HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1027 PEC
~ TNIS 17EM MAl( AFFECT YC1UR PR{?PLRTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTiCE 1S HERESY 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 Municipai Cdde of the
Town of Vail on October 27, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, In
consideration of: A request for approval of a majar exterior alteration, Co allow for the construction of a new entry
and comrnon area in the Treetaps 1 building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lat 6, Block 1,
Vail L.ianshead 1 sC Filing.
Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by l.arry Barnes
Planner : Dominic Mauriello
To approve, deny, ar modify an environmental impact report for the proposed Baoth Falls
Townhomes rock faii mitigation wall, located at 3094 Boath Falls Couri/Lot 7, Black 2, Vaii
Village 12th. This wall, as proposed, wi11 be 12 #eet high and 320 feet lang. Another wall ta the
west vvili be approximately 70 feet lang. For more infprmation contact Rusself Farrest at 479_
2146.
Applicant: Booth Falis Condo Associatian ~
P#anrier: Russ Forrest
, A reque5t for approval of a minor exteribr aIteration and a site Goverage variance, to allow for
the reriovation of the exteriar and improvernents to the property knflwn as The Golden E3ear,
Iocated at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302I Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Vil1age Firs# Filing.
~ Applicant: G. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich
Planner; George Ruther
A request for a major exterior alteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to
a#low for constructian of a parking qarage at The Liflnshead Inn, iocated at 705 S. Frontage Rd,/
Lot 1. E31ocfi 2, Vai! Lionshead 4th Filing,
App3icant; Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by Wiiliaz-n Pierce
Pfanner. Lauren Waterton
A request for a major amendrnent to SdD #4 {Cascade Viilage}, to allow rnodifications to
alfowable GRFA and building height lirrritations, Iocated at 1150 Westhaven Lane/L.ots 35-1& 39-
2, G1en Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Timathy Penningtan, represenCed by aiane Larson
Planner: DQminic Maurielkn
A request for an amendment to Sectian 18,54.050 J(DesignGuidelines - outdoor lighting), to
aNow for the exemption of low wattage lighting #rom #he outdaor lighting regtjlations.
Applicant: Ray & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fr6tzlen,Pierce, Briner
Planner: Lauren Waterton
~
A request tor aconditianal use permi#, to allow for a bed and breakiast operation, lacated at
1477 Aspen Grove/Lot 3, Block 2, Liorisridge 4th Filing. ~
Rpplicant: Wiliiarn H. Miller
Planner: Lauren Watertori
A request far a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to atlow #or a revision to the
development plan for the Glen Lyon CJ#fice Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage Rci.
Wesdl.ot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Appiicant: Glen Lyon Office Building {'artnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA
Planner: Deminic Mauriello
The appiications and iniormation about the praposals are available far public inspectian during
regular office hours in the praject planner's o#fice iocated at Che Town of Vaii Community
Deveiopment department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign ianguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please cali 479-
211 4 voice or 479-2356 TDD for infarmation.
Community Develaprnent Department
Published October 10, 1997 in the Vai1 Trail.
~
~
. ,
Agcnda lastreviged 10J23 lU am
~ PLAIVNING AND ENVIRONMENTRL COMMISSiON
Monday, tJctober 27, 1997
AGENDA
Praiect Qrien#atian lLIJNCH - Community Development Departmenfi 12:00 pm
MEMBERS F'RESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1 s00 pm
9. Treetops - 452 E. Lionshead Circle
2. Penningtan - 1150 Westhaven Lane
3. Mi11er - 1477 Aspen Grove
4. GoEden Bear - 953 S. Frantage Road
Driver: George
` 48~ .
NOTE. 1f the PEC hearing e>ctends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
~ F'ablic Hearinq - Town Cauncil Chambers 2.00 p.m:
1. A request for approval af a major exterior aIteration, #o allow fnr the construction af a new
entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located a# 452 E. Lionshead Gircle/Lat
6, Block 'I, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing:
Applicant: Treetops Condo Associafion, represented by Larry E3arnes
Planner : Dominic Mauriello
2. A request for appraval of a minor exterior alteratinn in CC1 and a site coverage variance,
to allow for the renQUation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden Bear, laca#ed
at 935 S. Frantage Road, #302! Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
AppFicant: G. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. C7ietrich
Pianner: George Ru#her
3. A request for aconditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operatian; Iocated
at 1477 Aspen GrovelLot 3, Biock 2, Lionsridge 4#h Fifing.
Applicant: Wifiliam H. Mi1(er
Planner: Lauren Waterfan
4, A request for a major amendment ta SDD #4 (Gascade Village), #o allow madifications to
allowable GRFA and building height limftations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-
1 & 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
~ Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by C7iane Larsen
Planner: Dominic Maurielfo
TOV9N
*VAIL
~
Agenda last revised 10123 10 am ~
5. A request for art amendment fo Section 18.54.050 J(Design Guidelines - outdoor
iighting), to al#aw for the exerrrption of Ipw wattage Iighting fcom the outdaor tighting
regulations.
Applicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by naie Smith! Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner
F'lanner: Lauren Watertort
6. A request to review a draft of the propased Vaii Stra#egic Nousing F'lan, which is interrded
to set the direction raf the Town in its effort to address Iocals housing.
Applicant: Tawn of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen
7. A request for a major amendment ta SDD #4 (Gascade ViAage), to allow for a revision to
the developmen# plan for the Glen Lyon C7ffiCe Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage
Rd. West/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyop Subdivisian,
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA
!'lanner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NQVENIBEF2 10, 1997
& A request for a final review of a conditionai use permit, to aliow for the cnnstruction of the
Alpine Garden Education Center, Iocated at 620 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing,
Applicant: Vai1 Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch ~
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED 1JNTIL NQVEMBEFt 14, 1997
9. To apprave, deny, or modify an Environmenfal Impact Report for the praposed Boath
Falls Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, locafed at 3094 Booth Fa11s CourtlLtit 1, Block
2, Vail Viilage 12th.
Rpplicant, Booth Falls Gondo Associa#ion
Planner: Russ Forrest
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997
10. A request for a major exterior alteration and a variance fram Seetion 18.26.070
(Setbacks), to allow fnr construcfion of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inrt, located at
705 S. Frontage Rd.l Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: Lionshead InnLLG, represented by William Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL Nt7UEMBER '!Q, 1997
2 ~
Agenda last rcvised 10;'23 10 una
~ 11. Informatinn Update
12. Approval of 5eptember 22, 1997 and C7ctober 13, 1997 minutes.
The appiications and information about the propasals are available for public 'rnspectian during
regular office hours in the prflject planner's offiee Idcated at the Town of Vail Community
Development Departmen#, 75 5outh Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretatian available upon request with 24 hcaur notification. Please call 479-2114 vaice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Developmenf Department
Published dctober 24, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
~
~ 3
ppppppp-
Aszenda last revised 10I28 9am
PLANNING AND ENVtRONMENTAL CC)MM{SS10N
~ Monday, October 27, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orien#ation lLUNCH - Comrnun6ty Development Departrnent 12:00 pm
fVIEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:00 pm
1. Treetops - 452 E. L.lonsheadCircle
2. Pennington - 1150 Westhaven Lane
3. Milier - 1477 Aspen Grove
4. Golden Bear - 953 S. Frontage Road
driver: George
; sr
*.1
NOTE,: If the PEC hearing extends until 6.00 p.m,, the board wiil break for dinner frorn 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
~ Public Hearina - Towa Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow fflr the construction of a new
entry and cammon area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead CirclelLat
6, B4ock 1, Vai! Lianshead 1 st Fiiing.
Applicant: Treetaps Cando Association, represented by Larry Barnes
Planner : Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: John Schofield SECONC7: Apn Bishop VC7TE: 6-0
~~PRavED wITH ONE CONpiTrON.
1. That the exterior lighting of the entire structure be braught into compliance with
#he Tawn of Vaii cade.
2, A request for approval of a minor exterior aiteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance;
ta allow for the renovation ofi #he exterior and improvernents to The Galden Bear, located
at 286 Gore Creek Drivel Lcrts A&B, Block 5A, Vail Vi(lage First Filing.
Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich
Pianner: George Ruther
MC7TIC7N: Ann Bishop SECflND: (Jiane Golden VOTE; 6-0
+ ARPROVED (SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE)
APPRUVED (EXTERI4R ALTERATION) WITH FIVE CONDI`1"IONS:
1 roWarn*VAIL
, - _
~
14genda last revised I0!28 9 am
1. Thak a pub(ic way permit and a revocabie right-of-way permit be executed priar #o ~
issuanee of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be
accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic cnntrol, and staging plan. These
plans mus# be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community
Development staff. The applicant sha{I coordina#e and receive approval for aCl
final grading plans for #he paver/drain pan repair wark from Public Works prior to
issuance of a building permit. The applicant shaii alsa coordinate plans to direct
rooftop run-off inta the st4rm sewer system with Public Works.
2. That the applicant prepare and submit a de#ailed ex#erior lighting plan for review
and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. That the applican# provide a minfmum of two streetscape benches along Gore
Creek DrivelBridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. That the applicant eoordinate irrigation pians and plant material selectian
decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building
permit. Un-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the
applicant. Fina1 Town review and approval of landscaping around the Fire
Department connection shall occur priar ta issuance of a building permit.
, 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee sha11 occur prior ta issuance of a
building permit.
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located ~
af 1477 Aspen GroveJLat 3, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing.
Applicant: Wiliiam M. Miller
F'lanner: Lauren Waterton
M(JTION: John Schafield SEC4ND: Diane Goiden VCJTE: 4-1-1 (Gene Uselton
opposed and Ann Bishap recused herselo
APRROVED WITM UNE CONdITION:
1. That an approval wauld not be required by the Aspen Grove Lane (Lionsridge
Filing No. 4) Homeowner's Association and that the conditional use permit will
exire in ane year fram the date o# approval.
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allaw modificatians to
al(owabie GRFA and buiiding he?ght limitations, iocated at 1150 Westhaven LanelLots 39-
1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
AppHcant: Timothy Penningtan, represented by Diane Larsen
Planner, CJominic Mauriello
MOTION: Ann Sishop SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0
RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH C)NE Ct3NDITION;
2 ~
Agcnda Ixst rcutscd 10/28 9 am
1. That the fa{lawing Vanguage be pfaced on ths develapment pian and be included
~ in the ardinance for these lats:
A!1 fu#ure development will be restricted to the area within the buiiding
envelapes. The only development pe.rmitted dutside the building
enveiopes sha11 be landscaping, driveways (access bridge) and retaining
walis associa#ed with driveway construction. At-grade pa#ios (thnse within
5` of existing or finished grade) wili be permit#ed to projecf beyond the
buiiding envelopes not more than ten feet (10') nar more than ane-half
the distance between the building enve{ope and the property ?ine, ar may
project not more than five feet (5') nor more than ane-fourth (1/4) the
minimum requtred dimension between buildings.
5. A request for an amendment to Section 18.54.050 J(Llesign Guidelines -ou#door
lighting), to allow for the exemption of low wa#tage lighting firom the outdoor lighting
regulatians.
App{icant: Roy & Pau1a May, represented by daIe Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, BCiner
Planner: Lauren Waterkan
MUTION: John Schofield SECCIND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0
RECt3MMEND APPROVAL WITH A CHANGE iN THE PROPOSED TEXT
Lights sources, which are placed no more than 18" above finished grade, and are either
fut(y cutoff, as defined by Section 98.(14.137, or have a maximum rnitial lumen oufput of
259 400(equvilent to a2-5 417 watt bulb), may be allowed in addifinn to the tota/ nurnber of
~ permitted oufdoor light sources. Number, locatiora and style of such light sources is
subject to Design Review.
6. A request to review a draft o# the proposed Vei! S#rategic Hausing P4an, which isintended
to set the directian of the Town in its effort to address locals hausing.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen
DISCUSSION - NO t/OTE
7. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Viflage), to ai1ow for a revision to
the deve4opment pfan for the Glen Lyon Uffice Building site, Iocated at 1000 S. Frontage
Rd, WestlLot 54, Block K, GlenLyon Subdivisior?.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordan Pierce, AIA
Planner: Dominic Mauriella
TABLED UNT1L NOVEMBER 24, 1997
~ . 3
Agenda last teviscd lOt'?fi 9 am
8. A request for a final review af a canditionai use permi#, to allow for the construction of the ~
Alpine Garden Educatian Center, located at 620 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Rpplieant: Vail Rlpine Garden Foundation, represented by Nelen Fritch
t'Ianner: George Rufher
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1'997
9. To apprave, deny, or modify an Enviranmental Impact Report for the proposed Boofih
Fal1s Townhames rockfali mitigation waA, located at 3094 Boath Falls GourtlLot 1, Block
2, Vail Village 12th.
Applicanf: Boath Falls Condo Asscrciation
Planner: Russ Forrest
7ABLED UNT1L NOVEMBER 10, 1937
10. A request for a major ex#eriar aIteration and a variance fram Section 18.26.070
(Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Liortshead lnn, located a#
705 S. Frontage Rd.i Lo# 1, Biock 2, Vail Lionshead 4#h Filing.
. Appiican#: L.ionshead Inn LLC, represented by William F'ierce
f'Ianner: Dominic Mauriella
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 ~
11. Informa#ion Update
12. Approval of September 22, 1997 and Octaber 13, 1997 minutes.
The applicatians and informa#ion about the praposals are available for public inspection during,
regular office haurs in the project planner's office Ioeated at the Town nf Vail CQmmunity
Deveiopment Department, 75 Scruth Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. f'lease caH 479-2114 voice ar 479-2356
TDD for infarmation.
Community Development Department
4 ~
-MEM(yRA'NDUM
~
70: . Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM: Gammuni#y Development Department
DATE: Qctober 27, 1997
SUBJECT: A request #or approval of a major exterior afteration, to allow #or the construction
of a new entry and common area in the Treetops i buildang, iocated at 452 E.
Lianshead CirclelLot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st FiGng.
Applicant. Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes
Planrter : pominic Mauriello 1. DESCRiPT10N QF TWE RE~~t~UEST
The applicant is requesting a major exteriar aiteration in order to construct a new entryway to the
Treetops I Condominium. According to..Section 18.24.065(3)(a), of the Zoning Code, appiications for building altera#ions
, which add more than 100 sq. ft. of #loor area are considered major exterior alterations and must
be reviewed by the PEC to ensure compliance with relevant planning documents.
~ The proposal adds approximately 476 sq. ft, of common area to the building. The building
addition is Iocated on north side o# the building and is one story in height. The addition has
sloped roof sections similar #o those onChe roof of the existing building. i`here is a#lat roaf
section which provides protection for the proposed pedestrian doorway to the building.
The proposal aiso provides fnr revised landscape areas and a widened driveway approach ta the
building. 5everal trees are being relncated by this request and there is a net loss of landscape
area. The landscape area is being losi where the addition is lticated and due to the impraved
driveway access to the front of the building. Aithough there is a net loss of landscape area, the
site remains in compliance with 20% minimum area requirement. The proposai FnriN aiso irnprove
the handicap accessibility to the buifding by providing a sioped approach to the building rather
than the existing steps.
11. Zt}NING ANALYSI~
Zoning: CC2
Lo# Sias: 38;640 sq. ft. (include5 residential, parking; andcommerciai sites) Stanclard AlluwedlR+eauired Existin Pr~ed
Common Area: 6,619.2 sq. #t. (35%) 5,339 sq. ft. (28°la) 5,815 sq. ft. (30.7%)
Slte Ct7VeCr1g@: 27,083 Sq. ft. (70°l0) 215970 Sq. ft. (56.9°10) 22,446 Sq. ft. (58.1
Landscaping: 7,73$ (2Q°la) 13,353 sq. ft. (34.6°fa) 13,763 sq. ft; (35.6°la)
~ 1
- -
111. REVIEW CRITERIA
~ A. Compliance with the Urban Desiq.n Guide Plan far Lionshead
This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the
Urban Design Guide F'lan for Lionshead.
However, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the
design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture ofi the buiiding.
The proposai eomplies wrth the develapment standards of the Zoning Cade.
B. Gompliahce with the Urban Design Considera#ions for L'tonshead and CCI1
Exterior Aiteration Criteria
This location is not idontified in any of the sub-area concep#s specified in the
Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead.
Again, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design
guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building. The
proposai complaes with the developmen# standards of the Zoning Code.
C. Cornpliance with the Vai1 Land Use Plan
, The follawing goals of the Vail Land Use Plan are appiicabie to this proposed alteration:
~ 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possib[e.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing cornmercial areas
to accommodate both locai and visitor needs.
4.1 Future commercial development should continue to oceur primarily in
existing commerciaJ areas. Future commercial develapment in the Core
areas needs ta be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery.
Staff believes that this proposai is consistent with the Vail Land Use PCan.
D. Compiiance with the purpose statement for the GC2 zone distriCt
Aecording to Section 18.26.010 of the Zoning Gode, the purpnse of the CG2 district
states:
The Commercial Core 2 zone district is intended to provide sites far a mixture of
multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. Commerciai Core 2 aistricC in accordance with the Vaii Lionshead
Urban C7esign Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities apprapriate to the permitted
types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable quaiities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development standards.
~ 2
_ p
Staff believes the proposed improvements to this building, by creating comman area and
~ by making #he building more accessible to visitors, provides a valuabie amenity fio the
property and the Lianshead area. The proposed addition will imprave the overall quality
of the building.
IV. STAFF REC4MMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed major exteriar
alteration subject to the #ollowing finding:
1. That the proposal is consis#ent with purpose of the CC2 zone dis#rict, the Vail
Land Use Pfan, and the develapment standards in the Town's Zoning Code.
F:\EYERYbN E\PEC1M EM05t97\TRE ETOP5.027
~
~ 3
t ,
q x
I f I
¦I ~1 5epte~ber .+G.G, ici91
Lauren V,,Iatterton ~ r r
Pianning Liaison
Totun of wai 1
Re: Treetvps i Gandominium New Entry
Lot 6, Block 1, Lionshead 15t
VaiP, Gd
AR C H 1 T E C T S'
Lauren,
Today iarn 5ubmitting to the PEG an application for apprnval regarding a new
entry on Treetvps I building located in the GGII district of .Lion5head_ The current
de5ign is in conformance w+th 5ection 18.26.010. The driginai building design did
not in,,iude an enclosed entry area. in recent years, and with respect to the Ar,>A,
there has been a need f'vr secured entry, skier storage, and improved access to
the building, all of tuhich are perrnitted uses.
The design that I am propo5ing not only defines an entry element, but aisa
pravides the unit owners with an area to wait for buses or other rides. The
vaulted roof form can the new entry is consfistent with the existing vauited rvaf
~ forms. Flat roof fvrms are also consistent. The clerestory windows on the west,
and the Iarge openings toward the narth will provide indirec.t 5uniight to flood the
space withaut massive heat buiidup. The height of the add itivn is wel) under the
aIlawed. Exterior finishes will match exi5ting finishes. This new addition will be
contigunus with the existing structure. We are a1so planning on replacing t'he
existing driveway and walkways with hsated pauers.
ifeel that the impact bf thi5 design on the surrounding areas wiif be minimal. An
existing aspen grove will ~hield the propased lacativn of the addition frnrn the
view frQm Lionghead circle even thaugh thie, wa5 nat our intention. The role d€
this addition is to give Treetops a "front door" with sdme reiaticanship to the
street and d riveway. 1t will aIso provide Treetops the amenitiee, that other
condominiums enjoy.
I lovk farward to pre5enting thir, design to ydu and the Planning and
Environmental Gommission. Attached to thi5 letter are elevation renderings,
phdtos, and aspreadsheet compiling my calculationg for aIlawable 5auare feet
and Iandscaping req,uirements. Plea5e call Me if there is additianal informatian
that yau req,uire.
om l~leber
~ K:\9'i1q Treetdp5 Gonda\FEGnarrative.tupd
Plannirtg • Architecture a? IiiLeriors
1650 East Vail Valley I7rive Fallridge C-'! * Vail, CC7 81657 o fpb@colorada.+tet ? fex (970) 476-4901 ?(470) 476-6342
I_ RQAQ ~ 2~~ /~.~3EJ
{~~~:5 •.t{~ .~7L- LV~ L4.fVk~ 2 OAIL~. b'~~V iriTVI~M~[~6t i
~
~
h
x.772 774 776 r
,,~~~DR.__,_ 7F2ACT* C. °
'~th(~d 3 .4. • '
...74 T ; . ~a VA(L. P(~T`kTC~ ~TC~
~ W ~ ° SECOC~ID F`ILING
~g 736 ,748 3.
~740
7422 ( SANDY LANE
794 746 BLK. 1 ;
{~~iry ~
- . . ,t Vf?F'.4ASTTEL
RED SAQIDSTONE, SOLkR MOUNTAtN 3c"LL
ELEMENTARY VAIL
160
TED s 53G`, +~p~ ~
•
P htfyUNZAfN 9EL.C RD.
PHASE , •
~~5~ lNTERSTA7E ?Q
~ (tN T.a:v. )
25 PEf}ESTRIAN ACt
~ suK va}L oveRPass CK 1, VAIL LfUNS ' fN
. f . ~
VAN GE
Pa? T 2 PARKtNG
WEST- 5d8 (/Ai ~ J~C~~ S7RUCTURE ~ VAIL , c
NORTH daY I ~ ~1tNDS t '~t-;! 355 fN7ERNATtOt~t "
PARKfhfG tC7T ~ 548 t (
• ` t.10
S~ i i~17 , 4 300 250 r+ELEPaJ
1 I 1EJNSHEAD boo vaI~.. . YA~LREE . izs
4th. F IN~r aru ARr~ ~.tFTr~ousE 21 5 610 L_EC}N5HE P°~ c
EAST Li
E E
~ TQ[AN PL - « ,b68 3 SZt 450
( 0N3HEAD Cf CE.E iCE ARENA f~~± (tt
TRAG7 F 616 iOMSHEkD 2nd FIL1t~ft7
~
~(cam rciQl} ~ I~7I 321
SG".VBIRU 531 LODGE k2 T t N HEAb * c
s VAIL SPA f MO4fTANEf205 675 .Gt}s00 LA REETOP 452 6 LtBRAR ?RACT A
710
6~ . T H 4 LfONSHEAb 5 292 ~ 281 . F- E NAT'L 8 K
~ LkON'S SQUARE VAIL VA L l. E Y z BLDG.
~p M RRl07T q Nf7R-TH MEl71CA CENTER aC38 SCO
MARK0 635 I D 42
714 9 t f SKAAL ~
TftAGF 0 ~ UML.ATTED • 272 FfOt15E AtFN
c~ ACT g g ~s7 a~ 141 121
~ ANTLERS ~~E~ LOt~GE AR 252 ? ~ DR
8 680 TRIC't"' B 232 ~I V tL AV 2n
3 ' 6 5 4 3142 622
TRACT A ~ 2~2 t82 162
:D . 3$P py,µ GtRCL~ ~
52*a FaREST RoAa 92 362
~/t LIOr~SHEaD 4 5
VAIL
j~1G
Y~tL LI~t vN ~ T4T E.OT 2 Y~ ~~L G 352, 30
~ . .
- w 4013 F3'G 2 83 ~ TR?~1' B
~ $RI(1GE 41 +40
TRACT B. 225 39 38 37 ~ 36
~ „
" . . 383 343 ' 333 ~s 223 _ ' 193
tFq
~
~
~
~ z
tJ
F
G'1
EC
D ~
~ Zil
0 ~
Z, ~
U ~
~
~
U) s
. , ~ a
0
z
w
~ w
~
FRITzLEN
PIERcE
BiitNER `
nacr+ITI cTs
.+to.s: r.V.~...+.
w.Tl.TE PLAN w:•ra +..wc.
~ `.wrw~r ,w ww
I
t0 x_ O`-Q° A 10 1
.~..m.
f'
z
~
0
e~asnru.cFC.ra e~m*iwwm
naewem o-r. . u wHtr+csc~naF-
~
cna-.r~te w~.c ~c
easr, iwm
m Re+wK m.
2s M ~
Z
28 a :
l
.wen acouceem V
mxrawm ~ .~rn
~ o
~
I
CC
F-
LEGEt~E7
\tt
~euir,#t5a3sxscrhee~e4C~+a'ldmee ` Fi\p«-pLEt~
~n'c'~r^cc'cr"KO'°~c'xiortww p
yyy~y CFEG [ [~CE .
~eMMrNZS.oteAE?EF~6./sm y5~5j~~
pf}R`Y.ktY{ ['n
~.ry '
l7
D~UYpDapt++c:rt4Ct4.>1f4JCYUR3.~irMO.
GN~S..C"[Gl'00EI~YM'R
CIGb~GSlSOSt1H4h~i,1.4FOICW+M .
LOC[6 EXtOFtS tH°~ ~GOtFlUM .
. . rmco.w.icrewa.c+. AitCH~T.fCT€
Z~EMOL.I"C'lCG3N P1.AN 1~
° A20I
~
~
~
~
~ ~ox• a ~
. ~ ~wkn.vEr . .
~ t5C/
r~t i{
; I
~rc~. .;'z . ::..~..J $ . w..y . ~ ~ ~
• . a~ ~ x ~
29 c1 ~
z*~
a' ~m2e «N'[cM ~ f
S
G~ isl+l.o~K'+2i[ : 0~
• ~ imoGA.Tm , ~ i~
~ 28 (J} 9
Lr
.I ~ . RT'1t ( ~ E1~[illY LM. R1:VF
~ # \ k ~ RAk
4 flM. R11. ~Y..4D~fHt R..~MI
f _ i45~~ f~ n ~rov-aov.w~sw.+k
m ~ f
PGYrN'
•AYGtNPOt~it?U f E%ISIiN6
~.f IF1.lW.LSi6 T ~3F0. .
~ . ~ PeIFl4ltGf 1~'IR[x.}I ryyy+ ~~y.}~y . . ~FOM1VN. ~ ~ .
~ ~ . .HVLTtWt.
M G~AiG
FFtt3`zLEN
PIERGE
~y BR4NEIt' h~[tHITECTT
r=NTRY l,mEVEL FLC?OR f SfTE Pt..psN
a
~ 1/4.. r:a. A202
~rtw ausrrx ~amx+
i.J
Q
-i ~
~
2 ~
z ~
r ~
29 ,a~ a• rt~aee~s u- t ~
Z.y
1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
28 a. ~
w
LU
F-
FL. defF3' '
i~ lll{~
Rp01^ M.~11
- . . '~-~....y...r
' t
. £i~°vT.ZR'~YD!°+IHNDtK[J~E ~ .
?
. ...I E'J~TZLEE?~~
PIERGE
BRf NEFt
~~ofm PLAN K R C. H1 7 F~[ T S
t~
f 4~ t waf~w ~~:r
. . . . 3LR~tX . .
If<' e 1'Kt' .
~ ~ ~
~
1 I F
Z
~ 0
( I ~
~
M963
cl
~h{y
bYJ ~K c
r
F
~ ~ ~
~ El ~
c 0-1
Zd
d1
euILVIN6 SEc~rIot~ - Fr~a~o9~z~ ~ j
~ U4• . C~-R~ ~ .
01 0
~
~
W
~
~ L ~
~ ~ ~I -~+.k.~ { I ~ MPi~ftAdVAfWH
9Pf.Y1R!
. GH6T.rLlcfM~6CU.
~ 3th1C5 ~ I ~ f
i
4knY'fiil kN[A, .
- .i ~ N36!
. . . - • . . .
. ' . . . . v,'.. ~"~'pf'~`~jt
7.{ p.L{LC~.~
pr2~rY 1i~
ip pI 6 ~t C. pE
r=:7 .
. . . . . . . . . . [aE nroms.r~. J ~4 ~ ~ .b~nr,+: . ~ !T h I~ t`i G. R
~
- - v- - - - - - - - .
trtC3l2TH ELEVAT(Otd - PRC7PJ5EI?
AECiftTECTS
ti~Y ~ M4 ~ ~ .M4~a~
~ NORfit~ ELEVATlC3N - EXf5T(Nb
a4301
Z
0
~
¢
~ Ifl" a ~ I D ~ S
. . . . . , ~ ~ ~
og ~
~ E... <<.. . ~
t/) `s
1 4 t C` ~ Ay
w~av oF rau~ r
~
i
r t t ; t' ~ "u~ I
!bt Sik"CO
m.a+suiwassu
~ SNEST SeGTtON - PR4f'45EL7 /7*11 WEST ELEV,4TtON - PRLr^1P45W
va~ - r-o• l--~, -'=Gt'
FitlTZLEN
PtERCE
SR}NER
~R 4 C~H I T Et.TT~
:rsr~:+rr.s r~risu
-twV~4Jw~~ ~:n!
AB0`
.
! i, I4 I
.
,
i . r . . Y +
,
.
. , ~
K
6 u. ~ , x u ro
: .
.
s
.
is
. , . - ~ . . ~,i ~ • . ~ - ~ - ~ ~
,
,
. . ,
~
.
,
, . _
.
„
I
• ,
G ~ u~~; ti ry ~
.
y~TM '
4
,
i
~
W~
Ph Pii VIlhy u
~w
. y, .
u~
.
x,,i;, ' w ° Y', ~i'~i ~ ;
~
~ ~
ro W~ , s e
~ , ' L , R_ wN , d
.,,~.~'.,,w.~.. ,
~.R
.
W„ M,,.:. ,~v : , p ~c ,I ~t, ~ ~ r a~~,a ~ ul,' ti ,u'",^~ , s~1'~3_ ,~~4"r„~-„,: w,. ~g't ~.z,• . . +r`.`~, - `~e.~a _
, ~ ~ ~ , u , ur' la~l li~'NR~a,'~,'~u ~i&,,, ..,~t..~ d ~ ~'N;'~ , • ~ . , a"~m~ . , ,I. ; ~ l :~~'rrr~~ i i I,~ uV",,i, ~ i~~~'~,,, ~ , a~' ,~~f~!!,. ua a : € .r^ "1w:,r'~ . t 'a . ,°~u~x.a~ ,
~ , ~ ; u r a . , I ~i i ii , Y•.r
~
~ r
~ ~~ti~~'Y~?.r .,u1 ~~b~" ~`,~v,~ ~mi?'x~m,~ ~'9,~,~ G, i+I~M ~ r+~ o•z ,C:.
„ _ ry >
v+u ,
~m...rw~ ~ ~"~u ~".t '~w .dCa~.+ 3..:...L~.,.,+:~~n x. ~',.,~^'y~..+a'~ "*~~.o.~': , .b.:,~w~,a4~~~w- ~ ~'~'.vn:..~. ~ ~ 5, a a ' - ~s . ~tdl ~"~`l'k u,~., , ' I ~ . _ • ~d,~ai-': ' =x~ - _ 'i` " ~4`` x'v.~-'
aa.z~c._ ~ m.mr Y . - . ~ .a.~.• . ~ • , . ~ • ' ~ec..ar.i.a..,,t:u~sm~~,.me3..:m'ae.J. ~ ~ '
~ . .
„ , ~ ~ :
f
. ,
.
.
~
,
.
. - -
, •
. ~
, , .
. , . .
, , .
. , . .
~ . ,
. . , .
. ,
.
. .
. ~ .
WiM
. .
;
i
,
,
i .
r
,
_ . I 9
N . . . ' • ~
, . . . ~ . . . ~
'6 • • . ° . , , , " . . . ,
II
"
u„ +
. µ
,s I X uu+,
~ . ,~w~ , , . , y 'PF~,,~ , r • jo
• , ~~p ~
io
y
~ '~.~dA,.,, ,M,< < _~u.P+: c'M4 k~d~ S,~~u ~ • 'R~~h- Pd'~ ' F.`,rtr~ ~ avW a ~~l..~. 'd ~ . .r. '
i'~~ a, ,o, ~ ~ •ai '"f~ ~ ,w. ~ ~r,, ~ ' .,N,:.+ ~ ~ : ~-'~r~~ u,. ' r w~~,~ "Wi, k~ !~ru -;r ~ a~`~ cdt~ r'
~.s~
M<.,.. ~ ~
I I I _ ~ ~
I b
~
.
i S s
v .
~
. ; ,h . . . .
`w.. ,r~. . . <
4« ~
~ . ~
~
. ti•~ r~ , REFEREI`dCE WEST EI:,EVATION
REFERENCE NORTH ELEVATIC?N
~ IM,
~
;
~
"It
,
t ~
~
.
.
~
°w
.
,
. ~
;
~ ~ . n ~ • ~ 131
^ : s . I~ ~l~~ ~ ~
~
~ a'`
.w ~
,
~ t ° . ~ y' .
• ~ ~ m"
. ~ f l~ ~ ,{Y'a d .
#FF r • _
I~
,
.
"~I ' ~v~"~; '~s"• ~~~~,,.,~-r
~ I
. . - ,
~
>
~ . . ,
. . .
.
VIEW FRUlV1 N4RTH WEST
k,
JJJ ~ ~
~ 'y 'I~~~~~I~I.II~I~I ~ ~.,~~+~"w'aM•
N ~ . '`4R9'~.aW, :
I+
'
.
~ n
LOCATIUN UF NEW RC.IQF AT FC?URTH
FLt70R LINE
~
F ~ -
MEMt7RANDt11Vl
~
TO: Planning and Ertvironmental Commission
FROM: Cornmunity Development Department
DATE: Octaber 27, 1997
SUBJEGT: A request for a canditional use permit, ta allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation,
located at 1477 Aspen Grove LanelLnt 3, Block 2, Liansridge 4#h Filing.
Applicant: William Milier
Planner: Lauren Watertan
1, DESCRIP`CIL7N OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Wil! Miller; is requesting a conditional use permit to aHow for a Bed and Breakfast
aperation at 1477 Aspen Grove Lane. 5ection 18.58.310 o.f the Vail Municipal Code (8ed and'
Breakfas# Operations) defines a Bed and Breakfas# as:
"A business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which #he Bed and
Breakfast proprietor lives on #he premises and is in residence auring the Bed and
~ Breakfas# use. A Bed and Breakfast operation may short-term rent separateiy up to three
bedrooms or a maximum square footage of 900 sq. ft. of the dwetling unit. Bed and
Breakfast operations sha11 only be permitted #o accarnmadate a family as de#ined in
Sec#ian 18.04. 110."
The property is zoned Singie Family Residential and has a single family residence, with a TYpe I
Employee Housing Unit. The applicant is proposing ta use fhree bedrooms of the main unit,
totaling 878 square feet, for the Bed and Breakfast operation. Additionally, two unenclosed
parking spaces v+rill be available for the guests.
II. CRfTER1A TO BE USED 1N EVALUA7ING THIS PROP(7SRL
Bed and E3reakfast Operaticans Criteria - 8ed and Breakfast oep rations shald be subject to
#he following requirements:
1. Off-stree# designated parking shall be required as follows: dne space
for the awner/proprietor, plus cane space for the first bedraom rented,
plus one half space far each additional bedroorn rented.
The parking requirement for this properky is two spaces for the EHU, three
spaces far the main unit and two spaces for the Bed and Breakfast
aperation, for a tofal af 7 spaces. The applicanf has twa enClosed parking
spaces, plus five unenclosed parking spaces, totaiing seven parking
spaces. Therefore, the parking requirement fior this praperty has been
met.
~
. ~ ,
2. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be
provided. ~
The appl'icant is proposing to keep all trash in the garage and wili have
weekiy pick-up by BFi.
3, Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is
strongly discouraged.
No landscaping will be removed as a part af this application.
4. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential nameplate
sign as defined and regulated by the Town Sign Code.
The applicant has not praposed a residentiai namepia#e sign.
5. Mf aBed and Break#ast operation shall use property or facilities owned
in corramon ar jointly with ather property owners such as parking
spaces or a driveway in a duplex subdivision, by way of example and
nat limitation, the written approvat af the other properEy owner,
owners, or applicable owner's associatian shall be required to be
submitted with the application for a Condi#ional Use Permit.
' The property is zoned Single Family Residential and contains a single
family residence wi#h a Type I EHU, therefore, this criteria is no#
applicable. ~
Gonditianal Use Permit Criteria
Upon review of Section 18.60 -Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the follawing
factors:
A. Gonsideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact af the use on the develapment objectives of
the Town.
Bed and Breakfast aperations are listed as uses that Gonditional llse
Permits may be applied for in 15 of the 22 zane districts within the Tawn of
Vail, including aII dfthe residential zone disfricfs. The Vail L.and Use Plan
has numerous goals, which articulate the Tnwn's desire to irrrprove aur
role as a leading destination resort, including promoting the creation of
accommodation units.
2 ~
~ 2. The effect of the use on light and air, disfiribution of papuiation,
transportafiion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
fiacilities, and other public fiacilities needs.
The praposed Bed and Breakfas# use will not have a nega#ive effect on
any of fhe criteria listed above. Guests of the Miller Bed and Breakfast will
likely arrive via their own vehicle, a rental vehicle, or by airport shu#tle van.
3. Effect upon traffic wifih particular reference #o congestican, automotive
and pedestrian saf'ety and convenienee, traffic flow and coratrol,
access, maneuverabilify, and removal of snow frorn the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes that the proposed Bed and Bteakfas# nperation will nof have
a negative effect on the above referenced cri#eria. AII parking will be
provided on-site. Staff believes that the B&B will not add significant traffic
to this street.
4. Effect upon the charaeter of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the praposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff beGeves #his use will have little impac# on the character of the
neighborhood, The Bed and Breakfast operation wiil not enlarge the
~ exis#ing struc#ure, or change if in any way. There may be an increase in
the number of parked cars on the site, but staff believes tha# there will be
iittle effec# upon the character of the area.
B. Findings
The Plannina and Environmen#al Commission sha11 make the followinfiindipgsbefore granting a conditianal use permit•
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accard with the purposes of the
conditional use permi# secfion of the z,oning code andfhe purposes ofthe
district in which the site is located.
2. That the propased location of the use and #he canditians under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare ar materially injurious tn prnperties ar
improvements in the vicinity-
3. Tha# the praposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of #he zoning code.
~ 3
. ~
I11. STAFF RECOMMENL7ATIC3N
Staff recommends approval af the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a ~
Bed and Breakfast subject to the follpwing findings:
1, Thaf the praposed location of the use is in accord with the purpases af the
conditional use permit section of the zoning ctide and the purposes of the district
in which #he site is 1ocated.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the canditions under which it would be
operated or maintained wauld not be-detrimental ta the public heaith, safety, or
welfare or materially injuriaus to properties or improvements in the vicinity,
3. That #he praposed use would camply with each of the applicable prnvisions of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
~
~
4
i
M~
,0 ° >
57-0 t,4'
S14
~
11,3
',C4WO
~a63
~ ~ r"~~" ,
~
A\ ~ T
(
~~i2/VE W~ -......h i .
t
~r
~
Aff
~G?.~Z ~J,aNHOL~
/
~ ~
~ ~ ~~flv
r°' S en
~ f
~
- ~ 7) l.,?
E - ~ ~ -
B;S,T;-13
G I n ~t~
f ~ 6n~ B H 4
~-r -
v~,erF r tiy
sf~L H6r
Foa e(Saa=_55
C)~ I BELJROOM =f
tR
tIs
~ ~i-3~_" 3,;•'~t~J' 3- 3G. 3i.~~ I..
, ~
?a 6g~
2eera~
[
f"{f~Lt 2
n '-3~~,;• ~ C GL. # 5"
~ ~ - 14'-&, 51-6" 2 - i~-tr t~•-~" f( t.~
t ~ ' T f
-r
rc~iO ~ a p ~
' rti '?Ov°~ UP
BEDROOM 2 _
V ~
CJ 4 0
~
{
REG. ROOM -
~J
2755-2 ~
L'[REGT V'c?1T
aAS FIREF'LAGE
} ~t~
~t',.
~
. . Fc>YER
£L
~ .
p5
~
n
~ R.O. R.O.
LEV EL 2
~ ~ ~
~
T4:Town of Vail
4ffiCe of Cammunity I7evelopmertt October,24, 1997
Lauren Waterton, Planneri
We, the residents of Aspen Grove Lanei are opposed ta any fnrm of
Bed & Breakfast operation gfli.ng in on the property of Wi1lia.m
Miller at 1477 Aspen Grove Lane. This blaek is zoned single family
a11Cj We Wa21t t4 preSeY'V~.' th~,' S 112gle fa1t21 ly e1'1'V1 T'0111T1E'T1t. A $G.d &
Breakfast orr this privately orxrnecl street would campletely oppose
this concept. We a1so questian the feasibi.lity of running a
hospitality busittess off a private road.
This resad is privately aWned by our Homecswners Assaciation. 'T`he
Associatian pays fbr all maintenance and carries liabil.ity
~ insurance. We do not want any added 1 iabi 1 i ty of Bed & Breakfast
guests. A business of this type would cause extra traffic an a road
where many children play and ride bicycles i.n the summer and plaY
in the winter. For these reasons we only want single f'ami.ly status
in keeping with the rest rsf the neighbortiood.
After cl:i.scussing th.is propflsal with the residents of Aspen Grave
Lane, we clo have a majority in strong opposition to this
applicati.on.
Sincere.
~
d
,
homas J. gthes, sident
Aspen Grove Lane 7-
Lionsridge Subdivision Fa.ling #4
Homeowners AssociatRan
~
'S IN
Pedro Luiz R.zbeira
10d2ol97 ~
Mrs. Anne 7E'i~z
The PrudQ~~ial
vail, co ,
~~~r A=e
/f$GA.ay .l.hLi.nks.1 fv+Jr yolAy1.µ 0.SM/te Vn the Wd.ll rl.'41+tLltl.V.i+ pr`.an•
I have be+en hearing aL1I alCtMg the constrz.~tion period
that n~ ~lanned t4 c~o juat that. '
Althotzgh X tend to agree wa.th you ~hat a papa and muma
~tyle SadMand-~~eakfast~ should :not be a big~ nuisance,.
what we have here is plarinad ho~al, not a fanily
looka.ng far ways a~t ou~aiatence.
You can ~ell Tom Rughs tnat I strcanglV oppc~~~ the Bed
and Break£ast idaa ~ It just ~~rik~s me ac detricaus thG
way this gezz,tlc3man is try'ing ob~airx f>}a.a p,ormit. Ratl
he gane to the planrdza.g comrn.i~sion with the project ~
befox~han3, tk~ey ~er~ainly would 1ave dainanded a
cc~~tlier constructioz~, geared to that end-use. c7ne
pzobabl~ suoh xequ,arament could be a `?ot s~r~a paxking
spaca, a,s the 1.ane 3.n ~rivate and he ca».rkot expect to
go by usirxg it for g~~~king» I
Ple~~e a~k Tom ta coxztact me i~ ~o needs anythin~,~ also
from thia +ajjra,d.
We wi;l.l next be a.n Vail Navembex 26 ta ~~cezbar 17„ and
lvr~~ fozcia~~ getta.ng tc~gethe:r with yora and James.
Wa=G agw~~
~
e-ma3.l: pr4ual. oom,br
~
~ . .
~
C
c-As ~ ~
rUvAl
~
~
C~R ~
~
Ua&
~
SENT BY: 10-24-97 ;12:05PM ; S C C ADW150RS- 0704792452;# -I•1 DONALb & NAIVCYR:.EMEY
1971 Aspen Grnve Lurte
VaiCy CO 81657 0
Octraber 74, 1t)97
Ms. Lausen Watcrton
Tuwn nt' Vail Plmnning Commission
Vail, CQlarado Fax: 970-479-2452
Re; Proposec1 Bed and Breai?.fast
1477 A:sTien Cirt<yve t."
Dear Ms. Wtiterton:
As owners of 1471 Aspcn Gravc Lane, we are strongly oppased tn the proposed
est.ablishment of a bed and breakfast as proposcd by Wit7 Milfer for 1477 Aspen Grove Laae.
Our oppasitiou is based oti the follewitig:
' 1. Aspcn Grovc Lanc is a private raad im an excI,usive residential aXCa. 7he
pre;ence of.' a retail cvmmercial entcrprisc will ncgatively irnpact the quatity
af IiEe tor our farttily, ~
- i1 wilt anc;rease traffic,
- it wilt create aparking 1t7t,
-it will have signagc and lighting not suited to the road,
- it wi1l attract vendors, prospective custoiners and ofhers not
strited tv a ivtally residential street
2. It will ncgativcly affcct the real estat+e vata4 of crur property.
3, 1t wi.l:l sc:t a prcmdcnce for the entire Buffcr C'rcck Road area Iiic pvssible
other reiaiilicymmecciai businesses, Tke Buffer Creck Road area i5 an masis
from the rampant commercializaafiic,n ctf the Vail Valley. `i`'hat was an impartant
factor in the purchase of our hnmc in Scptemher, 1946_
4. Our Taionsridgc 5ubdivision Filing #14 Iiameawners Astiucix#inn is opposcd.
Wc hape that#hc'I'CJV Ylanning Baard wi11 to#aIIy reject this application. Fuurther, wc w4uld
urge the cievelopment of longer term zflning' and planning policies t1Yat would ezihance the
quality of litc in the Vail Va11ey.
Si:ncercly,
~ ~
+23 'S? 13:54 55FfVARE P.1/1
~ 1VIEMC?1tANDUM
. TO:: To6vn of'Vail
: Pianning Deparfinent
. FkC>M. l3ruce King
Owner of residenCe ut 14$1 Aspen Grove T,anc
Lot 1, Block 2, Laons Ridge Sab., Filing 4
RE: Applicafion for a bed and bremkf'ast at
1477 Aspen Grrove Lane
1L,crt 3, Block 2, Liona Ritdge Sub., FrlYng 4
` .DA'X'E: Oc#ober 23,1997
~ As the owner of the above praperty on I..ot l, S wish ttr state my oppc3sifiiozz
to 1icense bcing given for a bed and breWast. The following zssues cause
me cancern:
, 1. The stxeet is a private street owned by the Lions
Rzdgc Home Owners Association.
2. The s#reet is not maintained by the Tawn of Vail,
but through fhe Home C?wners Association,
; 3. Izzswrance covexage on the street is assessed to
the home owners. r feel this coverage should not
: be crianged ar madifed to cover such business.
4. ZaIso have conce:rns about inczeased xoad traffic
. . and npise associaLteci wxth such establishments.
: Sincerely>
r
4Be King .
9701845-5879 (t)f~ice)
370/476-4630 (Hor~e)
~
Oct..2k 1.997 4 :30PM SHOOK HARDY BACDN No, 8$41P. 213LAw oFFIcEs
SH00Y,,~1ARDy&BAC0N LL.F.
ao coRPORArE wooos
io 9401 iNataN GREEK PARKWAY wwsA3 atv. MrssouFu
PC)5T bFFiCE BOX?a~128 ~ttlu&rOW. 'r'EwA~,
~ une~rm u~~mmr
PAflTNMHIF iNCLU OVERt,AND PRRK, KANSAS 88225,5' 138 w+~st~INaTtsN. b.C.
6Ii~6 LONWN. ElWtAN[1
PR4Ft991bNA6GqRPOMT1GNy '("ELEPHONL(Qj~) 4$t4oo 1 FAMMILE {M}451-079 2upbi..GWtY'lEm-ax[Y
OCtObei' 24, 1997 J. Eagens Eiapoum
Dear Vail Planning Commission Board:
We are reszdents at 1480'B Aspen CYrove Lane and wish to express our desire to bM atlour
#he p'wner z'equesting to be a Bed &$reakfast to do so. It appeared this summer rnany visitors
seemed to ba #here, and I wondered then if the nvcmer was operating a Bed & 13reakfast despite
neighbazs° vvishes a-ad city permits or approval.
'UVe really have been unhappy witb the house and its owner 5ince its coinpletion. We da not
feel it meets ttie highex standards of the homes vn our stree# ar the en#ire anea. To ixnagine it as a
Bed 8c Breakfast is wazse evera yet. We puurcclased our hame in the Spring af 1993; the rnain appeal
for the purchase was the secluded location and lack af cornmercial developrnent. We felt Aspcn
Cxrove 7,ane was a real find, at that time, and hope it will remain ttiat way in the near and tlistant
~ future.
Having a Bed & Breakfast on our stxeet wouXd inCZ'me the traffic a# al1 hoUrs. At some paint
sst,rreet parking wauld be aeeded, and the streets are not designed for that purpose. At the very least
it couid cause b-affic problems for thnse getting to and firozn their hOmes. Tf this crwner is allawed
to operate a Bed & 33reakf"ast, what is to keep athes, either now or laterp fram doing the sarne? Soon
we'Il be inovtm as Bed & Breakfast Laane instead bf Aspen Grave Lane,
As far as 7 lmaw, none of the hornes on that Weet rent out #heir homes; T knavsr no one does
in .A.spen Grove Townhomes. If we aIl choose to not make ext:ra money from our hames, then why
would we wannt someone elsc to profit from renting? We wish the atmosphexe of trur street to
continue as a secluded residential area and feel adding a Bed & Breakfast 'uvi,ll not rna.intain our
peaceful, z`esidential environment.
Please strongly crnsider the v%evvs ofresidents who wili be directly imgacted by the decision.
Wasix't al1 af this previously discussed at the time of construotion wheu the Bread & Breakfast
r-oncept was overwfiehriingly vetoed by xesidents? It was our impressian that this had already beerY
votecl dowrL Haw frequently wi11 this be reconsidered? Can we be assured that we will be notified
if it is reconsidered again?
~
Oc t 24 1997 4: 31PM sHaoK HARDY BAcoN No. s841 P. 1r1
vail P1a=ing Corzmission Board SH{?aK,H D. &BACUN Li-P
C}ctnber 24, 1997
Page 2 ~
We wauld appreciate being kept apprised of any futwwe considerations in this regard, "Yau
may contact us at our Kansas City phones: (913) 492-9583 or (913) 451-6060, ext_ 86036.
Very truly ~
eila Wpmbles
J. Eugene Balloun
~
~
MEMORANDl1M
~ T0: Planning and Environmenta{ Commission
FROM: Community Developmen# Department
DATE: Oc#ober 27, 1997
SUBJECT. A request for a mincrr exterior al#eration in Commercial Core I and a variance fram
Section 18,24.150 (site coverage) #o allow for an addi#ion to the Golden Bear
Stare Iacated within the A& D Building, at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A& B and Part
of C, Block 5-A, Vaii Village 1 st F'iling.
Applican#: Lee Hnllis/Golden Bear Sfare
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTIC)N OF THE F2EQUESTS
Minor Exterior Alteration
The applicant is requesting approval of a minor exterior aiteration in 4he Cammercial Care t
Zane tJistrict to add 68 square feet of commercial flaor area ta the Golden Bear Store,.
located an the first floor of #he A& D Building. The reques# involves relocating the entry td the
~ store from the west side of the buiiding to the northwest corner of the building, adding
commerciai flaor area adjacent ta the entry, reconfiguring landscape planters, and replacing the
awning and sign. The applicant aIso proposes #o repair the concrete brick paving arrd the
drainage pan a14ng the entire storefront and ta install streetscape landscaping anci benches in
accordance with the Tawn°s Streetscape Master Plan.
. According to Sec#ion 18.24.065, Subsection 3b, of #he Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in
part,
<`Applications for the alteration of an existing buiiding which adds or removes any
enciosed fioar area of nat more #han one hundred square shaH be deemed a rninor
e>tterior a1#eratinn,°
Since the appiicant is proposing to add 68 square of encfosed ffaor area (<100 sc{uare feet}, the
staff has coneluded the application to be a minor exterior alteration.
Si#e Coverage
The applicarrt's proposal #o add 68 square feet of commercial flnor area increases site coverage
by 68 square feet. According fa Sec#ion 38.24.150 of the Municipal Code of the Town of VaiJ, in
part,
„Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent (80°lo) of the total site area unless
atherw's:se specified in the Vai{ Village Urban Design Guide P1an artd Design
Considerations."
Currenfly, there is 5,854 square feet or 79.77°!o si#e coverage on the applican#'s property. The
~ proposed addition would result in 5,922 square feet nr 80.70°o site coverage. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting approval of a site coverage variance of 52 square feet or 0.70%.
1
a
11. Zt7NING ANALYSIS
The following summarizes #Fie zaning statistics for this CGI minor exterior alteration request: ~
Development Existing Proposed
Standards RNowed Develvpment Development
Site Area: N/C 7,338 sq. ff. to#al N!C
(a11 buildable)
Setbacks: Nane N: 112' NfC
Required S: 1I2'
E: 10,
W: 1 /2'
Heigh#: 33743' (60%I40°l0) N/A NlC
Site Cnverage: 80°lo or 5,870 sq. ft. 79.77°/ti or 5,854 sq. ft. 80.70% or 5,922
sq. ft.
(+68 sq. ft.)
Parking: 1 space for each 300 N1A 0.23 spaces*
sq. ft. of net retai# floor
, area
Landscaping: No reductian 64 square #ee# -4 tree grates 159 square feet - 13 tree grates
withaut a variance 95 square feet - 3 planters 118 sguare feet - 7 ~
Iap nters
160 square feet - Totai 277 square feet - Tatal
(on-site = 1 53 sq. ft.) (on-site = 186 sq. ft.)(+33sq-ft.)
(off-si#e = 7 sq. ft.) (off-site = 91 sq, ft.)(+84 sq.ft,)
*At this #ime, parking pay-in-lieu spaces are $16,905,05 each, plus the percentage the Consumer Price Index
(CF'I) of the City of Denver has increased over each successive year. The applican# will be required to pay
into the Town af Vaii Parking Fund, The amount of the fee will be determined based upon the parking fee
that is in effect at #he time that a building permit is applied for.
The applicant's propasal generates a fractiona} increase of 0.23 parking spaces, which wili be paid-in-lieu at
the time of building permif issuance.
This praposal results in a net increase of approxima#e!y 117 square feet of landscaping. Most of the
landscaping proposed wiN occur offwsite and withi:n Town's righ#-of-way. Accnrding to the Municipal Cnde,
off-site iandscaping cannot be cdunted taward meeting the landscape standard of "na reduction". Thus, the
applican#`s praposal technically only increases Iandscaping by 33 square feet on the prnperty.
111, APPLICABL.E POL.1ClES OF THE VAIL VIL,LAGE MASTER PI.AN ANC? THE VAIL LAND
USE PLAN
A. Vaii Land Use F'lan
"Gaal 1.1 Vail should cantinue to grow in a controlled environment, ~
maintaining a balance be#ween residentia(, commercial and
recrea#ionat uses to serve both the visitdr and the permanent
residence.
2
- -
~
Goal 1.3 The quali#y of development should be maintained and upgraded
~ whenever possible.
Goal 4.1 Future commerciat development should continue to occur primarily
in existing commereiai areas. Future cammercial develapment in
the core areas needs to be carefully contralied #o facili#ate access
and delivery. Increased density in care areas is acceptable so iong
as the existing character of each area is preserved #hrough
impiementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Master F'lan.
Gcaal 4.3 The ambience af the Village is impartant to the identity of Vail and
should be preserved (scale, aipine character, smali town feeling,
mountains, natural setting, intirna#e size, cosmopoiitan feeling;
enviranmental quality)."
The applicant's plans for the expansion a# the Gofden Bear and the remadel of its
starefront reflects a high quality redevelopment proposa1 that should anhance the
commercial viabili#y of the Golden Bear without adversely impacting other cammercial
and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. The propased redevelopment is in
harmdny with Goals 1.9 and 1.3. Goa1s 4.1 and 4.3 expresss the desirabi(ity of
accnmmodating addifinnal commercial growth in the core areas of Tawn, such as Vai1
Village and Lionshead. The proposed redevelopment is in harmony with these goals as
the Gnlden Bear is 1acated at the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street
within the Village.
~ All of these goals note the importance of evaluating commercial expansions sa #hat the
ambience af the Village and the identity of Vail are preserved. The quality features of the
redevelapment will be discussed; especially in regard to their comp{iance with the Urban
[Jesign Guide Plan and the VailVillage Mas#er Plan, in the fallowing sections of this
memorandum.
Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future cammereial development in the core needs #o be
carefully controlled #o facilitate access and delivery " Qne of the few issues related ta the
proposed redevelopment is a need to main#ain emergency vehicular access alang Gore
Creek Drive adjacen# to the stnre#ron#. The proposai invalves adding plarrters along this
elevation and installing streefscape trees. All would be contained within the cnnfines of
the existing cancre#e drainage pan along Gore Creek Drive. The pavers and the drainage
pan define the street edge in this area. Adequate sfreet width is maintained for Fire
t3epartment access.
B. Vaii Viliage Master P1anThe goals far Vail Vitilage are summarized in six major goal sta#ements. Each major goal
focuses an a particular aspec# of the Village communi#y.
"Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelapment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Viliage in order ta sustain a sense of cornmunity
and identity."
The proposed remodel invoives quality design details such as the addition of ornamental
~ dispiay cases, increased transparency to attract pedestrian attention, and reorientation of
the entryway to the corner of the build`mg facusing on the intersectian of Bridge Street and
Gore Creek Drive. The addition of streetscape trees, benches, and planters fdr annua(s
arrd perennials enhance the building's north elevation. A new awning reflects the gabled
3
-
roof forms along the north elevation and draws #he first finor commercial out from under
the domination of the upper floar. 0
"Goa1 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic heaith and
viability far the Village and for the community as a whole."
The proposed expansion will enhance the existing cammercial use and promotes year-,
round economic health and activi#y by implementing many of the streetscape abjectives
along Gore Creek C3rive. The additian of stree#scape shade trees, and benches improve
#he aesthe#ic appeal of the Gore Creek Drive storefran#, and provide a place for
pedestrians to rest and take in the s#reet life during the warmer summer season.
"Gaal 3 To recognize as a top priority the anhancement of the walking experience
thraughout the Village,°
As discussed in Goai 2 above, the proposed remode1 includes the implementa#ion of
many of the Stree#scape Master Plan elements. The addi#ion of benches, trees, repairing
of pavers, and the addition of iandscape planters certainly enhance the pedestrian
experience along the Gore Creek Drive frontage. The greater transparency of the
windows and the addition of display cases shoufd draw the pedes#rian up to the storefront
#o gaze inside.
"Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space
. opportunities," The proposed building expansinn displaces the existing landscape planter at the corner of
the building. Additional planters are proposed alang Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. ~
To compensate far the displaced planter, six trees in four-faot square tree gra#es have
been added a1ong both s#reets and three trees in grates have been added on the patio
area adjacent #o Mill Greek. The applicant proposes to add thirty-tYrree square feet af
green space on-site and eighty- four square feet of green space off-site.
"Goal 5 Increase and irnprove the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics o# the
transportatian and circulation sysfem throughout the ViiCage."
The prnposed remadei should have no effect on transportatian and circulation in #he
llillage. The implementatian of the streetscape trees and benches provides an improved
pedestrian atrnosphere alflng Gore Creek Drive.
"Goal 6 To ensure the cnntinued improvement of the vi#aI operafiional elements of
the Village."
The proposed improvements do not impac# access, maintenance and delivery activities in
the vicinity nf the praject. The proposal will imprave existing conditions as the applicant
proposes to eliminate existing drainage problems. Roaf drains along the nnrth eleva#ian
will be hidden in the building wall at the awning; and wil( be routed under the pavers
discharging directfy into the existing starm sewer system. The applican# also pro;poses fo
' regrade law areas where water currently stands and imprflve the overa(I drainage of the
concrete paver area and drainage pans along the store front, so that dcainage enters
storm sewer inlets as originafily planned. The applicant has agreed ta repair brnken
4 ~
heating elemen#s under the pavers so that the entire paver area will be equipped with a
~ functioning snow melt system, praviding a safer enviranmen4 #ar delivery personnei and
pedestrians.
IV. CC1MPLIANGE i1V9TH 1"HE PURPdSE S1"ATEMENT C)F COMMERCIAL CORE I Zt'7NE
DISTRICT
According #o Section 18.24,010 of the Municipal Code, the Commercial Core I Distric# isintended #o,
"provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vaii Village Commerciai Area,
with its mix#ure of lodges and commercia) establishments in a predaminan#ly pedestrian
environment. The Commercial Core i District is intended #aensure adequate lightr air,
open space, and nther amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses.
The district regulations in accordance with fhe Vail Viliage Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations prescribe site develapment standards that are in#ended to ensure
the maintenance and preservation of #he tightly ciusfiered arrangements of buildings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the
building scale and architec#urai qualities #hat distinguish the Village.°
The reorientation of the entry to the Galden Bear, along with the imp(ementafion of streetscape
improvements, wil( enhance the pedestrian environment. The remodeled starefrdn# impraves #he
guali#y and aesthetic appearance ofi this entire corner without interfering with the light, air and
open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. The praposal meets the si#e
development guidelines expressed in the Urban Design Guide P{an and C7esign Consideratians.
~ The proposai improves buifding scale by emphasizing the ground ievel retail area and reducing
the building to a pedestrian scale.
V. COMPLIANGE 1NtTH THE STREETSCAPE MAS7ER PLANThe proposai implements all of the recommendations of #he Streetscape Master Plan for #his
proper#y. Seasonai seating and landscaping wi11 be added along the Gore Creek Drive frontage,
brick pavers and drain pans will be repaired, drainage will be upgraded and additional seasonal
colar will be added through the reorganization of planters. The Streetseape Master Plan
specifies three additional tree planters, containing deciduaus trees, along Gore Creek Drive. The
applicant proposes five additional deciduous trees intree grates aiong Gore Creek Drive, one
along E3ridge 5treet and fhree along Mi11 Creek.
VI. CUMPLIANCE WITH THE VA(L VILLAGE URBANDESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND dESIG1VCONSIDERATtQNS FC3F: VAIL VIL.L,AGE
Design Guide Plan
In the sub-area concepts, Gore Creek DrivelBridge Street Sub-Area, Item Na. 17 states
"street access apened." This recommendation may pertain to pedestrian aceess along
Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street or to access into and out of the A & C7 Building.
Ei#her way, the current proposal improves upon the existing situatian. This cnmment
could also refer to fire and mainfenance access (vehicular access), which will a(sa be
~ maintained at its current level.
5
-
~
Vail Villacie L3esi qn Considerations
The following is a diicussion of the application's compiiance with the Urban Design ~
Considera#ion$ and the archi#ecturaUlandscape considerations expressed in the Vail
Village Design Considerations planning document.
Urban Design Considerations
A. Pedestriartization;
1. Pedestrian-only S#reets
Bridge Street is a pedestrian only street with a strong delineation af street edge
expressed by exis#ing tree grates, plartters and small benches. One additionai
tres in a grate is proposed along Bridge Street and five along Gare Creek C?rive
will help define the street edge adjacent to the new entryway.
2. Pedestrian Streets-limited vehicular traff'rc
Gore Creek Drive is a 25 to 35-faat wide section af asphalt, wi#h an additional 6 ta
8 feet of concrete pavers on each side. This width is more than adequate to
accommodate the eurrent mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
. B. Vehicular Penetration:
"Irt conjunc#ion with pedestrianiza#ion objectives, major emphasis is ~
focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the
Village...Ftoad consfrictions, traffic circles, signs and other
measures are indicated in the guide plans #a visualiy and physica#ly
discourage all but essential vehicle penetratian.'t
Adding streetscape trees along Gare Creek Drive wi1l visually canstrict the
roadway. #'lanters are s#rategically located along the building wali with
streefscape benches loca#ed between tree grates.
C. Streetscape Framewark:
"To improve fhe walking experience, to give continuity fio the
pedes#rian ways, as a confinuaus system, two general types ofi
improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered:
1. dpen space and landscaping
2. Infill commercial store fron#s"
-
Ftelacating the entryway to the cflrner of #he A& C7 Building, popping the storefront
out and adding display cases oriented toward the intersectitan of Gore Creek Drive
and Bridge Street will fiacus visuai interest on the Golden Bear Store and the A&
D Buildirrg. The addition of Iandscape planters and streetsaape trees alqngGore
Creek Drive significantly improves this frontage by softening fhe two-s#ory buiiding
6 ~
facade. The addition of an awning furkher accents the first floor retail element,
~ pulNng it out from under the second levei bffices, creating interest and focusing
the attentianCof the pedestrians.
D. 5#reet Enclosure:
The propasai will nat directly affec4 facade height. The addition of an awning and
trees will help enclase Gflre Creek Drive and wf[I give if a more pedestrian scale.
The proposed improvernents will provide a softer, mare defined feeiing and will
add three dimensional varie#y along the A& D Buiiding's norfh elevation.
E. Street Edge:
"Buildings in the Village Care should form a strang but irregular
eclge to the street."
The proposed streetscape improvements and addition of the awning wilt add
itregularity tfl the Gore Creek Drive fron#age. Existing jogs in th~ ~~uiidingwill be
maintained, although aftered slightiy at the northwest corner of fhe building. The
proposai inc{udes pfanters ihat are strategicaiVy located alnng the narth elevation
with benches in#erspersed between lanciscaped areas. This, afong with the
gabied effect of the awning, significantly improve the irregularity of the streetscape
along Gore Creek Drive, which wiil help the pedestrian quality of the space.
F. Building Height:
~ The application does not impact this eonsideration.
G. Views and Focai Points:
The application does not impact this consideratian.
N. Service and Delivery:
A loading zone exists alang Gore Creek Drive adjacen# #o the Miil Creek Court
Building, The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery
services.
1. SunlShade:
Due ta #he existing height and arien#ation of the building, the addition ofthe
proposed awnings andbujiding area will notex#entishadows or interfere withadjacent property`s (ighf, ArchitecturelLandsca:pe Considerations
A. Roofs
A minor roof extensian is proposed. The new roof area wi{1 not be seen from the
street levei and does not alter the existing roqf farms at the A & D Bui{ding:
~
7
B. Facades
"Materials ~
S#ucco, brick (or stflne), wood arrd giass are the primary building materials
fnund in #he Viflage. C7f the above materials, s#ucco is the most
consistentiy used materiaL"
The proposed design mainfains the dominance of stucco with the contrast af river
rock veneer on Iaw fandscape plan#er walis. The existing stucca calor, off-white,
wi11 be maintained, bu# the trim coiors will be changed from ~biueto fQrest green.
The new awning is also proposed to be a copper patirta. 7he praposed rock
veneer on #he pfanter wa11s will match the stone #hat currently exists can the
Gorsuch storefront (a picture of this stone work is enclosed). The applicant
prefers the rounded, irregular river rock aver the existing rock at the A& D
Building. According to #he applicant, the existing s#onework has a rectangular,
manufactured laok. The proposed stonework will replace the existing stanework
on a11 portions of the A& DBuilding.
~~Co10r
For woad surfiaces, trim or siding, darker color tanes are preferred.
Brotnrns, grays, blue grays, dark olives, slate greens, etc. Stucco
. colors are generally white beige, pale gold, or other ligh# pastels.
Brighfi colors shauld be avaided. Generally, to avoid busyness,
and weak visual interest, the variety of major walf colors and
materials shauid be no more than four nor less than two in eaCh ~
case. A colorlma#erial change between the ground flotir and upper
floor is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian
scale of the s#reet.°
The applicant's color palette of muted grays and beige (river rock), dark greert
(windows, wood #rim, stcrrefront doar and awnings), and oPf-white (stucco) are in
harmony with the calor guidelines. The applicant's proposal wiil add green to the
existing colcrrs of brown, gray and blue at the A& D Building. The materials will
be stone, wood, copper and stucco. Thus, four basic colors and four basic fypes
of materiats are propased.
"Transparency
As a measure of transparency; the mos# characteristic and
successful ground floor facades range from 55°lo to 75% of the
total length of the commercial facade."
The proposed transparency is approximately 50%o of ttte building facade. This is
slightly below the range indicated above, but the applicant is proposing
improvements tha# will draw attentinn to the storefror?# area such as the river rack
faced display cases on each side af the entry door. The additional nrnamentation,
the awning, streetscape benches and landscape planters, along with the
reorienta#ion nf the entryway to the cqrner of the building, will draw pedes#rian
attention to the building.
~
8
.t
"WltldQWS
~ F'or ciose-up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically desigrted tn
human-sized dimensions. Graund fipor display vvindows are typica~liy
raised slightly, 18 inches plus ar minus, and da nat extend much over 8
feet above the walkway Cevei."
The proposed windows are at a pedes#rian scale. T"he pianfiers are 1.5 to 2 feet
high and windows are 6 feet high, for a total height fia the tap of the windpws af 8'
feet above walkway level.
"Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window
elements and are further subdivided by mufiions into smal1 panes which' is
respansible for much of the o4d wnrld charm o#' the Village. Windows
shauld give a pleasing rhythrn with harizantal repetition of single window
elements especialiy aver long distances avoided. Bay and box windows
are common window details which fiurther add variety and massing tn
facacies and are encouraged."
The propased windows have a pieasing rhythm and symmetry in both Incation and
size. Mullions are used to divide the large g{ass panes into smafi panes. Bay
windows and projecting disp[ay cases are designed to accent the entryway.
"Doors
Like windaws, dnors are impor#ant character and style giving
~ architectural elemen#s. They should aIso be somewhat transparent
an commercial facades and consistent in detaiiing with windows.
As an axpression of entry, sheiter and welcome, proteeted
antryways are encouraged. Doorvuays may be recessed, extended
or ccrvered."
The entryway eansis#s of double glass doors in the same style as the windows
with mullions dividing up fhe large giass plates. The doorway is recessed and
covered with an awning, providing a protected entryway.
C. Decks and Patios
No decks or patios are prapased by the app(icant.
D. F3alconies
No balconies are propased by the app(icant.
E& F. Accent Eiements and Landscape Elements
The accent elements are in harmony with the recarnrnendations of the Design
Guidelines. The colors and materia{s proposed are consistent with cofors and
materials used acrass the street (Gorsuch). Lighting along the storefront has not
been €inalized and will need to be approved by the DRB before a building permit is
issued for the prnject.
~
9
~
G. Sertrice
This consideration is not applicable to this appiication. ~
VII. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FIiVDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060; Criteria and Findings, of the Tawn of Va'il Municipal Code, the
Community Development C7epartment recommends apprQVal of fhe requested si#e coverage
variance. The recommendation for approval is based upan on #fie follawing factors:
A. Cansideration of Facfors;
1. The relat[c,nship of the requested variance to other existing or
patential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes the variance request will have no negative irnpacts on the
reiatianship to other exis#ing or potential uses and s#ructures in the vicinity
of The Golden Stare or the A&C3 Building. The request for the additional
52 square fee# of site coverage wili result in an improved streetscape and
pedestrian experience a1ong Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and will
not in#erfere with the operation of the existing businesses on adjacent
properties.
2. The degree ta which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulatian is necessary to achieve ~
compatibili#y and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
ta attain the objectives of the title without gran# of speeial privilege.
The stafif has warked with the applicant to reduce #he amount of deviation
(+0.70%) from the site coverage developrnen# standard. Staff believes the
appGcan# is requesting the minimum amou,nt of relief from the site
coverage limitation to obtain compatibiiity and unifarrnity amongst#he sifies
in the vicinity of The Golden Bear. Staffi daes no# believe that the gran#ing
o# #he variance request will resuCt in a grant of special privilege since the
in#ent of the deveiopment standards is being met. The si#e coverage
fimitation of 80°lo was intended, in part, ta ensure that an adequate amaunt
of #he site was left undeveloped ta permit areas for landscaping and
streetscape. The applicant's request to increase #he site coverage
percentage by 0.7% does not have any negative impacts on the tandseape
area of the Golden Bear Store. In fact, the applicant praposes ta increase
the net Iandscape area on the property by approxirnately 33 sq.ft. and ta
implement the recammended actions in the Streetscape Master Plan.
Staff further believes that the request does nof constitute a grant of special
privifege since the addition proposed by the applicant furthers the goals
and objectives of the master plans of the Town of Vail without resul#ing in
negative impacts on adjacent properties ar uses. As discussed in
Sections N1, iV, V, & VI of this memorandum, tYte applicant's proposal
implements many of the recommendations propased in the Town''s Mas#er
Plans. As stated in the Vail ViNage Master Plan,
~
10
,<Vail Village has nat escaped the agirtg process. There i$ a need to
~ encourage the cantiuned upgrading and enhancement of existing Iodging
and 68mmercial facifities within the Viliage in order ta rnaintain the unique
character that is its mairt attraction_"
Lastly, staff beiieves that while it is always possible to design and
construct a building that is in full compliance wi#h the Zoning Code, it is not
always practical or reasonable to do so. Staff acknowledges that the
appiieant could redesign the addition and eliminate 52 square feet of site
coverage. However, the design and construction of the existing building
comer is nat condusive #o substantial changes. S#aff believes that such a
change would negatively impact the applican#'s use of the GoIden Bear
5tare. Staff feels that the benefits af the addition outwaigh any possible
negative impacts.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution ng
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
u#ilities, and public safety.
Staff believes the variance request will have no negative irrtpacts on ligh#
and air, distribufion of population; transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
B. The F'lanning and Enviranmental Commission shall make the fo(lowing findings
before qranting a variance:
~ 1, That fihe granting of the variance wiN not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the
same district.
2. That fhe granting of the varianee will not be detrimental #o #he public
health, safety or welfare, or materially irrjurious to praperties or
improvemehts inthe vicinity.
3. That the variance is warran#ed for one or more of the follawing reasons:
a. The strict and I'rteral 'rnterpre#ation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the abjectives of this title.
b. There are exempticrns or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applieable to the same site of the variance that da not apply
genera(ly to nther properties in the same zone distric#.
c. The strict interpre#ation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners af
other properties in the same district.
io
11
VI11. STAFF RECt}MMENDATiUIV
Nlinor Exterior Alteration ~
The Cammunity Development Department recommends approvai of the request for a minor
exterior alteration in Commercial Gbre I to The Golden Bear 5tore. The recamrnendation for
appraval is based upon the staff's review of the minor exterior alteration criteria ou#lined in
Sectians Ili thru VI of #his memarandum. Staf# believes the applicant has met each of the
criteria.
Should #he Planning and Environmental Gornrnission chaose to grant an approval of the rninor
exterior aiferation request, staff wauld recommend the following candifions:
1. That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to
issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be
acctampanied by a constructian fencing, traffic control, and staging pian. These
plans must be reviewed and approved by Pubiic Works and Community
Deveiopment staff. The appiicant shalf coordinate and receive approval far a11
final grading plans for the paverldrain pan repair wark from Public Works prior to
issuance of a building permit. The appiicant sha11 also coordinate plans to direct
rooftop run-off inta the storm sewer system with f'ub4ic Warks.
2. That #he applicant prepare and subrnit a detailed ex#erior fighting plan for review
. and approval by the pRB prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. That the applicant provide a minimum of twn streetscape benches along Gore ~
Creek arivelBridge Street prior ta issuance of a building permit.
4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation pians and plant material selection
decisions with Todd CJppenheimer at Public Warks prior to issuance of a building
permit. C7n-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the
applicant. Final Town review and appraval of landscaping around the Fire
Department connectian shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur priar to issuance of a
buiiding permit.
Site Coverage Variance
The Community Development Department recommends appr8val of the appiicant's request for a
site coverage variance ta a11ow for an inccease of 52 square feet, or 0.70°l0 of site coverage, aver
the allowable. The recammendation for appraval is based upan the staff's review of the variance
criteria and findings outlined xn Section VI1 of this memorandum. The staff believes #he site
coverage variance should be gran#ed since the granting of the variance will npt constitute a grant
of special privilege to the applican#, nnr will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the
public health, safety, ar welfare, nor will it be materially injuriaus to other properties in the vicinity
of The Golden Bear Stare. The s#aff believes the site coverage variance is warranted for the
f411owing reasons:
1. That #he granting of the site caverage variance allowing for an increase in site coverage
by 0.70°la does nat result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation an
other properties in #he Commercial Care I Zone C7is#rict. ~
12
2. Tha# the granting of the variance will nat be de#rimental to the public hea3th, safety or
~ welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to the adjacent properties or uses in the vicinity
of the GoCden Bear gtare.
3: Tha# the striet and liferal interpretation or enforcement of the 80°lo site coverage limitatian
would result in a practica# dif#iculty inconsistent with the abjec#ives of #he Cammercial
Core I Zone District devel4pment standards and the goals and objectives of #he Master
Pian documents of the Town of Vail.
o: ipeclmemos\gnid bear. o27
~
~
13
~ u.
x . ~
~
f a
. . :-~W- . ~ S~
` ' i . ~ ~..,r-r " : 1 ~ ~ ~ 'f`~,."~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r J ~ r ~ a~/1~~ ~ ~
'~~~,r~~~~„~1~ , .r'~~ r t,.,~~..'-~' . ~ ~ ,~i ; ~ W (i'~'„?y~ ~ i ~
.
.~~~.1•~'j } ~..es 7 ~;j .~,~1"" ~K' ~'~t ~ ~~,jd I 1~~~~~_ •t ..tr.`° ~k, .
l. x ~ ~,,,-T.~y,,,,.•,;,...
__...--.~-..a~+~ u_...~y ~ ! M1~.. ~,,,~"Mif,7Myi ~~I~~?~~~ y,rr.;. - -
, e
. , , . . .
y 4al.~Lf•,.
~ I { iE GVLDEN (»LEAR
TWE GERiT2 GROUP
EtJG6NE GERI'T"L AIA
~
ROBERTSCIN MILLEat TERRELL
~ Atzcftt'eE cT s; PC
~
The Go1den Bear Addition and Rernodel
A1D Builcling Vail, Coloraclo
The foliowing is the response requii-ed in conjunction tivitli our application for exterior
alterations in commerczal core Vail Village.
Commercial Cnre I,LCCI) I}istrict
Paragraph 1$.24.010
The attached drawings clearly dernonstrate the propasal's conforrnance wixh the purposes of
the CCT.
Pedestrian Environment
The re-orientation of zhe entrance to the square and the addition of substantial landscape
areas and benches will enhance the pedestrian environrnent.
Light Air and C?pen Space$
The proposal will nat effectively reduce the vnlume of space a3ong the two pedestrian streets
nr the square, ancl the additian of the awnings wi11 arciculate the space and create focal points
~ at the pedestriarz level.
IJrban Design Guide Plan
Sub- Area Concepts
# 9 Transparency increased and pedestrian scale
# 11 Limited building expansion - fa~ade
Transparency increased to strengthen pedestrian activity
# 15 Entry oriented to intersection
# 1$ Increased graund floor transparency
Pedestrianization
The quality af the pedestrian way is increased through the addition of the planters and
awnings.
Vehicle i'enetration
Not applicable.
Streetscape Framewark
Landscaping has been added to enhance the framework and additional articulation adeled to
the bLg.ilding to create addz`tional visual interest and activity.
~
Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0926
Avon, Goloradt> 51620 Fax: (970) 949-1017
Internet: http:/lvail.net/rii1t E-Mail: ,rmt@vail.net
.
RtJBERTSON MTLLER TERRELL
AKcEftmE r*rs, PC ~
Street Enclosure
The general characteristics of the "outdoor raom" are unchanged. Awnings have been
added to create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from upper building heights.
Street Eda
The shape of the building now has additiona.l articulation with irregularities, jogs, and
landscape areas to create greater visual intexest. Additional textures have been introduced ancl the awnings will create welcame pratection
from rain and snow when "window shopping" dr simply pausing while walking through the
Village.
Views
The additian will nnt adversely affect the long views down Gore Creek and $ridge Street.
From a distance, the eye will be directed down the street, and while closer, the awning and
articulated windows create focal paints.
Sun/Shade
. Due to the existing height and orientation of the buildingy the additidn ancl awnings wi11 not
extend existing shadow patterns.
Facades ~
Material 1 Color
The design maintains the dominance of the stucco with the contrast af the river rock and
landscaping. The stucco will remain aff-white with trim and awnings of forest green.
Th.e rnaterial palette is lirnited to avoid "busyness" and the awnings reinforce the pedestrian
scale.
Windows and Doors
The doors and windows are articulated and will be painted a green-black for richness and to
reinforce the Village's ald worlcl character.
The entry is recessed and covered to enhance the sense af shelter and welcome. The
orientation of the square also reinforces this sense.
Accent Elements
Awnings, landscaped areas with annual color flowers and accent hghting are all utilized to
create visual interesti and texture.
Rounded cobbles (river rock) are used an the entry columns to create additiona1 texture and
interest. The cobbles are used an several buildings in the area, including the Sonnenalp and
tihe ciock tower building.
~
Past C7ffice Box 7630 Telephone; (970) 949-0916
Avon, Golorado $1620 Fax; (970) 949-3017
Internet: http;//vall.net/rtnt E-Mail; rme@vail.net
„ -
R(3BERTSON MILLEIt TERRELL
~ A [t C: II I'I' C T 5, P C
Vai1 Vrllage MasteY Plan
Intraduction - Upgrading buildings
Encaurage continued upgrading and enhaneement of existing commercial facilities to
maintain unique character of the Village.
Goal #1
The proposal is a high qua]ity redevelapment which enhances the arcliitectural scale of the
Vi]1age, and helps reinforce its identity.
Goal #2
The propasal will enhance the commercial viability of the Galden Bear.
Goal #3
The -cva[king experience is enhanced by the orientation of the entryto the square, the
addition of the awnings and planters, and the greater transparency and articulation of the
win:dows and doars.
Gwl #4
Substantial additional areas of "garden space" have been added.
~ Goal #S
Not applicable.
G9zl #b
Nlinor improvements (landscape planters) are proposed on the ViRage right af way in a
manner which will not interfere with snow removal, maintenanee, fire access, etc... Heated
sidewalks are provided.
~
Post O£fice Box 7630 Te]ephone: ~(970) 949-0916
Avon, Colarado 81626 Fax: (970) 949-1017
Internet: http://vai7.net/rmt E-Mail: rmt@vail.net
~A 4
Rt7$ERTSt?N MILLER TERRELL
AR cI f~'r r cT s, P G ~
Strectscape lVlaster Plan
Tn additian to the issues raisetl in the Urban Design Guide I'lan and the Vi11age Master Plan,
the Streetscape Master I'lan identi£ies the followang issues to be adclressed:
Exi$tingpelestmm &aracter to be marntdindand enharxed
Ident%fy vprmunities for add'~ng bnd~caX pcxkkets.
Mtrre seatingareas are ne&iV
Raof drains to 1e co&W and run under growid to strnm clrazn. `
These issues are addressed by the proposal and most have been commented an earlier in this
discussion. In addition, benches are included in the planter design and the roof clrains wi]l
be directly connected to the starm d:rains.
The fcallowing additional specific recommendations are made: T
' More uriiform paving rnaterials - concrete unit pavers.
Addition of planters and trees. ~
~
Removable planters with seating on south side of Gore Creek Drive.
The property already has concrete unit pavers with heating. Additionallandscape areas with
trees and flowers are a parC of the plan, and sufficient roarn has been reserved for the
additinn of removable planters with seating along the south side of Gore Creek Drive.
~
~
Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0916
Avon, Co}orado 81620 Fax: (970) 949-1017
[nternet: http:/Ivail.net/rtnt E-Mai1: rmC@vail.nee
R.4BEIiTS 0 N MI LLER TERRELL
A.R c;t-f iTe:cI°s, PC
The Golden Bear I.fandscape Inforrnation
A/D Building Vail, Calorado
Tree Wells (5)
Size - 3' square
Type - Flush cast irongrate
Contents - 4" (rnin) cal. Aspen
Raisednlanters (6)
Size - Varies
'1'ype - Raised concrete / stane veneer
Contents - Armuats and perenmals including, but not lirnited to the following
-Gerarrium
-Pansies
~
~
Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949,0916
Avoii, Golorado 81620 Fax. (970)949-1017
InCerneC, htCp:Ilvail:net/rmt E-MaiLrn1t@eait.net
t
~
~or-
G RAMSNAMI"'1ER
GOKSUC4 t.`fC)
fj(OR.E. CKEE}C. PR.ItiJE .
.
M
CA54NO E~LDG ~
,
~
. ~
caL ~
LU
S .
n
~
~IIC4NITY tA AP
pK.tvC
4wpw ~ tRE64~
r ~
1 c.T
-
Nivl 7~/~N'ftiF 4
~Xi{7iN? PAYlk.'E 1
~1 W +C?.-Waai%
! ' KNt+
+ ~ }
.
, .
~ ~
p, ~iaR't? i ~ ~ ~ ~i
1
k •av t
~ _i,w w 16a.iai.t+1~,-'w''+' . . ~ ?~.w, f.
DfnAR !cTa"
Y i . . i~ ~ S14?
.iF4ifEYTt,A» (
4 + t
~
4 , i#tluar~.Ry Y++~w
Mr.t`cw+4
t 1
* il,,, ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~ ` !
~ _..l~p bUIi.Gt41 C-l
,
~
-
1 J
l ~
~
~
5 l~C E P C A
,
~ G~Ot,D EW bEAP-
i'cUG~l+E~ ~~1~-I"C'3 ~1J~ • `I'NG CtirEfLtT-Z ExRAUP
~
. : -
~ _ -
' I
rf
1 'N
~ ~Jw
I u
, 1 a
~w7+t j
t~N1t N r wTiw~ fttF4l~~i41- """'_k
.
tWE oF 4AST¢ ~"trKC l!'idllT--t ~ "
Y
r~..~' ~ ~
X,
w
1 . \s'~O' l~ i! i0'«0' t~ ~ ~ia`. p' _ ~y r~ iv'. a. . ~ i' i' Ii~;,p• _~--~„',b« 'y~ f"~
. . .~v....._"~..._ . _T..._ .
~ ~.W.. ~
* r L A IY
~
~ ~ ~~~-""1~ ~ . \
. ` , .
~ . 4 . rti7't.t 1 - .^f^ .
. . . r`"~ < .7 • ~ ~ ~ DE~f,~ . w~ .._..e.~..~ plMw
~ ~ ~li$srM'r.~',. ( ~1~ : . r.` ( ; ~ ' \~{J~,r~~
r. . ~ t~i-• i.T;.
~awttefi ' ~r~&w sTeustiWVS PFAt+t ~ aro' eoK "t,f:s rfituL
1VI stl" St'1K6 ~4k"T65
NOR7H ELEVAT1aN
~
~
~
~
~
- ~
. ~ ~
r~X ~ .1 ~ w+-.~~
PLAN
~P L. A~~.
~
1.--~ ,~,,..1~y
r r!=`~ I y i
[ ,J
i i NhM ~.WNS1M~t ' "
k w
t T, t'; i> ~ a j . t"i , t •'l 1 4 , .
*,~{!k ~ ~ 1 " . . y,.~. ~{6W f:SYi~l4LkCf S~3MM! !`~HT
pU~NttJ.-
1HCw bm(~b PMNtC4-
WEST ELE4r 1T1C1N
f-NTRANGE° ELEVAT1C)N
,
G~~~EN BEAR
Ath
'C~ CY~UP ~ ELS~M~ OSP•11'4~
TNro CnEW
p,cvie6v ib rce 85
~
1~ F~ .e, I ;a, M. M Y't t+i t 0 i` t 'T" t-4 F` i« 1= R 7`f' i ~ Fa' fl 1 P#F'' _ Fr 1 .
, r
Pt*t4;tS;s' FaX Nt3t€3! 7M ~lr~
'1
7d ~J~l
C6Y¢1Ay ..70" bf ~d~."~ S +.snKmt
jotWAA~ 0w GtW!ij6.
t~i~f ~rf~ ~lvarw Y f Ta4,r~l
F7flt 0
J
11iS4rixHtKx~ ~ ~{M3SPdy ~ ~~(~Ik;lri ~_~~iQ~fC~i~uG
+...i»..
- . .
wa,,..r . .
~
4 ~
,
~
~
. # ~
~ -
_ . . . , ~ - , ~
~..._.Y
t
iai
~
_ ~Sy y v
N?. ~ N 4 1+~~'`k F 5~`E - w
EXd s3 N ING EN9 R3 AC'V D AWN$ C'$ GS
~ f I
, { ~ . .
~
r
' II
u
~ EXASTlNG CORtVER STOf~EFFtONT AND AVVNiNG
~
t. Rr .
II
c~
tro
~
' GORE CREE61 5Ji"6IV E4...E11AD IVN
~
~
. . ,:r,~ 'a.•: _ s.x._1_;
3.
ri ~ G
.
~ b..
_ M 4 rl ~ I "i~ i I i II
1!!° '
G+DRE CRlEEK DRtVE E~EVAfi1CJN
~
4 "Y
~I
~
L~
++4r11 :;p,. , ~
~
4x
n v L+
C4.J¦LNEi? OF V4Jlt..VINV AT GOS\S.. iAliELf\
F
a
~ v
~
~ ' ~ ~~~~j4,~ ~•.3=a~.~:.~,a ~ ~ ~ ~T
~
~ DECK A~ ~~~E CREEK
~
a~
~
~
~
f." rk
• i
„
~
~
~
NIEW I1MTV ~DEC71 AT CREEK
V
~
h v,
I I ~{y~Y
' ~ I+ I ~Nti'~d ~
P 3fa~ ~
,
i ~
y
I '
, i
~
~I . , ..~r.. .
i
t,~~`• ' } yY~~
S,
'
r . . , .
°
I
_ . .a ,I
. ~
~
\
,
VIE1IY OJT V~F DELSII~ A~! VRLET!
~
~
.
MEMC>RANtJUM
~ TC}: Planning and Environmental Gommissign
FROM: Cammunity Development Department
DATE: November 11, 1996
SUBJECY: A request for a major amendment to 5DD #4 (Cascade Viflage), to ailow
modificatians ta allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150
Westhaven LaneiLots 39-1 & 33-2, G[en LyonSubdivision.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larsen
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DES+CRtPTtt7N C)F TME REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Viilage, development Area
G) to Lots 39-1 and 39-2 (single-family residential lots) {ocated irr the gien Lyon 5ubdivision. The
applicant is requesting the foliowing:
, 1. That the lots be subject to the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district
eaiculation for Gross Residentiafi Floor Area (GRFA)(S:ection 18.13.080 of the
Zoning Cade) which is consistent with all of #he ather residential lots in #he Gien
~ Lyon Subdivisian. Currentiy, each lot is limited to 3,100 sq. ft. of GRFA per
Resalution Na. 10, Series af 1982. Under the proposed calculatian, Lot 39-1
wnuld be entitled to 6,446.65 sq. ft. of GRFA and L.ot 39=2 wouVd be entitled to
6,834.34 sq. ft. of GRFA.
2. That the Iflts be subject to the height limitations ofi the PrimaryJSecondary
Residential zone district (5ection 18.13.075 of the Zaning Code) which is
consistent with all af the other residentiaC lats in the Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Currently, the buifding heigfit for these Iots is restricted to 25' per Resolution No.
10, Series of 1982. Under this propnsai, building heigh#s would be restricted to
30' for flat raaf structures and 33' for sfoping raof structures.
3. That each lo[ be entiCled to a Type ll EHU (whichrequires condifiionaluseappravai). All other lots have been allowed to go through the Gonditional Use
review process for the establishment of Type II EMU's in this subdivisian. The current ordinance is silent on the EHU issue and is proposed to be arnended to
clarify this issua. The actual number of EHU's allowed will aiso be limited based'
on the access ta the site. The skier bridge was approved aC a width tha# wifl only
aHow three dweiling units including ENU's on these iwo sites.
The applicant is praposing building envelopes on the property which wi11 preuent the rernava] of
any existing trees and prevents development on slopes greater than 30°!b (see attached survey).
The envelopes are more restrictive than the typical setbacks for a PrimarylSecor?dary Residentiaf
zoned lot.
~ 1
.
Piease note that the applicant's originai reques# proposed to calculate the GRFA fcir these two
lots according to the Single-Family Residentia[ (SFR) zone district but has amended their ~
appiication at the request of staf#. The 5FR calculation results in GRFA far Lot 39-1 af 6,843.3
sq. ft. and Lot 39-2 af 7,618.7 sq. ft. Piease see applicant's statements attached.
111. BACKGRDUNd
The Glen Lyon 5ubdivisiorr, when originaily planned in 1978, under SDD #4, cantained a
provPsion that "no residential lotsha11 contain morethan 4,200 squarefeet of GRFA." This
provision was also included in the restrictive covenants #or this subdivis9on, which the Town is a
party to. At that time, Lats 39-1 and 39-2 were one large duplex lot, Lot 39 {2.4853 acres}.
On February 16, 1982, Resolutian No. 10, Series of 1582, was adopted allowing an amendmen#
to SDD #4 to allow Lat 39 to be divided into Lats 39-1 (1.043 acres) and 39-2 (1.221 acres). The
lots were restricted as single-family residential lots, therefore na# increasing the overall density of
the development. The proposal resulted in 0.2213 acres being dedicated to the Town as part of
the stream tract. The resolution restricted each lot tp a maximum of 3,1(}0 sq. ft. o# GRFA and
25' in building height. See attached Resolution No. 10, Series o# 1982 and the staff
memorandum dated February 1, 1982.
On July 3, 1990, SDD #4 was amended by Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1990, which removed the
4,200 sq. ft. af GRFA restric#ipn for al( "dupfex"' lots wiihin the Glen Lyon Subdivision. The
amendment aiiowed the lots to be calculated under the PrimarylSecondary Residentiai zone
district for GRFA. Lats 39-1 and 39i2 were specificaliy no# amended by this change as these lots
were single-family residentiai lots {see Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1990 and the staff
memorandum dated June 11, 1990}.
In July of this year, a minor amendment to this SDD was approved allowing the development af a
driveway and bridge ta access ihe site via an easement across Lats 40 and 41. The bridge
provides access for skiers to travel berieath #he driveway. The applicant worked closely with the
owners ofi Lot 40 in order to develop a plan that was acceptable ta aif parties impacted by the
development.
2 ~
lil. Z4NING IaNALYSIS
~ Lis#ed beiow is the zoning analysis for Lat 39-1 and Lot 39-2. in addition, an analysis o# Lot 40
and Lot 41, which are lacated nearest the site, have been included #or comparison.
Zoning: SDC1 #4 (with no underlying zoning)
Standard Existing 5tandard FroposedStandaed
Lot 39-7
Lot size: 45,433.08 sq. ft. n!a
Allowable GRFA: 3,100 sq, ft. 6,446.65 sq. ft. (includes 425 sq. ft. credit)
Allowable Building Height: 25' 30' fiaV33' sloping
Allowable Garage Gredit: 600 sq, ft. 600 sq. ft.
Allowable dwelAng units: 1 du 1 du + 1 Type ll EHU
Lot 39-2
Lot size: 53,186.76 sq. ft. n/a
Allowable GRFA: 3,100 sq. fii. 6,834.34 sq. ft. (includes 425 sq, it. credit)
Allowable Building Height: 25' 30' flatl33' s{csping
Allowable Carage Credi#: 600 sq. ft. 600 sq, ft.
Allowable dwelling units; 1 1 du + 1 1"ype }J EHU
For cornparrsun: Gurrent Standard
Lot 40
Lot size: 37,392.6 sq. ft.
' Aflowable CRFA: 6,469.63 sq. ft.*
Allowable Building Neight: 30' flatl33' sioping
~ Allowable Garage Credit: 1,200 sq. ft.
Allowable dwelling units: 2
Gat 41
Lot size: 45,713 sq. Pt.
Allowable GRFA: 6,885.65 sq. ft."
A11owable Buifding Height: 36' flat133' sloping
Allowable Garage Credit: 1,200 sq. ft.
Allowable dwelling units: 2
Note: Lois 40 and 41 inciude an additiona1425 sq, fii. of GRFA for the second dwelling unit and are allowed an additional 600 sq. ft,
for the seccrnd dwelling unit.
IV, CrRITERIA.T~ USED IN EVALIJAT1NG 11-11v~ PR0P0.'?. A~..
As stafied in the zoning cade, the purpose o# the speciaV development district is to:
encourage flexibility and creafiivlty in the development of land in order to
promote its mast appropriate use; to imprave the design character and quality of
new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and ecdnomical
provision flf s#reets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic #eatures of
open space areas; and to further the averail goals af the community as stated in
the Vaif Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan #or a special
devefopment district, in conjunction with a property`$ underiying zone diskrict, shalf
establish the requirements for guiding development and uses o# property incfuded
in the special development district."
io 3
The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utiiized by the Planning and
Environmentai Cammission when evaluating SDL7 amendment proposals: ~
A. aesign compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and ad}'acen# praperties relative to architec#ural design, scale,
bu1k, building height, buffer zones, iden#i#y, charac#er, visual integrity and
orientation.
No specific building or design is being requested by this amendmen#. Any proposed
development wall be reviewed in accordance with the SDD #4 ordinance and the Town's
Design Guideiines. With this requested amendment, development on these lots wi11 be
consistent vvith development allowances on neighboring lots and with this subdivision as
a whale. While homes on these lots will be quite large, impacts to the si#e and
neighboring properties wAI only be minimally impacted. 5ingle-family structureswill be
oriented within building envelopes on the propertfes and wi(1 be genera(1y low on the site.
There is adequate room for bufifering development on these lots from neighboring lots.
This property is mostly adjacent #o Forest Service properky and is only marginally adjacent
to neighboring duplex [ots.
The applicant is providing buiiding envelopes which protect all existing trees and prevents
development on sfopes greater than 34%.
Staff beiieves the proposed modifications to the devel4pment standards will pravide equal
, treatment to similariy situated residential lots and will not negatively effect the surrounding
properties or the environment.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, e#ficient ancf wnrkable ~
relationship wTth surrounding uses and activity.
The proposaf does no# change the approved uses for the property, These lots will
cantinue to support developrnent of single-family hames. The potential intensity nf
development will be similar #o that of adjoining Iots. Staf# believes that the proposal is
compatible with adjacen# development and provides for an efficient and workabie
relationship with surrounding uses.
C. Compl'rance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
The appiicant is not praposing to change the parking requirernents as they relate to these
lo#s. Development on these lots will continue to be required 3 parking spaces, assuming
deveiopment af structures of greater than 2,000 sq. ft. in size.
D. Cnnforrnity with applicable elements of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Des'rgn Plans.
1. This area has been platted and zoned under SC1D #4 for residential
development. The proposed changes do not change the use o# the
pro:perty. The Town of Vail Open Lands Pian, adopted by the Town,
iden#ifies these lots as private development sites. The use prescribed by
zoning for these lots is consistent with the CJpen Lands pian.
4
~
2. The foliowing are the applicable Land Use Plan gaals and palicies which
~ relate #o this proposai:
Goal 1.1 Vail shouid continue to grow in a controlled
environmen#, maintaining a balance between
residential, commerciai and recreational uses to
serve both the visitor and perrnanent resident.
Gaal 1.12 Vai( should accornmodate rnost afthe addition~aigrowth in existing developed areas (in-#ill areas).
Goal 5.1 Additianal residential growth should continue #o
oceur primarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not
exist.
Goal 5.4 Residen#ial growth should keep pace with the
market place demands for a fuN range of housing
types.
The staff believes that the propased amendmen# to the approved development
plan is incompliance with the Town's Land Use Plan.
E. Identifiication and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the
properiy can which the special development district is proposed.
~ The property is not located in an area of natural or geologic hazard.
F. Site plan, bwilding design and location and apen space provisians designed
to produce a funcfiional develapment responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overali aesthetic quaiity of the community.
The proposed appiication aliows the same type of developrnent currently allowed on the
site. The applicant has proposed buiiding envelopes which respect existing trees, steep
slopes, and setbaeks. The praperty, when divided irrto two lots in 1982, included the
provision of land dedication #or open space and stream tract. Any development proposals
for the property will be reviewed by the Design Review Baard and wiN be subject to the
Town's design Review Guidelines. Staf# believes the proposal is sensitive to
environrnental features of the site to a greater extent than exists under the current
al~lowances.
G. A circulatian system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off-site traffie circulatian.
The applicant is nat proposing to change or affect this criterion with this proposal.
io 5
H. Func#ional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. ~
The applicant has proposed building envelopes which respect existing trees, steep
slopes, and setbacks. The property, when divided into two Io#s in 1982, included the
provision of Iand dedication fior open space and stream tract. Any development proposals
for the property will be reviewed by the Design Review Board and wili be subject to the
design review guidelines. The buiiding envelopes pravide adequate buffer area on the
site. S#aff believes the proposai is sensitive to environmental features of the site to a
greater extent than exists under the current aliawances.
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wili maintain a workable, #unctional and
efficient relationshFp throughout fihe development of the speciat development
district.
This criterion is not applicable to this development.
V. STAFF REGOMMENDATIC?N
The Community Development Department recommends #hat the PEC recommend appraval of
the applicant's request ta the Town CoUncil for a majar amendment to Specia! Deuelopment
District No. 4, subject ta the following finding:
1. That the proposed amendments to Lo#s 39-1 and 39-2, Gien Lyon Subdivision,
within SDD #4 are consis#ent wiCh the nine development criteria contained herein
and are consistent with the development standards allawed on the other ~
residential Iots within this SDD.
The recommendation n# approval is also subject to the follawing conditions:
1. That the following language be placed on the development plan and included in
the ardinance for these lots:
Rli fiuture development will be res#ricted to the area within the building
envelopes. The only development permitted outside the building
envelopes shall be iandscaping, driveways (access bridge) and reiaining
walls associated with driveway construction. Rt-grade patios (those within
5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the
building envelopes nat more than ten feet (1 b') nor more than one-ha1f (tl2)
the distance between the building envelope and the prnperty line, or rnay
project not more than five feet (6) nar more than one-faurth (1fa) the
minimum required dimension be#ween buildings.
F:\EVERYONEtPEG\MEMO5i97\P ENNING.O27
6
~
A '~S6a42p0 J,t 582~`0~'5~W .54`.7"W / 49 xa
TRAGF K
.w f ~ I
' SHADING 4NL5tCATES 362,5r8 Sµ F,
FRAGT PREVfW5l.Y
C4NYEYE€1 TO 8,3223 dC.
• ' FfJDYNDFYAIL. p4
~QO
~ ii'\ ~v~l•~` 6
3(~ J /
0.0~~ ; . .tity 16
8211}613 a5C4.ri. - /
.t8.
0 UtiFity Finemtnt
R°
S
64.20.' 178.00
866 ytr' ~
naa~.s ar"e ~~L ~ N $8 '45`57'~£ 1,384.90'
tae.ss' ~0' r < ~Il~?
~ ME GQRNER $W= NE~< `t ~
540°45`t4"W ,,5~~ y~~~"~ ~
Accear ortd V1iHty Eosemert
3 hf:NNL:T}k L. GLE^7N. .60 tIF.RC81 :f'T~7.
Ltc.!"ISf:D UtiDFR TIIE LhWS OF T!!f.
54.08 Tf4-, 1
' .Qol 12 Ct,ftR[:CT AND CQM!'LETE PLhT OF TtSE. C:S.k E:DICflTED AND SIIC~WN tiERF.UN, TltRT St't
'N:#tU.~I . B.L.M. E1 OF 5ATD IIROFERTY 61' MC n!JD i;V6t.R MY .
' APPROVAL OF P~.AT Luckriaw R~aa Dir~exstaNs at~ ~ruE LOTti, ~
N. ~ 37,3926 Sa,fl. DSVtDSON. RS THE SAM~: ARI: STAI.En Lt~~
rms ~ .8584aC. MANSFFELD CORPORATIOft AS BENEFICIARY OF A DElED OF (yf' VA1& RF:CULATIOVS G(JVERNIt36 TttE. St '
a GY ~ TRUST RECQRQED It1 BOOK .1-10 AT PAGG~_. I
' ~ r~ BY ITS SIGNRTURE IIELQW, APPI20VES AND CONSENTS TO tN WIT^FESS WtiERE6F I PtAVE SE:'S' MY !IF'. ,
N8R°43'41"W I. 'F'NE GLEN LYON S[3B6IVISFON ANLI THIS PLAT. J-G/.f/-- _ .A,ll., 1970i
.,,itry 21 ~ '!b3 31 . .
I $04°52~37~WV EXECUT£D Tfi1S dAY OF- kA1L y ,A.Q..
294. E76 ' 24 71_. ,
I
~ If
B ~Y-,~~^~c~~
R,M: R Y WALTER A. KQELBEL
41 ~
RSSISTANT SECRETARY PRESIDENT APPRQVA?L 8Y Pl
k a h o~~ 45,713 sa cf. j E . 0494 at. TEfIS PL APPRQVED BY 4'tfE TcAJF3 i~F ~
~ DRY OF .A.D. , 291
GQR8 CREEK ASSC>CSATES AS BENEFZCIARY OF A IIEED OF
~
TRUST RECORflED IN SdQK A"'?/ AT PAGB,175 SY IPS
I TUr.`. ~
1h5 5ZGNATURE SEIAW, APPF2dVES AND CONSENTg 2'O 2"HE GL
:-:~u:
LYON SUF#DZVISION AND THIS PLAT. EXEG[7TEI7 TtiSS 9 ~
~ 90.00 lWS.tTB 3.
DAY OF 'A
~r
+ ~o to t 3t ~ , . . a"~
( ry ~ ! w o, °o FREI7E CK S. PTQ , -
42 ~ RS ATT0I2NEY IN FACT FQR DATED: J-/'f
24,954 Sq.ee00 `F = GC1RE CREEK ASSQCFATES /f
~O.SFQ6AC. o Ea57 tIreE Sw;, r~fZ.
406S¢Ft
~z 411014 AC APTESfi:
_ STATE Of CQLQRADQ ' j . 4
COUNTY OF EAYiLE . ) ,ry. x t
/ A-PPf~p~4JvN.4 OF ~y)
..WESFNAVEN. C.IRCtE.
THE FOREGOiNGAPPROVAL OF PEAT 4tAS RCKNOWLBDGED.
r t ~A`~4F fi 46 BEFORE' ME THIS_ A DAY OF~ULY ,A.D. ~
4' 46 29 ~F' &Y WALTER A. KOELBEL RS PFtESIDENT OF THE TtiZS PLAT OF GLEN LYQN S119DIVISIOk Y
~ I 6 MANSFZELD CORPORATSf7N: A C4LORAD6 CORpORATIOH} AND' 9€ THE TOWN OF VASL ItXD DEDTCI\TF(kti f)
~ • ~`~y r7..~04;i S¢[t: "~7 FRED£RICX S. OTTQ AS ATTORNEY IN FACT, FOR GORE ~tiH4WtI F€ERE02~2 IS FFEItEBY ACCEPTEb $Y 'CH
iNIAC W I
~ Sp 48
CREEK ASSOCIRTES, A'RHODE E9LAND LIMITEII PARTNERSHTF. MA7CH t4 T#~r . EE SttEE 2 OF Z Tfi£
MY COlSMZS5ION EXPIRE5 !
~
rft.acr WITNE55 MY HRNII AND SEA , i .
r /
5,0e7 sq.rr. ' BY_
:1ts9 no.
No( z~r~u.~..L e~ ;,u,
` onreo:
iOWN 6F 4kk4 BQUNOAftY ~ .
t-TOWN aF vc.~L sT~~a~ s~a:c-rt
sel pm/coc 232.31~ Se+ P'nfcav ~
4P [ s 16827 a L s 16827
g8Q°5457~ ~~QyE sar-49•,~3..t o96.50~ Nto4~ta 56 $2
S82°07`57Tf2ACT kt ias ea
a 187 ac
~s. s~a2iop ~+e1.as'o° E -c
c~ 'A~
69e ',kg 04
N
i. 2e~3.~d
I Ng;°ao ae"e 161.41 2A
T RAG T
0.
. ~ ~ .
LO zz39-2 tloo°
s
n~
LOT 39-1
U22
1,043 ac
~
~ - ~ 4m
W
w~ ~ x 6.~SKkWkY EASEMENT ? `~d' / 0
(8oek 395, PoQe 935) d
, Wwar EASEMENT
( Boak 3'Y5Page 455)
UTt~.FTY EASEMENT (PL4FTE0)`~. . Le3 P'~/Cop
16827
. ~ . ~ .
-7296 C65.04'
N H8°45 57"E 518:00, ~
NE 06 C6i Secfion f2
TSS, RBtW, 64h PM. ~
Sei PlnlCop t 5 16827
E1hkpE,ATTEO
~ T"fiis resubdivisfon subjact [o sestziceions an.rhe Develapmenc.Ylan far
u ~
C. M FOREST SERVfCE chis propercy on reeotd wfth the Dcparcmene oE Cammunity 4ewelopment,
Tawrt af VafL, Eagle County, Colorada.
I
~I 20 ACCESS AND UTfLtTY EASEMENT
~
. Baok 273, Paqe 611
Besak 282, Poqe 083 .
. p4 Bpak 2T3, Poge 981
8ook 4(}5, Paqe $80
0
,
,I
~
.
~ ~ ~ ~
,
cnv4j"
~ [
~ ~ ' _~I • .s _ ~ J_ `
~g~..
6pR~
_
i%
~
M~t
~ ~ . ~
/ ta~oaSne v
~ ~ ~ / ~ , , ~
i ~ ? ~ ~ ~str ~ ~ /j f/ . °°r~°~'in"
~
!AT 3I1-t
I" .w~s
F
/ w~
...riar.~a..
ria
~ ~ ` / / ~ / ~ , f • wae n~e~r
r"Tt
OLM ~
LYOU
Lar soe
ZZ
, PFALSOMWY
WAILEM
owMA"
r_~
. ,
LARSEN & KC7VACEVICH, P.C.
counselors at Law
953 S. Frontage Rtsad West, Suite105 ~
Vaii, Golaradra 81657
Diane R. Larsen Tei: (970) 476-871 i
Jili E. Kovacevich Fax: (970) 476-8672
October 22, 1997
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Dominic F. Maurieilo
AICP Tawn Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Raad
Vail, CO 81657
Re. Amendment to Applicatian for Amendment to SDD No. 4 on behalf of Hagopian
& Pennington LLC
L?ear Dominic:
This letter is in response to your letter dated t7ctotier 17, 1997. As we discussed over ~
the telephane, you do not beZieve that staff wouid support an amendment to SDD#4 that would
allow Lots 39-1 and 39-2 a GRFA calculation based on two dwelling units per lot, because this
would change the density of the SDU. You indicated the amount af a]lowable +GRFA proposed
in your C}ctnber 17, 1997 letter is the maximum staff could reasonabiy support.
After discussing the alternatives with Mr. Pennington, he has decided to accept yQUr
proposed changes to hi$ application, in arder to expedite the approvai pracess by having staff
suppart of the amendment as it will be presented to PEC.
Enclosed please find two full size surveys of the Lots showing existing trees and
setbacks, and an 8 1l2 x 11 copy of same, as you requested.
My client's agreement to amend the Application as set forth in your IeCter is cunditianed
upon GRFA and building height being caiculated exactly as set forth therein, and the Building
Envelapes being as depicted in the enelQSed survey. As we discussed an the telephane, he
would alsa like staff support of a Type iI EHU far each of the 1ots, and he would like you to
specifically provide in the ordinance that the bridge and driveway rnay be constructed outside
the building envelope and within the setbacks.
~
LARSEN & KOVACEVICH, P.C.
~ Dominic F. MaurieIlo
Tawn of Vail
C3ctober 22, 1997
F'age 2
Please call me 'rf you have any questions. Aiso please iet me know the time that we wi11
be on the agenda for the PEC hearing on October 27, 1997.
Very truly yaurs,
LARSEN & KOVACEVICH, P.C.
t
r
Diane R. Larsen
' DRLlkes
Enclosures
~ cc: Mr. Tim Pennington
~
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT bF Al'I'LICATI4N ~
FQi2 APl'RC1VAL OF AN AMENUMENT
T4 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIC"T NO. 4
I. rNTROI7UCTTON
Lots 39-1 and 39-2 (sometimes referred to herein as the "Lots") are Single Family Lots
in Glen Lyon Subdivision that are treated significantly differently than other Single Family Lats
in the Town with respect to Gross Residential Floar Area ("GR.FA") and building height
limitation. Applicant, Hagopian &Pennington LLC, seeks equal treatment with other Town of
Vail Single Family Lots. Applicant is requesting approvai of an amendment to SDl? No. 4 tn
pravide that GRFA and builciing height limitatians for Lots 39-1 and 39-2 be calculateti pursuant
to the requirements ofChe Single Family (SFR) Zone Dzstrict, Sections 1$,10.0$0 and 1$.10.090
of the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
II. BACKGR(JUND nF EXISTING GRFA AND HEIGHT LIMTTATIONS
The protective covenants for Glen Lyon Subdivision were recordefl in April, 1978. At
that zime, Lots 39-1 and 39-2 were combined in a single lot, designatedLot 39. Lot 39
, consisted of 2.4853 acres and was the largest residentialloY in Glen Lyon. From xhe inception,
the protecCive Covenants of Glen Lyon (the "Cxien Lyon Covenants") contained the following
restriction: °No residentiai lot shail contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA." Andy ~
Norris, the developer of Glen Lyon Subdivision, explains in a letter to Dominic Mauriella dated
September 9, 1997, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, that when he developed
Glen Lyon Subdivisitin, ",there was considerabie laoseness in the Town's definition of GRFA. "
He voluntarilv restricted each lat Co 4200 square feet of GRFA, even thaugh the ordinance
governing SDD Na. 4 provided that allowabie GRFA on an.y iot 'rn Glen Lyon was gaverned by
a formula based on lot size, which wauld have allawed more GRFA in many cases. SDD No.
4was thereafter amended to match the more restrictive 4200 square foot CrIZFA restrictian of
the Glen Lyan Covenants.
In 1982, Mr. Norris applietl for an amendment to SDI7 No. 4 to resubdivide Lot 39 into
two Single Family Lots. Resolutaon Number 10, Series of 1982 (°`Resolution No. 10"),
subdividing Lot 39 into twQ Singie Family Lots, was approved by Town Cauncil on February
16, 1982. Resfllution No. 10 provides the maximum height for buildings on the two Lots is
limited to 25 feet and the maximum allowable GRFA is 3,100 square feet for each Lot.
Resolution No. 10 sCates in the "Recitals" that the lat "possesses characteristics making iC
appropriate for two single family structures of a high qualiry, Iow z'ise nature" and that °ttie
owner of Lat 39 and the develaper of Glen Lyon Subdivisian agreed to the conditions and
limitations placed upon the division of Lot 39 into two separate lots." Except for the stateYnent
that the developer of Glen Lyon agreed to the conditions and limitations, there is na explanation
in ResaluCion No. 10 which gives insight ta the reasans for such conditions and limitataons.
Tlierefore, Applicant researched the Town files and consulted with Mr. Norris to see if there
was a legitimate reason to restrict GRFA and height.
~
~ The Town's .~'zles on SDD No. 4 provides helpful inforrnatidn regarding the hzstory of
the subdivision of Lot 39 into two lots and the reason for the severe restrictions on GRFA and
height set forth in Resolution No. 10. A staff inemorandum to I'EC dated February I, 1982,
shortly before Resolution No. 10 was passed, states that Mr. Norris proposed the limiCations.
Mr. Norris' letter confirms that the GRFA limitation of 3100 square feet on each of the
resubdivided lots was established by him in consultation with Town staff "to be consistent with
the existing mflre restrictive Glen Lyon CC&R's. " Minutes from the PEC hearing of Febntary
8, 1982 show Chat Mr. Norris requested 3100 square feet of GRFA, anci that the lirnitation on
G12FA was not a Town-impased restriction. Mr. Norris also voluntarily proposed an extensive
landscaping plan to aid in screening the Lots from view, which has been implemented by the
present owner.
In May, 1990, the Glen Lyon Covenants were amended by the written consent of more
than 75 % of the owners of the Glen Lyan Subdivision, as required under such covenants. The
sole pnrpose of Che 1990 aanendment to the Glen Lyan Covenants (the "Amendrnent") was to
delete fihe mare restrictive Glen Lyon GRFA restriction, thus allowing Chethen more liberalTown of Vail GRFA restrictions to govern all lots within Glen Lyon Subdivision. Tn fact, Lots
39-1 and 39-2 {then designated 39 (A) and 39 (B)) are specifically identified in the Amendment
as lots to which the GRFA increase applies. Thus, the Crlen Lyon home awners' intent to
increase the GRFA allawabie to Lots 39-1 anc3 39-2 is clear.
Tn May, 1990, shartly after the Glen Lyon Covenants were amended, properCy owners
~ wha had vated to pass the Covenants Amendment proposed an amendment to the ordinance
governing SDD No. 4 to delete the more restrictive Glen Lyan GRFA restriction that was still
reFlected in said ordinance. A letter in the Town's files dated May 11, 1990 which was
submitted with the application to amend SI7D No. 4 explains that as a result of the Town of
Vail's adapt'ran of the GRFA standards in the Glen Lyon Covenants, Glen Lyon property Qwners
were negatively impacted in relation to other similariy situated property owners in Vaii. The
property owners were requestinb parity in the G1en Lyon GR.FA standards with the rest of the
ToWn.
A staff inemarandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 11,
1990 confirms the GRFA restriction was initiated by the developer, wiCh unintended negative
effects on Glen Lyon lats. It pravides in pertinent part:
At the time that SDD #4 was adopted, the GRFA definition was in the processof revision. By putting a maximum GRFA in the densiry requirement for the
SDD, the developer's intent was ta lock in a specified GRFA allowed for the lots.
This was intended to protect againsC fiature changes in the interpretations of
GRFA. The ceilzng, however, became a restriction for the Glen Lyon property
awners, as the GRFA requirements did not become more restrictzve (as the
developer had anticipated). Jim I2ubin, the Cammunity Development Department
director at the time of the original adnption, canfirms that the GRFA maximurn
was initiated by the developer to guarantee the GRFA for Glen Lyon lats...
~ 2
Thus, the Town's files on S1)D No. 4 show that Mr. Narris proposed the GRFA
maxirrtum, but that the unanticipated effect was not fair to Glen Lyon residents compared to ~
other Town af Vaii property owners. The Glen Lytrn homeowners' proposed amendment to
5DD No.4 was passed by Town Council on ruly 3, 1990, as Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1990
("Ordinance No. 20") eliminatin~ the Glen Lyan GRFA covenant a$ to duplex lots, but without
mention of Lots 39-1 and 39-2.
Since there is nothing in the Town's file to justify treating Lots 39-1 and 39-2 differently
than other lots zoned Single Family, why was the a1lowable GRFA on Lats 39-1 and 39-2 nat
specif'rcally amended in 1990 ta be gaverned by Town standards, as the other G1en Lyon
residential lots were? Mr. , Norris' letter is helpful in answering this questian. His letter states
there were several issues unique to L.ots 39-1 and 39-2, but urrrelated to GRFA or building
height, that the Town sCaff wanted resolved before the Lots woultl be brought into confarmity
with Town of Vail SFR Zone District requirements. For example, portians of the access roati
to Lots 39-1 and 39-2 encruached on Forest Service land, Vail Associates had raised cancerns
about an on-grade skier c~rossing that intersected the proposed driveway, and certain utility
easements needed ta be va'cated. The Town staff requested that all these matters be resolved
before the GRFA applicalble to L.ots 39-1 and 39-2 be amended. Applicant has recently
completed resolution of a11 these matters; the last one being the approval by the Town of the
canstruction of a skrer underpass. Applicant now requests that SDD Na. 4 be amended to treat
, Lots 39-1 and 39-2 the same as all other lots in the Town of Vail zoned Single Farnily.
Applicant and Mr. Norris believe that the process that was begun in 1990 ta have al1 Glen Lyon
lots treated the same as other similarlyµzoned lots within the Town, shouid be automatic, based
on Che recent resolution of the issues forrnerly affect'rng Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Nonetheless, if the ~
Town desires to re-examine the GRFA and height Iimitations, Che facts that support the change
in GRFA and height to match the Town Zoning Code, are compclling.
Presently, Lots 39w1 and 39-2 are 1.043 and 1.221 acres, respectively. (Lot 39 as
originally platted consisted of 2.4853 acres, but a portion of Lot 39 alang Gore Creek was
deeded to the Town when Lat 39 was resubdivided into Lots 39-1 and 39-2.) They are still the
two largest lats in Glen Lyon, and are therefore large enough ta support additional GRFA, as
calculated un.der Sectian 18.1(}.090 of the Zoning Code. The marginai increases an GR.FA,
when, compared to neighbo,ring structures such as LiFtside Condominiums and Glen Lyon C7ffice
Building, are insignificant. LQts 39-1 and 39-2 are a significant distance from South Frontage
Road, compared to both Liftside Condominiums and Glen Lyon Office Building, which are
directly on Sauth Frontage Road. Many Spruce and Ladge Poie Pine trees were ptanted by
Applicant, which have already grown to significant heights, and will continue to grow and screen
more fully any residence to be built on thc Lots. The limitatzons to low-rise, 3100 squarefoot
residences on each lot is simply not justifiable considering the neighboring structures, the size
of the Lots, the landscaping and the currern Tawn Code governing Sinbie Family homes.
3 ~
~ III. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR AMENDMENT
Town Cade Section 18.40.090 governzng 5pecial Development Districts pravides:
...,before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the
underlying zone district, it should be determinedthat such deviation providesbenefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This
deterrnination is ta be made based on evaluation of the proposed Special
Development District's compliance with the design criteria outiined in Section
18.40.080.
The basic premise of Sectian 18.40.090 is that developrnent standards for a lot in a Special
Development District should comply with the underlying zone district and r:hat any deviaCion
therefrom should not be taken lightly. It follows that since Lots 39-1 and 39-2 are Single Family
Zots, they should be treated the same as other Single Family Lots.
Among the criteria in Section 1$.40.080 that must be considered in deCermining the
appropriaCe standards to apply ta Lots 39-1 and 39-2 are "design compatibility and sensitivity
ta the immediate env`rronment, neighborhaod and adjacent prnperties relative to architectural
design, scale, bulk, buiiding height, buffer zones, identiry, eharacter, visual integrity and
orientatian. " Applicant contends that any re$idence to be built on Lats 39-1 or 39-2 that
~ camplies with the square footage calculation under Town SFR Zone District requirements Will
be campatible with the immediate neighborhood and adjacent properties. As discussed above,
neighbaring property owners who were required to be notified of this application for amendment
include Liftside Condominiums, a relatively recent addition to SDD N0. 4, and Glen Lyon
Office Building. Both are large structures and are located closer ta Sauth F'rontage Road than
wouid be any residences ta be buitt on Lots 39-1 and 39-2. The visual impact of any residence
to be built on Lots 39-1 and 39-2 under SFR Zone district requirements will be substantially :less
than the visual impact of such existing sfiructures, especially with the large trees already grow;ing
on Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Furthermore, any residence proposed to be buiit on either iat wiil also
be subject to Design Review Board scrutiny, which is sufficient to ensure quality, site-
appropriate residences.
Under Colorado law, the PEC and Tawn Council must not aet arbitrarily or capriciously
in exerciszng their discretion in evaluating the criteria set forth in the Zoning Cade. See Sellon
v. Manitou Springs, 745 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1987). With no rational basis in the file for
discriminating against Lots 33-1 and 39-2 when compared to other Single Family Lots within
the Town, ta deny this application would seem to be arbitzary and capricious, and, therefare,
void under Colorado law.
~ 4
.
i f
IV. CONCLUSIt7N ~
Lots 39-1 and 39-2 have different GRFA andheight restrictions appfied to them than
other Single Family Lots within the Town of Vail for reasons that are no longer j~ustifiabie. In
1990, the Glen Lyan Hnmeowners requesCed that the lots within Glen Lyon be treated the same
as all other lots tivithin the Town, which request was granted by Town Council with regard to
all Glen Lyon lots except Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Due to other issues unique to thase two lots,
GRFA and height limitations for the Lcrts have continued to be govemed by Resolution 10 frnm
1982, which were self-imposed by the developer of Glen Lyon and the then-owner of the Lots.
Town files indicate the restrictions were p.roposed by 1VIr. Norris, and have not been rernoved
due to other issues unrelated to GRFA and height. With the resoluCian of the issues concerning
the access road and the vacation of easements, and, most recently, the approval by the Town af
a skier underpass separating vehicles from skiers, there is no raticsnal basis for continuing the
restrictions in ResoIution No. 10. Tawn Code requires that development standards not deviate
from the underlying Zone Distxict unless the deviation provides benefits to the Tawn that
outweigh the adverse effects of the deviation. There appear to be no benefits to the Town that
outweigh the adverse effects of continuing the severe GRFA and height restrictions now imposed
on the Lots. Lots 39-1 and 39-2 are two of the 1argest lots in Glen Lyon, are zaned Single
Family, and are located near Cwo very large structures, Liftside Cortdominiums and Glen Lyon
C}ffice Building. The visual impact of Single Family residences built in compriance with SFR
Zone District GRFA and height standards will be negligible compared to the visual impact of
those two neighboring structures. Applicant's Single FamiZy LoCs should be treated the same
as aCh.er Single Family Lots in the Town, and should be governed by Sections 18.10.080 and ~
18.10.090 of the Town Cnde with regard to GRFA and building height. To deny this
applicatian to remove unnecessary restrictions on the LoCs in order tn treat them the same as
ather Sin-le Family Lots would be arbitrary and capricious.
~
5
~ Andrew D. Norris
196 Lq Verecict Road
Santca Barbara, Caiifornia 93108
~
September 9, 1997
Dominzc F. Manriello, ATGP
Department of Gommunity Development
Town af Vail
75 South Frontage Road Vail> Colorado $1657
Re: Glen Lyon 5ubdivision - Lots 39-1/39-2
:Dear pominic;
~ I was the develoPer of the Glen Lyon Subdivision and was therefore responsible for the
project's planninb, permittina, canstruction and sales. Development controls far the
project were established by the recorded plat and the Conditions, C4venants and
Restrictions (CC&R's), An imporrant element of the CC&Rs were limitations on the
amount of Gross Residential Flaor Area (GRFA), as defined by the Town of Vail zoning
regulations, that could be constructed on each lot. At the tisne it was considered
impartant to establish GRFA standards because there was considerable "looseness" in the
Town's definition of GItFA. Gien Lyon's CC&R's were more restrictive.
Ln 1989, the Town approved the division of Lot 39 into twa lots. The approval
established Lot 39-1 an:d 39-2 as a minor developrnent plan. Each Iot was 1irnited toa
single family home and the GR-FA limitations were established by me in consulta.tion with
Tawn staFf to be consistent with the e:cistin:g Glen Lyon CC&R's. A minor development
plan was developed that included establishing building enveiopes and a landseape plan.
Follawing the Tawn's approval, si~nificant components of the landscape plan were
implernented by [he owner. These included earthwork and tree plantin~ for screening.
In 1990, the Town made refinements and clari:£ications tQ its definitian af GR:FA. Town
cotinci1 was interested in creating a uniform standard for a11 residentiai lats. The Glen
Lyon property owners supported this praposal and requested that I conduct an eiection by
Glen Lyon property owners to seek approval to amend the CC&R's to bring, Glen Lyon's
~ GRFA standards into compliance tivith the Tawn's standards. The amendment passed and
EXHIBIT A
L>orninic F. Mauriella, AICP
Deparcment of Community Development
Town of "Vail
September 9, 1997 ~
Paae 2
the GREA revision approved. The amendment applied to a11 Glen Lyon lots, including
Lflts 39-1 and'39-2. However, since Glen Lyon Subdivision is in Speeial Development
District No. 4, Town approval was required for any chan;e in GREA.
A proposefl amendment to SDD No. 4 was submitted to che Town to provide th.at Town
GREA standards would apply to all Glen Lyon lots. By this tame it had been discovered
that porcions of the access road to Lots 39-1 and 39-2 encroached an Forest Service land
and that the planned on-grade skier crosszng with the driveway wauld be unacceptable to
Vail ?.ssociates. Va;.l Associates insisted that a separated ;rade crossing be, :ors'ncted.
Alsa, utility easements across Lot 39 needed to be vacated. Tawn staff requested that no
change be made in the GREA standards applicable to Lnts 39-1 and 39-2 until a11 such
issues surroundinb the Lots were resolved.
Tt has required several years to resolve all of these requirements, the final one being
approval of the skier underpass. It has always been my understanding and abreement with
the Town that once a11 the issues surroundinb Lots 39-1 and 39-2 had been resolved, the
lots would be brought into confarmity with the Town oF Vail's then current development
standards for residential lots. ~
I.f I can pravide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Andrew . Noms
ADN.sb
bc: D.iane Larson
EXHIBIT A
4 t .
i .
~ RESOLUTTON n10
(Series of 1983)
A RESOL,UTIC3iI OI" fiITE TC7Vt1V' COUNCIL
, A\SENDIF1G S'PECIAV DEVELC?P?,IENT DiSTRZC'T
N0. 4 TO PEtOViDE TFta1T LOT 39 OF TFIEGLEN LY'Oii SClP,D EVIS7ON MAY DE DIVTDED
IN'i0 TSYO (2) SINGLE FAlIILY J,OlS; PRt3-
VTbING A hfAS'TER D-EVEL(aPttE`iT PLAti THE1?EFbRE;
SETTING FC71?'~:~i A TNriNTY FTVL•' (25) FOtIT IiEIGl3T
LIIIITATYON AND THIRTY OVE fftJNDRED (3100)
SRUf1R.E S'00'P 4IAX.IIMU,1I GROSS RESIDEYTIAL I'Lt?C1Ft
AREe1 (GRF?1) LTniITATION'; ANT3 SETTI\G FOfi.TH
I3ETAILS RELATTNG TYIERETO.
ZVHEftEAS, the Town Council has previously appraved 5pecial
, Development District 4, commonly knotivn as Glen Lyan Subdivisipn,
..r
to insure its planned and coordinated development in a manner
suitable for the area in which it is situated; and
CYHEREAS, the Town CounciI was of the opinion ti7at the
existing LaG 39 0f Glen Lyon Subclivsion possesses characteristics
,
' making it appropriate for two (Z) sin;le family structures of a
~ higYz quality, low--rise nature; and,
WfIEREAS, tlYe Planning and Environrnenta.l Commissian has
reva.etived said amendment to Special Develdpment Bistrict 4 and
recommencteci its appxoval; and
t;`HEREAS, tiie owncr of Lot 39. , and the clevelopex af the Gl.en
Lyon Subdivisidn have agreecl to tlie' cond~tions and limitations
placed upon the diviszon of sazci lot into tsvo (2) separate 1ots;
and,
NOW, TIIEFtEFORE, BE TT RESdLVED BY TFIE TOWN COI3NCTL OF THE
~
TOWN OF VAIL, CflLOR.ADO, THAT:
SectYOn l. Lot 39 0f the Glen Lyon Subdivision, a paxt af , Specia.l Develapment District 4, shall be dividecl into i;wo (2)
residentia.l lots in accordance with the hlaster P1an thereof.
Section 2. The liaster Development Plan for Lot 39 and the
division thereof is hereby approved and the development of said
`-r divided Lot 39 shall be in accordance tivith the within approved
:~)•r.,r,.w
biaster I7evelopmen Plan and conditions herein imposed.
`
,
_2_
Section 3. 'The n,axxmum height of builtlings on Lots 39 (A)
and 39 (B) of the G?en Lyon Subclivision, as herein approved, shall
~
be twenty five 2~5) feet as cietermined in aGCflrclance ivith the
~,wrrwrr~r~
applicable provisions of the V'ai1 Zoning Cocle.
Section 4. The maximum allowable gross residcntial floor
area (GRFA) on Lots 39 (A) anct 39 (B) of the G1en Lycn Subdivision
as herein approved, shall be thirty one hundred (3100) square feet
each.
IN'I'ROT7UCEI7, READ, APPT?OVED AND ADdPTED TIIZS 16'TH DAY t7F
FEBRUARY, 1982.
ATTEST :
Colleen Kline, Taxvn Clerk ~
. . ,
~
~ NEMORnNDuli
1'O: P1.anning aricl L:nvironmentai Commission ,
FRUM: I)epartrtient of Community Uevelopment/Pc;ter Patten
DATE. February 1, 1982
SUBJLCT: Twa amcndrn2nt requests for Special Development L?istxict 4---
Czscade Village/Glen Lyon. Applicant: Ancly Norra.s
Arlcly Norris is xequesting twa amendments to Special Deve7.opnient; District 4.
C7tle is for area A o£ the Di.strict-,Cascacle Village, to a11o4v the parking structurcJ
ath].etic club builciing to encraach inta the cxterior propezty line setback.
T}le seconrl request is to allow Lot 39 of Clen Lyan Subtlivision (Area C;), an
existing 2.48 acrc pxwimary/secanclaxy lot to be resubd3.vicled into two single
family lats,
1. ANsrrrnMrrrT REcnnDzNG PArzx zNc s TRucTuRE sr:mBACx
A. T11c ttEQuLST
`i'tie reciuest: is to all:owtIYC relaxat7.on af Secti.otYS 18.46.100 Sotbackstvith regarci pnl.y to this builtling anzt 18.46,170Parking o£ SD-D4 so that;
~ the buxlcli.rlg coittaini.ng the parking structur.e ancl athJ.etic club catt
be constructed ta wi.thi.n 2 fcct oi: the nort}7ern pxopcrt'y ]:inc, abutCia~g
the Soi.itli Frorttage Road, rathcr than the requized 20 feet. The I'axking
sectioti rli.ctates tliat no Z7axka.rlg shall be lncai'.ecl in ztty fxant sei.back
azea. The proposal is for undcr,grou»ci ~~~Lxkin~; tc~ lac so l:or.atetl. I'1~e
xeasori fc~x t}zis rec{uest ~.t thxs ~ime is an eaxlier ovexsi.ght irl tilc
original Mas~,er I'3.an for Cascacie Vil~.a~;c. ~
B. I3AGKGROUND
T}re origiTial Master Plan was approved as a basic guicle for placement
of each structure, but was not a cletailecl design for eacti individual
builciing. Sncleed, manor acljLtstments in the placing oE eacli strtrctuxe
naturally has occurrecl at the Design Review Boarcl levc7.. 7n texms af
the parking garage and atliletic club, the master plan simply dici not
allow for ader{uate room fox afull size viable tentris caurt facility
wi.th xegard to the nortl7-soutlz climensi.ons as restxicted by the existing
xoad. As the Cascade Village praject prngresses accordi7ig to the adrspted
Master Plan anci xegulations contained in Si)D4., each building site is
xestxicted by such givens as buildings both existing and planned, xaads,
util.ity locatians, etc. 'i'his piece of the "puzzle"--the paxking structure
and athletic club--has simply been squeezecl xnto the extexa.ox property
setback by some o£ these restrictions, a situation not envisio:ned, of
course_j in the 1979 Master Plan.
~ .
~ ~ .
~
(:asctrcfc Vi.ll<ir,c -2- 2/1f82
C, Ihit'AC'fS OF~i'HE PI2Qf}OSAL ~
'1'}ie bziilcling is proposed to be Iocatecl SO £ceC from the existing pavemcnt
of t:}ie Sotit-li Froiitage IZoaci, except w}ier. e the i7cw x•i.g}lt turn latac wii 1
be locateci, the structure ioill be 45 f.eet away from the pavemcrrt. As
one travels uaest on the rnacl the gracle c:hanges so that one experiences
less and less of the building i.mpzct the E`urtlier west otie gets. 'I'lie
bui3,cling a_s 12 feet }ii.gh at eave liiie or1 the north e].cvation tvitla ~ppxtrxi-
mateiy a 6 ill 12 roof pitc}i. Ttie roof materictl pxoposed is a gray metaI
similar to the hlillrace Conrlominiwn roofs. No unsolvrible problems exist
taith regarrl ta utility locations, tl substantial lanctscaping prflposal
wit3t a 1arge amaunt of evergreciitrees is proposedfor the area between
the buildiilg anclthe Soutly Frolxtage Road, It is- higlily urilikely tt7at
,r ~l~e So~itll Pzon~a~e Itoacl ~vill t~e expariclec3 to fdur lanes~ due to physical
(gradc an the side oE the road) anci traffic amnunt factors.
'1'lle conclusian frorn the above fttcts ir7dicate ilo significaiit negative
factors an nioving tlzc builc3ing clasc ta the property line. Nlaintaining
50 feet from the roacl is a sufficient "breathing" distailce for snow
reiiloval, minor roacl inlpraveiiicnts (wi.clera shoulclers) and visut11 fir,~oxiiTtity.
A physical hards3lip exists i17 the g7.vens of mariclatory clcsign ct•iteria
(tennis courts) ancl the exisLing roacl ancl adjacent builclings.
RLsC0M4tENt)A'1`T ON
`I'}lc t)or7artment of Coiiinilini-ty Devclopment recomrneixds al3proval of tlle ainendiriel-zt
to 'Scir14 allawing the parking structureJatlrletic c1ub to encroacli 18 fcet
itlto tlle nortli prapex•Ly setback anct to qualify the aeqtiixemeni; of: tlo paritiitg
in the front sctbacl< to apply to parking otilcr t}iazi eiltirely undergx•ouitcl.
`1'}ie staff feels that t}icre are minimum impacts of this arnendmeitt clue to
tlic large clistaiice to tlte roacl surface. `I'he builcting is designcd to mita:gatic
visual inrpacts on Che nort}Y side, afiid the laiictscaping s#tould provi,cte a visual
screen, furtlier impraving tlYC aesttretics of the site cleveJ.opinerit. tiYe agrec
t11at the setback exceptioia s}ioLzld be made orily £or thxs buildirtg, with the
provision tllat otlaer uridergrouncl parkirig could be 1ocated witllin required
exterior setback areas, subject to Design Review Board appraval.
II. ~`DTVrSION OF LO'' 39,GLEN LYON SUBT7rVIS10N ~ .
A. T'IIE. REQUEST
Lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (Areaf:G of SDD4) was createcl with the
original approval of SDD 4. The cluplex 1ots are developecl basically
in accordance with pximaxyjsecondary development regulations. The 10t
currently cantains 2,48 acxes of total site area., and the propased dxvision
would easily tneet the requirement i.n the Single Family District af contain-
ing 12,500 sauare £eet of buildable $ite area. I'roposed is to liave ~
two ].ots" . one of ,88$ acre and one of 1.48 acres, whiie dedicating
to the town ,115 acre af land along Gore Creek. The stream tract praposed
ta be dadicated is adjacent to property already owned by the tawn thraugh
a previous dedication.
Giiscaclc Villzigc. _3- 2/1/82
~ Mr. Norris a.s propasitlg at7ct wil:l commit to a mastex plan fax- the clcvelop-
ment on tlle$e two lots. 1le propases two low-rise (1 to 2 storY) luxury
sirlg2c fami2y iiomes tvith exLensivc lanctscapitig anrl wntez• i'eatures. 1'!e
requcsts that cach housG be allowecl 3100 sc{uaie feet of Gioss I2csiclential
Flaor Area and will restrict the hauses to a 25 foot height lz.niit7tion.
B. ZN1PACTS OF REQUE57'
C;urrently, the lot coulcl be devcloped into a cluplex with a maxa;nium floor
arca of 4200 sc{uare feet.-This is the covenant restra.ction of wliich
the t4wn is a co-signator, anci consequently, errtforcer. The proposal
Youlrl increase the allawable Gf2FA by 2400 square feet ta 6200 squaxe
' feet total. .
Visually, the site is c{uite open and contains only one txee, a large
evergreep J.ying very close to the proposed ctrmman lot line of the two
new lots. 'Chus, any cievelopment OII the site will be xcadz.ly secn by
passersby orl t}le South Fzotttage t2oatl aticl I-?Q. llivicls;ng the lot and
accepting the clevcl.opment plan a11c~ws twa separatecl structures of a
low profi.l enzLure, but coveriztg nrore of the sa.te t}tan untlcr pa'esent
rcstr.ictions. '1'lre 25 faot height Zitna.tat;ion rec:tL?ces by approxitnately
~ ten feet the a].lowable ]ieight of titc stixuctures which coulrl be built
tinclcx ctixrcitit rcgitlations. `I'lie cleve].npment plan xGfJccts a very }zig}i
quality dcsign saf stytzctures a11d t11eir surrouricling gxouncis, aiid would
assure sucli lligh Qual:i.ty af the zlnlcr7clmcfat i~ approvec1.
Access for the new castcrly lot woulcl bc prov:idecl by an acccss casemcnt
a?j the northern sicle of= ].ot 1. '1'he access dr. ivc woulcl bc heavily pl:antecl
on the nortlr side to zecluce t}tc visual impact frotn i:}ie IlortlY.
In summary, the result of aZ7proval af tlic rcquested amendtnent xs t}Xat
ctevel.opment oI= a laxgcr poxtion of the site wauld accur, but the devcl.opmerlt
would be of aguaranteed high quality with xi7inimai negative visual itnpact.
C. ~`REGOMMENDATION
The Department of Community bevelopment recommends appxoval of the praposecl
` divisian o£ Lat 39 into two single family lots with the condition that
each residence be restricted to 2100 squaxe feet of GRFA. We feel pasitive
about the development plan praposed, but we consider an increase o£
Gf2FA of 2000 square feet to be excessive and a. grant of special pxi.viIege.
There is no special circumstance or harciship a.nvalved in the requesi
for the extra GRPA, and Cae feel t}iati we must be consistent in judging
such requests. Thus, we recflmmend appxnval of the atnendment requested
with a revised development plan xeflecting a maximum GRFA for each
~ residence af 2100 square feetr
ORDINr1NCE NO.20
.
series oL 1990
~
AN C7RDTNANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10, SERTES OF 1990,
SPECIAL DEVELOPMEN'T' DISTR3CT NO. 4,
SEGTIt7N 18.46.100 C, DE1ttSITY FLOOR 11T2EA, AREA C
GT,EN LXON D{JPLEX LOTS TO PROVYDE FOR GIt05S I2ESIDEflTI1sL
FLOOR AREA TO BECAL,CI3LT1TED PEr'2 Z'ifE TZEQUIREMENfi -
OF THE PRIi,L'~RY/SECONDARY ZONE DIS`I'R3CT SEC`I'ION lII . 13 . t780
DEPdSITX CONTROL; AND 5ETTING P'ORTfI t7ET113LS Xid RI::Gi'1RD THi,I2: TO.
iaHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail 2•iunicipal Code authori.zes
Special Development nistricts within the Town; and
39HEREAS, the 3`own Council approved Orclinance No. 10, Series
of 1990 Special Development District Pto. 4 Cascade Village; and
IdtiEREAS, a majority of the property owners withiix tlrea C,
Glen Lyon Subd:ivision af Speoi,al Developncnt District N0. 4 have
requcsted ta amend Section 15,46.100G of Spccial. Devel.onnent
District No. 4; and
WHEREAS, the Planninc and Environmental Commission has
recommended that the Grovs Reszclential F1.oor Ilrea for Duplex lots
within the Glen Lyon subciivision be calcuiatcd pcr Section
18.13.080 of the Vai1 i•Iunicipal Cade; ancl jD/s
WHEREAS, thc~ Towp Council considers that it is rcasonab e,
appropriate, and beneLicial ta the icswn ancl its citizcns, ~
inhabitants, and`visators to amend Orciinwnce No. 10, Series Of
1990 to provicle for this ehange in 5pecial I7evelopment District
No. 9, Cascacle Village, Area C Glen Lyon T7uplex Subdivision.
NOW, TIlEftEFOT2E, BE IT ORDATNED BY TIiE TOWN COUNCIr, OP TiIE
"i'OWN OF VAIL, COLOI271D0, AS rOLL0445:
Section 1.
All the procedures required for a Major amendment to an SDD as
set forth in Section 18. §0.100 have been cor,iplied orith.
Section 2.
Section 18.46.100 Paragzaph C, Density Fl.oor Area, Area C; Glen
Lyon duplex lats is hereby amended by the deletion of the
following sentence:
"Na residential lot shall contai7 more than 4200 sq.
it. of GRF'A per the G1en Lyon subdivision covenants."
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsectian, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the zemaining portians
of this ordinance; and the Town Cauncil hereby declares it would
have passed this orda.nance, and each part, section, subsectian, .
sentence, clause ar phrase thereof, reqardless nf the fact that ~
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases by declared invaYid.
. I
Sectien d. '
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
~ ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof.
Seetion 5.
The repeal cr the repeal and reenaetmerit of any provisions of
Vail biunicipal Gode as pxovided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right whicfi has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
pxasecution commenced, nor any other action or proeeeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision zepealed or •
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provisiori hereby sha11
not revive any pravision or any ordinanee previausly repealed ar
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
5ection 6.
A11 bylaws, orders, resolutions and nrdinances, or pazts therenf,
inconsistent herecaith are hereby repealed to the extent only af
such inconsistency. This repealcr shzll not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution ar ordinance, or part
thereaF, herctofore repealed,
' SNT~ODUCED, REhD AND PASSED ON PIRST READxNG THIS 3rd day of
JulY ,1990, and a public hearing shall be held an this ordinance on the 3r.d day of JuLY , 1990 at 7•30 p.m. ,
in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, .
Colorado. `
ordered published in full this 3rd day Qf JuIY , 1990.
` , .I ..l
xent R. Rose, ay r
ATTEST :
t~\~~'~~° ~~~i{L-f~/h{,~il.C../ •
Pamela A~ }3r~nr~meyer, 2'awn Clerk
ZNTRC?Dt7CED, READ IiRD APPFtOVED OT3 SEGONt7 READI23G ANb ORnERED
PUBLISHED bv,.t?t-1p ontv this 17rh day crf .trll v , 1990.
Kent . Izose, Mayor
ATTEST: -
Pamela A. IIrandmeyerO, Town C1:erk
2
TO: Planning and Environmental Cammission
FROM: bepartment of Community Development ~
DAmE. June 11, 1990
SUBJECT: A major amendment to Special Development District No.
4-Cascade VilZage, Area C, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph
C. deletion of the following sentence "No residential
lot shall contain mare than 4200 square feet of GRFA '
per the Glen Lyon subdivision cavenants", which amends
the GRFA requirement to conform ta the
Primary/Secondary zone district, Section 18.13.080,
Density Contral.
Applicant: Greg Amsden for 75% of the property owners.
I. DESCRTPTZON OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Speciai
Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. °The request is
to delete the requirement which states "No residential Lot
shall contain more than 4200 sq. ft. af GRFA per the Glen
Lyon Subdivisian covenants." The amended code will read
nGRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section
18.13.080, Density Control Aand Bfor the primaryJsecdndary
district of the Tawn of Vail Municipal Code. With the ~
~ del this restriction sit con~rolsr ~ar
du le Lots 1-3 and 40-52 af Area C will be averned by
Sec ' n 8.13.080 0~ e unici al Code. Because of
the 1ot sizes, the amendment will allow 40 of the 51 duplex
lots to increase their GRFA aver what is curreritly allowed
by the SDD No. 4 density requirements. Hnwever, these lots
will not be granted more than what is allowed under the
Tawn's density control for PrimaryJSecondary lots. The
applicant is not requesting any other changes to the '
development standards.
II. BACKGROUND At the time that SDD #4 was adopted, the GRFA definition was
in the process of revision. By putting a maxamum GRFA in
the density requirement for the SDD, the developer's intent
was to lack in a specified GRFA allowed for the 1ots. This
was intended to protect against future changes in the
interpretations af GRFA. The ceiling, however, became a
restrictian for the Glen Lyon property owners, as the GRFA
requirements did not become more restrictive (as the
developer had anticipated). Jim Rubin, the community
Developiment Department director at the time of the original
adaption, confirms that the GRFA maximum was initiated by
the developer to guarantee the GRFA for Glen Lyon lots.
l ~
~ The applicant has received signatures fram 75.07% of the
property awners appraving the change in the GRFA
requirement.
The amendment will not include Lot 53 (Cnldstream). The
amendment wil1 only affect duplex lots located in this Axea
C. Al.so the amendme
Under res u' ' 982 these 1.ot e
~ subdzvided and zoned 5in le ~'ami ' . , a hei ht
rest , of 25 feet and a maximum GRFA of 3100 square
feet per lot.
ITZ. SPEGIAL bEVELC7PMEN"I' DISTRICT CRZTERIA
Section 18.40.080 of the zaning ccade sets forth the
following clesign criteria to be usad in evaluating the
merits of a Special Development District. It is the burden
of the applicant ta demonstrate that submittal material and
the proposed development plan comply with each of the
fo1lowi.ng standards or demanstrate that one or more are not
applicable or that a practical solution cansistent with the
public interest has been achieved.
' A. Desicrn compatibility and sensitivity tca the immediate
environm~nt, neighborhoo~ and adjacent.prop~rties
~ relative to architectural designj scale bulk, buildinq
heiqht, buffer zones identity, charactex, visual
iritearity and arientatifln The granting of the request will allow for an increase
of the allowable GRFA for many of the duplex lots
lacated in the G1en Lyan Subdivision. Currently the
lots are rcgulated by the density requirements for
P`rimaryJSecnndary zoning with a maximum allawable GRF'A
af 4200 square feet. 40 lots in Glen Lyon are
restricted by this maximum. It is impartant to
recognize that by dele-ting the maximum for GRFA, they
taill an1.y be allowed to build what is all:owed undcr
Section 18.13.080 which regulates the GRFA on a11
PrimaryfSecondary lots. The mass and bulk af the
bui.ldings will increase in compar3.son to what woul.d be
al:lowed wa.th the 4200 sq. ft. of GRFA maximum due to
the increase in a1:lowable GRFA.
B. Uses activit and densit which rovide a cam atible
efficient and workable relationship wi.th surroundxncf
uses and activity.
The request will have no effect on the uses or
activities of the area. The application will have no
effect an the number of units in the subdivision. Tt
~ 2
will increase the mass and bulk of the buildings
because the allowable GRFA will be increased. ~
The following is a chart depicting the range af
additional GRFA that would be allowed for a number of
lots:
# of Lots Additional, GRFA
11 0
18 1-250 sqs f't.
10 250-500 sq. ft.
5 500-750 sq. ft.
6 750-+- sq. ft.
C. Compliance with parkinq and laadinq requirements as
outli.nea in chapter 18.52.
Off-street parking shall be provided as stated in the
SDD Ordinance. This wauld require dwelling units with
up ta 2,000 square feet of GRFA to pravide 2 parking
spaces, and dwell.ing units over 2,000 square feet to
provide 2.5 spaces per unit. These ara the standard
' Town af Vai1 parking requirements.
D. Canfarmity with applicable el.ements of the Vail ~
Comprehensive Plan, Town palicies and Urban Desian
Plans.
The application does not request any additional GRFA
ather than that which is allawed on other comparable
PrimaryfSecondary lots_in the Town of Vai1. There are
no planning studies that relate directly to this
request.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
gealogic hazards that affeet the property on which the
s_pecial development district is propased.
Geologic hazards will be iclentified and mitigated as
required by Section 18.69 Hazard Regulations of the
Town af Vai1 Municipa3. Cade.
F. Site plan, buildinq design and location and open space
pravisians designed to produce afunctional development
responsive and sensitive to natural featuxes,
ve_getation and overall aesthetic qual.ity of the
commun ity .
The only element of the above criteria that will be
affected by this request is building design. By
3 ~
deleting the 4200 square foot maxzmum, the mass and
~ bulk will be increased aver what is currently ailowed
in the subdivision. However, the mass and bulk of the
structures will be no more than what is allowed on
other comparable primary/Secondary lots in other a;reas
of Vail.
G. A circulation s stem desi ned for bath vehicles and
pedetrians addressing,on and off-site traffic
circul.ation. ,
There wi11 be na change to the circul:ation system.
Since there wi1.1 be no increase in density, there are
na expected increases in use that wauld require a
change to the circulation system.
H. Functicanal and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optimize and preserve natural features,-
recreation views and functions
There will be no change to the existing landscaping and
open space plan. Individual lots will be required to
landscape 60 % of 1.ots as per the Section 18 .46. 1.70
Landscaping of SL7L? #4.
I. Phasin lan or subdivisiort lan that wa1l maintain a
~ workable, functional and efficient relationship
thrauqhout the development of the special develfl mp ent
aistrict.
There wi1.1: be no effect on the phasing or subdivi,sion
p1an. 23 nf the 50 3,ots involved have either existing
homes or are under construction. No additional lots
are proposed with this application.
IV. DEVELUPMENT STANDARDS
All development star?dards for SDD# 4 are very site specific.
For Area C, develapment standarcls including height,
setbacks, site coverage, parking and landscaping are in
accordance with the requirements for the PrimaryJSecondary
zone district. Thi,s request would a11aw the Area C density
cantrol (GRFA) to be in accordance with Section 18.13.080 of
the Vail Municipal Cocle.
~ 4
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~
Staff recommends appraval of the request to delete the
statement that "Na residential lot shall contain more than
4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon Subdivision
covenants" as stated in Section 18.76.100 af SDD #4
Ordinance W10, Series of 1990 as applicable to Lots 1-38 and
40-52. The staff feels that this restriction was used as a
means of guaranteeing GRFA to the Glen Lyon lots and
instead, the maximum became a restriction. We feel that the
deletian of the maximum wi11 have na negative impacts on the
surrounding properties. The amendment will allow the above
Iots ta be controlled under the density requirements that
are used for all other Primary/Secondary lots. There will
~ be no chan e in the densit re irements for Lats 39I ad'
39II nntro,lled b Resolu ion No. l0 series of
1982.
~
~
5
54
zRAcr K
VALLI G~.EN L 1~1 SUBDIVISIUN
Hi tt~
~p ~ ! k
~
40
PARKING , l..AS4.+ADE STRt1CTUFtE
~ VILLtil7E CONDMANSFIELD
<
OMlNlUMS
43 42
~ . y,~ I ? I •
B.L.M.
;
C.M.C. , 44
gy MILLR f MIl1F?AGE GASCAOE ~
---~sa nc ` Pua5E rr - LtwcE 45 `14 ct~#• N
, 14 ~ ~ .
38
MiLLancE as t r ~ cicnc.E 1"a zoo'
PHA5E 2 r~
CC?LDSI"REAM . ~Pt-A 47 200'
.
i, ~ , . . .
53
; 481.
49 . '
r 82 51 50 1~,aCUy'-I ' 3t
,Gl..E COll TY 34v•,, :a
iNflL.ATTEd UNF'!_AT'1`E 301,
7'RACT B i,lf~ ,~i~t~~~•~~
a
lb (:w w~`'-~f1AV~N
, ~ O
.j C)~`, Sa
t~ p
~ J
0 ~ ~ ro 0
\ m
tvti ~ 00 \b
. \'i~J G+~l~ , f
O1 .:.S`..
~ .w~..~t .
OP
t\ ~ ~
AVAH-1,A~~!:,,F-.
_ \OC Q ( ~
~
~ 0
.
' • ~
, ~
. b ° May 1Z , 199`0
~
Town of Vail Planning Department
Attn: Shell.ey Mello
75 So. F'rontage Rd.
Vai3., Colorada 81657 "
Dear Shelley,
In accordance with Paragraph #18 0f the Protective Covenants of
Glen Lyon Subdivision, 750 0f the property awners of the
privately-owned land included within the boundaries af Glen Lyon
have given their written consent ta amend the said Covenants
(Recarded 5J2/90 in Boak 528, Page 154. A copy of recorded
document is attached). Thc amendment deletes Paragraph ~17 of
the covenants. 'I'his paragraph establis~ed a ceiling nf 4200
sc{uare feet on each lot within the subdi~vision.
It was the developer's 4-ntent at time of recording the original
covenants ta "lock in" a speci£iecl amount of GRFA to protect
against any future downward trends in a:nterpretations of GRFA.
As it turned out, this limitation actual.ly had a negative effect
on all.owable GRFA in relation to other proper-Ly owners cvithin the ~
Vai1 Va11ey. The implementation af this ceiling on GRFA inta the
Spec7 al. Develapment Dis trict and 'Pown of Vai-1 Ordinances was done
to accomodate the Pratective Covenants and property owners of
Glen Lyan.
The applicant asks the Planning and Environmental. Commission and
Town Council to consider and approve the following admendment ta
the existing Special Deve3.opment District No. 4, Area C, as
defined in Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, Section 18.46.100,
Paragraph C:
Deletion of the following sentence: "No residential lot
shal,l contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the
Glen Lyon subdivision cnvenants".
If any members of the Planning and Environment Cammissitin or the
Town Council have any questions regarding the brapased amendment,
please contact Greg Amsden at 476-7990 or Andy Norris at 476-
6602. Thank you for your eonsideration and conperation in this
matt r.
Sin er Y
~ G Amsden
GAJmeb .
Glen Lyon - Lot Sizes and GRFA
GRFn Under
~ Existing New hdditionai
Size GRFA Amendment GRFA Available Status o£
Lot (ncres) (sq. ft.) (Sq. ft.) with amendment Lat
1 0,4272 4111 4111 uttchanged
2 0.4026 4004 4004 unahanged Built
3 0.4827 4200 4353 153
4 0.5131 4200 4485 285 6uilt
s 0.4607 4200 4256 56 Bui1t
6 0.4574 4200 4242 42
7 0,9684 4200 4290 90 IIuilt
8 0.4628 4200 4266 66
9 0.5381 4200y_ 4594 394 Built
lfl 0.7851 4200 5210 1010 Built
11 0.7056 9204 5037 837 nuilt
12 0.7658 9200 5177 977
13 0.8085 4206 5261 61
14 0.7418 4200 5116 916
15 0.~5626 = 4200 4701 501 BuiSt
16 0.5123 4200 4482 282 Built
17 0.5448 4200 4623 923
lII 0.4536 4200 4226 26 Built
19 0.4730 4200 4310 110 $uilt
20 0.4920 4200 4393 193 Built
21 0.5011 4200 4432 232
22 0.5092 4200 4468 268 Suilt
23 0.5175 4200 4504 304
24 0.4374 4155 4155 unchanged
25 0.4534 4200 4269 69
26 0.7087 4200 5044 844
27 0.5294 4200 4534 339
28 0.6598 4200 4935 735
29 0.5171 4200 4844 644 Built
30 0.6237 4200 4858 658 Built
~ 31 0.5770 4200 4757 557
32 0.5078 4200 4462 262
33 0,4289 4118 4118 unchanged
34 0.4250 4101 4101 unchanged Built
35 0.4416 4174 4174 unchanged Built
36 0.4463 4196 4196 unchanged
37 0.4265 4109 4109 unchanged
*38 0.4609 4200 4258 58
*39A 1.2353 3100 n/a n/a
B 1.2500 3100 n/a nfa
40 0.8584 4200 5370 1170 Bui1t
91 1.0494 4200 5786 15$6
42 0.4914 4200 4391 191
43 0.5706 4200 4474 279
dd 0.4111 4040 4040 unchanged
45 0.4761 4200 4324 124 Built
46 0.4350 4200 4225 25 Built
47 0.4534 4200 4205 5 Bui1t
48 0.4489 9200 4200 unChattged
49 0.5105 4200 4736 536 BU11t
50 0.5009 4200 4431 231
51 0.4474 4199 4199 unchanged
52 0.4826 4200 4352 152 $uilt
**53 4.2121 n/a nfa n/a
***54 1.7977 nfa n/a n/a
35.si9z
* Single Family Residence Lots not incluaea in amendment.
**Coldstream
***G2en Lyon Commerciai Building
*NOTE*; Bui1t means built or under construction.
~
MEMC?RANDUM
~ TQ. Planning and Enuironmental Commission
FRC7M: Community Developrnent Department
QATE: October 27, 1997
RE: A request for an amendment to Section 18.54.050(J) (Design Guidelines - Outdoor
Lighting) af the Zoning Code to exempt light sources which are no rnore than 18
inches above grade and are either fully cutoff ar have a maximum initial lurnen output
of 250, from the total aliowable number of exterior light sources permitted on a
praperty.
Applicant; Roy and Paula May, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. DESGRIPTItJN OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow additional ex#erior light
sources beyond the totaf allowable number o# exterior light sources permitted on a properky. The
additional light sources are prapnsed to be no more than 18 inches above grade and are either fullY
~ cutoff ar have a maximum lumen output o# 250 (the equivalent of a 25 watt bulb).
The proposed code revision would amend Section 18.54:050(J)2b (Design Guidelines - flutdoor
Lighting - Frequency). The existing text is shown for reference, the proposed additional text is
shown in italtcs.
b. Frequency. For lots in residential zone districts, the maximum number of light sources per
lot shall be limited to one light saurce per one thousand square feet of lot area. The locatian
of said iighfis shall be left open ta the discretinn of the property owner, so long as the lights
are in compliance with theTown of Var1'sMunicipai Code. Lights saurces, which are placed no more than 18" abvve finished grade, and are either fully
cutoff, as defined by Sectiarr 78,04. 137, or have a maximum initiaf lumen output of 250
(equvilent to a 25 watt bulb), may be a!/vwed in additiQn to the total number of permitted
vutdoor light sources. Number, /ocation and styte of such light sources is subject to t7esign
Review.
The proposed text change would allow lights such as, step lights, (andscape lights and waikway
kighting, in addition to the lights currently perrnitted. These lights are generally recessed into wa{Is
or mounted just abave ground level and pravide iighting for a small area. The appficant has
indicated that because the current regulations limit the total number of lights per site, there is a
tendency to use ane brighter light than to use smaller more focused lights. The result is a greater
impact on adjacent properties firom these brigh#er lights. The appiicant has stated that the proposed
change meets the intent of the lighting regula#ions which is to minirnuze the unlntendedandundesirable effiects of outdoor lighting.
~
H. BACKGR4UND
ln 1993, the Design Guidelines were amended to add the autdooriighting reguiations. The current
regulation5 for residential properties limit the maximum number of light fiixtures #o one light source
per 1,000 square feet of Int area. Fnr example, a 15,000 square faot lot is permitted a maximum of
15 exterinr light sources. There are alsa resrictions on the total luminance of each fixture and the
maximum height. The only light sources which are currently exempt from these regulations include
Christmas tree lights, sign ilrumination and municipal Iightirrg. See aftached for the compleie
regu(ations fior outdoor lighting.
I11. C4NF0RMITY WI"TH TFiE T+DWN'S REC.EVAN7 PLANNiNG.DOCUMENI"S
In considering the proposed amendment ta the Zoning Code, staff reviewed the intent of the Design
Guidelines and the purpose statement of the Uutdoar Lighting.
Zoning Code
Acctirding to the purpose statement of the Design Review chapter, the intent of the design
guidelines is to ensure that developmen# is compatible with the existing iandscape and to
protect neighboring properties from negative impacts of development. The 'rn#ent of the
Uutdnor Lighting section of the Design Review chapter is to "minimize the unintended and
urtdesirabie e#fects of outdoor lighting while encouraging the intended and desirable sa#ety
and aesthetic purposes of outdoor lighting,,,
Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in accordance with both the purpose
statements ofi the Design Review chapter and of the Outdaor Lighting sec#ion of the G7esign
Review chapter. The ability to add additianal low level lighting may reduce impacts ort ~
adjacent properties. Property owners would have the ability to use #hese low level Iights
which have limited impacts on adjacent properties, while improving safety, particularly
around steps and walkways. Staff believes that this proposed amendment will not negatively
impact adjacent properties and can imprnve the overail aesthetics of outdoor lighting.
IV. STAfF RECt)MMENDATIQN
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments ta the Zoning Code, subjecC to the
fo1(owing finciing:
That the prnposed amendment is in accardance with the purpflse statements of the Design
Review Chapter of the Vail Municipai Code and is in accordance with the intent af the
Outdoar Lighting regulations of the design Guidelines.
~
2
zaNING
~
18.04.137 Fulz cutoef.
"Fu11 cutoff" means a light source irn which no more than
two and five-tenths percent (2.5%) of its Cotal autput is emitted
above ninety degrees (90°) as measured frflm nadir as shown in
the example below:
~ . , . . .
. ,
' . • . , w .
. .
„ r
w.... ~
-~Ca? • , .
- ~ . , . .
. . .
• . . . .
. '
, . ,
~ • ~ 'Y (Ord. 9(1993) § 1.)
1$.04.140 Grade, existing.
The exzsting grade shall be the existing or natural tapag_
raphy of a site prior to construction. (C}rd. 37(1980) § 1.)
18.04.150 Grade, finished.
T'he finished grade shall be the grade proposed upan
comp]etion of a projeet: (Ord. 37(19$0) § l.)
(Vail 4-95) 308
~
DESIGN REVIEW
~
clevelopment. In additian, the design review board rnay
require that one or more of the following common design
elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining
walls, walkways, lartdscape elements, or other architectural
features be incorporated tocreate unified site development.
J. Outdoor li htin .
1-"~urpose. This subsection of the design guidelines
establishes standards far minimizing the unintended and
undesirable side effects af ontdodr lighting vvhiie
encauraging the intendecD and desirable safety and aesthetic
putposes of outdoor lighting. It is the purpose of the design
review guidelines Co al1ow illumination which provides the
minimum amount of lighting which is needed ior the
property on which the light sources are located. In addition,
the purpose of this section is to protect the legitimate
privacy af neighboring residents by contralling the intensity
of the light source.
2. Approval required. All outdoor lighCing within the town
limits shall conform to the standards set forth below. For
t}ie purpases of this subsectian, residentially zoned
properties shall be defined as those in hill;;ide resrdential, ~
single family, twa-family, primarylsecondaryy, residenfiial
cluster, 1ow density rriuiti-family and medirim density
muiti-family zone district, as we]1as al1 special
clevelopment districCs which have any of the above-
referenced zone districts as the underlying zoning. All other
zone districts shall be cansidered, far the purposcs of this
sectian, as being commereial zoned.
ti. Luminance. Light sources located on all property in the
, Town of Vail which are not fully cutoff sha11 exhibit a
ratio af source ]umens ta luminnus area not exceeding
125. For example:
source lumens 125.
luminous area
b. Frequency. For lots in residential zone districts, the
maximum number of light sources per lot shall be
limited to one light source per one thausand square feet
of lot area. The lacaCion of said lights shall be ]eFt apen
454j-2a
tvaat 11-16-93>
~
~ ZUNING
~
. ta the discretion of the property owner, so long as the
lights are in compliance with the Town of Vail's
Nlunicipal Code.
c. Height Limits far light fixtures.
(l) For a11 light saurces located in commereial zone
districts, the maximum mounting height far light
sources on a pole shall not exceed thirty-five
feet. The maximum mounting height fdr light
sources affixed to vegetation shall not exceed
eight feet.
(2) For all light sources located in reside;ntial zone
districts, the maximum mounting height for light
sources on a pole or on vegetation shall not
exceed eight feet.
d. Light sources affixed to stt-uctures. For all praperties
withita the Town of Vail, light sources rnay be aFfixed
to any wall of a structure. Light snurces shall not be
af~'zxed ta the tap of a roof af a structure.
. e. Cutoff shielcis. A!1 light sources located in commercial
zone districts which exceeti fifteen feet in height shall
~ exhibit a fulicutoff shield.
f. Lrghts which flash, mave, revolve, rotate, scintillate,
btink, flicker, vary in intensity or ealor, or use
intermittent electrical pulsation are proh'rbited.
3. ExempCions. The standards of this sectian shall not app1Y
to:
a. Christmas tree lights which are of a temporary nature
located in residential zone districts, as listed in Section
1$.54.050 3, 2, and which are illuminated only
between November 1 and April 15 of each year.
b. Christmas tree lights which are temporary in nature and
are lacated in zone districts other than those residential
districts listed in Section 18.54.050 J, 2.
c. Sign illumination, as set forth in Title 16.
d. Municipal lighting installed for the benefit of public
health, safety and welfare.
4. Nonconformances. As of the effective date of this sub-
section, all autdoarlighting that does not conform ta every
requirement of this subsection shall be legal nanconforming
454j W2b
(Vail 11-16-93)
~
b
~
DESIGN REVIEEW
~
- outdoor lighting. Legal nonconforming outdoor lighting
shall not be moved in any direction, nor shail there be any
change in use or light type, or any t`eplacement or structural
alteration made to the nonconfarming outdoor lighting,
without the autdoor lighting conforming to all applicable
requirements of this chapter.
5. Penalty. The penalty for violating this chapter shall be a
fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one
thousand dollars per vialation. Each day of violatian shall
constitute a separate nffense for the purpose of calculating
the penaity,
(CJrd. 9(1993) § 8: Ord. 46(1991) 2, 3: Ord. 12(198$) § 2. Ord.
24(1985) § l: Ord. 9(19$5) 2, 3: Ord, 39(19$3) § 1.)
1$,54.051 Park design guideliries.
A. Purpose. These guidelines shall be used by the design review
board in reviewing any proposals for the development of Town
' of Vail park land. The guidelines shall be used in conjunction
with the general design review guidelines found in Section
18.54.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade. It is the intent ~
of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible
to the individual designer while at the same time encouraging
park development that will complement ttie natural beauty of
our park ]aiad. The purpose of the guidelines is to provitie
cantinuity in the character of the parks which will be developed
over many years. The guidelines will provide consistent design
criteria to maintain the qualiry of Town of Vail parkS through all
phases of development.
B. Building materials and design.
l. GeneraX.
a. Natural materials are strongly encouraged in park
constt-uction. Materials ai7c.i detailing must compIement
the park's environment as well as be functional and
attractive.
b. Materials and designs shoulti 6e chosen that are
economical to maintain.
454j-2c
(vari11-16-93)
~
P t
l
3 OGtObei" 1997
TOW11 Cjf Va11
Community Development
Planning & Environmental Committee
Re; TOV 4utdonr Lighting Ordinance Amendment
A 12 C Fi I T E C T S
'I'he purpose of this submittal is to review the existing TOV Lighting Ordinance and it's possible
alteration. I would like ta review three things, it's stated intent, i_e. why it was created; the
existing 4rdinance in teTms of it's speci~'ic requirements, and difficuities that are arising with it.
With this in mind, r would then like to review poter7tial amendment(s) to the Orciiriance.
As stated in theOrdinance, it's intent is "..,to minimize the unintended and zrndesirable szde e,f`f'ect
of autclcror lighting, while encourczging the inlcnded and desirable sczfety czndcrestlactr'c pz:trpo.ses
' of autdoor lighting. and "...to protectChe legitinzate privctcy of nezghboring re,stdejat r...". Thisconcept is still valid and carreet. However manp of the speci~'ic requirernents generated to
~ inlplement this concept are nolonger valid.
The Orclinance, as it is currently written, uses the area of a given site tacletermit-ie tlle quantity
of "light sources" allowecl for that siCe ( a ligllt source being detned as "a single artiticial pointsource oC luminescencc...". t7ne liglzt source is pernzititecl for each one tlzausalid sqciare feet of site
area. Other definitions 1loteci zn t11e (Jrdinance include;
Luminous Area - the maximum light emitting from a single source (tlie pllysicalarea of
source lneasured in square inclles).
SoLirce Lumens total initial lamp lLimens of the IiglYt saurce.
Height Limits - maximum mauuzting height for residential applTCatians is cight feet (8'),
Luminance - a ratio of source iumens to luminous area.
Exemptions - current residential exemptions inclitde Cliristrnas tree lights, and [address]
szgn illumination.
These requirements were based on the lighting technology and desired aesthetic effects available
at the time the C7rdinance was written. These requirements no longer fully accomplish the goals
for which they were infiended. With the existing codes, it is possible tn meet al1 requirements, yet
sti11 create undesirable side effects. Nevv technolagy which uses both smaller light sources and
lower luminotzs output are discouraged with the existing warding of the cotle due ta the quantity
restriction. The current Ordinance provides no means far the Town ar Design Review Board to
make any subjective exceptions to accommodate new technfllogy and design cancepts.
~ L:\95151D0C\LTTEAMEN,WPD
Planning a~ Architecttire o Interiors
1650 East Vail Valley Drive Faliridge C-9 a Vail; CO 81657 • fpb@colorado.net w fax (970) 476-4901 i(970)476-£342
10l23r97 11:17 rAx 9704764901 FtITzLEN PIERcE Q00r3 °
Belbw are two proposed exemptions to the existing Lighting Ordinance, which allow the T'Own ~
and Design Review Hoard the appactunity to address dcsign proposals on artt individual basis.
These exernptions c3o not alter ar undermisze thc existzng Ordinance in any way, but provide a
means fQr that Urdinance to meet its intended goals; "..to minirnize the unintended arsd
undesrrubl'e szde effect o,f outdnor lighting, whzle encouragzng the intended and desirable safefy
and aesthetic purposes o,f autdoar tfghting..." and "...to pratect #he legitimate privrzcy n.f
nezghboring residents...".
PROPflSED EXEMPTION
Additional Lighting
Light sources requested beyoncl those allowed by Section 1$.54.05(}(C)l 1, Item b. Frequency
shatl meet the following,
I,ight Sources, rvbich are placed no more than 18" above finished grade, tneeting existing
Sectiors 18,04.137 Full-Cutoffor 18,54.050 Luminace, rnay be granted, far safcty ancUor
. acsthetic pwrposes, at thc discretion of the Directory of Community I7eveloprnent.
~
L:1951 S\L7tJCtL.i-S'A MLNZ. W Yll
~
p{anning a Architet-Ture 0 Interiors
1650 East Vail Valley Drive FalCridge G-1 ? Vail, Cd 61657 4 fpbgcoltrrada.net o fa3c (970) 47G-4901 a(970)476-fi342
EX6LMPlC's 6'lP e-W-ev'1'oY"`
~ G~~ ~:1 ~~r~~ C t~ t~~ ~1~, fi~?~u.. ~~~e~
~
;
_ °'4"Pv-4' VA/:>
is"
~
,
~
~ ~.~v~,. o~~r~de. •
„
~
~
982
r- ~
ay)~ -q)a 41 Cki..~o'~~
C?ownligh# Bollard
The classic wedge fix1u're is r7ow avaif-
ablewith a choice af pasts as crcom-
pfete bollard fixture. The vvoocl post
provicles simpfe instollation 6y dif-eciburial and maintenance-{ree finishes,
The steel post rnaunts with corTVentional
..5-. f~ase plate. See Section D- 682 - for a
more complete descriptian o/1he fixlure
~
head.
r_~' Grape Vine Filigr2es' Hummingbird.
filigreel)
,
Y ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ ,,~jr ~
r 11 ~ ! z ' J
ESP-7AGW
Evergreei7 7°' low Vo[tageStem Mourrt with EP-7AW0-6Z ctassic Arcfi Overtay,' gotd white iridescent
g[ass and verdic~ris patina finish. Pine Needle Sycamare Fi[igree ~
Evergreen 7" Post h~aut~t fixt~tre with FiligreO
stantlartl ctassic Arch Overlay,'O whtte Stem Mouni-low Voltage
opatestent art glass anc1 bronze finish. Fixture Overatt Maximum
Modet Height Neight Wattage
Past Mounis ESP-7 7 19 1I2" (1)12V-50W*
Fixture pveratt MaximumESP-9 9 3,'4" 21 llx" (1)12V-50W*
Modet Heaght Neight Wattage • 12r-70e'l rroG ni9 m,,,u re>>wter+. Fixiures mount wien t°squd,e x
EP-7 7 3I4" io 3ra" (1)60 s,a",
EP-9 9 3/4" 12 3A° (1)100
~ EP-12 12" 15" (1)100 ~G~~ 1 C.~ t' id9~ +~~".1/1I~ L~~? W~ ~
EP I6 15 i,s" 19 i/z (0100 t~ dy
fistures rntie'nC with d 1~~ 1.(5 po>t adopter. C U.L. Irzfed fbt wzt ~~~~lW'~' ~..?l~? 1~4'v~/P I~/~ R.?{/`„
locatrons< futwes ccrn be modrped jo+ 13SY campar( jtnoresrent
larnprny.
1~
w
~
~
~
1997
. o~~~ n of VaI*I: _
4IL
TO W
~ H
~ ousi.ng Strategic. Plan
~
- ~
Tabie of Contents
I Introduction
. , Purpase, Philasophical Basis, Objective II. Backgraund
Historical Zrack record of pttst efforts
III. Identification of Today's Need
Doczcmcnting the need,for lacal's
housing
IV. Inventory of Upportunities
Land, f'unds, r-egulcztory requirements,
ineentives
~
V. Problem 5tatement,
Objectives, and Guidelines
Conclusion r egardang the need, with
polzcies ta guide the fi~ture deciszarts
. & actions of the 7'own:
VI. Impiementation
Road man far makzng the vzsian cz
reality
f\everyoneiPEC\nemos\971stratplan.o27 ~
~ updated 10/23 6.30 pm
w
I. INTRODUCTION
~
A. Purpose
• Tbe purpose ofthe Tawn of Vail 1997 Comprehensive
Housing Strategic Plan is ta dacument the need far
adequate housing and to establish a framework for - -
action. It arCiculates in a coniprehensive manner wLhy .
adequate housing for lacal eznployees is an issue for Vail and how to address the problem af creating
affordable housing for the diverse local Vail
community. This strategic plan ;
a identifies tlae multiple resources available to the
community and how they can be combined in
ways that wi11 be effective,
and
n provzdes a framework for decision-making,
which can be relied upcrn by developers,
~ cammunity members, and elected officials.
B. 1'hilosophical Basis for the Strategic Plan
The philasophical basis for the Strategic Plan is the
compelling need to address two critical issues facing
the"Vail community:
n Maintaining Vail's ecanamic viability,
and
n Enhancing Vail's the sense of cornmunity.
Economzc viabzlitv
The lack af affordable housing for employees within the
Town of Vail affects our status as a warld-elass resort.
Our econQmic vitality is threatened as necessary jobs go
unfilled or are fiiled with unmativated workers.
f teveryonelPEClmemos\.9'7\sczatplan.o27
~ 2 updated I0l23 6:30 pm
Gompetition for empluyees is no ionger just between
ski areas or between regions, but has now become an ~
issue within the Vail Valley. Employees who find
hausing down valley are likeiy to find jabs there, tao. This prablem has directly impacted rnany employers in
Vail, including the Town of Vail, in efforts to
appropriately fill employment positions. -
. Sense of Gvmmunity
Much of Vaii is made up of honzes which hause part-
time residents. Approximma.tely 70 percent of the
Town's housing stock is being used by this segment of
our community. Although able to rnake a unique
contribution tcr the Town, part-time residents are not
able to engage in local activities on a day-to-day basis.
As long-time la.cals are drawn down valley, more
homes in Vail's neighborhaods are occupied by part-
time residents and are vacant most ofi'the year, thus
negatively impacting the sense of cammunity in Vail.
There is a strong economic zncentive for full time
residents to sell thein comes in Vail and move down
valley. "The trend resuits in an underutilized housing
stock in Vail.
~
C. Clbje+ctive of the Strategic Plan:
2he fundamental objective of the Housing Strategic
Plan is to maximize the creation and preservation of
, housing for local empioyees and to,rnaximize the
' opportunities to leverage existing resources.
D. Nature of the Strategic 1'lan:
Focus
The focus of the plan is on the why, who, what, haw
and when of affordable housing in Vail. It is a
pra,gmatic apprnach, focusing on the practicai arscl
available resources. Past studies and the data currently
available indicate that the problern warrants serious
attention. Rather than replicating previous studies to
assess the need, the plan focuses on specific
implementabie solutions that address previous
recommendations.
~
. f:\everyone\PEClmemosl97lstratplan.o27
3 updated I0t23 6:30 pm
~ Benefits of the plan
This plan makes decision-making easier for all parties
interested in affardable housing, including elected
afficials, employers, developers, and future residents.
It brings together in one dpcurnent the various ideas
' and opporlunities fcar solving the prablem of the lack of
affordable housing for locals.
Dacumenting the vanous ideas in a pian such as this
will enabie us to move past rnere discussions and an to
i=ltmentation. It will also elarify the rale of the
Tflwn to all those who participate in the housing arena.
Long. terrn outloak
The plan is intended to be used over the next five to ten
years by the Town of Vail leadership. 4ne of the goals
of the plan is ta enable future Town Councils to build
. on the groland work laid by previous councils.
Consistent application over time will lead to the most
successful results.
GeographicaZ Seope
~ The plan acknowledges that solutionstcr Vail's housing
problem cannot be c" letelX addressed within the
town limits of Vail. Because land and ather resaurces
are limited, Vail will have to cantinue to work with the
other players in the Vail Valley where and when
apprnpriate. However, loeating hausing east of Dowd
. Junetion is seer~ as a necessary priority in order to
effectively address the economic and community .
3mpacts associated with the lack of housing far lacals in
Vail. . Commtrnitv Coltabaration
'Y'he plan emphasizes the need for cornrnunity
collaboration in the decision-rruaking on each housing
actian when development is proposed.
f:leveryone\PEC\usmos\97\stratplan.a27
~ 4 uptlated I0123 6i30 pm
IL BACKGRUUND
~
Past efforts to develop affordable housing in the Town af Vail
demonstrate that affordable housing for local employees has
been a pressing neetl since the inception nf the community.
The purpose of the overview provided below is ta highlight the
suceesses, as well as the failures, of'the various past atteznpts "
to adclress the housing probletn in Vail. It documents the role
, of bath the public and private sectors over the years. With this
information, the appropriate role for each entity wiil be
clarified.
A. Eariy Efforts the 1970s
Affordability and availability have been at the root of Vail's
housing prablem since tbe Tawn's beginning. In the 1970s, the
housing problem was most pressine, during the ski season, but
- eased each spring. For those individuals interested and able to
maintain employment over the summer, there were numerous
housing options available.
Some of the early efforts to specifcally addiess employee ~
housing included Apoilo Park, Sandstone 70, and Vail Villa.ge
• 9th Filing (Red Sandstone Circle).
1. Apalla Parkwas built in the early 1974s by lacal
deveidpers on land pzovided by Vail Associates under a
long term lease. Uriginally, it included four buildings
-and 98 dwellirrig units. Aspects atfecting viabilit~. of the
development included land casts, constructian costs,
and year-round occupancy rates. Vail Assnciates
subsidized the develo ~nent bY Praviding a 1'c~w cast
I~
land lease, conditioning tlae 1ease rate with a
requirement that the land must be used for employee ~
housing. VA pravided an optidn to the developer to
purchase the land far uses otlier than employee
housing, but disincentivised the conversion with a high
purchase price. Hawever, due to the lawer than Apoiio Park .
estimated revenue generated by employee rentals, and
the potential for greater revenue from other uses, the
developers purclaased the land from VA after °
approximately S years antl converted half of the project
into time-share candominiums and the other half to
short-term accommodations. This conversion was of ~
great concern to tlae community at the time.
f:\everyone\PEG\rnemos\97\stratplan.o27
5 updated 10123 6:30 pm
. i . .
2 Vail Village 9th Filing is a-single family subdivisian
~ located at the intersection of the North Frantage Road
and Red Sandstone Road. It ineludes 12 lots, which
Vail Associates sold ta VA employees, enabling them
to build homes for themselves, Some of the original
employees who bought these parcels remain as VA
' employees and cantinue to live in these hnmes.
. However, withaut a cap on appreciation,
the lots were
. affordable for anly the onginal purchasers, and in one
case the buyer left VA immediately after acquiring the Single ~am~t~ xo~c,e in ~a~~ v~t~age ~th-
lot.
3. Sandstdne 70 is a collection of duplcxes and fourplexes
located irnmediately west of the 9th Filing. The
developer,of this proj ect addressed a market niche for
entry level ownership housing with this develop~nent.
At the time, it was located on the autskirts of Town, ~
making it affordable relative to locatians closer to the
center of Town. It continues to hold its original ~
position in the market, as 53 of the 67 units are occupied by locals.
In conclusion, the first employee housing efforts in Vail were
based in the private sector. The impetus for development of
employee housing appears ta have primarily been that of fiiling a market niche that was under-served, due to a lack of housing Sandszone 70
options for locals. A signifieant hurdle wa$ the cast of land,
solved in one instance by a long-tenn lease from VA. From the
case history, for-sale projects were more viable than rental
- projects. The one rental project (Apollo Park) was not viabie .
- ouer time, because of paor ticcupancy rates due to the _
seasonal nature ofthe hausing demand.
B. Growing Town Invalvement --1980s
Two projeets, Pitkin Creek Park and Timber Ridge, came
on-line in the early 1980s. Both were signifcantly larger and
more complex than earlier effarts. It appears private sector's
mativatian to enter the housing market had not changed from
the previous decade. However, this period shows the
increasing rale nfthe Tawn of Vail, specifcally with financing
and deed restrictions.
~ f leveryone\T'EG\Cnemos\97\stratptan.o27
6 updated 10l23 6:30pm
1. PitTiin CreekParkwas one of the first opportunities far
the Town to play a greater rale in addressing the ~
housing problem. From its inception in the late 1970s,
the prolect was based on municipal rate finaneing (vs.
~
market rate, vvhich was higher), for both the ,
construction phase and the end-user buy-out phase.
' This methfld af financing pravided iower cost fuunds for
construetion and provided individual mortgages far
home buyers at signifieantly lower rates than the then-
current conventional market rate financing. The
fnancing was provided via the Town's ability to secure
allocations fromthe State of Gtiiarado for Industrial Revenue Bonds (I2.Bs) and Private ActiviCy Bonds
(PABs). As a result of its participation, the Town
required the developer to deed-restrict the 156 Pitkin Creek Parx
condominium units with stipulations that the home
buyers be employed in the Upper Eag1e Valley and that
resale prices be capped at an annual rate of 1.5 ofthe
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Town requested that
the restrictions run in perpetuity. However, the
deveioper could not se1l the bonds with this condition
and the Town, developer, and bond purchasers
ultimately compromised on a restnction lasting seven
years. ~
2. Timber Ridge was developed concurrentiy with Pitkin
Creek Park, In that project, the developer proposed a
Special Development District and requested to tripie
the number of dwelling units above the perrnitted
- z~oninR to allow for 198 units. The Town approved the .fl .
- request, with the conditian that the ideveloper deed
restrict'the prQperry, limiting residents to those
emplayetl at business located in the Upper Eagle ValleY :
and re quirin g lease periods be written for no less than
30 days. The restrictions placed on the deed expire 20
years from the eompletion of the project, which is
November 30, 2001. In 1987, the project went into <Timber Ridge
foreclosure. Causes for the foreciosure were primar7ly
due to the seasonal fluctuatian ofthe revenue stream,
which is significant, as it highlights the eha,llenge
assaciated with rental developments targeted at the "
seasonal ma.rket,
f-\everyone\I'ECtmemos\97\stratplan;o27 ~
7 updated 10123 6:30 pm
In conelusion, the Town became more active in the housing
arena during the 1980s, facilitating financing, approving bonus
~ densiry, and taking measures to prevent housing from being
quickly converted into other uses vvith deed restrictions. The
impetus for private sector development of housing for lacal emplayees eontinued to be the financial return provided by
ta`rgeting this under-serverl niche in the market. The scale of
, the projects grew from 12 - 100 units in the 1970s td 150 - 200
_ units during the 1980s.
`
Althaugh the introduction of deed restrictions helped maintain r
availability and affordability more than had occurred
previously, the deed resfirictions of these projects were
relatively short in length. After seven years, pitkin Creek Park
units were sold on the free market and many have been
purchased by second home owners. Today, of the 156 units at
Pitkin Creek, 67 are owner-occupied and 55 are used as long-
term iocal rcntals. Since the expiration of the deed restriction,
34 units have been converted ta secand hame ownership. The
deed restriction on Timber Ridge expires in 2401, enabling the
owner to cansider ather uses for the properiy at that tirne.
~ C. Recent Efforts the 1990s
After the two previously discussed developments were brought
on-line in the early 1980s, real estate prices fell significantly
due to the oil and gas recession. Housing costs dropped and
development slowed. The 1989 Wcrrld Alpine Ski
Championships eoincided with an upward trend in the real ,
- estate rrzarket. The desire of the communi .ry to provide worid-
class services, and the 'need far the empiayees to da that
emphasized the need for affordable housing. In 1990, the .
Town of Vai1 commzssioned a housing needs assessment,
which was campleted by RRC Assaciates, a research and
consulting firm. C}ne of the recommendations stated that "An
additional 800 to 1,000 units would be absorbed by the Eagle
Caunty winter market over the next two to tlaree years." It
also identified between 3,000 to 3,840 persons requiring some
level of assistance to secure affordable housing. The study
recommended multiple steps the Town of Vail couldtake to
address the problem. Many af the recommendations were in
fact, irnpiemented by the Town, including;
~ f:\everyonelpEClmemos\97\straiplan.o27
8 updated 10123 6;30 pm
~
1. Zoning Code Amendments
Among the steps taken in respanse to the study, the ,
Town adapted amendrnents to the zoning code to
create incentives for the development taf caretaker units
and similar deed restricted units throughout the
community. As of flctober 1997, there are 106 employee units dispersed throughout Towni with '
varying degrees of restriction. (Early caretaker
restrictions did not specify that the units had to be
occupied by employees; anly units appraved sinee May
1994 have that requirement. 'I"hus, while many of the
units are used consistently with the spirit of the deed
restriction, only 24 af the totai of 106 units are required
to be occupied.)
2. Housing.Autharzty
In 1991, the Town established aHousing Authority to
develop affordable housing, appointing five community
members to the board from afield of 25 interested
applicants; Although the Town Council did not
support proposed rezonings associated with the
projects proposed by the Authority, the increased ~
awareness of tke need motivated the Cauncil to become
proactive iu solving the problem. Council assumed a
stronger role in the affordable housing effort by
purchasing a parcel of landy referred to as Vaii
Commons, which could accommodate housing without
requiring any rezoning requests.
3. Vail Commons -
- The Town purchased a b-plus acre site located on the
North Frontage Road in 1993, earmarking it for
housing. In 1994, the Town initiated a process to develop the site. In a:ddition to the residential use, it ~
became apparent that a commerciai component wauld
make the development economicaliy feasible and
deliver affardable units without direct subsidy fram the i'
Town. After testing the capacity of the site for various
. .
densities, target markets, and uses, the Tovvn held a
national competition for developers to build a mixed- ..A
use program of cnmmercial buildir~gs and local's va~~ Commons
housing units.
After some debate on the best program for the site, the ~
Town selected a developer who then canstrueted 71
perpetuaily deed-restricted units and 7(},000 square feet
• f:\everyanelPEC\memos\97\stratplan.o27
9 updated 10123 6:30 pua
m
of commercial area. The project includes 53
townhouses and condorniniums, sald through a lottery
to individuais and families who wanted to purchase real
estate and put roats down in the community. The units
were occupied immediately after certificates af
occupancy were issued and the project was 100%0
' camplete by 3uly, 1997. The deed restrictions require
that owners be employed in Eagle County, that the
homes be owner-occupied, and that the resale prices be capped at a 3%'~ annuai rate of appreciation. In addition
to the 53 owner-occupied units, there are 1$ rental
units for the employees of the commercial business on-
site. Many af the components tif the development were
precedent setting, includin,g the clear need for
community dialogue concerning affordable housing
propasals.
The three efforts discussed above stem from the 1990 Housing
Study. Other efforts occurring during this period are described
below.
4. Public Wnrks Seasvnal Housing
With the Vail Commons development underway, the
~ Town Council appraved plans for a 24-unit seasnnal
employees development at the Town's Pubiic Works
site, slated for completion in April of 1998.
S, l)own Vallev Actzvztv
~ r
It is impartant to note that as the down valley market
has grawn, ather private sector and governmental t.•~ q
agencies have taken an active role in providing
-affordable housing. Two large housing developments P.ib1ic works Site
have been constructed down valley, beginning with EableBend in Avon (240 units built in 1991), and Lake
Creek Village located just west of Edwards (270 units
built in I993). Avan compieted a 17-unit ownership
project in Wildridge in 1991. In 1997, Vail Resorts
broke ground an RiverEdge, a 104 unit development
lacated in Avon. Each of the three projects required
public sectcsr participation; specifically assistance
supplied via a non-profit lacal government sponsored
corparation, which provided tax free firiancing.
6. Unsuccessful Przvate Sectar Ef, f'orts in Vazl
In the early 1990s, a developer teamed with a Vaii
~ architectural firm and proposed 250 ernployee housing
units on three sites in Town-- one located in
f:\everyone\PEC\nempsl97\stra#plan.o27
10 updated 10123 6.30 pm
-
Intermauntain, one located in West Vail, and one
located in central Vail. Each af the three sites required ~
rezonings; one site was owned by the Town. Even
after scaling the magnitude oftlae proposal ciown ta
1$0 units, the community still opposed the rezonings
and the developer did nat pursue his application.
During the 1990s, there vvas a signrficantiy larger e#fort made -
by both the private and public sectnrs than had been made"in
previous years. The demand for housing grew and the ,
' seasonaljry of vacancy rates diminished. (This is evidenced by
the low year-raund vacaney rates aver multiple years for the
large employee housing developments.) UpPortunities in "'Vail
have become limited, due to the lack of available sites, the need
for rezonin; for additional density, and the need for subsidies.
The Town recognized the positive impacts of 1ong term deed
restrictions and maved from requiring seven and 20-year
restrictions to restrictions that run in-perpetuity. Enforcement
is a key fallow up action which the Town staff wil1 provide to
insure the units are used consistently with the restrictions.
The total number of appraved deecl restricted units occupied or
under construction in the Town af Vail as of October, 1997 is ~
as follows:
Dispersed lOb
Vail Comrnons 71
Public `VVorks 24
Timber Ridge 19$
Tatal 399 D. Lessons Learned
The efforts from the past are described above ta show what
issues have prevented the Town fram reaching its goals in the
affordable housing arena. Belaw is a summarry of the lessons
learned to date.
l. Land availability and cost continue to be the most
difficult hurdles tQ clear. •
2. Eveiy affordable housing develapment is a pfllitical
challenge. While six sites proposed for hausing
f:\everyoneU?EC\nemoa\974stratplan.o27 ~
11 upaatea 10/23 6.30 pm
-
~
between 1990 and 1995 have been stopped by
community opposition, the two mare recent efforts
~(1935 - 1997) have been ,suceessful.
3. Deed restrictians are necessary to preserve availability
and affordability for future generations of residents and
' to protect the initial public investment (financing, Iand,
subsidy, etc.)
.-4. Partnerships are key. In the eariy 1990s several
projects initiated by both the private and public sectors
were not successful. However, the public-private
partnership projects developed down valley and most
recently with Vail Commons have been successfui and
prflvide oppartunities to leverage public resaurces.
5. The histarically seasonal nature of rental demand has
becnme less of a prablem over time, but the cyclical
nature of the seasonal demand that remains makes
seasonal rental housing the most difficult product to
provide.
~
~
f \everyane\PEGUnemosl9'3\stratplan.a27
12 upaated 10/23 6:30 pm
r
111. IDENTIFICATION OF TODAY'S NEED. ~
The local's housing problem is frequentiy identifieci as ane of
the priznary issues facing the community, and rnany individuais
have personal stories abnut the difficulties encountered in
finding affordable housing in Vail. TThe statistics shawn below
regarding the home ownership rnarket and the rental market in -
Vail document the need. They shaw the trends since 1990 and
benchmark Vail's eurrent status.
A. The Hame Ownership Housing Market
Far the purposes of traeking historical hdusing data, two types
af housing have been selected to represent the real estate
market; "candominiums" and "half-duplexes." These housing
tyPes are commonly faund in Town and are less expensive then
the close counterparts af "single family'> and "tnwnhouse," and
therefore, are deemed to be more affordable for locals.
Since 1994, wages in Eagle County have increased at a rate of ~
3.8 °la, This compares to a housing cost inerease of 8.7% in
real estate sales. Clearly, wages have not kept ace with
ho~.using costs. (See charts and sources listed belaw.) There is
a perception that wages in resort areas are higher than in non-
resort mountain communities and compensate for the higher
costs of living, specifically housing costs. However, when
Eagle County wages are cornpaxed to that of the state or .
- national averages, the local wages lag behind due to the fact, ,
that the high p'aying sectors, such as rnanufacturing, are under
represented in this area and the low paying sectors, such as
retail services, are over represented.
Table l: Avera e Annual Wa es for Ea le Coun :
Annual Wages Houriy Wages
1930 $18;814 , $9A5
1991 $19,741 $9.49
1992 $21,505 $10.34
1993 $22,0$3 $10.61
1994 $22,263 $10.70
1995 $23,367 $11.23 9
Source: U.S. Bureau of Ecanomic Analysis
f \everyone\i"EC\memos\47\stratplan.o27
13 updated 14/23 6:30 pm
.
~
Tabie 2: Median Sales Prices for Residential Real Estate in Vaii:
Condomiziium Ha1f Duplex
1990 $134;000 $315,000
1991 $130,000$236,400 1992 $155,006 $333,000
- 1993 $166,000 $436,000 • _
1994 $187,250 - $405,000 .
1995 $212,000 $462,500 . .
1996 $210,000 $530,000
Source: Eagle Counry Assessor's Office
Table 3: Percent Chan e Since 1990:
Wages 3.8%
Condominium Costs 8.3%
Half Duplex Costs 9,1 °lo
Average Hauszng Cost $.7%
~
Wages vs. Sales Prices of +Condos
Annuai Rates of increase
$25o>aoo .
$200,000
~ .
' .
$150,000 ~
$100,000
i
$50,000 ~
$0 ~
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Wages - Sales Prices
~
f:\everyone\PEGlmemosl97\stratplan.o27
14 updated 10123 6:30 ptn
.
~
Note that wage data represents ai1 of Eagle County, not just
Vail. Assumptions about the relationship between Vail and ~
Eagle County would need ta be made to break the data down
to represent just the Town of V'ail. This has not been done as ,
it would diminish the accuracy without elarifying the analysis.
Home sales prices reflect the real estate transactians compieted
within the municipal boundaries of the 'T'awn of Vail. For _
these purposes, sales. prices shown axe the rnedian price, as that .
. is a better reflectinn of the market than the mean price.
A more effective methnd of cvaluating the wages vs. hausing
issue is ta campare the number af average paying jobs needed
to purchase the avexage condomiuium or half-duplex.
Table 4: Number of jobs required to purehase a home in Vail;
(Cam arison Qf Table 1 and Table 2)
Condominiurn Half Dup2ex
1990 2.6 6.3
1991 2,3 4.3
1992 2.3 5.0
1993 2.2 5.4 ~
1994 2.6 5.6
1995 2.9 6.3
The assumptions made for the analysis above include a down
payment af 10% of the purchase price, a mortgage rate
reflecting the average rate for the calendar year-, private
mortgage insurance of .075 % of the 2oan amaunt, insurance
LL rates ba-sed on iocal providers estimates, and the tax rate for -
East Vail, which falls in the middle of a relatively tight range of
mill ievies far the various parts of the Town of Vail. (See
Exhibit A.)
As the data shaws, housing Iocated in Vai1 is beeoming less
and less attainabie for local employees. Some may suggest that
the housing mmarket for Vail workers iogically includes all of
the Vail Valley, and that the less expensive homes down valley
adequately meet the housing needs afVa.il ernployees. 1'hat
argument merits two additionai consideratians.
f:leveryonelPEC\nemos\9'7lstratplan.o27 ~
15 updated 14123 6.30 pm
~
a
First, locatiug housing autside Vail, or encouraging locals to
~ seek housing outside Vail, defeats the two primary goals of
Va1I's strategy. It does not bolster the sense of community,
nor does it maintain the econamic viability, given the job
competition down valley. Secondly, down valley housing
casts, aithaugh statistically lower than Va.il, a:re stzll
unattainable for many residents and demonstrate similar, and in
some cases steeper, growth rates.
- B. The Rental Honsing Market The tables below show the housing costs and typical wages far
seasanal employees in Vail. The jobs shown reflect those
which would be filled by entry-Ievel seasanal workers, and the
housing renta.l rates are the averages of available apartments in
the fail of each year, as found in the Vail. Daily classified
section.
Tabie 5: Cantract R.ents
1990 1994 1997
one bedrootn $670lmo $700/mo $790/mo
two hedroom $ I, l 0011110 $1,3 601mo $1,4001mo
~ three bedroom $1360lmo $,1,555/mo $1,750lmo
ave/bdrm $5211mo $602Imo $6621mo
Sotirce: The Vail Daily
Table 6:-Wa es
1990 1994 . 1997 _
lift operator $6.001hr $6.50/hr. $7.75Ihr .
busdriver $7.50/hr $8.751hr $10,25/hr
ski patrol $6.501hr $6.50lhr $&.OOfhr
Saurces. Tawn of Vaii and Vail Associates, Inc. Human itesaurce {3ffices
Table 7: Com arison of Wa s and Housin Rates af Growth
Average Wage Increase 2.6%
Average Rent Inerease 3.0°l0
~ f:\everyane\PEC\memos\97\straiplan.o27
16 updated 10/23 6:30 pm
~
c
The financial industry rule of thumb is that housing costs
should not exceed 30% of gross income. In the case of entryw
level seasonal workers, the average pvrtions spent on housing ~
is much higher.
Table 8: Percentage of monthly income required to be spent on housing,
` based on avera e rental rates of individual bedraoms
' 1990 1994 1997 w
12ft 0peT'2tOT' 54.3d/o 57.8% $3.4%
btts ilriver 43.4%0 43% 40.4%0 ski patrol sa°ra 1 s7.s~o sl.7na
C. Implications for the Town's Gaal of Maintaining
Economic Viability
Filling available job openings with qualified, motivated workers
is a pzimary concem for local bust-ness crwners, incl-uding the
Tawn of Vail itself. Vacancy rates and turnover rates increase
costs, as training and uvertime budgets are strained. Tale 10
Iists major employers in the Valley. Aithough some are located
autside of'the Towni the graup reflects the top ten largest
employers in the County, and is intended to docurnent the ~
needs of a majority of the emplayment positions in the Valley.
Table 9: Em loyee shortage a.nd turnover estimated b lar e em lo ers in the County
Business Total number Shartage of Employee
ofemployees employees in 96197 Tumover
summer J winter winter seasnn each season
Vail Associates, Inc. 2000 i 4Q00 150 SO% .
Cordiilera 650 i 375 30 15°r'o
Eagle Caunty School Uistrict 600 4 7.5%
City Market (4 stores) 504 41 91 %o
Vail Valley Medical Center 500 25 30°1o
Hyatt Beaver Creek 300 / 450 50 80°lo
Sannenaip 340 / 370 20 34°l0
Eagle County 300 0 9%,
Masriot 2501275 5- 12 40%
Town of Vai1 216 / 251 9 12.5°l0
~ f \everyane\I'EClmemos1971stratplan.oZ7 ~
updated 10123 6.30 pm
~
,
D. Implications for the Town's Goal of Enhancing the
Ser?se of Community
~
The cast ofhausing is directly related to the supply/lavailability
of housing. The pereentage of homes in Vail used by part-time
residents has remainecl in the 70°lo ra.nge for the last several
years. Vail's high proportion of hame which stand vacant
, much of the year affects not only housing costs, but also the _
goal of enhancing Vail's sense of community. Tncrea.sing the
percentage of full-time resident is an important goal of this
plan.
In conversatians with many second home owners conducted
during the Vail Tomorrow process, as well as the responses in
the community survey, there appears to be a trend of part-time
residents making Vail their hame. In the 1996 community
survey, 1I percent of the part-time residents reported they
were "very likely„ to make Vail their primary residenee in the
next five to ten years, with another 12 percent indicating a
motlerately high level of likelihood. It is important to nate that
the demographics of the eomnunity rnay ehange as a result of
this trend. ~ Table 14: Percent of local home awnershi
Percent ofhomes
qccupied by locals
1940 27.53%
199L 26:61% 1992 26.72°l0 1993 27.14%
1994 34.47°~'a
1995 29.78%
1996 29.56°10
Sources: 1991 w 1996 Colorado Demography Service
1990 U.S. Census
~ f:\everynne\PEClmemos\97\stratpiau.o27
I $ updatec11U123 6:30 pm
:
I Y . INVENT(JRY (JF OPl'ORTIJNITIES+
A. Land ~
I. "Hidden Resource " Parcels .
2. Underutilized Parcels
3: Privatelv Held Vacant Parcels
4. Ptrblzclv Held Vrzcant Parcels
5. Potentaal Land Trddes with the Forest Service
` B. Funds
C. patential 12egulatory Requirements
I. Growzh Martagement.
2. Employee Generation..
3. Inclusianarv Zonirtg.
D. Potentiallncentives
V. PtILIGIES ON THE DEVELOPMEN'T OF
HOUSING
A. Problem Statement ~
B. Objectives:
C. Guiclelines
VI: " - TQCILS, FIJR IMPLEMENTATION
A. Community Decision Making _ B. Problem Statement
C. Estabiishing Givens
VRI. Conclusian
f-.\everyane\l'EC\tnemos197tstratpiaan.n27 ~
19 updated 10t23 5:30 pm
LAW OFFiCES
IYIf1RCE & INGRMSSIA
(a professional corporation)
~ auite 210
1314 North Third Street
Phoenix, Arxzona 85004
Telephoaee 602/257-1100
Facsima.le: 6021257-1685
October 10, 1997
Planni:ng & Environmenta:l Commission
Town of Vail
75 Sauth Frontage Road
Vail, CO $165
Re; Lionshead Re-develapment ~
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My wife and I are owners at the Westwind, in Lianshead. We
= have recently received some materials outl.a.ning vari.ous plans
that are underway for the "re-development" of Lionshead.
~ I want to particularly vaice our strang disappaintment that
the Town .is even consi.dering a redevelopment plan Yahich wauld
allow any vehicle traffic (even i.f it is only town buses ) to cut
through the Lionshead Ma1.l south of the Lifthouse or between the
Landmark and the Sunbird Lodge, We are equall.y disappainted that
the Town may be considering allowi.ng Vail Associates to redevel.op
the Sunbird and Gondola Buil.ding properties i.n a way that
encroaches into the Lionshead ma1.l area.
My wife and I selected Vail as aur seconcl home after
visiting several ski areas in Colarado, Utah and Ca1.ifarnia. We
selected Vai1 and the Lionshead area in partieular because we
were comfortable with the secure community atmosphere that it
prrav.ided for our young cha.l.dren. An important factar in our
consideration was the secure ambiance af the vehicle-free
Lionshead mall area. Even before we became owners at the
Westwind, when we were simply visitors, we felt camfartabl.e that
our children could go out to play or just ta walk aaraund the
Lianshead mall area and be safe and secure.
The fact that we, our chilclren and other guests could go
fram the Westwincl to the lifts without crossi.ng any streets was
also a major factor in our chQice of Lionshead.
Putting astree-t thraugh the mall eitren if it is 1.imi.ted
to Towri of Vail buses or allowing Vail Associates to encroach
~ into the presently-open area wi.th new hotel or candc,mi,ni.um
buildings will destroy much of what braught us tQ Vail in the
first place.
~
Planning & Enviranmental Commissipn
Town of Vai1
C3ctabex 10, 1997
Page 2 ~
And let' s face it, nothing you can do will liznit traffic ta
Town caf Vai1 buses. How many times everv day are there
unauthorized vehicles often 1.ast tourists, who are too busy
gawking to watch where they are going on, sectians of Meadaw
Drive that are supposed to be 13.mited: to buses,
We appreci.ate the cancerns of the Lianshea:d merchants, and
we apprec,i.ate that Va,il Associates' need to redevelop the
property presently accupied by the Sunbird Lodge and the Gondola
Building. Surely, however, their aneeds can be met without being
harmful to everyone else. Surely, their needs can be met without
destroying the ambiance that makes Lionshead special to owners
and visitors.
Thank you for your considerati:on.
Sin~erely,
r;
~~nqer R:" Marce
RRM: par r~
~,.r..
. ,
A;AWESTWIND\LETTSRS\PLN&EN91s009
~
~
October 13, 1997
John D. Kucera
flwrrer of Vail 21#306
in Lionshead since 9977
6178 5outh A1ton Way
Greenwaad Village, C(7 80111
(303) 773-3593
To: Towrt ofVail Council
CJear Sir/Madam:
I have seen some of the concepts from the new plan far redevelopment of
Lionshead. 1 am in-favar of the transi# corridor, even as i# appears to run directly
adjacent to my building. The corridor cannot gn closer to the mountain and the
Frontage Rcrad is too distant.
I arn aiso in favor of a major new hotel with convention facilities encompassing
the otd Gondola Building and Sunbird Lodge, I bslieve a new hub of lodging and
retail wauld reawaken the whale Lionshead area wi#h new shops and
~ restaurants. Hawever, I wouldn't want this complex ta rise more than faur orfive
s#ories. i believe that as much view as possible shou{d be maintained in the
corridors ta give people a sense of why they come ta Vail, it's the moun#ain, l
also think thehotel compfex shouidbe no more #han five storiesand the fourcondominium buildingsto be three or four stories.
I believe it is importarrt we take khis opportunity to redesign Lionshead #or the
next 50 years. This may mean changing current buildings ar tearing down for
new structures ar transif flow (including my bailding, Vai! 21).
1 also think an upscale hotel on the West End of the parking structure has merit.
I don't want Vail to become overcrowded, but the real#y is that the convention
market is big, and; we will confinue to lase business to Beaver Creek and 7he
Gascade C#ub until a real facility is built.
Thank yau for taking the time to read my comments.
Si cerely,
, John D. Kuc ra
cc: Tawn of Vail Council
Planning & Envirdnmenta{ Commission
~ ~
Mark & beborah Kdbelan
12 Metnorial Poirtt
Houston, Texas 77024
QcCober 20, 1997
rI'he Pianning & Environmental Cornmissian
75 S. Frontage Rcl.
VaiZ, Colorado 81657
Dear Gentlemen:
My wife Deborah, and T have been visiting Vai1 for aver 20 years
and in 1993 we purchased acondo in the Lancimark Tawer in Liansheacl.
We are cautiously excrted about many of the redevelopment fdeas
proposed but are disappointeci that in almost every article or letter about
the redeveloprnent the basic premise is that Lionshead is undesirabte,
unattractive or outdated. We happen to like the Lionshead area which is
why we purchased our conda in Lidnsheacl rather than Vail Village.
~ As a point of comParison I would like ta list the reasons we prefer
Lionshead to Vail Village, the amenities we prefer in Vail Village and the
improvements wewould like to see in Lionshead.
Reasons we prefer Lionshead to Vail Village:
l. The proximity of the Gandola ancl the new Aclventure Ridge at
the tap af tbe mountain are distinet assets.
2. The panaramic views of Vail Mountain from Lionshead are
superiar to the views from Vail Village,
3. The ski runs at the battorn are user friendly anci always have
better snow than thase going into Vail Village.
4. The two ski lifts at the base of Lionshead are more accessible to
skiers and there is more raam to rneet groups and put an skis.
5. Lionshead is quieter especially at night (fewer screaming anci
yodeling drunks).
~
6. fihere is a feeling af safety in the Lionshead area, We have let
our children roam the area when they were younger (S and 9 ~
years ald), but would not do that zn Uail Village.
The amenities we refer in Vazl Village:
1. The retail shopping is much better in the village. Lionshead has
T-shirt shops and ski equipment shops and very iittle else.
2. The selection af restaurants is much more extensive in Vail
Village.
Improvements that we would like to see in Lionshead:
l. Replace the Gonclola building anci Su.nbird Lcydge build.ing with
something that includes retail and restaurants on the graund
level. A restriction on the height of the structure is of NtAJOR.
IMPOgt,'I',ANACE. We STItt3NGLY dislike the imposing building
at Beaver Creek which block the mountain views; I would
vigorausly object to any structure that is taller that the peak of
the Sunbird Lodge. ~
2. Imprave ped:estrian flow through the area. The Cancert Hail
Plaza and the part of Montaneros that has the Gharlie's T-Shirt
shop block pedestrian traffic frnm the west. Most people
caming from the east da not walk up the 20-+- stairs ta go
through the Concert Hall Plaza. Almost no one knows there is a
bus stnp in front of Concert HaZI Plaza. If this building could be
rebuilt with a ground level pedestrian walkway between twa
rows of shops it would generate cansiderably more tra#'t`ic. Most
visitors walk as far as the Gandala building and do not realize
there is anything past this point. Even if they walk up toward
Bart Yetis they cannot see much past the Montuck
Restaurant. This is especially true when there is a 15' high
mound nf snow piled in the middle of the walkway just east of
Banner Sporxs. This view problem can be alleviated by properly
designing a builcling, to replace the Gondola and Sunbirci
buildings, which draws people to the west with additional
shops. If people can see that there is more to explare ahead
and they don't have to walk up a flight of stairs, they wiil
continue ta explore.
~
2
Istrongly object ta the propasal that a bus route be built
~ through a partion of the pedestrial retail area. A revised route
that includes a stop at the parking lat just north of the
Landmark could be successful if peaple don't have to climb 20
stairs to get to the bus.
3. Reduce the road noise from the expressway thraugh Lionshead.
Although the noise is not naticeabie from the pedestrian
walkway, it is very naticeable at night in the condos. I arn sure
that there have been: many complaints.
zn conclusion, I wauld like ta stress that we da likc Lionshead and
would prefer nat to turn it in to a second Vail Village. T1Ve believe that
having twa distinctly different areas or Villages at the base of the
mountain is an advantage to tihe Vail 12esort. We are lnoking farwarcl to
the final master plan and redevelapxnent area.
Sincer
Mark Kobelan
~ J MK
~
3
TNE WES7V111ND
October 22, 1997
Tnwn Counsel
Town qf Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, ColQrado 81657
Re. Renovation af Lionshead
To Wham it May Concern.
. The Westwind condominium building is locaied in tt'qnshead, The building was thefirst to be built in
Lionsttead. 7he loca#ior? and views of the mountain are an enormnus benefif to the bwilding and are
major factors in the buiiding's walue.
. The Westwind owners are spending a significant amauni o# money (in excess of $1 millian dollars)
this year and next renovating the interioc and exterior of the buiidirrg, The owners agree that the
Lionshead area needs renovation. We at The Westwind are doing our part by significanliy
renovating our buiiding.
. The potential loss of mountain views and incteased naise congestion around aur building are a
significant concern to `fhe Wes#wind owners.
. We believe any renava#ian project in the Lionshead area which is taller than the cloek tower wi11 have
a significant nega#ive effect on existingbuildings in the acea. ~ . A building higher than the clock tower would not help to develap the Lionshead area. in fiact, ik
wvuld rrtost likely have a negative ef€ect an the existing Lionshead buiidings and make it mucn more
difficult for the existing building owners to have the desire to invest r'noney (as 7he Westwind owners
have) into their buildings.
. The clock tower is ta11 enough. Any benefit received by some sma(( number of condominiurns or
hotel rooms buil# tal(er than the ctdck tower cauld not possibiy be warth the negative e#tecf it wou#d
surely have on existing Lionshead buildings.
. !n additian, #he current "l.ionshead Mail" area appears too smali fpr a traffic corridor. It is pniy two tn
three blocks from the East Lionshead bus stop to the West Lionshead Concert Mall Plaza bus stop
if you enlarge the mall area, it would s#i11 be only two to three blocks w'tde - hardly wide enough fnr a
traffic corridor.
. We have asked Geoffi V1Jright ofi Des#ination Resorts to monitor this situation and tn keep us
informed.
If yau have any questinns, please don'# hesitate to,ca{I me at 312.347.5903 or my assistant, Bets, Fa(rel1
aC 312.347.5937,
Si cerely, , . _
~ames F. Beeaae
President, The Wesiwind Namepwners' Association
~ cc: The Westwind Board of Directors Chris Ryman -Vail Associates
The Westwind Nomeowners Mike Porter - Vail Associates
Town of Vail - p(anning and Environmenta( Committee GeoFf Wright - Destina#ion Resoa
Town of Vaif - design and Review Board
~ PLANMNG ANa ENVIRONMENI`AL CC}MMISSION
October 27, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: I\JIEMBERS ABSENT: ST'AFF PRESENT.
Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Susan Connelly
Greg Amsden IVlike Moilica'
Diane Golden Andy Knudtsen
Gene Uselton George Ruther
John Schofield L,auren Waterton
Ann Bishap Dominic Mauriella
Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. A reques# for approval of a major exterior alteratian, to ailow for the canstruction of a new
entry and comman area in the 7reetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot
6, B{ack 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing.
Appiicant: Treefops Condo Associatidn, represented by Larry Bames
~ Planner : Dominic IVlauriello
Dominic MaurieNo gave an overview of the staff inemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any commenfs.
William F'ierce, on behalf of the applicant, had no cammenfs.
John Schofield had no comments.
Gene Uselton had no camments.
Greg Amsden inquired abaut the existing landscaping in front.
BiIl Pierce said there vvere pine trees. Ann Bishop commended the applicant on the improvement.
Diane Goiden had no camments.
Greg Moffet stated for the record that fhis application was consistent with the purpose statement
Tn the CC2 Zone District.
Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant would bring the lightinginto compHance.
~ I'lanning and Bnvironmentai Commission
Minutes
october2?, 1997
~ -
. ~ ~
Greg Maffet suggested making the lighting acondition,
John Schofield made a motion far approval with 1 condition that the exterior lighting af the entire ~
structure be brought ints compliance with the Town af Vail code.
Ann Bishop seconded #he mo#ion.
The motiqn passed by a vote of 6-0.
2. A requsst for approval of a minor exterior aIteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance,
ta aifow for the renavation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden 8ear, located
at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302/ Lats A&B, Black 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. C7ietrich
Planner: George Ruther
George Ru#her gave an overviewr of the staff inerno and said that fihis same request was
approved in 1995, with the addition of the site eoverage variance.
Greg Moffe# asked if the applicant had any#hing ta add.
Paul Miller, representing the Galden Bear, asked if the streetscape benches were in addition to
what was on the landscape design.
George Ruther said, yes.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. ~
Ann Bishop applauded the appiicant on the imprnvements.
fliane Galden s#ated that the prdject met the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan.
John Schofield asked #he applicant if he agreed with #he staf# condifions,
Paul Miller stated in arder to address the intersection, #he need was creafed #o bring the building
forward.
John Schofield said the intersectian caused a special circumstance which would allow granting a
variance.
Gene Uselton asked if the conditions were accep#able ta the applicant.
Paul Miller said, yes.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Greg Maf#et said that this request met all the criteria. He said #hat there was more latitude in the
CC1 to grant variances, with regards to the special privilege issue. He said the goals and
objectiues wauld result in a practical difficulty.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes ~
October 27, 1997 2
Ann Bishop made a motian far appraual with the 5 condi#ions, in accordance with the staff
~ memo.
Diane Galden seccrnded the motion.
The mation passed by a vote of 6-0.
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located
at 1477 Aspen GrovelLaf 3, Block 2, Liflnsridge 4th Filing.
Applicant: William N. Miller
F'lanner: Lauren Waterton
Ann Bishdp recused herself, as she was representing a gentleman who was employed by the
applican#.
Mike MoIlica gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that there would be 3 addi#ional cars
on the site and that staffi was recommending approvai with 3 conditions.
Greg Maffet asked if the applicant had any comments.
Will Miller, the owner of the praperty management company at Mantaneras, said this use
lessened the impact versus ren#ing the property Qut short-term. He said he secured diffierent
• vacation parties fhrough the managemen# company for short-term rentals. He said short-term
occupartcy allowred in the house was 10-12 persons, plus the housekeeper, generating more cars
than what wauld be generated by 3 couples if the. use was a bed & breakfast. He s#ated that he
~ wauld be in residence on the site. He explained that vacant rooms were rented out in the
sumrnertime with one persan per bedroam. He sta#ed that based an the number of houses on
the street, he was not overloading the stree# and wouid be accauntable, since he wauld live on
the premises,
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Tom Hughes, president of the Aspen Grcave Homeowner's As$ociation, stated fhey were against
this use. He said the intention of this neighbarhoad was to be a single family neighborhaod and
he had not heard one positive comment about the request.
F'eter Kyle, a next-door neighbor, said he was planning on selling his home and the B&B would
have a nega#ive impact on the sale of his house.
Carroll Orrison, the awner of the 2nd house bui(fi on Aspen Grnve Lane, said the area was
isolated fram the city and he thought the area should onty have single farnily homes.
7arn Hughes said that 7ract B inciuded this private road. He said he represented the ownership
and they kepf it plowed and maintained. Ne said since they owned the road, they wanted to keep
it private.
John Schofield questioned if the road access was owned jointly by the 11 owners and controlled
by the Association.
Planningand Environmental Cammission
~ Minutes
October 27, 1997 3
Tom Moarhead said he reviewed the declarations and although the road was privately owned,
there were no restrictions in the declaratiorrs andthe road was described in the declarations as a ~
public rnad. He said if the raad had been described as a cammon area, then this application
would require permission.
John Schofield questianed a public road privately owned by the association.
Tom Moorhead explained that the application wauld have required the Association's signatures.
Tom Nughes said Tom Moorhead was correc#, but a majority rule had the abili#y ta change #he
declarations.
Jahn Schofield said the PEC didn't have the ability to change it and untier the criteria, the
Association didn't have any authority now.
Gene Useltan asked who owned the road.
Tom Hughes said the Homeowner's Association.
Gene Uselton said he thought Mr. Miller should have the approval of the other property owners.
Tom Moorhead said the Association declarations did nat have any controi over the use of the
road, nnly #he maintenance. He again expiained that the road was not a common element and
therefore, withaut control, although it could be changed. He said the Association did not have
any direct authority ta control the use of the road.
Gene Useltan asked if this was a legal matter, ~
Tom Maorhead said the Town of Vail did not enforce private covenants.
Greg Amsden asked abaut the definition of Section 38.04.110, as referred to in the memo.
Nfike Moilica read the definition of 18.04.110, wha# constitutes a family and explained the
Section's intent was to define how many individuals could occupy an individual dwelling unit.
Greg Amsden asked if this was zoned single family.
Greg Moffet stated this use was permitted.
Diane Go1den asked if Will Mi(ler had an EMU with a separate garage.
Will Mifler said, yes.
Diane Golden asked if there wauld be three B&B bedrooms downstairs.
Will Miiler explained the traffic pattern of the B&B users if this was approved and said a VA
employee lived in the EHU.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes ~
October 27, 1997 4
~ Diane Golden said she was sympa#hetic to both parfies, buf the Tawn has made a statement #hat
B&Bs are permissible.
WiA Miller said that directly across the street was a multi-family project and this use wouldn't
change anything and he would go back to 3 roammates in the summer.
diane Golden said a conditianai use permit could have cor?ditions fa sea how it goes.
Greg IVlaffet said the PEC cauld sunset this. He said, knowing some of the players with srnall
children, the elected officials said B&B's were a desired usage for every zone district. He said
tha# the conditions were clearly met and it was unfortunate tha# the neighboncood couldn't get
#ogether. He said more covenan#s cauld be deployed, but as it appeared, this was a case where
the PEC was compeiled to grant approval.
Greg Amsden asked for infarmation about the kitchens.
Wil1 Mitfer said the 2nd floor kitchen was not installed. He said it was a rough-in and con#ingen#
on wha# happened with the usage. He said it had only a mierowave and' a sink.
Jflhn Schofie(d made a motion for approval wi#h the condition that an apprnval wcruld not be
required by the Aspen Grove Lane (Lionsridge Filing Nn. 4) Hameowner's Association and that
the canditional use permit wili expire in ane year from the date of approval.
Diane Golden seconded #he mation.
~ The motion passed by a vo#e ofi 4-1-1, with Gene Uselton opposed and Ann Bishop recused.
4. A request far a major amendment to SDD #4 (Gascade Village), to allow modifications to
allawable GRFA and building h.eigh# limitations, focated at 1150 Westhaven LanelL.ats 33-
1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivisian.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larsen
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriella gave an averview af the s#aff memo.
Greg Moffe# asked i# #he applicant had anything to add.
Diane Larsen, representing the applicant, concurred with the sta#f's recornnrrendation.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none.
Ann Bishop had no comments, but thanked Mr. Norris for his le#ter fihat described the history.
Diane Golden had no comments.
John Schofieid had no comments.
Gene Uselton had na camments.
~ planning and Envirflnmental Comrnission
Minutes
Oatober 27, 1997 5
Greg Amsden said he was 'snvolved in the changing of the GRFA in the code and saw no
negative effect in Glen Lyan. ~
Greg Moffet agreed with Greg Amsden, but asked ta applicant ta please not come back with
snowmelt bailers in the setback.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval with one condition, in accardance with the staff inemo.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
5. A request for an amendment to Sectian 18.54.050 J(Design Guidelines -outdoor
lighting), to allow for the exemp#ion of Ipw wattage lighting from the autdoor lighting
regulations.
Rppiicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Dominic Maurieiio gave an averview of the staff inemo and explained that #his was to allow low
level lighting to make a property safer, after the aRB final review. He then explained the new
language.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
John Schafield thought the 25 watt output was on the law side and he thought it should be in the
40 watt range. He said stairs typicaily have wattage in #he 40-60 watt range. ~
Gene Uselton said this was a sensible proposal.
Greg Amsden said he was in favar of this, as it was a safety issue.
Ann Bishop had no cornments.
Diane Golden agreed with the safety issue.
Greg Maffet said he agreed with the safety issue.
John Schofield made a motian for approval with a change in the language to include a maximum
initial lumen output of 400 (or equivalent to a40 watt bulb).
Gene Uselton seconded the mation.
The motion passed by a vo#e of 6-0.
6. A request to review a draft of the propflsed Vail Strategic Hausing Plan, which is intended
to set the direc#ion of the Town in its ef#ort to address locals housing.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen
Planning and Envirarunantal Caminission
Minates ~
October 27, 1997 6
~ ,
Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff inemo. He said he was hearing fram the shop
~ owners that they couldn't get emplayees and fhat they were closing early with customers left
Qutside, so this was affecting the economic viability. He said the focus of the plan was to make
decision making easier and that #hey were focusing east of Dawd Junction for housing. He then
described the nature and background of the plan.
Greg Moffet asked Andy how much of Timber Ridge was master leased by VA.
Andy Knudtsen said he didn't know, but the management was concerned about tao rnuch
cnncentratian from VA.
Greg Moffet said his experience with VA was that housing was used like a college darm, with 3
employees to a unit.
Andy Knudtsen mentiorred that Pitkin Creek Park units were deed restricted, but since
restricfians were lifted, Pitkin was in demandby second homeowners, as it was so close #o
Denver.
Ann Sishop asked ifi any irrvestigations were going on regarding EHU's up on Forest Rnad.
Andy Knudtsen said he found "signs of life" in all deed restricted uni#s when he drove by, with
ane exception and is still having a problem with the CappY residence.
Ann Bishop asked Andy if he was foNowing up.
~ Rndy Knudtsen said yes, with the 24 EHU's which require occupancy and that he was getting an
update from County and sending out letters shortly, to a(I owners who said they had EHU's.
Ann Bishap said that the enforcement issue was the most important and there was only one
sentence in this document pertaining to that.
Diane Golden asked abou# the response from the last letters sent aut and if people really filled
the questionnaires out.
Andy Knudtsen said he did no# have the speci€ic numbers, but would get back with Diane with
the answer to her question.
Andy Krrud#sen said that the Housing Authority came abaut in place of a funded staff position,
but that Cauncil wanted to be mare involved.
Greg Amsden said it was political wifh the new Council.
Andy Knudtsen said the Housing Au#hority was not disbanded, as it was fo be kept available for
bond issues.
Diane Golden asked whaf the Cify Market units were rented for.
Andy Knudtsen said he would report back to Diane. Ne also said that Eagle Bend in Avon had
very high occupancy rates.
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
Ivlinutes
October 27, 1997 7
( Y
Gene Uselton asked about the Red Sandstone prdject.
Andy Knudtsen said the project's construction cas#s came in higher than expected and that all ~
the units wauld have been deed restricted.
Greg Moffet asked if table 3 showed a compounded, average or annual rate.
Andy Knudtsen said he believed it was campounded.
Gene Use[ton concurred.
Greg Amsden said he thought tabie 10 was high,
Andy Knudtsen said he wan#ed the PEC input for additions to the plan and what ta elaborate
upon.
Ann Bishap was curious about the wages. She asked if the Town was making any effiork to meet
with emplayers to discuss the wages, as there was a huge problem.
Andy Knudtsen said the Town shauld pick the issues to address, knowing that resources are
limited, and not all issues cauld be addressed.
Greg Amsden stated #hat because the hausmg supply was low, there was enough dernand far
high rents.
Ann Bishap said there were 3-4 roommates per uni#.
Ann Bishop said there should be discussion regarding wages, as obviausly there was a huge ~
difference with the amount of money people made here.
Jahn Schafield said the hourly wage was on #he 1ow side, bu# the average ski instructor was alsa
a waiter, etc.
Artn Bishap said there may nat be much rental available, but what's available was of poor quality.
John Schofield said a qualitative factor shauld be in the document.
Greg Moffet sfiated we should be having code compliance with building codas with more
inspections.
John Schofield said we had slumlords and the Council had not dane anything with enforcing the
Uniform 6uilding Code.
Greg Nlaffet said if units were candemned, there would not be any employee housing.
Ann Bishop said if we were known for dumpy rentals, we shauld begin to change our fiacus
towards clean and affordable rentals.
Greg Moffet said if an illegal dwelling uni# was condemned, then it would be saltl, demolished,
and there would be no more housing.
Planning and Environmental Commission ~
Minutes
Octaber 27, 1997 8
. ,
John Schofield said the Council would have ta decide to either take a heavy handed approach or
~ provide incentives.
Andy Knudtsen said adding UBC inspec#ions to the staff warkioad would bite off more than we
could do right now. He said that the City of Baulder requires tandlords to be registered.
Greg Amsden said that everything that has sold recently has been irnproved, so why would the
Town spend their dollars to cure their share flf #he market.
Gene Uselton said he recognized the need far the Tawn to provide housing within the Town
limits for essential employees (e.g., police, fire fighters, bus drivers, snaw plow operators); but,
for seasonal workers who are nat empioyed by the Town of Uail, it made economic sense #o
consider working with the private sector to develop high density hausing in down vatley locations
such as Berry Creek and #o pramote an adequate #ransportat'ron system.
Diane Golden said workers should live in Vail and be a part bf the communify. She said good
examples were the Public Works site and Vail Cornmons.
Gene Useiton asked why seasonal employees had to live in Town.
Andy Knudtsen said thafi jobs were available down valley and that emplayees living down valley
would end up working down valley.
Susarr Gonnelly stated why would you drive through Dowd Junction if you didn't have to.
~ Greg Moffe# sta#ed, as a farmer commuter, if you want #o impose that an the employees who
serve yau in the Tawn, then you had to foot the cost. He said the public sector in this Town can
find warkable solutions. 'He said seasnnals were needed in Tawn who were not exhaus#ed all
the time and for example who would have keys to the water main maintenance when pipes
break. He said the private sec#or would not work.
Greg Amsden said you can't blame the private sector, because it's only rtow that the public
sector has dQne anything. He said that no one did anything years ago.
Ann Bishop encfluraged fhe Town CQUncil to hire an en€orcement officer and impose heavy fines.
She said if we were going to have old employee housing, then lets have qaod quality.
Andy Knudtsen asked #he PEC what direction they would like the Town to go in crea#ing housing.
Diane Galden said she would like to see the Town concentrate eas# of Dowd Junc#ion and
agreed with Ann regarding follow-up enforcement. She stated that Vail Gommons added ta the
viability of the Town.
John Schofield disagreed with Ann regarding enforcement, and would-rather encaurage
incentives, such as tax credits. He #hought the market would go away, if incentives were not
given.
Ann Bishop agreed with #ax breaks as incentives, but with an enforcement componen# and also
consis#ent employee housing with old properties that have not been inspeeted.
~ P(anning and Environmental Commissian
Minutes
t3ctober 27, 1997 9
~
a .
. ,
Gene Uselton didn't think you could impose market solutions on anyone.
Greg Amsden said, regarding Category A, that land needed to be priaritized to find out which ~
parcels offered the most units. He sugges#ed the Town par#icipate in bond related financing and
give developers incentives. He said it was toa late to discuss grow#h management and to focus
on the SDd projects or the high density. Ne said the Town needed to get creatiue with Timber
Ridge now and look into a joint venture with private funds. He said the Tawn couidn't create the
198units #hat wauld be lost with Timber Ridge. He said Timber Ridge needed to be guttedand
upgraded. He said with regards to deed restrictions, to put a dollar amount on incentives, i.e,,
we will pay x-number of doflars to deed restrict and renovate the unit. Ne said anather incentive
might be to waive the building fees to upgrade.
Greg Moffet said, regarding the land issues, there were great opportunities far the Town to get
involved with more housing stock. He said every business owner would like to have a unit for
their employees. t-le swggested that the Town acquire units to sell to the owners of businesses
with a deed restriction and that the community had to help solve the problem. He agreed wi#h
Greg Amsden an the inclusianary zoning. Ne said that most af the high density in Town was in
pre#ty bad shape. Greg felt that employee housing had to be a part of the Liflnshead
redevelopment and part of the equatipn with inclusionary zoning. He said, as a Tawn, flur focus
shauid be nousing in Town and he was not interested in creating dvwn vailey ghettos requiring
bussing employees. He said he didn't want a retirement ccrmmunity, rather to diffuse the housing
in Tawn, He said with interregianal cooperation, we would never get anything done.
Gene Uselton said that deed restrictions would be more acceptable to private lenders, if they
could be tied into an appropriate index, such as the CP1, rather than a 3% limit on appreciation.
Grag Rmsden asked Andy abou# the lending prospects wi#h deed restrictions. ~
Andy Knudtsen said there was no problem.
Greg Amsden said with new housing, there should be an incentive to build another unit on a
single family lot. He said #o make it sellable for the people with a deed restriction on the lot.
John Scho#ield said to develop packages to inalude financing, banding, tax credits, abatement of
fees up front, e#c., $o peaple vvouldn't have to come up with cash dolfars.
Greg Amsden said Berry Creek should be considered #o trade foc a West Vai{ parceL
Greg Moffet said ther'e should be heavy focus an the Vail Tomorrow actions and housing
solutions which should be integra#ed into the Master Plan.
7. A request for a major amendment to SDd #4 (Gascade Village), to allow for a revisian to
the development plan for the Glen Lyan Office Buiiding site, Idea#ed at 1000 S. Frontage
Rd. West/Lof 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision,
App[icant: Glen Lyon Ofifice Building Partnership, represented byGordorr Pierce, AIA
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NQVEMBEa24, 1997
Planning and EnvironmenfaI Commission
Minutes ~
October 27, 1997 10
• K
8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow far the cons#ructian af the
Aipine Garden Educatinn Center, located at 620 Vail Valley C7riuelTract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner. Geor•ge Ruther
TABLEC7 UNTiL NC3VEMBER 10, 1997
9, To approve, deny, or modify an Enviranmental Irnpact Report for the proposed Bonth
Fai{s Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, located a# 3094 Boath Falis CourtJLot 1, Block
2, Vail Village 12th.
Applicanf: Booth Falls Condo Association
Planner: Russ Forrest
TABLED UNTIL. NtJVEMBER 10, 1997
10. A request for a major ex#erior aIteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070
(Setbacks), ta ailow for construction of a parking garage at The L.ionshead lnn, Iacated at
705 S. Frontage RdJ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail L.ionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represen#ed by William Pieree
~ Pianner: Dominic Mauriello -
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997
Greg Amsden made motion to table i#em 7 un#il November 24, 1997 and items 8, 9 and 10 untii
Nnuember 10, 1997.
John Schofield seconded the mation.
The motion passed by a vate of 6-0.
11. lnforma#ion Update
Susan Connelly announced that tomarrow at Tawn Council, financing a1ternatives for Lionshead
wouid be discussed and that Barb Schofield would be one of the panelists.
Susan Cannelly announced that the Chamber of Commerce and Baard, af Realtors were ho6ding
a"meet #he candidates" night on Wednesday, from 7-10 pm.
SusanConnelly announced the November 1, 1997 "Hollyween" fiundraiser.
12, Appraval of September 22, 1997 and (Jctober 13, 1997 minutes.
Greg Moffet and John Schofield had changes on the October 13, 1997 minu#es:
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 27, 1997
,
Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997 ~
minuies.
John Schofield secortded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-(}-1, with Gene Useltan abstaining, as he was not presen#,
Greg Amsderr made a mation to adjourn.
John Schofield seconded the motian.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
The meating adjourned a# 4:45 pm.
~
Planning and Environmentat Cammission ~
Minutes ~ ~
October 27, 1997