HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-05 Town Council MinutesWORK SESSION MINUTES
Tuesday, November 5,1996
12:00 noon
Library Community Room
What follows constitutes actions taken by the Vail Town Council at their regular work session:
1. Council voted unanimously to contribute $5,000 toward a group effort to recognize
athletic achievements. Motion by Sybil] Navas with a second by Kevin Foley. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0 (Jewett absent).
2. Council moved to adopt recommendations attached hereto regarding the Vail Valley
Marketing Board, the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, and the Vail Commission on
Special Events and Activities. Motion by Ludwig Kurz with a second by Rob Ford. A vote was
taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Foley against; Jewett absent).
3. Consideration of the Planning Commission meeting, October 28, 1996 and Design
• Review Board meeting on October 16, 1996, was taken,
•
•
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Continue your practice of appointing the most qualified, creative individuals to VVMB
seats.
It. Invest in marketing at the previously discussed levels:
100% of business license fees - Marketing fund
$183,750 general fund - Marketing fund
$135,000 - Special events (VVTCB)
$100,000 - Visitors' Centers (VVTCB)
III. Amend contract between VVTCB and Town of Vail to include the following.
A. VVTCB to coordinate selection of Vail Commission
on Special Events and Activities, composed of the
following:
1. VVTCB Director of Special Events,
• Chairman
2. Village Merchants Association
member who is also a TOV business
license holder.
3. Lionshead Merchants Association
member who is also a TOV business
license holder.
4. Vail Town Council member
5. VRD staff member
6. Vail Valley Foundation staff member
7. Vail Associates staff member
B. Purpose of the group is to coordinate and
implement an event underwriting program to
encourage the expansion of existing events and the
development of new events within the Vail Town
Limits, with long term marketing potential.
. C. Develop within the VVTCB budgeting process an
"Events Support" fund, isolated from other VVTCB
funds, similar to the Marketing fund, to be no less
than $60,000 to be used specifically for purposes
outlined in 'B" above. Dollars remaining in this
fund at the end of 1997 will be carried forward for
the same purposes in subsequent years.
„tiJLib:
VAIL VALLEY
TOURISM lX A� CONVENTION BUREAU V
100 East Meadow Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657
MEMO
October 31, 1996
TO- Vail Town Council
FROM: Frank Johnson, President VVTCB
Bill Brice, Director of Special Events VVTCB
RE: Redirection of Vail Specific Special Events
Due to the questions asked of you by several merchants relative to Vail specific
marketing, the VVTCB staff has met with your staff several times over the past month to
reexamine our approach to administering the special events funding received from the Vail Town
Council. We believe that the most powerful tool available to focus customer attention
specifically on Vail is the development of additional events and enhancement of existing events*
at Ford Park, Gore Creek Promenade, Bridge Street and Lionshead Mall.
Our original proposal and subsequent contractual relationship with the Vail Town
Government in 1994 addressed services the VVTCB would perform for the Town Government
with respect to coordinating the activities of the VVMB, executing existing events and
developing new ones, and enhancing the operation of the Visitors Centers. The feeling at that
time was that this consolidation and focus would enable the town to gain more impact for fewer
dollars expended than it had through its previous, fragmented approach to funding various events
individually funding the visitors centers as reactive "information" booths, and having the
Marketing Board's efforts carried out without appropriate coordination with either the special
events effort, the VVTCB's existing programs, or Vail Associates' summer activities.
The VVTCB Board and staff is extremely pleased that through this synergistic approach,
we have been able to leverage the Town's investment in these marketing activities, focus our
advertising and PR campaigns to better support existing events and activities and expand the
impact of both the Memorial Day Whitewater Festival and the Oktoberfest, resulting in real
growth in summer revenue and sales tax. This has all been accomplished while keeping the •
Town's investment (not counting the business license fee revenue) at or below 1993's spending
levels.
Attached are recommendations for 1997 that we believe will address your priority of increasing
income into Vail, specifically during the summer months, while continuing to wisely leverage
your investment with dollars from Avon, Beaver Creek and other businesses to produce
maximum impact.
Central Reservations I-800-525-3875 Group Sales (970) 479 2360 Business Office (970) 476-1000
Group Sales 1-800-775-8245 FAX, (970) 479-2364 FAX (970) 476.6008
WORK SESSION MINUTES
Tuesday, December 17, 199d
1:00 P.M.
Town of Vail Council Chambers
What follows constitutes formal motions and actions taken by the Vail Town Council at their
regular work session on December 17, 1996. All members were present.
1. Tom Moorhead was directed to put terms and conditions together for a lease with the Vail
Alpine Garden in regard to both their current Garden space as well as the Educational Center
proposed location at the soccer field parking lot. Such documents to be held until after Council
approval of the Ford Park Management Plan at their evening meeting on February 18, 1997.
2. Bob advised Council the computer replacement currently being studied by Steve
Thompson and staff has a revised price tag of between $550,000 and $575,000. Council stated
they should move forward.
•
r1L
'MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
November 5, 1996
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, in the Council Chambers of
trail Municipal 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
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Volunteer Maxine Miller updated Council members on the
progress made during the Vail Tomorrow conference held the past weekend. 185 participants were presented with
11 goals, placed into small groups, and asked to identify those goals which should receive top priority, she said.
Consensus was reached and the top four items on the immediate action list included: Natural and Built
ErApnment, Affordable Housing, Building Community and Regional Cooperation. Mayor Armour commended
thWinvolved in the program. Participant Monica Benderley thanked Council for taking the first steps necessary
to implement the Vail Tomorrow process.
Next, Vail resident Gordon Crown encouraged the Town to provide better lighting on the bike path on N. Frontage
Road between Timber Ridge and the pedestrian overpass. He said visibility problems on the path lead to an almost
fatal accident back in September, and stressed the importance of improved lighting.
Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items:
A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of October 1 and 15, 1996.
B. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1996, second 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.
Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to approve the Consent
Agenda. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Third on the agenda was a review of the proposed Master Planning process for the Lionshead
R�velopment project. Town of Vail Community Development Director, Susan Connelly presented the item and
pr ed the following background: On June 4, 1996, Dave Corbin of Vail Associates Real Estate Group, ("VARE")
presented a proposal to Council for a joint study of redevelopment opportunities in Lionshead. Since then, a team
composed of town staff, representatives of VARE, and professional consultants have regularly met to analyze
problems and opportunities in Lionshead and has come up with a master planning process which includes:
(1) Problem/Opportunity Statement
(2) Policy Objectives
(3) Master Planning Scope of Work
(4) Community Participation Plan
(5) Master Plan Process Schedule
(6) The Process Ground Rules
(7) Proposed collaboration, including cost -sharing, with Vail Associates (Budget)
and authorization of the Town Manager to execute:
(1) Contract for Professional Services between Town of Vail and Design Workshop, Inc.
(2) A letter agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates regarding the Master Planning collaboration,
including cost sharing
Coq� it was asked to consider approval of the processes as listed above, including the authorization of a $300,000
exK*diture (one-half of the $600,000 budget) to move forward with the planning process. VARE committed to
funding the remaining $300,000. $400,000 will be used for master planning and $200,000 for financial analysis.
Town Manager Bob McLaurin expressed his desire to move forward with the process, stating it was a tremendous
opportunity for the Town to address an issue that had long been neglected. As the discussion continued, Council
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes November 6, 1996
members Mike Jewett and Kevin Foley recommended waiting two weeks to allow the community time to hear about the
proposal and to give members of the community the opportunity to voice their opinions. They were also hesitant, they
said because the budget had yet to be adopted.
McLaurin and Connelly pointed out that significant public input had already been given, and that those involved had
unanimously supported the Lionshead redevelopment process. Community Relations Officer, Suzanne Silverthorne said
those involved in the participation process included the "usual suspects" as well as a list of stakeholders in the Lionshead
area presentation from Lionshead merchants, the community at large, and Vail Village merchants.
Mayor Armour reminded those in attendance that the redevelopment of Lionshead had been on the agenda of past
councils for many years, and reiterated the proposal was tremendous opportunity for all involved which should be
taken advantage of.
Dave Corbin told Council members that the Town's initial investment of $300,000 was only a fraction of the amount
that would go into the project, and encouraged the Council to move forward expeditiously.
David Kenney of Design Workshop, Inc., informed Council of the process his company had proposed as consultant
for the project and said his company would complete a database which could be utilized by the Town over and over
again.
Council members acknowledged the magnitude of the project and clarified Vail Associates' role as a catalyst and a
partner having no more outcome advantages than any other interests involved in the process.
Rob Levine, General Manager of the Antler's Lodge in Lionshead and a representative of the Lionshead Merchant's
Association, urged Council to move forward with the process, stating that the priority of the Lionshead Master plan
had increased each year since he was first elected to Council in 1989.
Jim loont of the East Village Homeowners Association asked that the study area be enlarged to include key
transp rtation and pedestrian corridors, and for communication directly with individual property owners throughout the
process.
Rob Ford moved to approve the proposed master planning process for the Lionshead redevelopment, as
recommended by staff, and the motion was seconded by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2, Kevin
Foley and Mike Jewett voting in opposition.
Rob then moved to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract for professional services between Town of
Vail and Design Workshop, Inc.; and to execute a letter agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates
regarding the Master Planning collaboration, including cost sharing, as recommended by staff, pending review by
Council. Paul seconded the motion and a vote was then taken which passed, 5-2, Kevin and Mike voting in
opposition.
Agenda item number four was Ordinance No, 21, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance to designate 14
properties located in the Town of Vail as open space as provided in Article 13, Section 13.11 of the Charter of the
Town of Vail, Colorado. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead and Environmental Health
Officer, Russell Forrest presented the item and gave the following background: A Charter Amendment, which created
a process to "freeze open space uses," was approved by the Vail Voters in November of 1995. The Open Space
Boar§WTrustees met on June 13th and 17th of 1996 to develop and decide on a list of properties for designation.
The mittee unanimously agreed to the properties identified in Attachment A of the November 5, 1996 memo to
Council. In July, the Vail Town Council met to review the list of 14 properties and directed staff to move forward with
the necessary survey work and to prepare an ordinance to designate the properties as open space. The staff
recommendation was for approval of Ordinance 21, Series of 1996. Russell explained that all 14 parcels,
approximately 382 acres, were owned by the Town and were zoned appropriately as open space.
Jim Lamont thanked Council for the action taken in designating the properties as permanent open space.
Rob moved to approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996 on first reading and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda item number five was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Special District
No. 21, the Vail Gateway Building, and amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. The applicant, Vail
Apartment, Inc. (Owner of Unit 5) was represented by Steve Riden. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther presented the
item and reminded Council of a site visit on September 17, and their decision at that evening's meeting to table the item
until such time as the applicant could provide Community Development with an approval letter from the Vail Gateway
Plaza Condominium Association, and that the illegal, neon illumination on the directory sign located on the west side of
the Gateway Building, be removed and brought into compliance with the original DRB approval. George then informed
Courmembers that approval had been received as evidenced by a letter dated September 30, 1996 from Norman R.
Helwi and further that the illegal directory sign had been disconnected.
Rob moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, on first reading, and the motion was seconded by Sybill. A
vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Sixth on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin said the Library/Dobson Arena chute
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Novena:er 5, 1996
'construction project would be completed on Friday, November 8, 1996.
Assistant Town Manager, Pam Brandmeyer informed Council members of Vail's 30 year birthday celebration to be
held in conjunction with the opening of the newly renovated Transportation Center, She said the event had been
scheduled for Friday, December 6, which coincides with the World Cup and Crystal Ball, and encouraged all to mark
their calendars for the 1:00 p.m. ribbon cutting ceremony.
Abeing no further business 'a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:40 p.m.
Respectfutly submitted,
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly`McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by HoLLy McCutcheon
ONames of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
•
Vail Town council Evening Meefng PhIMM Novembers, 1996
I
TOWN OF VAIL
,aSouth Frontage Road
4 Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
November 6, 1996
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR NOVEMBER 5
Work Session
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett*, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
*Arrived late
--Award for Excellence in Athletics, Education or the Arts
After hearing a presentation by John Garnsey of the Vail Valley Foundation, the Council
voted 6-0 to approve $5,000 in council contingency to provide seed money for a grant
Is program to help sponsor local individuals who excel in sports and possibly other
endeavors. Gamsey said the Vail Valley Foundation would serve as a facilitator to
launch the effort. The foundation and Beaver Creek Resort Company have agreed to
support the program, each pledging $10,000. A commission will be formed with
representation from each of the funding partners to award the grants. Garnsey said
support also has been requested from the Town of Avon and Vail Associates.
--Response to Vail Village Merchants request re: Vail Valley Marketing Board Funding
The Council voted 5-1 (Foley against) to approve a series of modifications to the annual
contract between the town and the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau (VVTCB)
for marketing, special events and operation of the visitors centers. The action occurred
after Frank Johnson, VVTCB president, appeared before the Council and asked for
support to:
1) Continue the Town of Vail's practice of appointing qualified individuals to the
Vail Valley Marketing Board (regardless of residency). Two seats will be up for
appointment at the end of the year.
2) Continue to invest 100 percent of the town's business license fees to the Vail
Valley Marketing Board (as opposed to a split requested by a committee of Vail
• Village merchants).
3) Amend the contract between the VVTCB and TOV to include:
VVTCB coordination of selection of the Vail Commission on Special Events and
Activities. As amended, the commission would include the VVTCB's director of
special events as chairman, plus representation from the Village Merchants
Association, Lionshead Merchants Association, Vail Town Council, Vail
Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation and Vail Associates. The contract
also clarifies the commission's focus: to coordinate and implement an event
underwriting program to encourage the expansion of existing events and the
(more)
Leh* RECYCLEDPAPER
TOV Highlights/Add 1
development of new events within the Vail Town limits, with long term marketing
potential. A third amendment to the contract develops an "Events Support" fund
within the VVTCB structure.
During discussion from the audience, Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn criticized
Johnson for not sharing the proposal with the Village merchants beforehand. He asked
the Council to delay its decision until Kaye Ferry of the Village Merchant Association
could attend an upcoming meeting.
--Review of Capital Improvements Program
During an overview of the 1997-98 budget (refer to news release issued 11-5), the
Council asked for more time to review the capital improvements program. The request
followed a discussion on the status of the proposed water district -town affordable
housing development on Red Sandstone Road. The 17-unit development, in
partnership with the water and sanitation district, is intended to house critical employees
for both the water district and the Town of Vail. The proposed budget recommends a
$1.3 million pass -through to finance construction, with the money being repaid to the
town through the sale of the deed -restricted units to those individual property owners.
But several Council members wondered if the town would be better off renting the units
to critical employees rather than selling them. In that case, the capital improvements
budget would need to be increased by $1.3 million, or other projects deferred. The •
Council will continue its discussion on the issue at the Nov. 12 work session.
--Discussion of Open Space Ordinance
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed an ordinance that would
place 14 town -owned properties in a designated open space status in accordance with
a charter amendment approved by Vail voters last November. The properties, totaling
382 acres, represent one-third of the Town of Vail -owned open space land holdings.
Properties placed in the designated status will remain as open space in perpetuity
unless Vail voters decide otherwise. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners
Association encouraged the town to consider other parcels for the designation as phase
two of the process.
--Lionshead Master Planning
Community Development Director Susan Connelly presented a brief overview of the
Lionshead Master Planning Process recommendation which was forwarded to the
Council at its evening meeting. (See evening meeting briefs).
--Council Reports
Mayor Bob Armour reported on his activities, including attendance at board meetings
for the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau and the Colorado Association of Ski
Towns, in addition to his participation in the Vail Tomorrow outreach meetings with part-
time residents in Denver, Chicago and New York.
Kevin Foley commended Christine Anderson and others in the town's Finance
Department for developing a mail and phone. order system for the purchase of parking
passes and coupons, while Paul Johnston commended the Fire Department for
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 2
rsuppression of the latest fire at Village Center,
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
Maxine Miller, a member of the Vail Tomorrow coordinating group, presented an update
on the community conference held Nov. 1 and 2. Now that four goal areas have been
prioritized for action, she said there is a sense of excitement building in the community
with concrete ideas to facilitate the goals. The conference attracted more than 185,
participants, she said, with more than 100 of them volunteering to work on action
teams. Also, more than 600 ideas were brainstormed at the conference. Also speaking
yesterday was Monica Benderly, another member of the Vail Tomorrow coordinating
group. Benderly thanked the Town Council for taking the initiative to help facilitate the
process. Mayor Bob Armour acknowledged the positive response he's received by both
full-time and part-time residents. He said outreach visits to Denver, Chicago and New
York had been extremely well received by Vail's second homeowners in those cities.
Next, Gordon Crown appeared before the Council to ask for assistance in getting lights
installed on the recreation path between Timber Ridge and the pedestrian bridge. He
noted the serious pedestrian -bicycle accident that occurred earlier this year and
encouraged the town to improve the situation. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he
was aware of Brown's concerns and was looking into the matter.
--Lionshead Redevelopment, Proposed Master Planning Process
The Council voted 5-2 (Jewett and Foley against) to begin a 10-month-long master .
planning process for redevelopment in Lionshead. In voting against the action, Jewett
and. Foley had asked to postpone the vote for two weeks to talk with constituents. In
voting to move ahead, Councilmember Sybill Navas noted the planning process is
based on talking to constituents. Yesterday's action authorized the town to cost -share
the $600,000 process ($400,000 master planning and $200,000 financial analysis)
through a public -private partnership with Vail Associates picking up half the cost. The
appropriation is included in the 1997-98 proposed budget presented to the Town
Council this week. In approving the action, Council members acknowledged the
magnitude of the project, clarified Vail Associates' role as a catalyst and as a partner
(having no more outcome advantages than any other interests involved in the process),
reaffirmed its commitment to involve the community in each step of the process,
•clarified the appropriateness of contracting with the firm Design Workshop, Inc. for
professional services, and reviewed a framework for the project, including a problem
statement, policy objectives and process ground rules. The scope of the work will
involve five stages, each with its own community involvement process, products and
decision points. During discussion from the audience, Rob Levine, representing the
Antler's Lodge and Lionshead Merchant's Association, encouraged the Council to move
forward with the planning process, noting the work had been on the town's "radar
screen" since 1989. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association asked
the study area to be enlarged to include key transportation and pedestrian corridors, in
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 3
addition to communicating directly with individual property owners throughout the
process. Once in place, the master plan will serve as a framework for decision -making
on specific development and redevelopment proposals for all private and public lands in
Lionshead. A redevelopment concept presented in June by Vail Associates has served
as a catalyst for the master plan. For a detailed copy of the master planning process
proposal, please contact Suzanne Silverthorn at 479-2115.
--Open Space Ordinance
The Council voted 7-0 to approve an ordinance on first reading to designate 14 town -
owned properties into a special open space classification. The classification, created
by voter -approval of a Charter amendment last November, protects those properties In
perpetuity unless designated otherwise by a townwide vote. The properties, 382 in all,
represent one-third of the town's land holdings. For more information, contact Russell
Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146.
--Vail Gateway Building Special Development District
The Council voted 7 to 0 to approve on first reading an ordinance amending the Vail
Gateway Special Development District. The amendment allows for an exterior addition
of 460 square feet to Condominium Unit No. 5. For more information, contact George
Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
November 12 Work Session
Capital Improvements and RETT Budget/Departmental Budget Presentations
Employee Recognition for 10, 15 and 20 Years of Service
Vail Commons Second Lottery
Policy Discussion re: For Sale vs. Rental at Red Sandstone
U.S. Forest Service Exchange (Executive Session)
November 19 Work Session
Site Visit, Campisi Appeal
Site Visit and Discussion, Re: Red Sandstone Housing
Amendment Discussion re: Ordinance No. 16, SDD #5, Savoy Villas
Discussion Ordinance No. 22, Test Amendment to CC2 Zone District
November 19 Evening Meeting
Second Reading Ordinance No. 17, SDD #21 Amendment
Second Reading Ordinance No. 21, Designated Open Space .
First Reading Ordinance No. 20, Red Sandstone Rezoning
First Reading Ordinance No. 18, SDD #5 Amendment
First Reading Ordinance No. 22, CC2 Zone District Amendment
First Reading Ordinance No. 23, 1997-98 Budget
First Reading Ordinance No. 24, SDD Red Sandstone
Campisi Appeal
r-
MEMORANDUM ' COPY
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: November 11, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Savoy Villas/Samba RunNail Run)
to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the
Savoy Villas development located at 1230 Lions Ridge Loop and described as
follows:
That pan of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof
recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows:
Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the
westerly lines of said map; 1) NO3°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N121593WE 144.72 feet; 3) N17°56'03"
70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13116'03"W 157.26 feet; thence S76°43'57"E 91.50
feet; thence N13°16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76°4357"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map;
thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24°44'57"E
52.38 feet; 2) S52150'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less;
and
That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of
the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the
southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37°09'31"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet
along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10'49'06", and a
chord that bears N42° 13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N36°48'48" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02'08'12", and a chord that bears
1\137°52'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba
Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado,
Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21 °51'28"W
69.90 feet; 2) S17156'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12150'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03'33'01"W 160.79 feet to
the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52°50'29"W 113.08
feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less.
Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment to modify the approved development plan
for Phases 2 and 3 of Savoy Villas, located in Phase II, Development Area B, in Special
Development District #5 (Simba Run/Vail Run). The property is located at 1230 Lions Ridge
Loop and is bounded by the Timber Ridge Apartments to the west, the North Frontage Road to
the south, Simba Run to the east, and Lions Ridge Loop to the north.
BACKGROUND
Ordinance #6, Series of 1976, originally established SDD #5 and set the parameters for the
development of the Vail Run Building. Ordinance #29, Series of 1977, amended and expanded
the SDD to include the addition of 6.3 acres immediately to the west of Vail Run and divided the
SDD into what is now known as Development Area A (Vail Run) and Development Area B
(Simba Run/Savoy Villas). The development standards for both areas were specifically
stipulated in this ordinance. SDD #5 was further modified by the passage of Ordinance #33,
Series of 1978, and Ordinance #24, Series of 1986.
On August 17, 1993, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #16, Series of.1993. This
ordinance significantly modified the approved development plan for the western portion, or what
is now known as Phase II, of Development Area B. The original development plan for the Phase
II portion of the Simba Run development included one large building. This building was designed
to be similar to the existing Simba Run buildings (Phase 1), which are located immediately to the
east. These buildings were approximately 260 feet in length and approximately 250 feet in width.
The original project was designed to take access off of Lions Ridge Loop (one curb cut) and
included a fairly large surface parking area, as well as one level of underground (structured)
parking.
The 1993 amendment included a series of six smaller buildings know as Savoy Villas (Phases 1,
2, and 3). The proposal included 4 four-plex buildings and one four unit employee housing
building, all of which took access off of Lions Ridge Loop to the north. The sixth building was a
tri-plex, taking access from the existing Simba Run driveway adjacent to the North Frontage
Road. The parking for the project was almost equally divided between enclosed parking and
surface parking. On the northern bench of this site, each condominium was proposed to have a
one -car garage, and on the lower, or southern part of this site, each condominium would have
had a two -car garage. Architecturally, the design was very similar to that of the existing Simba
Run project, although smaller in scale. Upon approval of Ordinance #16, Series of 1993, the
remaining number of dwelling units and GRFA on the property was reduced to zero for the entire
Development Area B. Also included in Ordinance #16, Series of 1993, was a requirement to
construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and grant a
public access easement to the Town of Vail.
The 1993 amendment originally consisted of nineteen condominium units and four deed -
restricted employee housing units. The application was later modified at the Town Council
review in order to allow for one additional dwelling unit and to permanently deed -restrict three
existing condominium units (Units 2207, 2401, and 2402) in the Simba Run development (Phase
1) as Type III employee housing units. In exchange for the permanent restriction of these three
units, the Council agreed to release the existing employee housing restrictions on three
additional dwelling units in Simba Run (Units 1201, 1205 and 2205), which although they were
required to be employee housing units, had deed restrictions which would soon expire, allowing
them to become free-market dwelling units.
0
SDD #5 was most recently amended in 1995 by Ordinance No, 7, Series of 1995. That
amendment provided the following changes:
•Relocation of One Condominium Unit - The 1993 SDD amendment was approved by the
PEC with a total of nineteen dwelling units. However, when the project was reviewed by
the Town Council, a twentieth unit was approved. This dwelling unit was added to
Building #5 of Savoy Villas (Phase 2).
eRelocation of Two Deed -Restricted Emnlovee Housino Units -The applicant agreed to
deed restrict 5 existing dwelling units as Type III EHUs in Simba Run and deed restrict
two dwelling units in Building #5, Savoy Villas (Phase 2). The deed restrictions on the 5
units in Simba Run have now been executed and recorded.
•Reduction in Office Area - The 1993 approved development plan included a 1,302
square foot office space located on the entire lower level of the employee housing
building (Building #5). The applicant amended the plan in order to relocate one of the two
remaining employee housing units in Building #5, thereby reducing the size of the office
space to 686 square feet.
*Relocation of Triolex Drivewav - The 1993 approved development plan showed that the
proposed driveway access to the three townhouse units on the lower bench of the site
was originally proposed via the existing Simba Run curb cut off of the North Frontage
Road. The amended plan modified the development plan, providing a new curb cut
adjacent to the western property line to be used solely for the three dwelling units.
is e Reduction in Surface Parkina Soaces - The 1993 approved development plan showed a
seven space, unenclosed, parking area between the easternmost four-plex (Building #4)
and Building #5. As a result of the transfer of two employee housing units from Building
#5 to the Simba Run Building and the relocation of the "twentieth" condominium unit to
the upper bench, which includes a two -car garage, there was a net reduction in the
parking requirement. Three unenclosed parking spaces were eliminated on the property.
• Relocation of the Pedestrian Path - The 1993 approved development plan shows that
the pedestrian path traverses the Phase 11 property from the north (between Building #5
and Building #4) to a point midway down the property to the south, at which time it then
crosses onto the Simba Run property. The approved plan also called for the bike path
adjacent to the North Frontage Road to be realigned to accommodate the proposed
driveway to the triplex. The amended plan provided a pedestrian path between Building
# 3 and Building #4, south to the bike path along the North Frontage Road.
*Ghana to the Architectural Character of Buildino_s 5# and #6 - The architectural
character of the buildings was slightly modified.
•
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Currently Buildings #1 and #2 are constructed on the site. Design Review approval has been
given for Building #3 and #4 and they will be developed according to the 1995 plan, which
remains unchanged for this portion of the site.
Building #5, under the 1995 plan and SDD ordinance, contained 3 units, 2 of which were EHUs.
The plan also included a 686 sq. ft. office space for the condominium association and a 466 sq.
ft. two -car garage for the free-market unit.
At the October 14, 1996 PEC meeting, the PEC recommended that the applicant modify the
proposed plan to provide a three bedroom EHU and two enclosed garage spaces. The applicant
has provided the recommended changes. As discussed with the PEC, the proposed plan adds
an additional floor to the building for a total of four stories, one of which is substantially below
grade. Additionally, the building envelope is expanded slightly from the 1995 approval, with the
addition of 126 sq. ft. of site coverage.
The number of enclosed parking spaces now remains unchanged from the 1995 approval.
However, the percentage of enclosed parking in Savoy Villas has been reduced, due to the
increase in the surface spaces on -site, from 52% (24 spaces) in 1995 to 49% (24 spaces) in
1996.
The proposed modification to the 1995 approved plans includes an increase in the number
of free-market units and GRFA in Savoy Villas, by adding 1,308 sq. ft. of GRFA and one
additional unit to Building #5 in Phase 2, for a total of 21 units for the entire project. .
Building #5 will now contain 2 free-market units and 2 Type III EHUs. One EHU will contain 600
sq. ft. of GRFA and the other EHU is a three bedroom unit containing 1,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The
2 free-market units will contain at total of 2,427 sq, ft. of GRFA. Common area stairways contain
414 sq. ft. of floor area (not included as GRFA). Therefore, this structure will contain 4,327
sq. ft. of GRFA total.
The parking required for these 4 units is 8 parking spaces. Two parking spaces are required for
each free-market unit, 3 spaces are required for the three bedroom EHU, and 1 parking space is
required for the one bedroom EHU (since this EHU is 600 sq. ft. or less in GRFA). The proposed
plan provides 6 surface spaces and 2 enclosed parking spaces for Building #5.
The pedestrian path required for the development by the previous approval has been relocated
between Buildings #2 and #3 and connects with the driveway proposed for Phase 3 (Building #6).
The floor plans show a deck which extends into the 10' utility easement along the east property
line. The applicant has indicated that they will pursue an encroachment agreement to allow the
third level deck, but if they are unsuccessful at obtaining such agreements from all utility
companies, and the Town of Vail, they will remove the proposed deck.
The remainder of the plan remains unchanged from the previous approval. .
The 1995 ordinance has many specific requirements with respect to the phasing of the
development, the recordation of the pedestrian, bike path (public access), and drainage
easements, the timing of the recordation of EHU restrictions, and the final approval of the access
to the North Frontage Road by CDOT and the Town Engineer.
4
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
Listed below is the zoning analysis for Savoy Villas, located in Development Area B of Simba Run.
• Zoning: SOD #5 (with no underlying zoning)
Lot area: 1.66 acres or 67,953.6 sq. ft.
Overall Savov Villas
tandard 1995 Plan
1996 Plan
Chane
Units (free-market): 20 units
21 units
+1 unit
EHUs 2 units
2 units
n/c
GRFA (free-market): 33,449 sq. ft.
34,274 sq. ft.
+825 sq. ft.
GRFA (EHUs): 1.417 so. ft.
1,900 sq. ft.
+483 so. ft.
GRFA (total): 34,866 sq. ft.
36,174 sq. ft.
+1,308 sq. ft.
Parking: 46 spaces
49 spaces
+3 spaces
Enclosed parking: 24 spaces (52%)
24 spaces (490%)
Site Coverage: 16,921 sq, ft, (25%)
17,047 sq. ft. (25%)
+126 sq. ft.
Phase 1. Savov Villas (Buildinas #1 and #2 as constructed)
•
Standar
1995 Plan
1996 Plan
Charigg
Units (free-market):
8 units
8 units
n!c
EHUs
0 units
0 units
n/c
GRFA (free-market):
13,272 sq- ft,
n/c
n/c
Parking:
16 spaces
n/c
nlc
Enclosed parking:
8 spaces (501/6)
n/c
n/c
Site Coverage:
6,060 sq. ft.
n/c
n/c
Phase 2. Savov Villas
(Buildings #3. 44. and #5)
Standard
1995 Plan
1996 Plan
Change
Units (free-market):
9 units
10 units
+1 unit
EHUs
2 units
2 units
n/c
GRFA (free-market):
14,874 sq. ft.
15,699 sq. ft.
+825 sq. ft.
GRFA (EHUs):
1,417 so. ft.
1.900 so. ft.
+483 sq. ft.
GRFA (total):
16,291 sq. ft.
17,599 sq. ft.
+1,308 sq. ft.
Parking:
21 spaces
24 spaces
+3 spaces
Enclosed parking:
10 spaces (48%)
10 spaces (42%)
Site Coverage:
7,550 sq. ft.
7,676 sq. ft.
+126 sq. ft.
5
Phase 3. Savov Villas (Butldlna #61
Standard
1595 Plan
1996 Plan
Change
Units (free-market):
3 units
3 units
n/c
EHUs
0 units
0 units
n/c
GRFA (free-market):
5,303 sq. ft.
n/c
n/c
Parking:
9 spaces
n/c
We
Enclosed parking:
6 spaces (66.6%)
n/c
n/c.
Site Coverage:
3,311 sq. ft.
n/c
n/c
V. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL DENSITY FOR SDD #5
Bev. Area A (Nall Run)
Dev, Area B (91mba
Runt Bev. Area B (Savov VIA
Total for SBD #5
Max. GRFA
(free-market Units):
43,000 sq. ft.
91,572 sq. fl.
34,274 sq. h.
168,846 sq. h,
Max. GRFA
(EHU Units):
0 sa. ft.
3,836 sq, h.
1,900 sq. ft.
5,736 so. h.
Total GRFA:
43,000 sq. ft,
95,408 sq. ft.
36,174 eq. ft.
174,582 sq. ff.
Max. # of Units
(free-market):
55 units
90 units
21 units
166 units
Max. # of Units
(EH Us):
0 units
5 unit
2 units
7 units
Total Units:
55 units
95 units
23 units
173 units
6
L_J
F
i
VI. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of the special development district is to:
... encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to
promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of
new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical
provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of
open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in
the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special
development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property. included
in the special development district."
The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utilized by the Planning and
Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD amendment proposals:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale,
bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and
orientation.
The staff believes that the applicant has done a reasonable job with the overall site
planning of the project to insure that the project meets this criterion. Staff believes that
M the proposed modifications to the approved plan are minor with respect to the overall
project. The proposal does not change the orientation of the buildings. The plan slightly
increases the site coverage of Building #5, increases the bulk and mass of Building #5 by
adding an additional story to the building, and increases the height of Building #5 to 46'
(an 8' increase). However, staff does not believe the increase in building height, bulk and
mass, or site coverage will have a negative effect on adjacent properties. Staff does
have a concern, however, with the architectural quality of the north elevation for Building
#5. Specifically, the proposed bay windows on this elevation have a "tacked on"
appearance which appears incompatible with the architecture of the remainder of this
structure and adjacent structures within Savoy Villas. Staff believes this elevation
(particularly the fenestration) needs to be redesigned to correct this issue.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
It is staff's position that the approved residential use of this site, and the proposed
amendment, is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The
proposed density on Savoy Villas (number of units) is being increased by one free-market
dwelling unit, as a result of this amendment request. The resulting density of twenty-one
free-market units and two deed restricted employee housing units is compatible with the
. High Density Residential identification that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan has placed on
this property.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
118.52.
The proposal for Savoy Villas provides 49 total parking spaces, 24 (49%) of which are
enclosed garage spaces. The 1995 plan provided 46 total parking spaces for Savoy
Villas, 24 (52%) of which were enclosed garage spaces. The number of parking spaces
has been increased by 3 spaces.
The original SDD ordinance required 85% of the parking on the entire site (Savoy Villas,
Simba Run and Vail Run) to be enclosed parking. The 1995 approval allowed a deviation
to this requirement, allowing 84.40%to be enclosed. This request will allow an overall
percentage of enclosed spaces, to total required spaces, of 84.2%. Staff believes the
change in enclosed parking is minimal and therefore meets this criterion.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plans.
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies this area as High Density
Residential (HDR). High Density Residential is defined in the Land Use
Plan as follows:
"The housing in this category would typically consist of multi -floored
structures with densities exceeding fifteen dwelling units per buildable
acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational
facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as .
churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities."
The overall density of Savoy Villas is 13.5 units/acre (excluding the 2 EHUs). The
overall density of SDD #5 is approximately 18.8 units/acre (excluding the 7 EHUs).
2. The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which
relate to this proposal:
Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled
environment, maintaining a balance between
residential, commercial and recreational uses to
serve both the visitor and permanent resident.
Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional
growth in existing developed areas (in -fill areas).
Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not
exist.
Goal 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts, assisted by limited
incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the
market place demands for a full range of housing
types.
Goal 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional employee
housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community.
The staff believes that the proposed amendment to the approved development
plan is in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
Savoy Villas is located within a high severity rockfall hazard zone. The applicant's
geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has reviewed the 1993 approved development plan and has
stated that the berming along Lions Ridge Loop (south side), combined with internal
mitigation for the two eastern -most buildings, is sufficient to mitigate the rockfall hazard.
The proposed amendment to the approved development plan should not have major
effects on the previously approved rockfall mitigation plan for the property, however, an
updated hazard report is required prior to the issuance of a building permit for Building
#5.
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 the community.
The landscaping is slightly impacted due to the additional surface parking space being
provided. However, the landscaping on the balance of the site remains the same.
Overall, staff believes that the landscaping plan generally provides adequate screening
and green space throughout the site.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off -site traffic circulation.
Site Plan/Vehicular Access.
The proposed access to the site remains unchanged from the 1995 approval.
Pedestrian Access.
As mentioned previously, the ordinance which approved the existing development plan
includes a condition that the applicant construct and maintain a public pedestrian path
• through the property, in order to allow for continued pedestrian access from the Lions
Ridge Loop area down to the North Frontage Road. The proposed pedestrian path is
relocated slightly by this request.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Staff believes that since Building #5 is increasing in height, that the proposed landscaping
adjacent to this building needs to improved in order to break up the mass of the building.
Specifically, the 5 evergreens proposed to the south of the building and the 3 evergreens
north of the structure (all proposed at 6' - 8') should be increased in size to 12' - 14' in
height. Also, the number and size of Aspens in this area should be increased to further
break up to mass of the building.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the previously approved phasing plan for
the project. The construction of the buildings on the Savoy Villas property will occur in
three phases. Phase I consists of the two condominium buildings (eight dwelling units)
located on the northwest corner of the site (construction completed). Phase 11 consists of
2 four-plex buildings (Buildings #3 and #4) which have been approved based on the 1995
plan, and Building #5 which contains 2 EHUs and 2 free-market units. The final phase of
the project consists of the three townhomes (Building #6) located on the lower bench of
the property. Staff believes that the previously approved phasing plan for the Savoy
Villas project is acceptable.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0
The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major modification to Special
Development District No. 5, subject to the following conditions (` indicates previous condition
found in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995):
1. The applicant provide an update to the hazard report for the property prior to
obtaining a Building Permit for Building #5 of Savoy Villas.
`2. The Town shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in
Building #4 or Building #5 (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan) until such
time as Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and deed restrictions have been
issued for both of the "Type 111" EHU units in Building #5.
�3. The applicant agrees to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through
the property (north to south) and will arrange for the grant of a public access
easement to the Town of Vail prior to the Town's issuance of any TCO for any of
the Phase II condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan).
-4. The applicant shall obtain a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit
for the proposed triplex driveway prior to the Town's issuance of any building or •
grading permits for the three townhomes (Building #6, Phase 3, Savoy Villas)
located on the lower bench of the development.
im
.5. The applicant shall grant to the Town of Vail a drainage easement through the
property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the site
between the proposed Building #5 and Building #4. The developer shall provide
this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the
Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase II
Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan).
-6. The applicant shall provide a bike path easement for any portion of the existing
bike path located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be executed
and submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer
before the Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in
the Phase II Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan).
"7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the three townhouse units in Phase 3
of Savoy Villas, the applicant will receive final approval from the Town of Vail
Engineer regarding driveway location and drainage plans in Phase 3.
8. The building elevations for Building #5 are not approved and must be approved by
the Design Review Board.
9. The applicant shall increase the size of the 8 evergreens adjacent to Building #5
to 12' - 14' in height and shall add additional Aspens of 3" - 4" caliper subject to
the review and approval of the Design Review Board.
. 10, The applicant shall provide executed encroachment agreements for all relevant
utility companies and the Town of Vail for the deck encroachment in the 10' utility
easement along the east property line or shall eliminate the deck encroachment,
prior to submitting the project for review by the Design Review Board.
With the addition of the conditions above, staff believes that the proposed modifications to the
previously approved plan comply with the nine Special Development District review criteria listed
in this memorandum.
f:keveryone\pec\memoalsavoy.nl 1
11
v S.t .
a .;� �,
y
Q
��
s
r-Q__ s
e.
-C.M Yz+rr.
O
-CID
-(P
0
0 fs)
PLANTING LIST
o 0
0 o
0 0 00
. 0
zo, rjjC;Ty Liq tg_TLYx
Il J
o.
Tr_
oLF 0
e..
it
A
-4-
-o,S 1�:g- 614, 1!::.P: 4"
TN:�7" 1 DIpLoY,F__T_, HLio5ir-i.,_
Llti,7—
Y
0
F-1 F7,
71,
A Z6 -ml
14
zri,
EmrLoY5-r- HopfiNc, LJtqi-r AND
0 0
SAVOY VILLAS
4- SPECM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3/8LW.. N..5
VAIL. COWRAJ1D
T FmPLQyEr UNI ;? LAIC fAPA4E
m & ASSOCIATES
JAI
'72: - 6�
Y.
MASTBR B EDROOM
u S'J ur
L FE ,M
hr IF
--. -.—I ---
S',5-T- + UNITS
MAIN ?Z07-COrl
Exvm
0
MASM BEDROOM . j l l 4 I .
II'I, 9 11110-0
qr
.4
. qlzo
16-6
SAVOY VILLAS 15
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 Mr
VAII mi nRAno
2,11' FunR Fmx*-xw-T u-oT6.
ISOM 4 ASSOCIATES
%tit Wei f* 49
i
- _ c__'
e � - - - - , a.oOM � im-F ! I
.�K
ETs,
�
1 flXrr —__ BEDROOM I BIDROpId _ �GEYJC.
;——ruRQ1_7 LEI is .
0
SAVOY VILLAS $[DC-
90"�
SPECWLDEVELOPMENT0157RICTS
Q
VAIL COLORADO
10-.A�
.spy
ISOM &ASSOCIATES
o1A
0
(��u FJ FIIA-T"W
. 1.
oe,
OW
s A v-('3 Y v i L L AS
FLDb
II'
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 5
m
4\
IL. ('01 ORAr)Q
11-5 ?;,
A -
A-
A
,
M—EVATION5
I
r-0Y a7-N! aW Mr/ 14
y'.arc
--------------------------- qw,
- ----
_ i� i
� i 3 J' B e
UNiT
-------------------------
FNIN,' I i I r
i UN Y C 2 Yd I Yi�e htY. 1 7.r 'r
1 j I y I , 1 -•--o
----------� o�`'Mil • ` _ �1.�
i �� pYII 1
in s I
-. .• •. .'' j �cr fro xe `Y n ' LOWFR Le4Fl. PIIJOR. PL"
• a! } r±-� -� ram,` _ `s7 _ O a 0 k .. � --- 3� �
—
:. '
1
L •
a
(� n�— CVEt.1L'o�2FlAN
J1JI
%jt a�� *k (s
. .........
UMrT C-3
-SWR
cc)
E)
fY 7vt a
i� S-
vwrl—l-
Asd
m
xl
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
'voy VILLA88 L
N� '
0 Memorandum
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
Susan Connelly, Community Development Director
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: Summary of issues concerning the Red Sandstone Employee Housing development
Three Kev Decision Points
Is the proposed zone district appropriate?
Compatible with surrounding densities?
* Consistent with Land Use Plan?
* Neighborhood opposition at PEC?
* Meets rezoning criteria, as discussed in staff memo?
. II. Is the requested Special Development District appropriate?
* Achieves purpose of an SDD, Le, flexibility and documentation?
* Proposed development falls below allowed maximums of the Medium Density
Multi -Family zone district?
* SDD documents the details of the future development now, prior to approval of
the "up -zoning" -- provides certainty?
III, How important are the architectural details, relative to achievement of the objective of
locals housing?
* The two Planning commission members who voted against the project did so based
on concerns about the architecture, not based on the overall merits of the project.
One person attended the PEC meeting to express concern about the project, but
primarily focused on policy issues, not architectural elements.
10 Alreadv decided
1. On November 12, 1996, the Council concluded that the 5 units which the Town controls
will be sold to employees who work for the Town-- three critical and two non -critical
employees.
F:evetyoneW ndy196jnemm\redsnnd,nl9
MEMORANDUM
•TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage
variance to allow an additional one -car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy
Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing,
Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Campisi project. Located at 742-B Sandy LanelUnit B, Lot 3, Vail/ Potato Patch, Second Filing.
STANDING OF APPELLANT
gWtaff believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of
he subject property.
fill BACKGROUND
The appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft.
one -car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces
and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft.
(20%) and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%) of site coverage. The Planning and
Environmental Commission, at their September 23, 1996 meeting, unanimously denied the site
coverage variance and made the following findings (see attached minutes):
That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have
been presented, have been self imposed [the PEC specifically added this
provision to the findings recommended by staff].
3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential district.
This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as originally
approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 3,951.9 sq.
ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC
based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On September 21, 1988, a •
request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance.
The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site
permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is
considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA.
This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is a pre-existing
nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the site coverage variance. The
appellants have provided additional justification for the variance which is attached. The appellants
have also provided additional justification of how they will suffer practical difficulties and/or
unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted (provided in attached
materials). Staff has summarized their statements below:
a. The appellants will have Insufficient parking for parking their own vehicles and for
guests. The house will be restricted to one 300 sq. ft. garage for a 3,366 sq. ft.
house. The Zoning Code allows up to 600 sq. ft. of garage space per unit. There is
insufficient parking for the house, and snow storage in the winter months precludes
parking in the driveway.
Staff response:
The driveway, as it currently exists, has the capability of storing 7 cars in addition to
the 2 existing garage spaces, for a total of 9 parking spaces, The proposed garage
does not add any additional parking to the site as it will be constructed upon the
existing paved driveway. The appellants have mis-stated the square footage of the
home and the existing garage space. The entire home (both dwellings) contains
4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA and there are 2 existing 300 sq. ft. garages (one per unit).
This duplex is required 5 total parking spaces. Snow storage is the responsibility of
the homeowner and snow can be stored or removed from the site In a variety of
ways in order to maintain parking on -site.
The construction of the garage will correct a serious drainage problem on the
property.
Staff response:
While this proposed garage may correct this drainage problem, there are numerous
solutions to the drainage problem which do not involve constructing a garage.
C. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little
storage area within the residence, particularly for storage of recreational equipment.
Staff response:
In July of 1996, the appellants received approvals to perform a major remodel to the
exterior and interior of this duplex. No attempt was made in this remodel to provide
additional storage space. On September 12, 1988, a DRB approval was given in
conjunction with a 250 request to construct a storage area, labeled "Bike Storage"
on the first level of this structure (see attached elevation and floor plan). The
storage area was 250 sq. ft. As part of the 1996 DRB approvals, this storage area
was eliminated and converted to living area. It appears that the lack of storage area
on this property is a self imposed situation.
d. The variance would correct the serious security problem which exists for the owner
of Unit A.
Staff response:
The owner of Unit A has a staircase and a door on the east elevation of the home.
This door opens to a bathroom in the unit. The door is perceived as the front entry
to the home and according to the owner, people often come to this door. The staff
understands the security issue with this doorway. However, the proposed garage
addition is not the only solution to correct this problem. For example, a deck without
stairs to the ground could be constructed which would prevent persons from
. approaching the door; or the stairs could be removed and the door replaced with an
egress window, thus preventing access. There are a number of other solutions
which could correct this problem. The stairs that exist now do not meet the Building
Code requirements. The Building Code requires a landing at the top of the stairs as
well as hand rails.
Staff and the PEC can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria for
granting a variance.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft.
site coverage variance.
The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5)
shown below:
5. Findings. The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact
based directly on the particular evidence presented to it., These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the
requirements of this title have or have not been met.
*urther, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modify the PEC denial of this variance, the
Town Council shall consider the following factors and make the following findings related to the
granting of a variance:
A. Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safety.
The Town Council shall make the followina findinas before prantino a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
Vl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's
denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning)
have not been met.
0
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are •
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been
presented, have been self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential district.
r 1evo ryo n9VPc1nemMcamp1si.n 19 -
Charlie Alexander said that this was a permanent structure, Charlie also said that Vail
Associates owned the land and if they determined that the land could be better used, then that's
O.t would happen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease.
Dirk Mason suggested an additional condition be placed on the approval, which would allow for
the conditional use permit to be called -up, if the Lionshead Master Plan suggested an alternative
use.
Galen Aasland said it was a great use and agreed with Dirk's proposal.
Diane Golden said it will be made more attractive than it is now. It was a nice addition to
Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town something to do.
Henry Pratt stated that it was a good location. Henry addressed the complaints from Units #206
and #r306 and said that Garfinkel's Bar and Restaurant poses a much greater threat on their
privacy than this use. Henry said in fairness to Charlie and the bank, as long as the PFC can
call-up this application, he was in favor of a longer term.
Greg Moffet was in favor of this use. The units that complained had trees to screen them from
this operation. Greg was in favor of a longer term, to give Charlie an incentive to spend more
money on the site to enhance the property.
Henry Pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff's memo, with the addition of
cond condition that if the Lionshead Master Plan required or suggested a different use, the
aroval could be subject to a call-up.
Greg Moffet asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit.
Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a 3-year period of time.
Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of time would work.
Charlie Alexander said, yes.
The motion was seconded by John Schofield.
it passed by a vote of 5-0. (Greg Amsden was not present for this item).
3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a one -car garage,
located at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing,
Applicant: Jeri Campisi
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Inic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending
enial, because the request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not
negatively impact other properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments.
Planning and lInvironmental Commission
Min UteB
September23, 1996
Kerry Wallace, the attorney on behalf of Jeri Carnpisi, stated that the owner of the other half of
the duplex, Betty Gully, was here. Kerry stated that the lack of storage and the odd floor plan, .
with little or no closet space within the residence presented a hardship, in particular, in relation to
the storage of recreational goods. The present two -car garage is not enough. She stated that
the applicant had a problem with parking in the winter, as she had a lot of guests. Kerry went on
to state that the. Campisi's have significantly improved the property since purchasing It and that
the new garage would further improve the site. The proposed garage was as small as the
architect could possibly make it and the architect assured them that it would not encroach into
any of the setbacks. Right now there existed a drainage problem and by raising up the front of
the new proposed garage, this drainage problem would be corrected. There was also an existing
security issue for Betty Gully, since the door to her unit went past the bathroom. This security
issue was a serious concern. Kerry Wallace went on to state that this property was an eyesore,
until the Campisis made some changes. There are a number of 2 and 3-car garages in the area,
so this request was not asking anything out of the ordinary.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Betty Gully stated that she has owned the other half of the duplex for 5 years, which is the upper
third of the house. Betty stated that the Campisis are the perfect neighbors and have certainly fit
the mold as neighbors that she would have chosen to jointly improve the property, Both
neighbors agreed on the stucco improvements. The architect could solve the drainage problem
with this new proposed addition. When the Campisis unit was rented short term, there were a
number of problems. Belly stated that she lived alone and security was a problem. Betty stated
that 50 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage is a minor overage.
Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments.
Joe Stainer stated that he lived at 746 Sandy Lano. Joe was in favor of this request and said
that it would not negatively affect any property owners. Under the safely, welfare and health
finding, Joe stated that the security issue was the reason and the right to grant this variance. It
was a dark neighborhood, which presented a safety factor. Joe stated that when he was gone,
Betty Gully was all alone on the block. He stated that granting this variance would give someone
a better place to live. Joe said he saw no conceivable reason not to grant this variance.
Dominic Mauriello stated that he had reviewed recent DRB plans. Dominic stated that the
applicant had just rernoved the former storage space, which was used to store snowmobiles, and
had created living area out of it, so therefore, the result was a lack of storage.
Betty Guffy stated that her neighbor to the right of her, was in favor of approving this request.
Galen Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was.
Dominic Mauriello said 600 sq, ft. and that it had one garage space for each owner.
Galen Aasland asked if the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the lot is over 15,000 sq.
ft., Galen doesn't think the size of the lot was the problem and therefore there was no justification
for a site coverage variance. The deck could be built without a variance to correct the security
issue. Galen was somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough
storage, when In fact, the remodel that was happening right now, did away with the storage. He
stated that the owners, with the remodel, have created some of their own conditions and
hardships.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Septernbur23, 1996
Betty Guffy said that any staircase would be buried in snow. She stated that both sides of the
house were short on closets. Betty stated that she uses part of the garage for storage for her
•season clothes. She also stated that the existing entry door was ugly.
Diane Golden asked where the snow will be put?
Dominic Mauriello stated that snow storage was up to the owner and there were a variety of
solutions for the door.
Betty Guffy said that architect Bill Pierce said that this garage and entrance was the best plan
and from the front of the house, this looks like the way it was meant to be. It seems silly to pay
$28,000.00 to just correct the drainage and not do the addition.
Henry Pratt told Betty Guffy that she was extremely lucky to have owners like the Campisis who
take pride in their ownership. Henry felt that identifying where the front door was less important
than the security issue. He stated that they are entitled to a garage, but without the variance.
This garage had no impact on the neighbors and so Henry would be in favor of such a variance,
it there was a hardship.
John Schofield agreed with Henry. John stated that the door was in a lousy location. John
tended to agree with Henry, that the hardship would be getting a parking ticket, while parked out
in the street,
0g Arnsdon said that these were self imposed problems. There was no drainage problem
en the house was first built; it happened with the expansion. The lack of storage doesn't hold
an argument. A small deck would justify the safety concern. There were no justifiable reasons to
go over site coverages.
Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. What you have here was a unit that was
maxed-out over what was permitted. There was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk
that could have been used for storage. The storage problem has been self-created. Greg said
he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege.
Henry Pratt asked what the area of the garage was?
Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. ft.
Greg Moffet asked for any more comments from.the public. There was none.
Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, per the staff memo and he added that the hardships
were self-imposed.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
•ten Aasland said the lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. It it was under that size, it might be different.
Henry Pratt asked if this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design.
Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it
would still involve a site coverage issue.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Septembcr 23,19965
Grog Moffet asked staff if a carport was proposed, would it then not be GRFA?
Mike Mollica said that could possibly be a staff approval, and it may not be GRFA, depending on
haw the carport was designed.
•
The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
4. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd
floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802E Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato
Patch.
Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 1996
5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in freezer,
located at 536 West Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1sl Filing.
Applicant: Mitch Garfinkel
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
l!lllllilll
6. Information Update
Mike Mollica had no information update.
7. Approval of September 9, 1996 minutes
Mike Mollica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more corrections on item #5 in the
minutes.
Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 9/9/96.
Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 9/9/96 minutes.
The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
•
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Septcmbcr23, 1996 6
MEMORANDUM FILE 1 ��;�?�
*TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 23, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for a one -car garage,
located at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Jeri Campisi
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300
sq. ft. one -car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage
spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8
sq. ft. (20%) and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%).
This duplex was approved by the ORB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as
originally approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed
3,951.9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addition was
denied by the PEC based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On
September 21, 1988, a request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance.
The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site
is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site Is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is
considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA.
This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is a pre-existing
nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal.
The applicant's justification for the site coverage variance request is that this addition will not
negatively affect adjacent properties, as adjacent properties have two and three car garages.
See attached letter for greater detail.
0
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
Use: Duplex residence
Lot Size; 17,019 sq. ft. (entire site)
Standard Allowed Existing ro osed
Site Coverage: 3,403.8 sq. ft. (20%) 3,366.6 sq. ft. (19.8%) 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%)
Landscape area: 10,211.4 sq. ft. (60%) 11,330.4 sq. ft. (68.5%) n/c
GRFA: 3,951.9 sq. ft. 4,502.E sq. ft. n/c
wltwo 250's: 4,451.9 sq. ft. 4,502.E sq. ft, n/c
Setbacks:
Front: 20, 30' n/c
Sides: 15, 10' & 13.58, n/c
Rear: 15' 36' n/c
Parking: 5 required 6 (2 enclosed) 6 (3 enclosed)
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage
variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: .
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures In the vicinity.
The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. Staff believes that
while the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and
while other structures in the area have two and three car garages, there
has been no indication of any physical hardship which would justify
approving the requested variance. Other structures in area have two and
three car garages and still comply with the site coverage requirements.
Essentially, this owner enjoys a larger house at the expense of reduced
garage area. Staff believes the grant of this variance would be a grant of
special privilege.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or •
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by other lots in the area or this zone district. Other
sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage requirements.
f Aev"onetpeabnamos\campis1.923
2
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of
the building which may have a negative effect on the light and air of
neighboring properties.
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina_ finding_ g
before gr�ntina a varian(-P:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone,
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's
variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
f:�everyonelpec\m emoslcampisi,923
0
0
ma.
r
I
fII f
�� Sit l a ins
x
W
OCT D 2 1996
01VAI, OF
APPEALS FORM
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN RE\'[E\\' BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL C0IINIISSION ACTION
A. ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED: Denial of request for a site coverage variance to
allow for a one -car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch Ind
filing. The specific regulation a variance was requested of is Section ia.r..I.uyu of rise
Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage which provides that a residence is not to
exceed twenty percent (20%) of a total site area. The,tequested site coverage variance
was for 260.8 sq. ft. for construction of the garage.
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: September 23, 1996.
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISIONITAKING ACTION:
Planning and Environmental Commission
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Charles P. Campisi and Geri Campisi
MAILING ADDRESS: 1146 Sandstone Drive,' Vail, CO 81657
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, CO PHONE: 476-5586
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OFAPPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch,
Second Filing, Condominiums according to the Condominium Map recorded March 4, 1980 in Book
299 at Page 597 and as defined in theCondominium Declaration recorded March 4, 1980 in
Book 299 at Page 596.,_te�of Colorado.
E. SIGNATURE(S): �A���11� ��
Kerry H. Wah�l�a da Attorney apnd epresentative of Charles and Geri Campisi
$�aBBx-586�anAvona8o: 81�20
(970) 949-4200
Page I of 2
F Dues this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? Yes If yes. please provide the following information:
arc you an adjacent property owner? Yes — no y_
If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "agizieved or adversely affected person." "aggrieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who wil I suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
The appellants are aggrieved or adversely affected persons as they are the owners
of the property in question and the persons requesting the site coverage variance
which was denied. The strict interpretation of the specified regulation in this
case will result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary_physical hardship_ to the
appellants as at the present time there is available only one 300 sq. ft. single
car garage space for the appellants'3,366.6 sq. ft. residence. There is insuff—
icient parking space for the appellants' own vehicles without taking into
consideration visiting friends and family. Parking is not available upon the
street or surrounding areas There is also insufficient storage area particularly
as the single cae garage is fully utilized for parking purposes. There also exists
a drainage problem in that the area in which the new garage would be located
clones toward the residence and crater flows directly into a_major wall_of t:he
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also pro%ide addressed and stamped envelopes for
each property owner on the list.
11 On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
1. FEE: S0.00
0
Page 2 of 2
Continuation of Section F of Appeal of Denial of Site Coveraee Variance for
Charles and Geri Campisi 0
building, The drainage problem will be expensive to fix and the proposed garage will correct
the drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. In addition,
the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious security problem in
that the general public has access to her emergency egress which leads to her master bedroom
and bathroom, The proposed garage will correct this problem for the owner of 742-A Sandy
Lane who is Betty Guffey,
0
11
ACCOMPANYING WFORMATION FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION REGARDING
SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR CHARLES AND GERI CAMPLSI
FOR 742B SANDY LANE, VAIL, COLORADO 81657
SECTION H
NATURE OF APPEAL
I. Background Information
The Appellants, Charles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a site coverage variance
for the purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The specific regulation which the
Appellants are seeking a variance of B section 18.13.090 of the Town of Vail Building Code
regarding site coverage. Said section of the Code provides that a residence is not to exceed 20%
of the total site area. The Campisi's are requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order
to allow them to construct a single car garage addition. The site coverage variance would be
260.8 square feet for the purposes of constructing a 300 square foot one car garage upon the
property. The allowable site coverage for the site is 3,403.8 square feet (20%) and the proposed
variance would allow for 3664.6 square feet (21.5%).
The property is a duplex which currently contains two enclosed garage spaces and the
Appellants requested variance would add a third garage space. Currently each side of the duplex
has use of one 300 square foot garage space. As such, the Appellants currently have a 300
square foot single car garage space for a 3,366.6 square foot residence.
The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and
Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996 and based upon the recommendations of the
Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied.
Il. Finding of the Planning and Environmental Commission
The Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 23, 1996 meeting denied
the Appellants' request for a site coverage variance in order to construct a 300 square foot single
car garage addition based on the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of a special
• privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district;
2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that
are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
primary/secondary residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been
presented, have been self-imposed; and
3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the
primary/secondary residential district.
III. It is Appellants Position that Granting of the Variance will not Constitute a
grant of a Special Privilege and that there are Practical Difficulties and/or
Hardships which the Appellants will Suffer if the Variance is not Granted.
The specific regulation that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is
§18.62.050 of Title 18 of the Town Code of Vail also known as the "Zoning Title." § 18.62.060
specifically provides that before acting on a variance application the Planning Commission shall
consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance:
Section A.
1. The reIationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinities;
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment of sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this
title without grant of special privilege;
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation, and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety; and
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
The Planning Commission is also to make the following findings before granting a
variance:
Section B,
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the i
same district;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity; and
cnctiamsnAccovs.noc -2-
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
. a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title;
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone;
c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the same district."
The Appellants shall initially address the requirements of Section "A" of the Zoning Title
§18.62.060:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed site
• coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single
car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the other
structures in the vicinity as such structures are all residential homes with two to three car
garages and/or condominium structures in the Potato Patch area. The garage addition
will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have
three car garages or a close equivalent. The recommendations of the Planning Staff
specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and
that other structures in the area have two to three car garages. In addition, at the
Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23, 1996 an owner of
an adjacent neighboring property, Joe Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be
a welcome addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact any
of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage
variance will negatively impact neighboring properties.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment upon sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this
title without grant of special privilege.
The grant of the minimal site coverage variance requested by the Appellants is necessary
to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the
objectives of this title and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Zoning Title
§18.04.130 addresses gross residential floor area ("GRFA") and addresses how GRFA is
c:+cA+,.msnAccot 2.noc -3-
calculated and the amount of GRFA that is allowed per site. §18.04.130A(l) specifically
provides, "Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following area shall be
excluded from calculation as GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages from up to 300 square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a
maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code."
The Zoning Title also has an entire section dedicated to parking requirements in
particular off street parking. The purpose of this title is to alleviate progressively or to prevent
traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking, and loading
facilities. Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Title requires a certain amount of off street parking for
all new facilities. 18.52.100 requires that off street parking be determined in accordance with
the following schedule "A": if gross residential floor area is two thousand (2000') square feet
or more per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
The Appellants' property, which is 3,336 square feet, has only a single car 300 square
foot garage space. Thus, the Appellants only have available one parking space for their dwelling
unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit that
are 2,000 square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient off street parking for the
Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting family
members. If the Appellants were to merely pave the area upon which they are requesting the .
variance to build the single car garage it would not provide for year round parking for the
Appellants. The Town of Vail snowplows during the winter months pile snow from the street
onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that area unusable for parking
purposes during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which
the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive to the property and thus
unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been
constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only possibility for the Appellants' property
to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal
site coverage variance for construction of the 300 square foot single car garage addition.. The
possibility of on street parking is not available to the Appellants as it is illegal to park upon the
streets in the Potato Patch area particularly during the winter months when the snowplows need
full access to the streets in order to sufficiently clear them of snow build up. The requested site
coverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title.
3. The effect of the requested variance of right and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and
public safety.
It is the Appellants position that the variance will have no effect on light and air, •
distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety. In fact the Appellant proposes that the requested variance will actually have a
positive affect upon these factors as it will allow for additional off street parking so that vehicles
c:tc,uMPIsruccohre.voc -4-
will not be parked upon the street causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. There was
. no evidence presented to support a different finding on this issue.
For the foregoing reasons .it is the Appellants' position that the variance should be
granted for the following reasons:
1. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinities;
and
3. The variance is warranted for the following reasons:
a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title;
b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical
hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted.
a. They will be restricted to a 300 square foot garage for a 3,366 square foot
residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking for the parking of their
own vehicles and/or parking for their guests and family members. This is a
practical difficulty and/or an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there
if no in particular as there is no available on street parking. The Town of Vail
Code specifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for
each residence. In particular 18.52.100(A) requires that a 2000 square foot or
larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The
Appellants have insufficient parking particularly in the winter months and would
be subject to ticketing by the Town of Vail for parking on the street. in addition
the Town of Vail Code specifically provides that enclosed garages of up to 300
square feet per vehicle, not to exceed a maximum of two parking spaces for each
• allowable dwelling unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not included in the
GRFA for a residence. It is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title to
provide a 3,366 square foot residence to have the capability of having at least 600
square feet of parking space, which is the amount which will be provided to the
Appellants' should be proposed variance he granted.
Gt�CAW S W COWMOC -5-
b. The construction of the proposed garage addition will correct a serious
drainage problem upon the property which will need to be corrected regardless
of whether the variance B granted. The garage addition will be a positive
resolution of the drainage problem and will benefit neighboring properties in the
area because it will increase the value of the property.
C. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists
very little storage area within the residence particularly for storage of recreational
equipment.
d. The variance would also correct the serious security problem that exists
for the owner of the other half of the duplex, 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado,
who is Betty Guffey. Please see the attached Affidavit of Betty Guffey.
b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
Owners of other properties in the same district are typically allowed at least 600 square
feet of enclosed garage space per dwelling unit. While some of these structures have been
constructed within the site coverage requirements, it does not alleviate the fact that the
Appellants' property is adversely affected by the lack of parking space. The Appellants should
be able to construct an additional 300 square foot enclosed parking space upon their property
to allow for off street parking.
•
c:Ic,uF[s[ticcoMY.noc -fr
F.,-
u
AFFI1)AV IT OF BETTY GUFFEY
COMES NOW, the Affiant, Betty Guffey, having personal knowledge of the following
facts and being duly sworn under oath hereby testifies as follows: V
I. That I am the owner of real property located in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle,
State of Colorado known as "13-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado,
2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail. Potato Patch,
Second Filing Condominium. Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado which is
comprised of Unit 742-A and 742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado ("Condominium association").
- 3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and unit 742-B Sandy
Lane. Vail, Colorado which is owned by Charles Campisi and Geri Campisi (hereinafter referred
to as the "Campisi's").
4. That with my express permission and involvement the Campisi's have requested a
variance from the Town of Fail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to
their unit. The construction of said single car garage Will not in any way negatively impact upon
other structures in the vicinity .is most structures are resldemial homes, including cc)ndomlrUum
units with garaees.
5. That the garage addition that the Campisi's have requested a variance for from the
Town of Fail is necess ry for a number of reasons:
A. There is significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in
which the new garage will be located slopes toward the residence and water flows direcily into
a major wall of the building. The construction of the garage will resolve this drainage problem
while at the same time significantly improving the property.
B. That at the present time with the current configuration of the residence without
the requested garage addition. there exists a significant security problem with regard to my unit.
The general public currently has access to an emergency egress door which leads directly into
my master bedroom and bath area. Unfortunately, due to the current configuration of the
• building the general public often utilizes my emergency egress door as opposed to my main door
because it istheon]y door readily visible from the street. This is a cause for concern for me
because I cannot see who is at the emergency egress door until I am right before the door. This
is not the case with my main entrance door as I can see the person at the door through windows
prior to opening the door. In addition packages and flower deliveries are often left mistakenly
at my emergency egress door and as I do not utilize that door 1 do not locate the items often for
days. I have retained an architect, \Ir. Bill Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects in 'fail.
to address. among other issues. the issue of the public access to my emergency egress door so
that I could he provided with security. It was ultimately determined by Mr. Pierce that there
was .no wav to provide nle such security' due to design consirainis thus the proposed garage is
an excellent solution to my security problem. As such. I feel that the granting of ilia Variance
to allow the construction of the single car garage isnecessary to provide me with adequate .
security at my residence and l will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other
options are available to me.
C. That in the Winter months the Town of Vail snow removal pushes snow onto
the area \%-here the new single car garage will be constructed thus malting such area unusable
particularly for parkin; purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car
garage will provide a covered parking area year round.
6. For the foregoing reasons the owners of the property at 7421 Sandy Lane constituted
of myself and the Campisi's will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted allowing for
construction of the proposed single car garage.
Further the Affiant sayeth naught.
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
EAGLE COUNTY )
Subscribed and sworn to before me ,his G�f day of Septeniber, 1996. by
BETTY GUFFEY.
Witness my hand and official sea',.
My commission expires:
S,:xy T Sii: - -... ------ - - -- -
F.
AFFIDAVIT OF GERI C.a.N1PISI
COMES NOW, the Affnant, being duly sworn under oath and having personal knowledge
of the following facts hereby testifies as follows: V
1. That I am the owner of real property located in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle,
State of Colorado known as 742-B Sandy Lane, Vaii, Colorado. y
2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail, potato Patch,
Second Filing, Condominium, County of Eagle, State of Colorado which is constituted of unit
742-A and 742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado (the "Condo Association"),
3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and 742 A Sandy Lane,
Vail, Colorado which is owned by Betty Guffey.
• 4. That my husband, Charles Campisi and myself have requested a Variance from the
Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition.to our unit. The
construction of such single car garage will not in any way negatively impact upon other
structures in the vicinity as must structures are residential homes, including condominium units,
with garages.
5. That the garage addition that we are requesting a Variance from the Town of Vail for
is necessary for a number of reasons:
A. There is a significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in
which the new garage will be located slopes toward the residence and water flows directly into
a major wall of the building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and
could be very expensive to f nx pursuant to bids that have been received. The construction of the
garage will resolve this drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the
property.
B. That there exists very little storage area within our residence and the existing
two (2) car garage is fully utilized for the parking of our two (2) automobiles. As such, Nve
currently do not have any storage space particularly for our recreational equipment such a
bicycles, golf clubs and ski equipment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there
are no closets in the house to store the equipment, no space in the existing garage as it is used
for parking our automobiles and it would be inappropriate to store said items outride as they
could be stolen and it would detract from the area to store goods in that manner.
C. That we are unable to park an automobile on the street or elsewhere on the
lot in order to make storage space available in the existing garage as parking is not allowed upon
the street, particularly in the Winter months, and the area in which the new garage will be
constructed is currently unusable for parking purposes during the winter months as the Town of
19i2018e FRI 10:04 FA-1
Vail snow removal plows large amounts of snow upon the space. In addition, it is preferable
to have our car in covered parking during the winter months.
D. That we also have frequent guests, including numerous family members, and
are unable to provide a parkins space for them when they are visiting. This poses a difficult
problem again in the winter months when the snow plows need the streets clear of parked
vehicles to adequately plow tb-- strecl9.
6. That the proposed single car garage will address all of the above referenced hardships
in that it will provide for the additional storage, it would provide a covered parking space tbat
%,/M be usable all year round and it will be a positive use of currently unusable space.
7. That the proposed single car garage will constitute an improvement to the property
that will increase the value of the residence and thus would be a positive effect upon the
neighborhood in general.
S. For the foregoing reasons the owners of the property at 742 Sandy L-- ,e which is
constituted of myself, my husband, Charles Campisi, and Betty Guffey will suffer a hardship
if the Variance is not granted for the consmction of the proposed single car garage.
Further the Affiant saycLh naught.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss,
EAGLE COU.N11Y )
r
GERM CAMPISI
?`r jJil
Subscribed and sworn to hefote me this day of September, 1996, by GFYJ
CAMPISI.
Witness ray hand and officcW seal.
My coauaission expires:
G:ICAMP15I1GEPJAFP, nTH
�W—
n
L J
0
0 Memorandum
0
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
Susan Connelly, Community Development Director
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: Summary of issues concerning the Red Sandstone Employee Housing development
Three Kev Decision Points
I. Is the proposed zone district appropriate?
* Compatible with surrounding densities?
* Consistent with Land Use Plan?.
* Neighborhood opposition at PEC?
* Meets rezoning criteria, as discussed in staff memo?
II. Is the requested Special Development District appropriate?
* Achieves purpose of an SDD, i.e, flexibility and documentation?
* Proposed development falls below allowed maximums of the Medium Density
Multi -Family zone district'?
* SDD documents the details of the future development now, prior to approval of
the "up -zoning" -- provides certainty?
III. How important are the architectural details, relative to achievement of the objective of
locals housing?
* The two Planning commission members who voted against the project did so based
on concerns about the architecture, not based on the overall merits of the project.
One person attended the PEC meeting to express concern about the project, but
primarily focused on policy issues, not architectural elements.
Alreadv decided
On November 12, 1996, the Council concluded that the 5 units which the Town controls
will be sold to employees who work for the Town-- three critical and two non -critical
employees.
F:everyonolA.ndy196_memnaVodsand.n39
MEMORANDUM
• 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 three-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.
iThe 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.
FAeve iy(1wVft\neofoa\3amdstone.o28
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 I 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 HOA, 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 District 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.
F.',everyone\pK\mamosleandstone.o28
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.
Ailowed/N1IDW
Proposed
Density
22 d.u.s
17 d.u.s
Height:
35'
35'
GRFA:
18,449 sq. ft,
16,275 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
• Front: 20' 20,
Side/Sido 20. 20'
Rear: 20, 20'
Site Coverage: 31,449 sq. R. 12,029 sq. ft.
or 45 % ar 17%
Reaulred Proposed
Landscaping: 20,966 sq. R. 36,450 sq. 0.
or 30% or 52 %
Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces
required proposed
Percent enclosed: 50% of 53% enclosed
required parking
(17) (18)
III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION FROM PEC WORKSESSION ON SFPTEMBER 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.
l . 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 MDW
3
1
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 PEG. 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? 1s 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:
"l. That there will be no National Forest Service lands within the municipal
limits of the Town of Vail.
10
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.
3. 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.
3. Should the development be targeted for the rental market or the ownership market? 0
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
4
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.
4. 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.
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.
6. 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 40
redevelopment, the Town required casements 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 casement to be used in
the calculation of GRFA and other development standards. This is also consistent with the way
the Town treats other casements (such as utility and drainage easements), concerning the
calculation of development standards,
Specific items relating to the development proposal.
1. 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.
2. 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 them 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
i 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 curbcut. 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 attorney, 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 law, a connection at this location cannot be
provided.
5. 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 4 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 easement
along the creek. This would allow creek access, without requiring a walkway to be constructed
that would not be workable.
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.
9. 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
to include a door. However, one garage in each building does not have adequate exterior
exposure to add a pedestrian door,
11. 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.
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.
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?
Th6 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;
h�ZLCZ Zone District( Puccl Vj3i_Is Gross Density .
Permitted Density size du/ac
Potato Patch Club RC, 6/ac ± 10 acres 44 4.4
Sandstone Park LDMF, 9/ac 1.54 16 10.3
Brooku'ee MDMF, 181ac 1.23 acres 48 22.0
Cotten 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
Pat -eel 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
V. EVALUATION OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REOUEST
• 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.
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 .
Sandstone 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.
1. 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 RECOMMENDATION
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.
0
14