Loading...
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