HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16 Town Council Minutes�,, MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
January 16, 1996
7:30 P:M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, in the Council Chambers
of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:35 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Mike Jewett
Paul Johnston
Peggy Osterfoss
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Armour, Mayor
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident and former council member, Tom
Steinberg, expressed his thanks to former town mayor Peggy Osterfoss for her participation and dedication
over the past six years. He commended her, saying she had been the best leader he had worked with during
his years of serving with all but one of Vail's mayors. Mr. Steinberg was joined by his wife, Flo.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items:
A. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance, First Amendment to the
Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan.
B. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1996, a Resolution designating Colorado National Bank, as a
depository for the funds of the Town of Vail Pension Plan as permitted by the Charter of the
Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado.
C. Resolution No. 3, Series of 1996, a Resolution designating Colorado National Bank, as a
depository for the funds of the Town of Vail 457 Pension Plan as permitted by the Charter of
the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado.
Mayor Pro-tem, Sybill Navas read the consent agenda in full. Peggy moved to approve the consent agenda,
with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Special
Development District No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club, and amending the development plan in accordance with
Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto.
.Sybill read the title in full. Mike Mollica then summarized the revised ordinance, reviewing changes since the
first reading. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead added that an indemnification section had been removed from
the ordinance, because the issue had been resolved and no longer applied. Discussion then continued as
council members questioned the possibility of the Athletic Club heating the bridge in addition to the sidewalks
on the north and east sides of the building. Town Planner, Mike Mollica stated the Athletic Club would heat .
the sidewalk up to but not over the bridge. Vail Athletic Club representative, Stan Cope addressed the issue
and informed Council that the possibility had been discussed, but would require an up sized boiler to
accommodate that request. Stan stated the Athletic Club would cooperate in any way they could, but that
many issues still remained to be discussed. Tom Moorhead informed Council the intent had been that any
heating beyond the sidewalks along the north and east sides of the building would be an expense of the
Town. Paul moved to approve Ordinance 2 on second reading with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal to the Town Council, pursuant to Section 18.54.090 of the
Municipal Code, of the Design Review Board decision to deny the OlesonNolinn duplex separation request
for a proposed residence to be constructed on Lot 11, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 12th
Filing/3275 Katsos Ranch Road.
Veorge Ruther, TOV planner assigned to the project, presented the item to Council, and provided the
liowing background: On December 20, 1995, the applicant met with the Design Review Board to request
a determination of significant site constraints and the opportunity to separate the duplex structure proposed
for Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing in accordance with Section 18.54.050(I) of the Municipal Code (see
attachment 1). Upon review by the DRB, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request since the DRB
'Ud8.7 C—,t Cam. n.4, M-L 01/16/%
j.could not find evidence of significant site constraints. The motion passed unanimously (4-0). George then
referenced a letter from the applicant dated December 29, 1995, appealing the DRIB decision (see attachment
2) and the applicant's reference of the intent of the Design Review Guidelines (Section 18.54.010) as a
possible basis for overturning the DRB decision. A copy of Section 18.54.010 from the Municipal Code was
provided for reference (see attachment 3). George went on to state that upon review of the applicant's
,_separation request, staff recommended that the Town Council uphold the DRIB decision of December 20,
1995, of denial. He stated that in staff's opinion, the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of
significant site constraints on the lot as required by Section 18.54.050(I) of the Municipal Code.
Peggy Osterfoss questioned whether the section on "Intent" superseded the criteria that might constitute a
significant site constraint as outlined in section 18.54.050(I) of the Code. Tom Moorhead explained that while
applying the criteria, one could look to the general intent, but that the specific criteria still needed to be
applied. Sybill inquired as to whether or not the separation request was really a variance. George and Mike
Mollica informed Council that the applicant was clearly requesting a separation, as allowed by the Code, and
that Council must find the project meets the appropriate criteria in order for a separation to be granted.
Gary Oleeon, owner of the property presented his request to Council, along with project architect, Mark
Donaldson.
Paul moved to overturn the decision of the DRIB to deny the separation request due to the large size of the
lot, to avoid extensive driveway cuts, and because, he felt the proposed separation contributed nicely to the
existing residences on Katsos Ranch Road. The motion was seconded by Peggy.
Mike Jewett expressed he would rather uphold DRB's decision, and Rob Ford stated that many other options
were available to the applicant, and the applicant didn't necessarily have to build a duplex. Tom clarified that
the section in the Code listed examDles of what might constitute a significant site constraint, and said there
were many and varied situations. He went on to state that man made features could possibly be considered.
Kevin inquired as to how the neighbors felt about the project, and Sybil[ addressed the question, stating those
she spoke to wanted to see something on a much smaller scale, but that the size of the lot itself would allow
for a much bigger structure to be built. Sybill felt that going through the variance request would be more
appropriate. George reminded council members there was not a variance request to decide on. Mike
suggested another possible avenue for the applicant would be to request a front setback variance, in order
to maintain development on the site as low as practical on the hillside and to reduce overall site impacts.
DRB Chairman, Michael Arnett explained the DRB's finding that there was nothing which would constitute
a significant site constraint as outlined in the town regulations, and, therefore, the DRB had no other option
but to deny the request. Mike then suggested the proper course of action would be to request a change in
zoning on the lot. Peggy reminded council members of the need to determine whether site constraints existed
that would allow for the separation. Mark suggested the topography and the trees did constitute a site
constraint, stating that under the proposed scenario, the applicant would be removing the least amount of
trees. George stated that according to staff, a significant tree was 3" in diameter and the trees shown on the
proposed project plan were 6" in diameter. He further stated there were many trees on the lot that were not
shown on the plan that would ultimately be removed.
A vote was taken and failed, 2-4, Paul and Sybill in favor of overturning the DRB's decision to deny the
request, Mike, Rob, Kevin and Peggy voting in opposition. A motion was then made by Rob to uphold the
decision of the DRB, with a second from Mike. A vote was taken and passed, 4-2. Sybill and Paul opposed.
Mr. Olseon asked the Council what direction should next be taken, and Mike Mollica stated he would be happy
to meet with the applicant to discuss the processes available.
Agenda item number five was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEG) denial of
a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot
height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon
Subdivision (SDD #4).
Town of Vail Planner, Randy Stouder presented the item, and gave the following background: The applicant
is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. An Improvement Location
Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were
constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for residential structures. The ridges in
question are labeled A, B and C, as shown on the attached site plan and elevation drawings. According to
the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic
survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B, and C were
constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant requested that the
constructed
grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The PEC
unanimously denied the requested height variance by a vote of 4-0, finding that granting the requested height
variance would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Randy further stated that although no input had
been received from adjoining property owners, staff recommended denial of the applicant's request because
VJ.7 C.aC—q?&Gyi11"01/106
r they agreed it would be granting a special privilege.
Architect, Dave Peel, and Bill Anderson of Beck & Associates presented the height variance request on behalf
of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hovey, claiming that floor and roof modifications caused the overages.
Sybill asked if there wasn't a 1' grace allowed. Randy stated there had been in prior years, but because it
was being taken advantage of, survey policies had been adopted and had been in place since April of 1991.
6 Also, Randy expressed that the survey policies clearly state there is no 1' grace allowance for roof height, and
that the policy is distributed to every contractor who takes out a building permit.
Greg Amsden, Vice Chairman of the PEC was available to answer questions. Peggy expressed her feeling
that it had been possible to account for the error and that it should have been corrected. Mike Jewett was
looking for any criteria that might allow the variance to be approved without granting a special privilege. Dave
Peel suggested similar situations had occurred in the past. Tom Moorhead informed Council that each
variance application had a different set of circumstances which must be evaluated o its own merits after
reviewing the criteria and findings.
A motion was made by Kevin Foley to uphold the decision of the PEC, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote
was taken and resulted in a tie, 3-3; Kevin, Rob and Peggy in favor, Paul, Mike and Sybill opposed, the motion
was defeated.
Council members in favor of granting the height variance felt Council should be more flexible and cited the
following reasons: no complaints were received by the neighbors, to reframe the structure would cost the
applicant time and money, and that sending a rigid message would negate the need for the appeal process.
Council members opposed to granting the variance felt that being responsible to the community and
consistent in applying the rules was important, and suggested adjusting the height rule as opposed to granting
special privileges. Mike Jewett then moved to overturn the PEC's decision to deny the height variance, and
the motion was seconded by Paul.
Town residents Martin Walbaum and Scotty McGoon expressed their opinions, encouraging Council to
approve the variance.
Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed council members that the issue was not the amount of the overage,
but the fact that there was an overage. He suggested adhering to the regulation or changing the height
restriction.
A vote was then taken and resulted in a tie of 3-3, Paul, Mike and Sybill voting in favor, Kevin, Peggy and Rob
voting in opposition. Therefore, the decision of the PEC to deny the height variance stands.
Next on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob indicated everything had been covered at the work
session earlier in the day.
There being no further business, a motion was made by Paul to adjourn.
Mike Jewett commended the Police Department for their efforts and expressed satisfaction from the
community regarding break-ins. Jewitt also complimented Public Works for the fine job they had done
removing snow during the recent heavy accumulations.
Rob moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:35 P.M.
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
(Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
0-
Respectfully submitted,
Navas, Mdyor Pro -tern
Vd7—C•dEouu.oy %J..01f16f96
I
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
` MEDIA ADVISORY
January 17, 1996
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JANUARY 16
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Navas, Osterfoss
--Vail Valley Marketing Board Overview
During an update on the Vail Valley Marketing Board's 1995 performance and plans for
1996, Chairman Ross Boyle presented data showing a positive return on investment by
the five entities which fund summer marketing. The Town of Vail will provide 61
percent of the $1 million 1996 annual budget; Vail Associates, 12 percent, Beaver
Creek Resort Company, 21 percent; and the Town of Avon, six percent. Over its
• seven-year life, the WMB has produced almost $75 million in total sales with an
investment of $4.5 million, or a return of $16.68 for every dollar spent, Boyle said. The
marketing program for 1996 will target individuals, families and groups through an
emphasis on direct mail, public relations, group sales and a front range campaign. As
for long-range funding, Boyle said he hoped the 1998 marketing program would be
funded by a permanent revenue source. One option favored by Boyle is creation of a
special business district from the top of Vail Pass to Cordillera in which businesses
would pay a license fee (similar to Vail's business license fee) to support summer
marketing. However, the concept may be difficult to gain legislative support from Eagle
County and the state, he said. Another option is to reactivate the county's Economic
Development Authority. Boyle is one of four WMB members appointed by the Vail
Town Council. The other Vail appointees are: John Garth, Barbara Black and Dean
Liotta. There are a total of 8 board members. Frank Johnson, president of the Vail
Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, which oversees the WMB efforts, also presented
an update yesterday. Key projects for 1996 include: merger of the central reservations
system and development of a year-round flight program into the Eagle County Regional
Airport, Johnson said.
--Housing Background and Current Update of Status
After reviewing an overview of the town's affordable housing initiatives, Councilman
Mike Jewett floated the concept of earmarking a portion of the town's Real Estate
Transfer Tax (RETT) for housing. The one percent tax, created in 1980, generates
about $1.7 million annually and --by ordinance --has been used exclusively to purchase
C„ (more)
{ R CYCLEDPAPER
Council Highlights/Add 1
and maintain open space. Although Jewett, the Council's appointee on the Housing
Authority, agreed the issue will be controversial, he said this might be the time to create
momentum for action on housing. Following an analysis of the issue --including funding
levels needed to complete the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and funding
projections for a stepped -up housing program --the Council will invite public comment
on the concept through a series of community meetings.. Town Attorney Tom
Moorhead has indicated the RETT use has been and can be modified through passage
of a Council ordinance rather than a townwide election. In the 1995 community survey,
residents identified the most significant issues facing Vail: 1) open space protection; 2)
affordable housing; 3) new development regulations to limit density; 4) traffic
congestion; 5) air and water quality protection; and 6) water capacity and streamflow
protection. The town has reached the halfway mark in implementation of its 1994 open
lands plan, taking action on 26 of 51 parcels identified in the document. Also
yesterday, the Council expressed its interest in reactivating the Housing Authority and
heard from Steve Stockmar, president of the Vail Village Merchants Association.
Stockmar said he met with representatives from four other major constituent groups in
Vail (Lionshead Merchants Association, Lodging Association, Vail Valley Restaurant
Association, and Gallery Association) and all five organizations agree that housing is
the single most important issue to be addressed in Vail. Stockmar said his members
were supportive and interested in assisting the Council with its action plan through a
public -private partnership. He also indicated he would talk about the RETT concept
during a meeting of the Village Merchants at 3 p.m. today (1-17). In addition to
Stockmar's supportive message on the housing issue, the Council heard from Mitchell
Weiss of the Lodging Advisory Committee. Weiss said his group also wants to come to
the table to help with the problem. He asked the Council to challenge itself by taking
risks and "thinking outside the box." Town Manager Bob McLaurin complimented the
business community for coming forward to pitch in and work together to improve the
housing situation. Also yesterday, there was a brief discussion about the values which
will drive the lottery criteria for the for -sale units at Vail Commons. A draft of the criteria
will be presented to the Council in February with the lottery taking place in March. For
additional details on yesterday's discussion, contact Andy Knudtsen, Vail senior
housing policy coordinator, at 479-2440, or Michael Jewett at 479-1860.
--Covered Bridge Building Walkway
The Council voted 4-0 to allow East West Hospitality, developer of the Covered Bridge
Building, to proceed through the planning process to allow for the expansion of a
private brick paver walkway at the southwest corner of the building onto Town of Vail
land.
--Information Update
After reviewing a letter from the Vail Valley Foundation regarding sponsorship of •
mountain bike events in Vail during 1996, the Council said it endorsed such events, but
agreed to discourage staging mountain bike events in 1996 due to the redevelopment
of Golden Peak.
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 2
--Council Report
Sybil[ Navas indicated the Special Events Commission was considering funding
support of the local mountain bike race series.
--Manager's Report
Bob McLaurin gave an update on last week's meeting of the Colorado Association of
Ski Towns (CAST). The organization, which represents 23 ski towns, is wrestling with
two issues: hiring staff and how to address efforts to privatize ski areas on federal
lands.
--Other
Sybill Navas inquired about the proposed "takings" legislation introduced by Sen. Tom
Norton of Greeley. The Colorado Municipal League will lobby against the measure
during the legislative session.
--Site Visits
The Council attended two site visits in preparation for appeals which were heard at the
evening session.
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Navas, Osterfoss
• --Citizen Participation
Former Vail Town Councilman Tom Steinberg recognized Peggy Osterfoss for her
years of service to the town. Osterfoss, the former mayor, has resigned from the
Council effective Jan. 30, due to family demands- Last night was her last public
meeting. Steinberg, who has served with all but one of Vail's mayors, said Osterfoss
has been the best leader he's worked with. And, as a physician, he said, Osterfoss'
decision to put her child before the town was the right choice. -
--Consent Agenda
The Council voted 6-0 to approve the consent agenda which included: second reading
of an ordinance amending the town's police and fire employees' pension plan; and
resolutions designating Colorado National Bank as a depository for the town's pension
funds.
--Major Amendment to the Vail Athletic Club Special Development District
The Council voted 6-0 to approve on second reading a major amendment to the 1993
Vail Athletic Club Special Development District. The modifications to the 1993 plan
include creation of three additional accommodation units for a total of 55 AU's; creation
. of one additional dwelling unit for a total of 4 DU's; a variety of exterior changes; and a
reduction of required parking spaces from 9 to 4 as a result of decreased conference
space. For additional details, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development
Department at 479-2144.
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 3
--Design Review Board Appeal, 3275 Katsos Ranch Road
The Council voted 4-2 (Navas, Johnston against) to uphold Design Review Board
denial of a duplex separation request for a proposed residence to be constructed at
3275 Katsos Ranch Road. Council members voting in support of the DRB decision
said they were unable to identify a "significant site constraint" which would permit the
separation. For details., contact George Ruther in the Community Development
Department at 479-2145.
--Planning & Environmental Commission Appeal, 1339 Westhaven Circle
Due to a 3-3 tie vote by the Council, PEC denial of a request for a height variance on
the property will stand. The applicant had asked for the variance after it was
determined the residence, currently under construction, exceeds the 33-foot height
limitation for residential structures. Three separate roof ridges were constructed a
maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. Rather than allow an
exception to the zoning code, Council members voting in support of the PEC denial
(Osterfoss, Foley, Ford) suggested adjusting the 33-foot height rule rather than
granting special privileges to applicants, However, the remaining Council members
(Navas, Jewett, Johnston) disagreed, saying the Council should be more flexible in
considering variance requests. For more information, contact Randy Stouder in the
Community Development Department at 479-2150.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
January 23 Work Session
Kraige Kinney 15 Year Anniversary
Update on Category III
Joint Meeting with County Commissioners (cooperation, transportation, housing &
annexation)
Update on Railroad Abandonment
January 30
Special Election!
February 6 Work Session
Revisit Town Council Appointments
Youth Recognition Award Discussion
Site Visit, Glen Lyon Office Building
February 6 Evening Meeting
Glen Lyon Office Building Ordinance, first reading
February 13 Work Session
All Day Public Process Work Session
(Request form msf t be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdays.)
MEETING DATE: Janua 6. 1996
(Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. If the agenda
Item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening Meeting, be
certain to check both boxes In this section and indicate time needed during
each meeting.)
Work Session TIME NEEDED-.
XX Site Visit TIME NEEDED: 30 min
XX Evening Meeting TIME NEEDED: 20 Min
WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BY NON-TOV STAFF?
NO.
XX YES, Specifics: Andrew Abraham, Project Architect
WILL THE PRESENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT?
XX NO.
YES, Specifics:
WILL THERE 13E MATERIALTO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM?
NO,
XX YES. If yes,'is the material also for public distribution?
Yes.
XX NO.
1TEM(TOPIC:
An appeal 10 the Town Council, pursuant to Section 18.54.090 of the Municipal Code, of the Design
Review board decision to deny the OlesonlVolinn duplex separation request for a proposed residence
to be constructed on Lot 11, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filingl3275 Katsos
Ranch Road.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Uphold, overturn, or overturn with modifications the Design Review Board's decision to deny the
OlesordVolinn duplex separation request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On December 20, 1995, the applicant met with the Design Review Board to request a determination
of significant site constraints and the opportunity to separate the duplex structure proposed for Lot 11,
Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing In accordance with Section 18.54.050(I) of the Municipal Code (see
attachment 1). Upon review by the DRS, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request since the
ORB could not lind evidence of signifcant site constraints. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).
A letter from the applicant dated December 29, 1995, appealing the ORB decision, has been attached
(see attachment 2). In the applicant's letter, he refers to the Intent of the Design Review Guidelines
(Section 18.54.010) as a possible basis for overturning the ORB decision. A copy of Section
18.54.010 from the Municipal Code has been attached for reference (see attachment 3)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Upon review of the applicant's seraration request, staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the
ORB decision of December 20, 1995, of denial. In staffs opinion, the applicant has not demonstrated
the existence of signilicant site constraints on the lot as required In Section t8.54.050(1) of the
Municipal Code.
Employee Signature/Dedartment
I:feverynnebaunciNaqueslebleson.ItO
DESIGN REVIEW
I. Duplex and primary/secondary development.
1. The purpose of this section is to ensure that duplex
and primary/secondary development be designed in a
manner that creates an architecturally integrated
structure with unified site development. Dwelling
units and garages shall be designed within a single
structure, except as set forth in 18.04.050 1,2 thereof,
with the use of unified architectural and landscape
design. A single structure shall have common roofs
and building walks that create enclosed space substan-
tially above grade. Unified architectural and land-
scape design shall include, but not be limited to, the
use of compatible building materials, architectural
style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details,
site grading and landscape materials and features.
— -- The presence of significant site constraints may,
C De mit the phvsical separation of units and garages
oa i site. The determination of whether or not a lot.
has significant site constraints shall be made by the
desr review board. Significant site constraints shall
he defined as natu_ ral features of a lot such as stands
oiC mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses
amd other natural water features, rock outcroppings,
wetlands, other natural features and existing struc-
difficulties
•
taxes that may create practical in the site
Dlatrining and development of a lot. Slope may be
camsidered ? ohvsical site constraint that allows for
thae separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the
apwlicant's responsibility to request a determination
from the desi ,n review board as to whether or not a
sift has significant site constraints before final design
ucaark on the -project U- rn esented. This determination
siitali be made at a conccVtual review of the proposal
bmsed on review of the site. a detailed survev dl the
lot (to include information as outlined in section
iiL54.040 C,la.) and a preliminary site plan of the
proposed structure(s).
'the duplex and Drimarv/secondary development
nmv be designed to accommodate theeof
djwelline units and earaees in more than one
sumcture if the des4n review board determines that
simenificant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of
umified architectural and landscape design as outlined
_
im. Section 18.54.050 H,l. shall he required for the
dle,�velopment. In addition, the design review board
nnay require that one or more of the following
•
cmanmon design elements such as fences, walls,
pmtios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape
eftements, or other architectural features be incorpo-
naued to create unified site development.
(Ord. 46Q'3991) §§ 2, 3: Ord. 12(1988) § 2: Ord, 24(1985) § 1: Oni,
90985) M 2. 3: Otd.390983) § 1.)
Attachmenc,#1
• 3031949-5200
FAX/949-5205
-- - -- VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS, P.C.
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS Box 5300 • Avon, Colorado 61620
12/29/95
The Vail Town Council via
46 George Ruther, Planner
Community Development
I I i South Frontage Road D
West Vail, Colorado `
Re: Oleson / Volinn Residence 1�
3275 Katsos Ranch Road DEC Z 1995 1.`
Lot 11
Res bdivision of Lot 7, Block I Comm, fe
Vail Village, 12th Filing
DET
Dear Council Members:
With the encouragement of the Design Review Board, we are making an appeal to the town council in
accordance with section 18,54.090 of the Vail Municipal Code.
On December 1, 1995 I met with George Ruther and reviewed the process of sub -dividing the site in
accordance with section 18,12.050. This site complies with two of the three requirements to subdivide by
having 202.72 linear feet of frontage and by easily holding two 80 foot wide squares within its boundaries.
. Although the site has over 45,000 square feet, preliminary calculations show the buildable area at less than
the 30,000 square feet required to subdivide.
On December 20, 1995 we met with the Design Review Board to request a determination for site constraints
and the opportunity to separate the two family residences zoned for lot 11 at 3275 Katsos Ranch Road in
accordance with section 19.54.050 (I). Our request was denied noting that the slope was not extreme
enough nor the existing grove of trees significant enough. Relativity aside, we understand the kind of
precedent an approval would provide. We do not agree with the results based on the Intents established in
the Vail Municipal Code under section 18.54.010.
The objectives of design review shall be (paraphrased) as follows
A. Recognition of interdependence of welfare and aesthetics to benefit citizens and visitors.
B. Development of property in harmony with desired character of town.
C. Prevention of unnecessary destruction of natural landscape.
D. Provision for a harmonious relationship between the residence with the immediate environment
including natural landforms, native vegetation and existing and proposed developments.
E. Protection of the neighboring property owners and provision of reasonable traffic, drainage, sound
and sight buffers, and other similar effects.
We can assume that the proposed residences will be designed and constructed in pursuit of the well-being of
. both citizens and visitors and with the appropriate appeal to fit within the immediate context of the Katsos
Ranch Road as well as within the larger context of Vail (A). We can also assume through the design review
process that the neighbors will not be adversely affected by the product (E). Our appeal is based in the
remaining three objectives which were significant factors in the development of the design concept.
According to the records available from the community development office, the lot is significantly larger
than all other lots on Katsos Ranch Road. (A list of the lot sizes are included in the attached information.)
ATTACHMENT #2
Taking into account the south -facing uphill slope, the design would naturally travel horizontally across the
slope to minimize the number of floors moving up the slope, From the cul-de-sac the uphill duplex would
appear inappropriate in scale to those at grade or stepping down the hillside to the south away from the
road. The allowed GRFA for two dwellings on this site is 6867 square feet. Being larger than any other
residence on Katsos Ranch Road, the massing for a duplex of this size would not be harmonious with the
existing dwellings unless the new residences are separated.
We would like to preserve the most mature trees located in the center of the site by building to the east and
west of the trees. The central portion of the property also. has the steepest change of grade between the'
road and both the property fine and the setback line which are, respectively, 14 and 19 feet higher than the
cul-de-sac. This slope encourages the street access locations to be at the east and west ends of the site for
economy and ease of construction. In response to the examples provided by the existing residences, the best
location for the garages is immediately off of the street. To provide a driveway through the site to reach
buildable area of less than 40% slope on the west end as suggested at the concept design review would
cause unnecessary destruction of the natural landscape.
We believe that in allowing for the separation of the two family residences, the town will be protecting an
established and to date undisturbed grove of deciduous trees, undergrowth and previously fallen boulders as .
well as allowing the two new residences to be appropriately scaled to match the existing residences. The
concept design presented is a sensitive and harmonious scheme that has been discussed with and encouraged
by neighbors in hopes of preserving the views and limiting the site impact.
If the site is granted a residential separation, we will design the two dwellings concurrently using a unified
architectural and landscape vocabulary as described in the section 18.54.050 (1). We are content with the •
two residences allowed with one conditional Employee Housing Unit and are not seeking any additional
residences or increased GRFA in the appeal. Although we understand that the Vail Municipal Code does
not empower the Design Review Board to grant a separation based on the established design review intents,
we believe that this concept design is the most appropriate for the site and the neighborhood.
Thank you for reviewing our appeal. Please see the attached information as presented at the design review.
We took forward to meeting with you and to working with the design review board on this project. Please
contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
rew Jame/Ab, , Project Architect
Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, P.C.
•
M54.410 Intent.
Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally
known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the
compatibility of man-made structures with the environment.
imse characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors
to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming perma-
news residents participating in community life.
These factors constitute an important economic base for the
tow. , both for those who earn their living here and for those who
vicvv the town as a precious physical possession. The town council
finds that new development and redevelopment can have a
suiastantiai impact on the character of an area in which it is
located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can.
berprevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building
codes- Other aspects of development are more subtle and less
amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to
spccifc development proposals. Among these are the general
fornf of the land before and after development, the spatial
relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the
vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open
spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and
redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of
judgrrzent in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of
new development and redevelopment, the town council has
c=ated a design review board (DRE) and design criteria.
Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town
amd its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to
maintain the values created in the community, to protect and
enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety,
and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives
set ou*a in this section; the improvement or alteration of open
space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifi-
cations to existing development shall be subject to design review
as specified in this chapter.
It Es the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design
freedoem as possible to the individual designer while at the same
time nsaintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by
creati=-g structures which are designed to complement both their
individual sites and surroundings.
Thm objectives of design review shall be as follows:
A. Tos recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and
aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this inter-
de;pendence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors;
$_ To allow for the development of public and private property
wWch is in harmony with the desired character of the town as
destned by the guidelines herein provided;
C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the
nasural landscape;
D. Top. Ensure that the architectural design, location, eonftgura-
tiom materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and
opien spaces have been designed so that they relate harmo-
niausly to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the
town's overall appearance, with surrounding development
aad with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for
the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located.
E. T63)rotect neighboring property owners and users by making
surm_ that reasonable provision has been made for such
rnztters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water
drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light
and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by
odaer regulations which may have substantial effects on
ne--Zhboring land uses.
(Ord- 39 (1983) § 1.)
Attachment: #3
O $y
n
s
z
6
�o
n
G'd
o n
.ypyppy. yX�� N
0
NDI=49-sue aus
riouo�s- �iis�
Ir
AMW-A'� � ~-,' i
NOIjv110 nZM Hl^O wouvn�a Hlflo$
E"l- ma lsra ►7Nt11�71Q is371
�•19'M.M 1
`ma M7id 3LSO
r
F�
I r r I / r ! / r I
LZ' h•
[�((,�j[j�� y}J��jJ�• /! ! ! fgj!!!!r!!Jr!
W1 . t�1tl!/J1t//
/ • 'Y / / ! !�%/[/l /�Jj /� / J // //j / ! /�'{!�1(/� f I '/�/ /� !('!�'/�'!� /�f / '/�/Jl�/fir/�r•y/,�// / /
•'/, •�•'•'�'�'.I ///.(JG-G K.ii!'W Cb1 /V/I�RJI+i/O�/i�V •1''!1/✓•[.7lLYJh./(�l�
/ , , • ' . ' / / / ! Y4G !�1VK ! 1 G.' 1 7 1I� f r'vD / / / / 1 / / / !
J///'rill •':} ''• ! •. �•///////////! i
?RACT/Ik1JlI!!!!: /
'ringy!!r!r/ii••'-rs�l ��,' • : '•6•'•' •,;••;; RQ J ;.(•�_1''f 1f!'J Jll frrltllll rllJ!/r
.'•••rT '.'•!}.'.'///t///,•rr//i/////I//1rr
U F,' J�7JJ
lJJJ�JrJ�I. r/ Cs
• � � ,` •� � � .� ; � -./ \ ••- ! / / / J / / I,rr�
�/a ,Ia
�� :,�./J///!w/�►4�ry)��/r�Sc7•Cc/.iLri�.{-i��•tj��t�/////!/r/JJ/
•' ', ,.. •' : • .''• JJJ ! / / / / / / / / / / / / r / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / , / / / / / / ! / r
•.,�' ' ! ' ! !/ I // // / // • /!!!/!! %JJJ I . .'!! // //J/// /1 /
J.lVf�l!'LL /1/YI4 /kl�t t / f �)fi' yl j YVt�ol
JJJJI,,,r
r'r///•, / J/!//////JJJ!//////////!/i III///I////r/r//
/////J/„r '.'.'..:.' •,g•;+•.�'MAGM"/A'JJJJJJJJ:r
' r / i / / ,rrJ .f. •, f J / / / / / / / / / / / / / J I / / / / /
r! J J J r r. r r J r J dJ J r� �•• •.. � ,• ••• NC JJr J r r r J r J r J r r/ J J J J J// J J J r!
' �// rJJt,Jfrl,JJiJJJlrrrr
0
iae Ra 99e VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS P.C.
iR[Rt R0. _ ARMfMMRE . ►LAWMW . PiTEM 5
1949-5]90
AR)w9-5295
INTERSTATE' 70
/���1�7 1r ��/y� �p�vm 3T/�p DAM 9K1.19
VLOsoml"s4lifl� iiOR]fYme RMSi0H5f ovww nb
LOT 11
3276 KATSOS RANCH ROAD
VAIL, COLORADO