HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-15 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
October 15, 1996
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, in the Council Chambers of
theVailMunicipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Mike Jewett
Paul Johnston
Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Lew Meskimen requested Council provide port -a -potties at
the East Vail park because, he said, the restrooms were closed and the park was getting a lot of usage. Lew
suggested that contractors removing snow from roofs be licensed and required to carry liability insurance. Further,
he stated that construction at Vail Commons has blocked entrances to Safeway and Vail das Shone and requested
the Town begin a notification process, including signage.
Itetnumber two on the agenda was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance correcting
Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995, rezoning a parcel of property legally described as Tract C, Vail Village Seventh
Filing from General Use District to Primary/Secondary Residential District. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead and Town
Planner Dirk Mason presented the item and explained that the purpose of the ordinance was to correct a
typographical error in the original ordinance. It was referenced erroneously as the "First Filing" rather than the
"Seventh Filing" which is correct. The staff recommendation was to approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1996 on
first reading. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the Ordinance with a second from Sybill Navas. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Third on the agenda was a review of the Ford Park Conceptual Management Plan. Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer,
Todd Oppenheimer, and George Ruther presented the preliminary plan for the management of Ford Park and
asked Council for their comments and feedback. Pam explained that an extensive public process had been
completed and that input had been received from stakeholder, focus groups and the public. Further, that several
issues, concerns and solutions had been identified. Proposed improvements included enhanced shuttle bus service,
streamwalk enrichment (lighting, landscaping, grade improvements, and signage), enhancing existing entrances,
design and construction of a central route into the park, new walkways, signage, trash enclosures, delivery access,
Nature Center walking path, improve playground to meet safety standards, Streamwalk to Lionshead, Frontage
Road vehicular access, landscaping and paving of parking lot.
V�pine Gardens Director, Helen Fritch presented an overview of a proposed education center to be located at
the ccer field parking lot.
Joe Stauffer discussed summer parking and scheduling for conflicting uses. He proposed a fee for close in parking
and encouraged use of the streamwalk to access the park, and discussed the original intent when the park was first
purchased.
Tom Steinberg was unsupportive of any additional parking regardless of whether or not it was underground, and
further stated that paving was long overdue. He stressed no further urbanization should occur and suggested
improved signing could solve many problems.
Ross Davis questioned overlapping events, general management of the park, and made some parking
recommendations. He also suggested further substantial changes to the park be put to a vote of the people.
Flo Steinberg expressed her feeling that parking should be left as is, and requested Council not make a decision
on the Alpine Garden proposal until more definitive plans were presented.
Comments were also heard from Herman Staufer, Bart Cuomo, Jim Lamont, Lew Meskimen, and Justin Kirkland.
In response to public comment and the presentation from staff the following comments from Council were
forming.
Kevin stated access remains an issue off the Frontage Road and agreed with all of the proposed improvements in
the Primary Action Plan. In regard to the education center, Kevin felt the soccer field was a good site, that it should
be landscaped, buried, etc. and should have a parking component.
Vail Tarn Council Evening Meeting Minutes Oetober 15, 1996
Ludwig Kurz stated that he would like to explore closing the Frontage Road in order to park cars when there are
multiple events in the park and although the non-profit suggestion for monetary and charging and charging for close
in parking was an interesting idea, he thought there could be a police issue as far as enforcement. In regard to the
education center, the soccer field is a potentially good site but there should be no net loss of parking and in fact,
with an additional structure, there should be a gain.
P§jLJohnston agreed with both of the former Council members stating the education center site at the soccer field
m1W sense, but he was interested in working with the non-profit groups to manage close in parking, but he felt the
streamwalk completion from Ford Park to Lionshead was extraneous and should be eliminated.
Rob Ford agreed with the former comments and again supported positioning the education center in the soccer field
parking lot.
Mike Jewett agreed with the location of the education center in the soccer field parking lot, but was against non-
profits "taxing" citizens for the use of a public area. He encouraged better use of the VTRC for parking and strongly
encouraged legislation requiring that all leases should be adopted by ordinance so that they can be referred back
to the people when future Councils get out of line and make decisions that are not in the public interest.
Sybill Navas agreed the education center was sited well in the soccer field parking lot and encouraged zoning the
park to provide a sacrosanct environment. She also had concerns about access and stated there is still some
confusion about whether parking in Ford Park should be parr parking or skier parking or a combination of both. She
further stated there should be exclusive use of the VTRC in providing parking and we should get rid of all parking
currently provided at the park and turn that parking lot into something more aesthetic and pleasing. She to agreed
with Paul Johnston that the streamwalk completion from Ford Park to Lionshead was extraneous to this process
and should be removed and that we should concentrate on using Vail Valley Drive for additional parking and/or for
access through a pedestrian sidewalk. She agreed the 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. vehicle delivery to the park was
un orkable and rather than taking on a management role in scheduling overlapping events, cautioned that with
colon sense and courtesy, better coordination could be worked out in the park.
Bob Armour concluded the comments by stating he wanted to See Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, the origination
ordinance for condemnation of this parcel amended to reflect current uses and expectations for the park. Parking
is an issue he stated, but should be managed through signs and also encouraged saving even additional parking
for the elderly, handicapped and vehicles that are required for special events. He encouraged paving the surface
of the lot and maybe even using RETT funds to do so. In regard to the education center, he felt the soccer field was
an appropriate site, again with no net loss of parking.
Agenda item number four was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated that the library chute road
project was on time and would be completed by the time the snow flies. Also the TRC was likewise on time and
should be ready for public access by Thanksgiving. Dowd Junction was moving along and he said in regard to the
Safeway entrance confusion, this has turned into a larger project than anticipated, it is the storm sewer project as
well as preparation for the additional lane that will run to the south of Safeway and Vail das Shone. The contractor
is working very hard to make sure the project is complete. The final item of his report was to remind Council that
Vail Tomorrow is scheduled for the next two meetings on November 1 st and 2nd.
There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:50 p.m.
• Respectfully submitted,
4bert . Armour, Mayor
PMW"A A
C
Holly McCutcheon,.Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer
(*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may oe inaccurate.)
r -I
I_J
Va117own Council Evening Meeling Minutes October 16, 1996
MEMORANDUM
is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi -family, and a
request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the
development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A
and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1.
Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the United States Forest
Service and the Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUESTS
The property, located at 845 Red Sandstone Road, is under consideration for a rezoning and a
Special Development District. The current zoning is General Use District. The proposed zoning
is Medium Density Multi -Family (MDMF). The new zoning would increase the development
potential, as the existing zoning limits the uses to public types of uses. The applicants include the
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District), the United States Forest Service and the
Town of Vail. The District owns approximately threc-quarters of the land area under
consideration. The Forest Service currently owns one -quarter of the land area. The Town and
Forest Service are currently in negotiations to transfer their portion to the Town, as part of the
Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA).
The site is currently vacant, as the former water treatment and storage plant has been removed
recently. If the request is approved, the applicants will construct seventeen condominiums. The
dwelling units will be located in four buildings, located along the Red Sandstone Creek. There
will be 7 one -bedroom, 5 two -bedroom, and 5 three -bedroom dwelling units. Each dwelling unit
will have its own one -car garage, with the exception of one three -bedroom unit, which will have a
two -car garage.
40 The primary reason the applicants are proposing an SDD at this time is to provide a detailed
record of the future development potential, which will eliminate questions about future
development potential of the property. The SDD is a helpful tool to obtain answers to questions
about the potential development impacts from the rezoning of the property. In addition to that
primary purpose, there is one deviation from the Zoning Code, which would either require a
variance or be allowed via the SDD approval.
1 R1."iymeVW\m=os4 ndnt W a28
The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high retaining wall between the edge of Red Sandstone Road
and the interior driveway. Due to the fact that this area is located in the front setback, the Town
Zoning Code limits the height to three feet. The wall exceeds that allowable height by 1 foot and
this is a deviation from the code.
Upon completion of the LOAA, the Town will have title to the northern -most portion of the
development site. The Town and the District will hold the land until a Homeowner's Association
(HOA) can be created. Upon establishment of an BOA, the Town and the District will transfer
ownership of all the land to the Association. There is no developer profit anticipated for the
project. The sales price of the condominiums will be based on the cost of construction. In the
development agreement between the Distract and the Town, there is an allowance for up to 25%
of the units to be sold as free-market dwelling units (i.e. no deed restrictions). The purpose for
this is to defray the costs and lower the purchase price for the future homeowners. At this time, it
is anticipated that 100% of the units will be deed restricted. The deed restriction will be similar to
that used for Vail Commons, which restricts the sale to local employees.
After construction, it is anticipated that most of the homes will be owner occupied. The Town
and the District will make the homes available to their employees. While the Town anticipates
selling the dwelling units to its employees, the District will both sell and retain ownership of some
of its units to rent to its employees. More discussion of the proposed unit ownership will be
provided later in the memo. 0
0
P:bvoryaaelpeclmemmlaendetww.o26
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Staff has provided a Zoning Analysis of the proposed project, as it compares to the MDMF
standards:
Zoning:
General Use District (GU)
Proposed Zoning:
Medium-Density/Multiple Family (MDMF) w/ Special Development District (SDD)
Lot Size:
1.60 acres or 69,887.66 sq. ft.
Buildable lot area:
54,140 sq. ft.
Allowed/MDi17F Pr_posed
Density
22 d.u.s 17 d.u.s
Height:
35' 35'
GRFA:
18,449 sq. ft. 16,275 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 2020
SidelSide 20, 20,
Rear: 20' 20'
Site Coverage: 31,449 sq. fl. 12,029 sq, ft.
or45% or17%
Require Proposed
Landscaping: 20,966 sq. fl. 36,450 sq. ft,
or 30% or 52 %
Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces
required proposed
Percent enclosed: 50%of 53%enclosed
required parking
(17) (18)
III, SUMMARY OF DISCUSS, ION FROM PEC WOR_K�SION ON SEPTEMBER 9-1996
Below are the list of questions raised at the previous PEC worksession. Staff has grouped them
into categories of general issues and specific items relating to the project.
1. Is the SDD the appropriate tool to use for the review of this proposal?
Staff believes that the SDD is the most appropriate process to use in this case, because it requires
the specific design to be provided simultaneously with the request for a change in zoning. For
clarification, the proposed development densities fall below those allowed under the MDMF
3
l
zoning. The proposed levels of density will become the new cap and any future request for
expansions will trigger a major SDD amendment. A major SDD amendment must be approved by
Town Council with two readings, after a recommendation by PEC. Though the SDD process
allows requests which exceed the limits of the underlying zoning, the standards are referenced and
used as a "yard stick" to ensure that proposals are consistent with surrounding properties.
Furthermore, the process is such that interested parties and adjacent property owners will have
ample opportunity to give input on the requests.
2. Is affordable housing an appropriate use of the land? Is it appropriate to transfer land
from the United States Forest Service to the Town of Vail for affordable housing?
The Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA) provides for a comprehensive transfer of
land between the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. Land on the perimeter of the Town
overlaps into the jurisdiction of both entities. The LOAA is an effort to exchange different
properties between the two entities to create a win -win situation. As part of this effort, several
parameters were laid out for the use of the lands under consideration. Some of these include:
"1. That there will be no National Forest Service lands within the municipal
limits of the Town of Vail.
2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain a common boundary
of the Town of Vail and the Forest Service and that both agencies share in
the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the boundaries. The boundary
has been simplified where possible, irregularities have been reduced or
eliminated.
That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes,
such as open space, employee housing (per the Town of Vail employee
housing ordinance), recreation or for the resolution of unauthorized uses."
The LOAA was approved by the Town Council on May 17, 1994. Staff relies on it as the most
authoritative document concerning the transfer of land from the Forest Service to the Town of
Vail. The third paragraph above clearly calls for employee housing as a recommended use for
LOAA parcels, such as the one under consideration.
Should the development be targeted for the rental market or the ownership market?
Staff has identified three sectors of the residential market, which the Town is trying to serve based
on needs of the community: the permanent resident, the year-round renter, and the seasonal
renter. The size, scale, and location of this site lends itself best to the permanent resident looking
49
purchase a home, One of the concerns is that the "affordability" could be lost, after the first sale.
A deed restriction, similar to that used with the Vail Commons development, will also be used
•with this development and the restriction will limit the resale value to an appreciation of three
percent per year. In addition to the three percent per year which individuals can realize at time of
resale, other costs can be added to the resale price. For example, if the Homeowner's Association
assesses each unit owner for reroofing, residing, additional landscaping, paving, etc., one hundred
percent of the assessment can be added to the resale price, allowing the owner to recoup costs
attributed to maintenance. The deed restrictions have been written in such a way to preserve the
affordable purchase price, while allowing residents to invest in the upkeep of their homes. The
deed restrictions run in perpetuity, eliminating any risk of losing the initial subsidy to a future
homeowner.
Should the dwelling units be made available to the residents throughout the community?
Yes, staff believes that all residents should be able to participate in a lottery according to criteria
which reflects the needs of the community. Staff recommends that there be three tiers:
• Critical employees working for the Town/District (to be determined by each organization);
• Other employees working for the Town/District (to be allocated as determined by each
•organization); and
• Other community residents/employees (to be allocated by Town of Vail / District),
In response to the point made about Town employees having an unfair advantage over other
community residents, there are two issues to consider: the Town provides a service to the
community and staffing the Town enables the delivery of services to the community. It is not an
us/them issue, we are in this together. Secondly, the Town and District are trying to lead by
example by creating affordable housing for their employees, to encourage other employers to do
the same.
5. How can the Town and District ensure that the units are used by employees of the Town
and District in the future?
Staff believes it is primarily an issue of priority-- we would like to see critical employees of the
two organizations housed as the top priority. With that goal in mind, the Town and District will
establish reciprocal 1 st and 2nd rights of refusal for all 17 dwelling units in the development. This
will allow the employees at the top of the lottery criteria list to be housed.
Is However, if other employees own the units, we have still accomplished the goal of providing
employee housing. As indicated in the lottery criteria list, other residents of the community will
have an opportunity to buy homes in this development, if the supply is not exhausted by
employees in the higher priority categories. Staff believes it would be heavy-handed to require a
sale and then evict a local who chooses to work for a different employer in the valley. Regardless
of employment location, the deed restrictions require that residents work an average of 30 hours
per week at businesses which are located in Eagle County.
l
What has been the precedent for roads which cross private property?
Staff researched two other properties where this situation has occurred. At the time of !
redevelopment, the Town required easements to accommodate the existing alignment of the
pavement, but did not require dedication of that portion of the site as right-of-way. As the land
continued to be held as private property, the Town allowed the area in the easement to be used in
the calculation of GRFA and other development standards. This is also consistent with the way
the Town treats other easements (such as utility and drainage easements), concerning the
calculation of development standards.
Specific items relating to the development proposal.
I . Insure that any wetlands to be disturbed are mitigated adequately.
After walking the site with Russ Forrest, the Town Environmental Planner and Nicole Ripley, a
wetland consultant, staff understands that the Corps of Engineers must be notified of the activity
on -site. The consultant will assess the wetland qualities of the site, review the development plans,
and determine the potential area of disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands. The consultant has
recommended that an area equivalent to that of the disturbance be replanted on the north and
south ends of the site, as mitigation for areas being impacted. •
The applicant understands that the northern and southern ends of the site must be planted with
nursery grown stock, matching the willow species currently on -site. The specific area of
revegetation has yet to be determined, but will be determined prior to the first reading of the
ordinance by Town Council. Neither the consultant or the Town's environmental planner believe
that the characteristics of the site, or the magnitude of the proposed development, will warrant
other mitigation requirements than those described above.
Architecture
In the discussions about the architecture at the previous PEC worksession, the PEC and DRB
members were roughly split as to the appropriateness of flat roofs. After reviewing the colored
renderings, the Board members had a greater appreciation for the quality of the proposed
development, specifically the amount of variety within the massing, or as described in the hearing, ,
the "wedding cake effect." Staff believes that from the range of comments on the flat roofs, the
best analysis of thew is summarized as follows: flat roofs can be the most efficient and are
appreciated by design professionals. Designs which incorporate flat roofs can be very high quality
(and in fact are better than the design of Vail Commons). However, the public will not appreciate
the good architecture and will perceive the project as a stack of boxes. Furthermore, this image
will convey "public housing,"
The applicable criteria in the Zoning Code is found in the Design Review Section and the SDD
criteria. The SDD calls for compatibility with the surrounding properties. In this case, the
surrounding properties have either pitched roofs or a combination of flat with shed roofs. The
. DRB criteria are more specific and state that:
The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet in
twelve feet. However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and
climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, and solar exposure should be
integral to the roof design.
Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the
elements are encouraged.
The guidelines also call for snow shedding to be minimized in pedestrian areas,
It should also be noted that although flat roofs may be appreciated for their simplicity, flat roofs
are an often cited attribute of Lionshead which the community is trying to move away from.
Another issue raised by the PEC was the need to break-up the siding material with areas of
stucco. Both the flat roof issue and the stucco issue have not been addressed since the previous
PEC/DRB worksession.
Consolidate curb cuts.
The project has been re -engineered so that both Brooktree, Sandstone Park and the proposed
project are served by one curbeut. The applicants are willing to provide permanent access
easements for the neighboring developments.
4. Add a staircase to_the north end of the site to access the Town of Vail bus stop.
The applicant has been concerned that providing a staircase from the development to the bus stop
across the street could be seen as a discriminatory act, against disabled individuals. Staff has
researched the issue with the Town attomey, as well as with Vail Associates staff who deal with
ADA issues regularly. Since the elevation difference at this corner of the site is approximately 16
feet, a ramp connecting the development to the upper road would be over 200 feet long. Given
the tough requirements of the topography and the Iaw, a connection at this location cannot be
provided. ,
Add landscaping along Red Sandstone Road.
The Town has a sight -distance standard for intersections between driveways and roads, such as
Red Sandstone Road. The area falling within a triangle of 10 feet by 250 feet must remain free of
vegetation which could block the sight of oncoming traffic. Notwithstanding this requirement,
staff believes that additional landscaping must be planted along Red Sandstone Road. Previously,
7
there were 8 spruce and 8 shrubs in this area. Since the worksession, the applicant has added
plant material so that there is now a total of 13 spruce, 3 cottonwoods and 8 shrubs in the area.
However , staff believes that additional buffering is needed. Staff recommends adding a spruce
and 5 shrubs in the area that extends south from the largest group of landscaping. The applicant
has agreed to plant this area, as long as the finished grade is such that landscaping can be planted
in the area.
6. Provide a sidewalk along Red sandstone Road.
There is not sufficient room, given the retaining required, for a sidewalk. At the end of the
worksession on September 9, 1996, the PEC concluded that given the site constraints, additional
landscaping was a higher priority than a sidewalk.
Provide a streamwalk.
After studying the site, staff believes that the connection from a potential streamwalk to the road
above is not workable. As discussed above, the elevation difference at the base of the upper road
is significantly higher than the stream. Given the relatively short length of walkway and the steep
climb required around the creek culverts, a streamwalk does not appear to be a component that,
could readily be included in the development.
A compromise solution may be to have the applicant provide a pedestrian/fisherman's casement
along the creek. This would allow creek access, without requiring a walkway to be constructed
that would not be workable.
8. Provide additional snow storage.
The snow storage areas are now 30% of the total pavement area. Staff believes the increase in
this area, which has been made since the worksession, adequately provides for storage areas.
Parking for the three bedroom units.
Increasing the size of the garages for the three bedroom units would require a redesign of the
whole project. However, in order to address the concerns of the PEC and to ensure that the three
bedroom units are adequately served, the applicant has suggested that a guest space be reserved
for each three bedroom unit.
10. Pedestrian access from within the garages.
Pedestrian doors have been added to the garages which have some portion of exterior wall. In
several cases, the way the buildings have been notched, provided just enough of an exterior wall
8
to include a door. However, one garage in each building does not have adequate exterior
exposure to add a pedestrian door.
1 1. Overhead utilities.
The applicant has committed to removing the existing overhead utilities. For clarification
purposes, staff understands that the existing two poles on site will be removed and the existing
service will terminate at the pole located immediately north of the Sandstone Park building.
12. Details.
The dumpster will be enclosed, to improve the quality of the entrance area of the development.
The sod areas between the buildings have been expanded, to provide additional turf area for the
residents to use. The sod will be easier to maintain than "native vegetation," particularly since the
new areas between the buildings will connect the sod from the front and back.
IV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING: REOUEST
The criteria, the Town has used in the past, to evaluate rezoning requests are listed below:
A. Is the request in conformity with the Land Use Plan?
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Medium Density
Residential (MDR), which translates to a density of 3 - 14 dwelling units per
buildable acre. Page 32 of the Land Use Plan calls for the following type of
developments in areas with this designation:
"The medium density residential category includes housing which would
typically be designed as attached units with commons walls. Densities in
this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre."
The buildable area of the combined sites is 1.24 acres. As the proposed
development will consist of 17 dwelling units, the resulting density will be 13.71
d.u./ac. which is less than what the Land Use Plan prescribes. Please note that
this calculation is based on buildable site area, not total site area. Additionally, the
requested zoning of Medium Density Multi -Family Residential allows for up to 18
dwelling units per buildable acre.
0 B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property?
The District has used the facility in the past for water treatment and storage. It is
no longer needed by the District. The site is surrounded by rights -of -way and
roads, utilities, infrastructure, and residential condominium and townhouse
developments. Staff believes that because the area has developed over time as a
residential neighborhood, that it is reasonable to rezone this site to allow
residential development, in order to be compatible with adjacent land uses.
1
C. Does the proposed zoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
community? 0
Staff believes that the development of this site as affordable housing will increase
the viability of our community. Affordable housing has been listed in the Town's
annual community survey as a top priority, for reasons of economic stability as
well as the desire to increase the sense of community. Though interest runs high,
locating sites which can accommodate affordable housing is difficult. Housing at
this location addresses the priorities of the community and enhances the viability of
the Town.
D. Does the proposed zoning present a convenient, workable relationship among land
uses consistent with municipal objectives?
The land uses on the surrounding properties are similar to the uses of the proposed
development. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the densities of the
surrounding properties, which is shown below:
Project
Zone District/
Permitted Densitv
Parcel
Size
jjaiis Gross
DMsity:
d( u/ac)
Potato Patch Club
RC, 6/ac
± 10 acres
44
4.4
Sandstone Park
LDMF, 9/ac
1.54
16
10.3
13rooktree
MDMF, 18/ac
1.23 acres
48
22.0
Conon wood Park
LDMF, 9/ac
.69 acres
7
10.1
Aspen tree
MDMF, 18/ac
.49 acres
15
30.6
Sandstone Creek Club
LDMF, 9/ac
5.9 acres
84
14.2
Sun Vail
MDMF, 18/ac
4.91 acres
60
12.2
Breakaway West
MDMF, 18/ac
1.87 acres
54
28.8
SnowLion/SnowFox
MDMF, 18/ac
1.36 acres
42
30.8
Telemark
MDMF, 18/ac
.96 acres
18
18.7
Homestake
MDMF, 18/ac
1.36 acres
66
48.5
Lionsmane
MDMF, 18/ac
1.04 acres
37
35.5
Vail Village 9th
2-Family
3.39 acres
24 (potential)
7.0
Parcel A
General Use
5.7 acres
0
0
The gross density of the proposed development is 10.6 dwelling units per acre.
(17 units/ 1.6044 gross acres = 10.6 du/ac) As such, it is well within the range of
the densities in the area.
E. Suitability of the proposed zoning.
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is suitable for this site. The development
allowed by the rezoning will allow the community to move towards its goals,
regarding the supply of affordably priced homes. The development will be in line
with surrounding projects, concerning uses and density.
10
0 Below are the nine criteria used to evaluate Special Development District proposals:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties, relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Staff believes that the architectural scale, bulk and building height are all
successful, However, staff is concerned about the identity and the character of the
project. Specifically, staff is concerned about the flat roofs. The surrounding
developments in the Sandstone area range in age and quality, and none exclusively
have flat roofs. Many have a combination of flat and pitched roofs. For example,
Sandstone Park has steeply pitched sheds and gables in conjunction with flat roofs.
Brooktree has a combination of a mansard -type roof with a flat roof. Aspentree
and Potato Patch Club both have built-up gravel roofs, which are pitched at
relatively shallow slopes. Staff believes that one of the significant elements in each
of the surrounding properties is the roof eave overhang. We believe that this gives
architectural character to the development, as it creates a shadow line, breaks up
the mass and bulk, and creates a character that is appreciated by the general public.
Staff does not want to discount the overall quality of the proposed design.
However, we believe that the character should be modified by adding pitched
roofs to the flat roofs in a way similar to Sandstone Park, immediately adjacent to
the project to the west,
Of particular concern to staff is the height of the flat roofs relative to the road
elevation surrounding the project. We believe that the roof areas will be highly
visible from the surrounding area. The elevation at the corner of Red Sandstone
Road and Potato Patch Drive is approximately 2 - 3 feet higher than the elevation
of the second story roofs. Since pedestrians and drivers on the road will be higher
than the roof elevation, the flat roofs will have greater exposure.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff believes that the uses, activity and density will be compatible with the
• surrounding development. As discussed above, under the evaluation of the
rezoning request, the proposed density is consistent with the Town's Land Use
Plan and will be lower than the surrounding developments in the area.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements, as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
The proposed development exceeds the Zoning Code requirement regarding the
total supply of parking spaces, as well as the supply of enclosed parking spaces.
11 �
Each of the condominiums will have its own oversized garage.
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
The Vail Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) calls for a density on this site
ranging from 3-14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development, at 13.1
dwelling units per buildable acre, is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A
thorough analysis of the consistency with the Land Use Plan is provided above,
under the rezoning discussion.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which this Special Development District is proposed.
The only hazard affecting this site is the 100-year floodplain. All improvements,
grading, and disturbance will be located outside of the floodplain.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to •
produce a functional development, responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of community.
The site plan and building design have been developed to take full advantage of the
open space area along Red Sandstone Creek. Each of the dwelling units will abut
this corridor, which will increase the quality of life of the residents of this
development. In the site planning development, the 30' stream centerline setback
standard of the Town has been respected, providing a buffer between the riparian
corridor and the development. There is one location where some of the existing
vegetation will be removed. Tom Braun, the representative for the development,
has stated that the District will transplant vegetation during the construction
process or will replace it with new plant material, matching the existing species.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off -site traffic circulation.
Driveways have been aligned so that the Red Sandstone, Brooktree, and Is
Park developments will all be sharing the same access onto Red
Sandstone Road. Easements will be provided to maintain this access in the future.
The point of intersection with Red Sandstone Road has been located at a point
where visibility is the greatest, as Red Sandstone Road winds its way up to Potato
Patch.
Concerning pedestrian circulation, staff has requested that the existing sidewalk
along Red Sandstone Road be continued up to the entrance to this development.
12
Originally, staff and the PEC requested that a pedestrian connection be provided
from this project up to Red Sandstone Road, above the development.
Unfortunately, the ADA laws are such that providing a staircase without a second
accessible route cannot be done.
An important detail relating to circulation is the areas for snow storage. Snow will
be stored along the driveway, on the east side as well as at the northern end of the
drive. Snow storage areas have been increased, as discussed above.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space, in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
Staff requests that the applicant buffer the project more from adjacent properties,
particularly along Red Sandstone Road. Staff understands that there is a very
steep slope in this area, plus retaining walls, which limits the plantable area.
However, staff believes more trees and shrubs should be added, per the comments
-made earlier in the memo.
Staff also requests that the existing vegetation be preserved. The large spruce (24
• inch caliper) on the north west corner of the site is proposed to be preserved.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of this Special Development
District.
At this time, it is anticipated that the development would be completed in a single
phase. If for any reason, the Forest Service and the Town cannot complete the
transfer of ownership of the northernmost part of the state, the District will
proceed ahead with construction of the first three buildings.
A condition of approval will be to have the District resubdivide all the parcels into
one lot. Though the zoning code definition allows parcels adjacent to one another
to be considered as one lot, ultimately the development area must be replatted as a
condominium map. As part of that process, the land will eventually be platted as a
single lot. As part of the initial phase, staff understands that the existing overhead
utility lines will be buried. Staff understands that two poles will be removed and
• the existing overhead lines eliminated back to the existing pole adjacent to the
Sandstone Park Condominium Building.
13
VI. STAFF RECOMMEn TA ION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Development District and Rezoning .
with two conditions. We believe the applicant has been responsive to a majority of the issues and
has designed a quality product which will help meet the community's housing needs. However,
staff believes that the architectural character, and landscape screening, of the project could meet
the SDD criteria better than the current design. As a result, staff recommends approval of the
project with the following conditions:
1) That the applicant modify the architectural character of the project by incorporating a
mixture of flat roofs and shed roofs into the design, prior to first reading of the ordinance
at Town Council.
2) That the applicant add additional trees and shrubs (4 spruce and 5 shrubs) to the area of
the site adjacent to Red Sandstone Road, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town
Council.
•
•
14
7. A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi -family, and a request
for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17
EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D,
Lionsridge Filing # 1.
Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the
Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff memo. Andy explained the Zoning Analysis and
stated that the overall project conformed with the proposed zoning. He stated that the SDD
component did not provide a blank check, since any future modifications would have to go
through Council. He stated that staff believed that a combination of flat and pitched roofs was
preferred. He said that staff was recommending approval with two conditions.
Tom Braun said the building design had been changed and all the issues had been addressed.
Tom stated that the design guidelines allow for a variety of roof forms. He then said this
proposal was within the realms and that there were untold benefits associated with flat roofs.
Jim Morter said that the project had to be affordable and well designed, because it was in a
neighborhood that was well designed. He said that a myriad of decisions influenced the design
of the roof tops and explained that he was not trying to be uncooperative, but the final design
included flat roofs. He then said that the most important goal was to accomplish all the goals.
isHe went on to say that canopies were added to give a level of sophistication and shadow lines.
Jim said that stucco wainscoting made the building look worse by giving it a checkerboard look.
He said there were two patterns of wood siding provided. Jim said if the public perceived this as
a stack of boxes, then he told the PEC to take a look at Savoy Villas. He also said that Timber
Ridge had sloping roofs and looked worse than Savoy Villas, and gave the impression of
employee housing.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said that Joe Staufer had asked him to raise some
concerns. Jim said that Joe Staufer didn't like flat roofs, but that he felt the change in design
added a flair. Jim said that Joe thought it added a Taos feel. However, it could be more exciting
with stucco. Jim said he thought it stingy to say the sidewalk can't go up and around the site.
He then asked Andy how much rental housing the Town owns.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the Town owned the Town Manager's home and two other units.
Jim Lamont said the biggest demand was for rentable units. He said that the district could take
the revenues and leave. If it was public property, then the Town should meet the demand. Jim
said the issue on the table was that if the units are sold, the buyer should be selected through a
lottery. Jim stated that the public would not be pleased that the first two tiers of this project
would go to the TOV workers, since it was on public property. Jim advised use of the lottery.
Jim also noted that the housing director was involved in the regulatory process. Jim said we
needed to make it clear that the housing director should sit with the advocates, as the
appearance was that of a conflict of interest.
Greg Moffet asked for any other public comment. There was none.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 28, 1996 15
Gene Uselton questioned the perpetual deed restrictions. Gene asked if the sloping roofs were
added, would the snow shedding be better.
Andy Knudtsen said roof pitches could be designed in such a way that snow shed problems
could be eliminated. As an alternative, snow fences could be added.
Gene Uselton said he had a hard time guessing what this project would look like and asked if the
PEC was making a recommendation to the Town Council at this worksession.
Greg Amsden said an SDD was not appropriate for this site. He said that staff was
recommending an SDD in order to limit the GRFA, which was a misuse of the SDD. He then
suggested that it could be construed as employee housing. He went on to say that it did not
conform and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to the flat roofs. Greg
stated that affordability was not driving this project. Greg said that the wood siding did not fly
with him, Greg felt that vertical with horizontal siding was shown and he would like to see a
lower maintenance product. He then asked about the landscaping. Greg also asked what the
typical occupancy of the 3-bedroom unit would be.
Greg Amsden thought every garage would have one car parked outside. He said that the project
should be palatable and not allow outdoor parking on Sandstone Rd. He also expressed
disappointment that no one shows up at the PEC meetings to offer any input.
Tom Braun stated that 30 letters were sent out for notification to adjacent property owners earlier
in the review process.
Galen Aasland suggested tabling this item. Galen felt an SDD for employee housing was wrong,
but that MDMF was needed. Galen felt it needed to be made compatible with existing
neighborhoods. He said he would like to see more written information about the improvements
that could be done in the future. He suggested capping development at a certain level. Galen
said that interior improvements could work against the long term employee housing concept.
Galen would like to see a mostly stucco exterior. Galen agreed with Jim's comment about
looking at this like any other applicant. Galen also advised that, from the public aspect, we
should be careful about the Town representing itself. Galen would like to see this item tabled.
Diane Golden thought the housing should go to critical TOV employees. She also said she didn't
remember the PEC saying vegetation was more important than the sidewalk.
Jim Morter explained that he raised a question to the PEC at the very end of the worksesslon,
whether landscaping or a sidewalk was more important along Red Sandstone Road.
Diane Golden also stated that the PEC forced a home in East Vail to remove sod and replace it
with bluegrass.
Andy Knudtsen showed, according to the renderings, where the wetland mitigation was to
happen.
Diane Golden stated that she liked the design of Savoy Villa. She said that architects say there
are benefits to flat roofs and so therefore, she was not afraid to go with the expert's opinion. She
stated that she was thrilled to see employee housing incorporated into a neighborhood.
Planning and Enviroiunental Commission
Minutes
October 29, 1996 16
Henry Pratt commended Galen on his eloquence and also agreed with Greg Amsden's point of
view.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the rezoning and SDD have been linked together.
Henry Pratt said he would rather have Council have the final word and therefore, the SDD
process was a good one. Henry Pratt reminded everyone that we need families here, as
seasonal workers are going to be housed out at the Public Works site.
Jim Morter said there were 46 parking spaces; 18 in garages and 28 exterior. He said 36 spaces
were all that were required.
Henry Pratt said that assigning more parking to the 3-bedroom units would reduce guest spaces.
Henry asked how were people going to get to the bustop. He said a liability issue exists with
falling. Henry said that something needed to be done to address the sidewalk, even though
Henry would prefer landscaping.
Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the use of the SDD process and that this project
should be decided by elected officials. He stated that the Town's employee housing was going to
be on public property and that we require ourselves to have housing on our land, as a private
owner has a house on private land. Greg said that he didn't mind flat roofs. He felt, regarding
the ramp issue, that a stair case needed to be put in. Greg said that this climate was harsh on
wood and though it is more expensive, he wanted stucco. Greg was in favor of this project as
long as further exterior considerations were given to the exterior finish.
Pat Dauphinais stated that the plan was set and not only was it well thought out, but well
designed. He said to do this within a budget where constraints were difficult. Pat said they were
not interested in design by committee. He felt that the fisherman easement was too tight. He
asked for a favorable vote to go to Council.
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval with the condition that 4 spruce and 5 shrubs be
added to the landscaping area along Red Sandstone Road.
The motion was seconded by Diane Golden.
Galen Aasland asked if adding stucco to the outside could be included in the motion.
Gene Uselton said they have not violated code and would not amend his condition.
Greg Moffet asked for any further discussion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland voting against it.
8. A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in
commercial zone districts.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo, asking the PEC for ideas on how to. treat this
and also to give thought on when does it become industrial use. He said however, that this was
a use that was needed. He said that Tim Ewals of Airport Shuttle, had concerns he wanted the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 28, 1996 17
George Ruther stated that the Johnson's residence on Mill Creek Circle required bonding when
they were transplanting trees.
Greg Amsden said he was not excited about this proposal, since it was a very noticeable house.
Henry Pratt made a motion for approval for Lot 36, which included a second condition requiring a
bond, so that if trees die within two growing seasons, the tree well would be filled in and new
trees would be planted.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
Gene Uselton asked for an amendment to Henry's motion, changing it to Lot 37.
Henry Pratt amended the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0.
5. A request for a joint worksession with the DRB and PEC for a rezoning from General
Use to Medium Density Multi -family, and a request for the establishment of a Special
Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted
parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1
Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Greg Moffet welcomed Brent Alm, Clark Brittain and Ted Hingst, the DRB members present for
this worksession.
Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the request and explained that the three parties involved
have all signed the applications necessary to get the plan going. The primary purpose of the
SDD was to answer neighbor's questions regarding future development. 100% of the units will
be deed restricted. The District and Town of Vail employees are the target market. Density is
much less than what the Zone District allows, as shown on the Zoning Analysis in the memo.
Another important component is the LOAA, which Andy explained. He explained that this was
an effort to get a clean boundary and to create sites for employee housing. Andy stated that this
was a high priority for economic stability and also that the provision of affordable housing would
help the viability of the community. Andy said that the proposed density is below other sites and
that suitability is consistent with the context. Staff expressed concern about the architectural
design and wanted to hear from both Boards and the neighborhood, regarding architectural
compatibility. A roof overhang and a pitched roof would break up the mass. He said that since
the corner of the road is higher, the flat roofs would be very visible where the road divides. Andy
proceeded to go over the discussion issues. He stated that there are arguments both pro and
con for two curbeuts, but staff would look at the safest and what would meet the most needs.
Andy went over the landscaping and stated that there may be an opportunity to get more
landscaping in the area, while still preserving the existing landscaping.
Greg Moffet said two areas to focus on were the landscaping and the architecture. He stated the
need for the public to comment on these issues.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996
Tom Braun explained that the district had this land available and had taken a leadership role in
proposing the project. Tom stated that they were trying to create an opportunity for families, by
rezoning from General Use to Special Development District. He then showed renderings of the
project. He explained that the range of densities was staggering in this neighborhood. He
explained the densities of surrounding properties and that they were proposing 10.6 on a gross
basis, so this project was at the low end. If they didn't do the SDD rezoning, they could come
back and do a full site coverage, maximum height etc. Tom stated that the SDD process
provided a safeguard. Flat roofs were an issue but Torn deferred to Jim Morter. He did mention
that there were a number of flat roofs in the neighborhood. The precedent has been established,
such as Simba Run, etc. He mentioned that the road is still under further study to see how to
slow the speed of traffic before the blind spot. He said that they were extending the retaining
wall to get trees between the road and the buildings. It is tough to find trees that will do well on
this site. He stated that the development standards were within the standards of the Town.
Garages were oversized in order to provide storage, as well as cars. To bring all this in at an
affordable level was a challenge. Tom introduced Jim Morter, Pat Dauphinais and Gerry
Roberts.
Jim Morter said the first thing to be considered was scale. The kindest scale for the site was to
have 4 smaller buildings. For the footprint and the bulk, Jim felt the smaller size worked. Jim
stated he was proposing seven 1-bedrooms, five 2-bedrooms and five 3- bedrooms. This project
would be state of the art for accessibility and usability. Jim asked for questions. He wanted to
take this out of the typical genre of affordable housing. The shadow pattern gave animation to
the buildings, as opposed to blocks of buildings. There were one, two and three stories all mixed
in. The neighbors in Potato Patch, when looking down, would see a wedding cake effect. Jim
stated there would be 24 flat roofs with a lot of stair stepping. The functional reason for flat roofs
was to eliminate snow dumping. It would be easier to shed snow where people are not. Flat
roofs made it easier to contain winter problems. The second reason for flat roofs was that the
mass would appear smaller with flat roofs. The third reason was to provide visual interest with a
stair -step design. Roof penetrations, such as vents (since there will be no fireplaces), would
have all the items clustered together. This has given Jim the opportunity to form a sculpture
within the project. Jim stated that he would like to ask both Boards to have an open mind, when
it comes to the flat roof issue.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Jim Lamont, speaking on.behalf of Ralph Davis of Action Vail, stated that the focus should be on
the principles. The manner that it was brought forward last spring caused anguish. It was
brought to the attention of Action Vail. The homeowners made every effort to calm everyone.
Action Vail has always said that public open space, if transferred, should be retained as open
space. Jim had questions for Tom Braun regarding the status of the driveway options and
designating it as a permanent easement. Jim also wanted to know what other avenue Brooktree
had for access.
Tom Braun said that it is not yet a permanent easement, but that it was a possibility.
Jim Lamont asked If the access could be shared.
Tom Braun said that a new access, to the south of the proposed driveway, was being
considered.
Jim Lamont asked Tom Braun if the right-of-way on Red Sandstone was dedicated.
Planning and Environmental Comm ssion
Minutes
September 9, 1996
Tom Braun said it could be dedicated.
Jim Lamont asked about the 100-year floodplain. Jim stated that this was public property and
•the current problems needed to be resolved. Jim stated that when the Lionsridge area was
annexed, the land use pattern was predetermined. Jim stated that there was a need to take a
hard look at the stream right-of-way. He asked, " Are we taking a public piece of property and
turning it into a private piece of property?" The public deserves a sidewalk and access to the
stream. He mentioned that when he was on the Board, he found that there is never a benefit,
when the public has been denied. If the units go up for a lottery, that would be fine, but all the
citizens of the Town should have a chance. It is wrong to have the people benefiting from it that
were judging and reviewing it. However, Jim could see the first preference being given to
emergency personnel.
Bob McLaurin disagreed with a couple of issues. The first was the land exchange. Bob had
been criticized for using this parcel. There was a net gain of money to the Forest Service, which
exceeded the value, resulting in no net loss to the Forest Service. The land was to be used for
housing for Town of Vail employees. When people call 911, for example, one wouldn't get an
answer if employees are not able to live nearby. Bob said there was not one single fireman who
lives in the Town of Vail and only two police officers that live in the Town of Vail. It was clearly
irresponsible for the Town of Vail to not move in this direction. This housing development would
be filled with critical employees, with the remainder going to lottery for the leftover units. This
project would provide an opportunity for police officer's families to be here. The Town of Vail
would like to exercise a right of first refusal. Bob said that the Town had an obligation to provide
the services and was having a harder time competing with areas that have a less expensive cost
•of living. With all due respect to Jim, the Town should have done this 10 to 15 years ago. As the
Town's long term employees start to retire, the Town needs to start to take pro -active measures
now.
Jim Lamont said in response to his good friend Bob, that the minute these public units were sold
to the private sector, there would be a problem when the employees leave the job. The public
interest needed to be protected. Priorities should be given to emergency personnel first. After
requesting that the density be lowered, Jim stated that this should be rented to emergency
personal and include public access to the creek.
Bob McLaurin said rentals would not work for the majority of the work force. In order for
occupants to receive tax deductible benefits, the project had to be owner occupied.
Ralph Davis said that Bob hit the nail on the head. He also would hate to call 911 and find no
one there. Ralph stated that the units should not be sold and that rental rates should be below
market rental rates. He said the rent should be less than what it would cost to own. This project
might just fit the need for emergency personal.
Pat Dauphinais, representing the Water and Sanitation District, stated that this would have a
public benefit. Employees living on the other side of Dowd Junction can't respond to
emergencies like a local resident could . There would be a first right of first refusal, The Water
iDistrict would maintain first right of -refusal on all -the units. Though the -Water District can't
commit to housing only emergency personnel, this housing would be available to Water District
personnel, police, fire and hospital personnel. The public interest would be well served. Even
though land is being transferred from the public to the private sector, it would still serve the
community. Even though they would be sold, the Water District would have the right of first
refusal.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996
Henry Pratt asked if it would be possible for the Town to have 2nd right of refusal on the Water
District units?
Pat Dauphinals said that was a great idea and would dovetail that in. •
Henry Pratt stated that conceivably, there could eventually be no Town of Vail employees living in
these units.
Bob McLaurin said a sale could be forced, via the deed restrictions, for violations to the policy.
Pat Dauphinais said deed restrictions would be conditions of the SDD.
Bob McLaurin stated that he didn't want all the Town of Vail workers living together.
Jim Lamont stated that we need the Town Manager to explain how this will work.
Bob McLaurin stated that the Town is pursuing rentals on the Public Works site and on other
properties. He stated that it was essential to maintain the community's economic viability and
that it would be problematic in the future, if this problem is not dealt with now.
Pat Dauphinais said the Water Board felt a responsibility to the public. Pat said that the current
proposal was the most positive thing to be done with that ground. The benefits would far exceed
the short term public loss, by shutting down the neighborhood dog toilet. The Water District no
longer needs the plant on -site. The public good will be served better by far with this project.
Jim Lamont stated that there would be a need for a sidewalk; that the creek be recognized as a .
recreational amenity, and dedicated as a public access easement; that the Town should require
the dedication of some open space, to be consistent with other projects. He summarized by
saying that the public should get something back.
Greg Moffet asked for other public comments. There was none.
Starting with the DRB: Clark Brittain said he responded favorably to the design. The presentation
reinforced his feeling about the design. Each building, as a modular sculpture, was very
appealing. When looking down on the buildings from the road, a better vantage point is possible
and the differences would be accentuated. Clark said that the project is going in the right
direction.
Ted Hingst thought the design was a good way to avoid cubes. Ted still had a problem with the
flat roofs. He suggested perhaps false fronting was a solution. He was, however, looking
forward to seeing the project develop.
Brent Alm thanked Jim Morter and the PEC for letting the DRB have a chance to make
comments at this schematic level. He stated that there needs to be more landscaping on the
east side. Also, Brent said that to break the 17 units into four buildings was a good idea. The .
architecture was simple and straightforward. Brent was'not opposed to flat roofs, but would like
to see shed roofs added to soften the design. The stacked design was helpful. It was Important
to see the renderings. The use of materials with two different types of sidings and slight color
variations was best.
Jim Morter stated that the intent was to use subtle variations.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 10
Brent Alm suggested using some stucco within some of the siding masses. He said that he
was looking forward to seeing more on the project.
Galen Aasland said that there was a hardship concerning the retaining wall on Red Sandstone
Road and that the height of it was acceptable. He believed the SDD took away the trust from the
public. Galen thought it should be zoned MDMF without the SDD. Galen liked the flat roofs and
thought the massing had integrity. He thought it was too homogenous and boring with one color.
He felt adding significant mass in stucco to the siding was a good idea, and that it needed more
detail. Galen felt that a one -car garage would not serve the needs for the 3-bedroom units and
that the 3-bedroom units needed more than a one -car garage.
Jim Morter stated that some of the 3-bedroom units had two -car garages.
Galen Aasland said he would like to see the project embrace the creek better and that the
property across the road should be addressed. Galen felt that this project had significant public
benefit. He felt also that people that were able to buy were better off than paying rent and the
right of first refusal with the second right of refusal was a good idea.
Diane Golden thanked the Water District. Responding to Galen's comments about the SDD, she
said that the public interest was better protected with the SDD. Diane felt that the breakup of the
buildings was very good.
Henry Pratt said Jim Lamont had brought up some macro issues, compared to the flat roofs.
•Henry felt that it was important for the units to be owner -occupied. There was a need to insure
that emergency personnel be housed at this site. He felt that it would be counter -productive for
employees to have to sell. Henry said that we need to find a position somewhere between Jim
Lamont and the Town Manager.
Henry Pratt believed that the architecture was far superior to the Commons. But, he also stated
that Lionshead was going away from flat roofs, towards a more European style . This project
needed shed roofs, and overhangs with more detail. Henry stated that flat roofs were clearly
more efficient in this town, and that it was a good choice from his perspective; however, subject
to criticism. Henry said that to satisfy the public perception, the designed needed to break up the
boxes. "In layman's terms, he expressed concern that the public would equate stacked boxes
with public housing.
Henry Pratt said to deed back open space was a good idea; however, the space was not an
adequate size. A public path along the creek could be done within the 30' setback. It might be a
compromise to open it to the public, but it would get used and appreciated. Henry questioned
the amount of space allocated for snow storage. From his years at Pitkin, he stated that snow
piles can get to be 25' high. He didn't have a feel for curbcuts and felt that could be left up to the
Town to handle. Henry agreed with Jim Lamont about the sidewalks. Sidewalks encouraged
people to walk to the bus stop. The path along the creek would enable Brooktree. residents to cut
across and use the bus stop. Trees were needed to provide privacy. Trees would put the
project into its own enclave. Henry disagreed with Gaierrregarding the SDD. An SDD would
provide the vehicle necessary for a minor degree of down zoning.
John Schofield said that as this project progresses, he would like to have more information on
the floodplain and also a public path along the stream. A common access with the adjacent
property owners would be preferable. John said that he was not a big fan of flat roofs and would
like to see some sloped roofs and a mix of siding materials.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 11
Gene Uselton agreed with Henry regarding the appropriateness of the SDD. Admitting that he is
a sucker for a good sales pitch, he complimented Jim Morter on his four point argument in favor
of the flat roofs and indicated that he was convinced. He expressed the opinion that, given the
quality of the proposed project, the economic values of surrounding properties would be
maintained or enhanced. 0
Greg Amsden reminded everyone that this was highly visible as one drove past it to Piney Lake.
Greg said he would like to see sloped roofs. Greg didn't want local people to have to deal with
the maintenance that cedar siding would require. To be able to live affordably, the project
needed to be built using another material. Greg also felt it needed to be oriented with
north/south views. The east/west views looked out onto traffic and also Potato Patch. Greg felt
it must have two -car garages for the 3-bedroom units. He asked if utilities and gas fireplaces
would be provided. He said that there was not a necessity for an SDD. He said that, since there
was no cap on an SDD project, he would like to see the GRFA limit set in stone. He would also
like to see a greater setback to protect the willows, etc. To dedicate open space on a site this
tight would be hard, but perhaps the south end of the site would be possible. The color
elevations looked great on the renderings, but he expressed concern that renderings were not
accurate. The trees in particular, were an Inaccurate depiction. He said to picture it without the
trees. This architecture had to stand alone for the next 15 years until the trees grew to a height
represented in the renderings.
Greg Moffet wanted to compliment the development team on the professional presentation. Jim
Lamont had raised some valid concerns. This worksession was the context for these concerns
to be raised. Greg was delighted that this was aimed in the direction of family housing. Greg felt
that owned was better than rented. Greg was in agreement that the SDD was the appropriate •
mechanism for this. In response to the Town Manager's concerns, Greg said that when the PEC
reviewed the Public Works site, it required housing. This was a step in the right direction In
addressing that issue. Greg agreed with Greg Amsden regarding the materials used and the cost
of future maintenance. Greg agreed with Henry on the landscaping issue. Greg lifted the design
and had no problem with it.
Jim Lamont said the East Village Homeowner's Association favored this zone district. The time
that has elapsed for the public right-of-way was well beyond the prescriptive rights. That portion
not owned by the Town should be dedicated to the Town of Vail.
Greg Moffet asked if the proposed MDMF zone district was an upzoning.
Andy Knudtsen said, yes. He further stated that this project was treated no differently than
others. He felt the GRFA was low enough so that the right of way concerns would be a moot
issue.
Tom Braun summarized all the comments. He stated that everyone was comfortable with the
SDD, with the exception of Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland. The vehicular circulation to be
worked out by the Town Engineer. He said that they would look at the stream access corridor
and study the building orientation with more landscaping between the road and the project. The
Army Corp had no interest,in the small area of wetlands. Tom said that Russ Forest will walk it •
with him.
Andy Knudtsen stated that an Environmental Impact analysis had been done.
Tom Braun thought that dedicating open space was fairly unique for this type of project, but that
he would look into it, as well as the fiat roofs.
Planning and Fnvironmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 12
Greg Moffet said the SDD stated a complete review was to go to the DRB and he thanked the
presenters.
0 Jim Morter asked if there was one priority given the constraiants of the right-of-way.
The PEC said landscaping.
Jim Morter said that public safety would dictate the road right-of-way issues.
Pat Dauphinais said the original concept was to get the best possible product for the least
money.
Greg Moffet suggested that the applicants talk to Jeff Bowen regarding having trees donated for
this project from Trees for Vail.
6. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi -community events and
activities.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Lauren Waterton said staff has had more and more requests from hotel operators who wanted
banners to welcome conferences, etc. Staff has had to deny these requests, because they don't
•meet the sign code, but perhaps to promote conferences coming to Vail, we should take another
look at the request. This would require a policy change and a change to the sign code. Staff
was looking to receive some direction from the PEC.
Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that he might have a potential conflict of interest, since he
was in the business. If anyone had a problem with him participating in this discussion, please
say so.
John Schofield said, in his dealing with Ski Club activities, any over the counter situations to
speed up the process was good.
Mike Mollica said special event banners were already allowed.
John Schofield suggested incorporating all banners into one policy.
Gene Uselton said he enjoyed seeing banners on Bridge Street. The down side was that there
would be banners everywhere.
Lauren Waterton stated that special events were those that benefitted the community and
banners are allowed for those events.
is Mike Mollica suggested pursuing Option No. 2 in the memo. Our current policy is subject to staff
interpretation and staff would recommend codification.
Greg Moffet asked if Garton's had special events?
Lauren Waterton yes, but this discussion was in reference to hotels at this point.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 13