
the proposal will exacerbate this existing nonconformity. Staff believes the
grant of this variance would be a grant of special privilege.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the area or in this zone
district. Other sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage
and GRFA requirements.
•
2
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.
The proposal has little, if any, impact on these criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 250 REQUEST
Upon- review of Chapter' 18.71 - Additional' GRFA, the Community Development Department
recommends denial of this 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 topoograp_hy, vegetation drainage and
existing structures
The proposed additions will have minimal, if any, negative impact on the
site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected.
•
3
r
2. Impact on adjacent proorties
The proposed remodel may have negative impacts on adjacent properties. •
The proposal will exacerbate the nonconforming nature of this structure by
increasing GRFA and site coverage.
3.. Compliance with the Town's zoning mquirements and applicable
development standards
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any
dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the
standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These
standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway
paving and general maintenance of the property. The site has paved
parking and adequate landscaping. All utilities are located underground.
B. Findin
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 will not negatively
affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively
impact adjacent properties. 0
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town
zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's variance
requests subject to the following findings:
That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That there are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary /Secondary Residential zone.
3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulations do
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's 250 request
subject to the following finding:
E'A
4
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not comply with
. Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards,
specifically, the Town's GRFA and site coverage restrictions.
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\97\GILLBERG.922
0
5
O h l
v )k
r• ,
+_±
rl
Ak
*
• �j� 1 y �, a � l �
w
a'
If
f c
Fir
C ,yY �t'• F - r 5• +y 1St
a• �"
i v
41 .
ro
Ns, A
1
1� •
r
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
P.O. BOX 2374 •
VAIL, COLORADO 81658
(970) 926 -7253
August 25, 1997
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling - Site Coverage Variance
To Whom it may Concern:
My office represents the Owner of the above referenced lot, who is requesting a variance per
Section 18.04.360 of the Town of Vail Code (Site Coverage). The amount of additional site
coverage being requested is 25.7 S.F. He is requesting the additional site coverage to increase
the size of the entry to his residence, in an effort to eliminate a somewhat hazardous condition.
The entry occurs at the mid - landing of the main stair serving both the living and sleeping areas
of the house. This landing is presently only +/ -3' -9" long in the direction of travel and is a
problem when guests are arriving and leaving. As indicated on the attached drawings, the
added floor area occurs totally within the limits of the existing entry roof. This existing roof
projects 4' -8" off the face of the building and is +/- 13' -0" wide. Based on my understanding of
the site coverage rules, the last 8" of the 4' -8" roof projection is counted as site coverage. I
have consider this area in my calculation of the additional Site Coverage required, and have
reduced the total amount of area- being added (34.4 S.F.) by the amount of roof overhang that is
site coverage (8.7 S.F.) to arrive at the 25.7 S.F. of coverage being requested.
At present, all of the lots in clear view of the area in question appear to be completely
developed. It is my opinion that the granting of this variance will have no impact on existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Based on the literal interpretation of the Site Coverage regulation it would appear that the
approval of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. It is my understanding
that this regulation, in conjunction with others in the Vail Code, is intended to control density
and, specifically, the bulk and mass of a building. As it relates to this building and the impact on
those in the surrounding area, I feel that the existing roof form and stone walls on the approach
to the entry define the bulk and mass of the area in question. The proposed walls which define
the added Site Coverage will have no impact on the perceived bulk and mass of this building. I
believe this will be apparent, after you have had the opportunity to review the attached
photographs and drawings.
r„
Town of Vail
Community Development
• Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling
Site Coverage Variance
August 25,1997
Rage 2
In my opinion, and due to the insignificance of the proposed addition, the granting of the
requested variance would have no impact on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.
From my understanding of Vail's Land 'Use Guidelines, which define Vail vomprchensive
Plan, my client's request would not be in conflict with the criteria outlined in these gukiefines and
would, therefore, be in compliance with them.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely
ARCHITECTURAL SPVICES
Danny ert€ er Al
Y e9
copy to: Mr. Gunner Gillberg
•
lu
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
P.O. BOX 2374 •
VAIL, COLORADO 81658
(970) 926 -7253
August 25, 1997
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling - GRFA Variance
To Whom it may Concern:
My office represents the Owner of the above referenced lot, who is requesting a variance to
Section 18.04.130 of the Town of Vail code (GRFA). Should he be allowed to use the 19.0 S.F.
remaining from the 250 S.F. granted to the previous Owner of his residence, he would need a
variance of 6.7 S.F. He is requesting the additional floor area to increase the size of the entry to
his residence, in an effort to improve a somewhat hazardous condition. The entry occurs at the .
mid - landing of the main stair serving both the living and sleeping areas of the house. This
landing is presently only +/ -3' -9" long in the direction of travel and is a problem when guests are
arriving and leaving. As indicated on the attached drawings, the added floor area occurs totally
within the limits of the existing entry roof.
At present, all of the lots in dear view of the area in question appear to be completely
developed. It is my opinion that the granting of this variance will have no impact on existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity:
Based on the literal interpretation of the GRFA regulation, it would appear that the approval of
the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. It is my understanding that this
regulation, in conjunction with others in the Vail Code, is intended to control density and,
specifically, the bulk and mass of a building. As it relates to this building and the impact on those
in the surrounding area, I feel that the existing roof form and stone walls on the approach to the
entry define the bulk and mass of the area in question. The proposed walls which define the
added GRFA will have no impact on the perceived bulk and mass of this building. I believe this
will be apparent, after you have had the opportunity to review the attached photographs and
drawings.
In my opinion, and due to the insignificance Vt1he*oposed addition, the granting of the
requested variance would have no impact on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.
Town of Vail
Community Development
. Lot-3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling
GRFA Variance
August 25, 1997
Page 2
From my understanding of Vail's Land Use Guidelines, which define Vail's Comprehensive
Plan, my client's request would not be in conflict with the criteria outlined in these guidelines and
would, therefore, be in compliance with them.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely
ARCHITECTURA SERVICE
Danny ertf er
copy to: Mr. Gunner Gillberg
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
P.O. BOX 2374
VAIL, COLORADO 81658
(970) 926 -7253
August 25, 1997
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling - Additional GRFA (250) Application
To Whom it may Concern:
Attached please find my client's Application and all the additional materials required for his
request for Additional GRFA (250). It should be understood that he is only requesting the 19
S.F. of GRFA remaining from the 250 granted to the previous owner of this residence on
2 -2 -94. If granted the use of the remaining GRFA, my client will use it increase the size of the
entry to his residence. As indicated on the attached drawings, the added floor area occurs
totally within the limits of the existing entry roof.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely
ARCHITECTURAL RVICES
ARCHITECTURAL
e AI
copy to: Mr. Gunner Gillberg
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development <�
DATE: September 22, 1997
RE: WORKSESSION RE: LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
-- Initial presentation of Stage Three Alternative Master Plan Concepts
At the meeting on September 22, 1997, Design Workshop, Inc. will present the Stage Three
"Alternative Master Plan Concepts ".
This worksession with PEC is the third of eight public meetings on this part of Stage Three of the
master planning process. There will be a worksession with Council on September 23, followed by
formal consideration by the PEC on October 13, worksessions with Council on October 14 and
21, and Council selection or creation of a preferred master plan alternative at the evening meeting
on October 21.
Detailed review of the September 1997 Project Update newsletter is the best preparation for this
worksession because it will remind you of the context of this master planning effort, what has
occurred to date, what is involved in this particular stage of the process, and what comes next.
To give you a bit of an additional roadmap, the following page lists the "ingredients" that have
been combined creatively in the alternative master plan concepts to achieve the desired results
(that is, the community policy objectives adopted by Council on November 4, 1996). From these
alternative concepts, the Town Council -- with community input and a recommendation from AEC
-- will select or create a Preferred Master Plan Alternative. In Stage Four, the master plan team
will draft the actual master plan, which will contain policy, design and regulatory
recommendations to implement the Preferred Master Plan Alternative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable at this time.
•
THE "INGREDIENTS"
IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS
THE PROBLEM STATEMENT
2. THE SIX COMMUNITY POLICY OBJECTIVES
3. THE URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES
4. PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS (INCLUDING "WISH LIST ")
5. CIRCULATION ISSUES (PEDESTRIAN, AUTO, TRANSIT, SKIER DROP -OFF,
AND LOADING AND DELIVERY)
6. NATURAL ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES -- CREEK AND MOUNTAIN: PUBLIC
VIEW CORRIDORS (VISUAL) AND GREENWAY CONNECTIONS (PHYSICAL)
7. PUBLIC SPACES WITHIN LIONSHEAD VILLAGE
8. UTILITIES AVAILABILITY (LOCATION AND CAPACITY), GRADE CHANGES
AND OTHER PHYSICAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
9. GIVENS (E.G., NO NET LOSS OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING OR PARKING)
10. RETAIL -- NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS: WILL THE DESIRED REDEVELOPMENT
OCCUR UNDER EXISTING REGULATORY AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS?
(THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE)
12. IF EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL NOT LEAD TO THE DESIRED RESULTS (SEE
POLICY OBJECTIVES), THEN WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO INCENTIVIZE
• REDEVELOPMENT? (PREVIEW OF STAGE 4 -- HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN)
LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER
•
ALTERNATIVE MASTER PLAN CONCEPT PRESENTATION
Prepared and Presented By:
Town of Vail Community Development Department
DESIGNWORKSHOP
NOTE
•
This outline is taken from the slide presentation used by the master plan team
during its presentation. This document does not include any detailed
information about the alternative master plan concept, although it does contain
the framework of the proposals. This presentation and document is intended to
communicate the big idea, the vision of what Lionshead can become, and is a
work in progress, representing only the beginnings of what will grow into a
physical master plan at the end of the master plan process. You are strongly
encouraged to continue to participate as the master plan team works with the
public to refine, change, and further develop the ideas contained here.
0
FRAMEWORK FOR MASTER PLANNING EFFORT
0 6 Policy Objectives Adopted by Council
OBJECTIVE 1.
Renewal and Redevelopment
OBJECTIVE 2.
Vitality and Amenities
OBJECTIVE 3.
Stronger Economic Base Through Increased "Live Beds"
OBJECTIVE 4.
Improved Access and Circulation
OBJECTIVE 5.
Improved Infrastructure
OBJECTIVE 6.
Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public
Revenues
•
Urban Design Principles:
1. Connect Lionshead physically and visually to the mountain landscape
2. Provide physical and emotional comfort for the users of Lionshead
3. Provide a sense of arrival to Lionshead
4. Create landmarks and turning points in Lionshead
5. Provide gates and portals to define sequential spaces and places
6. Define appropriate land uses adjacent to outdoor spaces
WHAT IS A MASTERPLAN?
• A Guide
• A Flexible Framework for Future Action
• Articulates Policies and Goals
• Includes Narrative and Maps
• Implemented through Zoning Code or Other Regulations/ Policies
• NOT an Approval of Specific Development Proposals
0
What is the role of Lionshead in the future of the Town of Vail, The
Vail Valley, and the Entire I - -70 Corridor?
WHY WE ARE HERE
• There are significant problems and issues confronting Lionshead today
• There is significant redevelopment potential in Lionshead today
• There is an urgent need to create a "redevelopment framework" - this framework
is the Lionshead master plan
• Lionshead is a vital component in the continuing status of Vail as a world class
resort
Lionshead Existing Problems and Issues
• Public input- the best and worst of Lionshead, Lionshead walking tours and
surveys
• Stage I research and mapping
• Existing transportation data gathering and analysis
Primary Identified Problems
• Circulation conflicts and confusing circulation patterns
• Lack of vitality in public spaces and corridors
• Aesthetic issues, both architectural and softscape
• Lack of connection to the mountain and Gore creek
LIONSHEAD HAS SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS!
Stage II- the Wishlist- Developed by the Public in Stage II
• Ideas that can be implemented today- no significant overall change to Lionshead
required
• Ideas that impact specific sites and their surrounding context
• Ideas that impact the entire Lionshead study area
•
In Order to Meet the Policy Objectives and Address the
Public's Wishlist......
What redevelopment can occur now, without any major changes to
Lionshead?
The "existing conditions" alternative
Regulatory Constraints
• GRFA- gross residential floor area
• Site coverage
• Building height
What We Found..
• 71 % of the existing development in the Lionshead core exceeds the GRFA
allocated by zoning
• 84% of the existing development in the Lionshead core exceeds height allocated
by zoning
• Current Lionshead zoning was established after much of the area was developed
1 0 Existing Conditions Alternative- What Can Occur?
• Even assuming rezoning of parking lot parcels to Commercial Core II, very little
additional development can occur
• Available development rights are insufficient to fund realistic redevelopment and
property enhancement
• Stage I problem issues and the wishlist are not addressed by this alternative
• POLICY OBJECTIVES ARE NOT MET!
How Can Redevelopment Occur?
• Provide incentives for redevelopment
• Provide guidelines- a framework- for redevelopment
• Insure that redevelopment accomplishes the adopted Lionshead policy objectives
0
I LIONSHEAD POLICY OBJECTIVES ADOPTED BY VAIL TOWN COUNCIL' ,I
FINANCIAL MECHANISM PROVIDED THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
4 4 *& *&
Recap- Why Is an Alternative Master plan Concept Needed?
• Vail needs Lionshead to redevelop!
• Existing conditions alternative fails to meet policy objectives
• For redevelopment to occur, incentives must be provided to stakeholders
Existing Real Estate Opportunity Areas
• New development opportunities
• Known redevelopment interest
Existing Public Lands Opportunity Areas
• Natural environment connections
• Public gathering spaces
• Pedestrian corridor enhancements
View Corridors and Connections to Gore Creek and the Mountain
• 5 public view corridors approved by Vail Town Council
• Enhanced skier bridge
• "Natural environment" connects to village core
• Enhancement of creek corridors
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Site Specific
• South and west faces of Lionshead parking structure
• Red Sandstone school parking lot
General Area Opportunity Area
• Housing included as component of west Lionshead mixed use residential/
commercial hub
Dispersed Housing Opportunities
• Lionshead core and existing lodging facilities- housing to be added through
redevelopment process (policy based)
LAND USE FRAMEWORK
• Civic hub
• Resort retail and commercial hub
• Resort lodging hub
• Mixed use residential and commercial community hub
STAGE III TRANSPORTATION CHARETTE
Public works staff, Town of Vail Community Development staff and the master plan
consultants brainstormed solutions to the circulation issues of the Lionshead study area
CIRCULATION
• Vehicular
• Public transportation (transit)
• Pedestrian/ bicycle
The configuration of the circulation and transit systems are the most important
planning components in creating the physical master plan framework
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
• Service and lodging access
• Vehicular drop -off point
• Skier drop -off
• Regional transit hub
• Local and regional shuttles
• Signage- wayfinding program
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (TRANSIT)
• Transit Option "A"
• Existing condition- frontage road bypass
• Transit Option "B"
• Modified existing condition- removal of bypass
• Transit Option "C"
• Central spine
Provides continuous transit/ pedestrian corridor from Blue Cow Chute (east end of Vail
Village parking structure) to west end of Lionshead
OVERALL VEHICULAR CIRCULATION FRAMEWORK
• Service and lodging access
• Transit corridor
• Centralized vehicular drop -off point
•
VEHICULAR GATEWAYS
40 • Hierarchy of entry points along the south frontage road
• Sense of arrival/ identity established at each portal into Lionshead
• Consistent edge treatment along south frontage road
PARKING OPPORTUNITIES
• Development to provide own lodging parking
• Add additional deck to existing Lionshead parking structure
• New centralized parking facilities
• Relocate charter bus lot outside of Lionshead study area
SERVICE AND DELIVERY FACILITIES
• Service and delivery operations shall be removed from public spaces and pedestrian
circulation corridors
• Many structures currently provide own service and delivery facilities
• Opportunity areas exist for centralized service and delivery facilities
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
• Pedestrian Framework System
• Create strong east -west corridor to deliver guests through entire Lionshead core
• Create multiple north -south corridors to provide diverse village experiences as
guests filter through the retail core
• Create coherent, easy to navigate circulation patterns
• Pedestrian Gateways
• Create strong sense of entry and identity at primary portals to Lionshead study
area and the commercial/ retail core area
• Corridors and Public Gathering Spaces
• Create hierarchy of pedestrian corridors and gathering spaces
• Create a strong series of north -south corridors --
• North- south corridors focus views toward the mountain and increase sun
exposure onto the streets
• Create expanded and enhanced street level retail environment
• Critical retail use assignments adjacent to public gathering spaces
•
VAIL RETAIL MARKET STUDY
• • People have less time to shop and are increasingly looking to vacations to catch up on
their shopping needs
• Even in resort communities, local patronage is important to financial stability and long
term success
• The most successful retail businesses benefit from a community with charm, appeal,
history, culture and identity
• The architectural style, design of public spaces, tenant mix, visual access, and building
scale all contribute to a pleasant sense of place and, therefore, retail success
• A village center is important in increasing the sense of community and a place which
meets visitor's expectations
• A clear pedestrian connection that is easy, interesting and well - signed should be created
between Lionshead and the Vail Village
• The connection of Lionshead to Vail Village would create the critical mass which leads
to success for all. The more square feet of appealing retail, the better!
Lionshead is not an island unto itself, nor is the Vail Village.
As Lionshead Village grows, so grows Vail...
• Lionshead Village + the Vail Village= the Vail Resort
The benchmark for destination resorts in the 21st century!
•
i e
OCT
September 22, 1997
Minutes
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Susan Connelly
Mike Mollica
Dominic Mauriello
George Ruther
Judy Rodriguez
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden (arrived at 2:05 pm)
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
STAFF PRESENT:
Public Hearing
2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. He informed the PEC that Greg
Amsden would be late.
1. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District # 22 Grand Traverse,
to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts
to be unpainted copper.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
Planner: George Ruther
Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked if there were
any public comments. There were none.
There were no comments from the Commission.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 (Greg Amsden was not present).
2. 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 Haus,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 22, 1997
1
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Johannes Faessler said he didn't understand why real estate office parking requirements were
different than those required by a retail use.
Ann Bishop asked for clarification of the parking fee structure and asked if Mr. Faessler could
use parking spaces from other locations to satisfy this parking requirement.
Dominic Mauriello explained the parking fee requirement and stated that the code would not
allow an exchange of parking spaces.
There were no other comments from the Commission.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0.
3. A request for a side setback variance of 7.5' from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow
for the construction of a new primary/secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail
Valley Drive /Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg •
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had no comments. Greg
then asked if there were any public comments.
Ann Repetti, an 11 year neighbor, was in support of the request, as it was an improvement to the
neighborhood.
There were no comments from the Commission.
Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 7 -0.
4. A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site
Coverage) and a request to utilize the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA
(250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 22, 1997 2
Ann Bishop recused herself from this item, as she was representing Mrs. Gillberg in a personal
matter and had a conflict of interest.
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Danny Swertfeger, the architect representing the applicant, stated that this was an improvement
to the neighborhood and that it was the best plan for the lot. He stated that he recognized that it
would be a grant of special privilege, but would have little impact on anyone.
Greg Moffet asked if there were any public comments. There were no comments.
The comments from the Commission stated that approval of this request would be a grant of
special privilege.
Gene Uselton made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 6 -0 -1 (Ann Bishop recused herself).
5. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the
Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive /Tract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
• Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13, 1997
Ann Bishop made a motion to table item #5 until October 13, 1997.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0.
6. 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 1st Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Lauren Waterton
WITHDRAWN
7. Approval of September 8, 1997 minutes.
Planning and Environmental Commission
• Minutes
September 22, 1997
3
Galen Aasland had changes.
Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0
8. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Initial presentation of Stage 3 Alternative Master
Plan concepts - Susan Connelly
• DRB invited to attend - Ted Hingst and Bill Pierce attended.
Ethan Moore from Design Workshop gave a slide presentation.
Susan Connelly explained that they would like any comments from the Commission. She said
that there were about 50 people at the first public forum and that they would be making the same
presentation to Council tomorrow.
Greg Moffet asked if any motions were needed at this time.
Susan Connelly said, no.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
•
Ann Esson from the Affordable Housing Team, stated that Lionshea.d was the best opportunity to
make a significant impact for housing for locals, as well as seasonal housing. She said that •
second homeownership has risen from 58% to 72% in the last 5 years. She said that we would
lose Vail as a real community, unless we use this Lionshead opportunity to get real live beds in
Vail. She stated that the Affordable Housing Team would like to see a project similar to Vail
Commons and not ghettoized as Timber Ridge was. She stated that 150 beds would be lost at
Sunbird and the Design Charette informed them of the possibility for 600 beds in Lionshead.
Greg Moffet asked what the Affordable Housing Team targets were.
Ann Esson said that 38% of people who work in Vail live in Vail and we want that percentage to
rise to 62 %. She said that Aspen had a goal of 60% and Whistler was higher than that.
Ann Bishop said that affordable housing was a huge component of the Lionshead redevelopment
as stated from the Design Charette.
Diane Golden asked if Ann Ellison knew how many people in Edwards worked in Vail.
Ann Esson said she didn't have that information.
Gene Uselton said that Ethan did an outstanding job and Gene was impressed with providing
incentives to accomplish goals.
John Schofield asked how it would be paid for and that the private sector was a significant part of
the plan that was not mentioned.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 22, 1997 4
Ethan Moore said ideas would happen, as the pieces came together. He said that the financing
• would be part of stage 4 and what mechanisms would be used would be known as the plan was
developed.
Susan Connelly said this was getting clear on the vision or destination and stage 4 would be how
to get there.
John Schofield stated that the streamwalk needed to be put in place between Lionshead and the
Village, as 80% of the people in the Town Survey wanted a streamwalk. He mentioned that a
vast portion of Lionshead didn't comply with the current zoning. He said that they were right on
target with the skier bridge as being a great focal point and that perhaps an alpine slide from a
retail space to the top of the bridge.
Greg Amsden asked if we were looking at a rezoning of the zone districts or piecing different
zone districts together.
David Kenyon said they were looking at a Lionshead District, encompassing the entire study
area. He said there would be overall criteria and it would be performance based to meet the
design criteria.
Ted Hingst reinforced the north lot drop -off and convention center with some refinement. He
also agreed that the skier bridge concept could be significant and could become the next
Covered Bridge.
Bill Pierce said that a lot of the concepts were good and he was anxious to hear the cost in terms
of the incentives.
• Galen Aasland said the presentation was very complete and he felt that the natural environment
was the most important. He said to add a slope to the circulation routes. He said he was
interested in the landscaping and questioned the east -west circulation addressing the wind. He
asked when the VA yard was gone, where would the VA snow cats go.
David Kenyon said that some of functions could be dispersed on the mountain, but the fueling of
the cats would be a problem and how to get the fuel trucks to the fuel tanks would need to be
addressed.
Ann Bishop said she had always been concerned with the fast track this was on and notice being
given to the 2nd homeowners. She said she was impressed with Charette process and the fact
that local architects were involved. She said it would be interesting to have an architectural skier
bridge and the standards appeared to be high.
Dominic Mauriello said the 2nd homeowner mailing list was over 800 people and information was
also on the Internet.
Ann Bishop said she had talked to a number of people and they did not know what was going on.
Susan Connelly asked Ann to supply the names and they would be added to the mailing list.
Planning and Environmental Commission
• Minutes
September 22, 1997
5
Diane Golden asked about the impact on Red Sandstone Elementary School with the parking lot
being redeveloped. •
David Kenyon said the existing playground area would be modified with people living there and
children able to walk 100' to school. He said that conceptually the idea was that it be a
community hub and could complement the school.
Diane Golden said it was important for a community to have a school and that she loved the
Main Street idea.
Greg Moffet asked about the western shift of the access.
Ethan Moore said the west end could be multi -use to bring people back into this end of the
valley.
Greg Moffet asked about the Civic Center on the east end. He said we should bring the code
into compliance with what's there and not the other way around. He asked who would decide the
mix of retail and restaurant uses.
David Kenyon said there are regulatory ways to guide the decisions of the mix.
Greg Moffet said that discussion would fall into the "how" stage.
Tom Ehrenberg said that he had been a resident of Lionshead Center since it started and he was
worried about noise pollution. He felt rules should be placed on outside loudspeaker units, since
every restaurant had loudspeakers announcing football games.
Susan Connelly said there was a noise ordinance that measured decibels.
Ann Bishop said she understood the problem was enforcement.
Tom Ehrenberg said at 10:30 pm one night, a loudspeaker was blasting into the street. He
asked if anything was decided on night skiing.
Susan Connelly said that VA had not moved ahead with the idea of night skiing.
Rob Levine said the zoning would have to go well beyond what's there now. He said the
economic reality was, if they were only allowed to redo what was there now, it wouldn't happen.
He stated going through this was a valuable process, but if the elected officials don't want more
density, accomplishing the policy objectives is a waste of time. He asked how much was too
much. He said that a lot of people said Beaver Creek was too much ratio per acre and he said
that Lionshead would be a lot more dense than it was now and asked about the economic
realities.
Bill Pierce said this was a key element. He said it was our job to come up with a vision and that
most of the public have endorsed additional density. He said as a group, we needed to endorse
that and define it. He said that we all wanted to see more life in Lionshead, with more beds.
Ann Bishop stated that people were surprised with Beaver Creek.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes •
September 22, 1997 6
Greg Moffet said incentives for redeveloping property shouldn't be oatmeal cookies and free
• passes.
Galen Aasland thought storefronts should be significantly smaller.
Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
U
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 22, 1997
7