HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0914 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on September 14, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a minor subdivision, to eliminate a Town of Vail right-of-way encroachment on
property, located at 2704 Larkspur Lane/ Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Craig McCully and the Town of Vail
Planner: Jeff Hunt
A request for a sign variance, to allow for a sign 36' above grade at the Landmark Building,
located at 610 W. Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association represented, by Destination Resort
Management
Planner: Brent Wilson
A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice Arena,
located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District represented by Odell Architects
Planner: George Ruther
A request for additional GRFA to enclose a deck, utilizing the 250 ordinance, located at
1626 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 2, Warren Pulis Subdivision.
Applicant: Don and Francis Diones
Planner: George Ruther
A worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations
addressing the regulation of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the Multi-Family Zone
District.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published August 28, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
40
TOW*VAIL
Updated 8/26 1 lam
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, September 14, 1998
AGENDA
Project Orientation I LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:00 P.M.
1. McCully - 2704 Larkspur Lane
2. Landmark Building - 610 West Lionshead Circle
3. Dobson Ice Arena - 321 East Lionshead Circle
Driver: George
6E.At
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to eliminate a Town of Vail right-of-way encroachment
on property, located at 2704 Larkspur Lane/ Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Craig McCully and the Town of Vail
Planner: Jeff Hunt
2. A request for a sign variance, to allow for a sign 36' above grade at the Landmark
Building, located at 610 W. Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association represented; by Destination Resort
Management
Planner: Brent Wilson
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing,
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects
Planner: George Ruther
4. A worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations addressing the regulation of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the
Multi-Family Zone Districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
TOW*VA10
Updated 8126 1 lane
5. A request for additional GRFA to enclose a deck, utilizing the 250 ordinance, located at
1626 Vail Valley, Drive/ Lot 2, Warren Pulis Subdivision.
Applicant: Don and Francis Diones
Planner: George Rut-her
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
6. Information Update
7. Approval of August 24, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project, planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the
Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published September 11, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
2
Updated 8/26 l lam
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, September 14, 1993
AGENDA
roiect Orientation /LUNCH - Community
Development Deoartment
MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Moffet
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Mane Golden
Ann Bishop
Brian Doyon
Tom Weber
MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits :
1. McCully - 2704 Larkspur Lane
2. Landmark Building - 610 West Lionshead Circle
3. Dobson Ice Arena - 321 East Lionshead Circle
Driver: George
6--z
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
12:00 p.m.
1-:00 P.M.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1: A request for a minor subdivision, to eliminate a Town of Vail right-of-way encroachment
on. property, located at 2704 Larkspur Lane/ Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Craig McCully and the Town of Vail
Planner: Jeff Hunt
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED
2. A request for a sign variance, to allow for a sign 36' above grade at the Landmark
Building, located at 610 W. Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association represented, by Destination Resort
Management
Planner: Brent Wilson
MOTION: Diane Golden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. The sign may be located approximately 29' above grade, however, shall not
be located more than !s way above the third floor partition.
1 To V OY Ak
Updated 8126 11 am
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Udell Architects
Planner: George Ruther
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
4. A worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations addressing the regulation of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the
Multi-Family Zone Districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
5. A request for additional GRFA to enclose a deck, utilizing the 250 ordinance, located at
1626 Vail Valley Drivel Lot 2, Warren Pulis Subdivision.
Applicant: Don and Francis Diones
Planner. George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
6. Information Update
7. Approval of August 24, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planners office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2366, Telephone for the
Nearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 14, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision
2704 Larkspur Court/Lot 0, Block 3, Vail Intermountain
Applicant: Craig McCully, and the TOV
Planner: Jeff Hunt
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Craig McCully, represented by the Town of Vail, is requesting a minor
subdivision to eliminate a Town of Vail road encroachment onto his property, located at 2704
Larkspur Court. The existing road surface is on a portion of the applicant's property. A
reduced copy of the plat is attached for your review.
The subdivision would allow the TOV to purchase the land under the road surface from Mr.
McCully. The proposal will reduce the amount of site coverage and GRFA allowed on the
parcel. The Public Works Department stated that the applicant is aware that this will occur and
the applicant will be compensated for the reduction in development potential; The applicant's
phone number is no longer valid and could not be contacted by the Community Development
Department.
IL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Minor Subdivision Criteria
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum
standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be
reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Title 13,
Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and
Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as
outlined in the PIS District, and are as follows:
Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that
the minimum lot or site area for a lot located within the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, shall be 15,000
sq. ft. (0.344 acre) of buildable area.
The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as,
"any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which
does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard
avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope.,,
Staff Resoonse: The existing lot is 11,629 sq. ft. The plat creating the
lot was recorded on October 1, 1970. The lot was annexed into the TOV
on June 24, 1987. The lot is non-conforming to the current zoning
standards of the Primary/Secondary Zone. The proposed lot will still be
non-conforming to this standard.
2. Frontaae - The !fail Municipal Code requires that lots in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District has a minimum
street frontage of thirty-feet (30').
Staff Resoonse: The existing lot complies with the 30' street frontage
requirement. The proposed lot will also comply with this standard.
3. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that
each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a
square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries.
Staff Response: The existing lot is not capable of enclosing such an
area. The proposed lot will also not be capable of enclosing such an
area.
The second set of review criteria are as outlined in the subdivision purpose
statements and are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which
development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information
as to the type and extent of improvements required.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict
with development on adjacent properties.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality
and the value of buildings and improvements on the land.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town
Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development
objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide
adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks,
playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities
and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity
to serve the proposed subdivision.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and
to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards
and procedures.
7. To prevent the pollution. of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy
of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the
wise use and management of natural resources throughout the
municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the
community and the value of land.
Staff Response: Upon review of the application, staff finds that the
proposal complies with the above criteria.
The third set of review criteria are as outlined in the subdivision regulations and
are as follows,
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is
in compliance with the intent and purposes of Title 13, of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable.
Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by
public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted.
Staff Resoonse,: Applicable agencies were consulted and had no
concern. The Public Works Department has taken the lead role on the
application on behalf of the Town of Vail.
2. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall' review the application
and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to
subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and
compatibility with the surrounding uses and other applicable documents,
effects on the aesthetics of the Town.
Staff Response: The proposal is intended to address an existing -
encroachment of a public road on private property. No change in land
use shall result from the subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision.
Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors
outlined above in this memorandum.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's
request, staff would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission make the
following finding:
1. That the requested minor subdivision complies with the subdivision regulations
outlined in Title 13, Chapter 4 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code,
71
Z NarMwrt 4 (p?buMYTnnarh« udf°nm IS ?MQTN le( tl. Bp1a3 Ya H W Me Ft <« anl°ki?wy65.6eMlea
3. _ aq a cM«aen la xw m°p omuaenm ui.x twP wrotbn bmN wa. mY%e?t k
N_? Ntau Yr pH. w?nw°?°v .Mi?erd° ? tM t«?r'Ma ham N. bU a w <WQ Rr
pa ee.re aei.w. Y - t.rma.. --.
e, ,`, e?d°?,' . w.t ar pa rm wt.m«mTm. d«iwmmt a«T,Y+m. ,«m a, rm. ,a
r, xa m «T d4ha as vwW ek pY HO[ w pa 4m weana¢ i d? w pY qet.
T Rv b°.aY«? 11«ut a awnr?Y art 1«W .. tMa rla [emrdwh. pa
-zr ? _ aar u u. F.ma a x?r rw.F.Y,.ru:.a me t? r.w-u.
?.m.°?'i. coda ? fem ?wwF ia'a.n.fine.1 tl «ntarua a m. ,fit w
x rarm, « oar ap« u"w"""u. aa.«d«Yd a
?au...d,a ma c«.ra,ne. wm mw ea r. n?itr..«
° euai:e ``r«a«u"'`. lrr«?att`s;:d «bww. ra Y ui T a is rm pulmmmteT. o<.drom?t abdwm.
' a«.Yrm..t ab4w«?, a . ?mmm°f ? i of tasy, w d aaar a N p. Vac xerm.r.ve.
It. [Ywlorent Tinavi im ba aryl yw re.IM M «w T« 4! 0.
5tt1K K9 RECCTUA
w bra w rw«d. F W aurae a tw a«T as 4o«a« i dYW
n . M a 0.A. t9uA ma h dub rmlN uee« xwrNm Yw_
Y Yi m nay
?'WuVwam« ,
E
FINAL PLAT
LOT 5
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 5
VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION,
BLOCK 3, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,
RANGE 81 WEST, OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
TOWN OF VAIL
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Md pa+ ?mwd hi h.. rm ae vm na«ma ana l..w«°amm ro«ea«i
pY dax a xo. two
4nrzr:
N1M1TIOK r(AlTIG00a
ei x«a«x«,. a. n.wr.mmy Ina t
p x.d w Turryr tY.?.w na« p. t.w N ur saa a wm.a.:
UY ii b tm; can«t mf onWaatm rd wt ritbA 3paW. M iua bn«a
'aley+.trmr?
.ai rht ar mae+ ae.. an e°woi chew oY h m. and u+dr my ..p«ntp, ano- wnatvy
M?YrY°h aM drnmima a Fm bb, wrFUna mtl Wwb a wM rYONM
e pe eraad tOm pe 4'«md Y eaanbnaa ap NVbMr •epwmfma 4ummF4 pe w:ddY=n a b.G
tlt mlliE6 eF«wt t hrr eat my bled and eM aY _ dax N M. tpb.
Ttntrke N tT ?.la
amxrliM 6e tlfUChTg el=.,
Yq w wp< of m
r« «T a Y n.,« a raA x b.u dwamb o „.off
aaan.ra? k ewi n% ai° M?ei w'uFM?,eIIO?T¢ ttpmvWs Canes psk
wbCru LY ??Y ma'a p°ttm me wKweri Mr mne b4 bYr me Fmw s.ene. w p4 Md
?w a cae T e.d x w et.n?t ?v.,r ?.mt s?a?',mmem °„??
?,., ce«aa.: a.e dew.«i da
ora°".m? «. ?d'Z:. ewwu and wl ? °f:i u: w+Y'=dd: °:2`,nb, wak Mpm?a??mr and mm.a
?Ya rNt a Tm.rap. wRH Yw..., and d_.w,axdawie pr.,«,Yw.Y.«d
tvewbd iY d4 0! , An.. IB%
m
siKK ca cM.anw4 )
im
MtNtt C! Caa[ J
>ti° bpoip bwnmt aw aineaM4ae bef«a m pla by
om« at tat 4 mm 3 Vi Namr«.maxwawepmwt aedxYYr.
RY a.nmbaYn Wafe,eow w.
,o[ar ruble
lke a?aa+iw Camrmr aor e«iY wRry ma pr tryx a R tmw iem waa pY qa
w w a d1 MrPine °°? pwr. wTl YV.:.4N T?a1 Iqp a weL rwb Y Fm
t T
LOT 4 ` <y
1 _?. f ` mt4 Mtr?_mY a+ Mv.. tMC
Rpjt4
Lori %?9?,
30'E ' 5' unM
-?` Nt4'ST t J xYrstnnm mmunoY
G r 135.4# ?_ \ oaa dw«umr. de nY.ba ami w ..w...a..t « u.w «w ?awu e,.. ma wtmia w ae
\ r `- \1\ Awx am .. . a w.t ,eau aramau r mr. rrot ar rea n mt.
aor o?Rn?eJO?r?imE asf'?i.ns nut "°n 1z91'
1ao
120/ VICINITY MAP
TRACT 1 SCALE: 1' 500' qua ?f
S" QRh11la1'{ ? ? ?H
m LOT 5 E (z 1405.8 sq.ft.
LOT 2 ! I O 10.223-2 Sq.ft.
Al
am ?e
f WEST VAIL
!n { d; INTERCHANGE
FFII ////
if
{r v ? ?
s' Un64ry k O?INM1CE EA8EMEAIT
ex +A nUi7=ORkIMM1GE EA3EMEN7. S847
W`
3'QO"€
.88
1("" f4"
LOT 8 ?_ `_' L .?•._----• S A 00 E ( adw 2 rrtw v me ex nr / `\?
"?-» (? CURVE TABLE SITE
eWNO 4Ra€coR ???JJJyyT,,,
CURVE RM173DRR NDI OIUS I LFMGiH i CHINO T HNEARING rt-IV t 1-24 DELTA 43
+^?' RgaY0PR6i.GOR "- -' H / U YE-PIS 54T)
nkr u?, 1 xjNt NEARI
,mow I 2 '/S.UQ' 5349 5144- 9Q4'0814t 46'26451 !h r ?? _ _ ALPINE
3 £S.OQ' 73.}2' 2Q.25' SQ4'20'31'E 55'51'25:) ( @ _ -.- EASE ME LINE - -
SCALE: 1" = iG' EkS?uE - NT uNe S7-IE'E7-
LOT 3 I At=ty `°? $ FOUND PROPERtt CORNER A5. NOTED
SET mi '? 1* -1ALUMINLW G PR S 24325 ENGINEERING INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 14, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 11-48-3(C) of the Sign Code to
allow for the placement of a building identification sign above the
maximum allowable height in the CC2 zone district.
Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association represented by
Destination Resorts Management, inc.
Planner: Brent Wilson
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Landmark Condominium Association is requesting a variance from Section 11-4B-3(C) of the
Sign Code to allow for the placement of an existing building identification sign above the
maximum allowable height in the CC2 zone district. This relocated sign would be placed 36'
above grade (11' above the allowable height limit of 25'). Currently the sign is located 19' above
grade. The sign in question (along the east elevation) has become obscured by vegetative
cover.
In 1989, the Landmark Condominium Association received approval for two sign variances:
• (11-4A-1) Number of Sians. The Landmark currently has three building identification signs
(two are allowed).
(11-48-3) Size of Sians: Currently the building has 24 square feet of signage (20 square
feet is allowed).
In addition to this variance request, the applicant is requesting Design Review Board approval of
a color change for the existing signage from gold to white. This variance proposal involves only
the location of one of the Landmark's three existing signs (Sign #1, Attachment "A").
ll. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 12-11-7(5) ("Criteria for Approval") of the Town of Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested sign variance.
The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
C
A. Consideration of factors:
There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land,
buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on
adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which would
substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question,
provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are
unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant
desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all business
or enterprises.
Staff believes that special circumstances apply which are unique to this
building and location. The vegetation on site (a Russian Olive tree)
`renders the existing sign useless for building identification purposes.
However, other locations not impacted by vegetation are available for sign
placement.
2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or
anyone in privy to the applicant.
Staff believes that the special circumstances were created by the applicant
or someone in privy to the applicant.
3. That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the
purpose of the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the
persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to
the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
Staff believes that the goals outlined by Landmark Condominium
Management (Attachment "B") are achievable within the framework of the
Town's sign regulations and do not warrant a variance from this chapter.
A number of viable options for relocation of this sign have not been
pursued. Potential relocation options include: 1) the grassy knoll directly in
front of the Russian Olive tree, 2) the existing awning on the east side of
the building, and 3) the east wall (at a height of 25 feet above grade).
In addition, a sign located 36 feet above grade will have an
aesthetic/visual impact on adjacent properties and the Lionshead vicinity.
4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the
Sign Code any more than is required to identify the applicant's
business use.
The applicant is requesting a deviation of 44% (11 feet) over the maximum
allowable sign height. Under the Town's sign regulations, the Landmark
may locate this sign up to 25 feet above grade. This sign is currently
?dy
T
located 19 feet above grade. An additional 6 feet of allowable height is
available to relocate this sign above the tree without a variance. Staff
believes a relocation to 25 feet above grade would be sufficient for
building identification purposes.
B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq.
findings before arantina a variance.
1. That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building,
topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or
within the right-of-way; which would substantially restrict the effectiveness
of the sign.
2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant.
3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of
this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of Chapter
12-11-4B(3) more than is required to identify the applicant's business use.
Ill. STAFF= RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the variance
request to allow for placement of a building identification sign above the maximum
allowable height, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The special circumstances which are unique to'this site were created by the
applicant.
2. That granting the variance would not be in general harmony with the purpose of
Title- 11, Town of Vail Municipal Code.
3. That the variance applied for departs from the provisions of Section I 2-11-4B(3)
more than is required to identify the applicant's business.
4. Other viable relocation options exist which have not been pursued.
11
k?
4r
C ry?I,CS? ?.-L'? ?•.CSt..,.??L?`!L`.. (??(L,7•.?C.?CQ._-??
S l (.,N 0 `j--
?' 1
'! daf ?? ? It((? r" ? ? ?4' 747`
• 1 ..ri"'r t t , ( C ? ( "'r.t?,l"•f •'??'i? k?.t
(? i 1 rt 1 a 1 r; {
44 ( '
1
t?l (;•? • IE . { ? ? , j ,.;,t„ „ ' ?? ?, r C (, ? `=[;.,?s • F(?f' ([4( t [j ??I_+ _t(_j?._
T1f,
`{{ ?j ?, hr Gh,?rt
7 _'T
?•- ,t l7 ill `^-. ••'?'' w• ? 4 tyt.
*1'f y i.i r
ME [11111ill
_ .. - I ?iki(Ii .ut k ? `?'. Itr f t •?? r ?'r+,N,.1
} j ? r t ?Ii, ? r
r ?4 • `, ? ,? ?'t, ,i r
4' ? ((( :{j.k. 1? • ,.+ ? i? GPI I ? ?i ,.r '` ?r s
iIf
-18 MIIIR 1111110 1-i.,
QV
11-111
• ? csalr?l?iAk7j r r r ' ? ????? r
{ yy 4 p t
.Fe ?H?' 1 ? 1.??1,;l? ??dLJ.I?? ? r{ f „? '" FI?4, F 4 W( ',! t J 1rt .d , f? `? •,4"?'."•
.t t ;k I { ` 4 f, f?F t
rip
r {I !I's kj `tryki?1 r/4tiX • F i `; ' 1P E IPiL
.il? 1 7 ?.: At }?x
k°?? . t it f I i r? t *? r+tp++fr k7 ?. ?'
{ { ?' Ur U -_.i.?} ClY1r f_
k..
?{?t??t- kp fi • F ?f . pk { ?? i.?,f,,.r,?, _ Ti? jrf t'V k?f?i` ?,f
71
t
s'lif,
p . Ai,
k
[11?(
r .j
'q,; all
1'.:,_' k `?
fir!- tAb6tM -,?- ,J• t
F
k tk?
r ` f
• S
Eft k?', I - - i I I
Ell
1"m
t i p
7't(pt?yr r
fir {i r kt rf 1 ?????Ul?? ?? ? ?LlF kf{ k `?
k.t !h r!( `f r? [ +
??C.fAt?`?Ct4A.? t?('??C..r w•t^J C.Oa"?`<.C?G`'c y
P(t?1V? K ?,i4'N
w?'Sllt'4 " • - p
1
t ? tr
D E S T I N A T I O N R E S O R T S
610 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE
VAIL, COLORADO 81657-5293
TELEPHONE (970)x£76-1350
FAX (970) 476.1617
To: Town of Vail
From: Geoff Wright, Landmark Condominium Mang r
Date: August 14, 1998
Re: Sign Height Variance Request
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
The Landmark Condominium Association is requesting a height variance for their sign on the east
side of the building. The existing sign is the only identification of the building for pedistrian traffic
approaching from the east in the mail area or on the walkway between the Liffhouse and the
Westwind. The current sign has become hidden behind a russian olive tree. The tree was
substantially smaller when the sign was originally installed in this location. We have thought of
replacing the tree but realize that we would be faced with the similar problem sometime in the
future.
For that reason we are asking that we be allowed to raise the sign from its current height of 19' to
a height of 36'. At this new location the sign would once again be visible to the pedistrian traffic
as they approach from the east side of our building. This location would also be high enough that
the existing tree should never block the sign again. The placement of the sign at this 4th floor
level would fit attractively on the building considering the height of the Landmark Tower and we
hope you will approve our request.
Thank you for your consideration.
4
C
A Lowe Enterprises Company
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 14, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed expansion to the
Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1,
Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects,
P.C.
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects, is requesting a
worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss a proposed
expansion to the John A. Dobson Ice Arena. The proposed expansion is intended to
accommodate a new team locker room, an administrative office, a multi-purpose room
and storage area addition along with a new gymnastics facility. The new additions are to
be constructed on the east side of the existing arena. The total square footage of the
new construction is approximately 8,460 square feet (6,000 sf. gymnastics center/2,460
sf. locker room, office, etc.). The proposed expansions are intended to help the VRD
meet the ever expanding demands for services in the Valley.
The purpose of this worksession is to identify and discuss possible issues and
concerns which the applicant will need to address prior to final review of this
project.
11. BACKGROUND
On Tuesday, August 18, 1988, the Vail Recreation District appeared before the Vail
Town Council to request permission to proceed through the public process. The Town
Council's permission is required since the ice arena is owned by the Town of Vail and is
leased to the VRD. Following a brief presentation of the proposal to the Council, the
Council approved the request to proceed through the process.
On Wednesday, August 19, 1998, the Vail Recreation District appeared before the Town
of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the project. The following is a
summary of the DRB's comments:
• Pull the gymnastic center away from the main arena building and provide a slightly
different form of architecture.
Create a new identity to the gymnastics center with the creative use of exterior
building materials and colors.
• Tie the team locker room addition into the existing building.
• The roof form design needs to be better thought out and designed.
• Consider how access and pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow will function.
According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the John A. Dobson Ice Arena is
located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is to,
"provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special
characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards
prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards
especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are
necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and
to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure
that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses
permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the
needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and,
in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open
spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord.
21(1994) § 10).'
Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General
Use Zone District. The ice arena is considered a "public/quasi-public indoor community
facility" and is an allowed conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit.
Section 12-9C-5 of the Zoning Regulations outlines the standards for developments in
the General Use Zone District. According to the Zoning Regulations,
"in the General Use Zone District, development standards in each of the
following categories shall be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental
Commission:
1. Lot area and site dimensions
2. Setbacks
3. Building Height
4. Density Control
5. Site Coverage
6. Landscaping and site development
7. Parking and loading
A complete zoning analysis of this project will be provided by staff at the time of the final
review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 0
Ill. DISCUSSION ISSUES
The Community Development Department has completed a preliminary review of the
proposed ice arena expansion. Upon completion our review, staff has identified several
issues we believe the applicant, staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission
should address prior to final review.
Staff has identified the following issues for discussion:
1. Pedestrian and Vehicular Access
During the Town Council's initial review of the applicant's request to proceed through the
public process, the Council expressed their concerns regarding access. Currently,
access to the arena is provided from the south side of the building off of West Meadow
Drive. During certain events, the bus route on West Meadow Drive is blocked due to
people waiting to get into the arena, or by loading and delivery vehicles parked in the
street. The Town of Vail has requested that the applicant's revisit the loading and
delivery situation particularly and provide better accommodations.
There has also been concerns raised over the proposed location of, and access to, the
new gymnastics facility. The remoteness of the front entry of the facility from the vehicle
drop-off points on East Lionshead Circle could result in parking concerns in the future.
During the review of the Gold Peak Ski Base Facility many parents expressed their
interest in having the entrance to the ski school visible from the drop-off area. A similar
situation might be beneficial to the users of the gymnastics facility.
Staff would recommend that the applicant present the proposed traffic patterns in and
around the project and that the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission
discuss the issue.
2. Conditional Use
As mentioned previously, the General Use Zone District allows this type of facility
subject to a conditional use permit. The expanded facility should greatly impact the
existing use of the property in terms of activities, numbers of users, vehicle trips, etc.
Staff would recommend that the applicant provide a detailed description of the intended
use of the new facility once the improvements are complete (types of events, frequency.
of events, hours of operation, numbers of patrons, staffing levels, parking needs, etc.).
3. Development Standards
The development standards in the General Use Zone District are to be prescribed by the
Planning and Environmental Commission. While a complete zoning analysis has not yet
been completed, are there any issues that the Planning and Environmental Commission
wishes to express to the applicant at this time?
4 Other
Are there any other issues or information that the Planning and Environmental
Commission wishes to have prior to the final review?
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this is a worksession to discuss the proposed expansion the Dobson Ice Arena, staff
will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final
review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff will provide its
recommendation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 14, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to
the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations addressing the regulation of Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the Multi-family Zone Districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
At the request of the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department was
asked to initiate revisions to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations addressing the
regulation of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the Multi-family Zone Districts.
Specifically, the Council requested that the implementation of the existing 250 Ordinance
and the newly created Interior Conversion regulation be revised to allow greater flexibility
in the Multi-family Zone Districts and to encourage the. redevelopment of buildings.
Revisions, therefore, would need to be made to Sections 12-15-4 (interior conversions)
& 12-15-5 (additional GRFA) of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Any change to
the Zoning Regulations requires a review and a recommendation from the Planning and
Environmental Commission and two readings of an amending ordinance by the Town
Council.
This memorandum provides a brief history of the 250 Ordinance and the Interior
Conversion regulation relative to multi-family zone districts. The purpose of this
worksession is to identify and discuss possible text amendment alternatives to
the Zoning Regulations addressing the'implementation of the 250 Ordinance and
Interior Conversion regulation in the Town's multi-family zone districts.
For purposes of discussion, staff has relied upon the definition of multi-family dwelling as
outlined Section 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The Zoning Regulations
define a "multi-family dwelling" as
"A building containing three (3) or more dwelling units, including townhouses,
rowhouses, apartments, and condominiums, designed for, or used by three (3) or
more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit."
The tentative schedule for the proposed text amendments is listed below
September 14 - PEC worksession to develop and discuss alternatives
0 • September 15 - Town Council worksession to discuss alteratives developed
and discussed by the PEC
• September 28 - PEC final review of the proposed text amendments - 0
October 6 - Town Council worksession and first reading of an ordinance
October 20 - Town Council final review and second reading of an ordinance
Ii. BACKGROUND
The Vail Town Council adopted the 250 Ordinance in March of 1985 (Ordinance 5,
Series of 1985). According to Section 12-15-5 (A) of the Zoning Regulations, the
purpose of the 250 Ordinance is to,
"control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the
Town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for
limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures
are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air
and light in residential areas and districts (Ord.13(1996) 3)"
Pursuant to Section 12-15-5 (C) of the Zoning Regulations, the implementation of the
additional GRFA in multi-family dwelling units shall be regulated as follows,
"Multi-Family Dwellings: Any dwelling unit in a multi-family structure shall be
eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a
maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the
existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Any application of such additional GRFA
must meet the following criteria:
1. Eligible Time Frame: A multiple-family dwelling unit shall be eligible for
additional GRFA, pursuant to this Section, if it is in existence prior to
November 30, 1995, or a completed Design Review Board application for the
original construction of said unit has been accepted by the Department of
Community Development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5)
years must have passed from the date the building was issued a certificate of
occupancy (whether temporary or final), or, in the event a certificate of
occupancy was not required for use of the building at the time of completion,
from the date of original completion and occupancy of the building.
2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town zoning requirements
and applicable development standards. If a variance is required fora
proposal, it shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental
Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title before an application is
made in accordance with this Section. The applicant must obtain a building
permit within one year of final Planning and Environmental Commission
approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided.
3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may
be converted to GRFA under this Section if there is no loss of existing
enclosed parking spaces in said enclosed parking area.
2
4. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due
to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Section shall be met by the applicant.
5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this Section shall be
reviewed for compliance with the design review guidelines as set forth in
Chapter 11 of this Title. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is
proposed shall be required to meet minimum Town landscaping standards as
set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. General maintenance and upkeep of
existing buildings and sites, including the multi-family dwellings,
landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash facilities, berming to
screen surface parking, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the
application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines.
This review shall take place at the time of the first application for
additional GRFA in any multi-family dwelling. This review shall not be
required for any subsequent application for a period of five (5) years from the
date of the initial application and review, but shall be required for the first
application filed after each subsequent five (5) year anniversary date of the
initial review. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any
expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Section until all required improvements
to the multi-family dwelling site and building have been completed as
required.
6, Condominium Association Approval: If the proposed addition of GRFA is for a
dwelling unit located in a condominium project, a letter approving such
addition from the condominium association shall be required at the time the
application is submitted.
7. Deck And Balcony Enclosures: No deck or balcony enclosures, or any
exterior additions or alterations to multi-family dwellings with the
exception of windows, skylights, or other similar modifications shall be
allowed under this Section.
8. Applicability: The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA
additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed
in multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request
more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area
per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until
such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property.
9. Nontransferable To Demo/Rebuild: Any building which has previously
been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this Section and is demo/rebuild,
shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved.
10. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple-family structure or dwelling unit
which is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
The Vail Town Council adopted the Interior Conversion regulations in August of 1997
(Ordinance 13, Series of 1997). According the Section 12-15-4 (A) of the Zoning
Regulations, the purpose of the Interior Conversion is to,
"The interior conversion section of this Chapter provides for flexibility and latitude
with the use of interior spaces within existing dwelling units that meet or exceed
the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). This would be achieved by
allowing for the conversion of existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces,
crawl spaces, and other interior spaces into floor area provided the bulk and
mass of the building is not increased. This provision is intended to accommodate
existing homes where residents desire to expand the amount of usable space in
the interior of a home. The Town has also recognized that property owners have
constructed interior space without building permits. This provision is also
intended to reduce the occurrence of interior building activity without building
permits and thereby further protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The Interior Conversion regulation permits the conversion of interior spaces within a
dwelling unit toGRFA without impacting the overall allowable GRFA as prescribed by
each of the respective zone districts (density controls). Examples of interior conversions
include converting basements or crawlspaces to GRFA, the addition of lofts within the
volume of the existing building, and the conversion of other existing interior spaces such
as storage areas to GRFA. The intent behind the regulation was to allow property
owners to convert interior spaces within existing buildings that currently does not meet
the definition of GRFA to GRFA, as long as the conversion of the interior space does not
significantly increase the bulk and mass of the buildings.
The Interior Conversion regulation is applicable to single-family, two-family and
primary/secondary-type dwelling units. The regulation specifically prohibits the eligibility
of multi-family dwelling units to convert existing interior spaces to GRFA pursuant to the
regulation.
In January of 1994, the Town of Vail Community Development Department prepared the
"Town of Vail Development Statistics". The purpose of preparing the Development
Statistics was to document the existing and future residential development potential in
the Town of Vail. While the Development Statistics have not been updated since 1994,
staff believes the data is remains reliable and beneficial. According to the Development
Statistics, approximately 5,000 multi-family dwelling units currently exist and a potential
for approximately 200 units remains. Therefore, approximately 5,200 property owners in
the Town of Vail would be impacted as a result of revisions to the Zoning Regulations
addressing the implementation of GRFA in the multi-family zone districts.
Ill. ALTERNATIVES
To provide a point of departure for discussions on the requested text amendments, staff
has identified several alternatives or options which we would like to discuss'with the
Planning and Environmental Commission. The alternatives are listed in no particular
order below:
250 Ordinance
Allow multi-family projects to "pool" the 250 square feet of additional GRFA and
permit the Association to distribute the GRFA as they see fit, with the condition
that the entire building is upgraded to meet current design standards.
4
2. Allow exterior additions (dormers, deck enclosures, etc.) to multi-family projects
utilizing the 250 square feet of additional GRFA subject to the review and
approval of the Design Review Board.
3. Differentiate between building types (townhouses vs. condominiums) and allow
certain building types to do exterior additions and prohibit other building types
from doing exterior additions.
4. If the purpose of the amendment is to encourage development to upgrade to
meet current design standards, develop meaningful incentives to do this; such as
what is being proposed for Lionshead.
5. No action
interior Conversion
1. Allow multi-family projects to apply for the interior conversion of spaces in
accordance with the existing regulation.
2. No action
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
When discussing possible revisions to the GRFA regulations addressing the
implementation of GRFA relative to multi-family dwelling units, staff would suggest that
the following criteria be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission prior
to recommending an amendment to the Town Council:
Effectiveness of the regulation
2. Appropriateness of the regulation
1 Enforceability of the regulation
4. Easy of implementation
5. Consistency of the regulation relative to other similar regulations
6. Impact to architectural quality.
As this a worksession to discuss possible text amendments to the GRFA regulations
relative to the Town's Multi-family Zone Districts, staff will not be providing a formal
recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, staff will provide its recommendation.
5
Updated 9/21/26 gam
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 14, 1993
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Greg Moffet
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Ann Bishop
Tom Weber
Brian Doyon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
George Ruther
Brent Wilson
Jeff Hunt
Judy Rodriguez
Tom Moorhead
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to eliminate a Town of Vail right-of-way encroachment
on property, located at 2704 Larkspur Lane/ Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Craig McCully and the Town of Vail
Planner: Jeff Hunt
Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add,
Tom Moorhead said Mr. McCully was being compensated at the same rate that lot 6 (adjacent)
sold for recently and that the Town was paying for the survey work.
Galen Aasland asked Tom to address the consequences to the Town.
Tom Moorhead said the Town was the applicant because of the agreement.
Greg Moffet asked for any comments from the commission. There were no comments.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the
additional provision that there be approval from the owner of the property.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
George Ruther said they had the owner's signature.
John Schofield amended his motion to remove the c--: ;dition.
Galen Aasland seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
A request for a sign variance, to allow for a sign 36' above grade at the Landmark
Building, located at 610 W. Lionshead Circle/ Let 1, Stock 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Landmark Condominium Association represented, by Destination Resort
Management
Planner: Brent Wilson
1
Updated 9/21/26 gam
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo.
Geoff Wright, the applicant, stated the tree was put in in 1933, and the Town had expressed that
they want the Russian Olive Tree to remain there. He then proceeded to go over his
disagreem-ant with the staff denial. He said that none of the other suggested locations for the
sign would be visible and that there had been no objection from the neighboring property owners.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Tom Weber disclosed for the record that Destination Resorts was a client of his, but he saw no
conflict. He suggested pruning the tree.
Brian Doyon said pruning would benefit the Russian Olive.
The rest of the Commission suggested pruning.
Greg Moffet suggested placing the sign in approximately 29' above grade, but not located more
than Y2 way above the third floor partition.
Diane Golden said, so moved.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 Bast Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects
Planner. George Ruther
Greg Moffet recused himself, as his wife was on the Vail Recreation District Board.
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo.
Otis Odell, of Odell Architects, requested comments from the Board in order for the applicant to
put together revisions so they could proceed with the expansion of the locker rooms and
restrooms at the ice rink. He said the expansion would be to house new offices for youth hockey
and for future storage needs. He explained that the new location between two levels, would
require going down l flight or up Y2 flight, but that it w« ? i; pant to "c a main entrance.
Jonn bcnofieiQ askaj i! ii v iii vvuuiu cue nari6K r4ijpdd accessible.
Otis Odell said, yes and that it could accommodate an elevator, but again mentioned that it was
a ?--nndarv access.
Brian Doyon asked why it was not located on the west side, so as not to encourage parkinn P+
the hospital.
Otis Odell explained the 2nd part of the program was a gymnastic facility on the upper east side,
with restroom facilities independent from the rest of the building and built over the basement
space. He said that the gymnastic wing had a requirement for a 20' ceiling. He explained one of
the major objections that the DRB had was for the applicant get the mass to better relate to the
existing building. He then said they were trying for the least amount of disruption to the site.
2
Updated 9/21/26 gam
John Schofield asked for any public comment.
Piet Pieters said there were 40 kids in the existing gymnastic facility of 1,200 sq. ft., which was
too small to be safe. He said this would be a multi-purpose facility and the existing locker rooms
were embarrassing for the hockey program.
George Ruther said, given the strong presence of the building, this presented a challenge to
come up with a uU iya i ti iat would be acceptable. He said one of the concerns the TOV had was
with the loading and delivery problems. He asked the PBC to discuss the pedestrian circulation,
with a drop-off on the west side of the building for a safe and convenient access.
Galen Aasland was concerned about the turnaround by Vail International to drop off kids. He
said the office space was fine, but when people are running late they park at the hospital and this
shouldn't be encouraged. He said the applicant needed to address the west side of the building.
Ann Bishop agreed the locker rooms needed help and asked how feasible it would be to separate
the buildings.
Otis Odell said the buildings could not be separated, as that would be impractical and expensive,
but they could pull the roof piece away from the existing roof. He thought they could respond to
the strong geometry of the existing roof form.
Diane Golden said this was a great amenity to the community, and the west end needs to be
able to let parents watch the children walk into the building.
Tom Weber said the proposed use is a good one and suggested developing a 20 minute loading
area on the west side to alleviate the connestion.
Otis Odell asked if th-cy Hooded to take a portion of the site to accomplish this.
Tom Weber encouraged the Town of Vail to work with the applicant on that, as it was a general
use district. He thought the number of entrances was confusing and this was an opportunity to
pl(.;, one of the entrances and make it an obvious main entrance, with a design that would allow
a drop-off on the north side. He said he was not sure how to address the parking issue and he
said lie would like to see some idea of how parking would be addressed, as the applicant was
obviously putting more people in this building. He said with a good building, the applicant
shouldn't be too concerned with the landscaping. He agreed the loading area was best served
on the southeast side.
Brian Doyon said tha tha circ;uiaLiQ, IIUVV doi-e.Sn't Nnj)rtf N coif! tC3 c)tlt eV?r+ ° '"fit tOwcr thn
west side and asked if the locker rooms were driving the expansion. He said that some of the
facilities could !?: l -tad to the west, as the entry to the east goes nowhere. He said the locals
know to scam the hospital parking lot and this is not what we want to do with this project. He
said this needed to be straightened out, since this program doesn't work and it needs to be
expanded to the west. He advised the applicant to keep the trees on the site, as it would make
this go through the process easier.
John Scnofield agreed with Brian. He saia the TOV owns everything on the west end and the
project needed to be flip-flopped to the w--;t, so people -1-?'t nef-q +'; walk halfway around the
building. He said the turnaround can be expanded and tweaked. He said that a vast majority of
the hockey kids get off the bus and suggested putting the bus stop at the top of the hill. He said
the loading has always been an abomination. John stated that the gymnastic use was an
independent operation and kids cannot use different entrances with the different uses.
3
Updated 9/22126 9am
Galen Aasland agreed with John and Diane's comments. He said the ramp on the north side of
the building had a whole lot of snow, so there are advantages in moving it to the west sip:: C f the
building.
George Ruther asked if the PEC wanted the locker rooms moved to the west as well.
John Schofield said the locker rooms were fine where they were.
Tom Weber said if there was a real design path to the east side, it would work.
John Schofield summarized there was no opposition for the conditional use.
George Ruther asked about the number of kids, as related to the parking requirements and also
special events outside of hockey and gymnastics.
John Schofield said this was a worksession, but that information would be needed for the final
review.
George Ruther gave a definition of the development standards and what comments were needed
from the PEC. He mentioned that the expansion was totally within the setbacks.
Galen Aasland said that Dobson was an elegant structure as viewed from the Library side with
the trees and picnic table and would like to see the new structure coordinate with this area. He
said the gymnastic facility on the west side could be partially buried, which would significantly
reduce the height issue and help with the privacy solution. He said this needed an alpine
solution to fit in with the vocabulary of the buildings in the Town and needed to be made smaller
with a nice landscape plan.
Ann Bishop said either the west side or east side would work.
Diane Golden had no further comments.
Tom Weber said Vail International was the main neighbor to deal with.
Pam Stenmark, from the Evergreen Lodge, said this project impacted the Evergreen Lodge and
she exprosvor' concern with the construction area and timeframe.
John Schofield said the construction period would affect the Evergreen pool time with noise and
dust.
George Ruther said construction would work with the property owners and not happen on
weekends, etc.
Tom Weber said he agreed with Galen to sink it underground like the Library.
Brian Duyon would like to see more detail on the sketches, as iaf as the grain wi q4c:s ia, iu
visual impacts. He said the ice arena and library hide their mass very well.
John Schofield said the PEC needed to see scheduling before we make suggestions on parking.
George Ruther said pay-in-lieu was not an option and the parking generation needed to be seen
before it could be addressed.
Otis Odell said the DRB came up with a notion of a steeple or other identifying element.
Updated :;'21/26 gam
John Schofield said that was a design issue with the DRB.
George Ruther advised the applicant to address both Board's comments and finalize the
application. He said he was not anticipating appearing before the PEA, :gain before next month.
4. A worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning
Regulations addressing the regulation of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the
Multi-Family Zone Districts.
Applicant. Town of Vail
Planner: George
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said that not every property owner would
be treated equally.
Greg Moffet asked if there were any public comments on the interior conversion.
Tom Weber said he supported the interior conversion.
Brian Doyon said he supported it, but added that not all owners would have the same
possibilities.
John Schofield said he was in favor of allowing the interior conversion to apply to multi-family,
however, most of the crawlspaces were in a common area, not owned by the individual and he
suggested leaving it up to the individual associations. He asked how to treat the common area.
I* Galen Aasland agreed with John.
Hnn Bishop and Diane Golden supported and encouragod this.
Greg Moffet supported this. He said since there has already been a bunch, he encouraged
amnesty and to encourage safe, legal building. He asked if this furthered the Town of Vail goal
of improving the bed base.
Tom Weber asked how this ordinance would address the Northwoods GRFA on their site.
George Ruther explained the existing rPS,A conversion as only being allowed on properties
whose GRFA had been all used up. He then explained the alternatives and how not all
properties would be treated the sartie and that some design guidelines ,,,,ould need to be
established.
Greg Moffet said there was no legal distinction between condominiums and townhomes and
therefore, the #3 alternative would be difficult.
Russ Forrest gave a comparison to the redevelopment of Lionshead and asked if there
other ways besides the 250 to encourage redevelopment.
Greo IN/loffet asked for any public comments regarding the 250 Ordinance.
Suzanne Mueller, an owner on Matterhorn Circle, said her GRFA was built out and she would like
to build onto her multi-family building,
Greg Moffet said there were allowances to do additional building if she had some EHU's, which
allow additional densities on the site.
5
._._[ Q/21/26 9am
min Aasland said #3 alternative was a can of worms and alternative #7 on page 3 was a
concern. 0
Ann Bishop said she was most concerned with items #1 and #2. She said there should be
allowances for exterior additions and that #3 was legal and complex. She stated there needed to
be meaningful incentives.
Diane Golden said she was a huge proponent of upgrading and that #1 did not seem fair. She
said that #2 would be a detriment to the last people applying, #3 was a nightmare and #4 had
possibilities. She thought there was not a good way to do this yet.
Tom Weber said that #1 didn't incent people to make the building look better. He said he was a
big fan of #4 and #2 would allow some architectural feeling. He said if there was a 250
ordinance, we should have #2. He said he was in favor of #2 and #4.
Brian Doyon said he was afraid of pooling, as the condo association would be in control of the
building and could create whole new units on their site. He said this could potentially add a huge
amount of density.
George Ruther said the ordinance today was irregardless of the lot size.
Greg Moffet said it would get geometrically larger.
Brian Doyon asked how to sustain the parking. He had a problem with the pooling and the
question of fairness.
Tom Weber suggested giving the 250 to the owner of the unit with the association able to buy it
back.
John Schofield said to take bits and pieces of this memo to accomplish the goal of
redevelopment. He also advised streamlining the process to encourage redevelopment, as well
as making it user-friendly, as it related to redevelopment. He thought the one year timeframe
was unrealistic for a multi-family and should be eliminated. He said, in theory, he liked the 250
and it could be adding 1.3 million sq. ft. to the Town by pooling. He said he would be in favor of
additional sq. footage, but not additional units.
George Ruther said, regarding streamlining the process, that staff was able to issue permits over
the counter, or within 48 hrs.
John Schofield said, regarding #2, to pick and choose and #3 was for an attorney.
Tom Moorhead defined a townhome as architectural and a condo was owne-I' .',...
Greg Moffet said applying a 250 to a multi-family building nrnvided no uniform scluti^n and
case needed an SDD to be addressed individually. He said if we tie our hands, we will regret it
dum, tiie road. He said multi-family doesn't meet the Town objec; ;bas if we wea°e pe,, s;e.:ng units
to be in the rental pool, making marginal units disappear. Greg thought #4 was great and to
come up with other alternative:, t?,,; _c i _ -_„- akn rims - s 1 ¢ -A,-,N,minr, '?nri increase live
.,,. . . .?, .. _.
beds.
George RRuther asked, regarding #5 on page 3; "substandard and brought up to compliance."
Greg Moffet agreed to upgrade substandard to bring into compliance.
LI
6
Updated 9/2i/26 9am
Tom Weber said, regarding #4, to try to engage the condo association to work together as a
whole.
Brian Doyon said to grant all the 250's at the same time and the whole building would come in at
the same time.
Tom Weber thought it might farce people to work together that can't work together.
Brian Doyon said the last person would get the raw end of the deal.
George Ruther asked if 250 was enough, or do we need more?
Greg Moffet suggested 10%.
George Ruther said he would be going to Council tomorrow with the PEC suggestions and he
would be back to the PEC in two weeks.
John Schofield asked that this be a joint worksession.
Greg Moffet said we need to ask the elected folks what they have in mind.
5. A request for additional GRFA to enclose a deck, utilizing the 250 ordinance, located at
1626 Vail Valley Drivel Lot 2, Warren Pulis Subdivision.
Applicant: Don and Francis Diones
is Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
Brian Doyon made a motion to table item #5.
Tom Weber seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
6. Information Update
George Ruther said the Council will hear the Timberfalls appeal at the October 6'h worksession.
Russ Forrest said he would recommend a joint worksession with Council for the L;arrshead
reuevt iiupment on Oct 6th. Russ then gave a Common Ground Resolution #10 update.
7. Approval of August 24, 1998 minutes.
Galen Aasland had changes.
Brims.`" ^,yon made a motion to ?,r r rna the amended minutes.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
John Schofield made a motion to adjourn.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
7
Update 9//,.$-)
otion passed by a vote °f 7-0'
The 4fl rat.
The meting adlovrn d at p
2
E
8