Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-12 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIO March 12, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Absent: None 2. Site Visits 2.1. 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5 - Proctor Residence 2.2. 790 Potato Patch Drive - 790 Potato Patch LLC 2.3. 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3 - Potter Residence 2.4. 231 East Meadow Drive - Colorado Ski Museum 2.5. 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 24 - Nico Vail Restaurant 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for the review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from 20 min. Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign; and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum)/Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0004) Applicant Colorado Snowsports Museum Planner: Matt Panfil Panfil introduced application for two sign variances. One of the variances is for more than one sign and the other variance is to allow a sign greater than six (6) square feet in area. The two (2) proposed signs are: 1.) a 10.5 square foot museum sign above the window east of the new entrance; and 2.) a 1.7 square foot sign with the Colorado Snowsports Museum logo placed on the crossbeam above the new entry. One issue generating the requests is that Vail Transportation Center is located within Sign District 1. The sign district is pedestrian -oriented in nature. Panfil stated this is a unique situation because the signage is 40'-45' from the closest right-of-way. In regards to the variance criteria, staff does find that it meets all criteria. The parking structure was included in Sign District 1 without any consideration given that the structure is not necessarily of a pedestrian scale. Staff recommends approval of both variances. The Design Review Board (DRB) is required to approve the signage design after the PEC meeting. As far as context and character go, the PEC can provide guidance to the DRB. Gillette —Asked about signage at the Solaris. Specifically he wanted to know if shops on the mezzanine level of Solaris are limited to six (6) square feet as well. Spence — Correct, except for the bowling alley and movie theater, which are allowed larger signs. Rediker —Asked why the signs appear larger compared to what we are looking at in this application. Panfil — The colored awnings may have something to do with the signs appearing larger. Spence —Also, Vail Town Code allows you to use two boxes on measuring sign area. You can separate the two boxes with space and the space between would not count. Rediker — Referencing one of the images, he asked for the square footage of the Vail Village Transportation Center signage. Panfil — The icons are considered wayfinding/directional. Looking back through the history, there was very little included in the approved Vail Village Transit Center signage. Susie Tjossem, Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame indicated that she measured the Vail Transportation Center signage to the west of the museum's entrance to be approximately 16 square feet. Spence — If measured using the Vail Town Code technique, it would be a different measurement, resulting in a smaller measurement. Tjossem — Stated she does not have an additional presentation. Her intention is to make sure the signage is large enough for the pedestrians to see the signage from a distance. Additionally, the "Welcome to the Town of Vail" and "Thank You for Visiting" sign does block a portion of the proposed sign. Hopkins — There are two signage options shown. Asked for clarification as to which signage option is the preferred option. Tjossem — Stated the museum's first choice is the red museum sign on the wall above the window and the Colorado Snowsports Museum logo and text on the crossbeam above the new entrance. Panfil — Explained that one of the signage options was to demonstrate what the signage would look like if it were code compliant. Rediker —Asked for an approximate size of the previous museum sign. Tjossem — Stated she could go back and look, but does not remember as it was installed 24 years ago. Stockmar —Asked if the mural counts toward signage. Panfil — The mural did not count towards the signage requirement as murals are considered art. Tjossem — The mural was painted approximately 9 years ago. Rediker —Asked if the existing sign regulations were in place when the original sign was approved. Stockmar —Asked for the purpose was of the two blue rectangles in the rendering. Tjossem — The blue rectangles show the measurements used in the exhibit. Tjossem — Wanted to make the design clean and clear to just say "Museum." This will allow visitors to clearly know what is inside. Perez —Asked if the museum found it acceptable to use the logo and text to fit within the blue highlighted space. Tjossem — The reason the red was picked is that it matches the window trim. Stated that the suggestion could be a possibility, because the sign over the door is only for those that are walking by on the near sidewalk. Perez — Stated she is trying to find what is sufficient. Tjossem — Stated that she believes what is sufficient is what we requested. Lockman —Asked if creating this exception for two signs would allow other nearby businesses to ask for two signs. Panfil — If at some point they wanted to come back and ask for additional signage, they would have to return to the PEC. Kurz —Asked for clarification regarding the proposed sign over the door. Tjossem — Responded that the signage would be individually cut letters on the crossbeam. Kurz — Stated that in regards to what he saw in the field from the street below, the museum sign does not need to be as visible and prominent as what is proposed. Asked if a smaller sign still be visible from Slifer Square. A reduction of the main sign may still provide what the museum is looking for, in terms of visibility. Tjossem — The sign we propose is 84" wide. She showed one of the exhibits to Kurz of the signage imposed on the building. Hopkins — Expressed her interest in signage height the 10" — 14" letter range. When up close, the proposed sign seems out of scale with the facade. She suggested the applicant bring the letter size down from 18" to 15" or less. There was no public comment. Stockmar — Stated that he would like to see the museum attract the public, but he is concerned with the proposed size of the sign. He is not convinced that people walking by will see the sign. As people walk up the stairs, people then need to see it. He would like to find a mechanism to attract people to the museum. Would like to narrow down the signage letters. A measurement has not been done to see how much of the pedestrian traffic will be attracted to the museum. There are other distractions with signs in the area. He concluded that he would like to see the proposed signage shrunk down to match and blend with the building. Gillette — If this variance is approved, then there will be a new standard and there will be many more applications for sign variances around the Town. Expressed his interest in seeing the level of legibility if a code compliant sign was placed on the building. Kurz — Stated he looks at this signage for a museum differently than for a business. He would like the applicant to stay within the code. If the museum sign size should be reduced, he would be okay with the application. Perez — Stated she was wondering if a directional sign would be allowed on the road, which would increase visibility and limit the building signage to one. Hopkins — Stated she would like the sign to be smaller. Neubecker — Stated only code criteria should be considered, not necessarily the who the tenant is. Lockman — Concurs with previous comments. Disagrees that the proposed variances meet Criteria 1. He does not think it is designed to be looked at from the bottom of the street. There is sufficient signage around the Town and this proposal does not meet the criteria for a variance. Rediker — There are some physical limitations on this site, which make it difficult for signage and drawing pedestrians into the museum. Because the garage is a multi-level building he feels pedestrians are in a sense pushed away due to the scale. He agreed with Lockman's comments. He would like to see different alternatives. In particular, he would like to know whether or not it is reasonable to shrink the "museum" signage. He would allow more than one sign due to the challenges of the site, but he is not comfortable with the size of the "museum" sign. He suggested the applicant request a tabling of the item in order to address Commissioner comments and then return with an alternative. Tjossem —Asked if she could professionally render the sign herself, rather than returning to the professional sign company. She also suggested putting tape up in the sign location. Asked for further clarification as to how much smaller the sign should be. Stockmar — Stated his problem with the application is that this location is already sign heavy and busy. Tjossem — It has gotten busy due to all the other existing signs around the Vail Transportation Center. Panfil — Clarified that the applicant may request a vote be taken today and then appeal to the Town Council if she disagreed with the commission's decision. Tjossem — Stated that she would prefer to table the application and return in two weeks on March 26. Brian Stockmar moved to table to March 26, 2018. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.2. The applicant, John Potter, represented by Pierce Architects, is requesting 20 min. the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Also included in this application is the addition of a common element airlock entrance and the replacement of the trellis screening of a mechanical service deck with a stucco wall on the east side of the structure. ApplicantJohn Potter, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this major exterior alteration request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall be required to meet the Inclusionary Zoning obligations at time of building permit issuance. Spence introduced the application and stated that because the proposal is within the CC1 District, the addition of square footage must appear within the PEC. There are three primary components of the request, including: an air lock, replacement of the existing screen with a more permanent stucco wall, and an addition. The eave line will be raised and been there. the two roofs will become one. The entirety of the roof must be replaced, although that will ultimately be a PEC decision. Staff has done an analysis and finds that the proposal meets all the criteria. The chimney that is being reduced is the eastern chimney. Stockmar — Asked staff to confirm that the change in GRFA still keeps the property within the Code requirements. Spence — Correct Gillette —Asked staff if they reviewed the sunshade analysis. Spence — Staff looked at the sunshade analysis and confirmed the additions will not affect the adjacent properties. Bill Pierce, Pierce Architects, stated he did not have anything else to add. Lockman — This is a great example of moving projects forward while maintaining the character of Vail Village and provided the building with a much-needed upgrade. Hopkins —Asked if the driveway is for parking or for Pepi's. Pierce — There is a separate entrance to Pepi's for parking. The driveway shown is for the residence of the building. Hopkins — Asked if a snow guard is needed because of the proposed metal roof. Pierce — Stated that they will provide a snow guard. Perez — Found that it meets the criteria. Kurz — In support of this and hopes the area will be cleaned up by the effort. Stockmar — Asked if the stucco wall continue in the same plane or if it will be inset. Pierce — It will appear as though the wall has always Rediker —Agreed with staff's analysis. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.3. 790 Potato Patch LLC and David Schell, represented by Pierce and 20 min. Associates, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0007) Applicant -790 Potato Patch LLC, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this variance request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project, the applicant shall provide a site specific geological investigation consistent with the requirements of Section 12-21-13. 3. This approval shall not require the applicant to make any associated driveway improvements. Spence introduced the application and stated the Vail Town Code has a requirement when adding square footage over 500 square feet nonconformities must be brought into compliance with the Code. Portions of the existing driveway exceed 18% slope and the applicant has agreed to heat the driveway and lessen portions to approximately 14% slope. Rediker —Asked staff if they believe the applicant has done all that they could to bring the driveway into compliance. Spence — If would be impossible to build a driveway given the two existing points of the curb cut and garage. Redker —Asked if the house was constructed prior to the existing driveway regulations. Spence —Answered yes, the house was constructed prior to the existing driveway regulations. Lockman —Asked for clarification of a letter on pages 79-80. Spence — Stated the owners after discussions with the Town of Vail and the owners that the work was necessary for the driveway. Lockman —Asked if the Town is requiring snowmelt on the entire driveway. Spence — The only portion heated is the red portion. Staff would most likely not recommend approval if not heated. Stockmar —Asked if the entire size of the driveway will be shrunk at the curb. Gillette —Asked for clarification as to why the applicant must heat the new driveway If the existing driveway works. The applicant was following the rules prior to renovation. Pierce — The plans cut off approximately ten feet (10') feet from the switch back. The applicant does not want to heat the driveway. Gillette — Would like to grant the variance without requiring the applicant to heat the driveway. Rediker — Given that the Code requires heated driveways and staff's analysis. The applicant is bringing the grade down 14%. Asked what the average will be for the grade on the driveway. Pierce — Stated 14.5% is the average grade. Rediker —Asked if staff is requiring the applicant to heat the driveway due to safety measures. Spence — Pointed out the applicant worked with Public Works to improve on two safety aspects. Even after regrading, there are two steep sections of the driveway remaining. Rediker —Asked where does the 12% come from. Spence — The maximum slope, if heating the driveway, is 12%. Perez —Asked if they are being asked to grant a variance that will still not bring the applicant into compliance with the Code. Stockmar — Stated that the issue is still which part of the heated driveway has the steepest grade. The grade where the driveway intersects with right-of-way is the steepest at appro)amately 14.5%. Rediker —Asked the applicant if there is no way to reduce the grades even further than what we have looked at given the existing conditions that exist. Pierce — Stated there is nothing we can do given the existing conditions. Stockmar — Stated we will face a lot of these issues over the years. This seems to make sense to a difficult solution to the problem. There are times at which it makes sense to heat a portion of the driveway. With the knowledge of historical issues, he agreed with the applicant. Gillette — Believed staff made the applicant go too far on this application, since the driveway currently works just fine. The variance should not include the driveway, because it was conforming when it was built. Kurz —Agreed with Stockmar. Perez — Believes staff is making applicant go too far with the application of the driveway. Hopkins — Primary concern is the environment. Believes the heated driveway is not necessary. Lockman — Stated he believes this is an issue with the Town Code section for snowmelt systems. The commission is going to continue to see this with applications in the future. The Town should not be directing applicant to spend large sums of money, and this section of the Code should be examined. Gillette — Stated a condition could be added where snowmelt is not added. Rediker —Asked for an estimated cost of the snowmelt system. David Viele — The cost is not only in the snowmelt system, but also the removal of asphalt and then installing pavers. He estimated that it could cost close to $200,000. Stockmar — Stated that he was leaning back to agreeing with Gillette. Rediker —Asked how much of the cost should be attributed to regrading vs snowmelt. Viele — Cost of snowmelt only is close to $85-$100,000. If this were done in Avon or Aspen, there would be a square footage requirement/fee attached to the project. Kurz —Asked if the commission were to go with Gillette's suggestion, would the project conform to code. Rediker —Asked how far the project is above the 500 square foot requirement. Spence —About 350 or 360 square feet on each side. Rediker — Stated this is a challenging application with imposing conditions that staff has proposed. The commission is dealing with an impossible condition to bring the existing driveway into compliance. Unfortunately, the Code does not allow us to consider the cost of the heated driveway of approximately $200,000 to not bring the driveway completely into compliance. Difficult application to consider with conformity with the Town Code with the obvious need and concerns of the legitimacy of the Code and public safety concerns of a steep unheated driveway. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (5-2). Ayes: (5) Gillette, Hopkins, Lockman, Perez, Stockmar Nays: (2) Rediker, Kurz 3.4. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative 5 min. action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and 11, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans in order to permit a change to gross floor area located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 24/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0008) ApplicantNico Vail Inc., represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Lightfield introduced the project by summarizing the report provided to the PEC, including a description of the physical changes to occur as a result of the minor amendment. Lightfield reviewed the elevations and renderings provided by the applicant. Rediker —Asked for the total increase in GRFA. Neubecker corrected Rediker's request in that there is no increase in GRFA, but rather commercial square footage. Lightfield responded that there are 233 square feet of new commercial space proposed, which complies with the maximum allowable commercial square footage. Jeff Manley, of Martin Manley Architects, made himself available for questions. There was no public comment. 3.5. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements 45 min. by Zone District, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicantflolly Proctor, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Perez stated that Ms. Proctor was previously a client of hers, but she has spoken with Chairman Rediker about her work and she feels it is not necessary to recuse herself from this application. Neubecker asked Perez if there has been any ex parte communication between herself and the applicant, or if she has already made up her mind about the item. She confirmed no ex parte communication or predetermined decision regarding the item. Stockmar recommended that Perez consider recusing herself. Rediker stated that if she has no further business with the applicant and she can meet her duties as a Commissioner than she does not need to recuse herself. Perez stated that she will recuse herself. Neubecker introduced the project by summarizing the requested variances and the overall layout of The Hamlet development. There is a proposed storage area that will be counted as gross residential floor area (GRFA) due to the fact that the head height of the storage area will exceed five feet (5'). Gillette — Asked for clarification as to how GRFA and other development standards are calculated for this property. Rediker — Asked for clarification as to where the full-size doors to the storage area will be located. Neubecker referenced the proposed elevations to further describe the proposed improvements. Stockmar — Asked for the proposed width of the door opening. John Martin, Martin Manley Architects, responded that there are two (2) three foot (3') wide doors. Neubecker added that the proposed deck above the storage space has already been approved by the Design Review Board (DRB). There are multiple variance requests because nonconformities are addressed in multiple areas of the Vail Town Code. Neubecker concluded by stating that staff recommends denial as they do not believe that all criteria for a variance have been met. Neubecker referenced the staff memo outlining which of the variance criteria staff does not believe have been met by the applicant (Criteria 1 and 2). Lockman — Asked, if approved, there is anything that prevents the applicant from making the storage area into residential space. Neubecker stated that while it would not be ideal based on the layout of the unit, but it is possible. Neubecker asked to confirm the PEC received an email expressing support from one of the neighboring property owners. Kurz — Asked to confirm that the overall project is over allowable GRFA. Kurz asked if the dwelling units were on individual development lots, would the subject property still exceed allowable GRFA. Neubecker stated that while it would not necessarily exceed allowable GRFA, it would exceed density in regards to dwelling units per acre. Hopkins — Asked how the proposal would impact the parking requirements for The Hamlet. Neubecker stated that parking is calculated by minimum spaces per unit. As there are not any new units proposed, parking would remain compliant, and is actually improved by the conversion of living space back into a garage and the consolidation of two units into one. Rediker — Asked for clarification as to the maximum head height and entrance size that would make the proposal compliant with Vail Town Code. Neubecker responded that storage may have a maximum head height of five feet (6) and an entrance size of twelve (12) square feet. Martin added that a foundation is required for the proposed deck. The applicant is simply asking to enclose the area below the deck, which is unfortunately greater than five feet (5) above grade. There was a discussion about the nonconformities associated with the overall Hamlet development. Martin added that the applicant is not facing a physical hardship, but rather a hardship created by the underlying Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS) Residential zoning Stockmar — Asked if the applicant was agreeable to a proposal with a wider entrance than code allows but one that conforms to the head height regulations. Martin stated that such a request is not practical. Rediker asked how the Town would make sure the applicant builds the storage space to a maximum head height of five feet (6). Neubecker stated that the applicant would need to provide some sort of structural improvement like a raised floor or truss -like ceiling system. The applicant, Holly Proctor, stated that she disagrees with some of the responses to the review criteria contained within the staff memo. Proctor stated that she believes there are no negative impacts associated with the proposal and stated that the property is already non -conforming and will never be conforming due to the zoning established in 1986. She believes that property should be eligible for the 250 square foot addition provided by the "250 Ordinance" because of the nature of the land use, not the actual zoning. She stated that as owner of the property she has no intention to use the storage space for living space. Hopkins — Asked for clarification as to what will happen with the garage spaces and if the applicant intends to store a vehicle in the storage area. Proctor responded that one of the previously converted garage spaces will go back to garage area and that she does not intend on parking any cars in the storage area, but she may keep a snowblower in the storage area. There was no public comment. Lockman — Stated that he understands the applicant's difficulties, but does not support the requested variances. He may support Stockmar's suggestion that the entrance size variance be approved, but does not believe the head height variation should be approved. Hopkins — Finds it difficult to say that approving the variances would not be a granting a special privilege. Kurz — Stated that he cannot support the requested variances. The zoning is what it is and until it is changed, the request is not allowed by the underlying zoning. Gillette — Stated that he also cannot find anything within the Vail Town Code to support the requested variances. Stockmar — Concurred with the other commissioners and stated that the PEC is constrained by the Vail Town Code and cannot find anything within the code that supports the request. Rediker — The Town wants homeowners to be able to invest in redevelop their properties, but in this case the Vail Town Code does not support the requested variances and he finds that the proposal does not meet the variance criteria. Rediker informed the applicant that they have the ability to appeal their decision. Martin argued that the applicant meets the variance criteria because while there may not be a physical hardship, there is a practical difficulty. Martin stated that Dominic Mauriello estimated that it would cost $30,000 to request a rezoning. Rediker stated that information does not pertain to the actual variance requests. Proctor asked Stockmar for clarification as to his questions regarding the door width. Rediker asked Neubecker if the application can be amended to reflect Stockmar's proposal. Neubecker stated that if it were to be considered, there would be a publishing requirement for a variance to allow for a crawlspace entrance greater than twelve (12) square feet in area. There was a lengthy discussion regarding alternatives to the proposal. Brian Stockmar moved to table to April 9, 2018. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain: (1) Perez 3.6. A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14- 5 min. 10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) Applicant requests PEC table to March 26, 2018. ApplicantArosa Partners LLC, represented by Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lightfield The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the March 26, 2018 meeting. Ludwig Kurz moved to table to March 26, 2018. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. Februrary 26, 2018 PEC Results 5. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request forth e review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign; and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum)/Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0004) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC18- Staff Memo to PEC 0004 - Sign Variance - Colorado Snowsports Museum Hall of Fame.pdf Attachment A - Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A - Vicinity Map Attachments B C.pdf Attachments B & C - Project Narrative, Site Photos, and Sign Plans TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for the review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign; and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 111-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame)/Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0004) Applicant: Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame Planner: Matt Panfil I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame, is requesting the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign; and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame) / Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with one condition, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame (Museum), is requesting two (2) sign variances. The first variance is a request to allow for two (2) business identification signs where only one (1) is permitted by Vail Town Code. One of the business identification signs is proposed to be mounted to the wall of the Vail Transportation Center, above and to the east of the existing Museum entrance. The second business identification sign is proposed to be located on the crossbar of the gable above the Museum entrance. The second variance request is to allow the proposed wall -mounted sign to be ten and one-half (10.5) square feet in area where six (6) square feet is the maximum permitted by Vail Town Code. The sign proposed for the crossbar of the gable above the Museum entrance is approximately one and seven -tenths (1.7) square feet in area. Therefore, the total signage area proposed for the Museum is proposed to be twelve and two-tenths (12.2) square feet. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative (Attachment B), and site photos and proposed signage renderings (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The Vail Transportation Center, constructed in 1976, is the primary public parking area for Vail Village. The property also serves as the central hub of public transportation, serving local, regional, and Greyhound buses as well as serving as a central location for taxis. In addition to the Museum, other businesses contained within the Vail Transportation Center include: the Vail Village Welcome Center, Town of Vail's Transportation Operations Office, La Cantina Restaurant, and the HUB Center (a central location for many local communications providers, as well as local DAS — Distributed Antenna System). On February 2, 2016, the Museum received approval from the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) for the renovation of the Museum (DRB160005). Subsequent changes to DRB160005 were approved on March 15, 2017 (DRB17-0080). The intent of the renovation was to improve guest access to and visibility of the Museum. Internal space was reconfigured for an uninterrupted flow through an expanded and modernized exhibit area. The Museum entrance was aligned with the Vail Transportation Center's primary stairway and a gabled roof entrance was created. In regards to allowable signage, the Vail Town Code divides the town into three (3) districts: 1. Sign District 1 (SD 1): All of Vail except for property zoned ABD and CC3; Town of Vail Page 2 2. Sign District 2 (SD 2): All property zoned ABD and CC3 (West Vail and Cascade Crossing); and 3. Sign District 3 (SD 3): West Vail Interchange (CDOR right-of-way). The Museum is located within Sign District 1 (SD 1). A vast majority of commercial properties located in SD 1 are found either in Vail Village or Lionshead Village. As such, the sign regulations are predicated on a pedestrian -scaled environment where most signs are viewed from a relatively short distance. Due to the Museum's unique location on the third floor of the Vail Transportation Center's south facade, the Museum entrance is setback approximately 42 feet horizontally and three stories vertically from the edge of the pavement of East Meadow Drive. Despite the efforts to create a well-defined Museum entrance through architectural design, the applicant suggests that the location (distance from street as well as height above the street) renders a sign six (6) square feet in area inadequate for visibility by pedestrians on East Meadow Drive and renders the sign substantially ineffective. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds the following provisions of the Vail Town Code relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 11 — Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1: Description, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 11-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. General Purpose: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. B. Specific Purpose: These regulations are intended to achieve the following specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. Town of Vail Page 3 3. To preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community. Chapter 2: Definitions (in part) 11-2-1: DEFINITIONS ENUMERA TED: BUSINESS SIGN: Any sign that displays the name of the business upon which site it is located including any graphics and language that represent the building. FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: For the purposes of calculating allowable sign area, first floor or street level shall be any floor, or portion of any floor, of a structure located at or nearest to (either above or below) the level of the adjacent vehicular or pedestrian way, as determined by the administrator. More than one floor, or portion of floors, may be defined as first floor or street level within a single structure. WALL SIGN: A sign that is attached to, painted onto, or erected upon the wall of a building or structure, with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the face of the wall. Chapter 5: Design Guidelines and Standards, Sign Measurement (in part) 11-5-4: SIGN MEASUREMENT. A. Single Faced Signs: Single faced signs (i.e. awning signs, wall signs) shall be measured by up to two (2) imaginary polygons enclosing all letters, graphics and sign base material, including framing, not integrated into the architecture of the building. Chapter 6: Business and Identification Signs (in part) 11-6-1: PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION: Business and building identification signs are meant to identify and inform through the display of the business and/or building name and any graphic symbols or language pertinent to the advertised enterprise. This chapter covers all of the technical information related to business and building identification signs. All business and building identification signs shall comply with the standards outlined in the chapter and shall be subject to design review. Town of Vail Page 4 11-6-2: SIGN DISTRICTS.- A. ISTRICTS: A. Sign district 1 (SD 1): All of Vail except for property zoned ABD and CC3. 11-6-3: BUSINESS SIGNS: A. Business Identification Signs 1. Business identification signs in sign district 1 (SD I).- a. ): a. Number: Each business shall be allowed one business identification sign per public entrance. b. Area: The allowable area of each business identification sign shall be up to six (6) square feet. At the discretion of the design review board, a business identification sign for a bowling alley or movie theater may be up to fifteen (15) square feet in area, subject to the applicant demonstrating that the sign area is harmonious with the scale and architectural character of the subject business and the building in which it is located. Chapter 10: Variances and Appeals (in part) 11-10-1: VARIANCES.- A. ARIANCES: A. Purpose: A variance from the sign regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the planning and environmental commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical limitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of this title. B. Application Procedure: An application for a variance from the sign regulations may be obtained from the community development department. The variance application must include a sign permit application, the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance, and a nonrefundable fee determined by the town council as set forth by town ordinances. The staff shall set a date for a hearing before the planning and environmental commission once the complete application has been received. C. Criteria For Approval.- 1. pproval: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would Town of Vail Page 5 substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 231 South Frontage Road East Legal Description: Vail Village Filing 1, Tract B & C Zoning: General Use (GU) Land Use Plan Designations: Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Transportation Center with Accessory Uses Geological Hazards: None View Corridor: View Corridor#1, Non -Impacting VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 11, Chapter 10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, and are as follows. The applicant must demonstrate that all three of these criteria are met: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. In order for the Planning and Environmental Commission to grant a sign variance, there must be a finding that a unique physical limitation exists that prevents the area of a sign and number of signs from complying with the standards of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. In contrast to most properties and buildings located Town of Vail Page 6 Existing Land Use: Zoning District North: Frontage Road / 1-70 N/A South: Village Master Plan Outdoor Recreation & Public Accommodation East: Village Master Plan High Density Multiple -Family West: Village Master Plan Commercial Service Center VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 11, Chapter 10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, and are as follows. The applicant must demonstrate that all three of these criteria are met: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. In order for the Planning and Environmental Commission to grant a sign variance, there must be a finding that a unique physical limitation exists that prevents the area of a sign and number of signs from complying with the standards of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. In contrast to most properties and buildings located Town of Vail Page 6 within Sign District 1 (SD 1), the Vail Transportation Center is a large development lot with the Museum entrance setback considerably from the East Meadow Drive right-of-way. As such, the proposed size and quantity of signs increases legibility of the copy for pedestrians either on the third floor plaza of the Vail Transportation Center or on East Meadow Drive. Staff finds that special circumstances exist, namely the horizontal and vertical distance of the signage to pedestrians on East Meadow Drive, that warrant relief from the provisions of the sign regulations. As proposed, the size and quantity of signs increases the overall visibility of the Museum and provides legible copy for pedestrians at both the third floor level and on East Meadow Drive. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. The circumstances necessitating the variance requests are due to the overall design and functional layout of the Vail Transportation Center. Sign District 1 (SD 1) is intended for the pedestrian -oriented Vail Village and Lionshead Village and does not consider this type of use or building design. The applicant did not create the circumstances that necessitate the requested variance. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. The granting of the requested variances is in general harmony with the general or specific purposes of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. Specifically, the approval of the proposed signs would be consistent with promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town of Vail by informing residents and guests to the location and operation of the Museum. Unless a resident or guest has parked in the third or fourth floor of the parking structure, or is taking the stairs to the fourth floor for public transit, the sidewalk and stairs in front of the Museum entrance is not a normal pathway of pedestrian travel. Therefore, the Museum entrance's distance away from a normal path of pedestrian travel necessitates an increase in sign area. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department Town of Vail Page 7 recommends approval, with one condition, of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign; and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame)/Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, these two (2) variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with one condition, the applicant's request for the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign, and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6- 3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame)/Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Condition.- 1. ondition: 1. Approval of these sign variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, these two (2) variance requests, the Community Development Departments recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the March 12, 2018 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question,- 2. uestion, 2. The applicant has not created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request; and Town of Vail Page 8 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative C. Site Photos and Rendering of Proposed Signage Town of Vail Page 9 COLORADO LIV) sNOWSPORTs MUSEUM HALL OF FAME February 1, 2018 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 Frontage Road W Vail, CO 81657 Planning Commission and Planning Department Staff, On behalf of the Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame's Board of Directors, I am submitting the following sign variance request for your review. The Museum's transformation is nearly complete, thus finalizing the cohesive and modernized facelift of the Vail Village Parking Structure, The vastly improved Museum will most certainly enhance the off -mountain and/or indoor amenities and experiences that both skiing and non -skiing guests are actively seeking in the commercial core of Vail Village. The new Museum will also provide a positive economic impact on Vail, as our visitors tend to linger and experience the entire village. In order to improve the "out of sight, out of mind" and "Vail's best kept secret" reputation, the Museum created a more visible presence in Vail Village by moving our main entrance to align with the central staircase of the Vail Parking Structure, adding a gabled roof above the new electronic doors. Despite these efforts, the Museum still Tacks the visibility it deserves, as it is located on the P level of the parking structure. The signage allowed by code is 6 square feet, which is not adequate in order to be seen from the ground level of the Vail Parking Structure. We are therefore requesting a signage variance, an increase of an additional 6 square feet, to provide adequate visibility for the Museum. The proposed sign incorporates the window trim color of the museum and the Vail Welcome Center, situated directly above the museum. We are looking forward to your approval as the final step in the Museum's long-awaited transformation. Sincerely, Susie Susie Tjossem Executive Director Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame 231 S. Frontage Road East Vail, CO 81657 T 4 NPF s "wr7- r. 0 E 0 4-J E O W LU CA cn + 0 CO ,H 0 X CO x GA cu Cr c g3 r � � ^• ,r y ' ram City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: The applicant, John Potter, represented by Pierce Architects, is requesting the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/1-ot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Also included in this application is the addition of a common element airlock entrance and the replacement of the trellis screening of a mechanical service deck with a stucco wall on the east side of the structure. ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0006 Staff Memorandum.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Site Photos.pdf Attachment C. Project Narrative 2-12-2018.pdf Attachment D. Project Plan Set 2-23-2018 Part1.pdf Attachment D. Project Plan Set 2-23-2018 Part2.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Site Photos Attachment C. Project Narrative, 2-12-2018 Attachment D. Project Plan Set 2-23-2018_Part1 Attachment D. Project Plan Set 2-23-2018_Part2 TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: March 12, 2018 Subject: A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0006) Applicant: John Potter, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, John Potter, represented by Pierce Architects, is requesting the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside Building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Also included in this application is the addition of a common element airlock entrance and the replacement of the trellis screening of a mechanical service deck with a stucco wall on the east side of the structure. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, John Potter, represented by Pierce Architects, is requesting the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Also included in this application is the addition of a common element airlock entrance and the replacement of the trellis screening of a mechanical service deck with a stucco wall on the east side of the structure. The residential additions to condominium unit #3 consist of a 176 sq. ft. GRFA addition on the second level, infilling an existing deck, and a 107 sq. ft. GRFA addition on the third level, enlarging an existing loft for a total increase in GRFA of 283 sq. ft. The residential additions will be accomplished by raising the dormer roof to match the existing dormer at the adjacent unit. Because this roof shares both a ridge and a plane with a nonconforming roof (wood shake shingles) all existing nonconforming roof coverings will be replaced as part of this project. It is anticipated that the dormer roofs will be clad in standing seam metal while the remaining portions of nonconforming roof will be replaced with the Cedur* composite roofing. The addition of a common element airlock entrance along the eastern facade will improve the aesthetics and functionality of the property. This addition is not GRFA and is exempt from inclusionary zoning requirements. The replacement of an existing trellis with a stucco wall matching the material, color and finish of other stucco on the structure will increase the effectiveness of the screening of the mechanical equipment. All projects within the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District that include any increase in enclosed floor area are subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) as an Exterior Alteration or Modification. A vicinity map (Attachment A), site photos (Attachment B), applicant's narrative (Attachment C), and the proposed site and architectural plans, (Attachment D) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND: According to the Eagle County Assessor's Office, the Creekside Building was constructed in 1971 and provides retail, restaurant and residential uses. Town files indicate a variety of applications have been presented before the Design Review Board (DRB) for exterior improvements and a somewhat similar application to enclose residential decks was withdrawn in 2000. The property's current zoning designation of Commercial Core 1 District (CC1) was established as part of the original Town of Vail zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, adopted on August 7, 1973. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS: Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code, Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Town of Vail Page 2 Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Section 12-78 Commercial Core 1 (CCI) District (in part) 12-78-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The zoning regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. 12-78-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Subject To Review: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the planning and environmental commission (PEC). VAIL LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER 11— LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES.- The OLICIES: The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth/ Development Town of Vail Page 3 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 the permanent resident. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 4. Village Core/ Lionshead 4.3. The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the purpose of the plan as follows: "This Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Itis intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. This Plan emphasizes the critical need to balance and coordinate parking and transportation systems with future improvements to Vail Mountain that will increase the "in and out of Valley" lift capacity. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides valuable information for a wide variety of people and interests. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. " The Vail Village Master Plan established six goals containing objectives, policies and action steps. The following goals, objectives and policies are applicable to this major exterior alteration proposal. "GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. Town of Vail Page 4 Objective 1.1: Implement a consistent development review process to reinforce the character of the Village. Policy 1.1.1: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Objective 1.4: Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. Policy 1.4.1: The historical importance of structures, landmarks, plazas and other similar features shall be taken into consideration in the development review process. Policy 1.4.2: The Town may grant flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of its regulations and design guidelines to help protect and maintain the existing character of Vail Village. Policy 1.4.3: Identification of "historic" importance shall not be used as the sole means of preventing or prohibiting development in Vail Village. GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Policy 2.1.1: The zoning code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Policy 2.2.1: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. Town of Vail Page 5 Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Policy 2.5.2: The town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.1: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Policy 3.1.2: Public art and other similar landmark features shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. Policy 3.1.3: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas." Chapter 7 of the Vail Village Master Plan identifies eleven Vail Village Sub -Areas. Within each sub -area concepts are described which are meant to serve as "advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission". The Creekside building is located within Sub -Area #3. Sub -Area 3# is as follows: Town of Vail Page 6 "This pedestrianized area of the Village represents the traditional image of Vail. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, limited vehicular access, and inter- connected pedestrian ways are some of the characteristics that distinguish this area from other portions of the Village. With the exception of embellishing pedestrian walkways, developing plazas with greenspace, and adding a number of infill developments, it is a goal of the community to preserve the character of the Village as it is today. The core area, with it's predominantly Tyrolean architecture is the site of the earliest development in Vail. Over time, a need to upgrade and improve infrastructure such as loading and delivery facilities, drainage, paved surfaces and other landscape features has become apparent. Many improvements to public spaces will be addressed as part of an overall streetscape improvement project. There is also the potential to initiate a number of these improvements in conjunction with private sector development projects. Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will be change in the core area's built environment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. Most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyranos Building, the Lodge at Vail, and the Covered Bridge Building. If each of these and other properties develop to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of development in the Village core. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been the primary tool in guiding private development proposals in the core area since 1980. The Guide Plan will Town of Vail Page 7 V continue to be used in conjunction with the goals and design criteria outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan. Infill and redevelopment proposals shall be reviewed for compliance with the design criteria, goals, objectives and policies established in these respective plans." SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Geological Hazards: 223 Gore Creek Drive Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1 Commercial Core 1 Vail Village Master Plan Mixed -Use None Development Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Change Lot/Site Area 5,000 sq. ft. 10,873 sq. ft. 10,873 sq. ft. No Change buildable Setbacks No setbacks required by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan 60% at 33 ft. or 29% at 33 29% at 33 Building Height less ft. or less ft. or less No Change 40% at 33 ft. to 43 71% at 33 71% at 33 ft ft. to 43 ft ft. to 43 ft Density 25 DUs / acre of 3 unit No new No Change buildable units Gross Residential 8,697 sq. ft. (80%) 6,897 sq. ft. 7,180 sq. ft. +283 sq. ft. Floor Area (GRFA) (63%) (66%) Site Coverage 8,697 sq. ft. (80%) 6,8039 sq. ft. 6,8039 sq. ft. No Change (63%) (63%) Landscaping No reduction in landscape area No Change No Change allowed VI. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North South East: West: Town of Vail Existing Use Open Space (Streamtract) Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Zoning District Outdoor Recreation Commercial Core 1 Commercial Core 1 Commercial Core 1 Page 8 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA EXTERIOR ALTERATION It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the PEC that: 1. The proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 district as specified in section 12-713-1, Vail Town Code; and, Staff finds the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purpose of the CC1 District as the proposal will "maintain the unique character of Vail Village." The proposed exterior alterations are consistent in appearance to the existing structure and the improvements will improve the functionality and aesthetic quality of the property. As there is an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area, the project is subject to the requirements of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 24, Inclusionary Zoning. Specifically, the project would be required to provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by the residential development. The chart below illustrates this requirement: Inclusionary Zoning (12-24, Vail Town Code) Existing GRFA 6,897 square feet Proposed GRFA 7,180 square feet New GRFA 283 square feet of new GRFA square Mitigation Rate 10% feet Required Mitigation 28.3 square feet Required Fee in lieu payment $320.90 X 28.3 = $9,081.47 The fee in lieu schedule is subject to change annually. The required payment is calculated at the time of building permit submittal and may be different than the number above. Affecting the required payment will be the Fee in Lieu Schedule and the actual net new square footage proposed at time of building permit submittal. Therefore, staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion. Town of Vail Page 9 2. The proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and, Staff finds that the application is consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, because the proposal is an upgrade to an existing mixed-use structure. The intent of Objective 1.2 with the Vail Village Master Plan is to, "encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities."The addition of a common element airlock entrance along the eastern facade will improve the aesthetics and functionality of the property. The replacement of an existing trellis with a stucco wall matching the material, color and finish of other stucco on the structure will increase the effectiveness of the screening of the mechanical equipment. Therefore, staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion. 3. The proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and, The proposal is intended to blend into the existing structure and all materials, finishes, and colors will match existing conditions and not negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. The residential additions will be accomplished by raising the dormer roof to match the existing dormer at the adjacent unit. Because this roof shares both a ridge and a plane with a nonconforming roof (wood shake shingles) all existing nonconforming roof coverings will be replaced as part of this project, enhancing safety for the building occupants and neighboring structures. Therefore, staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion. 4. The proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village design considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrian ization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis. The proposed exterior modifications and building additions are minor and do not change the character of the building. The new entrance and mechanical screening are supported by the Urban Design Guide Plan (Plan). The modifications to the roof result in a roof plan that remains consistent with the recommendations of the Plan, i.e. stepped forms presented as a composite. All colors and materials are proposed to match existing, which are predominately gray stucco with wood accents, also consistent with the Plan. The proposed additions will have an indiscernible impact on sun/shade of adjacent properties. Therefore, staff finds the proposed exterior alteration meets this review criterion. Town of Vail Page 10 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve major exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and addition to a unit within the Creekside building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Conditions.- Approval onditions: Approval of this major exterior alteration request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall be required to meet the Inclusionary Zoning obligations at time of building permit issuance. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance and minor exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Sections VI and Vll of the March 12, 2018 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI District as specified in Section 12-7B-1 of the Zoning Regulations, and 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Town of Vail Page 11 IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Photos C. Project Narrative, 2-12-2018 D. Proposed Plans including Building Elevations, dated February 23, 2018 Town of Vail Page 12 -ANN,* it I ul u lix Ilk wr-ri-. � F ri �>>- �., r t +,� � I AW -i . LI VI wrr lot vON m 4L Il111 IIuu1 �I odmlo-Pli7 iI ol Oki William F. Pierce, Architect Tyson Dearduff, Director of Architecture Kathy Heshnga, Office Manager February 12, 2108 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Narrative to support Major Exterior Alteration PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO Creekside Building ( formally Rosenquist-Switzer Building ) Creekside Condominium #3 223 Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Parcel Number: 2101- 082-12-013 Commissioners, On behalf of the Property Owner: John Potter PO Box 500 Mermaid Beach QLD 4218 Austrailia I offer the following responses to support the approval of the Major Exterior Alteration to the Creekside Building and Condominiums. Description of the proposeduses: The property is located on the second and third floor of the Creekside Condominiums that was originally constructed in the 1960's and expanded several times. The first floor and basement of the Creekside Building are commercial and restaurant uses. The second, third and fourth floors are residential condominiums. The subject properties have served as residential condominiums since inception and will remain in use for residential purposes. The condominiums intend to avail themselves with the available allowable GRFA. The second floor residential condominium is to be expanded and the third level unit will remain as a loft. The loft will be expanded partially into volumes that exceed 16 feet in height within the existing condominium. These factors are illustrated in the documents. The existing unit will retain the kitchen and are accessible from Common Element corridors and stairways and proposed expanded airlock entry (under a separate application). 1650 Fallridge Road, Suite C-1 Vail, Colorado 81657 P: 970.476.6342 F: 970.476.4901 www.vailarchitects.com William F. Pierce, Architect Tyson Dearduff, Director of Architecture Kathy Heslinga, Office Manager PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO The proposed uses are permitted uses in CCI and are compatible with surrounding properties. Proposed additions are not within nearby View Corridors. The proposed additions do not increase site coverage. The height will not be increased. Relationship to the development objectives of the Town (references From Vail Village Master Plan, An Element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan): Goal #1- Encourage high duality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the village.... The proposed addition is minor in nature and the majority of the improvements occupy existing volume. 1.2 Objective - Encourage upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. This is clearly the purpose of the project. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. In that the proposed uses are minor there is no impact on these matters. The effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from streets and parking areas. In that the proposed uses are the same there is no impact on these matters. The new roof will be designed to meet current snow load standards, reducing the need for removal of snow from the roof while upgrading the shingles to fire rated construction. 1650 Fallridge Road, Suite C-1 Vail, Colorado 81657 P: 970.476.6342 F: 970.476.4901 www.vailarchitects.com William F. Pierce, Architect Tyson Dearduff, Director of Architecture Kathy Heslinga, Office Manager PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO The effect upon the character of the area in which the proposeduse is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposeduse in relation to surrounding uses. The additions to the units are minor and the proposed bulk and mass conform to the Vail Village Design Considerations in terms of: Pedestrianization Street Enclosure (the mass of the building is above the adjacent alleyway) Building Height (maintains the existing height) View Corridors Roof s Balconies 1650 Fallridge Road, Suite C-1 Vail, Colorado 81657 P: 970.476.6342 F: 970.476.4901 www.vailarchitects.com 0 Z \W Q r� V i Z 0 Q X W Z W W rr V ) Wtl k lead /99L8 00 1 Itln N333++HO 337HOOO £ZZ O 7210 3Q�JJ177�J 0 Z \W Q r� V i Z 0 Q X W Z W W rr V ) LL c F d L c o Lu Lu O >w c Q U) O Q WLU W / E a x o -oa -- �w O CO Q �� W O a �' a cl) LL c F d L c o Lu Lu O >w c Q U) W / E a x o -oa -- �w O rUR rr D Y W W rrU LU rrO 0 N N lei O —w of z = O 8 !� HO N33a0 3HOO £ZZ - 3aisii33)JO lei O —w of z = O ' 00 OX vo C)0 s e* Al J OE J W ' O am t i _i � 0 m ,______ _ 3 D __ l 8 !� a ; 4.9 E-IJEF/ z W Z w Irtie F.�w+` IPop�E J4 f �C Li, L-1 r"I l— CJ I 2 S 50'43'00'_E .54.00' e �S 50"43 � o c� S� ' __ _m 'S 10'43'Olm 37.00 s¢ 1 i 6 ml 7-77 �/ I j � I �Qy h � — z 0 J LL O J iiilll I rn a � O J a x a 3 — m� sc I I OQ �d L�.] zS. 5 i LL 0 pJ°<LL �2 �n Y<y 0 w S t�t ' 00 OX vo C)0 s e* Al J OE J W ' O am t i _i � 0 m ,______ _ 3 D __ l } D D � LL W Wtl k laalad LL LL LSM 00 1Itln C() W Z J W 0 D N33a0 33HOOO CZZ 0 0 7aa } D D � LL W LL LL LL LL (n O W C() W Z J W 0 D 0 0 0 0 LL � r y J � JM � M Q W - - Z_ X W J w LLr v p C C) O o LU OC 1 O W0 W r O ^ W 0 v 19 coo o Q N W r LO M r m W (p } D D � LL O O r W > O LL V% NO M LO LL O LL (n O W LL (n O W C() W Z J W 0 D O c) LL C) LL � r LL � O � JM � M QLrol LL - - Z_ X W J w LLr v LL rn� co C) LL LO 6 o LU OC 1 O o m a W r z Q M 0 v 19 coo o Q U) N CM W o��� m N M I� z z z z co N Cl) v 3 O a (D L ('3 W T N iY LU V H W = H Z >O Z M 0z Q W J — IY W Q C) O �- CO = r C) = W W = >O O Q Z W J rr LU Q C) `T LL LL LL CE � � C() C() � LL O n C) co o o (n W r LL LqQ � �� U) N CM m m N M I� W� W O co w w C) CO ,.> T > > W W } J 0 _ H < Z = LLI Q W M Q 3k � d W H = (7 Q LL LL = O Ho (no OC 1Z o z O (nW DW J (' 0= LL Q (n Q m C7 W O z z Z Q Z co H �w O BLI Q W p o> o W O OE O W d Q OOC 0 � CO d Q N Cl) v 3 O a (D L ('3 W T N iY LU V H W = H Z >O Z M 0z Q W J — IY W Q C) O �- CO = r C) = W W = >O O Q Z W J rr LU Q C) `T Qoo r�r N t y eam 0> O a0� W m a W T /99L8 00 1 Itln N33HO 337HOOO CZZ 7aa 3Q�JJ177�J Qoo r�r N t y eam 0> O a0� W m a W T Op Lu 3r� U p W z �Ow 20-0 �A LO e} 6 ea6w O Q LU Wtl k lead V 3:,or wr QO /99L8 00 1 Itln LU N333++HO 337HOOO £ZZ CO �a LU O O 7HG 3Q�JJ177�J Op Lu 3r� U p W z �Ow 20-0 �A LO e} 6 ea6w O Q LU a V 3:,or wr QO m LU O CO �a LU O O � x Z ¢ Z zU LL,Z J Q �U J ¢ U Z Z Ow w � F¢(xjZULL J cf)R CP, r Z W JO LL Ox ZLU Cl) C, O C/) C-' x Q 0 J Z Z p O Q W r W 3 r 114 a V 3:,or wr QO xx z¢ wzx co 3:U i,i iUJcnO L� i�QLLUOU¢ Ow0 JUOrz w� ZUUOLL J ¢ U 2E2 O�15, Jp ¢LU U F¢=ZZz0 w OU F¢(xjZULL J cf)R CP, r 2E uj 0 Q wox-R WOr W Jw� O O w0aZ¢pU � WJ�OJz C7 >O �i J(n W J Q Z >ppU c4 Z LU CQrZ �0OrZC7 X 3>: �Q>�zZQ �LLU(nNJ W 114 11 LL m Wtl k lead J 0Z� L99L800 1Itln a Q N33a0 337HOOD CZZ N H ' 7aa 3Q�JJ177�J 11 LL m I W LL W J 0Z� O O0. Z a Q waQ zr 0 Z N H F- W O S~j J a LL0 0 11 LL m a J 0Z� 0 Q Z a Q r F- W O S~j o LU C/) LOJ Y w LL O 7 Oz0] (n 1' O W Q Z Q o � YLU O WF- Q ? XIIIc O (n LL J � 0_ z C7r LLI 0 11 LL m 0 J 0Z� z a Q r H Y O X Cn F 2 j YLU O N � z C7r wz Z m 2 U C -1a Z � U Q ~ 7 A Cn X W Z J Y a X L W nS CQ C,) 0 W aJ0 Q 2 H m w �rymo w0 Omw SM C,) z0� USO wm� w¢w �o O z J 04 Op {7,✓ v�� J e ry Nwa w Baa J O iU- co i n 0 J 0Z� z a 0�� Lo LD QXC- r Z Y O X W m F 2 j YLU O LL, LL 0 Z z C7r wz O m 2 U C -1a ZE J U Q ~ 7 A LL X W Z J Y a iU- co i n W Z U) LL X�- LLJO J O 0 0 W m 2 H Q m IIVH N c G 0 �0 X LU0 W Co Q N H H C()XIL:t Z L (n H m W M LUW JO Q U) �-0 W W IY m W LL �0 Om J 0Z� r 00 a 0�� Lo LD QXC- p �rr Cn0 U LU w O X W m LU Z Q o W w m 2 U C -1a U Q ~ '1SIX3 0 cf) TIVH Y a L W nS CQ C,) 0 v Z aJ0 Q a W Z U) LL X�- LLJO J O 0 0 W m 2 H Q m IIVH N c G 0 �0 X LU0 W Co Q N H H C()XIL:t Z L (n H m W M LUW JO Q U) �-0 W W IY m W LL �0 Om LU a w O dsa Id LS�1#104 M 00 1Itln HG N33HO 3HOO £ZZ Goo rr = aw LSM 00 1Itln " `r y � am w O HG N33HO 3HOO £ZZ ¢ m 6 J CCE`MJ, �+ �' a � T 3aIV/I��IJV �rdf \c��5 - Q� Q W Q O �z Or3D_ LU Ciu r Y m Y U w0 0�5> U y U w w LL' 0 m 0NJm D o D /a I vQ\ N �tl wQ F ZO z� Z m � Z M 2 M 0 = 0 r m ¢ o m LU m ------------- OO F z z7 0 J W m Z ao <r s yam a O J�bf m \cam? 6 p OE Wtl k lead /99L8 00 1 Itln N333+HO 33HOOO £ZZ 7HG 7Q�JJ177�J Z ao <r s yam a O J�bf m \cam? 6 p OE W (n 2 IY LU } d C7 z O 2 D� O ULL oz� O OOp Q z z_ g O W Y C()Q m OC H W oU (h � (n X O W 0 W X Z U W LLI Z W H 0 N 0 Z W -'� 3 W � Qp0 f�,/ yea " `r y �a a Cf) o O a ¢ r r m - m J moQ Wtl k 104-d LSM 00 1Itln 210 N33210 3HOO £ZZ a 3aIS�133b� o 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 " `r y am. r r O d U m> O N m - Z �'�dr ����' `JQ a w WLl k 104-d z Z LSM 00 1Itln Cn HG N33HO 3HOO £ZZ X w - 3aIS�133b� i z Z Cn X w x C) � � wZIO wWIO N m �wm ohm �m �m t H J_ Q 0 � � N Z � o wim C/) LL a - 00 Q pC o C) r UjW J Z Q Ir o0 oC 0 W LL H ED C) J C) Q W zwz LULL 20 P=0 Ir0 M� wpm DQ: N r� Lx U ` ZSzr =FEZ r� o= N wC7 \ o�XZ xzw0 r Z CO UOw' Z 0dFO� a� '0ar_0 OXO `t. w C7 � z Z_ Z_ z O_ Z Q d2 CO rz 0� LU 0- x \`w J J O-, M Qom' r LL Q Q�zoc O-- LL C7 Q Q N C7 Z X Q= Z a W O Z 0 Q' Q N Z OCA—x* 2 Q QUA H2LL� �z0 0 LUo 2UW ZC7 x*Y U)Z�_U 2�LLHZ XQx Lu2H ZZ UU— ��Z LJ (n�ZO 11J�QM Z ?) Q�LL , =) Q =CE 0z Z z Z Cn X w x C) � � wZIO wWIO N m �wm ohm �m �m H J_ Q 0 w o6 o wim C/) LL a - 00 Q pC o C) UjW J Z Q Ir o0 oC 0 W LL H ED C) J C) Q W \ / �am,m \ )(\/ « madam CZZ , §|§ gO|SNggHo \ �(? com & , LU « / \ )(\/ j _ \ \\ � 1 / / / 0 ; e \ [§ }� (�:§: :ZO \ XW \ wz�\ \z . .. ..��� .. (( \\ /_ 4 /)/Z\\\� \} :: =o y LLJ/ \ \ \ \ \ IX / \§ \ jLu �(? com & , LU « \}/> \\ %~� `�/2� _ }� 1 / / / ; [§ }� (�:§: :ZO � XW \ wz�\ . .. ..��� .. (( /)/Z\\\� :: Z,. y \ \ \ \ \ IX / \ \ z m0 F -Z rz z¢ X W V z X w x U Q O H J_ Q LU W 0 o6 U) OE LL 00 0 IY C W J z Q � CY O W LL Q d W J U Q W Qoo f -wa o M <r s �amrr O > o nj LU mQ a w Oo O w ol^ � SIN O z0 z=O oo�m p p0 7Fz N 3 COCQ C,2E, z z� z�w w W 1k1 -d Id LSM 00 1Itln N33a0 337HOOO CZZ 7aa 3Q�JJ177�J z m0 F -Z rz z¢ X W V z X w x U Q O H J_ Q LU W 0 o6 U) OE LL 00 0 IY C W J z Q � CY O W LL Q d W J U Q W Qoo f -wa o M <r s �amrr O > o nj LU mQ a w Oo O w ol^ � SIN O z0 z=O oo�m p p0 7Fz N 3 COCQ C,2E, z z� z�w w woal�;IN wol� �aFlmwm oam -wm o LULU N cc Qm w WIIN i Imimr 0 W J (n 00- 20 dzO Q � 2 d U W 2J 0 zmO �- 75; �- WOD X O D Lu OE W 1k1 -d Id LSM 00 1Itln N33a0 337HOOO CZZ 7aa 3Q�JJ177�J woal�;IN wol� �aFlmwm oam -wm o LULU N cc Qm w WIIN i Imimr 0 W J (n 00- 20 dzO Q � 2 d U W 2J 0 zmO �- 75; �- WOD X O D Lu OE 2E Z 00 co Fz :i Q za ?w J L Q Q Ir OC r W LL � O 0 W 0 Z W Z U Z CO X W gY Z r �aap Cl) Q W U Q J LOU of J r pplm Q p m W plm �Im vilm a l iw Z W OJ LL U Q J 0z ¢ to 0 co J U z L4 y W W C7Q ¢ ¢jU WjW J W 0 w 5; x0U CO LL \I - � Z Wtl k lead zQ O LSM 00 1Itln Ir Q N333++HO 337HOOO £ZZ 0 0 U W 0O 2 J 7HG 3Q�JJ177�J 2E Z 00 co Fz :i Q za ?w J L Q Q Ir OC r W LL � O 0 W 0 Z W Z U Z CO X W gY Z r �aap Cl) Q W U Q J LOU of J r pplm Q p m W plm �Im vilm a l iw Z W OJ LL U Q J 0z ¢ to 0 co J U z L4 y W W C7Q ¢ ¢jU WjW J W 0 w 5; x0U CO LL \I - � Z O zQ O M. Ir Q IrLU 0 0 U W 0O 2 J LU F- CO CO x O O C7 Ir 3: O 0X7 p W C- C- 0 z N co �r W Ial I- -- I J Z \� U Z W Z CO W � o tm o olm a I I I \I - � Z I / I zQ I � I / / M. I� t i / q - O -- I J Z W I I = U I I of I � I 3 I � I I I I \I - � Z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I s� J J Q Q U U W W O 'a p Cl) x3: m �bf \cam w 0 Q b � ' q6 10 1 "j, bE6-LI 948-,9 6 9;9 .b-,9 b/9.9 .66 8 i o -,yl a ..D,9 .'s 3� I �x � I j Q,5 an$$s m 18 o: �N 'b v p �� ❑m �a 'll ��sy bi Y r I e a O 'ry6 ;11 ,bbl *,8 ,II 4i9 a ,BZ O E , 1 o a � �--- � -C7 y, <✓�'� 9: --i7 III J . _ � N 1{2. _rw LL L 9 $ a aZa o J' = - a; OI_ 0 LL J LJ 7 LLI J Wtl k palad /99L8 00 1 Itln N333++HO 337HOOO £ZZ 7HG 3Q�JJ177�J 'a p Cl) x3: m �bf \cam w 0 Q b � ' q6 10 1 "j, bE6-LI 948-,9 6 9;9 .b-,9 b/9.9 .66 8 i o -,yl a ..D,9 .'s 3� I �x � I j Q,5 an$$s m 18 o: �N 'b v p �� ❑m �a 'll ��sy bi Y r I e a O 'ry6 ;11 ,bbl *,8 ,II 4i9 a ,BZ O E , 1 o a � �--- � -C7 y, <✓�'� 9: --i7 III J . _ � N 1{2. _rw LL L 9 $ a aZa o J' = - a; OI_ 0 LL J LJ 7 LLI J Qp0 f�,/ yea (ryz t 6 AaaFp m�z 0 W LU G Cl) I E, N I - �~ II Z p -_ b- ., O � „ 0 w 19 ED • ��"- I I w V I ' I a .0 ,91 ,B 9 t, S 01 ZI B OW eW I ®1 m y D,5 S SS fl;l 99 .9£S 0- I 'I J r 3 3 41 a I Z o N cs s — _ a v cn o �I � © .ice � .1 ,� '+-'�• r Q W m 12, , Lai au s J= GW CW V{ 0-,69 ,z/9 ZI .TYI4-9 .M 9`7` b:^ bag -.9 P:b - -�b-b,l.l ODaD.bm 44111 y,C,^, ,GI 0,6�0.,6v�,b h4ll - _ I G - i om LL bil - I 1, b - U� p I - F Z Np 5z uu a u Wtl k 100[ad LSM 00 1Itln N33a0 337HOOO CZZ'� 7HG Qp0 f�,/ yea (ryz t 6 AaaFp m�z 0 W LU G Cl) I E, N I - �~ II Z p -_ b- ., O � „ 0 w 19 ED • ��"- I I w V I ' I a .0 ,91 ,B 9 t, S 01 ZI B OW eW I ®1 m y D,5 S SS fl;l 99 .9£S 0- I 'I J r 3 3 41 a I Z o N cs s — _ a v cn o �I � © .ice � .1 ,� '+-'�• r Q W m 12, , Lai au s J= GW CW V{ 0-,69 ,z/9 ZI .TYI4-9 .M 9`7` b:^ bag -.9 P:b - -�b-b,l.l ODaD.bm 44111 y,C,^, ,GI 0,6�0.,6v�,b h4ll - _ I G - i om LL bil - I 1, b - U� p I - F Z Np 5z uu a u poo f�o M `r y Baa. wo O z coQ - -a '�✓bf �4�? o M #,o,d L99L800��Itln N33HO 33HOOO £ZZ 7HG 7Q�S1177�J �1#104 Id Qp0 f�,/ yea Z LSM 00 11VA " y yam FL HG N33HO 3HOO £ZZ Z o -- LO C) Q C6 W_ IY W J W 0 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: 790 Potato Patch LLC and David Schell, represented by Pierce and Associates, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0007) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0007 Staff Memorandum.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Site Photos.pdf Attachment C. Project Narrative March 28 2018.pdf Attachment D. Proposed Plans January 29 2018 Part1.pdf Attachment D. Proposed Plans January 29 2018 Part2.pdf Attachment D. Proposed Plans January 29 2018 Part3.pdf Attachment D. Proposed Plans January 29 2018 Part4.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Site Photos Attachment C. Project Narrative March 28, 2018 Attachment D. Proposed Plans, January 29, 2018_Part1 Attachment D. Proposed Plans, January 29, 2018_Part2 Attachment D. Proposed Plans, January 29, 2018_Part3 Attachment D. Proposed Plans, January 29, 2018_Part4 0. )rowN oFvaiL Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: March 12, 2018 Subject: A request for review of a variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 7, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0007) Applicant: 790 Potato Patch LLC and David Schell, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY 790 Potato Patch LLC and David Schell, represented by Pierce and Associates, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The owners of the residential duplex, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive, have requested the review of variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, to allow for additions in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway. The Vail Town Code (Code) requires all buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the adopted design guidelines, in this case driveway grade, to come into conformance when allowable gross residential floor area is added to an existing structure. The Code does allow a one time exclusion from this requirement for additions to single-family or two- family dwelling units up to 500 square feet. The applicants are proposing 860 and 850 square foot additions, respectively to each of the units, necessitating the nonconforming driveway grade to be brought into conformance. The applicant has worked with the Public Works Department on a driveway design that, although does not meet current standards, brings the driveway into the greatest compliance possible considering the existing conditions and the placement of the residences on the property. If approved, the one-time exemption will be considered used for both units on the property. A vicinity map (Attachment A), site photos (Attachment B), applicant's narrative (Attachment C), and the proposed site and architectural plans, (Attachment D) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND: The Vail Potato Patch Subdivision was approved by the Vail Planning Commission on February 22, 1974 and subsequently recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder on March 5, 1974. According to the Eagle County Assessor's Office, two- family residence located at 790 Potato Patch Drive was constructed in 1980. The existing driveway, built prior to the adoption of driveway standards in 1999, is unheated with grades in excess of 18%. The Vail Town Code, per Chapter 14-3-1, limits driveway grades to 8% for unheated driveways and up to 12% for heated driveways, as measured at centerline. The property is generally rectangular in shape and slopes moderately/steeply upwards from front to back. The home was sited more than eighty (80) feet back from the road, resulting in a long, steep driveway with a significant switchback. The property's current zoning designation of Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District was established via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1977. This zoning replaced the prior designation of Two -Family Residential (R). IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS: Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and the Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Section 12-11-3 Design Review (in part) 12-11-3: DESIGN APPROVAL: (Emphasis added) A. Scope: No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building construction or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or other improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the town unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter. The addition of plant Town of Vail Page 2 materials to existing landscaping, gardening and landscape maintenance shall be exempt from this provision. B. Violation: It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building permit for any person to commence, continue or complete work that has not received design approval as prescribed in this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the administrator and/or the design review board and the building official. C. Nonconforming Sites And Structures, Effect Of Design Guidelines.- 1. uidelines: 1. Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the design guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the design guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. 2. From the effective date of July 21, 1998, there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of five hundred (500) square feet or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform to the design guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform to the design guidelines. An expansion which is greater than five hundred (500) square feet, or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with the design guidelines. 3. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the design review board, pursuant to the design guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion/remodel. 4. Expansions made pursuant to section 12-15-5 of this title shall require full compliance of the entire dwelling unit with the design guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to section 12-15-4 of this title shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the design guidelines, unless it can be classified as a "demo/rebuild", pursuant to section 12-2-2 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 10(1998) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) Town of Vail Page 3 Section 12-6D Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-78-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) CHAPTER 12-17: VARIANCES (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. VAIL LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER 11— LAND USE PLAN GOALS /POLICIES: The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: Town of Vail Page 4 V. Chapter ll: Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part) 1. General Growth /Development 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 the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 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. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Geological Hazards: 790 Potato Patch Drive Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Two -Family Primary Secondary District Low Density Residential Two -Family Residential High Severity Rockfall Residential (P/S) Development Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Change Lot/Site Area 15,000 sq. ft. 31,668 sq. ft. 31,668 sq. ft. No Change Front — 20' Front (S): 80'+ Front (S): 80'+ No Sides — 15' Side (E): 15' Side (E): 15' Change Setbacks Rear — 15' Side (W): 15' Side (W): 15' Rear (N): 100'+ Rear (N): 100'+ Town of Vail Page 5 VI. Building Flat Roof — 30' Height Sloping Roof — Unknown No New Roof No Change 33' Density 2 DUs per lot 2 units No new units No Change Primary- Primary- Primary- +860* sq. ft. 5,130 sq. ft. 2,049 sq. ft. 2,909 sq. ft. Gross Residential Secondary- Secondary- Secondary- +855* sq. ft. Floor Area 3,420 2,031 2,891 (GRFA) Total -8,550 sq. Total -4,080 sq. Total -5,795 sq. + 1,715 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. Site 20% of site or 10% of site or 11 % of site or +251 sq. ft. Coverage 6,334 sq. ft. 3,167 sq. ft. 3,418 sq. ft. 60% of site or 77% of site or 76% of site or Landscaping 19,000 sq. ft. 24,319 sq. ft. 24,068 sq. ft. +251 sq. ft. (min.) Maximum Grade Driveway Unheated- o Heated -14%± Variance Grade Heated -12% 18%± Required Unheated -8% *500 square feet of this addition would qualify for the one-time exemption from bringing nonconforming aspects of a property into conformance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Existing Use North: Open Space South: Low Density Residential East: Low Density Residential West: Low Density Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA VARIANCE Zoning District None (County/NFS) Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (P/S) District Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (P/S) District Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (P/S) District 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance will allow the addition of GRFA to each unit of the existing duplex. The applicants' proposal to upgrade the driveway will significantly improve the access to the site and degree of safety for both vehicles and pedestrians. The Town of Vail Page 6 residential additions and remodel will increase the functionality of the property and also bring it into greater compliance with the Town's design standards. The requested variance and the related residential additions are consistent with other driveways and residential uses in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 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 a grant of special privilege. Many developed properties within the Town Vail are accessed via driveways in excess of the required grade due to topography. The applicant has committed to driveway improvements that bring the driveway into greater compliance with established standards. While not fully complying with the grade standard, the improvements proposed brings the driveway into the greatest compliance possible considering the existing conditions and the placement of the residences on the property Staff finds that this criterion is met. 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 proposed variance will not alter population; will not increase the required number of parking spaces; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions of a variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 7, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Town of Vail Page 7 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request of a variance from Section 12-11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 7, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Conditions.- 1. onditions: 1. Approval of this variance request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project, the applicant shall provide a site specific geological investigation consistent with the requirements of Section 12-21-13. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Sections VI of the March 12, 2018 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. 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 zone 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons.- a. easons: 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 district. Town of Vail Page 8 c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Photos C. Project Narrative, February 28, 2018 D. Proposed Plans, January 29, 2018 Town of Vail Page 9 I I -__-- _ -.`. 4k a'!J 2�e WIMI � nyeAft. M M mv\lw! NINE w low* 1112 77. w .ter MIF *Now, --- I1F�vWmkjpw—ww4mwwo— *MUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZA Ao, 7A A7 it ' yr �SCl9°Q✓M . +�r 'A1C I f tog- i�.e•� `!'��`Q7 F-@" �'� �� , � 1 ,, J �.. `risiii, �41 Mi 1j�it:„r Qr e3%0 �✓�•� f -j WI/M •� ♦ v MAC,— "'WA 4 20,100ad i,}ids low, _77 `' Im� •rfir W /v s7•'� An pp”'..��� �'.. _ , 1, daT P P41 Oki 441 `, ` � ` +� ` � i �'�� � �" �� �' .kyr • ` I 9 ,I� � ''jam s MIL r m P gre s."• ..tom` ` - / � � >J�A' ! NO �, +'�'�� ! Ir ✓ ��: ` + r lk wij NO all i AMP � r, MOM =, f7 NNI, IR - Alo 2/28/2018 To Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 In support of Variance Request for Units B and C, lot #12 Block #1 Vail Potato Patch aka 790 Potato Patch Drive. Description of Request: The owners of the above referenced property request relief from Code Section 12-11-3c : C. Nonconforming Sites And Structures; Effect Of Design Guidelines: 1. Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the design guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the design guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. 2. From the effective date of July 21, 1998, there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of five hundred (500) square feet or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform to the design guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform to the design guidelines. An expansion which is greater than five hundred (500) square feet, or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with the design guidelines. 3. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the design review board, pursuant to the design guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion/remodel. 4. Expansions made pursuant to section 12-15-5 of this title shall require full compliance of the entire dwelling unit with the design guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to section 12-15-4 of this title shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the design guidelines, unless it can be classified as a "demo/rebuild", pursuant to section 12-2-2 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 10(l 998) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) - Project Narrative The existing driveway is intended to provide access to Unit B and Unit C located at 790 Potato Patch Drive. Changes proposed at this time, include re -grading and heating the driveway as per the town staff's suggestions As this is an existing and private drive, servicing only privately owned dwelling units, its use does not affect town objectives for new development The private driveway does not affect public facilities or public needs. It is a private drive, and does not affect the flow of traffic or pedestrians, and does not impede snow removal from public roads. The existing drive has been part of the community for nearly 40 years, and fits the common use and scale of neighboring properties. - Staff Comments - Objective - The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. - Response - The requested variance does not alter the current use or function of the item in question ( Driveway of 790 PPD) 2. - Objective - The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specific 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 - Response- The existing driveway has areas that are greater than the current regulations allow. The proposed changes will bring the drive closer to compliance. 3. — Objective — The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. -Response- The driveway does not affect public domain, public facilities, or public needs. It is a private drive. The existing property was created in the late 1970s prior to adoption of driveway grading standards contained in the development standards of Title 14. Current Regulations do not permit creation of driveways in excess of 8% unheated, 12% heated. The existing driveway has grades between 1.5% and 18%. The existing driveway has provided access to the property on an ongoing basis for nearly 40 years. This fact provides reliable evidence that the driveway configuration and exposure to solar gain renders the existing installation a viable access to the property without further improvements. The existing configuration of the lot does not permit realignment of the driveway that would result in reduced grade. After thorough studies and discussions with staff, we have determined the driveway is currently in its optimal layout. 6CLL —q --N 1 - Id L9%9 00'-11VA WI HOIVd OIVIOd 06L HOiVd OiVlOd 06L ry < 0 U - z CO LU LU 0 LU NP co LU LU Z_ rn ch "Al O � � O O"Af 6f LL -�agwnN laafo�d 2X ° N -Q Q r L99LB001Itln 6�uj Boa ? O 2i0 H01tld OltllOd 06L �—Y w O HOldd OiViOd 06LCO Q Ea x oa a E 1 0 o ao g O V o _ o m 0zED ae 0 o -a 0 W. 0WO o _ - a a as �� 00�� - a��wo a� ww00oow woo>ww wo � Www �w > o Qoa= w�=�� w��000� o w� E��wao�go�zz w��s_¢¢�s �oiw¢ o5a�¢m<10 . »���v�i�v�i�w3v�ioww ow 6fLL -�agwnN laafo�d - � 1,ssta00'IfVn HU HO.LVd O.LV.LOd 06L HO.LVd O.LVLOd 06L -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a 0 ~' w U ca 'a � W OCG o .a Ln w W W 3° U H Q a ro 3 z x z o z q H Q H O C o Q O n p o U x O x x u a x O a n 3 W ;n -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I F Omni I '- III. III � III \ IB I I III ma m'! \\ mmLVd _mdo ) 3g±Vd D±V±Od06L ~ {}§ � \ y y 6 —q --N 1-�I. y m )m � § HOiVd OiV±Od06L Y , \\\ \\} \) ) \\\ \\ \)) \} \) ) \\\ \ \ \\ \} \ \ \\ \ \\ \} \ \ \\ \ 6CLL -q --N Mld li , Z U L9%900'�ivn do�� _ L O NO HOltld OltllOd 06L -LU O 2J ¢ O HOlbd OlblOd 06L w z - o o w J �P . . m Q� liiii� - iii�iiii -III -111- Il- i i i iii iii ii iiiii ilii l 11 l 111-11 iiiii� _ Q -i-i- iii I -I ilii Illl lilt l w J �P . . m Q� 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id li Z 70 L9%900'-11vn do�� w O NO HOltld OltllOd 06L - LU HOlbd OlblOd 06L Q 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id 2° — L9%9 00 'l Itln d.�J LIO H01tld OltllOd 06L fid' HOiVd OlblOd 06L - J 0 0 Lqw U 0 Q Qlo I - 0 0o or a o U A 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id 2° — i L9%9 00'-11VA d�J 210 HOltld OltllOd 06L fid' q HOiVd OlblOd 06L - J J - IQ 00 �o r a o U o nr9e r / i L'--------------------------- ---- ------ --- ---- --- ------ ------- W; U� KW W� a; 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id p �� s =,l"MM J L9%900'l1tln ��0 a F -- WI NO HOIVd OIVIOd 06L HOiVd OlblOd 06L °���� o Q 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id li ¢ 0 L9%9 OO'lIVA O NO HOltld OltllOd 06L O HOiVd OlblOd 06L Q 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id 2° — i L9%9 00'-11VA 210 HOIVd OIVIOd 06L HOiVd OlblOd 06L a z ww N O wJ � r �, O Z 6CLL —q --N 1-a Id A W v d L991800'l1tln d�O s w CY) NO HOltld OltllOd 06L HOiVd OlblOd 06L -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �I 21 m� o� r �- w �No m r U y\ 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id 2° — , L9%9 00'-11VA 210 HOIVd OIVIOd 06L HOiVd OlblOd 06L 6CLL —q --N L-bId lilw L9%900'l1Vn NO HOltld OltllOd 06L Oddsof HOiVd OlblOd 06L 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id 2O — I L9%9 00'-11VA 210 HOltld OltllOd 06L Oy�d�cP HOiVd OlblOd 06L of - pm 0o 0 o o> a a o po o e� © Q ❑❑ CJ wo o �LL tP ww_ e e bL - --------- q 6CLL —q --N 1-a Id A W v d L9%900'l1tln NO H01tld OltllOd 06L ��d- Z HOiVd OlblOd 06L i o w lo 0 0> a Oi o �, ,., ,,., M M M er ® ❑ n o o w o o i 6CLL —q --N 1-a Id A U v d L9%900'l1tln d�0 s wa WI H01tld OltllOd 06L ��d- Z HOiVd OlblOd 06L - zh - 3 — 3� n X'! O O w w - w , iLL Giw��c� m w OI O O O N w „� w e.� ® �❑ U m W 0 / LU W / U ' W W 0 m i r ----------- LL W 0 o - ------- 1 I ' --------------- m } Q ---- e i ------------------ i i ' O A. .. - v o m om L —q --N 1-�I. y m )m � § HOiVd OiV±Od06L Y , LU 0 S LU § 0 2 0 3 0 � \ 6CLL —q --N 1-a Id 2 J ¢ F Z _ ILu L991800'lltlni� 0 LIO HOltld OltllOd 06L �d�cP - w C-� HOl`dd OlblOd 06L ���� ° w Q 7� w �w h a� lo zoww� oz oo oawzowo .-Im r SUL -q --N rabid 2 J ¢ F �� s w O N L9918 0011tln d- a F 0 LIO HOltld OltllOd 06L �d�cP - w N HOl`dd OlblOd 06L ° w Q o z���� w � ; — h Q 1 <IIII IIIIIIIIII� II IIIIIIIII I III III II II - w � III-IIII IIIIIIIIII I II III I- -——I—I I— o iiiiii N o r g�a I I ID111111 IVI I I I II I I III �I I I - z `w0�mw� =IIIII—II-II oz w o I- -I— wW oI- a oI ����aw� —�II I- > r — - - - - - - -I- �- N- - - -- - - - - - }— — — — — — — - - HE I — � III — III III — II i i } — III III— III —III III III - I- --- I III T III - =1i II I IIIIII IIII I I I I� I _II I III III li- II -li IIII IIII li- W --IIIIII IIII — — IIIIII IIII O_ =11 I —I II I I —I III II - _ I I— IIII IIIW III I — — S I IIII I I—III lLl I — III _ IIII LP �� — — — — \ 10 III a E 0 0 10 - W 6CLL —q --N Mld 2O — L9%9 o0'�ivn O LIO HOltld OltllOd 06L p j HOiVd OlblOd 06L w Q 8 F z 0 a� r6j wOwwz---i i= z W,'z II-IiI- 0 1=11=1 it oQwzO,o III—III �a;o 1=11=11 �Na Uuaw� III—III w T r I I' I I-11 II z i I n - z z I,II IIII III -1 —III—I I I II (IIII IIhill lH 1=III�III (IIII I lilt �lil�lil=i IIIII — I I — I I=11I—III-1 v < h-tIT 0 Ti il �I �I- SUL —q --N 1-bld 2O — L9%9 o0'�ivn O LIO HOltld OltllOd 06L �d�cP - pw HOiVd OlblOd 06L w Q ANK 0 -�- --I ��II II- H IH-�i-i I- H IH i- =I�=I �I= �IIIII�Ii ii_ I l li I I I I_ SII I III I TI -I -I--i'I-llil H I lil �i III- -I-I iiii- _ III=11 I-II1 1-111 �I III-IIII I I-II— =1 ILII III H-11l1 HE I li lI � II li II �I I II I I I lil II I � �I I Ali I- - I�I�iI-�IIII I-- IIII II IIII i I �I i -�li I--- -il- Il li llil l �I I _ �II III i li lII- i II -�I I II I I - lil l I I - Ali Ilil- -Ili r 11 - SII -I, I- SUL —q --N 1-b'd 4, — L991900'IIVn d�07 �0 cc 0 NO H01Vd 01VlOd 06L���� = w w N HOiVd OiVIOd 06L ���� w Q o sora wiz o� �IzJ 11. o 3o: 3o: Q Q Q Q Q Q ' wlm wlowlo zQl� wl�; wl r -_- I�PI o-1 ISI 11-4 �I - 1 1 c 1==mi 111= --101- 1-I -III i—,IIP-1 I', II_ 111 11111111 I I 1 l I -IIII FI L 11 I�11 111 �- - - - - — Itlllrt -t —I—I— I 1I 1111 II� Il I— I�I IIl Ill I� —I Il I— Il —I—I- 1 HI l I I— 6 1 1 11 I_ III - II I III I I II I II II I� III I —I—I— I i i i IIII — III I I I-1111-11111=11 -IIII I III I II 1 l 111 1-1 II H I _ 11_I -1I I�I ITV � 1 11 — ill ll�l III- - VIII—I I-�I I— I I ill IIII I IIII III I=11= I— _- 111111 II11 —111 I II -J -1111IIIIII_ _I I 17 I 1=1 SUL —q --N 1-b'd l� L9%9 o0'�ivn do�� O w j NO HOltld OltllOd 06L �d�cP ij 6CLL —q --N 1-bld 2 ~Z O, e '00 L991,900'l1tln d-�O m wF-- O NO HOlVd OltllOd 06L 0y�d�cP � ij o w a� ww�wwz o� z�zI =wzowo 6,1 m> 'o r SUL —q --N 1-bld L991800'l1tln LU NO HOltld OltllOd 06L ��d.�s - w HOiVd OlblOd 06L ° W lEil ll�lilllli--IIIIIIiIIiIi - -��= ,moi I � li I IIIIIII j—�� 1II�I�II1��1�11�1= =1i� I�I�-�lilili= Ililli� -F -III -li li�ill - li l I�-ilill�!Illlll�lilli-III!IIII!I, - il�illlli-Ilillil i� I II I II I III I I II VIII II II I ---IIIA II ISI II-IIIIIII - -I� Ali II i II fi-i Illlll�lilli= I l i I I i II I I � II II I II - I III I II I I I II it I I I IiII I I_I I I IIIIII I IIIIII I i i ---I III IIII-IIIIII - i II i �=li I li bill li- II II IIIIII i -I I I� I I li�li I I -I I I IIII it i it �-i IIII ll�li lllli-- it I I IIII it i II - i II i � II lil�ill �I i II �I I i li i = III IIILIIIII ——— I IIIIII I IIIIII I ,,li III IIS i I IIS I� I li= li II �I I li li i 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id li J G L9%9 00 'lltln d�0 s g ? 0 NO H01tld OIVIOd 06L O HOiVd OlblOd 06L Q i \N \ 1 'v \"l v 10 I� i � 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id li 0i c� N L9%9 00 'lltln 0 NO HOIVd OIVIOd 06L Lu O HOiVd OlblOd 06L Q 6CLL- q—N l--fold l� LgM 00 11VAct zO b4 HOlVd OIVIOd 06L �d� w O HOlbd O1b1Od 06L Y, Q 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id li Lena o0'�ivn d�� w O LIO HOltld OltllOd 06L �� _ O0') Y HOiVd OlblOd 06L 6CLL —q --N 1-e Id li O, O LO L9%9 00 'lltln 0 NO HOltld OltllOd 06L�d� w OLL HOiVd OlblOd 06L °���� - Q City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and II, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans in order to permit a change to gross floor area located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 24/1-ot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0008) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC18- Report out with attachments 0008 SDD No. 6 Approval Letter 100 E Meadow Dr Report Out.pdf TOWN OF VAIL'') 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com February 21, 2018 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Martin Manley Architects c/o Jeff Manley PO Box 1587 Eagle, CO 81631 Community Development Department 970.479.2138 Re: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I & 11, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to allow for the construction of a 233 square foot addition (addition to vestibule at ground level, bar area on main level, and kitchen space at main level) located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Units 7A, 8, 21 and 22 (Vail Village Plaza Condos)/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC18-0008). Applicant: Nico Vail, Inc, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Dear PEC members, Nico Vail, Inc, Martin Manley Architects, and adjacent property owners: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Town of Vail Community Development Department has approved a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I & 11. This approval allows for the construction of a new vestibule by adding a 105 square foot addition at the entry level on the east facade. On the main level, this approval allows construction of additional bar area by adding an approximately 95 square foot addition at the east and north facade and 33 square foot addition at the north facade for kitchen space. The Community Development Department finds that approval of this minor amendment request meets the criteria in Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code. The amendment does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The amendment will continue to be compatible with the neighborhood and other uses. The approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission at 1:00 PM on Monday, March 12, 2018 in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2440, or ilightfield(a�vailgov.com Sincerely, Justin Lightfield - Town Planner Attachment: Approved site plans, renderings, and elevations, dated 02-12-18 �y y.. O �F � N � N ca _ Q o�o N J R 1 O 1 LO 0 N oW CL �W� O o— � � ca i 0 LO N O ao� ,onu„ea,I,,woo,,w-, rm o3'aiee nsL Xoe od �ddo LsLSKz OM tl Wy� Ail NHN 1121tl W (Oss) E ias ivawdolana4 u61sa4 OOV?JOIOO TVA eZeld 95e111n Ilen-bZ ilufi }ueane}sa� IPA y oul 118A oa1N Jo; uol;enouaJ iuejneisay % si 6 % %% �/ O'VV Ntlldl3A31 ,gwn, LLLL ,egwnu Uefo,,{ 8�-U-ZO o,oa sNoisinaa ao� ,onu„ea,I,,woo,,w-, rm o3'aiee nsL Xoe od �ddo LsLSKz OM Ail tl Wy� NHN 1121tl W (Oss) E ias ivawdolana4 u61sa4 OOV?JOIOO TVA eZeld 95e111n Ilen-bZ ilufi }ueane}sa� IPA y oul 118A oa1N Jo; uol;enouaJ iuejneisay % si 6 % %% �/ 'VV 13A31 NIVW LLLL ,,gwn,egwnu Uefo,,{ 8�-U-ZO o,oa sNoisinaa ,,nu„ea,weweo,,w-, a0� rm 00',I6ea'nsL xo0 od �3IddO LsLSKz OM Ail Ntl Wy�HN 1121tl W (Oss) E 19g;uawdolana4 u61sa4 OOV?JOIOO TVA eZe1d 95e111A 118A-bZ 31uf1 }ueane}sa� IPA y oul 118A oa1N Jo; uol;enouaJ;uejne;say % si 6 % % % V ' V V NLad 0NVl3A3l23ddn LLLL ,eqw nu Uefo,,{ 8�-U-ZO a,e0 - � a sNolslnaa tsecNNcdo oNnico W p o C7 I I - � - I LU a I _ td S ez XOdddV) 3Nvaew3w 9NId00a dadlVM d9VadAOO ddnd NO dVIad1VW d00a addd OO WVdS ONIONVIS MdN 0 0 - � a m II waa _ p w o tsecNNcdo oNnico W p o C7 I I - � - I LU a I _ td S ez XOdddV) 3Nvaew3w 9NId00a dadlVM d9VadAOO ddnd NO dVIad1VW d00a addd OO WVdS ONIONVIS MdN II tsecNNcdo oNnico W p o C7 I I - � - I LU a I _ td S ez XOdddV) 3Nvaew3w 9NId00a dadlVM d9VadAOO ddnd NO dVIad1VW d00a addd OO WVdS ONIONVIS MdN ao,sl,onu„ea,I,,woo,,w-, rm 03 810nsL Xog od �ddo LsLSKz OM tl Wy� Ail NHN 1121tl W (Oss) E ias ivawdolana4 u51saa OOV?JOIOO TVA ezeld 95e111n Ilen-bZ ilufi }ueane}sa� IPA y oul 118A oa1N Jo; uol;enouaJ iuejneisay % si 6 % O' CV �/ SNOLLtlA313 X3 ,gwn, LLLL ,egwnu Uefo,,{ 8�-U-ZO o,oa sNoisinaa rw�r�r, 77 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/1-ot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0009 Proctor GRFA Variance staff memo.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment C Proctor Plan Set.pdf Attachment D Letters of support.pdf Fair Letter of support for variance.pdf Letter to Members of the PEC re Hamlet Variance Request - 3-9- 18.pd Description PEC18-0009 Proctor GRFA Variance - Staff Memo PEC18-0009 Proctor GRFA Variance - Attachment A - Vicinity Map PEC18-0009 Proctor GRFA Variance - Attachment B - Applicant Narrative PEC18-0009 Proctor GRFA Variance - Attachment C - Plan Set PEC18-0009 Proctor GRFA Variance - Attachment D - Letters of Support Letter of Support Mauriello Planning Letter to Commission TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 12, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-18-4, Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicant: Holly and John Proctor, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker SUMMARY The applicants, Holly and John Proctor, represented by Martin Manley Architects, are requesting the review of the following three (3) variances for the property located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive / Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses): 1. A variance from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, and 2. A variance from Section 12-18-4, Uses, and 3. A variance from Section 12-18-5, Density Control. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this application, subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Holly and John Proctor, represented by Martin Manley Architects, propose to construct a new 225 square feet storage space at the rear of Unit 5, Hamlet Townhouse building at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive. The applicants recently obtained approval of a Design Review Board (DRB) application (DRB17-0392)to construct a 225 square foot storage space at the rear of the home, under an existing deck. Approval by the Design Review Board was conditioned upon the storage space being limited to five feet (5') in headroom, since any space over five feet (5') in headroom is considered gross residential floor area (GRFA). There is no available GRFA remaining on the property. The density (units per acre) of the existing development lot for The Hamlet Chalets and Townhouses is nonconforming based on the existing zoning and lot area. There are currently 29 dwelling units, where 2 units are allowed by zoning. The GRFA of the development lot is also nonconforming based on the lot area and zoning. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow additional GRFA above the amount allowed by zoning and lot area to construct a storage area. Approval of a variance would allow the storage space to be constructed with full head height (7' 5"), rather than limited to five feet (5'). Based on the submitted plans, the proposed GRFA addition requires three (3) variances: 1. A variance from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District. This regulation limits properties in the Primary/Secondary zone district to GRFA based on lot area, per the following formula: 0.46 of site area <_ 10,000 sq. ft., plus 0.38 of site area > 10,000 and <_ 15,000 sq. ft., plus 0.13 of site area > 15,000 and <_ 30,000 sq. ft., plus 0.06 of site area > 30,000 sq. ft. 2. A variance from Section 12-18-4, Uses, which allows the use of a nonconforming structure to continue, provided that the nonconforming use shall not be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or building floor area than it occupied on the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance. 3. A variance from Section 12-18-5, Density Control, which allows structures that do not conform to density controls (includes GRFA and dwelling units/acre) to be modified only if the total GRFA of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total GRFA of the preexisting nonconforming structure. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with applicant's responses to variance criteria (Attachment B), and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The existing townhouse building on the property was built in 1971 under Eagle County jurisdiction, according to the Eagle County Assessor. The Community Development Department has found no building permit records or plans from the original construction of the buildings at The Hamlet. The subject property was originally annexed into the Town of Vail Page 2 Town of Vail via Ordinance 43, Series of 1980. This annexation was overturned by a court order on August 15, 1985. The subject property was re -annexed into the Town of Vail via Ordinance 18, Series of 1986, effective August 13, 1986. On December 23, 1986, the Town Council adopted on second reading Ordinance 34, Series of 1986 to place the recently annexed property within the Primary/Secondary Residential District (PS). On October 18, 2017, the DRB approved the applicants' application to combine two dwelling units into one, and a remodel of the existing building, including an expansion of the rear deck, and the construction of an unheated storage room under the rear deck. One condition of the DRB approval included limiting the headroom in the storage space to no greater than five feet (5'), with an access opening no larger than 12 square feet. Without these limitations the storage area would count as GRFA. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code 12-2-2 Definitions of Words and Terms.- DEVELOPMENT erms: DEVELOPMENT LOT: A delineation of property that may include one or more structures and/or lot(s) that collectively share dimensional and/or design standards or guidelines. Examples include, but are not limited to, a duplex property containing two (2) dwelling units, a condominium complex of one or more buildings or a multi -unit townhome style development that share dimensional (GRFA, site coverage, etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and landscape design) standards or guidelines. Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) Town of Vail Page 3 12-6D-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted.- Employee ermitted: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. (Ord. 1(2008) § 5) 12-6D-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- A. ONTROL: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area.- 1. rea:1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area; plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area, plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area, plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). Title 12 — Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions: A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts.- Town istricts: Town of Vail Page 4 1. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements, crawl spaces, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area, except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage. (1) Enclosed Garage Area: Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. (2) Attic Areas With A Ceiling Height Of Five Feet Or Less: Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the topside of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. (3) Attic Areas With Trusses: Attic areas created by construction of a roof with structural truss type members, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches (30') apart. (4) Attic Areas With Nontruss System: Attic areas created by construction of a roof structure utilizing a nontruss system, with spaces greater than five feet (5) in height, if all of the following criteria are met.- (A) et:(A) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; and (8) The area shall have only the minimum access required by the building code from the level below, and (C) The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty (40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space shall not be improved with decking, and Town of Vail Page 5 (D) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss type" or similar structural system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of floor area, and (E) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy. (5) Crawl Spaces: Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5) or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet (5) may be excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the Administrator. Title 12 —Variances, Vail Town Code 12-17-1: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION.- Within CTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to Town of Vail Page 6 such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. 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 or 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. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed vanance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. 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 zone 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons.- a. easons: 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 generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 7 c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Title 12 — Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements 12-18-1: Purpose This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this title. 12-18-4: Uses The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this title for the zone district in which it is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or building floor area than it occupied on the effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. (Ord. 29(2005) § 40: Ord. 5(2001) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 20.400) 12-18-5: Structure and Site Improvement: Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the zone district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: 8. Density Control: Structures which do not conform to density controls (includes GRFA and dwelling units/acre) may be modified, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2014 West Gore Creek Dr.. Unit 5 Legal Description: Lots 41-43, Unit 5, Vail Village West Filing 2 Existing Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Mapped Geological Hazards: None Town of Vail Page 8 Mapped Floodplain: View Corridor: Yes, western corner of lot not impacting development None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard* Required Site Area 15,000 SF of 39,403 SF Total No Change Buildable Area 34,821 SF of Buildable Area Front — 20' Front (N): 9' Front (N): 9' Sides — 15' Side (E): 11' Side (E): 11' Setbacks Rear — 15' Side (W): 49' Side (W): 49' No Change Deck — 7.5' Rear (S): 9' Rear (S): 9' Flat Roof — 30' Building Height Sloping Roof — Unknown No Change No Change 33' Density (DUs) Max. 2 29 28 -1 Density (GRFA) 9,014 SF 15,873 SF 16,098 SF +225 SF Site Coverage Max. 20% 7,881 SF 16.4% (6,466 SF) 17% (6,691 SF) +0.5 % (+225 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% (23,641 SF) 62.3% (24,562 SF) 61.7% (24,337 SF) -0.6% (-225 SF) Parking & 51 parking 32 33 +1 Loading spaces (*Note: This chart includes development standards for the entire development lot.) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster South: Low Density Residential Eagle County Zoning - Residential Suburban East: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential West: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition of GRFA to the existing multiple family building will result in increasing the nonconformity of the existing structure. With increased GRFA come increased site impacts. The purpose of limiting GRFA is to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. In addition, the use of the property as a multiple -family building is nonconforming with the permitted uses in the Primary/Secondary Residential District. The purpose of the nonconforming regulations in the Town Code is to limit the number and extent of nonconforming Town of Vail Page 9 uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement. The proposed GRFA expansion is contrary to this intent. The applicant has indicated that they intend to use the full height storage space only for storage; however, if approved as GRFA, the full height space could also be used as living space at some point in the future, and thus could result in additional impacts to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant argues that the benefits of the proposed full height storage space would be increased functionality, allowing more space for storing items that might otherwise remain outdoors. However, staff finds that functional storage can still be achieved without creating GRFA and without increasing the nonconformity by limiting the headroom to five feet (5'), and limiting the access opening to no greater than 12 square feet. Staff finds the proposed variances do not meet this criterion. 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 among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulations on GRFA and nonconforming properties is not necessary in this instance to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. The existing development lot is already over the allowed GRFA, as well as over on density in terms of number of allowed dwelling units. Allowing additional GRFA is not necessary to make the applicants' property more compatible or achieve uniformity of treatment among other sites in the vicinity. Granting the variance would make the property more nonconforming; in this instance, more GRFA on a property that already has too much for its zone district. Staff finds that there is nothing unique about this property that warrants a variance. Staff finds that proposed full height storage space would create a special privilege for the applicant. Staff finds the proposed variances do not meet this criterion. 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 proposed variances will not have any significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. Town of Vail Page 10 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission deny the applicants' requests for variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Denial Motions: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motions: Variance #1: Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Variance #2: Section 12-18-4 Uses "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-18-4 Uses, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Variance #3: Section 12-18-5, Density Control "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-18-5 Density Control, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny these variances, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: Town of Vail Page 11 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 12, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of these variances will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District. 2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. These variances are not warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District; and C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." Approval Motions: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, a request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-18-4, Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0009). " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. 'Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal." Town of Vail Page 12 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variances, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 12, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- The inds: The granting of these variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; 4. 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. 5. These variances are warranted for the following reasons.- d. easons: d. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- e. ode, e. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District; and f. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative C. Plan Set, prepared D. Letters of Support ("Application for a Variance"), no date. by Martin Manley Architects, and dated 2-15-18 Town of Vail Page 13 Ra. mfr r ' I } ATTACHMENT B - APPLICANT NARRATIVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A. Name and address of the owner and/or applicant and a statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the permission of the owner to make application and act as agent for the owner. John M. Hutto and Holly W. Proctor, 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 11, Vail, CO 81657 B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning the site: Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 C. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested, the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title that would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. Applicant requests a variance from the maximum GRFA restrictions under the Two -Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) zoning in order to add an enclosed 225 sq. ft. cold storage area underneath an allowed new deck. The practical difficulty involves the zoning overlay. The PS zoning has been applied to the entire multi -family development making each and every separately owned property non- conforming. If the Primary/Secondary calculations are applied to the applicant's property only then a variance for GRFA is not needed. It is only when the Primary/Secondary calculations are applied to the 3 single buildings and 3 duplexes of the Hamlet development, all together on the lot as a whole, that the GRFA is calculated to be over the allowed. The PS zoning does not fit the existing multi -family property thus making GRFA non -conforming and thus creating a practical difficulty when trying to improve the applicant's property or any property in the Hamlet development for that matter. The PS zoning was placed on this property at the time of annexation even though the 3 single buildings and 3 duplexes were already built on the site. This misstep by the town created a non -conforming problem with GRFA from the very beginning and thus created the practical difficulty for the applicant all these years later in simply trying to improve the property. It should be stated that higher density zoning districts allow a blanket 250 sq. ft. GRFA addition per unit. The applicant's 225 sq. ft. cold storage would meet that definition perfectly if the correct zoning district had been applied to this property from the beginning. By allowing the variance to GRFA to add 225 sq. ft. of cold storage, the PEC is agreeing with the applicant that the overlay zoning on the property has historically been the incorrect zoning thus creating a town -created practical difficulty when trying to improve the property. The project, including a deck expansion and storage area below (built to the definition of "crawlspace exception"), was approved by the Town of Vail Design and Review Board in October 2017 and the footprint and exterior aesthetic of the approved storage area are not in any way altered or impacted by the height of the interior space. As a result of the GRFA restrictions, the plan currently provides for constructing a floor within the storage area approximately 3 feet off the ground, thereby reducing functional storage space from nearly 8 feet high to the maximum allowed of 5 feet. This 5 ft space meets the definition of crawlspace "exception" from GRFA but is not practical as a storage solution. The practical difficulty that is imposed by the GRFA restrictions results in a storage area that is not fully useable or easily accessible for its intended purpose of general storage, including sporting gear, furniture, lawn and landscaping equipment, and other household items, and thereby severely limits the functionality of the storage area that is intended to conceal and secure personal and household items. Alternatively, if the storage area is rendered inaccessible or dysfunctional or otherwise left unenclosed, many of these items could conceivably be left outside and exposed, thereby creating an eyesore for the project and community as well as the unnecessary risk of theft or damage. The storage area, as designed and approved by the DRB, represents a significant improvement to the property and it is only logical that the interior be constructed so as to maximize the benefit of that improvement. D. A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on the site, and on adjoining sites if necessary, pertinent to the variance requested, including site boundaries, required setbacks, building locations and heights, topography and physical features, and similar data. Please refer to the architectural and structural permit drawings submitted with this application. E. Such additional material as the administrator may prescribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application and to the findings prerequisite to the issuance of a variance as prescribed in section 12-17-6 of this chapter. By way of background, the subject building (and all of the others) were built in 1971 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The Hamlet was a replat of Lots 41, 42, and 43 of the Vail Village West Filing 2 that was recorded in 1965, under Eagle County Jurisdiction. Those lots were later platted as The Hamlet in 1975, under Eagle County jurisdiction. This property, along with others in the neighborhood, were annexed to the Town in January 1986 (Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1986). The neighborhood was subsequently zoned by the Town to Primary Secondary Two -Family Residential in March of 1986 (Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986). The buildings were thereby developed, platted, and existed under Eagle County jurisdiction for 15 years before they were annexed to the Town and brought under the Town's regulations. It was not uncommon at the time for properties to be zoned by the Town upon annexation to a zone district that rendered the properties nonconforming. There are examples of this throughout West Vail; this is one of those cases. The Hamlet property is developed with three structures that are referred to as Townhomes and three structures that are referred to as Chalets. All of the Townhouse structures were constructed with 6 dwelling units each and the Chalets were constructed with 4 dwelling units each. All of the buildings were legally developed in Eagle County and were existing in the current format upon annexation to the Town. The properties are all legal nonconforming with respect to density (number of units allowed) and yet well below the GRFA limitations of the TOV P/S zone district. The Primary /Secondary zoning designation imposes an undue hardship by requiring conformance with P/S restrictions on an existing multi -family project. The GRFA of the subject property, when considered as its own parcel, falls within the allowable limits: SITE AREA = 9,106 SF 46% SITE AREA < 10,000 SF = 4,186 SF GRFA EXISTING = 3,020 SF GRFA ADDITIONAL = 225 SF TOTAL GRFA = 3,245 —CONFORM ING Despite the conforming nature of the addition with respect to the subject property, the TOV Planning Department has required that the GRFA be calculated on the basis of a Development Site which results in non -conforming GRFA, i.e. the inability to add any GRFA to the site, and thereby, the 5 foot restriction on the storage area. SITE AREA = 39,403 SF 46% SITE AREA < 10,000 SF = 4,600 SF 38% SITE AREA < 15,000 SF = 1,900 SF 13% SITE AREA < 30,000 SF = 1,950 SF 6% SITE AREA 9,403 SF = 564 SF TOTAL GRFA ALLOWED = 9,014 SF GRFA EXISTING = 15,873 SF — NON -CONFORMING GRFA ADDITIONAL = 225 SF (1.4%) F. A list of the owner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the subject property which is subject of the hearing. Provided, however, notification of owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent, or the registered agent of the condominium project, or any member of the board of directors of a condominium association. The list of owners, managing agent, registered agent or members of the board of directors, as appropriate, shall include the names of the individuals, their mailing addresses, and the general description of the property owned or managed by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each individual or agent to be notified to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. It will be the applicant's responsibility to provide this information and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the adjacent property owners shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid. Managing Agent for the Hamlet Association: Eileen Jacobs, Mountain Caretaker, Inc., PO Box 1093, Eagle, CO 81631 Hamlet Association Board President and Owner of Hamlet Townhouse #3 & Hamlet Chalet #1: Harold Jorck, West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 2, Vail, CO 81657 G. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 27(2016) § 7: Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 2: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 2: Ord. 8(1973) § 19.200) Please refer to the HOA signed agreement letter submitted with this application. o� �-uonUo�ertowewowew- LrMoo'810� nsLxogod �3dd0 LsLS Kz Us A 3 l N V W ���N 1 1 b V W � o g 8 L -9-Z 13S 11 W?J3d 9 129sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra IGGJ 0 aJo0 M t40Z uoi}enouad a0}00ad Jolooid , [V ZbiEOZ � � 133HS 3AOO �d'o�o a� �egwUer ,� xxxx .,wnu 8L- Z -0 -, H wo z F Q o o o E� Po QQ W wzo w w 00. SNOIS I�321 FF J 3n.Eom EUF 3 o m 055 E! E_ 5E a�mEm oo« V M33bJ 3ao9 C zr` E � o g w -, H wo z F Q o o o E� Po QQ W wzo w w 00. FF J d� aN <Q w¢ a j 7 E E 00 oQ .o �'0 mm. H w Z - z O 3 J a LU LL Z 00 LL J (� W0N r w LLI ate\ U) o,- N e u Imoz L i 06 Z Lo OC/)w E- Q D 0 OiwYo }' O w � 0ZOU (� Z LU 0 }'� 0 O U)Oc�- :3U-� ", �0���= a 00 N N Lu / _ 3n.Eom EUF 3 o m 055 E! E_ 5E a�mEm oo« V M33bJ 3ao9 C zr` E � o g w -, H wo z F Q o E� Po QQ W wzo w w 00. FF J d� aN <Q w¢ a j < >OaO0m >N 770 E 00 oQ .o �'0 mm. Z J H Q A � - F -JOZaZOZ Z - z 3 J Ew z e u Imoz E- - w LU aaI 5w�w� - 0 - a - F -JOZaZOZ Z - z Ew z E- - w - - a o� �-uanUo�ertswew�wew- LrMoo'810� nsLxogod �ddo LsLS Kz Us A 3 l N ���N 1 1 b V W V W 8 L -9-Z 13s 11 N?:od 9+g 9 sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra IGGJ 0 @JoE) M t40Z enoua� ao�ooa uoi J d Jolooid N,uv a3 ]� V waw ��� sN�nd aooIi �egwUe ° a nu r ,� >ao � 86x Z -0 SNOIS I�321 U Z Q 11 A o� �-uanUo�ertswew�wew- LrMoo'810� nsLxogod �ddo LsLS Kz Us A 3 l N ���N 1 1 b V W V W 8 L -9-Z 13s 11 N?:od 9+g 9 sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra IGGJ 0 @JoE) M t40Z enoua� ao�ooa uoi J d Jolooid N,uv a3 �� waw ��� sN�nd aooIi �egwUe ° a nu r ,� >ao � 86x Z -0 SNOIS I�321 o� �uonUo�ertowewowew- ,rMoo'816 nsLxoaod �ddo LSI,S KE 6 A 3 l N V W N 1 1 b V W OIC =L II, - 81-9-Z 13S 11 W?J3d 9+g 9 sasnoyunnol;aIw8H 9141}/� antra 199J O @JoE) M t4OZ uoi}enouad ao}0oad Jolooid Y ZbiEOZ � � SNOI1tlA313 �d'o�a .�i� egwnu Uer ,� xxxx 8L- Z -0 zi -�3p p .soy 3oO z III III - g ILII z–N III - I x W III III III SNOIS I�321 � II wl� ogz �o OIC =L II, - zi -�3p p .soy 3oO z III III - g ILII z–N III - I x W III III III — III � II ff 3No� 1 zam 8 T� w� - of rIII r IIIIIIi J I ri i i 1 aLEI =x —I=—I II _11l _ _ —II = =—T 15- IT IS I'1I ILII I zMoo 810: nsLxogv zw azz 3,. H a— z wa ,12;am_leanG _:_:means UOReaOue�]mo0 d _a ° . §� 1 ,� _ xxxx ° / — ® /Im m \\ 2 / / / \ C } M \\ ` : \q; \ z:=,:w ,v zw azz 3,. H W a— z wa ,12;am_leanG _:_:means UOReaOue�l]mo0 d <°� a : � . - §v . 2 2 a� _ ,, , _� a 5 ..»... ..»... 9: ; .\»... ..»... } \ul \ \ \^ ^\ \ \ 5 ..»... ..»... 9: ; .\»... ..»... } \ul \ \ \^ ^\ \ \ o� �-uanUo�ertswew�wew- LrMoo'810� nsLxogod �ddo LsLS Kz Us A 3 l N V W ���N 1 1 b V W 8 L -9-Z 13s 11 N?:od 9+g 9 sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra 199JO aJo0 M t40Z uoi enoua ao ooa� � � � Jolooid N,uv a3 �� waw ��� � 1 svaav ° a �egwnu Uer ,� >ao � 86x Z -0 of w�� p oW SNOIS I�321 m of w�� p oW m ATTACHMENT D - LETTERS OF SUPPORT March 1, 2018 Mr. Chris Neubecker, AICD Planning Manager Community Development Department Town of Vail 111 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO, Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 Dear Mr. Neubecker: We are the owners of Hamlet Townhouse 3 and Hamlet Chalet 1, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive. I am also President of the HOA for the Hamlet. Holly Proctor and John Hutto have presented the remodel planned for Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6 to the Board of the HOA as well as to other property owners and has received approval at all levels from the Hamlet. We have received Notice from TOV regarding the request for review of variances as it relates to the storage area under the deck on the west side of the property. The request for variance is applicable to 225 square feet of storage to be built under the deck. The natural grade of the site results in the deck being approximately 8' off the ground, yet the zoning restricts the GRFA such that the height of the proposed storage is limited to 5' with a 12 sf access door. The storage will not be heated and there will be no utilities installed, it will only be used as general storage. The Primary / Secondary zoning applied to the existing multi -family project in 1985 was, in effect, erroneous, given the six buildings in place at the time, and results in tremendous practical difficulty for the owners of the Hamlet due to its restrictions. It is our understanding that the existing GRFA for Townhouses 5 & 6 is about 25% less than "allowable", however, when taken into consideration as a `development site', the GRFA is deemed non -conforming. Ms. Proctor is requesting an additional 225 sf (1.4% of the existing GRFA) to be located under the deck. Speaking as both a property owner and the Board President, it is in the best interest of the entire complex and the community to provide storage that will enclose and secure general household items. It is not practical or logical to restrict the height or access of the storage to Mr. Chris Neubecker March 1, 2018 Page 2 be in keeping with a zoning designation that is not even consistent with the overall property itself. The TOV Design and Review Board reviewed and approved the project on the basis of its design and it is only reasonable that the functionality of the storage area be maximized so that the entire property benefits from this improvement to Townhouses 5 and 6. Alternatively, Ms. Proctor could choose to leave the area unenclosed and stack and store household items and equipment open to risks of vandalism, theft and/or weather damage. This letter is written in full support of the variance requested so as to allow for an improvement that is beneficial to not only Hamlet Townhouses 5 & 6, but the entire Hamlet complex and West Vail as well. In approving this variance, the PEC ultimately provides for a practical, secure improvement to the property which in no way deviates from the plan previously approved by the TOV Design and Review Board. Thank you for your consideration. With regards, jv-2^s� Harry and Connie Jorck Owner Hamlet Townhouse 3 and Hamlet Chalet 1 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81657 Cc: Holly Proctor and John Hutto March 1, 2018 J. Richard Caudle III Owner Hamlet Chalet #3 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Mr. Chris Neubecker, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department Town of Vail 111 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12- 18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO, Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 Dear Mr. Neubecker: I own Chalet #3 in the Hamlet, adjacent to Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive. We are aware of the remodel project planned for that property by the owners, Holly Proctor and John Hutto. We have received Notice of their request for review of variances as it relates to the storage area under the deck on the west side of their property. We are in full support of the storage area and feel strongly that the storage area should not be restricted to 5' in height with minimal access of a 12 square foot door. It is our understanding that the storage area will not be climate controlled nor equipped with any utilities, and therefore, its only purpose is for general storage. The point of the storage area is to enclose and protect personal items and as such, serves the interest of the entire complex. The HOA Design Review Board has approved the exterior aesthetic, and I believe TOV Design and Review Board has also approved it. We respectfully request that this variance be granted by the PEC so that the storage area can be usable for its intended purpose. As homeowners of the Hamlet, we support this onsite improvement and regard this project as enhancing security and the visual aesthetic for the property. Thank you for your consideration. Cc: Holly Proctor and John Hutto March 7, 2018 Mr. Chris Neubecker, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department 'town of Vail 111 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2. GRFA Requirements by Zone District. Section 12.184 Uses, and Section 12-18-5. Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17. Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6.2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO, Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-005 Dear Mr. Neubecker. We are the owners of Hamlet Townhouse #4, immediately adjacent to Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive. We have received Notice of the request for review of variances submitted by Holly Proctor and John Hutto as it relates to the improvements to the property as referenced above. We support the variance request to enclose a storage area of 225 square feet in the interest of overcoming a practical difficulty and improving the property for the applicants as well as the other property owners of the Hamlet. Were it not for the Primary / Secondary Residential zoning designation that was applied to an existing multi -family project, the existing GRFA for Townhouses 5 and 6 would fall within the allowable GRFA for a separately owned property and as a result, the owners of the property, as well as the other owners within the Hamlet, are faced with an impractical difficulty as a result of the current zoning_ We have been informed that the storage area will not be climate controlled nor equipped with any utilities; and therefore, used only for storage of personal and household items and thereby serves the interest of the entire complex by preventing an unsightly eyesore, vandalism and theft. Storage that is limited to 5' in height with access limited to a 12 square foot door does not provide adequate usefulness and thereby presents a recognizable practical difficulty. Since there is no modification to the exterior aesthetic approved by the TOV Design and Review Board, we regard the variance request to provide for adequate height within the interior of the storage area as a logical solution to assure maximum functionality of the storage and a benefit to the property and the surrounding community. The Hamlet homeowners collectively endorse improvements to the property and regard this project as significantly enhancing practicality, security and the visual aesthetic for the property. We respectfully request that this variance be granted by the PEC so that the storage area can be fully utilized for its intended purpose. . Thank you for your consideration. With regards, Greg and Lee -An Fair Hamlet Chalet $4 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81657 Cc: Holly proctor and John Hutto Date: March 9, 2018 To: The Members of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission From: Holly W. Proctor Re: Request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO, Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18- 009 In March 2017, 1 engaged Dominic Mauriello of the Mauriello Group, LLC to assist me in doing some research into the process required to combine two units within Townhouses 5 and 6 at the Hamlet. Following is the summary he provided with respect to the background of the project in the form of an email he sent to the Town of Vail Planning Department on March 21, 2017. 1 believe this historical analysis will be helpful in your evaluation of my request for a variance. Hello Chris: I am helping Holly Proctor with her proposal to combine two dwelling units within the 6 dwelling unit structure that she and her husband own at The Hamlet on Gore Creek Drive in Vail. MPG has done some research into The Hamlet and specifically the structure owned by our client. In terms of background, we were able to determine that the subject building (and all of the others) were built in 1971 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The Hamlet was a replat of Lots 41, 42, and 43 of the Vail Village West Filing 2 that was recorded in 1965, under Eagle County Jurisdiction (attached). Those lots were later platted as The Hamlet in 1975, under Eagle County jurisdiction. This property, along with others in the neighborhood, were annexed to the Town in January 1986 (Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1986). The neighborhood was subsequently zoned by the Town to Primary Secondary Two -Family Residential in March of 1986 (Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986). So the buildings were developed, platted, and existed under Eagle County jurisdiction for 15 years before they were annexed to the Town and brought under the Town's regulations. It was not uncommon at the time for properties to be zoned by the Town upon annexation to a zone district that rendered the properties nonconforming. There are examples of this throughout West Vail. This is one of those cases. The Members of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Page 2 The Hamlet property is developed with three structures that are referred to as Townhomes and three structures that are referred to as Chalets. All of the Townhouse structures were constructed with 6 dwelling units each and the Chalets were constructed with 4 dwelling units each. The Townhouse units are divided in half with a property line (i.e., three dwelling units on each half). None of the buildings are condominiums yet there is an association that regulates the common parking areas. All of the buildings were legally developed in Eagle County and certainly existing in the current format upon annexation to the Town. The properties are all legal nonconforming with respect to density (number of units allowed) and yet well below the GRFA limitations of the Town's P/S zone district. As a nonconforming use with respect to density the only changes that can be made to the structures are those that do not enlarge the dwelling unit to occupy greater floor area than it occupied when rendered nonconforming. Ms. Proctor intends to combine 2 of the units within the structure that currently contains 6 dwelling units. This is accomplished by removing a wall between the two units. No new floor area is being added and the density is being reduced to 5 dwelling units. The proposal actually reduces the structure's nonconformity (use) with respect to density. There is nothing in the code that prevents this change. Ms. Proctor would simply need to apply for a building permit for the work to be completed and comply with any building code requirements that may affect the proposal. For example there are two wood burning fireplaces that would need to be removed and/or replaced with a compliant fire place appliance. There is no approval process (administrative, DRB, or PEC) required to combine two units into one, just the building permit process. Unless you disagree with this analysis, Ms. Proctor intends to make application for a building permit in short order. I am happy to discuss this further with you. Please feel free to give me a call. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) Applicant requests PEC table to March 26, 2018. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: March 12, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: Februrary 26, 2018 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 022618.pdf February 26, 2018 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIO February 26, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, John Rediker, Brian Stockmar Absent: John -Ryan Lockman 2. Site Visits 2.1. 332 Mill Creek Circle - Triple Threat LLC 3. Main Agenda 3.1. An update regarding the 2017 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and setting 15 min. forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0049) Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Tom Braun, Braun and Associates Planner: Chris Neubecker & Kristen Bertuglia Neubecker introduced Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager, who provided a brief update on the recent events associated with the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan update. Events include: a wildlife forum, meetings with technical assistance groups, and providing responses to public comment. Bertuglia then introduced Bill Andree, Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Andree discussed the decline in wildlife, specifically from Vail Pass to Lake Creek in Edwards. A recent count found appro)amately 1,200 elk. In comparison, previous studies counted approximately 3,500 elk. The number of calves per 100 cows is from the 50-60 range, compared to recent counts in the low 30s of calves per 100 cows. Andree stated that the declines can be attributed to loss of habitat due to development as well as a lack of wildfires. According to Andree, the impact of humans, including recreation, on wildlife has been substantial. A recently conducted study in the area found that the calf to cow birth ratio decreased when there was human interaction with the elk. When the human interaction stopped, calf birth rates increased. Rediker —Asked if elk are moving to neighboring units due to human interaction. Andree responded that they have not studied all of the other units. Gillette —Asked if the elk population decrease was statewide, or just in certain sectors. Andree responded there are 4 specific units that have shown decreases in calf counts. Kurz —Asked how the decrease in elk affects other species. Andree stated that there is a similar concern for other wildlife. Sheep and deer have had an overall decrease in the area since the 1990s. Kurz followed-up by asking if other ski areas like Telluride have experienced similar decreases. Andree stated that the Telluride area is different from Vail in that it still has substantial ranches, whereas Vail does not. Rediker — Summarized the two (2) primary concerns being human interaction during calving season and that there is less food in the area, but he asked if there are other factors such as disease that can be attributed to the decline. Andree stated that they are researching chronic wasting disease, but it has not been found to be a major issue. Other issues include ticks and blue tongue disease found mostly in deer. Kurz —Asked for clarification regarding habitat projects. Andree confirmed that Colorado Parks and Wildlife has not done any recent habitat projects. Kurz asked if there are any long term options for habitat projects. Andree confirmed and mentioned plane -seeding as an example. Gillette —Asked for specific projects to improve the habitat in the sector and their associated costs. Andree was unsure and stated that it depends on the project and other factors, but he did provide some estimates of cost per acre. Stockmar —Asked if the lack of controlled burns can be addressed. Andree stated that there was a burn project funded, but the residents were opposed to the risk presented by the burn. Hopkins — Stated that the proposed controlled burn was more than ten years ago and that there should be another effort made now that the residents are more educated and have seen other successful controlled burns. Andree stated that human interactions that requires an elk to move during the winter season requires the elk to expend large amounts of energy. This can impact the health of calves. Recreation can also limit the amount of nutrition available and the elk's amount of time to eat. Hopkins —Asked for more information on how hikers, bicyclists, etc. impact elk and at what distance they may have an impact. Andree responded that it depends on the mode of transportation, but from either side of the trail it can be from 500 meters for a hiker to 1500 meters for motorized vehicles. Rediker —Asked if that distance means that anywhere in the valley with an existing trail, no elk will be able to raise a calf. Andree stated that some elk will choose to, but probably not many. Rediker asked for confirmation of the decline of elk from 5,000 in the early 1980s to the current estimate of 1,200. Andree confirmed. Andree further explained how the counts are conducted. Stockmar —Asked what can be done to help. Andree stated that they need to decide what a healthy elk count should be. Improving habitat is another way to help the elk population. The Town should identify areas where no further trails are necessary. Stockmar stated that it sounds like there are political issues, such as USFS policy, preventing Andree from implementing projects. Gillette —Asked what a decent yearly budget would be to start funding projects. Andree responded that approximately $15,000 annually would be an acceptable level, but in order to bring the elk population back, more than money would be required. For example, certain areas would need to be identified for protection. Hopkins —Asked aboutAndree's experience with trail closures. He responded that last year there was an attempt to close the North Trail, but there were still 200 people over 10 days that used the trail. Gillette —Asked if gates at the trailheads would help limit trail usage during closures. Andree confirmed. Kurz —Asked if trail closures elsewhere are disregarded as much as in Town. Andree stated that gates may be ignored, but he has not seen the problem to the same extent elsewhere as it is in Vail. Craig Wescoatt, Game Manager, Colorado Parks and W ildlife, commented on the costs of gates, such as the one used on the trail near the ice rink in Eagle. He added that one of the problems is that people do not follow the closure when signs are unclear. He recommended very simple signage noting the trail is closed. Hopkins — Stated that she thinks it is more of an educational issue than an issue of denying access through gates. Stockmar — Stated that he thinks the problem is more based on the spurious use of the trails by visitors. Kurz — Stated that he watched the wildlife forum online and was impressed by it. He added that he will be looking for a recommendation from Andree's group of 3-4 initiatives the Town can pursue to address the decline of the elk population. Andree stated that he will do as requested. Bertuglia stated that the revised Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update draft will be available for public comment prior to the March 26, 2018 PEC meeting. Rediker allowed for public comment during the work session. Bill Hoblitzell, Vail Valley Mountain Bike Association, stated that his association has an educational program with the USFS that will begin this year. The Association also participates in the Eagle County adopt -a -trail program. The Association will also have volunteers at trailheads that will monitor trail closures during the upcoming calving season. Mr. Hoblitzell stated that there is a program in Snowmass that has a camera at trailheads that can help to issue tickets to those violating trail closures. Tom Vucich stated that Commissioner Kurz's request for recommendations from Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a good idea. Mr. Vucich stated that he attended the wildlife forum and believes that the most important lesson to take from the forum was to stop the further fragmentation of wildlife habitats. He believes wildlife issues supersede some of our human wants. I n regards to the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update, he stated that he opposes the Vail Trail and it should be removed from consideration. Diana Donovan stated that an important lesson from the wildlife forum is that when an animal moves after seeing a human, they may move to the next meadow, but this causes a chain reaction in which other animals then leave for the next meadow, and so on. In response to Commissioner Gillette's question regarding what is new in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update draft, Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc., stated that there will be areas marked for no trails and statements regarding the need for extensive study prior to the construction of any new trails. The idea is to complete the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update and then examine trails at a more detailed level if, or when, any trail construction is proposed. Gillette stated that he believes one of the first steps should be to provide a budget for annual wildlife habitat improvements. 3.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail 5 min. Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to a side setback, located at 1200 Ptarmigan Road, Unit A/ Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0047) Applicant:Eileen Hyatt, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Ludwig Kurz moved to table to March 26, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.3. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor 30 min. Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision to reconfigure the property line at 332 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0001) Applicant Triple Threat NLC LLC, represented by Braun Associates Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil Panfil introduced the application and provided the commission with a brief background on the subject property and the proposed reconfiguration of the property line. The reconfiguration will allow the redevelopment of 332 Mill Creek Circle (Lot 11). Rediker — Stated the history behind the subdivision is confusing and asked for clarification. Panfil stated the Town is looking to verify that Lot 11, with its new area (Parcel B) and Lot 10, without Parcel B, are conforming to the subdivision and zoning regulations. Staff found that the proposed subdivision conforms to all regulations. Commissioner Gillette asked if the owner of Lot 10 has been informed about the process and meeting. Panfil stated the Town Attorney reviewed the proposal and stated that the owner of Lot 10 is not required to sign off on the proposal based on the chain of title going back to 1974, the last time Lot 10 had any claim on Parcel B. However, Lot 10 did receive public notice of the application. Tom Braun, representative of Triple Threat NLC LLC, stated that the application is to formalize something that was done in error in 1974. At the time, Fitzhugh Scott, who designed much of Vail Village, owned Lot 11 and Lot 10. Scott wrote a legal description for the area (Parcel B) highlighted in orange on Exhibit (legal description), dated November 21, 1972. He then excluded the area highlighted in orange from Lot 10 and included the area with Lot 11. The division of land occurred without going through the required subdivision process, creating a separate strip of land, but not a unified development lot. Lot 11 has been conveyed with Parcel B, or Lot 10 has been conveyed without Parcel B 11 times since 1974. Triple Threat NLC LLC bought Lot 11 approximately one year ago and thought Lot 11 included Parcel B until speaking with the Town. Upon closer review, the applicant and the Town realized the two lots needed to be cleaned up and formalized into one development lot. Lot 10 owner has been talking to Triple Threat NLC LLC about the demolition of the pool for several months. The resolution is to formally approve a subdivision that validates what Fitzhugh Scott did back in 1974. Lot 10 gets smaller by approximately 1,200 square feet and Lot 11 gets larger by approximately 1,200 square feet. If the proposed subdivision plat is approved, Triple Threat NLC LLC will redevelop Lot 11 with a new single-family home and remedy existing nonconformities, including the garage in the Town -owned right-of-way. Jim Wear, the applicant's attorney, stated he has been working for the last five (5) months with the owners of Lot 5 and Lot 10 to eliminate the swimming pool area easement. Currently, all three lots have access to the pool structure, but the only lot that uses it is Lot 5. The owners of Lot 10 and Lot 11 would prefer to get rid of the pool. Wear is finalizing an agreement with the three lots. Gillette —Asked about the building restriction line on Lot 10 and stated his concern that a nonconformity is being created. Braun stated the plat is not changing anything on Lot 10. Panfil reiterated Braun's statement that no new nonconformities are being created and that the building restriction line had nothing to do with the request at hand. Gillette stated that he believed the dividing line should not be part of the plat and asked if the note and line could be deleted since it has nothing to do with the plat for Lot 11. Braun affirmed. Wear stated he is working to abandon the swimming pool easement with the owners of Lot 5 and Lot 10. Braun stated the building restriction line can be deleted from this plat. The easement for the pool will be discussed amongst the three parties amongst themselves in the future. Panfil mentioned if the commission is going to make a motion for approval, there is a minor error in the proposed plat. Where there is currently a signature block for an Administration Certificate, there should be a signature block for a Planning and Environmental Commission Certificate. There is a suggested condition of approval to correct this error. Stockmar —Asked if it makes sense for the commission to table the application until the ne)d meeting. Braun stated that he did not believe it is necessary to continue the item to the ne)d meeting as the applicant can modify the plat based on the condition Panfil suggested, as well as include a condition of approval that they will remove the building outline and the building restriction line from Lot 10, per the request of Commissioner Gillette. Rediker —Asked if there are any other questions or concerns from the Commission. As there were none, he opened public comment. As there was no public comment, he allowed for final comments from the commissioners. Stockmar — Believes there will be many of these cases over the years. Stockmar was pleased with incrementally cleaning up the mess. He is comfortable with the proposal. Gillette —Agrees with Stockmar. Kurz —Agrees with Stockmar and Gillette. Perez —Agrees with Commissioners Kurz, Stockmar, and Gillette as long as Gillette's proposed condition is added. Hopkins —Agrees with the commissioners Rediker —Agrees with the rest of the commissioners and staff. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall revise the proposed final plat (Attachment C) to remove the "Administrator Certificate" and replace it with a "Planning and Environmental Commission Certificate." 2. The applicant shall revise the proposed final plat (Attachment C) to remove the "Building Restriction Line" illustrated on Lot 10. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.4. A request for the review of an amendment to the approved Solar Vail 60 min. development plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for the construction of employee housing units (EHUs), located at 501 North Frontage Road West / Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0002) Applicant Sonnenalp Properties Inc., represented by GPSL Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Neubecker began by stating that this item and PEC 18-0003 on the variance would be discussed together as they are inherently related to each other. Neubecker introduced the proposal and provided the commission with a brief background on the subject property. The new building will include 65 employee housing units (EHUs). Some changes and improvements have taken place since the last review b the PEC. Specifically, the GRFA of the 65 units will go up by a total of approximately 383 square feet. The largest change to the site plan is the new driveway connecting Red Sandstone Elementary School to the subject property. Only fire trucks and trash trucks will be able to cross into Red Sandstone Elementary School by entering from the west and exiting to the east. The school district has approved the plan and the Town Council has authorized the applicant to continue through the process since the Town owns the land. The Design Review Board (DRB) asked for additional landscaping, which is shown to the west and to the east of the proposed building. In addition to the changes to the development plan, the applicant requests a variance for the width of the garage door and associated drive aisle. Rediker —Asked how many of the parking spaces will be accessed from the garage door. Neubecker stated 12 parking spaces. The Town Engineer requested that the applicant's engineer write a letter about safety conflicts resulting from the reduced width of the garage door. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, is in attendance and can answer questions from the commission if necessary. Rediker —Asked if the commissioners had any questions for staff. There being no questions, Rediker asked for the applicant's presentation. Henry Pratt, the owner's representative, highlighted that the additional GRFA created by the proposed changes is all internal. The building envelope has not changed from what was last approved. The applicant approached the Town and the school and they agreed to the access from the west. Trash collection occurs only once a week and fire equipment can now access from the west. Trash trucks can arrive at hours outside of the school's drop-off and pick-up hours. Rediker —Asked that the trash trucks not conflict with pick-up and drop-off hours at school. Pratt noted the request for a variance for a 12 foot wide garage door is necessary in order to gain additional parking spaces. The letter that the Town of Vail engineer requested as a condition of approval has not been met, but Pratt stated that it is the same building and same project as previously approved. Rediker —Asked if due to the emergency vehicle access from west, if a fire truck has to access the subject property during drop-off or pick-up hours, will it be able to pass through the school site. Pratt stated if a true emergency happened, the trucks could enter from east and travel to the west. Kurz — Stated that most of the changes are positive. Asked if the project is anticipated to be completed in one (1) or two (2) construction seasons and how it will impact the Sonnenalp's operations? Sebastian Faessler stated that Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. feels confident the construction can take place in two (2) seasons. Gillette —Asked to clarify the voting process due to the fact that there are two agenda items involved with the request. Neubecker explained how the voting process should occur, including first voting on the variance, then the development plan. Hopkins — W ill vote to approve. Perez — There have been a lot of variances for this project. She encourages staff to look at the variance process in the future for projects. Rediker stated that variances are necessary to get the project done and that the commission has found that the variance criteria have been met. Pratt —Asked for clarification of staff's comment about the letter from an engineer. Gillette —Asked to discuss the building height changing by one and one-half feet (15). Gillette suggested they modify the variance then modify the development plan by adding a maximum building height. Greg Hall stated that the Town of Vail has facilities in town without the lighting system with garages at widths of nine (9) to ten (10) feet. Conditions of approval: 1. Approval of this amended development plan is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated Design Review Board application; 2. The applicant shall obtain an access agreement from the Town of Vail, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, for any and all driveway improvements on, over or across Town owned Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision and across Town owned Vail Potato Patch, Block 2, Lot 8. Such agreements shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. Concurrent with the submission of a building permit application, the applicant shall submit a site specific geological investigation, in accordance with Section 12-21-13, Vail Town Code, for any proposed development within a mapped Rock -fall Hazard Area. The applicant shall be responsible for any changes to the building permit plans required by the professional geologist or registered professional engineer who prepared the report; 4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the building, the applicant shall legally execute and record with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder the Town of Vail Type VI employee housing unit covenant for all sixty-five (65) residential units within the building; and 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall exchange eleven (11) existing deed restrictions on the property to other locations in the Town, through the Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Section 12-13-5 Vail Town Code. Brian Stockmar moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-5-1, Minimum 10 min. Standards, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, located at 501 North Frontage Road West / Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0003) Applicant Sonnenalp Properties Inc., represented by GPSL Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker This item was discussed in conjunction with PEC 18-0002. Brian Stockmar moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. February 12, 2018 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 5. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily February 23, 2018 Ad #: 0000200554-01 THIS REM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE Your account number is: 1023233 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Val will PROOF OF PUBLICATION hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12- 3-6, Vail Town Code, on March 12,2018 at 1:00 VAIL DAILY Pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of the following two (2) var- STATE OF COLORADO ves: 1.) a vanancs from tion Sec11-6-3-A-1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business iden- COUNTYOFEAGLE bficdionsign; and2Jav aeefromSedmn11-6- 3-A-1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification 1, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of sign greater Men ria (6) square feet in area, in so- cmdancewiththe prgvi.ion.ofSection 11-10-1, the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in Vadances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, located at 231 Eat Maadow Dma(C°I..d. Snowsp.. whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, Museum)Rrect B & C, Van Village Filing 1, and set- ting forth tletails in regard thereto. (PEC18­0004) State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, Applicant: Colorado Snowsports Muse. Planner: Mad P.mil that said newspaper has been published continuously and Arequeat for a review of a prescribed regulations uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of amendment to Section 14-10-6. Reahlential Devd- oparent,Vail Town Cotle,toallowthe Design Re- more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the e, Board (DRB) to apply different design review standard. in situations when Iwo-family dwelling. first publication of the annexed legal notice or appear as separateand distinct development Idle, ..d...ingforlhdetailsinregardthereto.(PEC18- advertisement and that said newspaper has published the Applicant: Arora Partners LLC, represented by requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. Brad Hagedorn Planner: JuslnnLightfidd A request for review of Major Extedor Alienation, pursuant to Section 12-]13-], E.onor Amrstion. or The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, Modification., Vail Town Cede, to allow for an mderi or emodel and addition toaunit wiminthe Creak- only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home aidebuilding, located at 223 Gore Creek Dri- Unit 3/LdA, Black 5B,Vail Village Filing 1,and salting Rifle provision. todh details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0006) Applicant: JohnPabor,representedbyPiemeAr- chimct. Planner: Jonathan Spence That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Arequest [or review ofavariencefrom Sectional2- published in the regular and entire issue of every number 11-3, Design Approval, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 7, Varian— Vol T°wnCod, to dailynewspaperforthe 1 insertion; anloaw for a, addition ineaceeaof500squansfeet of said period of and Y property with a nonconforming driveway, locat- ed that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of st 790 Potato Patch Dn,WWt 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1,and setting forth deteilsinre- said newspaper dated 2/23/2018 and that the last tO Applicant: l90 poo". etch LLC and Uavltl dated 2/23/2018 in the issue Schell, represented by Pierce Architects publication of said notice was Planner: Jonathan Spence of Said newspaper. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commis- n of an administrative action regarding a request In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, far a minor amendment to Special Development District(SDD) 3/8/2018. No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and II, pursuant to Sedlon 12-9A-10, Amendment Procecome, Vail Tom Code, to allow for Loth pro ed development plans in order to tonna app n,in rderts change lu grws floor area lucatetl .1100 East Meatlow Drive Unit 24/Lot O, Black 5D, Vail Village Filing l,and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC1 a-0006) Applicant: Nice Vail, Inc., represemad by Martin Manley ArcInfects Planner: Justin Lightfneld Mark Wurzer, Publisher A request for review of variances from Section l2- Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota public in and notary p 15-2, GRfA Requirements by Zona-trict, Seo- tiontrol,V4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density 12Ch Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant Title 12 Chep- for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day t Grossfar RenanceaFloor rea(GRVan T­ 'toa°°wf°` Gross Area GRFA in sof 3/8/2018. amount rmFloor 10 mzol-a[G ro Crock Drivc Uniarea and zone dt district, 1 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Fil- ing2, and setting torch details in regard thereto. '1 Applicant: Holly Proctor, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chna Neubecker Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public The application, and iMcmationabout the propos- My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 ala are available for public Inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public vited to ettentl site visits. Please cell 9To-4T9- dEriLYAIrt4EplRd�6 2138 or mit--ailgov.com/planning for addition- at information. kbTAa ,PD$LiC. STAT, o'Tpf {14PU0 Sign language interpretation available upon re- ppTARY'D2f16k0g939g' E%c71lw4A,i ftP9,20.x' quest with 24- hour notification, dial]11. Published in the Val Daily on February 23, 2018 0000200554. Ad #: 0000207977-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/9/2018 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 3/9/2018 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day 4/15/2018. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 4/15/2018. �1 Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JEr 1 LYA�'i rt4L als�6 rebrarew RuaL�.D. RUFE<1i'Lgf,{14PDC NOSARI"p 2dlfdOg938g' N'/ Cf,;Sl�fd %'%g71lw4FIiGi15T9,21�' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 12,2018, I:W PM Town Clencil Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Veil, Colorado, 81657 Cell to Order site Vislts 231 East Meadow Drive - Colorado Ski Museum 790 Potato Patch Drive - 790 Potato Patch LLC 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5 - Proctor Residence 223 Gore Creek Dnve Unit 3 - Potter Residence 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 24 - Nice Vail Restaurant Main Agenda A request for the nevi!, of the following two (21 van ce 1.) a variance from 2 0 min. Secdon-6-&A-I-a, Business Itivudl anon SSigns, Number, V.11 Town Code, to If.. for re than one1) business id ntifirati.n sign; nd 2.) a ria a from Section l l -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Idem' kation Signa, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign =than six (6) ssqq feet in area, in accordance with the ppro isions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and AppealsaVail Town Cotle, located at 231 East Idsad,, Drive (Colorado Snow ports Museuu, RT act B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in lagmd! thereto. (PEC18-0004) AA pl t: Colorado Snowsports Museum PP nner: Matt Parini The applicant, Jere PoBer, nap—road by Pierce Anehia—, is requesting the review 20 mil of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterier Alterations or Madlhashons, Van I own Code, to allow torten extenor remodel and addition to a unit with; the Creeksitle building, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3/Lot A, Block 5B. Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details m regard thereto. Also included in this application is the addition of a common clement airlock entrance and the replacement of the tmllis screening of a mechanical service deck with a stucco well on the east side of the structure. Applicant: John Potter, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 790 Potato Patch LLC and David Schell, represented by Pierce antl Associates, are 20 min. aequ ting the review of a variance from Section 12-11-3, DesignApp v I, Vail Town Code, i ardente with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail T pvin Code, to allow for additions in excess of 500 square feet on a property with a nonconforming driveway, located at 790 Patein Patch Dore/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth eaten. in regard thereto. (PEC18-0007) A plicanL ]90 POIdlO Patch LLC, epeceented by Pierce Architects PP nner: Jonathan Spence Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action 5 min. 11/1791/7 w of variances from BeMion 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by A5 min coon 12-103 Uaea, and Section 12-18-5, Denahy Comrol, Vail Town Cods 12 Chanter 17. Variances. Vail Town Cotle. l0 allow for Groes Resident, 1410-6, 5 card ORE) to [ Applicant requests PEC table to March 26, 2018. Aypl t: Arose Partners LLC, represented by Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lig hdieltl 4. Approval of Minutes Februrery 26, 2018 PEC Results 5. Adjournment Theapplications and informationaboat the proposals are available for public inspection dunng egularot- ties hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Deprtmeru, 75 South Frontage Roatl. The public is invited 117 a%1 Ne project orientation and the site visits that pcMda the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times antl ortler of ttems are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to dltertnine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will can- sider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language ints, preta6on 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily on March 9, 2018. (0000207977)