HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0223 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on February 23, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a minor subdivision, to modify a platted building envelope, to allow for a
maintenance structure to be constructed adjacent to the caretaker residence, located at 914
Spraddle Creek Road/Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: David Argo
Planner: Reed Ovate
A worksession to discuss the underlying concepts and preferred alternatives and an overview
of possible implementation methods for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce
Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, c/o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range Properties.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planners office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114
voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published February 6, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
E
7UWN4Ft?Att
Abaft
Updated 2/18/98 9am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, February 23, 1998
AGENDA
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Spraddle Creek - 914 Spraddle Creek Road
2. Accardo - 1998 Sunburst Drive
Driver: George
;.F
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to modify a platted building envelope, to allow for a
maintenance structure to be constructed adjacent to the caretaker residence, located at
914 Spraddle Creek Road/Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association, represented by David Argo
Planner: Reed Onate
2. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located
at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing,
Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects
Planner: Reed Onate
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1)
meeting room to accommodate the VRD sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center, 700
South Frontage Road East/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
•
1 -
rOWNOF PAIL l
Updated 2/18/98 gam
4. A worksession to discuss a variety of alternatives, based upon different philosophies and
methodologies, which defines the allowable building height and general massing in the
Lionshead Redevelopment study area.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
This item will be a joint worksession with the Town Council on March 3, 1998 at 2:00 p.m.
5. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and
variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and
Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143
E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 23, 1998
6. A request for a density variance from Section 12-78-13, to allow for the construction of a two-
bedroom dwelling unit, located at 227 Wall Street (HongKong)/Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., c/o Base Mountain Sports - Brett Barnett,
represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
7. A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce
Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, c/o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range
Properties.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
8. Information Update
9. Approval of February 9, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
Community Development Department
Published February 20, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
11
2
•
Updated 2/24198 gam
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, February 23, 1998
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation /NO LUNCH - Communitv Develooment Deoartment
MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
Site Visits :
1. Spraddle Creek - 914 Spraddle Creek Road
1:00 pm
1:30 pm
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to modify a platted building envelope, to allow for a
maintenance structure to be constructed adjacent to the caretaker residence, located at 914
Spraddle Creek Road/Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association, represented by David Argo
Planner: Reed Unate
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED
2, A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1)
meeting room to accommodate the VRD sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center,
700 South Frontage Road East/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 5-2 (Gene Uselton
and John Schofield opposed)
TOWMEMBERS ABSENT
1 _
VY
Updated 2/24/98 gam
APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS:
That no parking spaces be reserved for VRD use only.
2. That staff consider a letter of intent of the VRD's financial commitment for future
parking space improvements and that the VRD redefine their position on parking
in Ford Park.
3. A worksession to discuss a variety of alternatives, based upon different philosophies and
methodologies, which defines the allowable building height and general massing in the
Lionshead Redevelopment study area.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
This item will be a joint worksession with the Town Council on March 3, 1998 at 2:00
p.m.
4. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located
at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects
Planner: Reed Ovate
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 9, 1998
5. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and
variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and
Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143
E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 23, 1998
6. A request for a density variance from Section 12-713-13, to allow for the construction of a two-
bedroom dwelling unit, located at 227 Wall Street (Hong Fong)/Lot 8 & C, Block 5C, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., c/o Base Mountain Sports - Brett Barnett,
represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
7. A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce
Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, c/o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential. Gore Range
Properties.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
2
Updated 2/24198 gam
8. Information Update
9. Approval of February 9, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road,
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDO for
information.
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 23, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, to modify a platted building envelope, to allow
for a maintenance structure to be constructed adjacent to the caretaker residence,
located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates
Subdivision.
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association,
represented by David Argo
Planner: Reed Onate
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association, represented by David Argo, is
requesting a minor subdivision that would modify the existing building envelope, as designated
on the subdivision plat. The building envelope would be slightly reduced in size and shifted to
the west to allow for the construction of a maintenance structure. The building envelope is
currently 4,500 sq. ft. and the proposed building envelope would total 4,498 sq. ft. The proposed
maintenance building would be a two-story building with an interior gross floor area of 1,222 sq.
ft. that would be attached to the existing caretaker's unit through a common roof structure. The
design of the maintenance building would be subject to Design Review Board approval that
would be subsequent to the minor subdivision approval by the PEC.
The proposed plat notes an increase in the allowable GRFA applicable to the caretaker's unit that
encompasses areaspreviously used for maintenance, including garage square footage. The
GRFA for the caretaker's unit would be increased from 1,625 sq. ft. to 1,900 sq. ft. Anew
maximum interior square footage limit would also be applied to the proposed maintenance
building totaling 1,250 sq. ft., as noted on the amended plat. In addition, the site coverage
allowance would also be increased from 2,000 sq. ft. to 2,200 sq, ft., to accommodate the
proposed maintenance building.
Please find enclosed Attachment 1 that includes a reduction of the proposed subdivision plat
map for Tract C and plans for the maintenance building addition with the existing caretaker unit.
Attachment 2 includes four letters; three letters of correspondence written by Dave Argo
(applicant's representative) and one letter written by Franco D'Agostino, President of the
Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association. The Dave Argo letters provide some historical
details regarding the siting of the service/maintenance building. The Franco D'Agostino letter
was submitted to confirm the Maintenance Association's support of the maintenance building
location and construction.
ai
T'O?O VEA
11. BACKGROUND
The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential, and is generally located
northeast of the main Vail roundabout. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
approved the final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision on February 11, 1991. The
final plat illustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for the building sites within the
subdivision boundaries. The current maintenance facilities located within the caretaker's building
are under-sized and are in need of expansion. Staff has worked with the applicant's
representative to analyze various locations for the maintenance facility within the subdivision.
The conclusion of the analysis and discussions resulted in siting the maintenance facility
adjacent to the caretaker's residence.
Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the PEC with an understanding
of the impacts on the development standards for Tract C, prescribed as plat notes on the
Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision final plat.
Existina, Proposed
Lot Area: 1.085 acres No change.
Building Envelope Size: 4,500 sq. ft. 4,498 sq, ft.
GRFA allowance: 1,625 sq. ft. 1,900 sq, ft. (including Garage)
Service/Maintenance Bldg; None 1,250 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 2,000 sq. ft. 2,200 sq. ft.
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a
new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment involves a minor replatting of
an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor
subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria outlined in
Title 13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered
by the PEC for a minor subdivision application is as follows:
A. Lot Area
The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a
property located within the Hillside Residential zone district, shall be 21,780 sq. ft.
(112 acre) of buildable area. The existing Tract C currently meets the minimum lot
area requirements set forth above and the proposed building envelope
amendment will not affect the existing size of Tract C.
B. Frontaoe
The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Hillside Residential zone district
have a minimum frontage of 50'. Tract C currently has a frontage of more than
50' and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the frontage of
the lot.
2
? t
C. Site Dimensions
The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape capable
of enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its boundaries. Tract O
currently meets the size and shape requirement for lots in a Hillside Residential
Zone District and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the
size and shape of the boundaries for Tract C.
The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as
outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning ordinance, and
other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies
consulted under § 13-3-3-3.C. The PEC shall review the application and consider its
appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities
proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents,
effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding uses."
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any
development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the
PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process.
Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision,
or a resubdivision of an existing parcel of land, it is the appropriate
process to amend a platted building envelope.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent property.
Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendment would not
appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff
has received a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Estates
Architectural Control Committee showing their approval to the applicant's
proposed building envelope amendment request. Additionally, staff has
not received any input from the adjacent property owners to whom letters
of notification were sent.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the
value of buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to
the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of
land in the immediate area of Tract C.
3
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning
Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among
land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope
amendment proposed for Tract C will not preclude a harmonious,
convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with
municipal development objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational
and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public
facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
Staff Resoonse: The purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended
primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as
opposed to this particular proposal to amend a building envelope. Staff
does not believe that this proposal will have any negative impacts on any
of the above listed public facilities.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to
establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and
procedures.
Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that
is not applicable to the proposed building envelope amendment for Tract
C.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of
drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use
and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to
preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of
land.
Staff Resoonse: Staff feels comfortable with the applicant's proposed
building envelope amendment on Tract C. The applicant's representative
has stated that trees disturbed by the maintenance building's construction
would either be relocated or replaced.
After previous analysis of alternate locations, staff believes that shifting
the envelope to accommodate the maintenance building is the best
planning solution. The proposed maintenance building location would
keep the snow removal equipment and maintenance activities adjacent to
its existing location and consolidate earth disturbance and landscaping
next to an existing building.
4
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to amend the
platted building envelope on Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, subject to the
following finding:
That the request has met the criteria as outlined in Section IV, Minor Subdivision Review
Criteria, of this memorandum.
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\98\SPRADLE9.WPD
•
5
AMENDED FINAL FLAT
TRACT C, THIRD AMENDMENT TO AS`P.RADDLE CREEK
TOJFN OF PAIL„ EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
r
Sff'6 ; F
F MAPQ
VECINt71` ?dAP {
mrrW tl tpb K !u ae+ctt. OtNr bh t,arp .! a fyp y ; Z F 4 ; lYGt1 ?'
j
ESTATES FEB 17 15-90,
a.a.-.??arat-tlrMa..
uriM R?TMrygr M t`A. Yrti,. ?oY M wwrt N !r YM?tiyr
A w`! r! M h wMO lp?ir••'??y'?! * ? - i?wtYANY « art
R ?n a?tiw.4/ alel Y M ur ar M wY4 Mrr?.es aN ?
?a Mh.ar+rM •rrt ?wb.W tFairf
nrr Y m.Yi ..r M??1rR ..ern.y Y M .rrb ++-+b
omro br.?_ w h ra, »e
aaw ef-r. arc Yc+..a. rr..+.rn rr,.. hRTY h.yN??.??r Y..r
ar.,a..--arr -e.rR. v... 4n a?b1
w,
w..
f
?,._ 0 ]r b b.xr
SCALE: T' - 30'
LOT t
Y arc-v t - +att.rr oa.n» a• v,rtae am tamp nmr!• Y.har?bT ?.
4
LOT 8 TY
LOT 9 "
SPPADDL6,
` R4C oR0A0 CSO') f TRACT p
S
a
7 e44*Y
A
3
?
,
+ao
j`Of• - E _ -
1
R-125.w ai
aw t ray fZ2g1• L-89.25' ?
wrnr. e..ac,t S
"??tr la i amp w w""`-.? t CB-8 t'
i CAS it"0
9' :2' E
F w r4 ) ?
M 88"45'29` Ee- 257.26' L "??• ?' i
Y trsr+r e_ j t S 4917`4t` E g
Y f
TRACT C
--------------------------------------
R-675.170' _..__' ?L
4T-78N 84 f2`S7` m
LG-151.22'
ca-x 79`4E'S5' W SPRADDLE CREEK ..,.
TRACT F ROA(f CSD'?
?'^'?w .u..., .+..a ?„?. ..._.. .rte. ?.... .--?.?
11x14 ecc'w s rcAxY witrribi/t sew a+
.e-,oh. meror rm re .rhrba ?.rwn
nYrr>_?
a
n.'..s+w o.rr.rr w o.rw.w, « o...w, ..a
Rrr A M « ead/ rL
YO-ri{. wR
? wrs>+rrsx rbruar, r.K
u rwanr? x..tr? ???.rp rs,a..hons yarn r-ian
? V YrNaL aO% pY.tli rOrn • arrorf c
F ? bri wewc.[ - a ? M b r6q Y? rutterr. ne'n0.
..c ?' ? +oucor bc'°aiut a-a?nw°"p1`'r''41u.° ` or[
N ?C +.?w.n m eo-cws eelareq .mono evnmr to trr
«a. rn erb» h'1 W. waeoha mar uow.?a?s.w
.ro ?4n?`.,,o"4b6e aon ' soar os u wt an
w .h c a?am aon.a :. °Q?O?'b ,r w «ar? ri.`0'•ro,•
h Wp Mf£ rP1 r6LCW iK? YXt
e ni'?ur`h?p??> m, mrei *? ? r°°"estreioe!
„a?.,? Y .-„char hnn .n .oeR.a?..n ac tieslY +ee
! eoarn"Ya+µ-.`OWxia.?ia t?aac?ro.YVw. w?"ww,:u ?'bO'
^ tK .? ate"` ;m?.?rr
n ha?> °«'. a°m°Sap11 r?'?°1.r'?irwhnr'r"••ea ?w. rc wr wtaa
@ otxwr. oi-cr c !wc 1. Ynea+m. b be onv.orrbe aorr,
w ao°6D-°Oia?oo ..r,n avw?A`,mocaw? rnw ?arawhce .aad,*1et..a
'? a"41i?oiww a a. r.c rY. nahr +s av a,?u mlar
rri ? h,na ? a v *?ie w°.r° by ? m. °?`+rswom?
s. rw r ba ero u Y?ce au.
htl' tlieet h tYe ae.wy amh leas Saar. enr fY, het
Mw M4 M M wML e,or M MW eawr .pa M1?r
G9Y .. YVrwCiWtl-M* Ivwa M W Teon hw W
19?tdM. ?V. JET,
>M.M:?r:
??rM ?i?Jwfu+t Y.Fw+?.? M4
rat mrAOO[
?. , b-msae mraa+c
frb hA ebr+w • .. ,Y M er- w +M ti+N «
tnta?rt. re Y-...tl
OW M M? ?Mr M,a.w .r a+,wr r.;
.
• avr a-o
nLY-O.WOOef tn.naT.
iW lbF wa?µ M ntwt ? dM ? ?«ne.a...w rL.
¢rFY
i OFrrR $o L i Joe N.. 457 1
9
frt
t'T
W
rt
F-'
t
0 0
E}aofricaf Transfonnx
\k 9PRADDIE CREEK ROAD
--- Mailboxes EAMIng 9fone 9offard & figfrf
New Concrete RNv»way +14
with 9rwwmelf
to ----- ---.. ? ? ? Bt
n (? -
+12
L O T I
ba I = +7.
Boulder Retaining Wells -
02 -
oo- I i+03 04
oa--
ExtsitngCantbur?
Be Property Line
-u
Entry Rates//' -
-.,,,? PFnnfer ( ?efehol Planter
t 7. gains
Ed fig Driveway I I
II Porch >a
j ?kt2
+t4 f V
,O -` 0 d Q
Exlsffng Boulder Refotntrg Watts
?Terraoe / 4 '
+02
of 9p-
PROPORED ADDITION DI I8TING RE91DENC€
4
Plarf
I ``'--Une ofiProposed 9 Uut Envelope
I
I
Une of Existtng 8u
I i?-7idtng EmWope
I
(I
S'7
rt>x,
SITE PLAN
Baeta: UB"ak'-R"
t 41111111
L O
W Q 4
Y &o
a
C? o
old >
?r>4 ra
«.., w` . as
r
&PkADDCE7
CR€EK RO,gp
&S.PK efun &hrd wRUn.in` `...... ....
with 9-.W Mk R.
"ft El
p k
12 ?.? r
- -^- PORCH
PN.. c -91.a BoO.d wish Uphf Fnhv. k t
i - -- - - trw ?? ? dvm ? ? k t12 C
Treu6 Dumpsfec r r [ +14 .! i
t ryn•tN, w?.es t 6dw«.t rr«--? ; { t 'It! r
i pw .t,?v/s4 T G. ?P We - kw w. co-W. Bo+Isa \ 1 ""? 6d.&t Du MN.. k..41
i 1?? ? F ? cf.aM hr r
at* S,
I w }l..e..µ + D"
r I f r
j( 01-1-dPte. i r 1 t
r i (f g^P""PtOUf PR*f^8 + EX}R1TNC OARA4E DOOTtNC RFOIDENCE
i 1 I t ` n-e x 22-8
i 1 ? i I r \ 11
i Ct Rfen 9forsge
l l t ? y +04 - e.dd.. R.f.a+n wa
i ff
k
E;+.n?y 9..f. nr.f. lc 4 - DECK
a«.. +foa«?. E `
w» aR?.tas?.
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
9P.I.: V4'=1"-O" Mufti
¦
?a
a
z's m
? q .
? a
o
V U
m
v>
Oft .s+.,.: UTA
2
1
5
•
PROPOSED ADDITION a
Meoh. Room
$ftlre$e ? ? +7.fi
/y
Workshop
}
ON
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
Scale: V4"=Y-O"
•
EXISTING RESIDENCE
i
RWderoa
Q =
W
O
Lu Q
Ua
w
? GM1 •++4 {iM
irrr
•
r
s
r ?
PRCP03Ed ADDITION WRTIND RE91DENCE -
f .. u... "x'? a
}r 4 s
I 1 k-t r
/ j
-________________ _-- --7
}
6
1
v
k 1 oa..? ? I
1 1 ter t LLLA Q
?
o
w U w
t k I G?
t j---------------
GZ >
Mdd+6drXnt Root Nish ,'F' t e? O'm kl
Eniwa? d Cw.r E.w+t ?.
R 0 0 F FLAN
cl.
0 0 0
?? O?rap?c Floor Bt.h
tav Eton Wa1-"? . _
Bran . Bl 6 d-h Ughl Fw-
NORTH ELEVATION
Scale: U4"=F'-0" ?? ? `--
f
ROUTH ELEVATION
float;: U4°=t'-6"
=r! Z.- 9(W
t?
0 O a
LU
co Q
LU
Y C! o
W
Lu ? o
U V o
W
? L
W
m co
>
F-
IE?31F?.f'.-
e
¦
a
r
'
1
00000
, U
etm of 9hk
EAST ELEVATION
?
goale: V4"=1'-O"
4
PROPOSED ADDITION ?. EXISTING V
RESIDENCE •
to ..
" LU
k
Pn-frb Roof Tww
a
„? _ C3 C 8
[[J a.. ce"o .. on .w I?
??I viar ao.nna 4y.f?^ ? ? ._ o,.a.xe t4ta fro&- ?
wx ao,a &vwplaw Parung ash -ra. aa.,. wr i 'r
E3nowptow Paridng obp', Gndera Elf rage ! - _
Y yl
FMi.za.6r'I-U' . - -ry=.?-•-- ' OI44R'>N
Y u u a n it It '1__II_If_.ILILILr ?a? a."a.o..aF Er....-e.6iz-m _-4 -, 1 ?••? ?'
Workafwp Sforege Workabop
yf tw =s.soa a
?r awl
SECTION A BECTtON 8
soap: f/4"=r-a' soak: v4"=f'-V
4
VV tU } tLtYH t I V IN
9oala: V4"=1'-W
0 k1H Attachment 2
,.X,ARCIIITECTsE
January 26, 1998
Mr. Reed Onate
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Ref: Spraddle Creek Estates Caretaker Cottage Addition
Submittal to Planning and Environmental Commission
Dear Reed:
On behalf of the Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association, we respectfully submit the
attached request for Minor Subdivision to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC).
As you know, the present submittal represents a culmination of working together with the Town
of Vail's Planning Department over the last year to determine an acceptable location for a new
service and maintenance facility within the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision.
This new building will provide Spraddle Creek Estates with a much-needed structure to house
several of the service and maintenance requirements of the neighborhood which have recently
become apparent since a majority of the homes are now completed or are currently under con-
struction. These uses include the storage of a pick-up truck with snowplow, cinders for winter
road maintenance, a trash dumpster, a workshop for the on-site caretaker and general storage.
After looking at several alternate locations within the subdivision and reviewing these options
with the planning department staff, we have come to the conclusion that the best location for this
proposed structure is to situate it next to the existing Caretaker's Cottage located adjacent to the
gatehouse entrance to the neighborhood. This provides for a consolidation and centralization of
existing and proposed maintenance uses within the development and is consistent with the
original intent of providing these functions at the entrance to the neighborhood.
The intent of our current request for Minor Subdivision is to revise the existing Building
Envelope and the Lot Summary Chart for the Tract C parcel to provide for the proposed addition
to the Caretaker Cottage. These proposed changes have been redlined onto a copy of the Final
Plat included with this submittal, and a follow-up "paper copy" of the proposed Final Plat will be
provided to you by February 10 for your review. We have also included the proposed conceptual
design plans for this service and maintenance addition to the existing Caretaker Cottage for your
review and information. The architectural design character of the proposed building will blend
in with the existing Caretaker Cottage, as well as fitting into the overall style advocated by the
Spraddle Creek Estates Design Regulations.
F7
0121 HIDEAWAY IAN6 GLO ww SPRINGS, UoLo po 81601
hoNO & Fix: 970-945-6738
In order to provide some additional background information and context for the current design
of this proposed addition, we have attached a copy of two letters summarizing the evolution of
this project dated July 9 and July 31 of last year. We have also enclosed a copy of the letter
issued by Franco D'Agostino, President of the Spraddle Creek Homeowners' Association, which
summarizes the recent Homeowners' meeting in December 1997 and their decision to provide
support and the financial resources necessary to build this project.
Please contact me if you have any questions about the enclosed submittal or if I can provide you
with any additional information. We look forward to the opportunity of moving forward with the
remainder of the design and construction of this project with the support of the PEC.
Sincerely,
DAb
David R. Argo, AIA
Principal
Enclosures: PEC Application & Submittal Package
cc: Luis D'Agostino
Carolyn & Duane Hale
•
E
Franco D'Agostino
1315 Spraddle Creek Road
Vail, CO 81657
Bill Esrey
P.O. Box 11313
Kansas City, MO 64112
Ref: Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Facility
Dear Franco and Bill:
Following our recent phone conversations pertaining to the Town of Vail Planning Staff s review
and comments about the proposed Maintenance Facility at Spraddle Creek Estates, I thought it
would be good to summarize the current status of this project for your review and consideration.
0 INPUT FROM THE, TOWN OF VAIL'S PLANNING STAFF
As you know, the Planning Staff's interest in this project was piqued in early July when they
realized that we were on the verge of submitting our application for location of the proposed
structure on Tract B, which is zoned as "Open Space". Although the potential difficulties asso-
ciated with converting the Tract B parcel into a developable piece of land had been brought to
our attention by Dirk Mason--Staff Planning Liaison--the collective (and very vocal) opinion of
the Staff was an overwhelming negative reaction to this solution. In fact, the Tract B alternative
received absolutely no support from any of the Staff members, and it was obvious that the Staff
would recommend denial of the project to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC).
once it became obvious that the Tract B alternative was not going to receive any support from
the Planning Staff', I notified you of the situation and recommended that we not pursue this
alternative, since it appeared to me that we would be fighting a losing battle. During Franco's
last visit to Vail, he and I met with Dirk Mason to review the needs of the Spraddle Creek
Homeowners' Association for the proposed maintenance facility and to discuss several
alternatives for solving these needs. Dirk reiterated the Staff's sentiments regarding the Tract B
parcel, and explained that pursuit of that alternative would probably be a futile effort.
Two other alternatives were discussed with Dirk:
1. An addition to the existing Caretaker's Cottage, and
2. Location of the Maintenance Facility on the lower portion of Tract C adjacent to an
existing KeyStone retaining wall, with access directly onto Spraddle Creek Road.
0121 Iliwwu IAN6 - Ginwooo SP1um COLIKADO 81601
Ption & Fa 970-945-6735
•
Dirk suggested that he review these two alternatives with other Planning staff members during
their next weekly Staff meeting, so that he could give us a better indication of which of the two
alternatives would be preferred by the Staff. Design studies of both the Tract B alternative and
the earlier version of a proposed addition to the Caretaker's Cottage were left with Dirk to assist
his efforts in conveying our design intent to the. other members of the Planning Staff.
Last week I spoke with Dirk about the outcome of his review of the proposed Maintenance
Facility with other members of the Staff, and he informed me that Staff actually visited Spraddle
Creek Estates to review the alternate sites firsthand. He said that the consensus opinion was that
an addition to the Caretaker's Cottage was the best alternative for locating the proposed
maintenance facility. Staff's opinion was that the site location on the lower portion of Tract C
represented several difficulties, primarily related to vehicular access into the structure and the
associated traffic safety issues such as lines of sight, etc. Their concerns stem from the fact that
the lower section of Spraddle Creek Road is a public roadway, and location of the facility within
the private portion of the development represents less concern over these types of issues.
In addition to this input regarding the Planning Staff s opinion for the "best" location for the
proposed Maintenance Facility, Dirk also provided clarification on a few related issues. I had
previously requested clarification of these items from Dirk during our meeting with Franco on
July 16, and these issues are related to the placement of the structure on Tract C adjacent to the
existing Caretaker's Cottage:
1. Buildinz ,Envelope-As with other lots located within Spraddle Creek Estates, the
configuration of the existing Building Envelope for Tract C may be amended, in order to
conform with the size and placement of the new structure--as long as the overall size of the
Building Envelope does not increase. We will need to apply for a "Minor Subdivision" approval
from the PEC through the Town of Vail's normal approval process, but Dirk said this approval
will be easy to achieve, assuming that all Spraddle Creek homeowners support the project.
2. Gross Residential Floor Area (G.RFA)-Given the proposed use of the Maintenance
Facility, Dirk indicated that the Planning Staff is willing to work with us to increase the size of
structure currently allowed on Tract C (this was a limiting factor when the Caretaker Cottage
Addition was initially studied as an alternative last year). This allowable size increase may result
from an increase in allowable GR.FA for Tract C or through the attachment of a "Plat Note" that
clarifies and/or qualifies that the associated use of the new structure will be for "maintenance
and service uses" only ...that is, no "residential" uses.
3. Connection of the New Structure to the Existine Building-The Town of Vail's
design requirements state that any structural additions to existing buildings must provide a strong
visual connection to the existing structure, such that the overall building has the appearance of
being a single structure. Dirk has stated that in his opinion, this requirement could probably be
fulfilled through the use of a simple gate and/or landscape wall located between the-existing
Caretaker garage and the proposed addition. Dirk also commented that the previous design study
does provide a visual connection to the existing structure by the manner in which the roof for the
proposed structure ties into the existing roof line.
t ^O c?i1?VI '•
July 9, 1997
Franco D'Agostino
1315 Spraddle Creek Road
Vail, CO 81657
Bill Esrey
P.O. Box 11313
Kansas City, MO 64112
Ref: Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Facility
Dear Franco and Bill:
I received a phone call yesterday afternoon from Dirk Mason, staff planning liaison with the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, to discuss our pending application to the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for the proposed maintenance facility located
on Tract B. Earlier in the day, Dirk had informed the Town's planning staff of our intentions
during a weekly staff work session, and he thought that the staff s comments would be helpful to
us as we prepare for the first step in the approval process.
Dirk stated that there was absolutely no support from any members of the Planning Staff to
recommend the project to the PEC, due to the fact that it is located on Tract B, which is zoned as
"Natural Area Preservation" (i.e., Open Space). In fact, Dirk made it clear that the Stn (will
recommend denial of the project to the PEC, if the currently proposed project is submitted for
review and approval.
Dirk had previously stated that there was a certain risk associated with development on the
Tract B parcel, because of the "Open Space" zoning designation of the lot, included as part of the
original plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision. In turn, I have brought to your attention
this potential problem associated with development of the project. However, until this juncture,
the Town Planning Staff's collective opinion on the matter had not been expressed.
Based on this new information, I believe that it would be a mistake to proceed with our
application to the PEC for re-zoning and minor subdivision of the Tract B parcel, as outlined in
my July 7 letter to you. In my opinion, for us to continue the process of attempting to gain
approval by the most expeditious means would be inappropriate and somewhat ill-advised, given
Staff's recommendation for the project ...this approach does not appear to me to be a good use of
0 your monetary investment in the project, since the apparent chances of gaining approval are quite
0
01211110UWAY 1ANB- GUMOC SPRINA COLIKA10 81601
•
•
slim, if not nonexistent. As a result, I have asked Sam Ecker at Peak Land Surveying to suspend
his work on the project until further notice. Based on my conversation with Sam yesterday
afternoon, his firm had not yet started its work related to the Re-Plat of the Tract B parcel, other
than to assemble copies of the Spraddle Creek plat information to send to me.
I believe that we need to sit down and rethink our alternatives and options for this proposed
project before we continue to seek approval from the Town of Vail. Based on the Planning
staff's input as conveyed to me yesterday by Dirk, several alternatives exist, depending upon the
direction that you believe is best. From the Planning Staff's perspective, the following options
represent--in descending order of preference--their thoughts on possible solutions for a
maintenance facility at Spraddle Creek:
1. Addition to the .Existinp, Caretaker's Cottage-As you know, this alternative has been
previously considered, with a conceptual design study prepared by No Name Architects. At the
time this study was prepared, the size of the proposed addition was limited by the remaining
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) available for the platted Parcel C on which the Caretaker
Cottage is located, as well as the topographic constraints of the site. During my discussions of
that project last summer with Lauren Waterton, another member of the Town's Planning Staff,
there was no indication that the Town would consider an increase to the GRFA for the site. Dirk
now says that the Staff would support an increase in GRFA, which would allow for a larger
addition to be placed on this site,.. however, further site analysis would need to be conducted, in
order to determine whether or not the physical constraints of this site would support a larger
structure.
2. Location of the Maintenance .Facility on an Existinp, Lot- Staff would prefer the
placement of the Maintenance Facility on a parcel of land that has been previously platted for
development (i.e., "Hillside Residential" zone designation), rather than on land zoned as
"Open Space". We have previously been told by the Planning Staff that if a portion of an
existing lot was to be "carved out" for the Maintenance Facility, the associated GRFA for that lot
would be reduced accordingly. This obviously has an impact on the marketability and sales price
associated with such a lot...and this situation is perhaps unacceptable. According to Dirk, Staff
may be willing to consider the possibility of not negatively impacting the associated lot's GRFA,
if the Maintenance Facility is located on a parcel already platted as developable land. However,
there is also the question about the acceptability of such a proposition to existing or future
owner(s) of such a lot.
3.. Desienation ofAlternate "Oren ? gace" as a Trade-odor the Re Zonine of Tract B
to Allow Development of the Maintenance Facility-This alternative does not really appeal to the
Planning Staff, since they clearly do not favor development located on land zoned as "Open
Space". However, if Tract B is the only possible location for the Maintenance Facility, the only
way that the Staff would consider this site, is if another parcel of land of equal or greater size
was proposed to be offered in return for the development rights on Tract B. It should be noted
that I have emphasized several times in my discussions with Dirk that Franco "donated" a
substantial amount of the overall subdivision's holdings to "Open Space" during the Town's
initial approval of Spraddle Creek Estates. In response, Dirk has stated that this factor was taken
into consideration during the initial approvals for the subdivision itself, and do not really factor
into our current approval request.
t
The alternatives described above may or may not be acceptable to the Spraddle Creek Home-
owners Association. Obviously, there are numerous complexities involved in the consideration
of each option, and because of these associated difficulties, I believe that to expect an expeditious
solution for the proposed project would be somewhat unrealistic.
Given our current understanding of the Town Planning Staffs view of the project and their lack
of support for the project, I believe that construction of the Maintenance Facility will not be
possible during 1997. 1 would suggest that the two of you discuss the contents of this letter with
each other, and then contact me with further direction on this matter. If it is appropriate for me to
schedule a joint meeting between ourselves and Dirk Mason, I would be happy to set this tip if
you will notify me to your schedules and availability.
As always, I am available to meet with each of you individually or jointly at your convenience to
discuss this project and the future direction you wish to pursue with this endeavor.
Sincerely,
W.
David R. Argo, AIA
Principal
cc: Duane & Carolyn Hale
Sprarddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association
ts?
V s T ? T u s 97t7 • 479 • 2940
jan uAty 5, 1998.
Dear Rom,,, vvers,
At the Homeova s ...?...ing on r)cccmbc r 20, 1997, with the pretence of Mr. and Mfs
Erick Rorge?. Mr, and Mrs. pj hard 5taadorasc, Mr. and Mrs. Wtlltam T. Esrey. Mr-s. C. l?
Kirch, Mr. Harvey Kiuzt and mystK me nsive discussion was hold on the issue of h w best
to handle snow plowixtg and trash removal at Spraddle Crcck The H,,,µPvvvners were generally
pleased with the duality and level of service the the Yte•s have give: us. Howevcr, with. the
addition of new homes, there is no longer any space to store plowing vehkUs and dutopsW&. The
options were to c v, . oct out the plovAng and trash rival or to build adequate storage and
mRiutaul?..,... facilities to stores the 00c essaty eequ:r.,,,....t and cow to have the Care takers
provide this se r%im.
Various storage locations have bean. explored with the Town of Vail and they We
rejected all locations wiztk the exception of=Wn?ding the Cam-es residence:. It appem the
p1mming s#a?f`v4l favorably recommend approval a?'the e?rcpau?ion.. p'xnally, the hoxmicow
present at the meeting unanimously a& `ad that building our own storage facilities and tatint ng
tht: heisting quality of sw vi e was the r.'rL.-d atpprt?s IiTherebre, at the strc r, a resolution
was sdopted, according to section 5.5 of the Declaration of Covenants a4 .?:cx ons for
Spraddlo CrcckE.?.,?1,..?, to pr,,.?.,,i with the cgm%siosn ofthc Cactrtakcrs unit at an esdmated cast
of $250,000.00 and a a}?wjal assessment of $2.50 per' GFRA for tacit homeowner was approved.
Sir= timo is of the essence, in order to be able to begin constmcdon in early spring. a proper
invoice, indicating the individuat p.. ,r,,rtionatts paS-•-mot of this special arssei> nccu? will sett
follow.
?he x>ne?ting also addressed the 1998 budget w;rhicb is not yet complete coal ihe,;t`c,«W not
$PProvc; However, an increase from. the ptt t dries is not ww,."' es. Also. the x :,.:. ,
addre ed the current dutim of the Caretakers. A revised copy of the p?ropos(d duties and
guidelines wilt be sent in the near future and we would ve~ay much a,,,,,...,iate any comments you
have before they are finalized by the boartid of directors.
"t"hank you very much for your prompt attention to this mat'h'.
5:* y
Fragoo ?! ostino
president
?? ? 5 firaddt?+ Creek Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Subject:
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:02:33 -0600
From: Douglas B Haynes <dhaynes l3Lomand.Net>
To: ssilver@vail.net
My email address had changed and I just wanted to be sure that you received
this.
Doug and Sandra Haynes
dhaynes@blomand.net
E
bars.
Why should the view from one side of one building pre-empt the view from
everywhere behind it. To me it is like the big guy trying to stand right at
the curb of the parade.
Lionshead certainly could use some spiffing-up but in the process we
certainly don't want to destroy the ambience.
Sincerely,
Doug and Sandra Haynes
McMinnville, TN
My wife and I own property in Lionshead and are excited about redevelopment.
For years prior to our purchase it had been our dream to own a ski chalet
with a beautiful view of the mountains. We looked at many different resort
areas but settled on Lionshead. We had considered Beaver Creek but did not
pursue that area primarily because of the blocked views by the multistory
buildings. Just stand by the nice new ice rink in Beaver Creek and look
around. For all you can tell you might be in any large city.
According to the most recent mailing addressing the Lionshead redevelopment
progress 710 of the existing buildings in Lionshead exceed the permitted
GRFA and 84% exceed the allowed building height. The mailing goes on to
state that this is because they were built prior to the adoption of zoning
regulations for the area. It seems that this Height/Mass issue has already
been considered and someone thought that bigger is not necessarily better
and enacted regulations to prevent future structures from blocking the
mountain view. Even though the view from our condo will not be greatly
affected it will greatly affect the view from our favorite restaurants and
1 of 1 2/13/98 8:00 AM
From: Robert LeVine To: Town Council & PEC Date: 2111198 Time., 2:47:34 PM
011
A A 6A ?
680 W. Licnshead Place Vail, CO 81657 970-476-2471 970-476-4146 fax
To: Town Council & PEC Members
From: Rob LeVine, General Manager
Date: 2/11/98 Pages: one
Friends,
F fear I may not have made my point very well at your joint work
session yesterday.
While I'm confident that I was passionate enough (too much
perhaps?) about the difficulty of redevelopment; I don't think I
stressed enough how much we need your help.
Page i of 1
I don't mean to suggest that this problem is yours alone to solve.
Rather, it is really up to the fourteen different condominium
properties that comprise most of Lionshead's infrastructure. But as I
said, the task is difficult to say the least, so your help is crucial.
In addition to accomplishing the communities goal's identified in the
masterplan project, redevelopment is also critical to the basic
improvement of our lodging product. As we have discussed before
and as the Vail Tomorrow effort has addressed, a frightening number
of our guests feel that they are not getting good value for their
lodging dollar. The importance of this problem to Vail's ongoing
success cannot be overemphasized, and if you'd like more
information on that point I'd be happy to provide it.
Fixing up the exterior of buildings goes hand in hand with the
improvement of the common areas, the accommodations
themselves, and everything that contributes to our guests' lodging
experience. I hope you agree that we simply cannot afford the
"no-action" alternative, from either a legislative or a functional
standpoint.
Thanks very much for your time and consideration,
SENT BY: OEKBRANDS;
OFebruary 11, 1998
2-11-98 4:16PMy 905 372 1960 => 9704792452; #1!2
Moyo'.r and Members of Comm i t ,
Town, of Vai T ,
Vail, Colovado.
hoar MF,YOV and C, OUncilloes:
Ru: Lrionshead Master Plan
FEED FAX THIS END
-X
To- -0,4yfCP, ?` JrrlS'k ?1 (C'•u u".1
?ax Nu.:
No. W Pi (Iris: yy a!?i
F-rpftl' ?• /J . `.,nr r r.............
Date:
Ca mp,irry
k. 1-1 ?•k7b
We are soa ,ona.l rosIdents in T.Ionshead and have been following; the process
and direction the }-plan f seemingly taking. In light of what we know to-
date, we would like to put forth the fullowing constructive comments.
Transportation Corridoi: Through the Mall.
Thin area should be kept as a people place and riot exposed to vehicular.-
traffic. &tasos do not run through the interior streets of Vail Villago,
making it a comfortable atmosphere for shoppers and strollers. The same
ambience should be maintained in Liorushead.
A transportation link could, if necessary, be provided by alte:r•ing the,
Fror take Road d •ign and cvo-oting ie stop area between the westwin} and tho
Larijmark with a podoatriun corridor going to the ne:ali .
If the Transportation CvrvIdor through Liurashead Mall. is t)e ing promoted
to hermit vehicular access to the proposed upscale complex where the
Gondola building and Sunbird Lodge are located, there are several vlablo
oltornatives. Access is already available between Liorlsciuare Lodge and
Lionsquare North. A more unique way to handle their guest access would tae
by 6o,lf cart from one or more of the dr•up off' areas presently in existence.
This mothod of transportation Is used quite successfully it) the mount,,,31ns
of Ftjropo.
The S'i s:se of the Proposed Upscale Complex.
i We all realize the influence Vail Arrociates have on the overall develop-
ment and fufuro of Vai 1. The eleetnd official. have to tamper this
influence with what is good for the community as a whole. This tomperinf;
ha:;s to take Into acvourit exi:3tirig developmenta and tho res.idonts uccupyinf;
these developments.
The height of the complex, as well as the provision for sightlines to the
ttlouoLain, are very serious concer•ris of the owners of the buildings between
the proposo d development and the Frontago Road. Our investment in property
was carofr„ lly investi.gatosd, taking into account the existing zorilrig arid
eon k rol z; on the property betwoon us and the mountain. For the Council to
al lcw a ,igtiifloant change to thp height permitted, to the detriment of
the existing; development, would riot suggest good planning for the whole
community but rather an indication that the influenco previously mentioned
0 i;, i.ti f,yc.t alive and well .
-
SENT BY: DEKBRANDS;
2-11-98 4:17PM; 905 372 1980 ->
9704782452, #2J2
•
-. 2
We Pave been seasonal
year we have enjoyed
we raspPotfully rogue
and concerns.
Yours truly,
r'". -" A
re,si Tents in Lionshead for 14 yen
everything the area has to offer,
st you 1,,ive po;sitlve consideration
Cdward & Hai' b ra SmIth,
UnI t 5051, Landmark Tower,
610 West Lionst'xead Circle,
Vail, Colorado.
rs. 'I'll ro w-01 these
Wi Lh. that in mind,
to our comments
Edward K. Barbara Smith,
R.R. G, #3130,
Cobourg, Ontario, Canada.
K9A 4J9
•
C]
??• M',l? EVE V'
RECEIVED FEB 9 1998
c:v C
0
C
0
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 23, 1998
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
Public Hearing,
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Russ Forrest
Mike Mollica
Reed Ovate
George Ruther
2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to modify a platted building envelope, to allow for a
maintenance structure to be constructed adjacent to the caretaker residence, located at
914 Spraddle Creek Road/Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association, represented by David Argo
Planner. Reed Ovate
Reed Ovate gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything further to add. He did not.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments, There were none.
John Schofield had no comments,
Gene Uselton had no comments.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Galen Aasland stated that this request met the objectives for a minor subdivision.
Ann Bishop was in agreement with Galen°s comments.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Greg Moffet had no further comments.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 23, 1998
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for four (4) additional offices and one (1)
meeting room to accommodate the VRD sports staff, located at the Vail Tennis Center,
700 South Frontage Road East/Ford Park.
Applicant: Michael Ortiz, Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Piet Pieters, from the VRD, said approval of the request would ease up the parking problem. He
said the move would consolidate operations and save taxpayer money, as well as refunding back
to the Town 16 parking passes. Therefore, approval of the request would be a benefit to the
Town.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
George Ruther added that the Town was currently in a lease agreement with the VRD, which
would need to be amended. He said the parking passes would need to be addressed in the new
lease agreement.
Galen Aasland stated that this request was in accordance with the Ford Park Master Plan,
however, he was concerned about the parking. Galen said that the Rec District had been
against parking in Ford Park and now that the VRD needed parking they are not against it. He
said the VRD should put money down for the future parking needs, as they will ultimately want a
longer-term parking solution. Galen would like to see a financial commitment from the VRD to
allow for parking spaces to be provided in the future.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Diane Golden asked if the spaces would be for anyone and not reserved just for the VRD.
Piet Pieters said the VRD was never against parking. He said they were against giving up the
playing fields for parking.
John Schofield asked what the jobs were for the people moving into the new offices.
Piet Pieters said there were no additional services, as registration was already in the Ford Park
location.
John Schofield disagreed with the VRD as to their stand on the parking issue, as the VRD had
lobbied Council to oppose parking. John alsos-aid -theVRD needed to provide parking.
Gene Uselton stated the staff's condition in the memo needed work.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 23, 1998 2
Greg Amsden stated employees wanted to park at their work place and he asked if there existed
a possibility of realignment of the two eastern softball fields for future parking.
Piet Pieters said, yes.
Greg Amsden said approval would take care of the 5 spaces and the VRD was displacing guest
parking for employee parking. He thought there needed to be a more systematic approach, as
this was a quick fix.
Piet Pieters gave a heads up that they would be using the playing fields for'99 Championship
parking.
Greg Moffet stated in the course of renegotiating the lease, it created an opportunity to do what
they wanted. He said in his mind, the VRD was shifting parking from one end of Town to the
other. He said the question was if it met the criteria and he was disinclined to include the
condition as proposed, as it would end up being negotiated by the Town Attorney during the
renegotiation of the new lease.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval with two conditions. The first condition was that no
parking spaces be reserved for VRD use only at Ford Park. He said the second condition was
that Council consider a letter of intent of the VRD's financial commitment for future parking space
improvements and that the VRD redefine their position on parking in Ford Park.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
Greg Moffet said, regarding the motion that procedurally, this request would not go to Council.
Galen Aasland amended the motion to change the second condition to have staff consider
letter of intent, rather than Council.
Gene Uselton asked if this request would come back to the PEC.
Diane Golden asked if it should be a condition to have it come back to the PEC.
Greg Moffet stated that once this was involved in a lease negotiation, all the issues would be on
the table.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with John Schofield opposed as it needed more restriction
and Gene Uselton opposed as it was overly restrictive.
3. A worksession to discuss a variety of alternatives, based upon different philosophies and
methodologies, which defines the allowable building height and general massing in the
Lionshead Redevelopment study area.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
This item will be a joint worksession with the Town Council on March 3, 1998 at 2:00
p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 23, 1998
3
4. A request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodel, located
at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects
Planner: Reed Ohate
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 9, 1998
5. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and
variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and
Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143
E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 23, 1998
Greg Amsden tabled item #4 until March 9, 1998 and item #5 until March 23, 1998.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
6. A request for a density variance from Section 12-713-13, to allow for the construction of a two-
bedroom dwelling unit, located at 227 Wall Street (Hong Kong)/Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village
1st Filing.
Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., c/o Base Mountain Sports - Brett Barnett,
represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
7. A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce
Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, c/o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range
Properties.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
8. Information Update
9. Approval of February 9, 1998 minutes.
Diane Golden made a motion for approval of the minutes.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 23, 1998
11
C
4
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Ann Bishop abstaining.
Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0..
The meeting adjourned at 2:35pm.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 23, 1998 5