HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0713 PEC
THlS 1°TEM MAY AFFECT Y4UR PFtCJPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GlVEN that the Planning and Enviranmental Commission of the 7own of
Vait will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Tawn of Vail on July 13, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn af Vaii Municipal E3uilding, !n
consideration of:
A request for an amendment #o a previausly approved plan #or #he 7imber Falls Develnt,,
located af 4469 Timber Fa{Is Court/unplatted.
Applicant: F2AC7 Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden
Planner: Dominic Mauriel[o
A request for a work session ! conceptual review for a major exterior al#eration and an SDD for
the Antlers at Vail, located at 680 W. Lionshead PI./ L.ot 3, Block 'I', Lianshead 4th.
App4icant: Antlers Condo Association, repre$ented by Robert LeVine
Planner: Dominic MaurieNn
A request far a major exterior al#eration in CCI and a conditionai use permit, located at the
Village Center Building, 122 East Meadow drivel Black 5E, Vail Vi11age 1st,
Applicant: Owner, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architec#s
Planner: George F2uther
R request far a variance ta allow for GRFA in the firont setback located at 2935 Basingdale
B(vd.! Lot 19, Block 6, lntermountain.
~ Applicant: Jay & Sheryl Scolnik, represented by Railtan-McEvny Archifects
Planner: Ghristie Barkon
A request for a conditional use permit to install a telecommunication tacility at the Vail Mauntain
School, located at 3160 Ka#sas Ranch Road/ Lat 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th,
Applicant. Liberty Wirestar
Planner: Christie Bartan
A request for a front setback variance to alJow for the construction of an inclined elevator,
located at 2741 Davo$ Trail/Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Craytharne
Planner: Christie Barton
A request for a conditional use permif to allow for an additiQnal antenna ortthe Mountain Be11
tawer, located at 160 Mountain Bel1 Road/ Unplatted
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a rezoning from previously unzoned property awned by the Unite States Forest
Service arrd #ransferred to the Town of Vail pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment
Agreemenf to National Area Preservation District and Primary 1 Secondary Residential district
for property located a# Rockledge Road/portions of United Stafes Forest Service Lo# 3, totaling
~ 1,78 acres based upon the proposed Final plat (nflt yet recorded) of Rockledge F'ores#
Subdivisian prepared by Dennis Shelhorn as Job No. 0382-002 dated February 25, 1998.
Applicant: Town af Vail
Planner: [Jominic Nraurieiln rowivOFVArL
A request for mPnor exterior alterations at the Vail Village Clock Tawer Building (CCi)locafiedat ~
263 Gore Creek Drivei Lots C, D, E& F, Block 5, Vail Viilage First
Applicant: S. David Gorsuch, represented by Resort aesign Collabora#ive
Planner: Gearge Ruther
A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA #or a primary/secandary residence located
at 493 Beaver Dam Raadl Lot 1, BI4ck 2, Vail Village Sih.
Applicant: Ron Byrne represented by V1lilliam Resiock
Planner: George Ruther
A request fdr a rezoning from previously unzoned property owned by #he United States Forest
Service and transferred to #he Town of Vai1 pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustrnent
Agreement to Primary / Secondary Residential District for property Iocated at Ptarmigan Road
/Government Lots 2(1,66 acres) and 3(4.252 acres) created by a$urvey done in 1995 under
the autharity of the Bureau of Land Management Cadasfral Survey.
Applieant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
The applications and information about #he proposals are available for public irrspection during
regular office hours in the projec# planner's office Iocated at the Town of Vail Community
development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 haur notification. Please cail 479-
2356, Teiephone for the Nearlng lmpaired, for information. ~
Cammunity Developmen# Departmen#
Published June 26, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
~
w
~ Updated 6f29 2 pm
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN7AL COMMISSIUN
Monday, July 13, 1998
AGENDA
Project C?rientation i LUNCH - Cornmun'r#y Develo.pment C3epartment ° 11:00 P.M.
K
MEMBERS PRESENT (VIEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12.00 p.m.
1. --La Tour - 122 East Meadow Drive
2. Antler's - 680 West Lionshead Piace
3. Scolnick - 2935 Basingdale Blvd.
4. Liberty Wirestar -3160 Katsos Ranch Road {Vaii 'Mauntain School}
5. Craythorne - 2701 Davos Trail
6. Mt. Beli - 160 Moun#ain Bell Raad
7. Rockledge Rezoning - Rockledge Road
8. Gorsuch - 263 GoreCreek nrive
9. Byrne - 493 Beaver Dam Road
~ 10. Ptarmigan Rezoning - Ptarmigan Road
11. Schmidt - 1410 Buffehr Greek Road
12. Meyer - 813 Potato Patch Drive
13. Timber Falls - 4469 Timber Falls Court
Driver: George
. G:.fil•ilb~d
NtJI'E: If the PEC hearing extends unkil 6:00 p.m., the board wilt break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public HearWq - Tawn Council Chambers 2.00 p,m.
1. A request far a front setback variance to allow for the cons#ruction o# an inclined elevator,
located at 2701 Davos TraiilLot 15, Black B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Sonia &Brian Craythorne, represented by Galen Aasland
Planner: Christie Bartarr 2. A request #or a variance to allow for GRFA in the front setback Iocated at 2935
Basingdale Blvd.! Lot 19, Bfock 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicant: Jay &Sheryi Scoinik, represented by Railton-McEvoy Architec#s
~ Pianner: Christie Barton
rvwN~xu~
1
Updated 6129 2 pm ~
3. A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA for a primary/secondary residence
located at 493 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 6th,
Applicant: Ron Byrne, represented by William Reslock
Planner. George Ruther
4. A request for a minor exterior alteration in GC 1 at the Ciock Tower Building, located at ~
263 Gore Creek Drive/ Lbts C, D, E&F, Block 5, VailVillage First Filing.
Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd., represented by Resort Design Collabarative
Pianner: George Ruther
5. A request for a canditianal use perrnit to allow for the installation of a telecommunica#'ron
facility at the Vail Moun#ain 5chool, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Raadl Lot 12, Biock 2,
_Vail Village i 2th.
APplicant: Liberty Wirestar, represented by Jill Ji1enick
Planner: Christie Barton
6. A request for a major exterior alteration in GC2and a conditional use permit, toa1low#oran outdaor dining deck, located at the Vilfage Center Building (La Tour), 122 East
Meadow Drivel Block 5E, Vail Village 1st,
Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Snowdan & Hapkins Architects ~
Planner: George Rufher
A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the canstruction of an additional
garage, located at 813 Potato Patch DrivelLot 1, Block 1, Vail F'otato Patch.
Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by Wil{iam Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
8, A request for an amendmenfi to a previously approved plan for the T"rmkrer Falls
Qevelopment, located at 4469 Timber Fails Gourtlunplatted.
~ Applicant: RAa Five L.L,.C., representedby Greg Amsden_
Paanner; Dominie Mauriella `
9. A request for a worksession flf a major exterior altera#ian in C02 and the establishmen#
of a Special Development District for the Antlers at Vail, located at 680 W. Lionshead Pl./
Lot 3, B1ock 1, Vai1 Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Assaciatian, represented by Robert LeVine
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
10. A reques# for a conditional use permit to allow for additional antennae on the Mountain
Bell tawer, lacated at 160 Mountain Bell Road/ Unplatted
Applicant: Town af Va'rl ~
Planner: George Ru#her
2
~
1
Updated 6129 2 prn
~ 11. A request far a rezoning from previousiy unzoned properry awned by the United States
Forest Service arrd transferred to the Town of Vail pursuant to the Land Ownership
Adjustment Agreement to Primary / Secandary Residential District for prflperty located at
Rockledge Road/portians of United States Forest Service Lot 3, totaling 1.78 acres based
upon the proposed Final Plat (not yet recarded) of Rackledge Forest Subdivision
prepared by Dennis Shelhorn as Job Na. 0332-002 dated February 25, 1998.
Applicant: 1`own af Vail . ;
f'Canner: Dominic Mauriello
12. A"request for a rezaning from previously unzoned properry owned by the United States
Forest Service and transferred to the Town o# Vail pursuant to the Land Ownership
Adjustment Agreement to Primary / Secondary Residentia! [Jistric# and Natural Area
Preservation District for property iocated at Ptarmigan Road /Government Lot 2(1.66
acres) and Lot 3(4.252 acres) created by a survey done in 1995 under fhe authority of
- _the Bureau of l.and Management Catiastral Survey. . .
AppHcant: Tbwn o# Vail
Planner: Dominic Maurielio
13. A request for a minpr subdivision of Lat G-1 to create a new 1at, lacated at 1410 Buffehr
Creek Road, L.at G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2.
Applicant: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnson
~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
14. A request for a canditianal use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast nperation,located
at 1779 Sierra TraillLot 18, VailVi[]age West Fil+ng #1,
Applicant: Malin Johnsdotterl Robert Zeltrnan
Planner; Christie Barton
TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24,1998
_ 15. Information Update 16. Approval of June 22, 1998 minutes.
The applications and infnrmatian about the proposals are available far pubGc inspection durang
regular office hours in the project planner's of#ice Iocated at the l`awn vf Vail Community
development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad.
Sign language interpretation available uparr request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2355, 7elephone fior the
Waaring Impaired, for infarmation,
Gammunity Development Department
Published July 10, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
~
3
. ..ti....~scu'._. 3
Updated 7114 9am
FLANNlNG AN[3 ENVfRONMENTAL COMMiSSIt7N
Monday, Ju(y 13, 1998
F1NAL AGENDA
Proiect Qrientation / L.UNCH - Community Development Department - 11:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Mnffet
John Schafield
Ga{en Aasland
Diane Golden
Ann Bishop (left at 4:30 p.m.)
Brian aoyon
Tom Weber
Site Visits : 12:00 p.m..
1. La Tour - 122 Eas# Meadow Drive
2. Antler's - 680 West Lianshead PIace
~ 3. Scolnick - 2935 Basingdale Blvd.
4. Liberty Wirestar - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road (Vail Mountain School)
5. Craythorne - 2701 C?avas Traii
6. Mt. Be11- 160 Mountain Bell Road
7. Rockledge Rezoning - Rockledge Road
8, Garsuch - 263 Gore Creek'Drive
9. Byrne - 493 Beaver Dam Raad 10. Ptarmigan Rezoning - Ptarmigan Road
11. Meyer - 813 Pdtato Patch Drive
12. Timber Falls - 4469 Timber Falis Caurt
Driver: Gearge
t= :
~`-`y:
NOTE: Ifi fihe PEC hearing e>c#ends unti16:00 p.m., the board wili break fior dinner from 6:00 -6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Counail Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a front setback variance to allow for the construction of an inclined elevator,
Iocated at 2701 Davos TrailtLot 15, B(ack B, Vaii Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Sonia & Brian Craythame, represented by Galen Aasland
Planner: Christie Barton~ i1tIOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 6-0-1 (Gaien
Aasland recused)
APPROVED WITH 9 CONDITICIN: 41L
anwN- _ i
TJpdated 7114 9am ~ .
'I . A revocable Right - of - Way Permit will be obtained before a building permit is
issued and changes be made to the staff inemo to incorparate the 0 setback and
the relacation of the tree from in frant of fhe structure.
2. A request for a variance ta allow for GRFA in the front setback iocated at 2935
Basingdale Blvd,/ Lot 19, Block 6, Vaif Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicant: Jay &Shery1 Scolnik, represented by Railtan-McEvoy Architects
Planner: Christie Barton
MOTIQN: John Sehofield SECOND: Diane Golden V4TE: 7-0
APPROVED
3. A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA fiar a primarylsecandary residence
_ loea#ed at 493 Beaver aam Road/ Lot 1, B1ock 2, Vail Village 6th.
Applicant: Ron Byrrie, representEdby William Reslock Planner; George Ruther
MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND. Galen Aasland VC7TE: 7-0
APPROVED
4. A request for a minor exterior altera#ion in CC1 at the Clock Tower Buiiding, located at
263 Gore Creek Drive/ Lots C, D, E & F, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. ~
Applicant; Garsuch Ltd., represented by Resort Design Collaborative
Planrier: George Ru#her
MUTION: Ann Bishop SECQNt7: .lohn Schofield VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH 3 Ct)NC31TiQNS.
1. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings indicating how the
gutters and downspouts will be tisd into the Town of Vaii starrnwater system. The
drawings shall be submit#ed for review and approval of the Tawn Engineer prior fo
the issuance of a building permit.
2. That the applicant submit an application and receive a revacable right-of-way
permit ta aIlow #or work to be eompleted in the Town of Vajl right-of-way prior~tathe issuance d# a building permit.
3. That the app(icant pay $2,677.65 into the Tdwn of Vail parkirrg fund prior to the
issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
5. A request for a conditianal use permit to aflow for the installation of a#elecommunieation
facility at the Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsas Ranch Roadl Lot 12, Block 2,
Vail Village 12th.
Applicant: Liberty Wirestar, represented by Jill Jilenick
Planner: Christie Barton ~
MOTIDN: Tom V1/eber SECt7ND: Brian doyon VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED
- 2 _
,
Updated 7/14 9am
6. A requesf for a major exterior aiteratian in GC2 and a conditianal use permit, to allow for
an outdoor dining deck, located at the Village Center Buiiding (La Tour), 122 East
Meadovv Drivel Block 5E, Vail Village I st,
Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Snawdon & Hopk'rns Architec#s
F'lanner: George Ru#her
MOTIC?N: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VQTE: 7-0
APPROVED W[TH 7 CUNDITIONS;
1, That the unpainted soffits on the existirrg building be painted prior to the issuance
of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fnr the addition.
2. That the applicant provide spot elevatians, as deemed necessary by the;Public
Works Department, for the proposed addition, prior to application #or Building
_ Permit. The purpose of the spot elevations is ta determine the effects af the
_proposed addi#ion an the surface drainage nf the piaza area:
3. That the appiicant install a snowmelt system under the entire area of the plaza,
partions of the plaza have been left unheated pending the proposed
improvements to the tlillage Cenfier Building.
4. That the applicant replace the nan-matchirtg pavers aiong the eurialine in fron# of
~ Cleane's and Karat's with the matehing pavers that wil{ be removed to
accammodate the footprint af the new res#aucant addition.
5. That the applicant submit de#ailed dravirings of the new landscape planter for the
review and approval by the Town of Vail. The new landscape planter shall be
ccrnstructed pursuant to the direction outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan.
6. That the applicant pay $48,896.17 inta the Town of Vail parking fund. The pay-in-
lieu fee is intended #o mitigate the inereased parking requirement resulting from
the construc#ion of the new additian. The parking fee shal( be paid in fiu11 prior to
the issuance of a Temporary Gertificate of Occupancy.
That permanent ski storage be established.
7. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additiortal
garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Biock 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Liz& Luc Meyer; represented kry William Pierce
Planner: Dflminic Mauriella
MOTION: John Schofield SECC?NC7: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0-1 (7'om V1leber
recused)
APPRC3VED
~
- - 3
<
Uj7C1&lCd 7/14 9BLZi
8. A request for an amendment to a previously appraved plan for the Timber Fatis
C7evelopment, located at 4469 Timber Falls Courtlunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C,, represented by Greg Amsden
Planner: Qominic Maurieilo
MC7TI0N: Galen Aasland SECUND: John Schafield VOTE: 6-0
TABL.ED UNTIL AUGUST 10, 1998
9. A request for a worksession of a major exterior alteration in CG2 and the establishment
o# a Special Development District for the Antlers at Vail, Incated at 680 W. Cionshead PI./
tpt 3, BI6ck 1, Vail l.ionshead 4fih Filing.
Applicant: An#Iers Condominium Associa#ion, represented by Robert LeUne
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Wt3RKSESSIOIV
10. A request for a conditional use permif to allow for addi#ionai an#ennae on the Mnuntain
Bell tower, located at 164 Mountain Bell Raad/ Unplatted
Applicant: Tnwn af Vail
Planner: George Ruther
MC7TION: John Schafield SECC7ND: Brian doyon VOTE; 7-0
APPR01/ED WI7H 2 CONDITiONS; ~
1. That the applicant paint #he additional antennae and the appurtenant equipmen#
an earth-tone color (greylbrown), to reduce any visual impact associated with the
installation of the an#ennae.
2. That The Learning Tree and ABC Schoal be notified of this appraval.
11. A request for a rezoning from previously unzoned property owned by the United States
Forest Service and transferred to the Tawn of Vail pursuant to the Land Ownership
Adjustmen# Agreement to Primary / Secnrrdar}r Residenfial district for property located at
Rockl;edge Raadlportions nf United States Forest Service l.at 3, totaling 1.78 acres based
capon the proposed Final Piat (not yet recorded) of Rockledge Faresf Subdivision
prepared by Dennis Shelhorn as Job: No. 0332-002 dated February 25, 1998,
Appfican#: Town af Vail
Planner. Daminic Mauriello
MC7TION: John Schofield SECC?ND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 7-0
APPf2UVED
12. A request for a rezoning fram previously unzoned property owned by the Uni#erf States
Farest Service and transferred to the `Cown of Vail pursuant to #he Land Ownership
Adjustment Agreement to Primary I Secondary Residential C3istrict and Natural Area
Preservation C}istrict for property lacated at Ptarmigan Road 1Governrnenf Lot 2(1:66 ~
acres) and L:at 3(4.252 acres) created by a survey dane in 1995 under the authority o#'
the Bureau of Land Management Cadastral Survey.
_ 4 _
~
Updated 7114 9arn
Applican#: Town of Vail
Planner: Daminic Mauriello
Mt7TIC7N: Jahn Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VCJTE. 7-0
APPROVED
13. A request for a minor subdivisicrn of Lot G-1 to create a new lot, lacated at 1410 Buffehr
Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2.
Applicant: Leray Schmidt, represented byEric Johnsan
Pianner: Daminic Mauriel(o
WITHDRAWN
14. A request for a condi#ional use permit, to allaw for a bed and breakfas# aperation, located
_at 1779 Sierra Trail/Lot 18, Vail Village West Filing #1.
Applicant: Malin Jnhnsdotter/ Robert Zeltman
Planner: Christie Barton
TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 9998
15. Infarmation Update
~ 16. Approval of June 22, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the praposals are available for public inspection during
regular of#ice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please-ca11479-2356, Telephone for the
Hearing lmpaired, for infarmafiion.
Cammunity Deuelopment Depar#ment
PublisMed July 10, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
~
5
~ MEMORANDUM
Ta. Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1998
SllBJECT: A request for a variance to allow for GRFA in the front setback, ,
located at 2935 Basingdale Blvd./Lot 19, Block 6, Intermauntain:
Rpplicant: Jay & Sheryl Scolnick, represented by John Railton
Planner: Cheistie Sarton
.r I. _C3ESCFiIPT10N 0E 7HE REQUEST ANL7 IBACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to aIlow #or GRFA in the front setback. The sieep slope o#
the parcel reduees the aliawable site coverage available for the house to 15%. The existing lot
size is nonconforming, at 8524 sq. ft. The property line is 16' - 18' from the edge of pavement.
The garage wili be constructed in the front setback as allowed by Code, and the variance
requested wiil allow part of the house to be built underneath the garage. Little of the building wi!l
be seen from the street and the house wili be more in keeping with the surrounding
neighborhood. A number of the houses in the area are builf within the front setback due to fihe
~ steep slopes. The area was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, with a number of lats of
substandard size.
The appiicant is proposing ta build a modular house on piers as the stability of the soils in the
area require as little disturbance to the ground as possible. Staffi believes the design of the
building wjth this configuration is a better product than if the GFiFA was cornpletely out of the
front se#back. See applicant's statement attached.
tt. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: PrimarylSecondary Residential
Lot 5ize: 8, 524 sq. ft.
Standaird AliowefFieauiredProposed
_ GRFA: 2,556 sq. ft: 2,475 sq. ft.
5ite Coverage: 1,278 sq. ft, (15°Io) 1,272.5 sq. ft. (14.9°lb)
Parking: 3 spaces 3 spaces (2 enclosed)
Landscaping 5,174 sq. ft. (60%) 7,251 sq. f#. (85%)
Setbacks:
Frdnt: 20` 1.5"
Side: 15' 1$722'
Rear 15' 54'
~ t
~ ` iiy
~5
1"OW;V {tFY~1L
~u. cRITERIA aNo FINaINGs ~
A. Consideration af Factors:
Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vai1 Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings,
the Community Develapment Department recommends appraval af the requested
variance to allow CRFA in the front setback based on the following factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or s
potential uses and struGtures in the vicinity.
This Iot is located in a neighborhood with iot sizes of appraximately 8,000
sq. fit. Many homes in the neighborhood areConstructed with approved
variances allowing encroachments into the se#backs. This house wili be
built on piers ta accommodate #he slope stabiiity reparts to decrease the
potential for site dis#urbance. The steep slopes constrict the allowable
GaFA to below that allawedby a conforming Iot due to site coverage
_ limitations.
2. The degree ta which re{ief frnm the stric# and ti#eral interpretation and
enforcement af aspecified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibllity and unlformi#y of treatment among sites En the vicinity or
to attain the objecfiives of this titie without a grant af special privilege.
The overail design of the house will be improved with the approval of a
variance for GRFA in #he front setback. The garage would otherwise be ~
canstructed 73' above grade due Co the steep slopes, with nothing
underneath; By building part of the house below the garage, a portionof
the hause will not be seen from the road and wiil reduce the overall
impression af bulk and mass. The granting af this variance is necessary
ta achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amnng sites in the
area. Staff believes that the granting of this variance will not be a grant of
special privi{ege.
3. The effect af the reques#ed variance on light and air, distribution o#
population, transportation and traffic faciiities, public fac?Iities and
utilities, and public safety.
_ The proposal will have little, if any, effect on these issues. The proposal
will reduce the bulk and mass of #he structure on site.
B. 1`he Planning and Environmental Cflmmission sha11 make thefollowLn_q
findings before r~ anting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2 ~
~ 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimen#al to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materialiy irijurious to properties ar
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for ane or more of fhe following reasons:
a. The strict Iiteral interpretatifln or enforcement of the speeified
reguiation would result in practicai difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ,
b. There are exeeptions or extraordinary circumstanees or canditions
appiicable to the same site of the variance #hat da not apply
generally to ather praperties in the same zane.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement o# the specified regulation
would deprive the applicanf o# privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district. _
IV. STAFF RECC>MMEND?ATI+DN
The Gvmmunity Deveiopment Department recommends approval o# the variance to allow GRFA
in the frant setback, subject ta the #allowing findings:
1. That the gtanting o# the variances will not canstitutea grant of special priuilege
~ inconsistent with the limitatians an other praper#ies ciassified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimentaf ta the pubiic health, sa#ety
or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the striet interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation wiil result
in praetical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incans3stent with the
abjectives of the Zoning Regulations.
4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatian will not
deprive the applicant of privifeges enjoyed by the awners of ather properties in the
same districi..
F:AEVERYONE\PECiMEMt}S\98\SCt7LNiCK.713
~ 3
May 28; 1998
_ SCOLNICK RESfDENCE ~
I.OT 19 BLOCiC 6 INTERMOUNTAlN
FRoNT vAao sErBacK vARIANCE
On behalf of Jay and Sheryt Scolnick we are requesting a front yard setback ~~ILTOM`MCEVOY
variance to permit habitable accommodation to be built within the seiback. . a a c x I rt c t s
The steep gradient of the !ot permi#s the garage #o be bu`t!t within the front yard a v o N ~
setback. This variance requests the constructian of habitable accommodation under
#he garage structure, • 7he retationship of the requested variance tv other existing or potentia( uses
and structures in the vicinity.
_ 7"he design of the propased residence is campatible w9th other residences in
this neighborhvod. The hardship o# these very steep and sma11 area Iots has been
previously recognized by granting this sarne variance tu the reCently constructed
residence on the east adjacent fot.
• The degree to which relief from the striet or literaF interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regcalatian is necessary to achieve compatibility and
unifarmity o# treatment among si#es in the vicinity or ta attain the objectives of
this title witnaut grant of special privi}ege.
As stated above we befieve this variance achieves uniformity of treatmertt ~
among sites in this vicinity by granting the same variance as previously granteti.
The steepness of this lat restricts the site coverage to 15°lo of the fot area. This !ot
is so steep and small that without granting this variance an extreme hardship exists
in the fotl9wing manner:
• building a garage without allowing habitable accommoda#ion within the
site ctrverage occupied by the garage severely restricts the remaining
site coverage, and there#ore considerable reduces the habitable area of
the house. The habitabie area is sn restricted that only 213 of the
availabie GRFA can be used.
• The site grades are so steep that plaeing the gatage within the front
yard setback elevates the garage floar 27 feet abnve the existing grade
at the rear of the garage. This provides a large exposed struc#ure and
_ vord space under the garage, bet#er used and more aesthetic in
apPearance if enclosed ta pr4vide habitabie space.
• The steep grades and 33 ft heigtrt restriction eliminate o#her flptidns for
providing habitabie accommodation beyond the 20 ft #rant yard setback,
~ The effect ofthe varianca on }ight and air, distribution of populatinn,
transportation, #raffic facilities, utili4ies, and pub(ic safety.
1"he grantirig of this variance daes not adversely effect any of these issues. In fact,
gran#ing the variance helps the fire sa#ety and egress for the hvuse.
+ How the request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Pian,
AAOJEGTGONCEP7S • AES1flENCE'o
iN7ERIdRS - LANDSGAPE DE516.
P.O. Box 930 AUan, Cbforado 81657
(303)949•5895- EAX945~5516
~ The Vail Gomprehensive Plan encourages the best use of buiiding site to prnvide
aesthe#ic design solutitans for projects. We bel'reve that granting this variance
provides an opportunity for the design of a house on this site that is more pleasing
aestheticatly, mors campatibte vwith the adjacent hauses, and be#ter ecbnomically in
providr'ng ttabitabte accammodatifln far the client than it would be without this
variance.
In reafyty, these very steep and small lots, with a 15°IQ site coverage restriction, are
fairly useles$, as they provitleinsufficient habitabfe accommodation and areal
~
hardship to devefop without a variance relie#.
fihis submtssion is accompanied by a site plan, floor plans, and elevations fttr
review with this request.
Please contact my office if ! can provide any further assistance nr infcrrmation.
~
~
~ N 5 J ° ~ i' ~F-i ° ~ ~-71 • 3 t ~
S' U7lU7Y llNt~E S;el::~MliNT:
. W-.-... j -G3T
a e 4
~
t4-
7t> ~ ~ :~,3VtLD+NG. 4Jf1LL
L#1fS`{f.~ /
~~EN ~
FVK .'P1Uh7G('YYf~~ . 7
UPt'QR::'FL.~
x m, ~ 82' orf~
~
-a 1 . ~T , " •
tJ i557°
• `
e. - ~.i.- : r° 2At~iNG`~ ~f~li>al "
~~~.,,n,. "`J J , ' . • ' , ' '
t~ . . . r r^-- . .
v .~_V_ . • -~y'.,..Y~~~(~i___.+~~~~ r ` '
. _ . . . .
, • WJL>E-C-ofi~• -
_ 2•_'+t UJNG. CiJtZ~3.'~GtJ'i7~f~.. . . . . '.t ~ . ~
~ 1lC3'-a' ~ ~ (IO.• ~ w . W~-•--
' W \
S.. TE Pl_AN
~
`"_"'----------s ~ .
.
. . . . .a~:
d 6' • . ~ . . ' _ . ' ~ ' . ~ ' . , . ,
t.~~. ..A.A G H.I.7„~:~•T;,;~,.a'
1'.
n~a+4cTenetsltx ~~~i
~~2 'rt2ELL1~. i , ~un.s~ oanrau~aWat„~
. _ - ~ ~ - _ .,..`~:'`.';;~:e
IS(.
:A*'!PO+1Tti AS;~.1.'f f. (}C3j404lb`€tX'fp,SM$~~
5N,7ar,lF_ ;?pYiz.nb~c ' '.!.@4w4?O
w _ ~ •i _ . , fJ . _ ,p~ls+l~i.r'!d•FAXltf~SiL.Y:
ik
_ _ _ _ j ~ . . - ,'~k~~f,y~~'~
~ F,.L:~,'.___ ~v ~ ~QA~}~.i±^1 S!,w14~ ii•`3Esf~CWT}~. :s
. ~ , =''iTti ~w
tl
a*,
ll,
zo
• -
YA7`I~'J.,"~:ti y~f
~
YMw'~tt'wqi
' , • _ . . .
. . . . . ' .~'~1~~
'G''p:'1'f3 "~C~ry„~
`-i` :i•:.ap... `#!?T~}#'3''~r~,Si'+"~'v-`J7~?Y,}fi "L".npdi ,~'•''f«~ix'.~
:~vt>;~ }k ~y~, y; , . . fi.a'"•".""`$.
}/Y;q~R]~~~'_x'~ //ly~ ~tai;'°': ? ! 4+ 5 'r~:;Zt;~:: ~ .~;~o
:j~~i„a~~~~'t::~" , ~5 L xr . ~~'~j:ly,•~•(/~~
• ? , . . . . . . .r • -
„ , . .
~
. i. .
?
~
,
. ,
,
'
. . . • ~J' l; ~S
,
'9fA-
- . . . , _ . . . .~L~~ ~ . ; . , . .
, . . . ' . ' _ . nanmirsae .
9sa~=~
4„~
FkEvhrlr~is?,..
~ . • _ .
} ' - . ~ I i . . . . '
F~~~t
~ ~x~f
^ v ' . . ' . . . y, ^,~r•;r,'..i.."t~,
' , ' , . a~`.~,#~~
Yte-
g,p;: ~ ~ MpctlducaC +u40i~' W Mq~ti
~ • ~ ~ ~ Eg EVATIh!'N ~ , wrMtsn parrnM~alwl sf NKA.~ar.s
yi, yR r ,x fla ~ut acata wa
~ M'1a+M15MA9 6q Sd-0.
. . _ . . . ~
~ MEMORANDUM
Td: Planning and Environmentaif Gommission
FRC7M: Department of Cammunity Develapment
DATE: July 13, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to allow for the canstruction of an inclined `
elevator, located at 2701 Davos Traii/Lo# 15, Biflck B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Brian & Sonya Craythorne, represented by Galen Aasland
Pianner: Christie 8arton
i. BACKGR4UND AND DESCRtPTION 0F THE REQt1ESTS
The applicant has applied far approval a# a setback variance to a11ow a structure to be
construc#ed in the front setback which will house an inclined elevatar. This appiication was
approved as a conditional use and a firnnt sefback variance in 1992 and was never built. Staff
has determined that a cflnditional use permit is not necessary since the definition ofi a`ski lifts
and tows' listed as conditionai uses refer-s to a ski taw. Staff believes this is an accessory use to
a residentiai dwelling and is permitted as of right.
A sketch of the proposed structure in the front setback is attached. The variance (20) would
~ ailaw the structure to be constructed 0" from the front property 1ine, adjacent to #he existing
garage which was built 3' from the front property line. This should su#ficiently shield the car when
it is at the bottom pf the run for the owner to Ieave it there when it is not being used. A statement
from the applicant is attached.
11. ZONING ANAL.YSIS
Zoning: PrirnarylSecondary Residential Distric#
Lot Size: 20,342.5 sq. ft,/0.4670 acres
5tandard Allowed Existana Pro osed
~ Setbacks: 20' (front) 3" (front) 3'(front) .
~ Garage Setback 0' (Pront) 3' (frant) NG
Structure Setback 4' (frant) n(d 4' (front) Site coverage 3051 sq. ft. 2130 sq, ft. 2156 sq. ft.
~
1
;~ti
~ , n~y: .
TOWN 0~" NrI1L '
H1. CRITERIA AND FIN[7iNC5 FflR A VARfANGE RE4UEST~
Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Cri#eria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipai
Code, the Community Devetopment Department recommends approvai of the requested frant
yard setback variance. The recommendation for approvai is based on the foliowing factors.
A. Consideration of Faetars:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or °
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The proposed structure to house the tow in the front setback will have
minimal impacts on existing ar potential uses and struetures in the area.
The lacation of the house is the secflnd to last house on Davos Trail arrd it
is not visible firom the public right-of-way or from adjacent lots. The
structure will shel#er the view of the =car' from the street. Additional
landscaping is also proposed ta help screen the tow from the s#reet. The ,
- project wi11 not impact adjacentproperty owners as fhe hfluse wiil remain a
residential use. 2. The degree to which relief fromthe strict and fiteral interpretatiOnandenforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
cQmpatibili#y and uniformity of tr+eatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objec#ives of this #itfe wythout grant o# speciai privifege.
Due to the existing steep slapes on the property, s#aff believes that this ~
propasal will not be a grant of special privilege. The slope of the site is
approximately 67%0, which s#aff believes is a physical hardship for the
property. The steep grade starts nearly at roadside, whieh rnakes it
difficult ta build fhe structure out of the setback. The disturbance required
if the struc#ure was built ouf of the setback would be excessive. The
existing garage was allowed within the setback due to extreme slope
1SSU25.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distributaon of
population, transpor#a#ion and traffic facilities, public facili#ies and
utilities, and public safety.
a The proposal will have li#tle or no efifect on these issues. This praposal
maintains the residential atmosphere o# the neighborhood.
B. The_ Planning and Envirnnmental Commission shall make the following findings
before aranting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not canstitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitatiflns on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will nat be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, dr materially injurious to praperties or
2
~
~ improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted far one ar more of the fai]owing reasons:
a. 7he strict literal in#erpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficu{ty ar unnecessary
physical hardship inconsisCent with the abjeetives of ihis Titie.
b. There are excep#ians or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions- ~
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to ather properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpreta#ian ar enfflrcemenf of the specified regulation
wauld depriue the appiicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
ill, 5TAFF REGfJMMENDAI"IC»l
The Gommunity Development Departrnent reeommends approval of the appiicant's request for a
#rant setback variance to ailow for the construction of an inclined elevator,laeated at 2701 davos
Trail/Lot 15, Black B, Vail Ridge Subdivision, subject ta the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
~ inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distriCt:
2. That the gran#ing af the variance will not be detrimentai to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materialiy injurious to properties or improvementsin 'fhe vicirti#y.
3_ That there are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances ar conditions app(icable
to #he same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zone.
Staff recommends approval of the appiicant's request with the #oliowing conditian:
1. A revocable Right - o# - Way Permit wilf be obtained before a building permit is
issued.
f:teveryone\peCsmemas\98\Craythorne.713
~ 3
~ S v d ,
4
:•z
^ 143
. /
~tp(p
_
.
, E?CISTING GA~AGE; ~
~
y----"
~
. . . . / .
. . . J'- f ' ~ . . . . . ? ? w ~ f
. ' ? .x.-- t...
~-FO `1,(',
V-E^(X..7. or.t .T~( E
cori-r4A:c.17~-tDr PDJ~~-~
IL
L-1
t L`~ iit c G.3i~GK-•E"T~~._ c...:eti`C~r~
l As
--t/ F t- S1" +`I 4 ~ C~4~(~ f~ 'rI f~' ~f r-F- o
toco , +
i
~
r SITE! ~.~~I
~ r r' _
Galen A Aasland Architect P C
~ Craythorne Addition
Lot 15, B1ock B, vail Riage
5i26/1998
We are asking far a Conditiona1 Use permit and a Setback Variance in order ta
construct an inclined elevator and sheltering elernent at the Craythorne Residence, `
2701 Davos Trail, Vail, CO.
Conditional Use
1.) Relationship and impact of the use an development ohjectives of the Town.
There is no effect on the primarylsecondary nature of the neighborhaod or the ° Towns objectives for this development area. The mast significant impact is that access
to the existing hotne, for it's owners it is greatiy improved.
2.} The effect af the variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportatian facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreatifln facilities, and other
public facilitYes and pubiic facilities needs.
~ No effect.
' 3.) Effect upon traffic, with particular refexence to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and controt, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snaw from the streets aud parking area.
No effect.
4.) Effect an the character of the area in wllich the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk af the proposed use in relation to-surrounding uses.
- The trackway system we are propasing will be close to the ground and wi11 have
niinimal visual impact. The car is of a size as to accommodate several persons for a
brief period af time, and therefore is of small size. We have added a small cover area to
niake the car less visible from the street, which was a concern of the Town on our
application in 1991. This cover is much smaller in scope than the garage across the
street as a eited exampie.
Variance Request, setback variance.
~ A. Written Statement addressing the following:
P.O. Box 383 Vail Ct? 81658
970-476-8181
i
. y
Galen A. Aasiand, Architect. P.G.
1.} The Relationship of the requested variance to ather ejcisting ar potential uses ~
and strttCtures in the vicinity.
The use of the 11ome remains thesame. Thc small enclosure which shelters the car
from street view is very similaT to the encIosure of the Wittemyer Gondola on
Rockledge Road.
. ~
2.) The degree from which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of
this title without grant of special privilege.
We feel that given the stope of the site and existing configuration of develapment on
, tlie site that we are asking for the minimal amount of relief. The Wittemyer GondoIa ,
would be a-similar use granted in t11e satne zone district with similar conditions.
However given the lack o'space in the front setback this site is even more restrietive.
Allowing, the setback variance affords the opportunity to sheiter the car fronl street
view which was a previous concern of the Town.
3.) The ef£ect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety.
There is no significant change associated with any of these items. ~
4.} Haw your request complies with Vaii's Comprehensive Plan,
, B. The Planning and Environrnental Commission shall make the fallovving
findings before granting a variance:
1,) That the granting of the variance will not constitute agrant of special
- privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other propei-ties classified in the
same district.
Cite VVittemyer Gondolas Please also note that this site is more restrictive in that steep
grade starts at nearly roadside.
2.} That the granting of the variance will nat be detrimental to the pubiic health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious tp properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
It will noC.
3.) That the variance is warranted for one or more of #he following reasons: ~
P.O. Box 383 Vail GO 81658
970-476-8181
2
..=w..__.
. ...m.,...,.,~...~.~...., . . .v~.~,,.
~
t Y
Gaien A. Aasland Architect P G
~
a,) The strict Iiteral interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulatian rvould result in practical difriculty ar rxnnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives af this title.
Given the current location of development on the site this is the most logical
place to put a shelCering element for the car.
b.) There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conctitions
applicable to the same site af the varianee that do not appiy generally ta
other praperties in the same zone.
Given the current location of development on the site this is the most logzcalx~. _ place to put a sheltering element forthe car. T17is hasadvantages for the owner
and-the Town.
c.} The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specYfied regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of otlier
properties inthe same district.
~
~
P.O. Box 383 Vail CO 81658
970-476-8181
3
a '
Y ' .i.
1
LOT 11
a.•rmE uwo ~
~
tfEJ Ark-. r'N'~r~f Exu'i~~J~ f~
/
LOT 12 LOT 16
~
r6
a A
ExAt.~~
E~~M~
t .
LOT LOT 15
b^awRe. E~ +~Ib Ir ~ ~ ~ / . .
~/Pic. 'D`~tkcp..l ~y ~ ~~l~~ •J! f..// t~6 ~ ! C~.~S-S ~
K(Rk.i 2 ~.bte . ' ~y~ 0
LOT 14
ror~iw, tc.v-r<e+} s y>},~y,~.~,y,~ EMsxi~.cuMoe ~ ~G .
_ S
ySy r ,~..e..t
~Y46N~Uh ~k t.bN~~~ ~ P~ ~ / ~ ~ rlbf' ~R~>f~9~'!IM it~ ~FE.~~Wlfn 6Y M7 Xr~-5.
y}~~ ~ PI~CO E-~.K Si1~rYreY-KH1. 1 s~4 U4~t~.~~ra~ 11f ~ . ~ ' ° J. ~ , ~ » ~ y~~
7 4 . . . . . ~ ~ •
Am.
wt,~ ~ / y
F . ~ ~a»F
~ cN^x F bGW ~5~wcct M' na+~ts` ~ _ - . ( ~ 5G Irt[E ~
'rlnOG~ ~a . ~ '
0 1
qr- a P a'vic~ Jc~ a~5 ~
N r .a ~ N t~'h'.cCHa'-9n.F. ( u.ut~k CP*~*-`~ ~ ~g' } ~
r~
rY".`'r~
w
~ DETNL r Sll'E PLAN
A( i~'~ ~ ' IW tf15fN,1. ~¢~4'a' Ib 6F. F+E"'f4'iSII O ~ t .
~ F46 Uo-i.nuK O WtA .4o r1r 14 Lf"1{ .
~ _
~
,Y
t
V
1
F-l
f 1 k ~
4 "
` .
~ ~ . ~
,
4 ~
_ Li
r
r-~~. _ _ . . ~
I I
fl
~a SOCIFFtWEST ELEVATtQN ~ SECTIdN BEGFtOht Q
I ` -~e+aar 4~~~ss Q FLi-~ sw ~
. ' r d ~ L1 ~~t
~ NORTFtEAST ELEUATIQN
~i< - .~,.4 c.v.a~..4t.roJ ~ +s.'•' ~ ~ k~~
( - I
)
~Y+FSTM6ff~YfF.rtp . t\ ~ 1~•5~ ~
" L?fuWi K:~~ul N.tu{ ~ ` 4. ~
t
~ . . E
tMn xr~K-'Ye.Ntut t-ra~r~.• . ~ ~ ~•y'} ~ ~
f
~ . f . 4 ' . . :
. ~ . . . . - . . .~.4~+'0.
h
E4 t 4: tvn~r~ ya<.ct
~9OfJTNEAS7 ELEYATlbH , PLAF!
3 ~
~ MEMflRANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmenta! Cnmmission
FROM: Community develcrpment Department
DATE: July 13, 1998
SUSJECT: A request for additipnal GRFA utilizing the 250 tJrdinarrce, to aitaw ,
for a residential addition to the existing residence, located at 493
Beaver Dam RoadiLot 1, Block 2, Vaii Viliage 6th Filing.
Applicant: Ron Byme, represented by Bill Reslack.
Planner: George Ru#her
1. C3ESCF3IP?ICJN OF TME REQUEST
The applicant, Ron Byrne, representedby Bill Reslock, is requesting an additional 250 square
feet of GRFA (250) to allow for the cnnstruction of a residenfia) addition to the secondary unit at
493 Beaver Dam Road. The applicant is propnsing to construct a new storage area in the
garage, a new powder room and expanded living room on the main teuel, and a new stairway
and bathroam on #he upper ievel of the home. The tatal square faotage of the additions is 250
square feet.
~ The applicant is also prnposing to convert a vaulted space above the garage #o GRF'A utilizing
the interior eonversian ordinance. The vaulted space has already been converted ta GRFA and
is being used as a bedroam. The total area ta be converted tc, GRFA is approximately 606
square feet in size. Even though the construction has aiready been compieted, the interiar
conversian ordinance permits the appGcant to apply for the conversion and provides amnesty far
the "illegaP" construction.
11. ZONING STATISTICS
Lot Size: 23,496 square feet
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residentiai
Allowed Existin Proposed
GRFA*: 2,595 sq. ft. (w1250)** 2,265 sq. ft. 2,515 sq. ft.
Setbacks: No Change
Site Coverage: 20°fa, or 4,699 sq. ft. 16°l0, ar 3,893 sq. ft. 17°10, ar 3;974 sq. ft.
Parking: No Change
* Secondary unit only.
~ The total allowable GRFA sq. fit, equals the existing sq. ft. (2,265 sq. ft.) plus 250 sq. ft.
allowable by ordinanae.
'I Tt)WN flF YA!',
Y: IlL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ~
A. Consideration of Fac#ors Regarding Granting GRFA Under the 250
Ordinance:
Before acting an :an applicatinn for additiona! GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Cammission shaN cnnsider the following factors with respect ta the proposed use:
1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing F
structures.
The proposal will have only minar impacts on the existing vegetation on
the site and no signifrcant impact on the drainage or tapography ofi the
site. The exterior addition requires the celocation of an existing conifer
tree Iacated adjacent to the garage. The tree is praposed to be relocated
tne minimum distance necessary to clear the tree af fhe additian, Staff
- beiieves that the proposed exterior addition will have no significant affect on the existing site topagraphy, vegetation, drainage, ar existing -
structures.
2. Impact an adjacent properkies.
The addition should no# adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by
adjacent structures. Sta#f believes that the proposed additians will not
have a significant impact on adjacent properties.
3. Compliance with the Town°s zoning requirements and applicabie ~
development standards.
Sectian 12-15-5.8.6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any
dvrreNing unit for which an additionis proposed shallbe required to meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 12-11-1 of the
Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, befiore any addi#ional GRFA may be
permitted in accordance with Chapter 12-15, the staff shall review the
mairrtenance and upkeep of the existing single family ar two family
dwelling and si#e, including iandscapirrg, to de#errnine whefher they comply
with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping,
undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of
_ the praperty.
Upon inspection of the site by sfiaff, we find fhat the prflperty is in
compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. The
driveway is paved and all utilities are below ground. Staff believes that the
site is adequafely landscaped and no additional landscaping is required.
2 ~
-
~ IV. STAFF F2ECt?MMENL?ATfUN
The Community Develnpment Departrraent recommends apprpval of the additiana125{7 square
feet of GRF'A utilizing the 250 Ordinance. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the
review of fhe cri#eria and factors autlined in Section l!! of #his memorandum.
Shauld #he Pianning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant°s request,
staff would recommend the Planning and Enviconmental Commission make tfib foNawing ;
findings:
1. That the addition of 250 square fee# of additianal GRFA has no negative effect on
the existing topography, vege#atian and drainage on #he applicant's lof.
2. That the addition of 250 square fiee# of additianal GRFA is in compliance with the
m Town's zoning requirements and development objectives.
3. That the addition of 250 square feet of additional GRFA has no negative impa-cts 1 4an adjacent properties or uses.
~
~
3
~ . RESkt%:K nflCH. Efet ? ~
95 k tU _
~ ~ d0.M1r.bS MenG..l,K~ LL _ ,
_ .Y
~
A
P{clrAiz.'{ klNIt
~ hC~.~' vNi'r
°L
~~~~-EV~W4 t-~M C]
7:X"fLn7aj~oN (c.
~
ul
Q
W ~
Kti-~o~..... y [tt
m
d^7~
StTE PLAN
~ .«.v
f Al
f
P
~ ~
}
i
~
p ?~T
~
~
d UJ
cc 0
y •'0~
W
cc
~ ~ bININCj C~Y
V
ac~F c '
a¢~
uaJpouoac O \ /
uvnyc,
~
- Wtr ~ uiti.iJG~`.S
. . . . . MAD~ cN `(HE. ~IEfit E- .
a~jQ'Cq
l4tAttJ LEVEL FLQC}fi PLAhf
' Y4` .t'-0t. . . .
A2
f e
;
w ~
;
.
fr
~ ~ ~ f! kwstq i ~
\ ~ TWn4 ci
A1 'J 0 uj
CC fl
u! O
O f , ~ a = _ ~
i w
m a
~d!a.TNYea~ry ~ ~ ~ ~Jf f ~
- f ~ G4Y~. .
Gls1: ~
~
/ `LNIf'Gf.~
6ClOW 3-
~ UPPERt.EVEC. FLL3QRPLAFi "
A3
. ~
~ ~ k
't s
~ - . _ .
~ _
L~j
h '
-1
. " . ' Yr. . . . . _
w.w'~z
R.a.
Y1 4
~
2
o
~ - 0 ~
w ~ ,
~ wrc.w~jO~o.ca i'+.+Ac - Ncw,wrrna~q ~ ~ , Q CG
GD?Gfl -.~J ~j}.
- ~-~~'~L~~ UEr.k'+Y.z ~6i~~~j ~4•P ~'~3
EAST ELEVAFION ~
~
!F^~tt ~NCi-sn~ ~
s
~
.
~ SC3UTFk ~ELEVATION ~
4-zP=ir~
I . ..a
LA4
. . . . . . . . ~ . k . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
t
• ~
f .1
k
.
~ L .
~
~
>
j . . ' ' ' . ~ ffilV
a<.ru.s,c cC Iv.t~"
onlirlo~~ktnt7 ~
LL
Faw 9-romc- vSMisc.p- 4
O
ui
cc 0
WEST ECEVAfION ~
m
t~~~t~1 `P• 6 LU
OS
.
. . _ _.-..T..~
.
3
~ .
. . . ~ .
J_
JJFJ.J~ 5'~'ON6 YEIJEKR ~ c.r+tM-.[nF
• • • fJC15?'Fa iGL~ EF-G'
. . . .
" hJoF--rF4 F-LEVa'ft0"- G,nunvE . ~
~ ~ 1 •~as
NC>RTH EEEVATION A5
!
} ~ ~
~ MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Enviranmentai Commission
FROM. Gc>mmunity Qevelopment Department
DATE: July 13, 199$
SUBJECT: A reques# for a minor ex#erior alteration in CC1, to aflow for an exteriar renova#ion
of Gorsuch Ltd., lacated in the Clack Tower Bui(ding, 263 Gore Greek D?ive/Lats
c,d,e & f, Block 5, Vai1 Viflage 1sf.
Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd, represented by Resor# C?es{gn Go11a6orative
!n#ernatianai
Planner: George Ru#her
L 33ESQFtlPTIQN C3F THF= REQl1EST
Resort Design Goliaborative lntemational, on behalf afi Garsuch Ltd, has requested a minor
exterior alteratian in the Commerciai Core 1 (CC1) Zone District, to allaw for ar~ exterior
~ renovatian and addition fo #he Gorsuch Ltd. stare, located within the Cfock Tower Building at 263
Gore Creek drive.
In anticipation af #he upcoming World Aipine Ski Championships, David and Renie Gorsuch,
owners of Gorsuch Ltd, are proposing to renovate the exterior portaon o€ #he Glock 7ower
Building. Proposed improvements include:
• The removal and replacement of #he soffit and fascia
• The addition of flawer boxes at various lacations around the building
= T'he remaval and replacement af the balcony raifings
~ The addition of copper gutters arrd downspouts
• A complete repainting of the building
* The addition of two copper awnings on the Gore Creek Drive side of the building
+ The canstruction of a permanent arched entry on the Bridge Street side of the building
• The addition of a new 46 square faot bay display window and darmer
~ The replacement of the existing extedor lighting with new recessed can lights
* The removal and repiacernent of the awning over the Ore House dining declc
• The replacement of the hour rnarkers on the cl4ck
I1, ZOi111NG A~ALYSIS
The following summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this request:
~ Zoning; Commercial Core 1 (CC1) _
TOV 1`4FYAIG
~
Setbacks: na changes proposed ~
Site Coverage: no changes prvpased
Parking: Gorsuch l.td. addition with 46 sq. ft. I 300 sq. f#. = 0,153 spaces.
Total additional parking fee reqtaired =$2,677.65.
Loading: No change
Ill, CRITERIA Ta BE USEL) IN EVALIIATiNG TMiSF'ROPQSAL
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by #he Tflwn of Vail IVlunicipal
Code. The emphasis of this review is on the proposai's cornpatibi(ity with the Zoning
Regu{ations, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village llrban Design Guide
Plan, the Vail Village L7esign Considerations and the Vail Comprehensive P}an,
A. Compliance with tne Town of Vail Zaning Code
As stated in the Zcrning Cvde, the purpose of the CCI Zone district is as #oliows:
"The Commercial Gore 1 District is irttended to provide sites and to
maintain the unique character af the Vail Village commerciai area, wi#h its
mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly
pedestrian environment. The Commercia! Core 1 District is intended to ~
ensure adequate iight, air, open space, and other amenities apPropriate tfl
th@ p41"CT11ttE:C~ typ$5 t)f bU1ldti""#g5 a11d L35es. The D(Sti`1Ct l'E,'gC3lat10TiS 111
accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide F#an and Des'sgn
Cansideratians prescribe site deve{apment standards that ace intended to
ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly cfustered
arrangements of buildings f*onting on pedestrianways and public
greerrways, and to ensure continuatifln of the building sca(e and
architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. (Ord. 21{1980} § 1)"
Additionally, the Zoning Reguiations define an Exterior Afteration as, in part,
"the aitera#ion of an existing buiiding which adds or rerrtoves any enciosed
flaar atea(andlor) the altera#ion of an existing butiding whictt modifies the
existing raofi."
An exteriQr alteration is consider a"minaro' exterior alteratiun if the addition islesstnan 100 5quare teet in size. ,
STAFF 12ESPC3NS~:
Upon review of the proposed mtnor exteriar alteration, staff believes that the
proposed 46 square foot addition complies with the purpose statement of the CG1
Zone District and #hat the addition is a minar extieriot alteration since the proposal
adds 46 square feet of new #loor area to #he existing building.
~
2
~ B. Com liance with the Vaii I1i1la e Urban Desi n Gui e Ptan
According to the Vai1 Viilage Urban Design Guide plan, the Ciock Tower Building
is Iocated within the Gore Creek DriveiBridge Stree# sub-area. A review of the
Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street sub-area revealed #hat no specific improvements
are identified for the Clock Tower Building. The only sub-area element relevant tn
this proposal is the focal point importance of the ciocK tower. The aPpiican# is
proposing fo rep#ace the hour markers on the clnck. The new hour rnarkers will
be patirtaed coppec.
STAFF RESPON5E:
Staff believes that the changes to the hour markers wi11 be a positive change
wi#hout departing significantly from the histone nature and appearance af the
clock tower.
C. Compiiance with the urban desian consideration§ for Vail Viliage and the
exterior aiteratian criteria.
1. Urban Qesign Considerations.
a. Pedestrianization
A major objective for Vail Village is #o encourage pedes#rian circulation through an
~ interconnec#ed network of safe, pleasan# pedestrian ways, Staff believes the
pedestrian ways {Gare Creek Driue & 8ridge Street} are afready a p(easant
pedestrian environment with the street benches and the landscaping. The plans
praposed by the applicant further enhance the pedestrian environment. 7t is
staff's opinion that the proposed addition and renovations wiii positiueiy impact the
pedestrian environment adjacent to the C1ack Tawer Building.
b. Traffic genetration
The minor exterior alteration ta the Clack Tawer Building wi11 have no effect upon
vehicular penetration into the Village. The praposed addi#ion wifl generate an
increase in the total parking requiremen# for the Village Center Building by 0.153
parking spaces. The increase in the parking requirement will be met by the
applicant through a payment into the Town of Vai1 Parking Funci. Therefore, staff
beiieves there will be no impacts tr, vehicular penetration into the Vil{age as a
result of this request.
c. Streetscape frarnework
According to the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, the quaIity of the
walking experience shauld be improved when necessary, and the pedestrian ways
should be maintained. tJne means of accompiishing this goai is to infiil
comrnerciaE store fronts. Staff believes that the proposed addition anc# renovation
will generate comrnercial activity and add to the visual inferest af the buiiding
without jeapardizing the waiking experience or pedestrian way ir? the area.
~
3
d. Street enclasure ~
Stree# enclosure becomes an issue when each side of a street has buildings on it.
In the case of Gore Creek C7rive and Bridge Street, both streets are bordered by
buildings. 1t is the staff's opinion that the addition to the Gorsuch Ltd. store wiil
have a positive effect on the pereeption of street enclosure. Staff fieels the
propased arched entry addition wi41 bring the building c{oser to the main
pedestrian waikway, thus heiping to divert the attention of a pedestrian back to the
building and back ta the new display window. Staff further believes that the new
awning and the addition of #he new baicony rails and flower boxes will increase
and enhance the visual interest af the building.
e. Street edae
According to the Vaii Vitlage Urban Design Considerations, buiidings m the Village
should form a strong but irregular ecige to #he street. The resulting "jags" in the
buildings shouCd be used as activity areas for pedestrian use (ie. gathering,
resting, orien#ing, etc.). In staff s opinion the propased acfdstion meets the goals of
the Vail Village Urban Design Cansiderations as it relates to stree# edge.
fi. 8uildiria heiaht
The building heigh# proposed by the appiicarit is in keeping with #he intent caf the
Vai! Village Urban Design Considerations. The height of the proposed arched
entry addi#ion will be significant4y 1ess than the overa9l height of the existing ~
building. 5taff believes that the applicartt has done an exce3{en# jab of rrsatching
the sca1e of the addition and the improvements with the sca[e af the existing
bUlldfing.
g. Views
The Vail Vii4age Urban Design Gonsiderations stress the importance of views in
the Villags area. As propased, the addition wiif not encroach upon any of the
estab[ished view corridors.
2. ArchitecturallLandscape Cansiderations.
a. Roofs
The existing roofi surfiace materiai on the Clock Tower Building is gravel. The roof
surface material on the ciock tawec is cedar shakes. When the addition to the
Garsuch Ltd. store is compieted, the new roof over the arched entry addi#ion wi11
blend and match the existing roof and roof rnataria4s. Staff finds that the roof
forms and roof materials praposed by the applicant are in compliance with the
arch itectural/lan dscape cansiderations of the Vaii Viflage Urban Design
Considerations.
b, Faeades
The fiacade af the building is where the majority of the improvements are ~
proposed. The improvements tfl the facade are listed an page I of this
memorandum. According to #he Vadi Village Urban Design Gonsiderafions, baY,
4
~ bow and box windows are common window details, wh:ich adci further variety and
massing to facades. Such window types are encouraged. It is the opinion of the
staff that the new buiiding facade w'rll result in an improved and enhanced
appearance of Vail Viliage.
c. Baiconies
The appiicant has proposed to temove and repiace the balcony rails around the
building. The newr rails and accompanying flawer boxes help to further the goais
of the tlaif Village fV]aster PIan.
d. Decks and Patias
. 7he existing dining deck at the Ore House wil( not be impac#ed by this proposal as
there will be no net lass ofi dining area The existing green canvas canopy over
the dining deck is ta be replaced with a new canvas canopy. The new canopy will
be bPue & white striped. Tfie new canopy is intended ta improve the visual
in#erest of the building at stree# level.
e_ Accent eigmen#s
Colorful accent elements, consis#ent with existing character are encouraged in the
Viilage. The appiicantis praposingchanges to the buildirtg #hat wilf incorporate
new accent elements. Overall; staff believes the addition and renovations will be
~ a positive element on the building.
f. Landscape elements
Upon review of the site, staff finds the landscape elements around the building
are more than adequate,
g. 5ervice
No additional foading and delivery services are required as a resuit of this request.
0, Compliance with the Town of Vaii atrgetgca,pe Mastgr Plan.
The Town of Vail Streetscape Mas#er Plan attempts to #mprove the functioning
character of the area by adding sidewaiks where none presently exist, screening
parking areas, and to enhance the visual appearanee of the Town. Each of the
streetscape elements prescribed for the area around the Clock Tfl+nrer Building
have been implemen#ed to the extent possibfe.
STAFF F2ESPO(VSE:
Upon review of the site by staff, the impcavemen#s suggested in the Town af Vail
Master Streetscape Pian have already been ccsmpieted. Therefare, no new
stree#scape plan improvements are proposed to be made with #his apptication.
~
5
E. Gomcsliance with the l/ail gom rehensive Plan ~
Several eiements of #he Vail Comprehensive Plan irrdirectly address the proposed
minor exteriar alteration to #he Clock Tower Building. The relevant elements arrd
sectians are listed belaw:
1. L.and Use Pian -
4.3: "The ambiance of the Viilage is important to #he identit}rof Vail
and should be preserved. Scaie, alpine charac#er, small iown
feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosm4politan
feeling and environmental quality shall be main#ained ar
enhanced.,>
2. Vail Village Mas#er Plan -
2.4 C?bjective: "Encaurage the developmen# of a variety of
cornrnercial activities that are compatible with exis#ing land uses.,,
2.4,1 Policy: "Commercial infill develapmen# consistent wi#h
established horizontal zorting regufafiions shalf be encouraged to
provide activity generatnrs, accessible green spaces, pub{ic
plazas, and s#reetscape improvemerrts #o the pedestrian network
throughout the Viilage.,,
SIAFF RESPONSE; ~
Staff believes #he applicant's proposal seeks to achieve each of the crbjectives
and policies listed abave.
1V. STAEF RECt}MMEIUDATIC}N
The Communi#y Develapmen# Department recommendations approval of the proposed
minar exterioralteration to the Clock Tower Building to aNow for an addition and
renovations to Gorsuch Ltd. The recommendation for #he approval of the minor exterat?r
aiteration is based upon the review nf the criteria outlined in sectian III of this
memorandum. Staff finds the applicant's request camplies with the criteria outlined for a
request of this nature in the Zoning Code, the Town of Vaii Streetscape Master Pian, the
Vail Village Design Considerations, and the Vai! Comprehensive Plan, Furthermare, staff
believes the minor exterior alterafion propased by the applicant is supporked by the
Town's goals and objectiues.
Should #he PEC choose to approve the applicant's request for a minor exterior aiteration,
the staff would recommend the foibwing findings be rnade:
1. That the minnr ex#erior alteration is in compliance and is eompatibCe with the
Town of Vail Zoning Code, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vaii
Vi(lage Urban Design Guide F'lan, the Vail 1liflage Urban Design Considerations
and the Vai4 Camprehensive Plan. ~
6
~ Should the PEC choose ta appt'ove the applicant's requesf tor a minor exterior aIteration
to allow for an addition and renovations to Gorsuch Ltd., the staff would recarnmend that
the approval aarry wi#h it the foliowing conditions:
1. That the appficant submit de#ailed civil engineering drawings indicating how the
gutters and downspouts wiii bs #ied into the Town of Vaii stormwater systerrt. The
drawings shall be submitted #or review and approval of the Town Engineer prior ta
the issuance nf a building permit.
2. That #he applicant submit an application and receive a revocable right-of way
permit to afilow for work ta be completed irr the Town of Vaii right-of-way prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3. That the applicant pay $2,677.65 into the Town of Vail parking fund prior ta the
issuance of a Temporary Gertificate of Occupancy.
~
~
7
PROPCJSAL DESCRIP'T'I(7N
CLOCKTOWER BUILDiNG/GORSUCH LIMI'TED
EXTER[OR ALTEI2A'TIQN.'s
The Ctack Tower BuildinglGorsuch Limited S#ore have been a landmark in Vail
practically from the inception. The ttivo buildings that carnprise what is now knawn as
the Clock Tower Building were constructed zn 1965 and 1966. Various renovations to
the exterior and interior have been campleted to date to improve the 6uilding's
appearance. The Gorsuchs would now lilce to bring the whole huilding together
aestheticallti and update the details to change the 1960's character of the buiiding.
The proposed improvements are focused on the west elevation as this is perceived to be
the weakest elevation by the Gorsuchs. Z'he scape of the proposed revisions is cosmetic
in nature with the exception of an entry feature and bay window/darmer on the Bridge
Street side. These revisions include:
• The removal and replacement of the existing fascia and saffit on the entire
building.
• The removal and replacement of the ali existina balcony railings and the
addition of flower boxes at most 6alconies, y
A change in the stucca color from white to an off white,
+A change in the trim color from black to medium brown.
+ Removing the roof drainage crickets on the south side and replacing them ~
with copper collector head and downspouts,
* Replacernent of various door and window trim eIements to be more in line
with the details on the east end of the building on the Gare Creek Urive side.
• Addition of two copper awnings on the Gore Creek Drive side entries.
• Extension of the roof overhangs 12"on the two west gables ai the Gore Creek
Drive side.
+ Remove the existing arched canvas canopy at the entxance to the Ure House
restaurant, reptace with an entry feature as shown on the attached drawings.
+ Remove the souzh balcony on the Bridge Street elevation and repiace it with a
bay windocv and dormer roaf as shocvn on the attached drawings.
• Change the materiai and color o'the over the two outdoor dining areas to a
traditianal Gorsuch awning material used on oxher Gorsuch Ltd. Stores.
+ 1Vlodernize and improve the exferior lighting of the building. remove existing
downlights and replace with recessed can li~hts in soffits and other accent
lighting fixtures.
• Replace the haur marks of the clock an the tower.
5Ve believe these renavations irnprove the somewhat dated appearance of the Clocktower
$uilding while improving the "building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish
the village," The Clocktower Buildinb as it exists complies with the all the issues gf the
Vai1 tTillage Urban Design Guide P1an. The proposed renovations only serve ta enhance
the existing building scale and improve the overall appearance. is
l1VA[L_SVR_01\ciientstPRJ\Gorsuch Rem Vailldocs\PRflPflSAL DBSCRIPTI{)N.doc
loi b
w.
o.~Mr' e _ 1,36 ~
~ ' ~
N.
~ ~ 3 92`7SP~'
~ZR. 2!0 t N~.BS JO J~ w E
~ 4! 9Q t 57
r
~ar f/p
tO { . LOF c ' R ~ 1
~ '
~ ~ ( ~
o
~
•
~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~
~ w..N..w . ..._..._--a.
n
.
n
iRgC.F
~ , ~ -i ~
y~ ,I ' ,.d...M 1 S t%r09'a0' E
~
r
4Z.J~ t
i:
a..~ t , r~.:.. , . :
IOf
.
~
~ l
..4-.~ f I ~ _ .,..,..M
..v:~ . . ' ' . ! '
N 8751 6 50.17 .
~
„
~ _ , .
i .
- °
~ - . ,
.....~.i.9b'06'btY ~ A ~ . ~
p..1T.W . _ r . .
a' L-50.87 C OR E C R E E f( DRIV E ~q 0.~ )
i".~fk t ro r a
tMPR0Yfh4ENf LOCA1tQN CER14FTC;AtE At•tp
T4PQERAPHIC SURVEY
LOTS d h¢, BLbCK b. VAIL ViLCAGE, FP.'?.ST FIU'IG
EkClE;wuLEY;suravs^nntc, iNC:- LOFS c& f, 3LffER / McBRIpE SUE#DIVISkOr!
7OWN OF VAtl., EAGLf. COf,JNiY. COiC7RA!?(?
.n
k..... , . ~
. _ . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . t q r.,
~ ~ ~
~ I'ier<e,
tiepcrharg ~
Ae~ruceatn,
~ } AreteitecW
rt ~~fA.
uieE ~„c
GOR5UCH L'l'[i.
( p~{ C~- * ,Y BkI5TfNCs 6FFiCE
BALCpNY
6dCt5iX:R LTD. - COR5UCt3 tT6. ~~•f„~•,
ElCISTCNG QFFICE - -
- / .
EX[STiCIG ftETA1L
OPfrN j ~ EXI$TiN6 DECH
EXI5T -
~
L,
1. F_.~,..._
...ii.
. {"_..~r.vix-_;_,. ~ ~ ~_____Fi..OtYER._..~. _ ~ £XISTfNGA00F ~ . ~ r.~
- __._~__._m~.."
' El(157tNC BALC(?NY
AWNING ~ AFNCRYD ING BA4CONY
Lt
AWNkNG \ \ ~ Q
EX)STING WESF 2ND LEVEL PLAN ~ \ ~W O
srnLe: rr~•' r`-o" C. _ Awmnc O
»ELow
v
N~RTN _ E~(}5TING WEST 3RD LEVEC PLAN d
- seA«:u,'.,,_~ C7
~ _
~
a
r
STOH.
ENTRV
~r
7~t~a
GOR5UCN L2l].
C1f2L ttQtfSf. \._.I;_L , - EXFSTfNG RETAIL
RES"I"AURAN7' VESTEBl1LEt~ w ~
~ "AEXLST[NGARS;tiFD!
~ . . - 1 DECN Ch1VVR8 AWNiNG
BAL.CONY ~ (t i ~AnOVE ~9ALCQNY f~ .
At}C1VE 4- _ 0` . ~E ABUVE
~
. .
~ }
~~-EXISSINGCANVAS
EXtS'f1NG i~tE5'T 51'REET LEVBL Pl.RN KwHrrrc nnove
SC;M.E:1IM1,' 1'`Q• ~~Frats_t n.~
$ftlf7fiE STf1EET
NORTH ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~
sti c~f
Rl~ .
~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.:;.~A,~~ ~
'III
i
~ ~ ~
i
i
t`krtee,
' Segerbn~q
.Aa~n~IFtta,
.irefiitrrla
v,
i EXt3TfMG
BAI.C4NY,
4
GORSUCPt CTD. '
EQUia nErr.
~
~ C.OF{SUC1t.Lt0.
GORSUCH LFU.
MEN'S DBPT. M5N'S DFPT. EXSSTI
HACC(3
. ~ EXt3t[NG 4
DI5PL.AY
CX75TlNG ~.w ~ . ~ . .~"v._..: ~S•--r . . ~r+«T
AWNtNG ~ tXtSTlNG IJt5f f.AY ~ ~
r
\ CXIS7INC ffAL( Uh7Y
f ~w. ~ ; ' _ ~.L' E. =r 1"` ~ ` . ~
~...._..o. ~.:s~.a`-.~,-.n~,~_
°
C~~ o ~
EXlST'[t~G S€7U'f"}i 2Nt) LEVEL PL,RiV ~NORTti
sa.Le: 1i4• . y_w 5 I
(a." W
0
~ €XISFING~GbVi£FYEP ~
DtN4NG~DECK
~ GtlRSt1CH L7g,
RETAIL S7ACE Gf7R5UCkt LTG.
EX1STtNG NF(kMEN'S DE("I
j i
I f ~ '
C;.ORSUCFt LTD
.~%lST1NG WE7MEN`S D£PT.
' i
- ~_.BhYWIMDOW_ i EXi5TING ~ -
D3SPLAY
. y _ . . ~ ~
~ 'i`~ ~ . EXLSiNGl
' EXISTlNG .Ci(Yq5UCH . ~ ~ , ~ ,..._...Ekt97tM6 f~7NS(SCHY1~f 1,~c ~ ~SP~Y
• 6fSPLAY ~ WEST klAY WENDOW
T IN ~N+
AS? FNT
. ENTRY
~ CONCNE7E PAVEHS A
~ f ~
EXESTiNG !#€A7ED /
,
w F
,
;
EXPSFIC}G SQU?!i Sl'REET LEVEL PLAN ~
5CAl.E: 1!4' . V_p•
I~NORTN GORE GREEK DR[VE jo~ e"6^5 I
j
. :fCh .1 Fy...,
A2
J1 1
i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ..Sa~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
Sc~erbrrQ k
~ Ays~rcfxtes,
.lrchFtscts
Y.('.•A.I.A.
` ( t.~~F~~ixr
f =
W
~
~ nlFj
1~a
~ S o
IF]
= r4
k U W 7
; tn X
EXISTING E7CISFlIVG
BhLCOCFY - BAY WtNDQ14 EXkSTING . I ~
BAI.C6NY .
1 ~ : t r 1
~
~
,r
~
f L_
.
, . . . : ~ ~
:
.
- - - - - _
"exESrfnG awxrna
E%iSTFNQ gXt571NC AWNfNf3
EXIS"PlNG WE5T ELEVATION eNrnv hwNtxc
scaLe:ua- r-a* sr:gs__
P at<:i ~ ;
~~n~•-- w
Ct.eaFe1 t ~ f..{
.
_t
~
/~J"~
: . . . . . . r 1. y.
. . . . . _
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ j.^E~4~4x.
~ ~ ~ '
~ .
~ ~ Yirrce,
t ticgr~hrr~ &
rtssaclitsw,
~~rehltects
Y F• h I f.
I ,w
..~~.....:..er...~
,
~ ~ ur.[~~.os r
~
d
I ~
.
Q Q
~
- ~ W 0
\ f ! ~ ~ ~
> 0 ~
V
.'__IEX15T{NG
BA.i.GON[tS
E7StSlIN6 RQOF PFtAItiAtiE
i CRICKL'!S - ~
"
. ~
~
`f
.
, _
~ !;+~;@1F~ ~7`~' ~__~f ',ky ~ t~ - ' ~ %f.~ ~ ~ ` i~'~~ ~
,
'
,
,
~
L,~•_ ` - ~r- ~j
- • ~ i. .
FAST EELTBY
~ Wfl9T L FEXtSTtN(1ATM
€MTFiY 1.
~
E?CYSTiNG SOtJTt{ ELEVA'i`10N GffRE CR£EtC I}ittVE
t
SCM.E' 1f8• - E`-0• 2 ~ I I 4~ r, S I,
t- C
.c LE _~J c
~.c
Afr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Segerberg &
j Assa~cixtes,
~ .\rctulects
GOKSUCH LTD.
OFF!€f SPXGE
; t...~,.~..
BAk.COtiY \
.
GOSSUCft LTU, - . ~ I
~ OFFlCESPACE g
~
' G48SUC}f~ €.TD.
- RbTA1L SPACE
QP6N
IIECK
~
_ ~ . -
~ F 4VtER BO~~-,.
Q .
NEW SA14L5riY ~ ME& ~6AY WtNAOM+
FL4WI:R 80X £XFSTSNG RE70F
( - -LL . ~ t. CtEW FLOW€R BQX
NEW Y
ABDI ION
PRQPOSED WEST 2Ni3 LEVEL PLRN ~ - O
scn~: «r - rsr
> o ~
~NONTH._. xEw PROFdSED WE
CANUAS AWNING ST 3RR LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 1f4' - 1'-tl'
•__."'_-....v.._,^,--_._... . X
. Q~" ~
- ~ ~
, mt S°fOH. ~ .
EN1'RY
~
f+bH5UCti LT~6,
RErA(i seaeE
t~KE ~touss
RES1AtfRqNT VES1i8U4E k ( f
E
~7
. ~
t BAY Nt{NDOW
_._..kAB(7VE
j t .t-`_. NEFU ' ~ .
ARCt1EU €NTHY ~DECK
_ ~ . ' .
i
~ - - -
~
-j u ~1
~
UV CANVAS AWNtW6 A8C1VE
PRC}POSED WESt STFtEET LEVEL RLAN
6CR[E:1/4'-1`-0'
,y T3RIDGE STREET - - ~
NOEiTFt
€
coomwArsummomm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .m.a~. ~
. _ . . . ~,u,ri..y„~~
~ ~ .
r _
I ticeecbrrp &
~ Assoctatca,
Afch'tttct~
Y.!'.•,\.I.h,
~ ~C1ENf I ~ u
~ 8AY EXTEN3ION
NEW AWNtNG
~
I I i
%
, ~
~ ~ i_ z:...
I~
' ' . ..+f~.,..-7~i
. ~ ...•,_z: r. ~ _:a ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - - ~ ~ -
r --t~---` NEW NFW -------T`
~''~..-o NEW kWN~ING~~ FWWCH H07C
FC()W[R Bb1t ti ~ ~ ~ - NEW AWNtNG \ NEW
FLOTVER St7XES ~ > 0 ~
CC J
¢
PROPOSEI) SzlU"t't# 2NI} L,fiVEL PLIiN I! NottTtl ~ C.3 uj
E^
se.eLe: itr • i~-u' X
~
~ C4
Q
C~
k + ~
.
I
.
~
NLW 7.1
AWNiN4AUbVE
~
i
~ i . .
u~
~ ~
, I f
- s .
( ~ F.._ . ~ ~ " L.C'"'1' ~ ' ...,-..,_-E-~~=.0~:..,_.Yt_ ~ ~ 1 f " ~ , _ " _ _
_ . .t.
DtiCK A1iOVk NEW NEW FLQWEt{
AWNING A66VE AWN4CYG ABOVfl 90XES hHOVE
f
f
PaaPasea saurH sTxEer LEVEc. PLaN
SCALF: W.- 1,_0.
TNOR'rti GQRE CRLEK DRkVE r atsvs~ '
~ 4 vs¢4[ Ui
A6
.
~ ~
~ ~ i iercc~
t ~f~<fh4[[ 6.
Alft}C{ifE1.
AfC111{tCti
p.f- •A.l.k.
A I~4tfv~e~~;x!
fr',~ [l(t f W.~;_
.1 .~•~,~_~~a~a ~
E [ t ~
- F-'
k t17 ~ ~yy
Nf: W THFM
& PANEk,IJNG .I d W CC
- a ~.a
- NEW un~.coKr ~ > p u
Rnrurtc. rvrrcnL
NEW F1L1V7Eft u W >
~
B6%ES, TYYtCAL
NEW C?ORMft{ I
J~k+EW FABCfA & ~ /.6 BAY WtIYWW , NEW TtMBC'R C}
SOFF(i.'FYPICAK
J i ?1 d ! i b E ~ ! I _ _ _ -
_ _ . _
~
new sruccc>
COf1lR. 7ti'FICMt
~l`~
A.
C-1
. . I ~ 1 . .
tr
e,`t~ ~ }S ( I
u carrex tiwninc
~ 6NTRY ~ .
11~I1~(Il1l11[It1((1 1 1.1 ~11~
1.
-fl-
f
arucco srorre wxsE NEW awnrna
PROPf75E:D WE5T ELEVATION - BRtucesTxeer fNFRY C(tVEH
SCALE: I/4` ~!'-O'
~ p . _
IF 4X6
~ sk • a:
A7
. . . . . . . . . . . . .gc:..~.~.
~ ~ ~ .
f ~t'1<rea,
~f ~i<gcnc~r~&
~ Avnd:¢ce,
~ :lych:tc~ctx
M[ xt.a.
~
I
X-1
.
~
~ i
t
E
- . , ~ ~ p
New ~
~
PA'EtNqTG(T C4YPEA W
NUMERA{.S
~w
a a
,
, - , -
NEW Bk4CONY
HAtt.lN( IYI
N[W F7AWkH NtW Fh5(:{A .
AM(T SOFFIT
eOXt:&.T'YP
NEW 4>Pft-HtiR Ek7ENUk`U NO(YI' (SVLltlMFfG
f^
& 8AY WtHpOW
` y,~ , ;
.
i
t k<. , .
y.~ . , " ~
~t-CQFPER f [ I I~~ ~ 11tS ~ I t
fOELECT(Mt n g { ( 1/1 ~~F(F ~
~.~~i I M{EADf
i
f ~ IX)WHSY(1{
J
~
HoUSE ENiit ~ ~ C. J ~ f(/PF"EP. ~WNtNG
I F - 7
6(YOND~
i/'.~[~[1~
i _flEW f y
EAN'IERN 7
~~i .
Au 1 . . . 4_Y~. . . _ I H£W ..,_HEW ftOWER
C6PYERAwNING WXES
. ' 4
4 _ .
PBIJPOS£D SC1L}Tk'f ELEVRTIGN " GL1ftE CREEK DRIVE
SCALE: 1/4' - 114`
~ i
v ~7t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ g<oaw•~,N ~
~
~ -
WAM
- i' F -A
E ,
N~.
~ ,.~p
r+vr. t..JJ_~ k~rGHE++ ~ A . .wu.~wr
. . _ I F c~„..
.
1CGrk ~ ~ a'
_
` . . . r.. .
-
~r~4,•~
......_~..__r l n . . ~...,t`....__. - -~....«.,x.
w,.. ~ i
~ e~-nKr \ f f
I YtLL
~
~
- -
q § ~ ~ w
UJ p
~~,t ~ , ~ - _ c~ ~
~ O
f,4 4
~ - 4 ~ I - - > O u
~ V w ¢ ,
,
~ ~
,
$A~~.MENT L~v~t.- E
~ ~ n < t ~-e : ,.a~-• ' ~ ~
( f _ _y _ _ _ _ ~ . ~ { .'Nt ~~ron~
~ ~ ~ L!F'G1tR AK~ F/FI"IG6 I ~
t J ~
lt~
( Pa ~
PftOP(1$f:D { I.FI - ; ~ ~ .4
F..' BAY WiN6P+M! ~ I 0 GORSUGN LFO. 16535.1.
1.
pZ{.TEN810N b ,5~~ ~u)el { 6RE 140t798 RFSThURANt 4017.1. ~ ~ "r---- O st"estiaot-s tsne .r.
~ O ttFAL7Y LIFFSCE 1433 ,t. t s rs,e _i
0 CQMl1C1N &FRCf $99.1,
~p x
~
tQTA4 24344st
..1~~-.-Y-.'~:,.l.~..._.b~-~'-.~:i-.-.~~:=:.-a-<d__ .:,-I §~i~e.!•r.. K~ ..~~..r:.~dr~:.ls.kt~In~.A 4heti.I~r
4 kd.ta
CLOGK TPWEft BUfLtkfMG- COMPf15!?E FLWR i'LAN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . a~- ~
~ ~ #
~ MEMqRANDUM
Tt); Planning and Environrnental Commissifln
FROM; Community Development Department
DATE: Ju{y 13, 1998
SUBJEGT. A request for a conditional use permit, ta allow far wireless comr`nunicatirin i
an#ennas with equipment area, located at the Vail Mountain Schaol, 3160 Katsas
Ranch Road/l.ot 12, Block 2, Vail Viilage 12th Filing.
Applicant: US West Wireless & Sprint Spectrum, represented by Jiil Jelinek of
L.iberty Wirestar
Planner. Christie Barton
1. DESCRIPTION 4F THE RE4UEST The applicant proposes to instafl fiour panei antennas mounted behind a cupola on top of the VaiF
Mountain School building. The accessory equipment will be located behind the building
(northeast side) in a fenced area and will not be visibie from the frontage road. The eguipment
will be instailed inside a cedar fence ta screen it from adjoining properties. Ceilular services and
antennas are considered a public utility ar service requiring a conditionai use permit in this zone
district.
~ The praposal includes the ins#allation of 4 panel antennas and a 11' x 33' equipment area located
on the nartheast side a# the existing building. See praposed plans and pho#os attached. The
Design Review Board has reviewed the plans on a conceptual basis and have suggested the
changes that are shown on the present plans.
1f. ZONING ttNiALY515
The subject property is zoned General Use (GU) District. According to Cnapter 9C af the Zoning
Code, "Public Utility Instailatians" can be permitted in the GU zone district as a conditional use.
Development standards are determined by #he PEC. The accessary equipment will be instafled
behind a fence and will requPre noadditional site coverage.
~ III. CC}NL117'1ONAL. USE CR1T'ERiA AND F1L01INGS
Upon review a# Title 12 Chapter 16, the Camrnunity Deveiopment Department recommends
approval ofi the conditianal use permit based upon the following factars:
A. Cnnsideration of Factors-
1. Relationship and impact of the use on develQpment objectives of the
Town.
Staff beCieves that the propvsed use is campatible with the existing school use,
and is generaily consistent with the purpose af this zone district . The antennas
T0 WiY
41t
wiil be located inside a cupola to bfiend in with the existing building. Staff ~
believes that iC is advantageous to accommodate telecQrnmunications facilities in
various locatians on existing buildings, rather than having large unsightly towers
throughaut the town.
2. The effect af the use on light and aor, distribution of papulation,
transportation facilities, u#ilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff befieves ihere will be noimpact dn the abave-referenced issues but wi[l
create a benefit in the form of praviding additional telecommunication services,
3. Effect upan traf#ic with particular reference to conges#inn, automative
and pedestrian safiety and conuenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow fram the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes there will be no impact on the above-referenced issues as the
facility will be visited once per month far maintenance purposes. Utiiizing an
existing structure fiurther reduces impact as the access raad is already maintained
for the primary use of the facility.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proppsed use is #o
be iocated, including the SCale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff believes the proposed cupola and equipment area have been designed in a ~
way to minimize any detrimental effects. The proposed antennas shauld have
little or no effect on surrounding properties and uses and pravides the potential for
co-location of telecommunication facilitieson the same structure.
B. Findinas
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shafil make the #ollawina findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
- 1. That the proposed location af the use is in accord with the purposes of the
~ eonditional use permit section a# the zoning code and the purposes of the
_ district in which the site is Iocated.
2. That the proposed locatian of the use and the conditions under which it
would be aperated or maintained would not be detrimental #o the pubfic
health, sa#ety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the propased use wauld camply with each of the applicable
provisions ofi the conditional use permit section of the zaning code,
~
2
~ IV. STAFF RECUMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the criteria discussed abpve,
subject to the following f9ndings:
1. Tha2 the proposed fncatian ofi the use is in aecordance with the purpases
of the conditianal use permit section of the zaning code and the purpose of
the General Use zone district.
. 2. That the proposed (ocation of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained wi11 no# be detrimentai to the pubiic
health, safety, ar welfare ar materially injurious to praperties or
impravements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use wili comply with each of the applicable provisians
ofi the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
~
F:1E V E RYO N E\P E G\M E Mt3S \98\L1 BE R 7Y.713
~
3
F 5, ,
t£ ~
i 1 n
1
}
~ f } - ' '
, ~ .y ' t y ,~'~'.5' ~ n'•
~k+a„~ , ' Y ~.A' ~ ~ ~L, ,5 ;~Yfi a+y'-•
w p~
*sz} ~"g'#~~'~"''~ a. ~ , ~ ~ +,t,,~~ ~x ~q•~^
tq
• ~ ri~ , 4 ; . s , " ~„k ~
htqr ~t~C r k ~`y r~,'~~y,d ~w ~ ~ ~ i 'i
<
-7
Y k' 3
~
~ .
,
w 3~• xa~'~~v.u~ ~s,~'.*~'d2'~ ' ~w. ~ ~ rv a , , n , , , .
r i
'.K
,~~~~a~a€'~uM ~
• , , ` ' ~ ~~,n~ ,d.: ~ ~ ,
~
~ PCS InstalZation Project
~
Vail Mourn, tai~c School Site
Vrew A -
~ ~ ~ _
w~
"
~ w'~# ~ •
. a' .t "a.~ - k k ~ ~'<=i° - ~ Sr, ! s
"
~r
~ • µ F , 'u` ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ k 'ffi- , a& , 3~ ~ ~ ~ '
C s.,.
w
~Rlin ~ . ~
~ ,-a, , 't? , s,Y * - k ~ ~ s ~ , - ~ :a . tr .
~
~ ~ ~1~s.~~.w:'r.3. ~"a.;~ ."t t ~ . ~ ~ . , . ?~rq. ~?`~y j , a • +A ,
i. A&L
PC'S Installation Project
Vail Mountain School Site
. . View s
R
~
s` 6EN~E ~
pry C()flj- g~~g A7' ~ .
j j l~~ .~`f~,!a, ~ • _ ~'i3~~ NTR
~ fig~, ~
~ i ` t„ - ~q ~{r ` g ~
579'24
! - _ . . . . . .
• _ 77
zo' uriLirv EnsEMeNr {PLAT}
_ _ f
.
{ ~[T v.act~ tb• .y.:C``w+.."..`~v~i t 1
- CL Y
~ c t~ . .
i
A cv+~~ ~+1 ~ tr
t,
f ~
1 4 j scHOti~ au;totiNS ~ t i~ J ~1
~
'oV 51
I vi
~ ~ t C~1 ~ J q t
I 14 i l"-t ,1 t ti l
t'" 1
~1 1
. f ..---~'fr t 1 1
1 i~ 7
Cv /t
1 f
' j \ ` • t . °$$$g~¢~ ~
~ ~ vka~es~e tPt 4 P = r~ z~~w ~ ~
~
~ gt 1
r ~n• ~~r~~.t1Y +5~NT
L 4AtN . .
gi~ ~ t {
ka+~ ~ ~
tcani~Ct 1 ~
wv i=~o w
NtGH\NAY 1-70
- ~
} y"
~
PRdPQ$f0 C{IPOIA ~ At0 fiNi€NNAS ~CLDAR $ltAKE R00lWG . . . . .
COA% LONCE~tCO '-^1'y4' CEQAft TFIN PANf 70
PROPOiEd 'N CaNbUii UNO(R~ u,1tCW EXI$[ING bnflK BflbWN
' EDN~'kEY( ROOt iPVA ./-tCP Oi'?210Cf VENi
t
aR0ab5tb 8'-a' . . . . . . . . . . ~
wC. CeaAR FENCE PRQPDSEtl~
TNIfNNA L S1F1UH IOWER
fiCREENED PANFt, CAI.C% 10
I i t 8L1IiNA SfEN,I{i Mnitti Ex61iYG tnN
1 II PrfiYEL (1YP.) $fUGCU
t i
~ CRp6E
E%ISONC SNED CYM ~ -€Xf9TING.5NQ0 -
Ek15(iNG .r.r. ~ . . . . . . . REIM1iNINC WAII
NORTHWE5T ELEVATICSN
~
~
-vRovaseo cnrain "
TNO AMfENN\5
-P\INT t0 VAtCfi
E%6(INC tAN 5tUCC0
I;UGE FIi0PO5fD $"-0'
VF,Nr i +nGH CEOnR iE.W^E €XSitNL
EXii TtNG PiUSfER~..i . SCCt00l CV
r I r'11= 't -rI -ir'i ~ -
f 1 I 1 .il I 11 11 I
CRnO€ 11 I f 11 1~ 1 I 1 li. i.
/
ENCLOSE Ct3AX htONC
~ PROPOSEO SiOE EXifitiNG PiCASifR
EOUiPMENt
Nbft7HEC15i L=4d.L~
~.~.._t_.. ~.s.
SSaIF~
1f1' a I• V•
~
~ MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Planning and Environmental Comrnission
FR4M: Community Development Department
DRTE: July 1,3, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a majar exterior alterafiian in CC2 and a conditinnal use permit, to
ailow for a restauranf expansion and an outdoor dining deck, Iocated at the Village
Center Building (La Tour), 122 East Meadow Drive/ Block 5E, Vail Village 1 sfi;
Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdnn &Hapkins
Architects
Planner: George Ruther
1. 12ESG(21PT1OIVCiF THE REQUEST
Pam Hapkins, on behalf of the La Tour Restaurant and Fred Hibbard, has requested a major
exteriar aIteration in #he Commerciai Core 2(CC2) Zone Distric# and acanditional use permit, to
allow for a proposed building addition and the re(oca#ion of the outdaor dining deck afi the Village
~ Center Building, 1ocated at 122 Eas# Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
The La Taur Restaurant is located in #he Village Center Bailding beneath fhe Gl4ckenspiel. The
applicant is proposing a new entry and dining roam addition tQ the restaurant. "Che prnposed
addition will increase the exis#ing area of the restaurant by 530 sq. ft. The irnprovements
proposed with the addi#ion include a new bay window on the west elevation of the Cleone's retaii
space, a 335 sq. ft. addition ta the seating area of the restauran# and a new 194 sq. ft. waiting
area. Add'rtionally, the applicant has proposed to relocate the existing outdoor eating area to the
norkh of the existing dining area and to recanstruct the existing planter in the plaza. The building
materials used to construct the additinn are propased to match the existing materials nn the
building. This includes the stucco walls ahd the gravel roof. The wail sign currently located
abave the existing firant entry will be replaced once the add'rtion is cornpleted. The new sign will
be pufi back over the new front entry on a newiy proposed awning_
A copy of the p1ans have beenattached for reference.
i
il. Zt3NING ANAI.YSlS
;
The following summarizes fhe relevant zopirrg, statistics for this request:
~
Zontng: Gommercial Gore 2 (GC2) Lpt Area: 32,948 sq. ft. 10.756 acres ;
~ Setbacks: no changes praposed ~ -
~
f:Neveryane\pec\me~nos\98Uatour.713 ~ Tot~NO~YAtG
1
.i
4
~ SItB CbVet'~ge:
~
AIlowable ~xi.__ `~tinc~ Proposed Remainina
23,064 sq. ft. 15,661 sq. ft. 16,201 sq. ft, 6,867 sq. ft:
(70°10 of total site area) {47.5%} (49,2%0) (20.8%) Parking*: L.a Tour Restaurant addition with 336 sq. ft. ! 15 sq. f#. per personl8 seats = 2.8 spaces.
Total additiflnal parking fee required =$48,896.1'7.
Loading: No change
At {east 112 of the required parking shail be located within the main building or buildings. Na parking or loading
may be included in any front setback area. As #his property is located in the GC2 Zone bis#rict, any new
parking spaces that are generated as a result af the propased building addition must be provided on-site,
hawever, if the site is unable ta accommodate additional parking spaces, the applicant may pay inta the Town
of Vail parking fund. At this time, parking spaces are $ 17,462.92. The appiicant wilt be requieed to pay the
parking fes#hat is in efFect at the time that a building permit is issued forthe propased remadel;
IH. CRITERIA TO 8E USED !N EVALUATING Th11S PRUPUSAL
The review criteria for a request afi this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipai
Code. The emphasis of this reuiew is on the proposal's campatibility with the Zoning 'Code, the
Town af Vaii Streetscape Master Pian, the Vail Village Urban pesign Guide Pfan, the Vail Village
Design Considerations and the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
~ A. Com .rliance with the Tcavsrn of Vai! Zoning Ccrde
As s#ated in the Zoning Code, the purpose df the CC2 Zone CJistricf is as fo11ows:
"Tha GG2 flisfrict is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple
dwellings, fodges, and!cornmercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. The CQ2 Dis#rict is intended #o insure adequate light, air,
open space and other amenities apprapriate to the permitted types af
buildings and uses and ta rnaintain the desirable quality of the district by
establishing appropriate site developmertt standards.'°
Additionally, the Zaning Code defines an Exterior Alteration as, in part,
"the al#eration af an existing buifding which adds or remaves any enclosed
floor area (and/or) the altera#ion of an existing building wliich madifies the
existing roaf." ,
An ex#erior alteration is co tsider a"major" exterior alteration if the addition is
greater than 100 square feIt in size.
As s#ated in the Zoning Code, ~he purpose of a conditianal use p~,rmit is as
fo((ows: ~ ~
"1n arder to provide the flexibility necessary tn achieve the,objectives of
this 7`itfie, specified uses are permitted in certain disfricts subject to the
~ granting of a canditional use permit. Because of #heir unusual ar special ;
characteristics, conditinnal uses require review and evaluation so that the~
r
4
f:\everyone\pec\memas\98Matour.713 '
2
~ .
iw
~ may be (ocated praperly with respect ta the purpases of this Title and wifh
respect to their effectsi on surrounding properties. The review process
prescribed irm this Chapter is intended to assure compatibility and
harmonious development between canditional uses and surrounding
properties and the Town at Iarge. Uses listed as conditional uses in the
various districts may be permitted subjecfi to such conditions and
limifia#ions as the Tflwn may prescribe to ensure that the iocafion and
° operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with deueioprnent
objectives af the Town and wiil not be detrimental #o other uses or
properties. Where conditions cannat be devised to achieve fihese
abjec#ives, applications for conditionai use permits shaii be denied."
According ta the Town of Vai! Municipal Code;
"an outdaor dining deck shall be permitted on the firsf flotir or stree# leve(
pfi buildings in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District subject to the issuance
of a conditional use permit."
STAFF FtE SPONSE:
Upon revievir of the propased major exterior alteration and condifional use permit
fa aliow for an exterior expansion and the relocafion of the existing autdoor dining
deck at the La Tour Restaurant, staff befieves thafi the proposed addition compiies
wi#h the purpose sta#ement of the CC2 Zone District and that the addition is a
major exte(iar alteration since the prcrposal adds 53{} square feet of rrew fioar area
~ to the existing building.
B. CoLnpliar~ce with the VAi! Village llrban Desicin G+uide Pian
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan does not specificaliy identify
improvements for the Village Genter proper#y. l'he only relevant sub-area elemsnt
in the immediate vieinity of the proposed Vil(age Center Suilding addition is the
landscape element. According to the landscape element described in the Vait ;
Village Urban nesign Guide F'ian, retaining walls, if proposed, should inciude
seating opportunities and be cnnstructed of either cancrete ar rounded storte
cobble with hidden mortar. 'The Iandscape element guidelines specifically indicate
that woad retaining wails are strongly disoouraged due to deterioration caused by
Vail's harsh climate.
Currerrtly, a 48 sq, ft. waod-tie landscape planter exists in the plaza area rror#h af
the proposed addition to th,e L.a Tour Restaurant. The planter is owned and
maintained by the applicant. The planter is beginning to deteriorate and show
signs of age.
The applicant is proposing o r place the existing 48 sq. fit. wood-tie planter at #his
time. t7r~ March 11, 1996, ~ha ~pplicant appiied for, and had appraved, a major
exteriar alteration to the Got#heif Gallery, which is immedia#ely adyacent to the La !
Tour Restaurant. At that time, the applicant did rro# feel that the size and scope of
the proposal for the improvements to the Gottheif GaNery justified the need to
replace the planter. The applicant agreed td repiace the planter when
~ improvements were made to the La Taur Restaurant. b
~
f
~
f:Neveryone\peclmemosk9811atour.713
3
t
~ S1`AFF RESPC7i11a'E:
I
5taff eoncurred with the appiicant at the time of the Gotthelfi Gallery impravements
and feit that the proposal, as suggested by fihe applicant for replacing the planfer,
was acceptable. Staff naw believes #hat the applicant needs to replace the
exisfiing planter. Staff would recommend that the planter be replaced in its
approximate or exact focation and that the materials used in the reconstruction of
the planter be those materials prnposed by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan. Specificapy, staff would suggest fhat #he planter be constructed of rounded
stone cobble with hidden mortar and be na more than 18" in height. The 18,"
heighfi limitation will allow for the plan#er tn be used for informal seating.
C. Cornpliance with the urban design considerations fcar Vail Village and the
exterior alteration criteria.
1. Urban Design Considerations.
a. Pedestrianization
A major abjecfive fnr Vail Village is to enccaurage pedestroan circulation through an
interconnected ne#wark of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Staff believes the
pedestrian way to #he north pf the Viilage Center Building is aCready a pleasant
pedestrian envirnnment wi#h the heated, brick paver walkways, Iarge areas af
mature landscaping, and the appropriata pedestrian scale of the building. The
pians praposed by the applicant further enhance the pedestrian environment. It is
~ staff's opinion that the proposed addition to the La Tour Restaurant will not
negativEly impact, nor affect the pedestrian scafe of the walkway adjacent to the
Viilage Center Building.
b. Traffic penetration
The major exterior aIteration ~t the Village Center Building will have no effect upon
vehicuiar penetration into the Village. The praposed addition will gerterate an
increase in the total parking requirement for the Village Center Building by 2.8
parking spaces. The increase in the parking requirernent will be met by the
applican# through a payme?it irito the Town of Vail Parking Fund. Therefore, staff
believes there will be no impacts to vehicular penetration into the Viilage as,a
result of this request.
c. Streetscape framework
~According to the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, the quality of the
walking experience should e impraved when necessary, and the pedestrian wayf '
should be maintained. C~n~means af accomplishing #his goal is to infili
cammercial store frants. S#aff believes that the proposed addifian will generafe
cammercial activity and aA tolthe visuai in#erest of the building wi#hout
jeopardizing the walking experience qr pedestrian way irr the area: ~
d. Street enclosure
~ Generally, street enclosure becomes an issue when each side of astree# has
buildings on it. In #he case of Eas# Meadavw Drive in the proximityc~f the Village~
, ~
.
f:Xeveryone\pec\memos\98Vatour.713 4
.3
W
~ Center Building, only the south side of the street is €ronted upon by a building. To
the north side of East MeadoW Drive, across from the La Tour Restaurant, is the
intersection of East Meadow C3rive and Village Center Raad. I# is staff's opinion
that the addition ta the La Tour Restaurant will have a positive effect an the
perception of street enclosure. Staff feeis the proposed addition wif( bring the
building closer to the main pedestrian walkway, thus helping to divert the attentron
ofi a pedestrian back to the building's display windaws.
,
e. Street edae
According to the Vail Viilage Urban Design Considerations, buifdings in the Village
should form a strang but irregular edge #o the street. The resulting "jogs" m the
buildings should be used as activity areas for pedestrian use (ie. gathering,
resting, orienting, etc.). Staff believes that the creation of the irregularity of the
propased building addition is positive. In staff's opinian the proposed addition
meets the goals of the Vail Village Urban I3esign Gonsiderations as it relafies to
street edge.
f. Buildin height
The building heighfi proposed by the applicant is in keeping with the intent of the
Vail Viliage Urban Design Considerations. The height of the proposed addition
wil( be sigrrificantiy fess fhan the overall height of the existing building. Staff
believes fha# the applicant has done an exce!lent job af rnatching the scale of the
addition with the scale of the exisfiirtg building.
~ g. Views
T'he Vail Village Urban L7esign Considerations stress the importance of views in
the Viilage area, As proposed, the addition will nof encroach upon any of the
estab[PsMedview corridors.
2. Archi#ectural/Landseape Considerations.
a. Roofs
~
The appiicant has praposed a roof farm sim'r[ar to the existing roof form a{ready an
the building. The new rovf over the La Taur Resfaurant addi#ion will simply be pn
extension of the existing roof and eave Iine. The exis#ing raof surface mafierial on
the Viilage Center Building is gravei. When the addi#ion to the La Tour Restaurant
is completed, the new roof,over the addi#ion will blend and mafich the existirtg roof
and raof material. S#aff finds that the roof farms and roofi materials proposed by
the appl+cant are in compii nce with the architectural/landscape considerations of` the Vail Village Urban Desi n Considerations.
b. Facades
The applicanf has praposed tha# all building materiaEs useci onthe addttronwili ~
match the existing materials already on the buiiding, The appliGant is praposing to
add an additional bay windnw #o the ncrrth elevation. Acctirding to the Vail Village
~ Urban Design Considerations, bay, bow and box windows are comman window
detai(s, which add further variety and massing to facades. 5uch window types alip
~
f:\everypne\pec\memos\98Uataur.713 '
5
~
~ encouraged. It is the opinion af the staff that the appiicant's praposal to match
the existing maferials on the new building facade is a positive aspect of this
proposal. Staff wauid suggest, however, that the applicant complete the painting
af the building soffits as part ofi the construction process of the proposed addition.
c. Balconies
Na bafconies are included in this request, and therefore, are not relevant to this
1'@VI@UV:
d. Decks and Patios
A dining deck is proposed with this request. The exisfing dining deck
accommodates three to four tables. The applicant is sirnply praposing to relacate
the deck to accommodate the new restaurant addition.
e. Accent elements
Colarfui accent elements, consistent with existing character are encauraged in the
Village. WhiMe the apPlicant is not proposing any changes to the building where it
would be possible fio incorpora#e new aecent eiernents, staff believes the addition,
overall, will be a posifiive element an the building.
f. L:andscape elements
~ Upnn review of the site, staff finds the landscape elements on the plaza are
adequate. Staff feeis there is a need to replace the exis#ing woad-tie plan#er
located in the plaza. The existing wood tie planter is beginning to show signs of
deterioration resulting in an unattractive piaza landscape element. Staff feeis that
this praposal is of a scope Iarge enough #o require the replacemen# of the wood-
tie planter.
g. 5ervice ~
No additional loading and delivery services are required as a result of this request.
I
D. Compliance with the Tawn of Vail 5treetscg eMaster Plan,
The Tnwn of Vaii Streefscape Master Plan attempts ta imprcrve the functioning
character of the atea'by adding sidewalks where none presently exist, screening
parking areas, and replacing railroad tie constructed retaining walis with boulder,
, or stone wails. Approximately, 1J2 af the sub-area (which includes the 1li{lage
Center} is already we11 land6caped. The existing raised brick walkway that is adjacent fio the Village Cerrier Cammercial area is a good example of an area thai
is well landscaped and well I ap oinfed with site furnishings. The anly
improvements su9gested i~ thE master p1an for the Viflage Center area is
expanding the p{anter near the entrance to the parking sfruc#ure. 'The pian ~
indicates that this would better define the roadway as well as increase the averall,
landscaped area.
~
f
~
f:\everyone\pec~memos\98Uatour.743 6
.i
~
~ STAFP RESPQNSE:
!
Upon review of the site by staffi, the improvements suggestec# in the Tawn of Vail
Master Streetscape Plan have aiready beer? compieted. This work was cornpleted
approximately 2-1/2 to 3 years ago. Therefore, no new streetscape plan
improvements are prapaseri to be made with this application.
E. C4mpliance wwth the Vail Com prehensive PIan
Several eIemeh#s of the Vail' Comprehensive Pian indirectly address the proposed
Major exterior alteration to the L.a 7our Restaurant. The relevant e{emen#s and
sectiorts are iisted below:
1. Land Use filan -
4.3: "The ambiance aF the Vi{Iage is important to the identity of Vail
and shauld be preserved. Scale, alpine character, sma11 ta`rvn
€eeling, mountains, natura( setting, intimate size, cosrraopo3itanfeeling and environmentai quality shali be maintained or
enhanced,"
2. Vail 1l'rilage Master Plan -
2.4 Objective: "Encourage the development of a variety of
cornmerciai activities that are compafiible with existing land uses.,"
~ 2.4.1Policy: "Commercia( infilldeveiopment consisten# withestablished horizontal zoning regufatians shall be encauraged ta
provide activity generators, accessibie green spaces, public
piazas, and streetscape impravernents to the pedes#rian network
throughout the Vs11age."
i
STAFF RESP'ONSE.
Staff be(ieves the applican#;s proposal seeks ta achieve eaeh of the objectives
and policies listed above.
!V. GF2dTER.1A AND F1ND9NGS FOR A CONC?ITiONAL CJSE PERMI1'
Upon rev6ew of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Camrnunity Deveiflpment Department
recommends apprtaval af the conditianal qse permi# request ta aIiow far allow fflr a restaurant ,
expansion and an autdoor d'rning deek, lolpted at the Village Genter 8uilding (l.a Taur); based ~
upon the following factars:
A. CONSIDERATION C1F F,4CTdFtS: ,
1. Rela4ionship and impact of the use on the derrelopmerafi objectives afi
the Town, ,
~
~
4 '
f;leveryone\peclmemosl98Vatour.71 3 7
.a
4
~ 5taff believes the applicant's pcoposal is in concert with the Town
devebpment objectiveis and wiN have minimal, if any, nega#iveimpacts onexisting or potential uses in the surrounding area.
2. The effiect of the use on light and air, distributiorn of popuiaticrn,
transportafiion faci(i4ies, utilitves, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and ofiher pubiic facilities needs.
Sfaff believes that the proposal will have minimal negative impacts pn the
above-described criteria. As discussed in the previous criteria, staff
beiieves the greatest impact of the applicant's proposal wili be on parking:
However, staff believes that the parking impact can be successfully
mi#igated.
3. Effect upon traffic with pat-ticular reference fio congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, trafFic flpw and cantrol,
access, rnaneuverabiDity, and removal of snow frorn the street and
parkingareas. 5tafif believes there will be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above-
described criteria
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propased use is to
be lacated, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relatian to surrounding uses.
~ Staff believes that the proposal has rnany posi#ive aspects and that the
character of the area wiil be enhanced as a result af the proposed
improvernents.
B. FtNiJINGS i
The Plannin and Environmental Comrnission shall rnake the followin-ci findin s before
ranfii!2ci a conditional use permifi
,
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permi# section a# the zoning code and the purposes
af the district in which the site is located.
2. That the praposed location of the use and the canditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would nat be detrimental to the public
healfih, safety, or wglfare or materially injurious to properties ar ,
improvements in thp vicini#y. ~
3. Tha# the propased juse Quld comp1Y with each of the aPplieable
g~
provisions of the conditiona1 use permit section of the zoning code. ,
~
f:leveryone\pec\memos\98Vatour.713 $
a
`v
~ W. S1'AFF RF=COMMENDATIC)N
1
The Community Development aepartment recommendations approval of the praposed
majnr exterior aiteration to the Village Center Buiiding and the conditionaJ use permit ta
allaw for an addition to the La Tour Restaurant. The recommendation for the approval of
tne major exterior alteratian and conditional use permit requests is based upon the
pasitive effect the proposal will have an the surrounding uses in the area; and the lack of
negative effects the propasal will have on the Town of Vaii in genera1. Staff finds the
applicant's requests compiy with the criteria outlined far a request of this nature in the
Zoning Gode, the Town of Vaii Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Design
Considerations, and the Vail Gomprehensive Plan. Furthermore, staff believes the rnajor
exterior alteration proposed by the appiicant is supported by #he Town's goals and
objectives.
Shouid the FEC choose to approve the applicant's request for a major exterior alteration
and the conditional use permi#, the staff would recommend the #oll4wing findings;
1. That the major exteriar a(teration is in compliance and is campatibie with the
Town of Vail Zoning Code, the Town of Vai1 Streetscape Master Plan, the Vai1
Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vai! Village Urban design Considerations
and the Vaii Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the proposed location of the dining deck is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit sectian of the zoning oode and the purposes of the
Commercial Core 2 Zane District.
~ 1 Thafi the praposed location of the outdoor dining deck and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained wnuld not be detrimenta1 ta the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity of the La Tcaur Restauranfi.
4. Thafi the proposed outdaor dining deck cornpiies with each of the applicable
pravisions of fihe conditionai use permit sectian of #he zoning code as outlined in
Section IV of this memorandum.
Should the PEC choase #o apprave the applicanYs reqaest for a majar exterior alteratian
and the candifional use permit to allcrw for an addition to the La Tour Restaurant, the staff
would recommend that the approval carry with it the fallvwing conditions:
1. That the unpainted soffits on the existing building be painted pricyr #o the issuance
of a Temparary Certificate pf aecupancy fiar fihe addition.
2. That the applicant provide ~pot eievatians, as deemed necessary by the Public
Works Department, for the proposed addifion, priar #o applicatian for Building
F'ermit. The purpose of th sp t elevations is to determine the effects of the
prc~posed addition on the strfa~e drainage of the p(aza area. „
~
3. That the appiicant install a snowmeit system under fihe entire area of #he plaza.
Portions of the plaza have been le#t unheafied pending the proposed
improvements fio the Village Center Building,
~ 4. That the appiican# replace the non-matching pavers along the curbline in frant of x
Cleone's and Karat's with the matching pavers that will be removgd ta ~
aceommadate the footprint of the new restaurant addition. •
f:keveryanetpec\m emos\98i1a#aur.713
9
.a
}
~ 5. That the applicant submi# detailed drawings of the new landscape planter for the
review and approval by the Tqwn of Vail. The new landscape planter shall be
constructed pursuant to fhe direction outiined in the Vai! ViHage Urban L7esign
Guide Plan;
6. Tha# #he applicant pay $48,896. 17 inta the Town of Vail parking fund. The pay_in-
lieu fee is intended to mitigate the increased parking requirernent resulting fram
the eonstruction of the new addition. The parking fee shall be paid in full prior fo
the issuance of a Temporary Certificate af C7ccupancy.
~
G
a
r
~
;
4
f:leveryonelpeclmemosl98Vatour.743 '
10
~
- ~
f ~
~ . _ .
,.~/r C :<;i~f%/ ~ ~hbplri~• ~
'•~/~ji' Klitt' ~
` " ~~r,pp~Vyyr~l S' ~ 41
ul
a:
r
14 ' M
~~b t ( ~ / ~UH4 'l' Gr}
I,J
~
W d
'U' J'
` ~ t~rt,~NH-rs'IT • ~ C}
Nok~fi7~r1 x { ~
€'aw~I°~- >
• ; ~ • ti ' ~
rn ~
m
-
~ At 1
.
.
! ~ ~ ~
ia r 5N?.iN ( ~ a LL
•
k..~~-_... c
S
~ 4fi '(A1p'
~~I ' r~3thuw~nf ~ i
~f 3
~w n;er=v,Y ~ ~ I L•
wrNwW
wx E
1
% f . xw K&rn=µ -D-
F
W~
` F.1
Q
~ .
O
V
z
~
~
` ` co
. I.ie
• ~ ` - ....L ~
~
. W V
00
W ~
4o
~
F ._YI 0
Co.i
~ t'K'(l.41~ ~V{C~'( ~Ib ON C.t~b(r, T" 'I
rn ~
. M m .
W wt7WXGhy H044 4NiOF~'(A( "r-f ~ .
N
Pvvi.vrN6 c+r.r, 9Ye'iW ~
~ .
. . - r
w~'~rrni a~ Nr" wwtP<..4-
As 2
~ ~ ~ ~
- - -
.
~ MEMORANDUM
TO. Planning and Enviranmental Cammissian
FROM: Community Development department
DATE: Ju1y 13, 1998
SUBJECT: A request #ar a side setback wariance, ta aIlow for the cbnstruction ~
of a garage, iacated at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lnt 1, Block 1, Vail
Potato Patch.
Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by Wi(liam Pierce
Planner: Dominic Maurie(Io
1, DgSGRIPTiOM UlF TFlIE REQUEST
The appiicant is requestirrg a variance of 14' to aIlaw a allow a garage and carport to be
constructed within approximately 1' of the side praperty line. 'fhe praperry currently cpntains a
single-family home with an existing two-car garage. Also existing is a 240 sq. ft. carport uvhich is
constructed alang the west property line and which encroaches on the Farest Serrrice property ta
the west.
~ The propasal would remove the existing carport and construct a new 572 sg, ft. garage and 332
sq, ft. carpart, for a totai garage area of 1,520 sq. ft. A portion o# the garage area (320 sq. ft,)
caunts as GRFA, as oniy 1;200 sq. ft, o# garage area credit is aliowed. A new terrace is
proposed an the roofi of the propased garage.
Additionalfy, the applicant has received approval for 4 buiiding additions for a total area of 296
sq, ft. These additions are not subject to this variance approval.
See applPcant's s#atement attached.
. 11, BACKGROPJND
{7n November 23, 1982, ihe Planning and Environmenta! Cammission reviewed a variance
_ proposaf to allow a garage addition with GRFA abflve within 1' of fihe side property fine. Staf# at
that tirne recommended appraval of a modifiied variance of 8' to allow a garage within 7' of the
side praperty line. The PEC, at that time, appraved a variance af only 8' for the garage with no
GRFA located in the side setback (16). The f'EC found that given the location of the existing
carpart and garage, that this vuould be the logical place for another garage. See the Nouember
23, 1992 staff inemarandum and PEG minutes attached.
~
1
1O1VN~ '~~~M
~
119. Z NIh1C ,AlVALYSI ~
Zaning: PrimarylSecondary Residantia!
Lot Size: 32,130 sq. fit.
lJse: Single-fami(y residence
.Standard Allowed/Requirgd Exi t~_._in.q Proposed
GRFA: 6,206.5 sq. ft. 3,480 sq. ft, 4,096 sq. ft.*
Site Coverage: 4,$19.5 sq. ft. (15%) 2,522 sq. ft. (7.8°Id) 3,432 sq. ft. (1 d.7°!a) t
Parking: 3 spaces 6+ spaces (2 enclosed) 8+ spaces {5 enclosed}
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 110' nc
W. Side: 15" 18.2' 1 '
E. Side: 15' 17,9" nc
Note; ''320 sq-.#t._is used in garage and inciudes recent DRB approvals ~ .
IV. CR{"~ERlA Ahtd FIND1NGS
A. Consideration c~f Factors:
Upon review of Section 12-17-6 0# the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings,
the Cammunity Deveiopment Department recommends deniai of the requested ~
frant and side setback variances based on the foilowing factors:
1. The relationship af the requested variance to o#he~ exisfiang or
poterttial uses and structures in the vicirtity.
The proposed garage wili have littie impact on other uses in the area. The
land 1ocated to the west is Forest Service iand and is not easily visible
from the right-of-way.
2. The degree to vuhich reliet #rorra the strict and ti#erat interpretataon and
enforcement o# aspecified regulation is necessary to achaeve
compatibility and uniforrtaity of fireatment among sites in the vicinity or
_ to attain the objectives of th6s titie without a gran# of special privilege.
Staff believes that the granting o# this variance wifl be a gran# of special
pr'rvilege. There is nothing particuiarly unique abflut the iot. Staff cannot
find anextraordinary circumstance or hardship warranting thevariance.
There are other areas an the site that would allow a garage to be
constructed in observance o# the setbacks, such as directly in fron# af #he
existing garage. This would create 2 dtiub[e loadedgarage spaces. The
applicant already enjoys the use of a two-car garage and a carport.
2 ~
~ 3. The e#fect of the reques#ed variance on light and air, distribution af
population, tran5portation and traffic facilities, pu'blic facili#ies and
utilities, artd pub{ic sa#ety.
The proposal will have little, if any, effect on these issues.
B. The P1anning and Environmental Commission shali make the following
findin S-before qran ing_a varianCe: `
j. That the granting of the variance wiil not constitute a grant of speciaC
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental ta the public
health, safety ar weffare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one ar more of the following reasons:
a. The s#rict literal interpretation or enforcement af the specified
regulation wouid resulfinpractical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectiues of this titie.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
~ applicable tci the same site af the variance that do not applY
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enfnrcernent af the speci#ied regulatian
wouid deprive the applicant af privileges enjoyed by the owners af
other properties in the same district.
V. ;TAFF RECflMMENIDA:[ION
The Communifij Development Department recommends denial of the setback variance, subject
to the foNowing findings: -
- 1. 1'hat #he granting of the variance wi(I cons#itute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with #he limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. 7hat the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation wi~U
not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsis#en# with
the objectiues of the Zoning Regulations.
3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatifln will not
deprive the applican# of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ather properties in the
same dis#rict.
F:\EVERYON E\PEC1M EMOS\98WF EYER.767
~
~
{
~
u e
tox z
1SiITE ttIyfR NATIONAC FOREST
r.w:. ~ • .
ttt
z
i u t
Eor i
W €
r. ~
~
W
s'
Tf2ACF A r ~
M~~.
scke: . + t` '/`~-4z°s, ~
DATc er weWcn 7/27/92 FRfi'ZlEN
F' 1 E R CE
BRINER
/
E
tl1RlE RApUS DEGTk CENCe7H FANCE)fT OipRp A 4 C M! TF L I f ~
Ci 50.0p' SsF.'lQtil' 3O:fY15.5#' S t6v}'3Y r 22.66' /~~~p
CI 35:Otl' SJTOYM' 33.IS' 4l.~tk' 525ZY34'b 23.36' JI~~ i-~f'11V
~ CS F6FJ0' btJ9'H' 6Ff:Tft" 7tLS1` 5 s4'J6'26' af 60.19` eri~.~ ~.fos ,
SCALe. I• . ,o._p. A 14 (
f ~
I ~
j
Y Y~Y
I
III _ -
~
~
, w
SY~
~ 1.0 ~
~ ~~1
e ' c - e •
~ I= .01
' C y[
~.M ~
~
SsPlti~ ~ ~
nr ~
Yl-
femrcar+
~u.. ~ rr• t- r~r I~,~
~AM
~VF~RC~OPa -4M~W! wbARY~ w
OP y~,~-
6nRF~ ~
LN'K9WN l.IP' ~.~yqy~ .
Yr' W
. MkKM
Nb~(Jfll 'M~ . . [taST. Mffi
~W OYiM~ ~U~b~~T
C Kw~.~. f
~
fRlTZLEN
~ P t f ft C'E
BEttNER
~
A4CNIttfF!
A
~ ~aw Yr+~rw ~wsc~.
/~w!r~/_~~'F'4~ER L+ IkEVEL FLOOR .FL1??}~~
.a t.Y www.rl Nrt~...s~~
LV1
~ .
VS',aLE. 1l4- R i'-a" ~4~C~~
t S ~
f
r IYAl9tl
~
~tnao~tw+vswra~ z
r~6~twL~04`O+~M~woan
~ bTVq9 CK~d f~ L~/ ~ Fy
%.u~ ~
-
~
- ~ ~
' ~ ~I I(
_
f) ~
M»~;~„n» /
G.t+~Ow~~l[!C' MYtwe~qpr~ M ~ . .
t~Ow ~1E~~N4iY. l~Mtle~. . O . .
Y ~
FRiTZLEtV
PiERCE'
BRfN'ER
~
AItCM1~TCCTi
UPPI~R LEVEL FLUOR PL?+N
SGALE, 1/4' . P_p• . . . . ~G~G
~ ~ ~
{ y~
4 i
' YCOi1
-
El 1:1 OC ~ !I
w ;
Lt1
EXST. SOUTH ELEVATIUitI
Sct,LE. va^ . ,._a.
~ I
n ,
t
~
i ~
J
FR1tZt.EN
PlERCE
R#hlER
W = S
A
A *C Nit «rI
x~
~
--XST.~EAST EL.EV'ATlQN
~ sAt.E= va- = i•-o'
~ X
i ~
Y4~t a~wm
I
w
~
Z ~
~W
~
<
EXST. NORTH ELEVATlUN ~
~
SGALE: Il4" • t'-C7'
. t
L
e~ - 9
;
a
~
~
~
u~
r. ~ ~~~~ZLEN~..~
.~PIER;CE
~ BRINER~.
f
. . . ~ AR~CHI7E.C~~.TS
i r/.arw~r.+rFU
*aaar ~~www
ExS-r. ~NES-r ELEvA-rCaN
r ~scaLE, 1ta^ = 4'-0•
!
~
I
Iv ~Y
ise ML'P~
- _ - - - - - - . ~ ~
FLGt
S/
- . Ltl f
~
.,o.~
t
~
~ ~ '
~
PROP05Eg SaurH ELEVA-rIvN F-I
i - ~
I y
' . F Q
. . . . . . . . ~ wa ~
..w.i~. g....
t.w*. IE
s~wr~uc
w~+•t+is~. ~
~ . . ~
M1l
rERYE .
( BR[NER
~
~
.d.w,a«..~.~.._
j- k~[f.fi.1~T~EC.T~}..
rww r~Mw
4i.arir ~4H+.,~+`++
km1~o~ 4~p~v~
~F-ROF0.5EG? EAST ELEVATIG>N
.W. ~E'W0- ~
~
.~.~.e
!
,
ttt
~
~
u3
~ f'~ I
QC
w ;
PRCJP05ED NURTH ELE\/ATION
scaLE, 1r4• . i•-p'
B I
I ~
E !
LPE1p1~ nar«
- _ _ _ - _ - . ' _
Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` ra r ~~~~ZLEN
+ I PlEItCE
f I BREIdER'
~ ~ { f
swcco ro
wx+. uM.
f I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f .
~A~R~CH#~F[CTf
R'
` ~rcwt'r~a ,M.u
r- PRC,JPCSF-D NEST ELEVATIUN
SGRLE.. 1/4` a~ t'-f?'
ti ¦ ~r
May 11, 199$
Planning and Environmental Comnlissionw~ Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd
Vail CO 81 657
TtE: Variance request
Meyer Residence
Lot 1, Black 1j Vail Potatn Patch A R c H iT E c r s
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
n_ - The Ovvner desixes to canstruct a two car garage and srnall "carport" on the west side of an existing residence at the above referenced Property. The Lot is Zoned Primary{ Secondary..._
and contains two dweliing units as well as an enclosed garage for twa cars and a"carport,,. The
proposal includes removalof the existingcarport.
After careful consideration of the potential locatinns of these garage facilities, the only
practical locatian for these facilities is west of the existing garages, as shown oi1 the plans, due to
the location of the existing structure and site topo ;raphy.
The CJwner seeks relief from Section 12-6D-6 wlzich requires a 15" side setback. The
~ setback on this side of the Structure eurrently ranges from about 18' to 20'.
RELATIONSHIP TO t?THER USES IN THE VICINITY
The adjacent property on this side ofthe Subject Property is apell spaee tor more t17an l
mile and the requested Variance will llave nfl impact on adjacent properties.
DECREE OF RELIEF NECESSARY
The proposed addition is quite unique in that the distance to adjacent Lots is extreme.
The proposed additian is one story high, at tize lawest level of the existing structure, and has a
flat roof. These characteristics, as well as existing vegetatian malce the addition aliiiost
~ impossible to view from adjacent properties asid public right of ways.
EFFECT ON LIGHT AND AIR; ECT
The proposal has no effect on light ai1d air, distributionof popLalation, rraTisportation,
traf~`ic facilities, utilitzes, or public safety.
COMPLIANCE WIT14 C(7MPREHENSIVF=. 1'I-AN
Not rlpplicable
~ K:A4834variance.wpd
PlAnrl 1170 0 ArchiC.et:Cuio 0 Interinr;:
1650 Easr Vaii Vailey Drive tallridge C-1 o Vail, C(j 81657 • fpbarchCpvail.net ~iax (970) 476-4~~)1 o (970) 476-6342
. ~
~
MEMt3RANDUM
Tt3: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FRUM: Community Development Department
` x
DATE: Navember 23, 1992
SUBJECT: A request fbr a side setback variance to allow an additiQn to the residence
lacated at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Y,ot 1, Block l, Vail Fotato Patch.
Applicant: Liz and Lrac Meyer
Planner: Tim Devlin r _
....,..v..., ii
f
;;.i'-.:.r...:,•....:.
v.:r•:::: . . r :.........t..
9'?'titi :'~:~:v: Sj;;, ,:;:}';n
r,:4:rr~:::;: .r...,..,. . t,:........ ...:.:,.:..i;aY• . -.::..:v:...:...
L
.........e.y:.... . ..o.x.r:::t+~ ~ _..._...~:.;;r.;. . s h. . .
x
;ii~a::'::':i•':':a:~:=>_•':i;;~:~»:~: r,....w .
1. AESCRIPTIflN OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
Tht a1?Plicant is requesting a side setback variance in order to construct an additian to ~
an existing house lacated an Lot l, Blc>ck T, Vail Potato patch, $13 Patato Patch
Drive. The applicant's expansion is praposed to be a twa story addition on the west
side of the existing house, and cansists of a single garage space (in additian to twa
existing) with a 627 square foot master bedroom, bathroam, and greenhouse on the
lcvel above. The western portian of the existing house is located r.vithin three feet
frarn the 15 foat side setback line, and the applicant is seeking to encroach
appraximately 14 feet into this setback.
The current zoning on the property is Prim ary/S econdary Residential, and the site area
_ for the lot is 32,130 square feet. It shauld be nated that the applicant is proposing to
remove an existing carport that is located parrially on the AgriculturalJCEpen Space
praperty directly to the west. Piease see the attached plans and elevations.
~
~
11. ZCiNING ANAI.,'YSIS
Site Area: 32,130 square feet
Allowed Existing Pra2osed .
GRFA: 6,207 sq. ft. 4,013 sq. ft. 4,64(} sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front. 20' {min.} 92' 83,
Sides: 15' (min.) 28' (west); 23' (east) 1'(west)*; 23' (east)
- _Rear: IS' (min.) 120' 113'
Site Caverage: 6,426 sq. ft. {20%} 2,29$ (7%) 2,94$ (9%a)
Parking: 3 required 4(2 encIased) 6{3 enclosed}
Height: 33' (max.) 29.5' 29.5'
~ Landscaping: 60% (min.) $0%+ 80%+
* Requires variance
III. VA,RIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS
A. Consideration of Factors;
l. The relationship of the requested variance ta other existing or
potential uses and structures in tlae vicinity.
~ The applicant's property is located at the top of l?otato Patch Drive, and
is directly adjacen.t to the AgriculturalJl7pen Space land to the west
(please see the attaehed zoning map). Although no residence exists to
the west of the subject praperty, the staff feels that the extent of the
praposed setback is excessive. The width of the proposed garage is 16
feet, with a length pf 29 feet. Located dixeetly above the new thircl
garage is proposed to be a master bedroom, bathroc>m, and greenhouse
with two bay windows that extend 2 feet beyond the western outszde
wall of the garage ancl an additional 17 feet nozth af the garage
footprint belaw. The overaJ,l dimensions of the proposed upper level
~
2
bedroorn and bathrt>orn are 16' x 39, wzth two bay windaws projecting
an additional 2 feet in the side setback. The greenhouse attached to the ~
north of the beclroom/bath adciition is 1'0' x 7.25', and is propased to
encroach 6.25 feet into the side setback. It is positive that the existing
cazport is being removed from the open space land. Please see the
attached upper level plan. 2. 7Che degr°ee to which relief from the strict and later.al interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary ta achieve ~
compatybility anri uniformity of treatment among sites tn the
vieinity ar to attain the abjectives of this titte withvut ga°ant of
special privilege.
Civen rhelocatzon of the existinghouse, the staff feels that a variance
for an additional garage space is warranted, but recammends that the
space be limited to 11 feet in width (instead of 16 feet) by 29 feeC in
length (txteriar dimensians). This would rnake the encroachment lnto
the setback $ feet instead of the proposed 14 feet. Please note that the
parking requirement for this house is three spaces. The applicant i$
propcrsing to xemove the existing carport so an additional garage space
would result in a total of three parking spaces. Staff wauld consider the
possibility of additional GRFA on the 1eve1 above this reduced garage
space (11' x 29'), and recommends that a11 additional GR,FA be located
outside of the side setback, including the entire greenhouse. ~
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff does not feel that the proposed variance would have a substantial
adverse impact on any of the above rnentioned items.
B. The Plannin and Environmental Commission shall make the followin
findings before grantin a variance:
1. That the grarztzng of the varianee will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety ar wel.fare, or materially injuriaus ~to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted fnr one or more of the following reasons:
3 ~
~
~
a. The strict literal interpretatian or enforcement of the specifeci
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraortlinary circumstanees or ,
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other prtiperties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation wauld deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF REC(}MMENDATIONS W
The staff recommends denial of the 14 foot side setback variance request as presented by the
applicant. However, the staff would support a variance far a side setback encroachment af $
feet that would allow the addition of a third enclosed garage space (11' x 29). This garage
vvould allovv the applicant to remove the existzng carport that extends off the subject praperty
and onto the Agrieultural/C7pen Space land ta the west. In addition, the staff wnuld consider
~ the possibility of the addition of GRFA directly above this reduced garage space, excluding
the bay windaws. The staff recornmends that a11_ additional GR.FA abnve the amount lacated
on the garage should be located out af the side setback and in compliance with all zoning
regulations.
Given the fact that the existing house and garages are located within 3 feet of the side setback
line on the west, the staff feeis that the rnost practical place to locate the third garage space is
within the side setback. However, the staff feels that the praposed addition intca the setback is
excessive and would be a grant of special privilege (see III.B.l. above). Therefore, staff
believes an 11' x 29' space would be sufficient for a third garage, and would support C.rRFA
above Che garage footpnnt only on the upper level.
The staff believes that the prQposed variance request would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity
(see IILB.2 above).
Finally, the staff does not feel that the variance as proposed is warranted under any af the
criteria discussed under III.13.3 (a-c) abave. However, the staff would support a reduced
footprint for the addition as discussed above.
~ 4
Please note that, under Section I8.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approva.I of
any variances sha11 lapse if consrruction is not commenced within two years of the date of ~
issuance and diiigently pursued to coznpletionr or if the use for whieh the permit is granted is
not commenced within two years.
` x
~
~
5
,
~ Y
~
}
f I
. i
I ' .~.e~i-~.~. ` { ~ ~ L~ia•
&tan NeqEaldt'
~ catocatr~ r.t.s. 'k65s
xsc u.•.r..t
z,
~
~ -n a,n• ~.`v ~:d r
. ! ` ` \ , ' ~ - ~ ` .
~ f t -,`.-~t m E CE h 4(` C
. ~ f . ~a . ~ i ~ ~`Y\ f . ,:4
~t-:..r.~..,t ' . . t . f .-y .
. ~ • ~y ' g~ . 't t . ~f/ \..t at~ ~
1~5 f f ~ 'r Io
LdT 1
: . ~ ~ ' _ lr : ~ , , • !~j t ~ .r~
. - s t
~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ 'r: ;~"•~s~ y ~i' , l-~ ~ ~ ~~f ~ ~ . c~J ~ ~ ti ~
~ - . ( ~ G i ~~e?° ,
~ ~ ~ c.~• - ~ r : ~ ' , ~ ~
s~'t'~Ao- ~ • ~ ~ ~r ' ~ ~tY~
a00my ~%ovrwge.
. / Y 1 ~ "h,. ~ U ~
f 'y
4CM 1~R Gf:rr?t~=~E ~ j t1 f 1 d. ~
/
0.
/ ~ "~~~f • . ~ .
s,
:T A
~ ~;t • 31 'yh , C .
t~J,f~`,~, W ` `r K3"~ , ~t.~'A~ ~~~r , /'`1 ol. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . . •.:t h ~ v..e. ~ 'r`~... .
~ , . Y < ~ t- t ~ . . t ~ . c ~ . , . ~ .
~ ~ a~r ar
. , r w9 rovF ?n `y.t ~ ~x w i. a~' ~ . ~G1. ` ~ u++' u .
IfE i' Lt11`!
S~~t ~ .
~ W v~J M ~1 k Y. . y{ 1 4 cE4 ka wd Pm .u~Y
Y e t Yerv. f ~ G f-
. ' ~ . . / ~iA ~ n N Y 0.nf t t z svrY tw++nc~.i w ~ [JWU e
e~~~ ta'.~~ . dac. o~~. eM1a .~[a.r.. Nv.n.n nrr+. a.
wRavEM=Nr LacnTIas, eERTFFECaTE & . ~
P„rrtaE -raPocRP.pHx . .
LQT 1,.-BC.QGK _t w . . ~ •
S r`
'
r
i
r
' •t ' f
4 `
r•.-°~•..-'~~ - . .--i`; ' - `E . . .
1> ceocxr+
~ h
; - - ~
,
~ ~ ~
r
F . •
weN s~.c.w.a e~e.:~+t.h:s
crrs;Fdatu ~
ff, /
f ~
lNI4 "ti I
Y
~
F~a
. . . ~ ~ ~ ;
' ~ ?WSC~I CK._'SW~
t t ' -
1
~ I
I
1 j
~
' ~p utF~,~ Lt.Ycw i"Lr~rf
. ~ I
~
,
~ ~ ~
a ~
E
F
. ! }
~
~
f I -
_i , . (
~ ,
( Nc v G~~
. ~ . ~ v.wco.s orrrs - ~
7
r
; ; , x ~ , ;r - ! ~ ~F fE ~ ; ~ . . .
I ' 1 1 i~ '1 . t
FKttrj
Y Cw:~t%
~ J f JI ii Y w,sEHefl r~rug .
! _ _ ~Y,'f! ~ ['v. 4
G
~ . li ~ ~ ~ ~ 'f itk`E~t.. :
~ ~ 1 ~ Ut.brk:t o~ t •-~~~~y `t I
~
l f r E. EfMt~~+ arrr~ ~
I i ~ I
~ ~ E. ? ~ a aj
a !
t
i
f' to] i
e~ ~ I
t~. " I I . . II
r
~ t.._ ' f- ' . . . . . . . ' . . ,
CA. M~/ ,W1 ~ ~ . 7
z~ . • ~
. , ...Zi'. .
C
I
~ ,
6 l
'
' t
ta
. lii ! t
~ .
~
i
i
,
k a
f
r T- j^ i l ~ ~ rt ! i I i r. ~ ~Lti':4 U U~ LL U~~lt '~G ~I
It
i t. T~O ~ ~ ~ t 1 1 / `_E-l.T YX•.~_ . .
~ j r t.j v Y suf ~cESEF ~ ~ A~~ r , . ~
~ I
SQl3TH E€.EVATtONJ
I
~
G
.
;
i .
, ~
~ i
I
~
i t:~,
. r ~ ~ ~ ~ ' : .
_ IE-El
~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ 1 l.` V~.r • t
~ E ~ ( ~ • ! ~ k . ~:S t~ ( k i i , .
- ,~Q•__ -
7:, ' i7G5 ~.d C ....?f'.._ 7ti•sW' .
NQRTH ELEVATtON,
. -
.
E,..'
•9-: .
RT: ~ e
;k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f•
+ '
~ . ~
FL • ~ti~;:r~~: rT.>a <~'•o .
, r
' ~r'-'---r---
~~KnF's 4at l~~nr ~ E ~ , .
t
. ~ I:,' G • ~ "__~.~--'1
;
EXISTiNC ,EAST`,ELEVATION, t ;
. . . ~ - +}M~ , ? ~
~ . _ , _ . , .i . .
~
~ l:tw nt> xxr ta NAitP
; i,t1 _ 1 t`` Fr, tM,~
i. - . I ; t{ ~I J ' Il
~
3,. w.. . . . . . . . . . . ~
NEW'WES7 `ELEVAfi:lC3N.'' .
~
,
~
PLANId1NG AND EtdVIR4NMEtdTAL CU{VfMtS51{3N
Navember 23, 1992
Presen# Staff Presen# t
diana Donovan Tim Devlin
Jeff Bowen Mike Mallica
Daiton Williams Andy Knudtsen
Greg Amsden S'helly Melio
Chuck Crist Jim Curnutte
. Gena Whitten
1. Starting at approximately 2:15 P.M. the Planning and Enviranmental Commission was
cailed ta order to discuss a request for a setback variance to allow an addition to the
residence lacated at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot i, Block 1, VaillPotato Patch.
Applicant: Liz and Lue Meyer
F'fanner: "1'im CJ`evlin~ Tirn Devlin briefly reviewed the request with #he Pianing and Environmental
Commission and then Luc Meyer, the owner, gave a history ofi the praject indicating
that the house was built fin the locatian and that it was due to underground rock
formations.
Chuck Cris# reserved comments for a later time while he tnought on the issues.
Jeff Bowen sfiated that he was in fauor ot the reques# per the sta#f inemo.
Gena Whitten likes the architectural pian however, she feit it wouid be granting a
special privilege to approwe the request per the staff inemo.
Dalton Wlliiams disagreed with #he staff inema and felt that it was a grant of spec'tal
- priv[4ege.
Greg Amsden felt that it would be a grant of special privilege and agreed with the staff
memo.
Kathy Langenwa(ter agreed with the recommendations per the staf# memo.
Chuck Crist agreed with the staff memo.
Jeff Bowen stated tha# if a garage was going to be granted, that it should be iarge
enough so #hat another variance in the future would not be sought.
~ F'LANNING AlVi7 ENV1R0NMEN1'Ai. CCJMMISSION 11/23>92
»m
Dalton Wiiliams reconsidered his opinion of the s#aff inemo, realizing that the bedrock ~
prohibited the owners from a different initial architectural design such as an L-shape.
Due ta the hardship of the underground rock formation, he feit that it would not be agrant of special privilege.
Diana Donovan stated tha# she agreed with the staff recommendations.
Chuck Crist motioned to approve the request per the staff inemo, wi#h a 9' modi#ied
encrbachment into the side setback and fo piant four trees ta soften'lhe impact of the s
addition that woufd include bay windows. Jeff Bawen seconded the motion and was
unanimously passed 7-0.
it was the generai cansensus to have the Design Review Board Iook at the landscape
plan.
2. A request for a variance form Section 18.58.32 to allow #wo sa#eilite dishes that exceed
'
the number and the height limits to be iacated at the SonnenalplSwiss Haus182 E.
Meadow DriveCLot K, Biock 5E, Vail ViNage First Filing. ~
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Gurnutte reviewed the request #rom the staff inemo and the site visit.
Greg Stutz, the attorney representing the Edelweiss, Summers Lodge, stated that he ~
would like the request voted douvn and that his cfients felfi the impac# was too much.
Ne further stated that twa antennas could serve the entire village, therefore, he did nbt
feei that one (odge needed two antennas for itsei€. He aiso wanted ciarification of the
existing smalier antertna as seen ort the site visit.
Daf#on Wi(liams motioned to have an executive session with Larry Eskwith, Tnwn
Attorney, seconded by Kathy Langenwalter. The Councii Chambers were cleared, and
an executive session with the Board, Planning staff, and Larry Eskwith was heid to
discuss the future plans to ailow another cable network in the Viliage for 35 minutes.
The meeting resumed with the public being invited back in#a the roam.
Kathy Langenwalter mntinned to apprave the request per the staff inemo, with the
provision that screening be reviewed by the DRB and that if theexisting an#enna is
larger than two feet, that it be redueed to meet code or removed, and that the
antennas be painted ta blend into the building colars. She also condi#ioned her mo#ion
tha# if there were complaints from the neighbors abaut the visuai impacts of the two
dishes once erected that the applicant be required to go back to DRB to review the
screening of the dishes. The vote was 6-2 with Jef# Bowen and Gena Whitten
opposed stating they do not like the proliferation of satelli#e dish antennas in the Town.
3. A request far a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade
PLANN{NG A1db ENV9RONMENTAL C4IUIM1SStON y 1123l92 2 ~
.
Il
_ I~d
i'~Y lY Vd' Y~1~ ~
Departrnent of Community 13evelopment
75 Sauth Frontage Raad
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
ry TM
~J /~-Y!Y
~i^3/X 9!V ,{ryJ~°Lr~4SL
4
June 24, 1998
Luc and Liz Meyer
PO Bo~C 176
_ . `
Vail, CQ 8165$7 ~
R.e: Underground Gasoline Stoi•age Tank located at 813 Patato Patch lJiivelLot l, Block 1,
Vail Potato Patch
Dear Luc and Liz:
~ You recently questitined whether your existing gasolinestorage tank would be peirnittedto be
upgraded and replaced with a new tank. The Zoning Reguiatinns for this area do nat pei-mit
gasoline storage tanks. The rcgulations state that accessoiy uses are allowed which are
"custamarily incidental and accessoiy to the pernvtted uses." Staff does not believe that this use
is customarily accessary to a residential use.
Therefore, the existinc, tank is nonconforming and if it is removed it may not bc replaced.
I apologize for- any inconvenienec this may cause you.
If you have any questions, please call me at 479-214$.
Sin ely,
Dominlc F. Mauriello, AICP
Chief of Planning
~
RECYCLEDPAPER
~ MEMCaRANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environrnentai Commission
FROM: Community Deve{opment Departrnent
DATE: July 13, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to a previouslY approved develapment plan ftir fihe t
Timber Falis Development, located at 4469 Timber Faiis Courtlunplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.I..C., representad by Greg Amsden
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1, _BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF Th1E REQIlEST _The Pianning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, fiound that
Phase X(Building #19) of Timber ~Falls has a vested development right #or one structurein the
exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that arrything
in additian to or different tharr specificalfy that, will require a PEC review and appraval of an
amended plan.
5ubsequen#ly, on Apri{ 27, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction tfl amend the devetopment
~ planby proposing sPngle-#amily and duplex development.
Subsequent to that meeting, on June 8, 1998, the PEC gave #he applicant general direction that
the proposal was nat in keeping with the scale and character of the area and #hat there was
excessive site disturbance and bulk being added to the site. There was Concern expressed over
the impacts to vegetation on the site. The applicant is requesting approval of an amended development pfan for the si#e of Buiiding
#19. The proposal provides 3 building envelopes (A, 8, and C) artd a tota{ o# 4 dwelling units.
Building envelape "C" would contain a duplex strueture. The appticant has provided a site plan of
building site #19 (nn building forms or plans have been provided, per PEC direction).
Buiiding envelopes "A„ and "B„ would allow for 1,950 sq. ft.' of GRFA each and building envelope
~ "G» woufid allow for 3,425 sq. ft. of G~RFA for a total site CRFA of 7,325 sq, ft. The PEG, at its
- April 13, 1998 meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in
Building #18, which is 6,541 sq. ft. Additionally, staff has digitized the floor plans for Building
#20, which the applicant refers ta with respect to GRFA for Building #19, and has determined
that Building #20 contains 7,275 sq. ft. o€ GRFA. Sta#f also analyzed this site in accordance with
the LDMF Zone Distric#. This site, Iooked a# as a stand-alone building site, would allow for 8,180
sq. fit, ofi GRFA, and 5 dwelling units (see ZoningAnalysis): The proposal irrcludes enclased iwo-car garages for each pf the dwelling units lacated on-site.
The Zoning Regulations require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applica.nt has provided 4
parking spaces per dwelling unit (2 enc(ased, 2 surface).
~ The applicant has revised the building envelopes to exclude areas af 40% slope ar greater and
1
Ta?~!t
*V~A
K~ 4
areas where there is a substantial number of conifer trees on-site (Building enveiope "B") ~
The Ffre Department nas given appraval of the general layout, taut has stated to tYte applicant,
that structures, based on final design, may be required fio be sprinkied per the Unifiorm Fire Code
requirements.
The access to the site has been modified in order to work more efficientiy. The proposed access
mvdities the parking area and amount of landscaping directly in €ront of 8uilding #20. The same ,
number of parking spaces are maintained, but they are maved approximately 7' closer to the
building. Staff has not received any indication from the owners o# Building #20 as to the
acceptability of this madification. There is a ietter from the management company representing
the owners of this building expressirrg concern over the development o# the site for Building #19
(attached).
The proposed plan no longer shows a pedestrian path easement on the western portiarr of the
site.
The site is localed in a High and Moderate 'Debris Flow Hazard, High Severity Rflckfall Nazatz#,
and a Snaw Avalanche Area of lnfluence. A site specific geologic hazard report and owner
affidavit are required to be submitted with the Design Review Baard application for any
develapment on this property.
The applicant's submi#tal, as well as correspondence received frarn adjacent property owners,
are attached.
111. C4MPARISt1N OF PROPC3SED P1.AN Tt7 PREVIOUSL,Y APPRCIVEQ DEVELfJPMENT ~
PLAN
Staff has prepared a comparison of #he proposed deuelopment plan with the previously approued
development plan and the previously approved development plan with parking (as developed by
the applicant). Staff has analyzed these plans twfl ways. F'irst, staff has provided an analysis of
the building #ootprPnts on a11 three cancepts. This allows the site tti be analyzed as to building
bulk and mass Iocated on this parceL Second, stafif analyzed the amount of "site disturbance„
proposed far each plan. Fdr this analysis, site disturbance is the area of buifding
envelopelfootprint, plus any pavecf drive aisle or parking area.
The difference in building footprint from the proposed development plan to the:previously
approved development pian is 3,009 sq. ft. of additional mass/#ootprint. The differencein site
_ disturbance #rom the propased development pfan to the previously approved pfan is 6,922 sq. #t.
of additional disturbance. The difference in site disturbance from the prnposed development plan
tn #he previously approved development plan with parking on-site (as developed by the applicant)
is 1,432 sq. ft, of addifiional disturbance.
Building Site bifference #rom
Plan Foot Print Envelape Paved Area {Jisturbance Prnpased
ProposedlAmended 5,362 sq. ft. 8,556 sq. ft. 3,913 sq, fit. 9,275 sq, ft. n/a
Develbpment Plan
PreviouslY APProved 2,353 sq. ft. n/a None 2,353 sq, ft. 6,922 sq, ft.
Developmen# Plan
Previously Approved 2,353 sq. fC. n!a 5,480 sq. ft. 7,843 sq, ft. 1,432 sq, ft.
Develnpment Pfan with
Parking Area
2
as
~ 11L C}lSGUSSIOIV
Staff believes #hat the proposed bulk and mass (footprint) being added to the site `rs a subs#antial
departure from the previausly approved development. The praposing massing utilizes much
more of the site than the appraved development plan. Additionally, staff believes the proposed
use is 'snconsistent wfth the adjacent multiple famify uses. This is nat ta say that multiple #arnily
development and single-fami(yltwo-family are always incompatibie, but in this specific instance,
given the locatifln of the parce4 in relationship ta the adjacent buildings, staf# believes the
proposed use is inconsistent with the remainder of the develapment. `
Additionally, the proposai will have a greater physical fmpact to the site, which staff belieues is a:
substantiai departure from the approved development plan far the site.
Staff also believes that the development provided, which shows Building #19 in its original
massing with the addition of parking, clearly demonstrates tha# the site can be developed with
h~ - less physical impacts to the site and with substantially less building mass (footprint).
If the applicant-wishes to proceed with the development of Buildirrg #19 as a repiica of 8ualding
#18, the applicant may proceed trvith a DRB application. Parking for all uses on-site is required.
IV. ZONINg ANALYSI$
Zoning: Law Density Multiple Family
~ Nazards: High and Moderate Debris Flow
High Severity Rockfal(
Snow Avaianche Area of Influence
Lot area: 34,064.7 sq. ft. {0.7$2 acres}
Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres)
Standard Allgwed LDMF Atlowed Building #18 Prt~posed
GRFA. 8,180 sq. fit. 6,547 sq. f#. 7,325 sq. fit.*
Densi#y: 5 dwelling units B dwelling units 4 dwelling units
Building heigh#: 38' sloping n/a 35' sloping
Landscape area: 13,625.88 8q. ft. {40%} n1a 24,789.7 sq; ft. (72°ld)
_ Note: *A zone check of building #24, reveals a total GRFA o# 7,275.
V. STAFF RECQMMENDATI{?N
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for an
amendment to #he approved development plan fior Timber Fa1is, subject to thefoliowing findings:
1. T'he proposed development plan is inconsistent with the character and massing of
the area and the remainder of the Timber Fa11s development.
~ 2. The proposed development plan 'rs a substantial departure firom the approved
development plan dae to the increased site disturbance and building footprint,
which has a detrimental effect to the site and surrounding uses.
3
, y
3. The proposal is incansistent with #he development abjectives of the Town ofi Vail ~
and is potentially detrimental to the environmenc.
Should the PEC declde to approve this development plan or a modified version, the PEC should
consider making the foilowing conditions:
1. The si#e plan shall meet ail develapment standards utilized by the Town of Vail
and that #his approval is accepted only as a preliminary grading`and layaut plan. ~
A tietailed plan shall be required prior #o scheduling for DRB review of the
proposat.
2. All grading assaciated with buildings an-site be contained within the building
envelopes.
3. At least 50°la of the Aspen Trees Iocated on-site sha(I be relocated or replaced on-
x-~ site on a per caliper basis. - ,
4. Prior to DRB review af the proposal, the property be appropriately platted. The
plat shall include all building envelopes, all propased easements (inciuding off-site
access easements), development standards (including number of dwelling units,
GRFA, parking spaces, and site coverage) and include the #ollawing note:
AII future development will be restricted ta the area within the platted
building envelopes. The anly deVelopmenfi permitted outside the platted
buildingenvelopes shall be iandscaping, driveways and retainingwalls
associated with driveway construction. kt-grade patios (those within 5' of ~
existing or finished grade) wiil be permitted to project beyond the building
envelopes not more than ten feet (10') nor mbre than one-half (1/2) the
distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may
project not more than five feet (6) nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the
minimum required dimension between buildings.
5. Prior ta DRB application, the applicant shall provide a site-specific hazard report
and a owner hazard affidavit for the development in accordance with the Zoning
Regulations.
6. The applicant shall revise the to#al GRF'A for this development site #o 6,541 sq, ft,
" 7. The site area and buildable area shall be limited to the area shown on the survey
provided entitled: Site 19, Timber Fal1s, dated 3/31/9$, with project number 98-
00325, prepared by inter-Mauntain Engineering, Inc. and stamped by Duane
Feringer, P.E. and P.L.S. 26626.
8. The applicant shall provide written approval of owners of fhe parking area in front
of Building #20, for all modifications proposed for the parking area.
F:\EVERYONEIPECIMEMOS198171M BFALi..713
~
4
The Chalets at Timber Fails
~ The appiicant, AMS Development, Inc., is proposing to amend a previously approved
development plan for Building #19, Timber Falls Condaminiums. The previously approved
development plan consisted of two 3-story structures containing 3 candominium units each
(tota1 af six units) connected by a covered stairwell structure (see attached phntos of Buildings
#18 and ##20, Timbez' Falls Candominiums). No formal plans were ever filed an Building # 19,
thus the planning staff at the Town of Vail researched GRFA figures of the adjaeent buildings
and determined that Building #18 contained 6,541 sq.ft. and Building #20 contained 7,275 ,
sq.ft. The staff also determined that the current, site under consideration, given the existing
Low Density Multi-Family zoning, could accommodate 8,180 sq.ft. of GRFA.
After several worksessions regarding zoning issues and development concepts for Building Site
9 19, the applicant researched constnzcting a duplicate of Building #18 on the subject property.
Such a building would require 12 nevv parking spaces on site under current zoning and the
tocation of the actual structure (40' high) would be pushed toward the edge of the 40°1o slope
areas and create a more visible exposure ta neighboring creekside property owners to the north .
(see attached site plan). Since site disturbance appeared ta be an irnportant issue at the 7une
PEC warksession, the applicant decided not to pursue a candominium building develapment.
The applicant is proposing to canstruct three structuTes, one duplex and twa single-family
residences, on the praperty cammonly known as Building Site #19. The applicant is requestiing
a total GRFA number of 7,325 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing specific building envelopes for
~ each of the three structures. Ail parking shall be located within the proposed building
envelapes and the applicant is proposing a 2-car garage for each residcnce.
Property Use
The condominium approach to developing Building Site 9 19 would create a product that
appeals exclusively to second home ownershYp. A single-family or duplex approach (smaller
1,825-2,024 sq.ft. #loor plans) wou1d attract local awnership as well as secand horne buyers.
The Vail Valley is nQw seeing a good number of retired and semi-retixed couples maving here
as full time residences. The availability of new single-fainily and duplex residences with smaller
floor plans is almost non-existent. A goad example of the demand for this type of praduct is
! Innsbruck Meadaws, where 7 of the 17 units constructed are accupied by 1aca1 residents. Such
9 results would not accur with new condominium praducts.
]Parkin g _As discussed above the applicant is providing a 2-car garage with each residence proposed. In
addition, two guest spaces per residence are propased. Although garages do create more site
coverage, they eliminate the view of an exposed parking lot required for a condominiurn
building. In addition, the parking areas proposed by applicant allow for better use af
landscaping buffers than the 12-car parking lot required under the condominium appraach.
~ Fire Depat-tment Issues _
The applicant's architect, Rich and Krusai Designs, rnet with Mike McGee regarding fire
department access issues. Fire engine access and turn-around information provided to tihe
planning staff was acceptable to 1Viike McGee, but the actual structures may be required to be
. . .
sprinklered in the Design Review process ( subrnittal ofthe actual plans). The applicant
acknowledges this may be a requirement in abtaining architectural and structural approval of
the proposed project. ~
Trees
The applicant is proposing to protect a11 existing evergreens on the site as well as several of'the
aspens exceeding 6" caliper. The applicant field verified 24- aspen trees in the 4" to S" caliper
category scattered throughout the site (see applicant's tree locatzon site plan)..It is the
,
applicantis intention ta relocate these trees (those located within areas of site disturbance) ta
areas adjacent to Buildings #18 and #20 to buffer the prnposed structiures. The actual survey
indicating the existing location afthese trees shall be provided in the 17esign Review stage of
this development. A tree relocation plan as well as a tree mitigation plan will be discussed in
the Design Review process.
Site Coverage and Height Issues
The applicant's proposal increases that portian of the site covered by structural elements, but
decreases the arnount of site covered by asphalt (when comparing it to the condominium
building approach). The lawer building heights in the proposed duplex and single-family
structures act as a compensating factor, as well as the dispersed nature of the structures.
Landscaping between driveways can also soften the front elevation as one enters the property.
The applicant feels the visual impact of this proposal is rnuch less than that of a 3-story
condominium building. ~
Cornpatibilitv to Surrounding Properties
Site #19 at Timber Falls is bordered by the following property types:
South Cnndominiurns, 900-130E7 sq:ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, older structures.
West Single-Family residences, 4,004-7,000 sq.ft., 4-6 BR floorplans, new
structures.
North Duplex and Prirnary-5econdary residences, 1800d3000 sq.ft, floorplans,
a mix of older and rernodeled structures.
East Condominiums, 900-1300 sq.ft., 2-3 BR floorplans, oldeT sfructuares.•
The applicant believes that smaller duplex anrl single-famiiy str?actures (1,825-2,420 sq,ft.) are
well suited for this site and very campatible ta surrounding properties. The Design Review
Board shall administer to the specific architectural compatibility and details of'the applicant's
praposal upon approval of this axnended deveIopment plan..
~
_
~ BUILDING # I8, TIMBER FALLS COND4MINIUMS
Ad~
. .
i
e ,
^..ar- _ ' - . . . - ~ . . a.u .d ~'n'.1 l 4 a... Y.. • , h~'-aS-K`.h~ _
_•acT
~
r
x
; , • ; . ~ ~ya _ , '
iz
Y
J
u{ b
5,~ t
H ~
-~-•rs.• t . Tq~Gy:,'^J _ -
*,n vy - ~,r •a:i ~ ~ . . ~ti, k^:,~TM.~~bs.. ' , :,w
~y }~y - ,a ~~*e a~, y~~ , :F . ~ ~.,s~,r'~r t •a~ a~ f. "q~'.
BUILDING #207 TIMBER FALLS CONDOMINIUMS ~
y
. - . . - .
bk+!`ts',.
J~
~ .a
- . ,
" q4
k
71,
}Sn£tr s~~s'}`s'R4~ d" ~ .i?.~
114
_
~
Ma:
~
~
s
VICINZTY ~.4c ACCESS ho
~
Q ~
, 4 t
4
,
AIL
v 4t,
~
~E" WOAO
a ~ ~ a cn
z r
Y V
L
. 'i .
T
~
~
Ra~`D
ALAL~
w j
~
e. ~
A(3.1 ~
-
~
+ 4 t
f
. . . ~9; ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . . . . . . .
PROPOSED SITE PLAN ob
X
o
~
IhtDIGATES BUfLpIN6
LrNF oF auELa[NO ar, r, ° 3,2ao sa.Fr. Fao-rPFZcNr
~
0
LiuF o€~~-aaF ,aaave ~ ~ , °
. PRaPos~[~ BuiLvrr~O e LoPe ~ 5~.~.
. .
.
. . 1 H
.
. .
.
I . INC71GATE5 D
_ . t RfVEWAY ~
I
6,467 SQ.FT.
AND .
AREAS (t~6 ~S~
PAGE51 ~
~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gb
F.~~ ~ ? t ~ ~ ~ f E I /
1 ~ ?
W! ~ . ~ 9`~2i t ~ • / , ~ 1 e ~ ~t f / f r / f ~ ~i/ ~ ~ tv
.FS ~ P ~y~ ~ ~ K ~ . ' • i~ [ ~ j .t / / ~"Y. . ~ ~ ( ~ r ~ .t` . ` ~ ~ esa sat°w`'~~ : . . !l ' f~. f / ff ~f~/f f ~ ~Y~M
C ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ G w ~ ~ t / ~ . ~ ~ / ~ 1 ~E f i t I f / l f/ `f ! f ~ ~
PC
Ac7€ ~ ~`4`';~ ~ ` . ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~1 fA~~l / f ~ «.w ~ U~5
~ ; ~ • ' ~:~~zo~c~ ~ . t ? 1 t I ~ ~ ~I ~jr ,1 f ~ ~ I. { ~ ; \v ' . 4 ` ~ l l ~ ~ ~ A /4 F~f
FIt'i',.E FF'ii1CiK
~ t ~ftiffT ~ ' F ?cREh iso saFr. b
~.j~
- paRrFNr
ExrENe[aN
/ EEr 6 ~E
_ ` ~
I
L~It~L~Ap~N' OA~ a#
v
k I NJ,= )::~F .rzoo,F A~,oVF f
~510) o6e0)3GrVo&4 ENv F'Ei'
6500
~ / I~~ ?~1~~1~1~t~,~ ~f~~ ~ - - _i ~i~ f 1/ f Jf ~L~ f f ~ / ~ 1 / ! ~ AM U
7
~c*oe%z~E 15akb
~ t
a
PRY i V SifD Di..(Vi/LV Pi i iENT Pi.t4 iN
Q ~
~
° G
rIlk
~ TE ~'c - / s,~, Cri
~J
NUE R U~t I T "
M~XIMU ORFA: fM5Q
us
PARK! G SPAGES~-
a ~ t ~
M~~. ~fGHT: 35 I~~
a, ~\~.~li ( \ ~ t. \ ~ \ ~ f ~ ~ .f k ~ °
~f'r~1 k f 3g~ \P~ ` ~ \ . ~ ~ t / ~ ~ ~ f E / ~F / ? . ~
.
~ t ~ tv• \ ` fl ~ ~ ~ 1' / ! f fr` f ~ ~
.ti . LlMITEP
N ~ r 5IT
tt
\GOMMON ~
PaoR 5ER OF lJN T~--..t4 f
AREA ikAI MAX[h1-S- C~RFA. l,~i~ Mf..3N o
P/~RKEE~C-~ ~•~G~f~' I
~
-k-lE . 5 ~T. t ~ } ~ ~ r r f ~ ~ ~ ,
!44f
~a~at f rb
RoF05ea I!t rAR~e;HC {1~
ExTEIYsiaN p,~,~s~= C 5`I TE G hlUiwlBER OF UN(TS'.'2
~ A! M~(XI MU~f ~pRFA: 3,42~ c
F~CRK1NG fSPAGE~&
t
FX MAX. NE IbHT; 3-5 FT /i17 4)
/
A1.2 tv
- - ~ ' .i / i rr~a•ad'~~F i3abb- 4 -r - ~ . y..
. _.__..m-.:'_.__.,..._._~_....~.
i 4
r
. . ~ APPRQVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~
~
IMplGA7E5 BUILDING s
2.353 SQ.F'i". FOOTPRfiJ7 0 ~
m 1 :
a
~ t h
~ ~ E 5,440 SQ.PT. . fMDIGATES DRit/EWAY O~
17,
~ \ V ~ 'x l /hNt7 PARKIN6
AREf45 l12 5PaGESJ ~
1~E oFtkurLpRU~ Ar 5RRDe
&NE f?F R~90F A5OV--
a~~
1'
~iNSinErr,,F, N,~
.
~t~i,y~~~ ~ ~ t l ~r f f
~ ~ v.... ~ 1 ~ 1 ! ~ ~ f f l f ,f ~ ~ 1 ( 1 f~ ~ ~ o ~
4w
~ ..,,V.~ ~ . ` ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ' 14 / A f d.t_? ~ . . ~ _~~j Y4 ~
/l
' p,eaaasEo
~ PAa;erN6
5xr5NsFOr~
~
~ f ~ / / / :G ~ f , /f ~ ~
.'f \./~~SFY .~f/ f ~f F~ ~ J t ~ D/.SC« YF.~
~ ~ • ~
m
All - U . j-36.~ aJe / rj.e•
~ '
A ff rs EXNIBir >
~ ~ ~ .
. TIMBER r-ALLS CONDOMINIUMS
.~f.-
. . _ ~
, ~ . S ? i Ft
~MSf(7E
• . Cl c tE'-.......,.__...._
00000
Cr0 E C R Ef K ~ ~
~ '
~ ~ ~
t
'C~
~
C
RE~
CCIMMON A~~'
TIMUEl~ fALCS Ct[if.l-t. f- ~ ~l . ~ ~ • t
0
~ cou ~~g 4 -
,"FUiurrC ~ r
- ,REVr.LUf, t
T ,~t•.~~• j
OFElCG • ~~r. 5
~J" l7 ~ } ~3 ~ • t FU fURt'',
4A I
~ tt S
)j~? l) t t f • ~ i USE ~ <<t t~~ ' ~ ~ G`O~f
- .
4 ' WE F • - ` '
d
' F ~ r. r U; ~ ~`"1`~*~'f
t y~~~~' < • " . . i ~ ° f, ~ Tf .\F ~ 7 ~ j~'~d'~~~ ~ ~~f~H~S~ 7
~r: ~ t~ 7 ' ` ~ • ~:~k,' ~ ~ ~ `~~UFq (1~JREA
•aF, -
ec~,~r,~ro~r ~rR~,~
C~
~~j- ~s ''iJ~; ;•`R ~ ~4 , ~ sE a~ ~ y~~+ .:l _ ~ .
t• ~I r f~~:'~ ~ ~PHAJr t t..
ED BY 16, .
~R Y
1'OIMNOFYAII.
~I~
~ . ~ ~ ~ /?N ~ k ~ ~
14
I .
07IQ8I1998 11:20 303-713-0299 Z-AXIS PAGE 01
Aear Mr. Mcsrxi.elli:
I'm writing to yvu iia ordex Ca pzatest the proposed s3.te p2an arnendmenr fnz
Si.te 19 at Timber Fa1ls Candomin3.ums.
- ~
X'm a eondvminium own.er of Bui~.diz~g 181asodn~`torhea~~sident of the associatian
of that building, and arn speakiag on hehalf rrf my8elf as wel,z as others in my
hnilding.
The primary reason we moved intv the Tim'ber Falls conununity was our apprecia-
t3.an a£ the harmony that exisce beCraeen the development itself, and the
beaut3ful views that the natural setting provides,
Unfiirtunately, the prapased amendment to 5ite 19 wauld create a strong negat3:ve
impact an our sdjacent bnil:ding as we11 as the entxre cotmnunity. This is due
to the discord created by the dens3ty of the proposed armendment c:augled wi:th
the incons3steucy flf the propased plar? to the existing comp2ex..
I gppreciate the 4pportunity to expresa the caonunity concerns over this
proposed amendment. Please feel free to contact me shouYd you have any quesCi.ons
about our concerns: 303-796-0601.
53:ncerely yaurs, ~
Marilyn Helle
~
~oneive
J U N 1?. 1998
hq, *1
~
.
c~uci, Maunttgetnnere.t Compcurk"
- t
June 10, 1998
Mr. nomi,nic Mauriello
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vai1., Colc,rada 31657
Dear Mr. Mauriella:
I represent the management company for Timber F'a7.ls Buil,ding 20.
1 would like to express the concerns af the awners af this property
with regards to the proposed new development adjacent to it.
My understanding is that the new building wi11 be only 22 feet frorn
Timber Falls Buil.din,g 20. This is obviousl.y very close, We would
~ ask that the elevations of the new buil.ding be softened by having
the roofline go away f'rom the existing Timber Falls bui.lding andjor
having just one stary this c1ose to lessen its impact.
There are currently on1.y 6 parking spaces for the Timber Fa1.ls
building 20. There shauld be 15 spaces. We cannot have the
parking reduced at al1. Any reduction would leave 1.ess than 1
parking space per unit.
I would appreciate having these coneerns presented to the committee
evaluating this new develapment. Should yau have any quastians,
p ease feel free ta ca11 me at 476-4262.
m Sil~ ~ely, ,
Ste acDonald
President
~
201 Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81~657
(974} 476-4262 ~ 1-500-944-VAIL + Denver 893-3853 6 Facsimiie (970) 479-9624
~
9137387012 PES'TINGER DIST P01
~
fuly I99$
DowniniC F. Mawyelto
Scaiayr Plw4pm
Town crf Vad . . - ,
t_ - 7$ Fronta$c Road
VaiL ~C'C7: 81657
Rc: i..ot 19 't'imber Fa16
Dear Mr. MauricIlw
When we purchaeod our condoroWum at 2001 Timb$r Fafts rn 1991, we wtre infarrned
nf tlrv L4X 19 Covvlopnncnt ftut "whil+c wo attopgty object ta btagdistg oq-ttfm lot fvc ~ ~
nwnt,er of re:ascana, including the lack of wAtab1e awm azLd the ticE?ttuc#itm of ttto aspon
grcrne, we at laagt w= awam crf the P+aOto dlcwtOpmant whenn wt puY`i;hawd the YniL
Bud+?img 18 awrs tiuirpa"am and lititittsuse to dt~u usii#. BQftg 2t3 has ois2y six
puc'i% Oar,ta m the grcso:nt tittte which is wtally uw+deqcate; the app~ plan appcats to
efimus.ate at lcaee two of the six. Thig ig nat accvptable.
`I"hc pwpoaM &%+ralMttcnt oen ss ibmAutctY iraProptijft fcXr II,ot 19, it igmom the
iQnpacc:t on the cntim conT1ex and rAvishcs the teaut'y of the dw by otowtimg the lot with
ovmize buitdinW anai pscwrnent. It has a1D of tho problem of the or4ita1 appraveai
Pxqmag iunn tam of patkhtg, but the accexs 1y+cctrmes mm of a saf"f~ty corrcme~ capcqatt'y .
- iYt t#tG event of fir+~e. Ttte proposed huilding wnulcf cmer utiiit,y e~r*A fifw 4o i3juldi% A~
_ Wc atrxmgly urgc dcrsial c,f A,rty &vc;lopnnrut on Lcyt 19 beyond the arWnal proptsat, and
t'cquest dut 1~~ approrvw propc3sal be revisited in Ucrrns of acieqtatc pwkmg and acccss,
saf`ety, attd st##o dusturbastc;c.
'I hank yc~u for your wcnk trn dtis situa#icm.
Sinccraly,
/j- ,
,
Ccm & Katlxteen Peetingeor ~
Buwi»g 20 ( 2001)
~ .
~ MEMQRANQUM
T0: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FRC3M: Communiiy Development L7epartment y
dATE; July 13, 1998 ~
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession of a major exteriar alteration in CG2 and the
establishment af a Special Development District #or the Antlers at Vai1, located at
680 W. Lianshead PI./ Lot 3, Block i, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. - .
Applicant: Antlers Condaminium Association, represented by Robert LeVine
Pianner: Dnminic Maurielio
Attached is preliminary proposal by the Antlers Condominium Association. The applicant is
seeking preiiminary input from the PEC regarding {afltential Specia1 development District and
major ex#erior alteratian applica#ions for the Arot{ers property.
7he applicant will be makirrg a presentatian fa the PEC and is hoping #o gain some insight about
the directipn they are heading.
No decisians are being requested of the PEC at this time.
~
~ F:1EWERYONElPEC1MEM05\9$WNTLERS.713
917~
WVAa
. ~
ANTLER AT ~NIL
MEMORANDUM .
To. Town_ af Vail PEC, DRB and 7own Council -
From; Robert LeVir?e, GenerafManager
nate: 7/11J8
Subject: Antlers 2000 / Condominium Rentals -
Friends,
L.ike the Town of Vail, we want to insure that any new condominiums will be
actively rented. While not sure how to guarantee that outcome, we are confident
that we can effect it. We think our history praves that. ~
Currently 69 out of the 70 Antlers units are actively rented, tn the past tvrrer?ty
years there have never been more than two units which were not in the rentat
program. Last year our paying occupancy was 56°la and totat occupancy v+rith
owners, gues#s and comps was 69 °lo. Those numbershave beengenerally very
steady, although increasing slightly over the years. This has nat happened by
accident. We have taken several measures ta insure the rental of aur
condominiums, and pian to do the same with the rrew units.
Perhaps most important is the assaciation's decision to set the condominium fees
(fixed casts) relatively high and the rental split relatively {ow. That split is eurrently
64% to the owner ancl 36% to the assaciation. Sorneone who doesn`t rent their unit
has anly the high fixed costs, but those who do rent see their fees affset with a
higher- percentage of the rentat income. This scenario tends to attract buyers who
are genera(ly interested in renting their umts fram the outset. There has been
discussion by our board af directors about returning even more af the rentaf
dallars ta the owners, and increasing regutar assessments stil{ further.
Almost every Antlers owner uses their unit during the course of the year. Many of
them Iet frierads and famiiy use it extensively. V1le encourage that use. Despite the
faet that the associatior? gets no income from it, we reeognize the atility of that
usage and the important role it plays in their total satisfactian as an owner. Doing io,
otherwise rrright discourage their witl}ngness to rent their condominium the rest of
the time.
680 lNest Lionshead Place Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-2471 FAx (970) 476-4146 antlers@csn.net
~ Maintenance casts art+d housekeeping #ees are extremelv reasanable to those
awners wha rent their units. 1IVe charge a maximurn of $24 per hour for aur
maintenance staff time, including modest electrical, plumbing and even some
remocteting work. For huusekeeping, owners pay just a $29 check-out fee ~en.
they stay in their unit for a week. They get fuFl dai:#y maict service at na charg .
Similarly prieed services are nat affered to those wha don't participate in the
rental program. .
Something happened recently which demanstrates aur association's.
cammitment to a strong rental program. You need to understand that the
Antlers has a twenty day right-of-first-refusa1 period during which any existing
owner (or group of awners) can match the terms and conditicans a# a bona fide
offer and in effeet "steal" a contract frarn a praspective condominium buyer.
l.ast year sorneane contracted to buy an Antlsrs ane-bedroom condominium fot
$230,400. They made it clear that they did not intend to rent the unit. Vllithin two
weeks an L.LC was forrned and twenty-four existing Antlers owners agreed to put
in $10,000 each. 'fheir intent was to buy fihe-unit just to keep It in the renfial
~ program, One of thase awners then agreed to buy the unit themselves and keep
it as a rental. They ultimateiy tlid so, but the LLC exists today and most of those
owners are stitl prepared to act if necessary.
The prrajected price point on our new units is $425 per square foot. While this
cerfiainly seems tiigh, it's not too much more than the $368 price of the last
Antters sale. VNe think that recent prices of six and eight hundred dollars per
#oot in Vail Vi1{age attract a clientele less inclined ta rent their units. While we
expect the neWr Antlers units to be better quality than the existing units, they will
at Ieast be in the sarne league; nicer than anything else in Lionshead, but not
"trophy home" rnaterial, if yauknow what 1 mean.
Our understanding is that requirinq sorrreone to ren# their unit gets onto very
shaky Iegal ground. We have been told that doing so would require us to
register with the SEC and seil these uni#s as securities. if the 7own of'Vail can
help us figure c,ut a way to gwarantee their rental, we wou{d be anxious to
cooperate. However, short of that, we hope you understartid that we have the
~ very sarrte vested interest as the Town in keeping all of taur condorniniums as
"iive beds". VUe wilf do every#hing we can to make sure that happens.
~
.ANTLER AT \JNIL
Prelimina Deveio ment Summa - "Antlers 2000."
DemolTSh exis#ing parking structure(this includes entry foyer, Cobby,
same affices and all meeting faci`lities) - Rebui]d parking structure wi#h 114 spaces (currently 70 spaces)
Cans#ruct new lobby/reception area, affices and all con#erence facilities
Gonstruct 24 new ccandominiums (for sale)
Construct 7 units o# employee housing (for rent)
F2eplace a11 siding and railings on existing building to match exteriar of new
canstruction
Fire sprinkler fior entire existing building (in addition fia new canstructiQn)
Allowable under Existing Proposed
current zonin
Parking ? 70 spaces 114 spaces ~
1U6 covered
Dwellin units 26 72 96
~ EHU's Q (two eXisti?,g 7
emplo}ree units are rrot
deed restricted
~CRFA 36,004 I 55,638 87,088 t?,ac
countin 3,500 EHt1
Maxirraum 48 feet 80 feet Unchanged
Hei ht
COtI"Imt7Ct Al`@a N/A 10,004tapproximatey 14,520Elevators NlA 1 2
Fire sprinkier NlA Nane Full
, Sidin Not `C-111 T-911 Stucco
Bene#its to the Town of Vail
Seven additional units of employee housing - on site
Eiiminate parking 1ot "eyesore" - parking goes wnderground
improved appearance from Lionsheari Place
Improved exterior finish af existing building from all directions
Increased "iive" beds ~
Upgraded conference facilities
680 Vtiiest Lianshead Plaee Vail, Golarada 81657 (974) 476-2471 Fax (974) 476-4146 antiers@csn,net
. , .
~
ANTLER AT ~NIL
MEMORANDUM
'.-To: Town of Vail DRB Fram: Robert LeVine, Genera! Marrager.
Date: 7/2198
Subject: Antlers 2000 ! Design Consideratrons
Friends,
Like the Town of Vail, we desperately want to improve the aesthetics in our little corner af
Lionshead. One of our initial mafivatians for the whole Antlers 20017 project was simp4y to
dress up the building.
~ 1Ne have wrestled with the desire to move as architecturally far away from our existing
building as possible (for obvious reasans), yet the hope tha# the end result wou(d nat
appear as two separate properties. We weicome the fact that whatever exterior fiinish
goes an the new structure (stucco & stone?) will be retrafitted over the existing building as
vvell. The prospect of ridding ourseives of T•111 forever is a joyous one we know you"d
like that toca.
in additiort to the existing T•111, the rest of the current exterior is made up of exposed
aggregate. Since that cannot func#ional{y be changed, our hope is to rrtatch its catar and
incarporate the texture of the round rocks, albeit mueh {arger, with a river rock facia
similar to that fourtd dn the new gandola building.
We reaiize that our praposed roof pitch is iess than that suggested ksy the Lianshead
masterplan, but our in#entions to make the new structure "fit° with the oId one directed us
to match the existing 2I12 pitch. Eiiminating our parking lot "front donr" is clearly a huge
improrrement, and we have tried to i»carporate the "entry gate" theme from the
masterplan recornmendations.
As you approach the buitding driving south on Lianshead Circle, the new structure wili
(happiiy) a{most cvmpteteiy hide the existing buiiding behind it. Wawever, since the
existing builr#ing is sti{I abaut nine feet ta11er than the new constructian, the skyfine wi11 not
be changed until you get pretty close to the Antlers.
~ Thanks very much for your time, we're Iaoking farward to working with you through tbe
pracess and coming up with a praduct that will be a huge improvement for us as vueli as fcrr
L.ianshead and the town.
680 West Linnshead P(aee Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-2471 Fax (970) 476-4146 antlersQcsn.net
IE~
r k
#7/ ~.T
, a. s2e.c g~ . ~tl}i`1
~ U1` RY. ~ ms F=20'- EL. 932't.4
! 24'-7'
g'( . tttJS ~r
-ct
I(~
Z 0
~y ~
\..J
I 10 a. uttt Kun sP. pt~1} YARD C~ n~
2ur0
20'-8" 7°xza' TYPE B ~,p{~g
1
N ~ a~ IA! 51'0 Q ~ - -i 4
; • ~ ~
WIU N~ tiltt
rr ,
. 3
f 8~ ` ' ~ ~f1
.F p 1- IWtO~ ~St.4E~IGt1 ~ LN tthn~ 12rt M. ~ 1 9, ~ ~
l A t+Di.1 * 41CO SSF~- 151xu°
4 0 !L ".F • 44A15l`. ¢ttt~ V .
~ {2 FOCIL y p s . TYPE A1 t~JE' C ~ ~ DHL
TYPE A2 W, POWN n
u< rp &ARM `
0'_4 ~ a
;
s"~rc~io' PIN RRN Z
atr W
ew~suwv aA6e ~ ~ ..J
~
r ~5~~9J6., ' e
" 'SItA a 51,RG5ALL. PMP.fC, M. bR
~ lN
1s ns' M DR.
7°4
r~ ~ES~ ~ F1AMN5 T0. pi' !a.^ ' R~ M'~ ~ 1 Fr I1J
+ I 4~ E A1 sr - TYE'E A1 rX25'
4~r+/~
rCLM'M! ~ ~j `}.t . . • . ~ ~ /
a. kzs rs, . - r rt I t ~
Bwf04$& LL.
~ - p~AT
DIIL~ t 9 " ~~y~ y ~1 S1r` ~
7'xta° TYPE A+ ~ ~ cl, ~o'z'e
z
wA!„ ~
!'~it~Lq
127.4
~ 1
~
pR rnaa y
y++lL: ~ zo *12s0 ftknt&
1'YPL
litit ~ . ' , ~ . ' ` C. 4~i.4~-b.:~"b'zy,k"s•.~,- . . '~c-, ~ 4 ; 4S AR
~s z ~ t~M~f ~ t ts'xi¢' ASSP. YAHAGER F
• '
T ~ ~ ~ ~€a~ ~ RRR W Ni1~YlRl. a ~ , , • ' q ~`.°?'„~4'~
~ri' EAcm ' ?kVte STLR SfLR 8
~ I s 0 9. tfzt.l t~da 5f. RESERVATTQHS ~
6f!~A ~~0 SP. tP , ai N9L
~ r: . M f
- 5 32 1 tx
~ TGP GatJGFF['E WHL 15_ 1u4' fl6MG 6NTLM COt(DQI@iTU119 ; ~A4
f
. . . . . (U N4Yp IJC
, , . . oi tx sims
3`lY l~
. . . . . . , . . WlfST ELEVATION
_
~
~ ~ nte r \ 03
~ a. alea A ~ i
i ~ h - _
a
eix e
r~, e154.4 ( ~
r°~t
~s ~Q
~ ca. e145.4 14~~f' AHZ EYfEN51GN
~ 68 7GP G~' 5TAIR TOiv~R.-_.~._
rtA 4
x F3. 0196.4 ^
tt nrzr. ~
~ FLX 3
. ~{3~;,,~•-, `o~"~
i f ; 6
A~AJ6 1VNL
~ E~bE B.~VAFtOh1 ~..i!°-~.~ ~'VYdl1' r ~I
~ aRAVE
~ ~bt~ra~~.,°r, sJ
N(}RTH ELEVATION z LO
E. a1724 cn
I. /LL _
nooa v
CL 8363A . .~~AF ~T9~7 AN~~.~'S {~YfiTD r`1.
'
,
.
~
0 ~
} ' ~ . i . ' S1.L•HEIE~t17" 1 "'"r~.,
' B ~k'=d AFP` `
~ noax s : , . . . . _
r_ . . .s
CL bF54.! .
Hp
. .
t t k ~ * . ~ . ~ ~ ~ l, f
. .
,
~ TI.OOR.S
!L 0345.i
. ~
!
~ FLOOR y ~ . -
~ n. 8136.4 _
` nooa a 81274 ~ f ~
:
~ . f7 • ' I2as _ _ . . - ° 1 ._L._ . Wr~`-, mia~ m ~mo+
. q° EXSTb. RET"hIFJlNF ~ k AR 8.. lSIIlSS
6. R~TA~+IW61---.t-----_ '
t
~ k1 RII+lAItJa t _-,{-i1.i2c E.. G46d „~~1.R `
. ~ ~._.+o~..,~1 ~ _ - - ~ - y~ _ ~f•26'
t ~ a.~.. •
. L..~ L C _
- !LK.. .
Gp~III
-7=W15li2g
A9.
.
. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . ; at 82 ~F[rs
H
~Al
00110. ~.:17
„
~
.
~ .
~
,
~
l~ +
<
w
~Avk ~
AV .
° "x~sw
' ~ ti i ~ • s ~ , «re+ ^ , " ~ ~"~*+ew, ~~,t.' ~ ~ , .
14
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ d. • ~ ,
-
. - , q , . b
~
e`
y
s ~ •
S.'.
, • r ' , i ~
a
.
' . ~ , ' i , , , • ,i ,,,;7.
.j
wi~YR
\ Fd 7 Y"' I ry~Y91F F p
x
~ vs ~ ti w ~~'~1?I ,r°~o4~`si~, ~i~~3^ t
i ~ , r , . ~ b , . ~UW, , `t'W~"Fgj'S'R~; - .My , .,.5~. . F, . . ~ o ?~~a . .nM1 a . w . . ~
~
Y m....~~.~
SI~`E AI~D GRADIN
~
9~. 1 50•-o- ~ORTH AI7DITIt1N/REi}EVELflPMENT
Gu= ~ $ m
~ ~ . . iype 1 tA
~ DEYELOPMENT SUMMARY ~ 0
2&. ILL. t7p*t+. 0 i,SDd 52.-7140 3.F. n
~ f r'~`rr""'i~""'t Cicnt't.~w :mrac (12J ESr. Aek hW A, 8 I,100 3l..iS20Q S.P. C)
<
Pva. t~) z ar. r.tx. tYp+ a, ~ 1.100 u-z,aro sa. ~
Q Clo~ft (2) 4 9'?pe C. 6 Ei90 ST.,S,8E4 SL E""4 ct~
~ 4 tom3OR
O. Type D. ! 19J7 s7.~ aT. 0 .
~il ~
DR t
4 ~ mmy ~ t M. DR/~t~ 8 r~sotmo E{ N&7 CQIdiW CRi1T3 ~ 54,2E0 S.F. 0r}
f ~ H~OYX d W . ~ ~ 4 a;rae ?1alt 0 6170 S.T
1166vau ia& a at om, o im sr.1.190 sv.
~ ~ ur , TOZ?L n"MM/EXPANSIOx . +~a~u sr,
anu
~ / ~O ;~e 'r s~• rnefr~t 1v2tL AE~ B g~gH471t dR6l . 54,960 sl.
2iE4' .
~ ~ R°°at ~ Z140 S,T.
900 9.r. z
W ~lpt ? 1~ ~1UF lter 8at/. ~m°Y" ~ 930 9J
°F?R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f\ ~~t/Reaekaa4 Roact . lS60
SLMWP,nNry . 700 9J.
p~ R~If 1tRN St~r7lPlta+w ~i0 31. ~ 0
t ' ~ •
.
~ ~Z,~ . a+x ~~+l~~nt~?Usr~s,i. (a, skn+} . eoc s.r.
tN 4#It W b} Pchk 9F~ qZg 8l..fAdO 9I. ~
. ? ` R . - , tR_. : J Cc,4E,-.t,.ws. . 1.025 SJ, . .
1t1?lL COlm6N5
/~?7'L1I7ST ABEI4AE6 9l:
,~„_;,,,.....----""""...---le pf! • ~ _ ~ . ' ~ ' - +(J/~cePtiepf .1,l00 SF..~,( .
m.s mw ~ ptA; . rp~ A!~ o ~ ' 0MOR/ItOrip Addttion (IL li) . 475 $J. /"~'t
0 owAn~ ~ ~ u ae ~ : r ' ~ r ~n~~r~om°C a;`~: 4~ ~ I
~ 4 l P14 m } ~ / wm~.~s sa~y . sta s,r.
tare
Tad areq~ . ifa ST: ~ .
k~a9ty`3Ur Ottla . t43p g,T .
,
1 ( t Dfr ~iY1~fM!/M41CL'. JREf~ - 5,455 U.
1 \ ~ ~ "
SSR TC7fL NY! C6Ng('EOCI1pN ARL: 10,
_ .~a. Ct6 S.F. C)
LJV
it~
~ci
1519'IC@etit~YWG . C5000 9.P. ~ .
~ r
~ RitiID T47t,L BtiD~II1G IRI`d . 11 D] ~p ~
k G
LQfEB GABiGE (91,S pp MUgE).14XA0 S.T. >
V.1.
XNZK. ~ ~ UFP&R CAB?~G %=TU (Ft. 9L8) .10.610 S.t. ~ LL
~ ~IGj ~S. 91H} .18A0G 3J.
AllSi
h '
T.XL41W6 9~RtG ~ ~
~ j _ ~ ~ PBOFOED AM1SO2i_,.,. Si Oafta
i. ~ 31E 311 SM !OC ' 9GE . 9CR ` 90E 305 . 304 -B710~°^"..,•'//! TOT1L. CONik}1fQdplt p~,.-..W_ iQ9 Un4ta zy----~-------`--_______-• i F PARONC CL'i1C~:.._..••-_»...».,_ ~pEgy~,~
d51~9U. ~S CNQg4CL. 6 9C~9WilP1CS 3?iC69 z 0
PIRIONG SMiCL...:•_..._.._...... 8 9pasu
. ~ ~ f
. _
TOTAL P1R14ING-------........ S1t SpACer I
t" ,ib ' ` r'r SH~.~ET IN~}EX
e;aa-- 8100 92 LGWER I . FAFJ;DiG GATcAG3
~
-~--Z- 7z- rr 93 UP~Z LEVEI, P9RI{~~iG GARIGS
a ~ _ i ,I'; _ ` I I{ ~
A4 A1~t11TI4Pi ~ ,
A5 FIAt~R 4 AD TPIQN
r ; ~ , r r' caee cc~ A6 FLt}(~R 5 ADDTTIUN ~
A7 F1AflR 6 dUD1T~f1N ~ ~
'e,• , ° # . , . . ~i~t,~ k8 FL4pR 7 ADDITE€}N'
.
A~caai~7p~e 1 ~}~t~y~~AnQ6~4f.rS ~ ~
A9 u ~0~
ti + , / ` a^ • ~ ~ ~t~t V ~ 4VU111S~AtlV~ Lli61Ai1V . ~ ~
~ r ~ '7t ~.z \ t f~ \ ~~f 1 j
Al~n ~~y~~rt~r ~ ~~r~~~tsig . p r,~~r.FtUtONS
ALh w j~
~ ~~ll\t, )ti ~cv tinnnr t~trt &&.~'/~U~
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ci~~ ~u~R.,_~,,..,.f.I~ie~wi! A~ R
.
~ . . . . . .
~
41
~ NORTH CaURTYARD ELEVATION
~
ris Y na~o1n
~ uxrts maxn
4 T~ ~py~
GS7
5/!5 PL.YwlJG4~
96 R16(D MW
~ ~iL "i~R ~`ll~, ~ ~ ~Tr. i ~
m
:
~ , ~ t T
, .
~
~ ~
y a
~ -
MG.~~ ~
. . .
ai
TYPS lt l ~ ~ E ss.4 r..
~ ~ ' ! :Y. _ . . . , . • . . i
8145A
; ` . . . , . ~_W
~a
7-1 r
~
~ . , • t r ~J
I etsu.~ ~ v
~ f \ ! ~ Y+ / r' \ ~ , i L•. _,u,A V
i i z. x ~ ? C "~„i,~
_ . . ,
~ 't L9[ ' I f
~ . :Y71~RtF£/t~'•t`~.: , ~ ~
~ : .
~ I
W11,t..
B9N2tou.c (1ES' &04Y' 0
~ !f j I
r~
f / 141 RAdvP DOlJPI I ~ k2f Z tJ
' ~ ~ . • ~ i etao.t
pF2p~P~H2I~TER ~ v t4 f 'r 1..I
w
A" GOh1G: 5UG 51'ANZ5 DQVJN
C.TI
6RAI+H_ Ce~E _ 6ARA&M L=VV4 ~
t ~ w
_ SOUTH C4URTYARD ELEVATIaN C> ~
i i„=zo°-a»
tMx - - - - - f ~ >
~ . q 0- _ LL '
~ tas.a
Q
P 11 F-`1 r-l
~ 154< E-4
p ~ f-i 11 - 0 -----f _1 C-1 (-`I 0 m f TYPE e p
- ~ i .
a ~ d F111 G y l~ Cl q-o ! ~ r P F-j
-
~ ~ FF.4
, .
~ , ~ ? J ~ ~ E ~ ~ \ P TYPE A'F
~MA`~~
. • / ~ ~ , / „ l~ l ; ~
t G06~1.~t~ f21RR~,.!"•=~ ~ ~.amv,uzc
nunaurs
nn ant mm
Flm
" ' -
L-E-VELA-~~--
F-1 I C~yL1,p t ~ ~ ~#UE7' &AU
1 - - Ul &tB ~ ~ r.zaaf LL~j .5
_ ~ Uc
- _ - pM~6 @!' r I °
. . L054 . . ( ' . . ~NIILEM
c cR,"
A1 1
~J :
IJ. E ~~D lJl~~Il~!4T .L" 131`~ ~svs~+osis a~
.
~ SCAL"E: 1" 60*-C1" '
i
NORfiH
. , ADDITION/REI~EVELOFMENfi . :
, ~ffiin?SNTiu.: : ` . occuga~cy t~ro~up 8-1. ; ~
_ . Cozvrtrvcf3aa; Y`y~ra 3 F.R, . .
` f'ARMv. GARiGEt Grou ~ p ~~-3 F,R.,
DEVELVPMEN'i` ,8tJMMAR~ Z
.t . . . , 2 ~ i a* ~e AT+ 0 1.1~ ~
~~~V -71~ , . . .
J) ~ M~ ~~~y{ i ~ry~~~}~~~ V~/K~*t-iVFiW ~~'y ~Ky~ ~ 1~! *
. N.... : , ~*~i':~'~'J{~~ ~ ~~Y¦W y. : . ~ . . i.~ . . _ (2) 2 Br:, nat:„ Tno .a, o t,ioo ,.sY.'•2,2oo BY.
. (2) 4 En lUts, rype c, a rM'sJ.8113MSa- SY:
"t2> 4 Dr. t~~. ~ D. 0 1a~-s.2:~,emb 0
~_j , .
'24 iiJ'.iw 44'NllH UiS11B . s.•.. f 30!2617 BY. . ' `0 . . ' .
• , 7 $'.~'~pZCpQQ YUto 0,500 SS., $,500 S.F. ~ ; .
. 7 Hedream ld& ta 01 t)nb i 170 S.Y'-1,190 8,1r.
fiOTAL RItPLbYEEjE7CPANtAX 41690 8.1r'. ^
TC}'!'dL.NL11` RE3IDMaUL 1lFt13A' -.34,950 9Y,
.~L - ~ .
. z Nesw Hatiquet Room 2,140 SY. r' Z
Nerw ratchea - 700 9.F. .
. Ne~r He~r/SGarege 1 - $l~tD B.'
e~ ~
lieeUnglHs eakout Rosrm ~ ~ .
650 S 1r'.
. Mci StSu't-gajLabby 700 S.ff . - ~ ~ .
I,at~e I~~rrar,?fFitut~r < 8t3U B.F. 9ntmajlrf~Anicai,/Stt~rn#a (eL 1I8.4) 8t1{I 5.'. ~ .
' d).I'nb?iC 3tairafM+evatar t?32i5 3.F.=I.950 S.F. Z~, .
motroaum Crs:f&ra, EU. ~ 2'm S:F.
MU Ct?l[LC4N3f SO'3PITALZZ'Y 14RBA-9,085 S.F. 4'Y
; Naw C~llar~?f~aaer~a~aafOitiaes ; •1,84b S.Dr'.
oflioe/9Wrage 1?d+dit3tsa (E[., , 1i8.S) : • 475 B.F. / ~r i
M1l~. Ge~Tm~b 5tA OfliOahClt1: _ '8~10 S.~'. 7e..,~ ,
` - Ieu3id.ry/Rousekee~flifit~ea. ' - .1,900 _ J.F. ~
]
- {~deiinte~ynyaad~:cee Shn~s j - .:31/(~} ri B~p.F. iF :
l~ NW~I~e' ' 11V Yi ~ ~
Accati~xt/3aies Ottice : ` - 550 3Y.: . .
TOTAI~ ADYItZL'47'~tA'flONjt~Y'QR~S 11t~A - 5,455 8.1~.
° ~Y
• ' 't'CYTAL NE1f- C+DNSTRt7G'TION ,!JIREA= . 49,470 S.F. EaMO BUtMTNG ~ 85,400 S.F. ~ . < ,
, GRAND 'i`Crt`l?L BL7]MINCa ARtiI • 114,470 SY. >
. , ~ IAX]~R GARIIGE (Si14B t~N GRAUE)-l~4.500 9.~`. ~Jr'•~
Ul'PEY2 t~t?RAGE (P.T SI.AB) 1 ~*18w54tt 3.F. (;.1,_ . , : :
A~O~1
xMY aXYu. PsaKNG/ (P;r. saAB), -1atcuw sY. . E0.
.~x~s~,~msct~?~ , - t ~ . . .
. , ; rA 9.. , YAii~~~~.~o ~iifY4f.~ssl.i...ii I M
i~H~~~f Myi~.•. VMits ,
,p~~~ ~pMOH..........x...~....~.~..' r~1 UE1it8 : ~-~r
~ ~
. ~
. ~ ~ .
03
~
~;~rxc ~e~?~s..b::...... ......i 106 0
. 83, Ftncx» sa cO~?~?Cr. 6 sc,-~.~cr s~~
PARKWO StTRrACE ~ 8 Speces, " .
, TOTlt+ PAItKING . 114 Spaces SHEET INDEX. w-~..• ~
PLAN :
A2 LOq+~ 1 y j~''
; _ .
. . •Ii.iii• ~~EL i~~~~G GiiJ~ib}G ~.d
_ A3 UPPER I:E'VET~ PARENG GARAGE ~ . : .
A4 FLOC}R 3 A.UI7MONi HA,,EKasr+,ssoc.
. A5- - FLE}OR -4 ATJI~ITIQ~T ;,t r.~, SiRmi
A8 FLL~OR 5 A~3DIT~C3N
A7 FL40R 6 ADDTTrON 5f z/g$
A$ EIO(}R 7ADDITIOly
A9 WEST/NOR"TH ELEYATIONS °ROM T.K.
,,c,e
A10 . REST'...COURTY'ARD/E)MST. MUATI(3N
~ .
A11 SQCJTH/N'OR'IH : CRTY'I): : IIEVATIONS
t: . . ~ AI2- S'' COURTYARD ~ EL. DETASLS
. ; OF 12 SHECTs
. ,
w 4
~ MEMOF2ANDUM
TU: Pianning and Environrnental Commission
FRt7M: Community Development department
DATE: July 13, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to a(low for additinnal antennae dn the `
Mountain Reli tower, Iocated at 160 Moun#ain Bell Road/ Unplatted.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented- by Carey Schmidt
Planner: Gearge Ruther
L -DESCRIpT101V OF THE REQllEST The applicant, #he Town of Vail, represented by Corey Schmidt of the Police department, is
proposing to mstall two new antennae atop the existing Moun#ain Bell tower. The new antennae
will be approximately 2 1I4" in diame#er and will be approximafely 8'tall. The an#ennae are
praposed fo be moun#ed along the back edge of the tower. In order to reduce the visuat impact
of the new antennae, the applicant has praposed to paint the antennae an earth-tone color to
helpblend in with the surrounding area.
~ 11. ZONING ANALYSIS
The Mountain Bell fower is located in the General Use (GU) Zone district. Pursuant to Section
12-9G-3, Conditional Uses, public utilities installations, including transmission lines anr3
appurtenant equipment, are conditional uses in the General Use Zone District. 5#aff has
determined #hat the praposed installation af additional transmitting and receiving antennae and
the appurtenant equipment requires the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to
Chapter 16 nf the Town of Vail Murricipal Code.
111. COND1TtONAL USE GRITERIA AND F1NdINGS
- Upan review of Title 12 Chapter 16, the Communi#y Development DeparCment recommends
approva{ of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impacfi of the use on deveiapment objectives of the
Town.
Staff believes that the requested conditional use is campatible wifh the
existing telecommunications use on the site, and is generalfy consistent
. with the purpose of'the General Use Zone District. The additional
~ antennae will be painted an earth-tone,coior to blend in with fihe
f.\everyo ne\pec\m em os\981mtbefl.7 13 1
TOWN*YAIL
surrounding area. St~f, believes that it is advantageous tn accommodate ~
several telecommunication uses in this one location, rather than having
numerous facilities scafitered about the Town.
2. The effect of the use an iight and air, distribution of population,
transporta#ion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public fiacilities needs.
Staff befieves there will be no impacf orr the criteria described above. `
3. Effect upon traffic witM particular reference to congestian, autamotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffie flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow fram the street and
parking areas.
Staff be{ieves there will be no negafive impact on the above-described
criteria, since once the equipment is installed, there will be lit#lenr nb
reasan ta revisit the site. Visita#ions to the site will anly be required ~
periodically far maintenance purposes.
4. Effect upon the charac#er of the area in which the proposed use is to
be (ocated, including the scale and bulk flf the proposed use in
relatian to surrounding uses.
Staff believes the proposed request will have no negative impact on the ~
scale and bulk of the existing facility tower, nflr will it have any negative
impact on the charac#er of the surrounding uses.
B. Fin ' s
The P(anning and Environmental Commissifln shall make the fallowing findings before
rq anting a condi#ionai use permit:
1. That the propased laeation of the use is in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit seation of the zoning code and the purposes of the
distrcet irt whieh the site is locafed.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the eonditions under which it
- would be aperated ormaintained would not be detrimental ta the pubiic
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
imprnvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each o# the applicable
provisions of the conditiona( use permi# sec#ion of the zoning code.
~
#:\everyone\peclmemas\981mtbeIL79 3 2
~ IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval af the conditionai use permit
reques#, tQ allow fior the installation of additional an#ennae atap the Mountain Bell tawer, located
at 160 Mountain Bell Road. The recnmmendation of approval is based upon review of the
cri#eria and findings outlined in Sectian III of fhis memorandum.
Shouid the Planning and Enviranmental Cammission chose to approve the app(icant's request for
the conditional use perrrrit, staff wauld recommend that the Planrring and Envir`onmental `
Commission make the following findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance wi#h the purpases
of the condi#ional use perrnit sectian of the zoning code and the purpose af
the General Use Zona nistrict.
2. That the propased location o# the use and the conditions under which it
- - would be operated or maintained wiil not be detrimental to the pubfic -
- health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to prcrperties or
improvements in the vicinity of the Mountain BeIT tower.
3. That the proposed use wiil camply with each of the applicable provisions
of the conditiona4 use permif section of the zoning code.
Further, shnuld the Plannrng and Enviranmental Cammissinn chose to recommend appraval of
the conditional use permit request, staff would recommend that the following conditian be made
~ part of the approval; 1. That #he applicant paint the additional antennae and the appur#enant
equipment an earth-tone colar (grey/brown), to reduce any visual impact
associated with theinstailation of the antennae.
~
f:leveryone\pec\memos\98tmtbeH.71 3 3
.
~ _-_37tt2{n-----------_~.~.._-_~.._.__~_~_._. Y
~
T
Op of US VIf @St TCIWeC
~
~
?
r
-
t
i
i
' - . . . . . - . . ~
4 ~
;
i
~
~ MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROIVI: Community nevelopment Department
DATE: July 7, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a reznning from previously unzoned praperty owried by the United ~
States Farest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail pursuant ta the Lanci
(Jwnership Adjustment Agreement to Primary / Secondary Residential District for
property lacated at Rockledge Road/portions of United States Forest Service l.ot
3, totaling 1.78 acres based upon the propased Final P1at (not yet recorded) of
Rockledge Forest Subdiuision prepared by Dennis Shelhorn as Job No. 0332-002
dated February 25, 1998.
and .
A request for a rezoning fram previously unzaned property owned by the United
States Forest Service and transferred ta the Town of Vaii pursuant to the L.and
Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary / Secondary Residential [7istrict and
Natural Area F'reservation District for property located at F'tarmigan Road
fGovernment Lat 2{1.66 acres} and Ldt 3(4.252 acres) created by a survey done,
in 1995 under the authority of the Bureau of Land Management Cadastral Survey.
~ Applicant: Town af Vai1
Pianner: dominicMauriello
L DESCFiIPT10N OF TNE REQUEST ANI} BAGKGROUNd
The Town of Vaii is applying for zoning nn property which was previously unzoned. This propertY
was obtained by the Town of Vai1 under the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA)
with the United States Forest Service. A portian of the land is proposed to be zoned
PrimarylSecondary Residential. The Town is working with adjacent property awners who may
purchase this land from the Town. The remaining area wili be zoned Natural Area Preservation
District which does not ailow #nr develapment.
fl. BAGICGROUND
This proposed zoning change is a one of #he final steps in a Land Exchange with the US Forest
Service and the Town of Vail. 7he basic purpose qf the exchange is to remove Forest System
1ands from within the Town boundary and to acquire Forest System Lands that have public ar
private improvements. One of the critical reasons why tne Forest Service was interested in the
Exchange was to address private and public encroachments on US Forest Service Lands. Lands
owned by the Farest Service on Rockledge Road and Ptarmigan Road were #he major'issues of
concem regarding encroachments,
~
1
fioWn'
*YAIL
~
ln the eacly 90's, the Vail Town Council directed staff tQ begin working with the Forest Service to ~
address encroachments on Forest System lands and to identify ways to discourage private
exchanges around the Town of Vail. On Rockledge Road residents requested that the Town
initiate an exchange to address encroachments on Forest 5ystem lands. Residents on
Ptarmigan were very interested in~ protecting a 4.25 acre parcel on the South Side of F'tarmigan
Rd. In 1994,the community compfeted the Vail Comprehensive Open Space Plan which
identified properties that shouid be considered for a land exchange. in Junea 1995 the Town of
Vail and the U.S. Forest Service signed an agreement to initiate a land exchange. The original
proposal for the land exchange involved 4 parcels of TOV land totaling 77 acres and 11 parceis ;
of USFS lands totaling 110 acres. The exchange removes Forest Service lands fram within the
Town of Vail and involves a number af de-annexation actions to remove areas the Town o# Vail
would not acquire.
Cn December of 1997, the Town arrd Forest Service exchanged titles to the involved parceis of
land and now owns the lands identified in exhrbits attached located on Rackledge and Ptarmigan
Rd. Throughout the land exchange the Town has worked with praperty owners on Ptarmigan and
Rackledge to develop a means #or residents to acquire the land where they haue physical
improvements -on F'orest Service lands. A subdivision process will be initiated after a rezoni iag
appiication has been completed tfl join adjacent parcels of land acquired in the exchange with
existing privately owned lots. Lands conveyed to private property cawners will be deed restricted
so that development can not occur on any iand the Town acquired firam the Forest Service.
However, the Town believes that the zoning on the properCy that will be conveyed to adjacent
praperty owners needs to have the same zoning to take advantage of additional GRFA and site
coverage. This will involve zoning that land which will be eonveyed to adjacent property owners
to the Primary/Secondary aistrict. The 4,25 acre parce( on the south side of Ptarmigan Road
will, however, be zoned to Natural Area Preservation District since the in#ention with this parcei ~
has always to maintain it as open space.
111, CRITERIA
The f'EG shall make the fallow,ng findings before granting approval of a zone change request:
1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on #he site and adjacenfi
land uses2
The purpose af this rezoning is to address private encraachments on what is now Town
of Vail properky. The rezoning will be consistent with the zorring directly adjacent to the
exchange properties on Rockledge Road and Ptarmigan Road.
- 2) Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses
consistent with municipal objectives.
The amendment wNl facilitate legal access ta both Rockledge and Ptarmigan roads.
Comp{eting this exchange and conveying the encroached upon lands to the adjacent
property owners fulfills lang s#ated objectives identified in #he Land Ownership Adjustment
Agreement, the Land Use Plan, and the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan.
3) Does the rezoning provide for the grawth of an orderly viable comrnunity?
Addressing long standing private encroachments tin public property heips to support a
viable orderly community by not having private residentlal structures exist without legal ~
access and clouded titles.
2
~ .
~ 4} Is the change consistent with the Land Use P(an?
5ection 1.9 of #he Land Use Plan on page 7 states that "Natianal Forest land which is
exchanged soled ar otherwise fialls into private ownership should remain as open space
and not be zoned for private developmenf." This reference refers to private exchanges.
The exchange with #he Forest Service with the Town was a public exchange to protect
open space that may have been disposed off by the USFS. The 4,25 acres of apen
space acquired from the Forest Service an the south side of Ptarrnigan Road vui11 be
protected by deed restrictions and zoning. The land conveyed to indivitiual harne owners ~
will also be deed restricted and will not allow developrnent on lands acquired from the
Forest Service. This zoning request will facilitate the resolutian a# long standing
encroachments af private roads, structures, landscaping on public property. On page 10
of the Land Use Plan, the Plan acknowledges fiha# the Town and the US1=S need to work
tagether ta address lands that were identified for possible disposal. Lands on Ptarmigan
Road and Rockledge Raad were designated as such because of ihe private and public
encroaehments on these properties. This rezaning will help #aci(itate the resolution of
_ _these encroachmerrts. _ r--
IV. STAFF RECOMNIENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this zoning request subject to the follawing finding;
That the proposed zone districts are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, are
consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regula#ions, and are appropriate
~ for the area.
F:\EVERYt7NE\P EC\MEMOS\98tiTOV R EZ01.713
~
3
. . , . . ,.r , v ~ ..t i ~ v v L? i V L.it";i ;
~
UN?LA7TE4
MdUNTAtN 6E4L
160
14s
aec scxocrL, ~
MOUrVTAlN $ELl F?D. LEARNING TREE
129
70
lvi
LOCK 1, VA1L LIONS lNG
PARKIriG ~
a 7
~
STR~ C~TURE VAIL
IN7ERNA710t~1 ~
~1
s ~ 250 HELIPAD 6
300
`~UBIEfTR£E 125
AIL~. +
5 Y LIONSNE Posr l.SJ7 D,VAIL V1L GE 2r
r ~'FIcE
~sY ~.icx~tSHEFw cl cLE IcE ARENa 2I1C~ F1t,.`~ttv
rF t~i
450 321
6 (com ercicii) 7 ~-Z ~'J 2 Pd ICE 8
0 OfFICES . h4A1NVAFL
- tObGE A7 Ll N NEAO ~-RACT k ~ ( • 75
~-C.,EXaT
7ETOPS ~A~T0 ~ 6 I:IBRAR VAIt ^
332 . = 292 F 2ei £ NAT'l BA K ?
~ ~ vaiL vaLLEY 2 $osG' Scaa io
rn
Eaica 1 cENrER s~taa~. 1 121 Ho~.ioa~r. aNN
~ ~ NOUSE ALPHQRN 13 ANOAR ca7Ewav ~
.
UhPLA7TED T~r 6 8 S7 ~ 147 121 • c 8TA l0
AD04'!
7 A 28 12
252 fl H
232 ~1 vIL AV 2n OLIDAY cc ~
I42 I22 H~~~~ WAIL- VILl.AG
~ . 6, 5 4 3 2 t ~ l00
~ 212 182 162 gz g e ti1 ~ ~
38t pa~ ~44 Z A1L -5
92 F1RE o IS
$~t 4 5~„ 6 VA1L ~IG ti+.E aooW D4z7' sc?v;E~~
!
LL ~ 7FtAC`f 6 P~- G Tr'-
~ 330
401 3 F L. G. 41 ao vILLa l5t
363 ~
3 ~ ( 275 39 38 37 36 GORTIN BANK ~
383 343 333 26 ~ 223153 153 123 22 ~
7 I
4 3 TRAG7 J BAVA PJ A ~j
443 ~421 24 27 CHAPEL NS
B 9 10 19 20A 232!54 184 154 28 s 19 -
,T 374 354 344 324 274 84
7Rv",CT .
31
fr3
3 4 394 2
20 22 22 QPS3 \
3 2 1 18 2b6 245 115 g~ YfU..I{'i4;
4 375 85 355 3.25 p 4 o.
i4 42 226 t86 d88 ~E 45 49.
32 178 266 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 35
~ 17 07. 26 . 12 145 5
5 4 $ 2 I~C 227 {26
446 424 4t6 356 338 p 13 y(7 9 A 8 A 7 ~ 97 2
~
1 2 8 1 278 2j7 197 167 147 127 10
. pA C RE
,
~
FINAL !'LA7' OF ;
ROCKLEDGE FOREST SV ~DMS~~N
LQ`I' 3, SF'.',CTION 7, TOWNSHIP 5 SQLT"I`H, RANGE $0 WESZ', 6th P.M.
TOWN ()F VAIL, Ct3UNTY f}F EAGLE, ST:ATE t?F COL4R.ADO
, - ' _ - _ " _ ' ' _ T,'~` - h / - . _ ' ' F ' ' ' ~ _ - ' j ~~'i i'f,ei~::: .F..:....~~F;.'%~ ~..i..~° ''._~_.1~j^~--•_ ' y , • ~ v '
j~urie,aa•~tx~ertot~xsc~crr '
• { iF~' ` , r 1 :R='S.F ~ ~
~ ~ n9"34; ` zc~'etix~r u/ew~~.r2 ~ ~~r.vn4t~` ~ c.+tus.~:>: tl. ~r.... .~ttla>ulae.tt. ~ fEI~.b4ii l nuY.t ~rsiaatvY ~ttAqf ~
rvm.s ..a cr.uw ri.k~ mewn ~ f eJrmv~ a
_ t
~
~
- ` H----- : - - - - - - - - - " - -
a[ oCx r
a s - e~~ aot a ' car ~ eor a
.r ~ ~ oo Ntlil'6B`dR a IXO S> o`d. ~ ~ W ~',.ro~ ~iQ~ 9 keY~etFitLd! t , . ' , i
+ ~s~v ' 'TYUC77t - ' . . _ PfuCT-A'_
°ra> ' -,tsrr~c~r o~Fatrr ~ ° ctcrntce.~u; ,~~s~ . '0' _ I
.ro- .veaac-i . ~x~os- " . - _ x.... sa~tri xnats •.m ereroa• '
t.'r,jf I1 ~/N~r. P e N'lff54'SI k 1)tl.) v . . ~t.~4 1 I YOO.IF~ ""^.-~7
'SdY'.~1= f 1 t~ 1 E_",.,. . ~ .r. v
. . . ~ r•xicr .t.
.N. .~.a_.\`, . ~
~eya~ `•,~R~E taQ,~`s
FPr.,
~ ,..J
" X.
tos svuuxar rwce
t.4NE TdOIE
v.ui a c..a ~e
~ IIx$ ~ pGRINC pMANCC s 45lff~l~I+i
~cIX[ 2 3. '6tY[~~~fu
' - - L4 i' S] L ~ 55~N[tu
iA S 1~2i 3 5~. 'f5~ti~~EtluFta~ i
GC(-IC 4Ctt€ 1"•$0' tl t0F i LLaL j 5~ fst~l}iL II
tlllAAmtt~ ~ J 5U . [Ni~.i C w~ItP+I g+a(~
~ tr t60 ~ .450 t FW~CiaEWG ~0+0 et. ~if. mW ak.m-6£~.A -n~
~+!eot~ *d~i~~ ' ISta v¢. it. fAVF3YwJ.rt t,0~ l~ .
IWS Sik1E~[FUt. 1r:t ~+eerrcYp ~EC.n vm r+. mua w, a W fl I80 XJ .
~t r f/iLL:cmnn~~6 Let~}x t[Ira w ma e~~ L D~lvc tlk Caiu~.~rv~ ' .
(w+sn~"°`°u a muV~ ~b'Y~. Ua ~ut m re .xc m . . _ . . . . .
~otrA r xfNh.{H/~uy55 Gn f ~ . )+•f;" ~FCU(rt t1*A~fP '
~ Y EIMaAIk~"A ~ .a [~5 Itl~nN ~
~f
~cuez•e sanLr:
CURYE FftG RAb1U9'. IXELTk CTIONR LLGVIItVG CifQRa ~y~pq
~"y~ (''~/'`t7~~~.'' fN~A1~~.y P[T~"~ f)(~"'
.RVl.F1L17J,LiLRJE FCI.LYL'~,7T
•M s :~~on.a . ti~ ~ ~ aev~m ..<xaxva~e~.a m.~e SiJ~~IVIS1$JN ~
y, mT3' . m ~ ~ a .ei p~. w r af ~ x wan ee ~w ~ ~ . <s s. ~ o.«v ..w.mo ~e ~ (~k~
w e ea
c1z r ' Nr~~~
'~MCVKK~: X ib+a . D'~t. ~h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^4 - SECf1IXC ESI~ 4Y M5 .S 5w~n ~.C~k`tlo wfst +£Nll5(ar 6+H
[~v COO~ e ro0e~~ ot ~~au[ ult m~. r Y i
`i`HOMF'94N-LANGFORD CURPURA?'IUN
~529 25- i/e nr:..,. . ~4-.2.10
~ . . .
w*ea~~ .w~ wcw ~ ~ . 6ratttl. JunetYOn ;,V 81505~.. (976) 243-6067
.
~~w w
v.
~.s... - ~ K . . . . .
u~osz2ts5'ri~rtx~uw: mee~eon~i7.e: s~..t i r
. . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . Y~._._._ . ..r. .
R
f'
~
1
, UNAI.ATTEb ~ sxoP ~
1z
. • 7C7wN OF Va1L
MA14T SNOF'
N1 TE R S TAT E 70
t rOv tu r. a. v. f
: ~~IL VILL~~~ 8th'. I
-y ~(tVALr _
L
j~ TRAC7 ` ! .
~ r 1f83 ~ i
1055 fi IttS 1 163 4
EAST UR{C. ViATER 967 1031 104 4 05 6 9 10 c~Pt ~ t193
SANITATION 6LD TRAC7 I 2 ~S o 0~4 7 ~ 125 1153 .
iooi . ir~qs IIR4 1194
1007 W ~v 1034 1106 SlLVER 1 C7RA.
I ~j4 9 10 R57 1187 f~
• ~~,~{S 6 1022 ~ 5 7 ~~~7 1135 12 13 ~ 1195 ~
R~ 1029 1081 6 VAt.tE
~ 1012 ~ f'
~ 4 Z' 1014
620 992 ~
OccER FiELn 4 ,ac7 a °2 z4 t:
~ ~
t..20
7RAC7 A 994 1 ~
12Ct7
2 5 .170
~ s t 2 ~ 3 4 5 6• ~ '7F2f~C~'F
99 017~ 1~ 7 i i 1119 ~
_AGE ?th. FIL...ING
~
,
~
5 • 975
PARCEL D - ~ '
1 '
925 ~ y h +~y ~ F
FAtRWA F~Aawas t~ jv P'~ ;i? ~
~
• 04
990
V L LL. GE 10t IN
aro to !j e v s 6. 'PPaMAtlA ~~Ct~~t` ~ r E Z-
884 890 920 930 950 970 ~
TRACT A
~
- -
almill
~
USFk7/TOY PAR4.,tEL S-10
PTA:~~GAN RaAa / FAIRWAY cc~~RT I{VRavEM~NT LOCATIONs
4
~ ~ f 4
ic 10 i'°' u~Y r . ~i~.4
L~
. p..
~ f ~ -e..eY t~ 30. na 1 + m s< zz ~ ~a+ .
~ ~i L'#""'~_~f ` i$ , , • ,e Hecn•ao : aec~~s: es e ` .-'sa-d§'-~ ?•"t - - ~t .
~ ~J. ~ d .,ro. ~i o}•~ . . ~ ,.u.~c~. p„ d ~ ~ .~i }o. :
~ x • „ ~IGQD`I(' llA1~~., ti: '~c~i•ll ~c "`;;a7~"~' ~m°~ / ~
/
~ OR-
_`______.._.V__-__-__._.-_^__+___-
I
4. . . (
~ ~a f
, $ ~ ~£gq~ m r B~IfD) 4
Ir f s ` ty
r`' 0.anEo- Rz.~r.o'.wa. ttrc fwu~rr miss cw g~
~ L7 . `t ~ M044D Ws tUE vWII RUNtN Gk ~
~ ~ ; -+-r . tFf ip~p vIM C Go- ~
o ~t~ ou
- ~ ~ G. ~r f u urtu .~cas +
, t w",
~ ' ~ F' `#1~ ~ i ~1- "Z : a "1. . • seui.+weir .em ~
~ ~ Q~ . hms er~roxe o w -~u rotn ~ . . ' ~ ELEC. FC Natuq, ~ ~
''p ~~av~ oi.t~e~. ~o n I ero ~ x~ vlliqe ~mfn ttiiM vw n # l1tYt ttY:E
9JrvC ~l1+ ttIUM !/a~ 4
t n`°~.-..w° Y" ~ ~,a r a(EGtR~1'H vR
..,,~...,..3~..~ a+r'": n..~~~~r.~ror o, r;~ crc~wce, rac
. 6' p4 ¢ £ k!"~ .
W f9 Qp
iJSFS/TOV PARCEL S-10
Gi~ w' } C
' - ~ ~wia~~iu~nwe.. . TOWN QF VAfFe . .
?
C amrt nrr nr~ hv ~ t 4u e~ tvrYrbatimxo+~ . ~~OiN
~ Q"f~Y~{(r43.W* S~Y.enGFORD Mj~ jAfk ~wy(j ~HIOU~s OIN.
TH~{C[O~jbL~W V~~
52925 1f2 RQAO f 84T6
aa~a•: :w.~ ..,,,x Grsna June23oo- CO 91505 (976} 243-6067`
- - _ - - ~ _ - a - - ` - -.-T - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~].y a~r. •nxa~ MfYCa ~ PS Vse - xic..m b. OYY~COI .
SbP2~9Q~ C SPP.<~' , V
- t ae ~
d
:
q .
RECE?VED JuN z 2 19e
FfELD CC}NTAINER COI'v1PANY, L.P. Latty Fie«
rhief Executlve Officer
JLIi'ie 18, 1998 .
Mt. BOb MCLr'ltlrlll -
TUWIl MaT13geT ,
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rcaaci
Vail, CO 81657
- Re: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Dear Mr. McLauxin:
As I stated in my letter to the Vail Town Gauncil dated May 5, 1998, I
own a horne on West Forest Road in Vaii, and am writing t4 yau to
voice rny strong vpposition to the current effort to develop the laznd
upon which the tennis courCs are located.
This effcart was to have been directed to developing a master pla,n fnr
Lionshead, and the tennis caurt2ropeM whose limitations the Town
of Vail is chan ' is not now and has never been art of Lionshead.
Changing the direcrion for zaning (present and future) t,hrough the
proposed master plan while advertising the process as one retating ta
`Laonshead' misrepresents the actian being taken by the T'own of Vail
and misleads peopte who believe that the activity only affects the
property referred to, i.e., Lionshead.
The tennis courts are directly below my hame and auy building on the
tennis courts wouid be wauld dramatically change the nature of the
neighborhoad.
The residents of Farest Road suffer frorn a density problem as it is
from the CATS coming down the road to access the mountain.
Additional rraffic from more buildings would be horrendous.
Despite rny previaus letter faxed and then mailed to you on May 5th
and also letters from others which i know you have received, neither
the Council nor the planning staff referred ta or acknowiedged receipt
of those abjections during the work session on June 9`h.
~ Continued.:
1500 Nicnoia? inui-~ 3 r?; "Rtepttone847:9S6.3226
EIk Grcvu -':Ia~!e. ~'rin( acsimiie 347:956.9250
.
k
. ~
Page Twa
- Iune 18,1998
on the cc~mprehensive pla~x
The Town intends to ~iave a public h~wer~ trr oppose this revisian and
on 3uly 7th3 and I w%l~dc~ ~ d~ the saxne.
encourage all af my ~
Very truly yauxs,
, f
~
Larry Fielti
{pm
~ . Date Beceivau
,
~ FIELD CC)NTAfwER'COtv1PANY, L.P. Larf~F,eld
Ch,ef fxecuxive t74ficer
~
\
JUSte 18, 1998
' .
Rflb FOTd, MayOT' `
Tcrwn of Vail - ` -
75 S. Frrsntage Road
Vail, CQ 81657
Re: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan .
I7ear Mayor Ford:
As I stated in my Ietter ta the Vail Tocvn Caunci1 dated May S, 1998, I
own a home on West Forest Raad in Vail, and am wziting to you to
voice my strong apposition to the eurrent effart ta develop the lancl upon which the tennis courts are located.
~ This effart was to have been directed ta developinc, a rnaster plan for
Lionshead, and the tennis caurt prgpertv whose limitations the Town
of Vail is chanizing is nat naw and has never been t)art of Lionshead.
Changing t.he directian for zoning (present and future) through the
proposed master plan white advertising the grocess as ane relating ta
"•Lionshead°' misrepresents the action being taken hy the Town af Vail
and misleads people who believe that the activity anly affects the
property referred ta, i.e., Lianshead.
The tennis courts are direetly below my home and any building an the
_ tennis courts would be would dramaticaily change the nature of the
neivhborhood.
The residents of Farest Road suffer frorn a density problern as it is
from the CATS corning down the raad to access the mountain.
Additional traffic from rnore buildings wauld be harrendous.
Despite my previous letter faxed and then mailed to you on May Sth
and alsa letters from others which T knaw vou have receivecl, neither
the Council nar the planning staff referred to or acknowledged recezpt
of those objections during the work session on 3une 9`".
~ Continued_......
ieieDhor,eea7:s58.3zzb
~,)Qi)' . =atsi~nile 8#?.956.925t3
.
Page Twv
3une 18,1998
,
~n the comprehe~nsive plan
ublic hearin~ ose thas revisic~~ ~d
to ~spP
.~e T c~wn intends to h~v~ ~ P owet`
on 3uly and , `'`rll do all in. ~Y ~ e
~ ~
ncourage all af m~' '~eighbors tO
e
V erY trulY y°ors'
LarrY Fie d ~
/pm
, ~
~ Jt1tY1a1t /ndostA'ies, lrlc. Jahn HancoCk BuitdinFE4 E1rEQ4U.4fi2sA-5W
' suite 4020 FAx: 312-573-0457
' 875 N. Michigan Avenue
~ Chicago {L 60611
.tonn w. rordan tt
Chairman. Ghief Executive (ifficer
~
June 22, 1998
Mr. Bob McLaurin fiawn Manager
Town of Vai1 -
75 S. Frontage Road _
, a Vail, CO $1657 .
Re: Lionshead Redeveiopment Master F'lan
Dear Nlr. McLaurin,
Since early this year, i have been fofiowing the Town of Vail's various efforts #o revise
the master plan for Lionshead. As the owner of praperty at 483 Beaver Dam Road in Vail, I
feel it is necessary to indicate to you how seriously 1 object to this.
I understand that among the many revisians the Town of Vail is considecing include
the redesignation of the apen space and residenfial area along Gore Creek and Forest Road
sauth of Lionshead. In addition, the revisian calls for permitting construction of bufildings in
this area up #o thirty-three feet in height, rather than one story, as is the curren# limit. You are
~ thus making these areas easily zaned for commerciai or residential deveiopment. This is
particularly disturbing considering the fact tha# the Iands south of Gore Creek are not now
and have never been part of Lionshead. if you aliow these areas to be arbitrarily associated
with the Lionshead plan, yau will be daing a great disservice tca the community which you
senre; for the destruction of open, naturaf space will rad'rca!(y alter the nature of our
neighborhood.
I know that the gQal of this project is to revitaiize the businesses and residences of
Lianshead anti to malce this area more attractive. Hawever, exclusiveiy serving the
, commercial interes#s of Vail Assaciates at #he expense of #he existing environmental and
aesthet'sW balance ts not a worthy geal. ! urge you +o serious6y i,ronSider }:!e nP.g~'~.fCve (mNaGt
of including the lands south of Gore Creek in this plan. Lionshead can clearly be revitalized
withnut invading upon the {ands south of Gore Creek. The path you are currentiy taking will
not serve to revitalize the area, but rather wili set the tone for future desecratian.of our
beautifiu! Iand.
Respe ff~11y,
~
Ja a an, I (
01 JWJ/cjj
~RECEIVEn -{uN
Jatt°k L. BQ~~liln
106 01(d 'Cou~~ ~otxd
Pg~:~~~ ifteq ~~~~~~and 21vOB ' '
(410) 4436-3100
(410) 653-3,978
Fax
. June 22, 1998 ,
Bob McLaurini Town Manager
75 S. Frontage Road
ti'aii, Goiorapo 81657
RE: Lions Head Master Pian
Dear Mr. McLaurin:
We awn a hame on West Forest Road in Vail, and we're shocked to learn that the tennis court property
naw seems to be inc(uded in the Lions Head Mas#er Plan. This action is a compiete misrepresentation
by the Town of Vail, as we were ied to believe #he changes in the Lians Head Master Plan, which we
support, affects anly the property in Liorts Head. ~
This past Winter, we checked to make certain that the #ennis courts were not inciuded in the Master Plan,
and we were assured an several accasions that was the fact. We are aiso concerned that we have not
been kept apprised in a timely manner of #his serious change of direction by the Councif. Any change in
the use of the tennis court property, other than single family or duplex residential, will be strenuous4y
opposed, not onfy by me, but by my neighbors.
Unfortunately, my wife and { will not be ab{e to personaify attend the July 7 Nearing, due ta a medical
probiem. i can assure you-that a move is naw underway to have ai1 the HC'3MEowners ON West Forest
Road to join this effort #o pro#ec# our homes.
I must advise you that we have been property owners in Vaii far over twenty years, and this is the first #ime
we, the property cawrers, have been totaNy ignored by the Cauncil. VVe can promise you a vigrarous
defense against any change in the residential nature af our community.
l wou4d appreciate it if you wouid bring aur opposition to the attention of the Council at the July 7 Hearing.
Sinc ely,
~
Jack L. Baylin cc: Larry Field ~
Fred Rumsfard
Nei{ Austrian
Charles Ackerman
Robert G. Phillips
c 86/29/3998 83:57 FROM ROBERT FdRD TO 4792157 P.01
y C:lY1C CCsCCt
~ • ~ ~
. t' k .
~ aVJ ~
2 IW R;age xYesue
Fv+uwrM tttiaurm ,
« v~ ~ 60201-2798
i
~
• 7~Icp6croe
~ ~j ~ !#7132.ti-2100
C~ ~ ~
.'~~l ~ 't13U 8}7t3294t180 ~
, tiornc:
2756 Bnrlid P:tk,Ptace (01)
j847) 329-0538
Aldcrmaa It2t tYard • Stcp$cu 11. Etigatmse .
.JUFte 22. 1998
Mayor anc3 Cifiy CCouneil .
Town of,Vai! .
Vait, Colorado 81657
RE: UonsMread Redevelopment Master P'lan .~~Dear Mayor and Council members= .
I first carne ta Vaii in February,1964. My famify buift its house at 655 W. Forest Rd. in
~ Qecember, 1965. Over the ensuing thirty-three (33) yeacs, f have seen siabstantiai
changes in-.,the tpwnt #he. rpountcjin,and. the.sur:rounding,communities.
tt was withI interest that 1 have beer.? foltowing #he process,to shape the Uonshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. 1 have observeri,meetirgs on cable, attended infontnartion and wor4c sessitans wtten in tawri, and maintained cammunication with my friends and : .
neighbors wha are year;-round residents. t was therefore shacl+ced to read the staff mernorandum of June 9 regarding reclassfication of the ar+ea around the "tennis cautts" 'at the southwst end ofi-W, Forest Rd. This was the first firne i observed any disctrssion- .
that.theLlonshead.Redevelapment Pian contemplateci rezoning of this area an the other .
. .side of the river. . .
Staffs memorandum characteri22ed this-area as +tosisistent with the "existing single fatnity
and dupiex homes" to the sauth and west. However, the area could as easi{y have bw .
ch?aracterized, and in fact curnently is, consistent.wi#h the open space to the north and east. , Allowing foc the addititm a# six or twelre mtrre hames on the mountain would detrmmntatly
impact the nature of. the national fo.rest area. and ttte aiready cangest+ed dead end sihtet. Add'rtional structures and other imperviaus surFaces in this siopecS area near the rivecbank :
wilt exacerbate exi5ting. erosira,n: .apd, augrnpnt-existit~g :pc~lluti~ort... _ . . • _ .t ~)"YS' . . . ' ' o • . . " . ^ . . , . . . . r tn t• . ,
. . . . ' ' . • . . • • " • _ . . . . . . . ' r ,
~ .
06i29/1998 03:59 FRON R08ER7 FORD 7fl 4792157 P.S2 {l~ , . ~
P1ge YWK?
1 vrge you to cvnfine the Lionshead Redevelopmerrt P{an tti the Lionsheat~ c~mmetclai'artd
ac
industrial area, and ntyt expanti either zoning restrictions or us+es south of Core Ct;ek.~ Thank you for your -consideration, #or taking th - o read this' letter and for your
commitmerrt ta all of the citizens in Vail. .
Since
~
. ngeima
SBEIik
~
~
70TRL P.82
3U:3 771 ° 02T :3 N V e:
. ~C Z1 ~ rr~ v
Alfied LiYWak
~ 7273 South Garfield Street •
LitCleton, C{) 80122
~
~
July l, 1998
~
Tcrwn Council ` - Town of Vail
75 Frontage Road
Vail, CCf 81657
~ Dear Councit Members:
My wife and I are praperty owners in Lionshead and I arn writing v+ith brief reactians to
the praposals far Lionshead redevelopment. I have read the April 21, 1998 memo to
Council froxn the Master Pian Team and found it quite disturbing. The memo exa,ggerates
the defects of Lionshead and underestimates its virtues. The Team appcars to be in the
process of creating a bustling urban environment in vvhat is now a tranquil, family-friendly,
skier-frier?dly mountain comrnunity. I hope that the Council will reject ptoposals that wi11
radically alter Lianshead's character.
~
The Team's memo describes a Lionshead that is foreign tcr those who visi# frequently and
appreciate what Lionshead has to offer--space, views, areas to stralt through mually,
2imited bui:tding mass and rnany other desirable features. True, rehabilication and
irnprovecnent in strme properties could enhance the visitar's experience. But some of the
Team's recamrnendati4ns are so drastic as to atter fundEunentally the nature of Lianshead'.
. What's mtire, some of'the Team's objectives may be mutually incvnsistettt. For exampfe,
the proposed add`zzian of activitYes and amenities, in rny view, would reduce the appeal of
L.ionshead as a relatively tranquil famity carnmunity. As a result, "the creation of
additional hed base" would nut bring a"stronger ecanomic base", because Lianshead's
~ traditiorta.l clieatele woutd be alienateci. C1ccupancy would decline, not improve.
Builrizngs as high as 94 feet woutd create a ci$ustrophobic envirflnment in what is now
apen xnd p1easurabte space. Masses Iike those propased by #he Team worsld be utterly
revolting ta many who come to Vai1 to escape the cornfines of an urban envircrnment. Tn
short, the 'T'eam's recarnmendations have an ivary tower quality vsrhosce resuits wiil not be
appfaucied by the Lionshead comrnunity as a whale.
I hope that the council will reject thase recommendations ofthe Team that wauld greatly
increase masses and a2ter i,ivnshead's in#imate character. At very least, the Council
should defer a decisitrn on the Team's recammendations untiI a representative erass
~ °
. ;4
sectiara of the carnrnunity has had the opportunity to react to the specifics of the Master
Plan, ~
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on #he proposed changes. I know how busy the
Ccwncil is and I commend its members far taking tirne to eonsider dissenting views,
. Thank you very rnuch.
- ,
Sr rely, ,
Alfrerl Idit-uvalc . _ y
~
~
JUL-09-99 1@=55 FROM=NFL ID: PAGE 212
' f
~
~ ~~~~NAL FOOI'BAU IY-AGUE
Ne3l I2. Austria,n
Prmdrnr
July 1998
. ,
VIA FACSIMTL.E 970479-2157
Toc+m Catmczl
Totvn of Vail
Re_ Lionshead Redevelopjment Pian
Dear Coumcil Mcmbers:
I was shock-eci to learn only today that the Lionshead Redeveloprnent Plaz, calls for the Towrt of
Vail tr> change the zoning at the upper end of Forest Raad and allow Vail Associates to build azs
unspecif cd nurnber of dwellings on the site that is cuzrently the Tennis Courts. Rurnors of acI7aiige
izr status of the Tennis Courts circulatcd during the past Christmas halidays, so my wife Nancy and T
went to ttzc pres~.-ntations heid at the Library. We specifically askeci abcsut any charsges to thit~ Tewais
Caurts and were sssured th2tt arzy clanges t,o t}sat site were not cantemplated within the theri
Lzonshead Redevelopment Plan. Thus my total surprise +,vhen I received confirmauon that VA does
~ indeed wish to change the natLue and character of West Foresst Road:
I do not know any of the details, but do wish to sfate mp objecticm to any such change urrtii such
time as someone L-xplaiuns ttr mc and fhe ather residents of the road, what exactly is planned. Why
such secrecy? Why wasn't this an issue to be discussed on its own merits as opposed to being bmied
wrthin another Plan and hnpe tha# those affzated w4ulcin't natice the proposal?
Fox sev~,`raI years I have been engaged in discussians with officers of VA in atttempting to
relacate #he snowcats off this residential stzeet. lVotl'iing has been accomplished except delays,
brokeri promises, and total run-arounci. It certainly raises the question as #o the under-lying intent of
VA on aty issue.
.Y_ I urge the CoUncil nat to include thas matter ruithin thw Rr:,deveiopment Flan since it wotyld
appear to have liit?e to nothing to da Yv^ith the revitalizatian of Lionshead. 'T`h= is very iittle open .
- space lef# in Vail, few athietie faciliries within Lianshead, and a strong belief on the parc of niany
Forest Road home4wners that this proposed change has not been di$cussed at ail.
Since~rcely,
itiIEII, A,USTRLAN
~
280 Park Averrue. 2Ycw "Yark.. :Vcw Xor1c 10037 (212) 450-2000 fiAX (212) E81-7570
,
ate . p.c~ived
JUN 2 6 1998
Vad Resorts Development Company
~ . .
Vai1 + Breckenridge + Keystnne Beaver Creek'D + Bachelor Gu1chO + Arrowhead
~
June 23, 1998
. ,
P]anning & Environmental Gommission
Town of Va[t
75 South Frontage Roact West
Vail, CO $1657
RE: Lionshead Chyldren's Tent
Dear Cainrriission Members. LL"
On behalf of Vail Associates I want to tllank you for the year reprieve and extension af
conditionai use whieh you granted receiitly regarding the children's tent in Lionshead.
While rt has been diffictilt ta prediet when the Lionshead Master Planning Process would
corne to ai3 end, I regret that we backed ourselves and the Town into the positian af relying
so. ]ieavily upon tllis teinporary facility without identifying an aperational alternative once
~ we lost a year an nur schedule. Please accept my apologies for these circiimstances. We
wil( begin laoking at operational alternatives far the tent uses and coordinate with the Town
on larger issues oftemporary aperations wlaich wi11 bccur withredevelrpment.
sett;,,g the Very traly,
Standard for
Wo1d Class
av«eRe$oXS3 VAIL RESC7RTS DEVELOPMENT Ct?MPAN'Y
bavid G. Corbin _ Vice President
CC: Paul Tesiwtiide
DGC1iaa
j:AdgcA05239$ lfr
~LV
' N' ?
137 Benchmark Road t PO Box 959 . Avon, Golorado .81620-0959 > phone 970.845 2535 d fax 970.845 2555
.
~ - _
..~uu. :
al
, . N . . . ,x,~
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRC7NMENTAL CCJMMISSION
July 13, 1998
Minutes
MEMBERS PhESENT: MEMBERS ASSENT: STAFF PFtESENT:
Greg Moffet C7ominic Mauriello
Galerr Aasland Christie Bartan
Diane Golden George Ruther
John Schofield Judy Rodriguez
Ann Bishop
Tom Weber
Brian DoyQn
Public Hearina 2:00 p.m.
The meeting wa$ called to order by Greg Maffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a front setback variance to allow for the construc#ion of an inclined elevatar,
(ocated at 2701 aauos Trai4lLot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
App(icant: Sonia & Brian Craythorne, represented by Galen Aasland
Planner: Chris#ie Barton
~ Galen Aasland recused himself:
Ghristie Barton gave an averview of the staff inemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Sandra Spaeh nated a typo in the zoning analysis, which needed to be corrected to a 0 setback.
She sta#ed the awners would prefer to move the aspen from the platform car further up #he hill
and plant filawers in the planter. Greg Moffet asked for any comments from the Commissioners. There were none. _
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo and incorporating
the changes for the setback arrd the tree.
Tom Weber seconded the motian.
The mofion passed by a vote of 6-0-1.
2. A request for a variance to a[fow fnr GRF'A in the front se#back located a# 2935
E3asingdale Blvd./ Lot 19, Block 6, Vail tn#ermoun4ain Subdivision,
Applicant: Jay & Sheryi Scalnik, represented by Railton-MoEvoy Architects
Pianner: Christie Barton
~
F'lanning and Enviranmental Comntissian
Minutes
July 13,1998 2
2 Greg Moffef asked if the applicant had anything to add. Me then asked far any public comments. ~
There were nnne. There were no comments from the Commissioners. .
John Schofieid made a motion for approval, in accordanee wifih the s#aff inemo.
Diane Golden seconded the motian.
The motion passed by a vo#e of 7-0,
3. A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA for a primarylsecondary residence
Iocated a# 493 Beaver Dam Roadl Lot 1, Blocic 2, Vail Village 6th.
Applicant: Ran Byrne, represented by William Reslock
Wianner; George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the stafif inema
Greg Maffet asked if fhe applicant had anything to add. Ne then asked fnr any public commen#s.
There were nane. There were no comments from the Commissioners.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vofe of 7-0.
4. R request for a minar exterior alteratiorr in CC1 at the Ciock Tower Building, Iocated at ~
263 Gore Creek Drivel Lots G, D, E & F, 61ock 5, Vaii Village First Filing. Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd., represented by Resort Design Collabora#iue
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the s#aff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything ta add. He then asked fot any public comments.
There were none. There were no comrnents from the Cnmmissianers, ather than Torn Weber,
who thought i# was a great idea. Greg Mofifet stated it rnet the_criteria.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, irr accordance with the staff inemo,
Jahn Schafield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote af 7-0.
5. A reques# for a conditional use permit to allow for the irrstallation of a telecommunication
facility at the Vail Mountain Schonl, located af 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2,
Vail Village'12th.
Applicant: Liberty Wires#ar, represented by Jili Jilenick
P1anner: Christie Barton
~
Planning and Environmentat Commissian
Minutes
July 13, 1998 2
~ Christie Bartnn gave an overview ofi the staff memo.
Jahn Schafield disclosed, for the record, that his wife was on the Board uf Directors af the Vail
Mountain Schaol, but that it would not affect his deeision.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything tn add. He then asked far any public comments.
There were none.
Galen Aasland said the wall in the back needed landscaping, as it was not compatible with the
back of the building and needed more sheltering from the houses up above.
Jill Jilenick sta#ed the area was hidden from the neighbors behind them, because the grade
drapped down.
Tam Weber asked if this would be approved by DRB.
Christie Bartnn said, yes.
Tom Weber made a motion far approval, in accordance with the staff rnemo.
Brian doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
6. A request for a major ex#erior alteration in GC2 and a c4nditional use permit, ta allow for
~ an outdoor dining deck, foca#ed at the Village Genter Building (La Tour), 122 East
Mead4w Drive! BIock 5E, Vail Vi91age 1st.
App[icant: Fred Mibbard, represenfied by Snawdon & Hopkins Architects
PEanner: George Ruther
Gearge Ruther gave an overview of the sta#f inemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add, or if she was comfortable with #he
conditions attached #o the approval.
Pam Hopkins said, yes,
Greg then asked far any public camments. There were none. .
Tom Weber asked about the windaws between l.a Tour and Gotthelf's Gallery.
Pam Hapkins said they would join tagether the custom-fixed windows and wnuld not be boarded
up.
Brian Doyon suggested a larger planter bnx in front, so that the car iights wouldn't shine into the
build6ng.
GaIen Aasland said to tie into the approval, sorne kind of permanent ski storage,
~
Planning and Environmen#at Commission
Minutes
3uly 13,1998 3
. ,
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo, wi#h the ~
additional candition that the applicant inciude permanent ski storage, _
Garen Aasland seconded the mofion.
The mation passed by a vote of 7-0.
7. A reques# for a side se#back variance, to allow far the construction of an additianal
garage, located at 813 Potata Patch DrivelLat 1, Block 1, Vaii Potato Patch.
Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pier-ce
Planrrer: C3ominic Mauriello
Tom Weber recused himself.
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that there was no substantial
hardship or extradrdinary circumstances #o warrant another garage space. Ne said staff was
concerned with thre carport being compatible wi#h the rest of the structure and also the rernoval
of the existing trees.
BiN Pierce, the architect on behalf of the applicant, stated a practical width was needed tn park a
car and #hat there was no neighbor on this side for a considerabie distance and therefore, would
not be impacted. hie then passed nut a turning radius analysis to #he PEC board and stated that
it was important to be able to turn around on the sife. He then read from the purpase statement,
regarding 1essening practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships. He said this
location in the proposal had the least impact for the neighborhood. ~
Luc Meyer stated he was a Vail resident for 28 years and needed more garages; Me said they
wanted to make the garages as accessible as possible, as he and his wife were not ge#ting any
younger, and Liz's mother was coming to live with them. He said there were now over 60 trees
on the property and there were 6 trees when it was purchased. He said they were neat people,
and didn't think another structure in #he back would look nice going up the hill. He said the
purpose of the request was to make the home more enjoyable and they didn't pursue this in
9992, as the variance didn't make sense,
Greg Moffet asked for any publie comments. There were nane.
Galen Aasland said he thaugh# #hat people who live up here owned more cars and he didn't
agree with the staff recommendation. He said there were some special circumstances, but there
was some space to the south, and he hadn'# quite decided yet how he was going ta vote on this
request.
Ann Bishap was not in agreement with the staff recommendatian and said she felt that this Iot
was unique. Ann said she was a fan af doing it in a nan-intrusive way and said this was the most
practical place to put the garage. She said she felt the turnaround constituted a hardship. She
said that having Liz's mother live-in required a iess cnrnplicated interior and she would like to
help facilitate people vrrho have been here for a v,rhile.
Diane Golden agreed with her fellow Commissioners and said this was the mast reasonable
place to put a garage.
~
Planning atsd Environsnental Cornmission
Minutes
July 13, 1998 4
~ Brian C7oyan said granting this would be a grani of special privilege and that having so many cars
was not a hardship. He stated that behind the existing garage, there was plenty of space-with no
impact and that didn't require a variance.
John Schofieid asked Bil1 Pierce if he had explored Brian doyon `s optian.
8ill P'rerce said i# would be a hardship to extend the garage undergraund.
Luc Meyer said the land on the west side of the hause was part af the tract system in Pcrtato
Patch,
Greg Moffet stated #hat this request was a tough one. He said the PEC volunteered ta enforce
the rules and this was a speeial priuilege, as it was based an the fact that a garage worked better
there. He said if we granted this, we wauld be drinking variances from a fire hose.
Bill Pierce said there was a difiference, as a garage required that a car had to fit into it. He s#ated
that this property was entitled ta 4 enclosed parking places, as it was a duplex fat.
Dominic Mauriello apologized, as he thought this was a single-family home fram reviewing the
floor plarts. Greg Moffet said that made a big differenee.
John Schofield made a motion far approval.
~ Ann Bishop seconried the motion.
Greg Moffet stated, for the record, #hat because of the policy that the Tawn wants arnple
enclosed parking on a permanent basis, he wnuld support the variance.
GaIen Aasland said, in the future to add GRFA in the setback was rrot aPpropriate.
The mofion passed by a vote of 6-0-1.
8. A request far an amendment to a previausly appraued plan fior the Tirr7ber F'alls
Development, lacated at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted.
Applicant. RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden
Planner. Dominic iVlaariealoDominic Mauriello gave an overview of the sta#f inema and added that a hazard study had been
reeeived stating that the site would not be impacted. He a1so said he had received several
letters from neighboring property awners.
Ann Bishop left at 4:30 p.m. (This was the last item on the agenda).
Greg 1Vlaffet disclosed for the record that he did business with the applicant, but #ha# it would nof
affect his decision.
~
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
July 13, 1998 5
-
. ~
Greg Amsden, represeriting RAD IV and himself, showed the perspective and how !ow the ~
building sat on the site from the west eleva#ian, as seen fram Bald Mountain to the praject. We
said it was 6'-8' lower than guilding #18 ar #20 and was stepped back. He said, as uiewed from
the property across the creek, it was lowrer than a candominium building. He stated that the
oppnrtunity #a replace trees was lessened dramatically, if a 6-unit bu#lding was there instead of
this proposal. He said that the parking scenario was better than outdoor parking. He rerninded
the PEC tha# staff was taking a canservative appraaeh in rela#ion to what this site could handle.
He again stated 4hat they were going frorn a potential condominium building to smalier single-
famity uni#s,
Dominic Maurietlo said that this was a substantial departure from the plan and potentially
detrimental to adjacent neighbors, as #he proposal encroached closer into buildings in #hat
development. He said this development was zoned mul#iple-family and by introducing single-
family dwellings into an area zoned multiple-family would be poten#ially inconsistent with what
was built there.
Greg Rmsden said he was not interested in dre3pping the GRFA.
Greg Nloffet asked for any public comment.
Marilyn He{ler, an owner of a corrdo on the east side of 8uilding #'f 8, said she would be impacted
with whatever went an that site, 5he said it was a very large footprint and that ane af the single
homes would go nver the path that was an access way to the swimming pao1, tennis courts and
recreation area. She said it would be very close to her patio, impac#ing the view and taking away
the trees. She said the flriginal plan did not take parking into accaunt, which was also a problem
and needed some rethinking. She stated that the sewer Line needed to be looked inta, as they ~
needed to be careful not to cross over the exis#ing sewer fine for Buildings #18420.
Mel Brodie, wha lived directly across the creek; said this was just a huge mass of buildings with
these three separate structures. He said the 35' high conda would be replaced by 3 buildings
ranging in height 32' - 35' .
Dominic Mauriello made a correctian on #2 of the findings in # V.- Staff Recvmmendation, Ne
said it should add the word "potential," before the ward "detrimental.,,
Tom V11eber stated that what was approved was the right to build the same building as Building
#18 or #20. He said he was being asked to depart frorn what had baen appraved. He said the
proposed plan caused more site disturbance and was closer to the neighbaring buildings. He
said he would like to see some investigation of putfing the parking inta #he existing common area.
He said that this proposal had mare impacfi than the previously appraved plan. Ne said because
of the way it Ipoked and i#s use being such a departure from the original p1an and it affected the
neighbars mnre, he wouldn't be able to suppork the reques# at this time.
Brian Doyon echoed what Tom said. He said that the PEC only approved the master plan and
that this was a large massing in the footprint. He said that this was a condo project and the
parking was intended to be in the comrnort area the same as the rest of the area. He thaught
tha# trees shaufd be replaced 1 0Q%o caliper per caliper.
Dominic Maurielio said it was reasonable-to replace at 50°la caliper per caliper, if replacing a
large number of trees.
~
Planning and Environrnental Comrnission
Msnutes
July 13,1998 6
~ Brian CJayon again said ta add as much caliper pet caliper as could be accammoda#ed.
Greg Moffet asked if the garages were counted in the GRFA figure.
Greg Amsden said, na.
Brian Doyon sugges#ed that moving #he parking iots closer to the balconies on Building #20 was
a concern.
Tom Weber said the common area starked af the exterior wali of Building #20.
Greg Amsden said Building #18 owned their own parking and that Building #20 did not bwn their
own parking. He said that Ron Ri1ey had granted easemen#s for the building to have access, but
he owns the common area.
Brian Doyon said to have a car parked 10' from your window was a detrimentat effect.
John Schofield said the site disturbance for three foundations was much more and that access
pinned in by parking wouldn't functian. Therefore, he said realistically, the site disturbance was
substantially more and the access was not accessible.
Galen Aasland said he had concerns with the site disturbance and if it cauldn't be demonstrated
that the site disturbance was the same, the applicant shouldn't get GRFA , He said he did see
merit in enclosing the parking. He said for this ta be appravable, the scale would have to be
consistent with what was on the site. He said he believed that the applicant could build
~ significantly more upwards to 35` and that his biggest cnncern was the footprint and the building
mass and bulk, so he wauld have trouble supporting this.
Diane Go1den stated that this was a great departure from what was previauslY approved.
Greg Moffe# said the problem in hand was that this was uncharted #erritary with an approved
dsvelopment plan. He questianed single-family houses in the middfe of this project. He said he
was hung up on the bulk and mass o# the garages. He said there was an additional 2;500 sq. ft.
far the garages. He said he wanted to see covered parking, with no more bulk and mass.
Greg Arnsden summarized that the singfe-family approach didn't seern warkable with the
Commission or with the staff, as there was too much disturbance. He said they needed tn put
the parking on the site. He thought they would have to put a condo building here or put a
tovvnhame scenario, He said he would like to tab1e this and came back wi#h a townhome
scenario.
Ga1en Rasland said a townhome would fi# in#o the neighborhood better, having a cornmon wall.
He then made a mqtian to table this item until 8110188.
Jahn 5chofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vate af 6-0.
9. A request for a uvorksession af a major exterior aIteratian in CC2 and the establishrnenf
of a Special C7evelopmen# District for the Antlers at Vail, located at 680 W. Lionshead Pi./
~ Lot 3, Biock 1, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Planning and Enviranmental Gornmissian
Tvlinutes
Jnly 13,1998 7
Applicant: Antlers Condorninium Association, represented by Robert LeVine- - ~
Planner: dominic Mauriello
Rob Levine said he wouid like same direction fram the PEC, as they were planning fln breaking
ground inthespring #or the projeet.
Greg Maffiet saidb~the big issues were bulk and mass and the look of the outside.
Rob Levine expiained the ways to make it worthwhile, such as assessing the property owners.
He said that the parking la# was an eyesore and tha# this was the mechanism ta make it happen.
He said the association was the owner and deveioper: He said the sales of the units would ga
back in#o the building and that all improvemenfis were for the exterinr ofi the building. He then
added they were planning on adding 7 EHU's on site.
Greg Moffet asked what the errrplayee generation would be.
Rab Levine said there were now 25 employees. He said they wauld need mcrre housekeeping in
addition #a the 3 full time they now have. He said they wnuld add 3-4 housekeeping, front desk
and reservation staff. He said there were 24 tJU's and 7 EHU's and from that they were going
from 70 parking spaces to 114. He said there were same 2 bedroams and 4 bedrooms which
would doubie the size, or bring it up #4 58,000 sq. ft. He explained that guests would arrive in the
interior caurtyard. H€; said they would drive down the stree# and into the garage or carkscrew
dawn similar tn the Gateway f'Iaza . He said the stair tawers were good for smaller units fac the
ENU's.
Galen Aasland asked if it would be a 2:12 roof and that his biggest concern was with the bulk ~
and mass and that it needed to become a 3-dimensional building different from the 70's laok of
laonshead. He said that the balconies needed to match when turning around the cnrner. Ne
said the streetscape was very successful, but the upper Ievels were not.
Ann Bishap agreed with Galen's commen#s. She said she liked the EHU's as they were decent
with good views and irr accordance with the owner's housing. She said it laoked terrific and she
wauld support it.
Galen Aasland said the design issues were in the ball park of bulk and mass because i# was
Iower in the front and to be lower than the existing building was very positive. He said the upper
levels were of a concern.
Ann Bishap agreed with Galen regarding the bulk and mass.
Rob Levine explained that the mode1 was one filoor off by one Ievel, but that it would be no higher
#han the tower. He also said that parking was tight, bu# that parking by employees would be
accommodated.
diane Galden questioned snow shedding to the lower roaf.
Tom Weber said the interior cnurtyard was a good idea, as it was trying #a hide the building. He
said that some of his concerns were the same as Galen's and that some af the walls were bfank.
He said he would probably like to see samething else other than the 2:12 reof. He said he
thought that this was a chance to do somefhing different with the Antfers. He said that this ~
design clearly was not in the spirif of the Lionshead planning process. He thought the buildings
could be putled back at upper flaors and oriented going the other way. He said that the rendering
Planning and Environmentai Comrnission
Minutes
July 13,1998 8
~ was just more An#lers. He said he couid suppork something different. LL-
Rob Levine explained that he didn't want it to appear as 2 different buildings.
Brian Doyon echoed what Tam said. He said that this was an entry piece to Lionshead, or a>
monument and a Itrt rvtore eould be done. Ne said an architectural appartunity could be created.
He said there were no architectural features, it seemed bland and faceless. He said fhere
. needed to be art into the buildings, possibiy with some trusses. He said he had no problem with
the 2:12 roof, but there needed to be some gabte expressians. He thought the stone arch errtry
was grea#, but the pedestrian portals needed something other than the ceiling of a ffat roaf. He
thought the buik and mass was close. Ne said to hide it with dormers and to bring the buiiding
down cioser to a pedestrian level. He said there vrras potential for fhis #a relate to the Marriotf
and cauld be much more grand and he also thought the pap-outs provided great potential far
features.
John Schafield said he needed to see a shade/view analysis and that the PEC needed #a take a
look at what aiready had been recommended ta Council:
Dominic Maurieilo said thaf thi$ was close to the actual height that Council was recommending.
John Schofield said #his qaalified for the north/sauth orientation and it needed tn be adjusted to
Council's recammendation. John Schofie1d said parking was in the right directian and asked the
applican# if he had loaked at reversing the eas# and west sides.
Rob Levine said the west side was too close to the Marriott pool.
~ Brian fJoyon suggested that it nnt be an ice skating rink similar to the Cascade Notel area.
Greg Moffe# agreed to add some interest elements, but he had no problem with it. He said by
designirrg a northlsouth buiiding in Lionshead would help Lionshead re-orient the area into a
narth/south orientation. He said that this woulti fit in with our version of the Master Plan and that
the design issues could be worked aut.
Rob Levine said there wauld be no res#aurants, just residential space.
Greg Maffet said, as a Board, we were comfortable with the size and mass and the next step
wasn't for us to detail it.
Dominic Mauriello said this departed from the design and was missing the articulated raof. He
also said fhat parking was not as crucial for a hotel as for a condo.
John Schofield suggested having a joint worksession wi#h Council,
Gaien Aasland said the penthouse units cauld be sfepped back and sold back to the Association.
Greg Moffet said the penthouses would have great mountain views and be able to get some af
the money back.
Rob Levine said expensive units were less likeiy to be rented. Me said the Antlers didn't want an
"us /fhem" scenaricr, since some of the existing units had structural consfrain#s to prevent fihem
from upgrading.
~ Plannzng and Environinental Cominissicsn
Minutes
July 13, 1998 9
.
Greg Ma#fe4 again said that this needed more interest, but didn't want to constrain the applicant. ~
He again said that this was a boring facade. He said this gave broad directian, but needed to gn
to Gouncil before we see it again.
10. A request for a canditional use permi# ta allow for additionai an#ennae on the Mauntain
Bel( tower, located at 160 Mountain Bell Roadl Unplat#ed
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner' George Ru#her
George Ruther gave an overview oF the staff inemo,
Greg Moffet asked for any public cammen#. There was none.
Diane Golden asked if the ABC School and The Learning Tree had been notified.
John Schofield made a motian for approval and amended it to include notification be sent to the
ABC Schoal and The Learning Tree.
Brian Doyon seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
11. A request for a rezoning from previously unzoned property owned by the United, States
Fflrest Serviee and transferred #o the Town af Vail pursuant tn the Land Owrrership
Adjustmen# Agreement to Primary ISecondary Residential District for properfy located at ~
Rockledge Road/portions of United States Forest Service Lof 3, totaling 1.78 acres based
upon #he praposed F{nal PIat (na# yet recorded) af Rockledge Forest Subdivisian
prepared by dennis Shelhorn as Job No. 0332-002 dated February 25, 1998.
Applicant: Tawn Qf Vai!
Planner: C7ominic MaurieNo
12. A request for a rezoning from previously unzoned proper#y owned by the United States
Forest Service and transferred ta the Town of Vail pursuant ta the Land UvynershiP
Adjustrnent Agreemen# to Primary / Secondary Residential District and Natural Area
- Preservation District for property located at Ptarrnigan Road fGovernment Lo# 2(1.66
acres) and' Lo# 3(4.252 acres) created by a survey done in 1995 under the authority of
the Bureau of Land Management Cadastral Survey.
App'licant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominie (Vlauriello explained that he included both item #1 1 and #12 in arre memo; but that they
would need two separate motians.
Brian Doyon asked if #his included driveways and parking lots.
Russ Forres# said #here would be no buildings, or additional structures an these fiats.
Planning and Enviranmental Commission ~
Minutes
July 13,1998 10
, .
~ John Schofield asked if #he PEC had the authority to require deed restrictions
Russ Farrest said there would be a form of deed restriction.
Daminic Maurieilo said the PEC wauld see a p1at.
Doug Hawkins, af 9027 Ptarmigan, encouraged the deed restrictions and wanted to preserve the
land for open space, as this had been the intent all along.
Jahn Schofield made a motion for approval for ifem #1 1, in accordance with the staff memo.
Galen Aasland seconded the rnotion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
John Schofield made a motion for approval for item #12, in accordance with the staff merna.
Ga4en Aasfand secanded the mofion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
13. A request for a minar subdivision of Lot G-1 to create a new Iot, located at 1410 Buffehr
Greek Road, L.ot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Fifing 2.
Applicant: Leroy Schrnidt, represented by Eric Johnson
~ Planner: Dominic Maurieila
WITHDRAWN
14. A reguest for a conditional use permit, to allow far a bed and breakfast operation, located
at 1779 Sierra Trail/Lot 18, Vai! Viiiage West Filirtg #9.
Applicant: Malin Johnsdotterl Robert Zeltman
Planner: Christie Bartan
TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998
Brian Doyon made a motion to table itern #14 until August 24, 1998.
Tam Weber seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vafe of 6-0.
15. In#ormation Update
Russ Farrest gave an update an the Cammon Ground. He said densi#y and architectural qua9ity
were now being discussed. He said they were planning fiield trips to the various sites with
workshops on the concept plan to follow.
Greg Moffiet asked hovv many Iegal battles were coming up.
~ Planning and Environmenfal Commission
Minutes
July 13,1998
1
- -
.
Russ Forres# gave an esfimate on the number af legal ba#ties at the forefront, ~
Greg Moffet said to keep the PEG informed by mail or by fax.
John Schofieid asked if ali the parcels would require rezoning.
Russ Forrest said, yes.
Dominic Mauriello gave an update on Lionshaad. Ne said that staff had changed #he density
prc,posal, if it was a redeveloped site. He explained tha# a ladge unit that cauld be
condorniniumized and rented.
Diane Golden gave an update on AIPP and the sculpture an Willow Raad.
16, Approval af June 22, 1998 minutes. John Schofield, Greg Moffet and Diane Galden had changes.
Tom Weber made a motion for approval ta include #he changes.
Brian Doyon seconded the motian.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Tom Webermadea motion to adjourn. Brian Doyorr seconded the mation.
The motion passed by a vote af 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p,m.
Planning and Environmental Commissian ~
Minutes
July 13, 1998 12