Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 PEC Minutes...~' i PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda January 8, 1976 1, Discussion o~ Avalanche Report prepaxed by Art Meyrs for Shapiro Property, Lots 1-5 and Lot 9, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition PLANNING COMMISSION Summary January 8 , 19'76 MEMBERS PRESENT; ABBOTT GARTON HANLON PIERCE SAGE WHITE OTHERS PRESENT; C.LAMONT EICHSTEADT MEYRS SHAPIRO McQUATD TOUGHILL DISCUSSION OF AVALANCHE REPORT DONE BY ART ME'YRS FOR ABE SHAFIRO`S 1?ROPERTY {Lots 1-5 and Lot 9, Bighorn Subdivision. First Addition } Art Meyrs gave the Planning Commission a brief history of the original work being done in Switzerland on avalanche study and the methods he uses l.n detecting avalanches. He went on to say that according to the Swiss and Colorado State criteria of avalanches that Mr. Shaperio's property is in a modexate hazard zone. The material presented in his report identifies the possible safety measures far this particular project only, Also discussed in this report are the types of avalanche flows, the frequency of occurance, and design hazards. Diana Toughill went nn the explain that the staff's position on the acceptance of this report is that the Planning Commission approve the use of the report provided that the building restraints outlined in the report are used. ~ SUMMARY January 9, 1976 Page Two C~ When asked if the Town of Vail accepts any responsibility if the safety measures fail to protect property and lives if an avalanche occurs, Diana Toughill said that after a lenghty discussion with attorney Larry Rider, it appeared that the Town of Vail did not assume responsibility if every possible precaution had been taken prior to building any structures. Art Meyrs went on to say that not all of r~ Mr. Shapiro's lots were i.n avalanche danger. Lots 4 and 5 were dompl.etely free from avalanche danger. He then discussed the differences between flowing avalanches and powder avalanches as well as the type of barrier needed to be used in each case. This information can be found on pages 13--19 of Mr. Meyr`s report. After due consideration Gexry White made a motion to approve acceptance of the avalanche report done for Lots 1--5 and Lot 9, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition and Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was taken for the motion. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30PM. *A copy of this report is on file in the Department of Community Development • .(, ~ ' KING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR LIONSRIDGE-•WEST VAIL ANNEXATION q .~. ' , t 4~ ~ ~~f 5 . -. - !-;.r ~ '_ - '~, ' The following schedule has been .established for Public Hearings. annexed ~ w l th X3:.1. 5 ~~~ y `t ^}~a i° ! y. e.:ne and work sessions for implementing zoning for s and residents are urged tb ~ °'. ; area. All interested property owner as 'possible. ~ i ~ ''Gr; ngs attend as many of the hear January 13, 1976 Town Council-Planning Commission Wdrk~~' ,~ " Session 1:00 p.m,* - ~ ',; .s, Town Council.-plann.ri.g Commission .Work 1976 20 r' J ~ - ; , y anua ~ " Sessa:.on -- 1:00. p.n?•~' ~ January 22, 1976 Planning Commission Public Hearing f ~. l9?6 Town Council-Planning Commission.-Work''°°.„ 27 ar J k N i , y anu Session - 1.00 . p • m • ~ F ~ .:;. 1976 SPECIAL°MLETING - Town Council Public';. February l0, d first reading of-Ordinance a ,' n H.e.aring, 7.30 p . m . •,. - '_=;~, March 2, 19?6 Town Council. Public.Heari.,ng and second 30 m ~ 7 ~': p. • : reading .of Ordinance. - ~~ .14, All work sessions and Public Hearings will be held in the Town of~° ;- Vail Municipal Building. °'~. -, Please call Da.ana Toughill at the Department of Community Develop- the scheduled~ f _ . ment if you wish to make a presentation. at any o 237 . work sessions. Telephone 476--5613; Ext. ~~' ~ ` f ., ,~ t € - 1 i~ ~: ~, .r:r;. , i1 E +4 ~ w; i. i,, '~- ~ i I - . '.1 ,,, - , y~i~. b- i ' ttri : L' ~ ~4 ,1 . L ! PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda January 15, 1976 1. VALL VILLAGh INN Preliminary Review of Development Design -- Josef Staufer 2. LIONS RIDGR zoning review with Town Council a a ~< town of rail box 100 office of the town manager vail, Colorado 81657 (3031 476-5613 January 14, 1976 SUMMARY OF STAFF MEETING WITH VAIL RUN Present: Dobson Woodward Turner Lamont Toughill Mr. Woodward presented a revised density proposal for the Vail Run property (Lots 6 - 11, Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision). The original proposal was for 270 units plus 18,000 sq. ft. of conunercial space as approved by Eagle County. The developers would be willing to compromise at a total of 210 units plus 18,000 sq. ft. of existing commercial space. The existing building includes 55 condominium units with approximately 43,000 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area; proposed zoning allows 134,774 GRFA and a total of 186,000 is proposed. In consideration for the additional 78 units and approximately 51,000 sq. ft. over the zoning proposed by the DCD staff and the Planning Commission, the Vail Run developers would be willing to guarantee the following amenities and environmental safeguards: 1. Three (3) additional tennis courts, with all. six courts open to the public on a fee basis. 2. Handball and/ox racquet ball courts 3. A second major swimming pool 4. Day care center 5. Transportation facilities a. Bus service for their guests at Vail RunTs expense b. A public bus shelter to serve the LionsRidge area 6. Possible tot lot 7. Bike path 8. Total underground parking for additional buildings, except such service parking as is necessary for the possible day care center. 9. A commitment to exclude fireplaces from the units, and allow only one fireplace per building. 10. Energy and water conservation plans to be incorporated in building design (presently incorporated in existing building). 11. Study and treatment of surface runoff to prevent water pollution. Confidential financial data was submitted to document costs incurred in anticipation of the County Zoning. 'CONING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR LIONSRIDGE-WEST VAIL ANNEXATION The following schedule has been established for Public Hearings and work sessions for implementing zoning for the newly annexed area. All interested. property ownexs and residents are urged to attend as many of the hearings as possible. January 13, 1976 Town Council-Planning Commission Work Session - 1:00 p.m.* January 20, 1976 Town Council~Planning Commission Work Session - 1:00 p.m.~ January 22, 1976 Planning Commission Public Hearing - 7:30 p.m. January 27, 1976 Town Council-Planning Commission Work -~ Session - 1:00 p.m.~ February 10, 1976 SPECIAL MEETxNG - Town Council Public Hearing and first reading of Ordinance - 7:30 p.m. C] March 2, 1976 Town Council Public Hearing and second reading of Ordinance - 7:30 p.m. All work sessions and Public Hearings will be held in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. *Please ca11 Diana Toughill at the Department of Community Develop- ment if you wish to make a presentation at any of the scheduled work sessions. Telephone 476-5613, Ext. 237, AGIsNDA -- LNDD~ L~ONSRIDGIJ IOIv ZNG Plytinning Commissio~l Iau~lic Bearing ~7anuary 2~?, 1~J76 7_. introduction -- Purpose o:L the fleeting li.. Ovcrvietiv: A. Slides - ~xisti.ng Laa~d Use and Density ll.eview 13. I-Ia~ards G. County Zoning ' ll].. I)rolx~sed Zonin{; and Density Summary 1V. Planning 1]nalysis iox~ Lio.nsridge Annexation Area , V . Individuai. Site Review A . . Star ~ Presentat ion ;r3. Develapcr Presentation C. Pub1.i c Comment D. Plan>~tizzm Cotrlmission Coiz~n~ent and Vote I'.or Recommendation ~~I;1'I'I-:li:c-~~,i~ 1i];I:;_, ~`~t~:.? i'~(.~.1;1\~L)!'t a'(i.;. :ii~a):1.`ti~~,ii;J1~,I, `~1`J'„ i;.f;l il~.l'~ r,~ . ~-. ~~ui'~:51'LV :}...~.L.LySJ_., Cii. 1~..iwii. ~.Il,~ i>U]..l..C.:L11;;5 1 J:. I'c,a;;i.'t~l.c> iin i l: ,auc? C1I~I~•A 1)t;1~:-..,_ty c;~: Utz (_i:.~~'E_?.i (,i,~~ci .....nd l..l.I . I~.tip l.~.r.at.. nll o i' C: )tila#;y ~ o:.. 1~: `l'c~a.'Jn:. ~f!lci U~_~rl,,.. ~~:i ,.~ ~.~,~ 1%i:~il~.l.I,)- ;'~::)l ] ti~f, I ~I (~.( ~1!Ztac?E`t'r. i)Iit'C`; ]:,~1~it IIEICIt'.I' C~Oi.t'ii.'y' ~ O,":i n}; . ~J)V~::~ 21O L CSC:;t1~ l.c.]t.l I:' C'1C.'IIlA1 L:i i111.,~ Cl.];I)I:'C)~`f:;C.E i)ti' i,ll.r 1, C: i.,Ollllt~~ l~. U.I_~i])l'. ~:ii~~.]y',_i.L,`.; Uf: ~)ll(:iC,'Vi:.i.-i~)~~Cl fi.C' )};i?.C'I,1' Ct'~-l,il .,];1}i - ]O`.~ C, 1' U°, (;' t~ is , l;~.t.i.lcii.t;; I'<~rl;7:i. ~;- l,vi: A- 1 V.I { . I~i~.i.', !1}3'c'r'I;1~'I, t: ~~,~ i i,h I~t~;:]~e :;~~u:l ~i:; ,'~~I i,c.ci 1~c_~(.'.t'It!I.,c,t' ~a , l :i'r ;~ V11:7:. I:n(l:iv:i.(III,:!-1. S i ~,~~ l~i~~1:i.c« !1. S.ic)c_:cz 1'L'<~]le:.>~L-i cis Jc}.int, lF~~tlt,tzr•(~ - I,~.,i,;; G--.]:i [?=~~,.tl_~cii~%is.-i.oca :~ ~ ~ O.i ~.;!_o(•.l.: (.', 7+~i0I]5 ~1~~.i_ci~~;c~ .~~~tl.~t1 i ~,~~i_.~ iorl -. f3. i,~ c~rl:~ I;. i;~s;c, J_, t.il . - l..,n., .1. -- ;:~, 1~r~.,ili;cl ~'~~ ~,. i ~)u r, !' ?',] c)c.l~ C, i_~.2t)II'; iL1(.]t;C' ~11])l}1.VI:~?(.iil ~` C_', iCi~c l l.,C;.1. ,~. C~~. -- 'J.'~~au'~ t? 1 Ll.ltzd :i. 17 ~c:r, t: i url }.~~ -;;-1>a. ~~(~n~fs~Li t~li t,~; 1.7. {ic~rc: C:I~c~cl; .1~ ,oca.zl.es - J~~~.r:•E. ;;.. U~c:l:i_t,al I.<~ ;7 .1. ~,c~rit~z:irl.~l~E ~~"~ 1? . ;~;r-, l; ~a. ~,c a (: ~'hc,~:l,C. I~.ol~;]~_i n~; -- `l ra.t.: f. r. i' J ~<tt.Ci. .i a (_:r~~;~C ~_on .L~:-~ 5--f~1 C,~II (.~L~iI! i.rl~;' ] . X33 acrd:; }'~. I` I'I1.11C~C'S i,IC'.~)~LI1.1_C'_i. -- ~I.1'Il.l; ~ (,.1 ] ;.L.I1(1 .':.tl ~~~1.:C'.1,~! l)il ~ `I ._.;~._~>~ CC)T]~,al.ll LI1i~ ~.. C).) .icrc,~ . i G. I~R13/I3asco, Ltd. - .Lot:; 13---~I and I3-5, Lions IZ:i.dl~e Stl]:}cli.vision - I~ot 11-7 , L~_on, l~.id~c~ Subdiv i ,ion - Lot>; ~]-1 and 11-2 , Lions I~.id~.~e~ Subci:i_v:ision - I~~,~'7; C)1~ I31aC;I~ D, T, 1_C}Y15 II].ft#'; C3 SLlbd3_V1S~Or7 ~I. Courts}~r~ve'l , J.1tc1 (Snow f.,~.0n) -. P~I.~•t 0l 1_,01, I3--t al~d I,C~t ~-`L Lions l~,i.dg;e Subclivisio~a 1. I~resclat;atian b~, ~]oc~ S~~l.ve;sl,er repxeselli~i.ng; Show Lit>n Condolaliniuua Association ', ~7. C;o:loraclo Land Investment 5~~11dicate {Mike I3urgarny) - Lot 7, 131ocI~ k], I..ions Ri d~;e Subdivision K. I~eo P<.zj~ne - Lot A-8, Lions I~.idt;e Subdi.visi.on L. Deane Knox (Stewart Brown) - Lot A-9, Lions hi.dge Subdivision ~I. IIoyt-IIe:idb.ranli - Thrce tracts oT land in Scot ion 12-5-SJ. coni,a:ining; 2.OG]. acres N. Holy Cross Llect:ric - A part a.I Section 12-:~-81 containing; :1..29 acres ~. C}tc~vr.c}n Oi.l. Company --~ P~tx L of Sc'cl.i.on 3.2-5-81 contaa.nin~ 7_ acre . l~. Jahn F. and I?:linor II: }11cA~l.J.ister and I~ l.e.nai.ng;' I.~clmber and }I~Ierc:a11Li1.c. - Prz.a:~t; oi' Section C~-5-f50 c;olltain:Lrzg; ].2. ~3~ acres C~. Sanclston.e 70 Corp. - Tract o:L la.rad a.n Section :L-5-Sl ' . containing; . F94~ acres k3.. I+Tauntai.n Prol~e.rt:ies, Ltd. - I.,oI; A-3, 1?~xernl~l;ed parcel , a por- Lion oi' vacated L~ians Itid~e Loop and rz l~artiorl o~ Indian Creek, I_~td. containing a.pprox . 4. G acres S. I3reak~a,tivay 19e:st _ Lat D-3, Lions I~id€;'e Sttbdivis_i.on 'I'. Lions ;r.Iane I & II - Lot A-5, Ifzons Ilidge SLlbd.v.isi.on U. Ilon~ostako A & D _ Lot A-G, LioYas Ricl~;e Sz.II:}division V . ~['el.crnark Townhouses - Part al` I~ot I3 -- L , I,:ions I~.i_dge Subdivision 1Y. Isz°ookt.ree, .Lot I3-6, Lions I~,idg;e Subd~v:ision a. Aspen Tree Condominium -- A tract; oJ' Land conta.ininb . ~5 acres Y. I3oard of Amc~ri_can Missi.onS of Lzztheran C11u1:~c11 - A tract o:C land i.n ,Section 12-5-S:L contaita~_Iag 3 acrc~~ I. I,:Lons Il,id~;~e jVater llis~trict - Part o1' L1oc:I~ D, Lions Midge Suk~di.visi.ora .AA. 14'i~L1.is I~. No~i;tingham - 'L'r~.tc;t oi' .land ~n SE~sctiorz 1-5-8I. can-- tai.ll:l.nr; .702 La.C:r[~s I313. :I:ncla.arl CrecIt, Ltd. -- ~I'r~ct of :Land a. r1 Sccl,ian 1.-5-8i. con- ta.ini.nt 9 acrc}s, Lass portion ti,o1d to I4lountain P.rol~orties CC. Lions Ri.c€~,'e Subdivision - Lai., A-~4, Lions Itidgc Subdivi.si.an PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda January 22, X976 1. Review of Planning Analysis for Lions Ridge Annexation 2 Review of Proposed Zoning for Lions Ridge Annexation for the night meeting • C] PLANNING COMMISSION Summary January 22, 7976 MEMBERS PR BS ENT: Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Dave Sage Gordon Pierce fro oi=ficia1 business transpired. i+ • 0 PLANNING ANALYSIS FOR LIONSRIDGE ANNEXATION January 22, 1976 • • -1- PURPOSE I ~~ The purpose of this report is to provide planning information to the Town Council and the Planning Commission to assist them in determining the proper zoning classifications within the Lionsridge Annexation Area. The general approach is one of evaluating the impact of additional density upon the natural and man-made environ- ment of the community's urban center and service center. METHODOLOGY The method of calculating impacts within a resort community must inherently be made within peak demand periods, For this report we w~.ll use a 30-day period from December 15, 1975 to January 15, 197E in which peak demand occurs. WE::will identify the demands placed upon selected service systems and upon the natural environment. Based upon the environmental and service system's impact, we will enumerate the stresses which both elements are presently subject to. The second section of the report will address the cumulative impact created by two density proposals -- that of the developer and as prelima.narily proposed by the: Town of Vail -- and assess these impacts upon selected environments and service system elements of the com- munity's urban center. COMMUNITY SERVICE SYSTEM The elements which will be addressed under the service -2- COMMUNITY SERVICE SYSTEM, cont. system category include: 1. Transportation; 2. Public Parking; 3. Summer and Winter Mountain Capacity; 4. Tennis and Golf Capacity. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The elements which will be considered under the Natural Environment include the effects of: 1. Particulates 2. Carbon Monoxide DATA BASE ~~, It must be noted that the basis for the statistical inferences in this report are derived from a limited data base. The conclusions derived from the following information are subject to error; therefore, the reader should be ready to challenge the infor- mation if discrepencies are found. The state of the art of monitoring has taken a major step forward in recent months; however, the available data from prior years, in some cases, is extremely narrow. We recognize the limitation of our data but we do feel confident that the assembled information has a credi~blo degree o~f accuracy. We must further recognize the dangers of assuming that identifiable trends will continue unaltered. There are in many cases physical, technological, or legislative changes which could dramatically affect present trends, We do believe that this approach to planning analysis has merit and should be encouraged as a means of evaluating the impacts which development has upon the health, welfare, i. i~ - 3--~ DATA BASE, coat. and saf et~r of the Vail community . The scope of this study was purposely limited geographically I• i• ~~ as well as to subject areas. Amore comprehensive study is necessary to determine the cumulative effects of growth with~:n the entire Gore Valley. It is only then that we will be able to understand the inter- relationship of any land use decisions within the man-made and natural environments. L__.J C ~' ~u • H H za° H C11 ~~-~ H w A H O W C7 z H U] (U bA ~ ~~ v w ~ a ~ ~ o .,~ a ~ ~ c d U ~ ~ H ~ H (~ ~n to W ~ U ~ a ~ ~ W S-~ H LY, id O ~ '~ ~7 ~ ~ at O Pd ~ H o t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ v H ~ ~ H ~ C!1 r-I •ri w~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ cvi ~~ av aQ o o ~ ,~ F~ cd 0 U iM ~W a a W ~7 U O a r-i P w 0 O H ~~ H U1 w w H Q -~4- b~ d~~~co~NC~c~~m~u~m~ma+~ ooN~inr`rnc~oo~-toc~~nd+~~o r--t r-t r-1 ,--[ r-1 N N N N N N N N N c~ N M rt N ~ r-I r-I r-i ~ r-i N N r-t r-i r-f rl ri N C~4~L~~C]ic7OCOl~•NGO[+'~OoO~NOrI M[~MC+1et+CflNdiC4lf7OC+')Or-I ti] CD [~CflOL`d{M~[)~Otc)~~P'7O[~O r-Ir-IMMt4d;tl}CY7t~N07Ol~d+~ 4?CONr107000rlNOL~00O~~['~rlrl 67i17C4C~LC)tf)C~300r-I00N r-Iif}C9C9 di di u7 ii] u'Sk~ CA 6~0 r-16)~rl r-~I N Cfl di CO +-~N 67~L~L~ L~ L~ 00 C~CO t0 LC3 CO t~ r-i r-I rl r-i r-I r-~ r-I r-I r~I rl ~nd+~to~c~~>`~mcflNN~t+m~~~ c4c~~a~~ncQ~nm~d+NOO~rnO ~ NC~INNNMC+'~d{'~Cti'~CYS~[+']d'~t1~Mdi C~'~C~')C~NMMC~C~'~C7C*]d{NC''~NCY7 C~"1 ~,o~ou~mN~ooocnd+~rnc~a~noo c~o,~-tcoa»+d+oo~o~-t~ro~rsoo O~N6~000oL~mN6~OC9N00r-IL~C9 [fl~L`C9CONODr1d'~N4~~-IM00 r-I c~cocv~ococ~-~c~oo~.nc9rn~N~,o~c~ ~-cO~~:ns`•o>~c~d+~m~ra~co~-, cr+rie~md+en~oooocoooa~aoo~-i~o Nao~t`~l~N~cfloo~c9~ne4 ~~~~ ~~~ Ot}CflNMMOO~OC~b~u'30004000] d+~b7~rIC~7[+"3Cfld~NC+7C9NNr-I WC~ ~t+ O C*] r-I l~ 6~ 00 0~ N t9 c9 t9 c9 t9 0 0 0~ l~ Mn tt~ t9 l~ l~ 6~ d~ 6~ C~ - C~ C~ C~ C~ Gy} O ~ rl rl r-I r-I r-f r! r-I rl r-I N N N N N N M N o~nca~nocoou~ooo~na~c~~ ONCYIk?CDN ONC'7P'7C9CflMr--IN d+ O O N O N r-I r-I GO 00 O L`+ l~ C~ O C70p0pCON O~NN0~6~00~0~00 MNNNNr-INNrir~N r-Ir-Ir-[N oocflc.7c+~cnao~rsomrn~nmmoorn rN~c7p~t~r-tc+?mCfldiNC~~9NNr-IOC o~nco~nOwo~nOOO~nrnc~~ oNm~CONO~N~'}mc9c9[~ir-IN C4~,--[CDl~oOr-IOI~COCflc9COCONoO~ rt~.c~,nm~nococq,~-t~NOOON --moor-i~airi~~~~~>n~rirn~ c~iaooo~el+cYirrd+mrimmc~cYim r-1 r-I r-I r-I r-1 rl r-I r--I r-1 rl rl rl r--f rl rf rl r-I N r-I r-1 r-I r-l ri rl r-I rl ~ rl r-I rl r-I r-I 000000000000ooooa 000000000000000 00000000000000000 000000000000000 oOd~N~C70r-Il~t~~-C~OOOOOoON~ ~''7~~0~~~~~~M~'~`~`'~ tt~u~tf')~s]tflC4CflCOc90000~09o0C-O~ rIO~0o01`COL~L~c9~OCOLOCflcflCO ~ ~ u~C~C~000~Or-1NC'7d~~C4L~OQ6~Or-i rINC+')d+~c3C0[~COO70rINC~]d+~ r-I r-I r-I rl ri N N N N N N N N N N C'] C~ rl r-t r-I rl r-I r-i ~ z A ~ ~ O ~~ ~ v C~ Ca Q) v ~ t,o ~~ o~ r-I N ~ ~ ~ . tap v A cd~~ N ~ N Ul'~U? '~ cd ~ v ~ ~a ~ o ~ ~~ o v~ v ~~ rl r-I ~" •rl r-I O cd cd ~ ~ Fap v+~~ to ~ •~ ~~~ v .~ ,~ ~ ~~~ cad .i ~ ~ ~Q ~~ cad N ~ r-t ~ ~ NP O ~ A~ ~ .~, v '~ ~ ou ~rl N .~~'~ ~0 +~•~ .~ ~ O a'i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~O •~t ~ ~ a ~v v ~ ~' ~ ~n ~ v~ . ~ ~~~ ~ •~ W A ~ .~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ •~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~` ~ v ~~ •~ N~.~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~N O ~dv a~~'a o~ ~ ~a ~ .~ ~~ ~a o ~ ~`r'ov ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~•~ ~ ~ ~ -5- TRANSPORTATION i~ The bus service to Sandstone Area commenced 11/27/74 for the ski season 74-•75. Service provided at this time was on a 20-minute frequency, and this was done by one bus. This season, the Town of Vail has made some changes in the Sandstone system between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., and 7 P.M, through Midnight. Our figures for the 1974 season indicate that ridership was down during this time; therefore, we consolidated the system with the Bighorn Route. Ridership is as follows: MONTH 74-75 MONTH 75--76 % INCREASE Nov. 166 Nov. 563 241% ~ Dec. 3,421 Dec,. 3,877 13% , Jan. 4,062 Jarz. 5,312* 30% * This January figure represents ride rship to date and upon completion of the Lionsxidge A nnexation, Homestake Condominium Association discontinued their bus service into the Town and encouraged their customers to use the Town system. This may account for the increase in ridership for January, Using the firguxe of 1.4 - 2.66 as the average number of people riding in cars in Vail (based on the Vaal Associates Study), we can assume that our bus service into the Sandstone Area reduced trips as shown in the above figures. CAPACITY Oux present system allows us to carry 25 people per trip three (3) times an hour; therefore, our hourly capacity is 75 people and our daily capacity, based on a 17-hour day, is 1,265 riders. Based on the projected figures given, and based on the assumption that approximately 1/3 of the people would ride the bus daily, our capacity would have to be increased. • _6- PARKING • Current approximate public parking available in Vail is as follows: Transportation Center 860 Golden Peak 92 East Day Skier Lot 486 North Day Skier Lot 100 West Day Skier Lot 70 ~ TOTAL 1,590 *balance of West Lot used for the Town Shuttle Buses. Based on a 1975 parking study developed by Vail i~ Associates, the following data was derived from polling approximately 95% of all cars for a 30-day period using the Lionshead parking lots. An assumption has been made that approximately the same percentage would apply to the Transportation Center. During the peak demand I ~ period, all public parking lots were substantially full. Overflow parking for approximately 200 cars was provided on the Antholz Property during peak periods. °J° OF TOTAL CARS PARKED LOCATION 5,3 Lionshead - Vail. Village ?residents 11.3 West Vail Residents 5.3 East Vail Residents 6,7 Other Eagle County Residents 28.0 Total Local Cars (Eagle County Plates) 42,0 Metro Denver Area 26.3 Out-of-State and other Colo. areas 3,7 Rental Cars Local cars carried an average of 1.4 passengers per car and non-local cars averaged 2.66 passengers per car. -7- PARKING, cont. PARKING STATISTICS VAIL ASSOCXATES REPORT FOR 1,974-75 SEASON Employee Cars $$0 each Day Skier Population 0.33 Day-Skier/Total Skier & Spec Comfortable Capacity 8,900 SkiersfDay Car Occupancy 2.66 Day Skier/Car Comfortable capacity for season 1975-76 is 9,347 skiers per day. VAI employee cars will vary directly as the comfortable capacity ratio. Therefore: 1 9,347 (9,347 x 0.33 x 2.66)~a- (380 x 8,900) day skier car' skier (skier x skier x day skier) -~ (cars x skier) 1,100 day skier cars + 399 employee cars = 1,559 cars which indicates that existing public parking is at or over capacity during peak period. Vail Associates has calculated parking demand for 1975-76 season at 1.,667 cars which exceeds existing public parking by 77 cars. A number of practical alternatives exist for incremental spaces: * Encourage carpooling efforts in excess of 1.3 employee cars. In fact, each 0.1 employee/car increase saves about 25 spaces, * Bus ridership is increasing substantially. With the bus service expansion to Lionsridge, car useage should decrease by 150 persons or approximately 113 cars. • • * Establish attendant controls in west day lot and re- locate the Town Sus Operation to yield an incremental 110 spaces. * Encourage better utilization of private parking lots. It is estimated that the approximate 3,800 private parking spaces are under-utilized by 25%. Setter utilization could provide an additional 950 spaces. • -8- PARKING Using the same statistics reviewed earlier, densities proposed by developers would create a demand for 500 additional public parking spaces. At density level proposed by TOV 280 additional public parking spaces may be required. At a cast of $3,b00 per parking structured space, approximately $1,750,000 would be required to pxovide the added parking. SKI AREA Vail Associates and the Foxest Service's lease for the i~ ski facility define comfortable capaccty of design-day as 9,400 skiers. At full development of the ski area, comfortable capacity will be 11,000 skiers, As is evident from the lift tickets sales figures on Page 4 current useage exceeds design-day by 25~ of the days during the peak demand period considered, Further present lift ticket sales exceed design day at full development by 9% of the days during the peak period. The mountain master plan contemplates completion of the mountain development within the next five years. The summer lift ticket sales statistics indicate a daily average of only 750 people which is an extreme under utilization of the mountain facilities during the peak summer demand period. Impact from additional population will create. an additional burden on existing and planned lift facilities during peak demand i• period as indicated in the chart below. Additional development in already zoned, undeveloped areas of Vail would further compound the stresses outlined. These assumptions do not consider normal growth in ticket sales which as approached 25% per year. • -9- SKI AREA, cont. AT DENSITY PROPOSED BY DEVELOPERS; (1,931 units - 5,793 population) AT DENSITY PROPOSED BY TOWN OF VAIL: (1,079 units - 3,237 population) 2,D10 additional skiers 1,123 additional skiers At existing design day of 9,400 useage on peak demand days would exceed the comfortable carrying capacity 4?% of the days during the peak demand period if density were built as requested by developers. When the mountain is developed to its full design day capacity of 11,000, useage will exceed the comfortable capacity 25% of the days during the peak demand period and an excess of 3,173 skiers on the peak day if developer densities were constructed... Densities proposed by the Town of Vail, although ap- proximately 44% lower, do not make the picture much brighter. At e_ current mountain capacity, design day could ba exceeded an 40% of the peak period days and 25% of the peak period days at full mountain development. There could be as many as 2,2G8 excess skiers on a peak day. TENNIS AND GOLF CAPACITY VAIL TENNIS COURT USEAGE The Vail Metropola.tan Recreation District owns and operates tennis courts. From the beginna.ng of the season (approximately the middle of May}, the District operated nine courts. About the middle of July, an additional eleven caurts were added. i• -la- TENNIS AND GOLF CAPACITY, cont. ~~ THEORETICAL CAPACITY The courts are open for play in 12 hour blacks from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Therefore, at present it could be possible to have 640 persons play on the courts per day, assuming every court is used by a foursome. Since this is unreasonable, a closer approximation would be that half the courts are used by foursomes, the other half by two- somes; that would permit 480 persons to play per day. COURT UTILIZATION i• A better gauge would be the number of occupied courts. A rough sample was selected to estimate the court utilization. 1g72 1975 MONTH UTILIZATION UTILIZATION June 60% (9 cts.} 92% ( 9 cts.) July 84% (9 cts.} $7% (20 cts.) August 84% {9 cts.) 85% (20 Cts.) ,Sept. 60% (9 Cts.) 68% (20 cts,) GOLF COURSE TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAYERS; By daily fees 16,600 By pass holders 3,120 Total players {est.) 19,720 ~ ~ Calculation of number of players based on the total daily revenues.: Daily revenues = (18 hole rate) (% of revenues) (x) + (% of revenues) (x); where "x" is total paid players Solve for x: $149,800,00 = {10){.818)(x) + (6)(.076)(x)+(7){.108)(x} Total paid players = 16,571 • -Il~ TENNIS AND GOLF CAPACITY, cont. GOLF, cont. THEORETICAL COURSE CAPACITY: Assuming the course is open 10 hours per day with foursomes starting every 8 minutes, 300 persons per day could play. Therefore, the theoretical capacity is: 300 persons pex day x 173 playable days TOTAL: 41,100 Players The average capacity of the Golf Course during the summer peak season was 63% and the course may not possibly sustain this quantity of play and be maintained at its present level. PEAK bAY USEAGE: Since the course receives heavier play on certain days, the problem is spreading the play out. There was one day when the course had a calculated play of 330 (not including use by season pass holders). There were three other days when the calculated number of players was over SO% of the theoretical capacity. CONCLUSIONS The course is presently used by approximately 20,000 players which is roughly half of the theoretical capacity. However, on peak days, play nears or exceeds the capacity. Since use has been increasing yearly, steps should be taken to encourage play during off- periods of the day and weekdays. i• -12- !~ ~ ENVIRONMENT The main components reviewed are the particulate and carbon monoxide levels within the Vail Village Air Sheds. Recent air quality data and reports suggest an emerging air quality problem within the Gore Valley. Primary pollution sources, during winter months, appear to be automobiles and fireplaces. Each source is primarily responsible for an individual type of pollutant. Automobiles emit carbon monoxide, while wood-burning fireplaces emit particulate matter. The effects of each pollutant is varied; carbon monoxide (CQ) reduces the ability to concentrate, causes some visual imparement, may cause headaches, and diminishes over-a11 capacity to perform ` ~ strenuous physical tasks. Particulates are microscopic particles pro- '; duced by incomplete combusion; they may cause physical. damage to the alveoli of the lungs, reduces surface area needed for oxygen transfer any may transport gasses such as CO, NOx, HC, which are adsorbed onto the particle. Particulates are most important in reducing visability. The following discussion involves present pollution in Vail Village Air Shed and suture projections for CO and particulates for various levels of development. Figures on numbers of fireplaces, fireplace useage, and emission factors were taken from an air quality study of the Upper Eagle Valley by Dr. William Marlott and Gary Gelinas far the Colorado Department of Health. The study is entitled "Trial Development of Air Quality Maintenance Plan fox Eagle County, Colorado". 1975 traffic figures were also taken from the above report. Emission factors for automobiles were taken from High-Altitude Vehicular Emission Control Program, Volume III, Impact of Altitude on Vehicular Exhaust Emissions prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Health. E I III 1~11111WI • • ENVTRONMENT, cont. --13- The impact of Lionsridge development on air quality of the Vail Village Air Shed is presented in the following tables and discussion. VAIL VILLAGE AIR SHED The Vail Village Air Shed is 3.7 km (2.2 miles) long and 600m (. 36 miles) wide at the valley floor. It extends from Lionsridge in the west to the west end of the golf course. The valley is ventilated by winds from the west during the day and by very light winds from the east at night. These light east winds, along with solar radiation- produced temperature inversions, create stagnant conditions in which ~` emissions from automobiles and fireplaces can accumulate to high levels. These stagnant conditions occur approximately 20%~of the time during the winter season. The projected inversion height is 60m (195 feet). This inversion height significantly limits the volume of air in which the pollutants may disperse. Particulate sampling has been conducted in the air shed since 1973. The Federal and State Standards for particulates are as follows in micro grams per cubic meters (fig/m3) . FEDERAL * PRIMARY *~ SECONDARY STATE OF COLORADO Annual Average 75 60 45 Max. 24.hr. period 260 150 150 (24 hr. period may be exceeded once per year.) * Primary Standard is to protect health . ** Secondary Standard to to protect welfare. 1. Impact Statement, Tracts A & B, Ryan Report, Page A-3 f ~ • ENVIRONMENT, cont. -13A- Sampling is done by a high-volume air sampler which operates for 24-hours every fourth day. Sampling 25% of the time with inversions occuring 20% of the time gives a probability of 5% of sampling during inversion conditions. The historical high--volume data is presented along with how many times per year the 24-hour standard was violated. ANNUAL MEAN # OF TIMES THE 24-HOUR YEAR GEOMETRIC ARITHEMETIC STANDARD .WAS VIOLATED 1973 55 71 7 1974 59 74 4 As one can see, we have constantly violated the Colorado Annual Standard of 45 ug/m3 (axithemetic mean). We have not as yet violated the Federal Primary Standard of 75 ug/m3 (geometric mean}, 3 but have approached the Federal Secondary Standard of 60 ug/m (geometric mean). A maximum 1eve1 of 280 ug/m3 was recorded in February of 1973. In his report, Gary Gelinas estimated the number of fire- places within the Vail Village Air Shed at 2010. He assumed that at any given time 20% of all the fireplaces would be in use. He also assumed that 10.0 lbs. of wood are burned per hour and that burning lasts for six (6) hours. Gelinas, using historical data, established the worst case of particulate level at 266 ug/m3 and that 95% of all paxticulates are caused by fireplaces. FRESENT CONDITION # OF FIREPLACES 20% USEAGE PARTICULATE LEVEL 95% T.S.P. 2010 402 266 ug/m3 253 ug/m3 By dividing the particulate ]~evel from lire laces b 402 the p y , number of fireplaces in use at any one time, a factor of 0.629353 ug/m3 per fire place per day was established. . -~ k .~- - -14- ---- .. AUTOMOBILES Carbon monoxide is a well recognized pollutant from automobiles. Carbon monox~.de is currently being measured continuously by the Town. Federal Standards for CO are as follows; $-hours 9ppm 1--hour 35ppm Since monitoring began on December 19, ].975, we have equalled the 8-hour standard once. We have approached the standard on at least two other occasions but snow reduced the levels and precluded a violata~on of the standards. In his report, Gelinas used Colorado Highway Department's traffic counts and made future projections. 1975 PROJF,CTED DAILY V.EHI_CLE MILES TRAUELED.(VMT) FREEWAY ARTERIAL LOCAL TOTAL 17,904 15,500 6,700 40,100 _~ The traffic generated by Lionsridge Development was determined by the following: Units X average trips/day/una.t X 3.2 miles (round trip) Projected VMT i• i• -15- • • I• IMPACTED AIR BASIN Density Level 1 FIREPLACES PRESENT 20~bIo USEAGE 95% PARTICULATES 402 fireplaces 253 pug/m3 Level 1 268 fireplaces 161 pug/m CUMULATIVE 670 fireplaces 422,jug/m3 IMPACT ON AIR SHED % INCREASE TOTAL SUSPENDED PART. 266 pug/m3 177 ~zg/m3 443,~ug/m3 66% The projected worst case level of 443~ug/m3 is in violation of the Federal. Primary Standard of 260 dug/m3 AUTOMOBILES DAILY CO EMISSIONS DAILY VMT TONS/DAY PRESENT 39,066 VMT 0.97 tons/day LEVEL 1 34,758 VMT 0.84 tons/day CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON 73,824 1.81 tons/day AiR SHED % INCREASE 89% VMT 86% CO At a present level of 9 ppm, th e CO 8-hour worst case on 86% inc rease could raise the level to 17 ppm which is 8 ppm over standards. An emission factor of 110.3 gm/mile was used. This was developed at an elevation of 5,500 feet far the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The above CO figures may be conservative as cars not tuned for 8,200 feet emit more CO th an those with high altitude tune ups. A large percentage of automob ile traffic in the area is from out-o f-:~t~e and Denver metro cars. -16- r TOWN OF VAIL Densa.ty Level 2 FIREPLACES 20% USAGE 95°IoFROM FIREPLACES T.S.P. PRESENT 402 fireplaces 253 ,~xg/m3 266 ~g/m3 LEVEL 2 151 fireplaces 95 ~.tg/m3 100 ~.tg/m3 CUM. EFFECT 3 553 fireplaces 348 ~u.g/m3 366 )ag/m %INCREASE 37°Jo projected A/level of 366 ug/m3 is in violation of the Federal Primary 24--hour standard of 260 ug/m3. i• RESENT LEVEL 2 CUM.EFFECTS. % INCREASE AUTOMOBILES DAILY VMT 39,066 VMT 17,264 VMT __ 56,330 VMT 44% INCREASED VMT DAILY CO TONS/DAY 0.97 tons/day _.._Q.42 to_nsJ~lay 1.39 tons/day 43% CO EMISSION At a present level of 9 ppm CO 8-hour worst case a 43% increase in CO could raise the level to 13 ppm. • _17_ PROJECTED INCREASES IN PARTICULATE MATERIAL 1974 AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD. QUARTER 64 ).tg/m3 92 ,~:3g/raS 69 ~~/m3 ARI TiIEMETI C ANNUAL ,AVERAGE _. 74 ~xg/m3 • 1974 'I; ~ Leve1 1 Level 2 1974 Level 1 Level 2 4TH QUARTER 72 fag/m3 GEOMETRIC 59 pug/m3 FIRST QUARTER 1974 # FIREPLACES INCREASE S.P. 95% T.S.P. 402 ---- ----- 61 dug/m8 65 fag/mU 268 41 fag/m3 102 fag/m3 107 ~xg/m~ 151 23~g/m3 84,J~g/m3 88~xg/m A factor of 0.151741 Jag/m3 per fireplace was used. FOURTH QUARTER 1974 # FIREPLACES INCREASE S.P 402 --- ----- 268 46 J.a.g/m3 151 26fug/m3 95% T.S.P, 68 Jag/m3 72 ~g/m3 li4 dug/m8 7.20 rug/m3 95~ug/m3 99 ~.zg/m3 Using the above projections, a projected annual. average was k I obtained. The second and third quarters of the 1974 data was used showing no increase. i• '~ base line data 1974 - - for E.P.A. Non-Significant Deterioration Regulation 1974 data is considered baseline -1$-~ EN~Z~tO~IM,~m'~•, cont , ' '~ ~ -- - - - PROJECTED QUA~.,XTY & ANNUAL AVERAGES QUARTER ANNUAL AVERAGE 1 2 3 4 ARITHEMETIC GEOMETRIC 1974 Level ~ 64 ug/m3 107 ug/m 92 ug/m~ 69 ug/m3 92 ug/m 69 ug/m 72 ug/m~ 120 ugJm 74 ug/m3 97 ug/m 59 ug/mS 81 ug/m . Level 2 88 ug/m3 92 ugim3 69 ug/mS 99 ug/m8 87 ug/m3 72 ug/m3 Using these projections one can see that development at Level 1 3 could cause a violation of Federal Primary Standards (75 ugJm Annum. Geometric Mean). Development at Level 2 could cause a violatio~a of the Secondary Federal Standard (60 ug/m8 Annual Geometric Mean). All of the previous tables and projection levels axe for development with no mitigation strategies in use. Levels of both particulates and carbon monoxide can be reduced by using various control measures. Particulate levels could be reduced by using any one or a combination of the following strategies: * Restricting fireplace useage during inversion conditions; * Requiring the use of a retrofit device to reduce particulate emissions; * Banning all new construction; number * Allocation of~~a maximum/fireplaces to certain areas within the air sheds; * Alternate day use; * More efficient combustion designs. These and other strategies can be developed through the use of the Gelinas Computer Model so that the possible effects of controls will be known prior to use. ^ i• i• -19- ENVIRONMENT, cant. The control. of Carbon Monoxide may prove to•be a more dif- ficult problem. Much of the CO is generated by use of the Interstate and increased future useage can be expected with the completion of I-70 and the development of additional ski areas to the west of Vail. Some control strategies to reduce CO within the Core area I• • might include: * Increased mass transportation and pedestrianization; * Development of peripheral parking facilities in conjunction with mass transit; ~ Reduced lodging and/or lift rates for those arriving in Vail by mass transit systems; ~ Discouraging the use of automobiles by making in- dividual driving more inconvenient than mass transportation. Again, any mitigation stxategy developed can be assessed through the use of the Gelinas Computer Model. With the knowledge that the emission problems can be controlled, the development and enactment of various strategies should become a major goal of the next year. A planned growth of the Valley along with reduction of pollution is a goal which is a realistic one capable of preserving the natural aesthetic beauty of the Gore Valley. • -aa-~ CONCLUSIONS It is evident from the foregoing information that major increases in the real density within the Lionsridge area would have a significant probability of causing neg.etive impacts upon the community's urban center and air. shed. It must be recognized that many of the service systems can be altered to meet demands created by additional growth. The ability of the municipality to respond to additional service demand is obviously dependent upon its financial capacity. It is necessary to investigate further ~,he relationship between growth rates, service levels; and financial capabilities. Further it is possible that air quality .and other related environmental problems can be at least partially mitigated. The most serious impacts upon the urban center appear to be' parking capacities during the peak winter season. With increased mass transit service to the Lionsridge area, the problem may be partially mitigated. ~ Secondly, the resulting impacts upon tY~~.€: ski mou~atain capacity is severe and cannot be ignored. Thirdly, the air quality within the Vail Vi~.lage Air Shed could be jeopardized. The most apparent problem created by increased density during the summer months could be upon, the golf course-and tennis court capacities. Further, research is necessary to identify the present use rates of private recreational facilities. i~ -21-- CONCLUSIONS, cont. Recommendations: 1. Every effort should be made to further reduce the number of laving and accommodations units an the Gore Valley. The Town of Vail's preliminary zoning proposal appears to be on the high side of an acceptable density range. 2. Efforts should be made to encourage non-residential uses which minimize vehicular traffic flows, emphasize the use of mass transit, and lim~.t impacts upon mountain capacity. 3. Encourage the recognition of the mass of existing buildings as a determinant of development standards for new construction rather than adjacent density. ~. Encourage matigatian strategies to limit air quality degradation, 5. Encourage a relationship between growth rates and the capabilities of the community°s service system to provide acceptable levels of servicES. C .. a~~S ~FJ -- PLANN~I~C~ C~Mf~T~SI~V ~ February 5, 1 g~~~ ; ,~ 1. Mountain Music - Conditional lase permit to allow 9aa sq. ft. on second floor of Lazier Arcade Building to be used as T.V. and radio repair shop and storage. 2. Review of Sepcial Development Districts for Lionsridge annexation area: a . 5D4 - Koel bel , Gore Cree[c Associates b. SD5 - Lions Ridge, Ltd. c. SD6 - Vail Run • i' PLANNING COMMISSION Summary February 5, 197b MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Dave Sage OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Cindy Lamont Diana Toughill Mark Kruse 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOUNTAIt1 I~ItiSIC Mark Kruse, representing Mountain Music, explained to the Planning Commission why he felt the need to convert 9O0 square feet on the second floor of the Lazier Arcade Building into a T.U. and radio repair shop and storage, The staff then gave their recommendations as well as a presentation (memo attached), and they recommended approval of the request. Gordon Pierce questioned whether or not this conversion would contribute to increased traffic on an already busy street with deliveries, etc. Jim Lamont asked how many trips per day would a customer need to drive into Town to pick up goods. Mark estimated that it would be two to three times per day. Jim Lamont then went on the explain about horizontal zoning and the impending mail act in order to give Mark a better knowledge of what this conditional use permit might mean at a later date. As there was no further business to discuss, a motion for approval of the Conditional Use Permit was made by Dave Sage and Gordon Pierce seconded the .motion. A vote was taken with 4 for approval of the motion and 1 abstention by Bill Hanlon. GROWTH/MANAGEMENT PROJECT Jim Lamont went on to give a brief explanation of the two documents on Growth/Management that had been given to the Planning Commission. He said that this study would help determine what impacts the Town will have in obtaining various growth alternatives at a future date. Dudley Abbott felt that input from the community an Growth/Management • plans is absolutely vital. He does not want to see the Town get involved with the "no growth" policy that has been tried in Boulder, Aspen, etc. Lamont asked that the Planning Commission review these documents for the meeting next week. i Planning Commission February 5, 1976 Su~~aCy • 2. DISCUSSION OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 4, 5, & 6 FOR LIONSRIDGE ZONING. Lamont explained that the drafts (which are in the Lionsridge Annexation Original File) of the Special Development Districts would go to the Town Council on Tuesday February 10, 1976 for their review before first reading of the zoning. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 Diana Toughil1 explained that this Special Development District Plan followed very closely with the original Planning Commission recommendation for the Koel~el and Gore Creek Associates Piece. She outlined the requirements that the ~deve1opers must follow before they can build (this is on Pages 3-5 of the draft). dim Lamont felt that the possible lodge should be tied down to the Educational and Institutiona] facility as well as all businesses and offices. Flanlon feels that SD 4 is asking too much from the Town in regard to permissible commercial space, land transfers, etc. Before they were annexed to the Town, the County had them zoned 6 units per acre unless they came in with a comprehensive develop- ment plan which the County liked, and with the .proposed Special Development District as it is written "We are giving them everyting carte blanche". Diana Toughitl said that the Town is getting something from the SD that we would not get under Residential or Residential Cluster zoning. They have agreed to place 75% of the parking on parcels A & B underground and 50% of the parking underground on the remainder of the parcels. Pam Garton suggested that the Planning Commission get together before the Tuesday meeting and form a consensus on the proposed zoning for the entire Lionsridge area. The Planning Commission agreed that.thi5 was a good idea and set a meeting for Saturday, February 7, 1976 to informally discuss what they would like to do with the Lionsridge area. As there was no more business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. 1 ~ ~~ti _ MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MOUNTAIN MUSIC DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1976 Mark Kruse has requested a conditional use permit to enable him to convert approximately 900 sq. ft. on the second floor of the Lazier Arcade Building {formerly VRA space) to a T.V. and radio repair shop and storage. Similar existing facilities are now located on the first floor of the same building, and the applicant wishes to use the lower floor for expanded retail use. Upon review of Section 1$.600 "Criteria and Findings", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following findings: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. No additional negative impact is created on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transporta- tion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and otherpub7ic facilities and public facilities needs. No negative effects created by the proposed Conditional Use Permit. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow anal control, access, maneuver- ability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The applicant is not substantially increasing the repair shop useage which is the principal generator of customer vehicular traffic; therefore, additional negative impact from customer traffic is not expected. The applicant may wish to consider his own delivery vehicle to reduce any customer vehicular traffic in the future. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located...in relation to surrounding uses. No negative impact an the character of the area or on the scale or bulk of surrounding uses. F 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No other factors should be considered. fi. No environmental impact report required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: i~ i. The Use is compatible with the terms of the horiz ontai zoning amendment in that the proposed use will occupy previous office space and the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the ordinance and the district in which it is located. 2. The proposed location on the second floor and the conditions under which the repair shop will be located will not be deti^imentai to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The noise, odor and traffic levels will not have a detrimental affect or~~:the,current uses within the building nor on uses within surround- ing buildings. f -- _ . - . ----- ~- - ~ v _ _ _ - , . . ,,.~-. _ _. _. . . The proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ordinance. ~~ CO~FNCIL OF PLIiN~TT.NG ~,ZDRARI~i31TS Exchange Bibliography ~~889 i~I~OWTH MA.I~AGEP~EiVT AND THE E~CDUSTON QUESTION by ~7'ames ~i. Clapp, Ph,D. Associate Professor and Director Master of City Planning Prograan Schaal of Public Administration and Urban Studies San Diego State Univer,ity J3ACKGROUND Perhaps with the exception of the challenges to planning occasioned by the post U7orld ~Jax II surge of suburbanization and the environmentalism of the late 1960's no single set of issues has swept into the forefront of the attention of planners and other urbanists that what has come to be called the "growth issue." In several respects all of these catalytic issues axe related and interwoven. Many of the same prablems experienced by growth-xe- ceiving communities after the 'war are ,included among the litany of maladies which today form much of the rationale fox growth. control and growth managzmexa.t. The advent of the environmentalism of the 1960's has functioned to add sti3.l another dimension and element of justification fox controlling growth, But in many respects the basic issue has been a longstanding one for planners'o how to guide and control urban growth and development in a manner which optimizes the well-being of all urban inhabitants. Curiously, the growth issueQ which in large measure has been responded to in manners which focus upon home rule and the right to focal self determination, has emerged somewhat contemporaneously with judicial activity in the issue a,xea of exclusionary zoning and other protectionist practices on the part of municipalities and particularly townships. While some students of these subjects may find grounds far reconcilation betwE;~.:n the: claims of. growth manage- rnent on the orie hand and the claims ~'or maximizing access to ail communities on the other, there app::~:,rs the greater likelihood that the two issues represent differing z;.~,pxoaches and philosophies about planning and the proper exercise of ~,he powers of local government. 2. Cl'L ~~~xchange Bibliography ~#8~9 t This bibli.o~rap~~y is an attorr3~,` to prov°~c~e s, iaasic in~rOduCtian to what promises to be a planning issue which p.exmeates almost all aspects of planning thougiat and practise, from basic philosophies I to the 1eg'alities of planning impl2menta'~i.on. While the literature 'k on the subjects covered here glows c~~~ily9 the bibliography re- i presents a cross--cut of data and opinion which will be elaborated ~' upon ix: the coming yoa,r.s. Sozue initial skirmishes have already been waged in the courts, but the issue appears far from resolved . at this time, if it can Ever be resolved. As noted above, the growt~a. issue is seen to be the outf~ll of a confluence of other issues. In part, proponents of growth management draw argumentation .for their case from the larger en- vironmental concerns of national and globe]. dimensions. Concerns such as i:~~^.reatenf,ng and existing famine in many nations, the deteriorating condition. of, the oceans and fresh water bodies, the i volume of energy consumption, and general population growth, have ' functioned to sei; in an atmosphere and perception of imminent. crisis. (2S, 3~., }~~, 6'~, 80, 113, 116, 11~, 1~2~ However,,others feel that such problems have been inadequately ar incompletely assessed, represent e].a_t.ist value biases, or cannot be validly ~ e~ctrapolated to the local level. Some worry over the kinds of policy which may be formulated. in a mentality o.f crisis, particularly with respect to the implications which such policies may have far ,' the developing nations of the world or the urban disadvantaged populations in cities, Others have expressed concern that the problems of disadvantaged groups may be aggravated in the name of environmental .protection. The Auestion of Ontim~cam 5i~e Another aspect of the issue relates to the question of the optimum size of cities. A1.most since the beginnings of urbaiaization this question has been pos,;d and wondered about, though seldr~i~ dealt with in a rigorous f~~.shion. It is probably in the nature of the urban beast that the s:tze optimality question is implicated in numerous issues in urban policy, ' +. r 3. CP1; l~change bibliography x`889 U~i,tla. respect to the growth management question there is same mixture of the c~uestioxi of size t,rith those of rate of development and urban densities (1, 182}. A number of indicators appear to show that, in fact, density on both and per square. mile and person- per-room basis have been steadily declining. Indeed, in part the urban sprawl of most American metropolitan areas is~ane way in which dais has been ackiieved. The rate of development therefore appears to be a more serious concern to advocates of growth management. The situation in. mast communities which have embarked on various approaches -to growth management ar are considering~it is one of rapid population growth and its consequent urban development, The princ~_pal claim~is that such rapid increases.a:n growth place severe strains on both the local public fist and the environment, and also the ultimate effects of impending growth will threateza the "character" ox other positive attributes of the community. Certainly this appears to be the case in the leadizag exampled of Ramapo, Mew York, and petal-uma, California, two small communities which found themselves with the communtation orbit of major metropolitan centers as a result in improvements in regional . transportation networks. ~'he question of optimum size has been looked. at from a variety of perspectives but still appears to be unresolved simply .because of the inherent problem of weighting the variables which make up the question. lJhile it is generally true that the larger urban places tend to have higher public service costs they also have a considerably greater array of public services and vastly more complex needs related to highly heterogeneous populations. I-Iow much of their costs axe attributable to size alone :is difficult to determine. Zdhile,N'ew York Casty indeed has fiscal difficulties these are to a considerable extent related to valuational and political matters of an historical sort as wall as size. (1, 13, 6g, 72, 86, 139 15a~s 188}, A. city which operates a vii^tu~~1~.y tuition free University system and numerous public hospitals i.~i addition to a rich variety of cultural facilities is. d.i.fficult •L~~ compare with a small suburban community•~aith a rather funcy:.mental level of public services. ~ 'a I L~. CPL Exchange Bibliography ~~8$9 Tn s~.~rt,rasearch on t•he size qunr;t:~a?'~ seems to show tkiat depending upon which variable one wishes t~ o~~t.imize the optimimum size of ~ the city vaxi.es. Ultimately there is the problem of boundaries: economies of scale .far some artivites may suggest a larger urban size than at;hers9 but as political. 5cientir~ts who have grappled i with the metropolitan government issue e,re well aware there are a variety of "nora-rational" considerations at work in governmental structure and public service allocata.on decisions. SomeltThat related to the question of urban size has been the notion of the "carrying capacity:, of.urbazz regions. While the urban size~questian i.n the past has been dealt with on a multiple variable level but and a.n a somewhat abstract manner9 the nation of carrying capacity is mare directly focused upon the relationship between u.rbar, size and the capability of an urban area to withstand environmentally increases in growth and the consequent increases in pollution and dez~ands ~~pon such supplies as water9 air resources, and fo~ d. (69, 139 3.88). ~ In most cases, however9 it appears that the techniques of growth management which. have thus far been developed and applied . relate only in the most general vrays to thG questions of optimum city size and the carrying capacity of urban regions, mhe first . attempts at growth management have emanated from rather small urban places which have been experiencing rapid increases in.populatian growth ar_d urban development in recent years. Secondly, most of the current growth management tee}~niques appear to be variations of typical land use and urban developm~;nt contrala which are applications of the police powers of local governments. `here is a general absence o#' these powers in most foxtt~s of regional. planning (such as in Counci~.s of Government)9 thirdly, and somewhat more speculativelyq growth control at the regional or metropolitan level may be slower in d~velopir..g not only because of the voluntary characteristics of many :regional bodies, but also because rates of population growth may be quite uneven among the various constituent units of governments of l~~ost metropolitan areas. In some cases central cities and some ;~:,nall cities may be experiencing stabilization ox even declines in population growth at the same time, other un5,ts in the region are experi.sncing rapid increases.. ~. CPL Exchange :Bibliography X889 Growth I~fana~cmer~t `~"echnipues Depending upon the cxiteria employed a wide variety .of public actions may be regarded as growth .control techx~iques° p'or examples general planning may be regarded as a growth management approach. if it specifies its goals are to regulate or phase the growth of the community in. same manner consistent with objectives to minimize the alleged undesirab~.e.effects of rapid increases in population and urban development° Tn addition, variations in local.approaehes to tax policy may .also be regarded as growth management techniques, such as preferQntial assessments or rebates-to faxmers or other undeveloped laxa.dholders who in one way ox another withhold land from c~evelopment° ..Thirdly, the general application of the em*ironmental ~:mpact statemezat may be regarded as a growth manage- ment methodology. A variety of others have also received;mention as potentially useful. devices, such as coastal ,zoning, :national urban growth policies s transfex o]f~ devoelopmenLt; rights 9 } and land pvalue taacat~~ion.CC ~(6, ~I 7. ~~9 .~p~9 -"1ti'(~9 ~1~97 ~19 J~9 J~9 ~"~r9 ~~y ~~y . 919 ~J9 ~-OJ! lOJ9 114 ~-'-+2! 1~Vf 1099 ~-72}° ~ .. More direct growth management techniques are such devices and' practices as: general Sl04JC3.OWn~ or other dil~.tory tactics in the processing of zoning app~.ication,~ subdivisions review, building perrnits, and other required approvals nece-spars for development to take place. Related to this is the fact that the increases iri the types of applications and approvals necessary for development have themselves functioned to slow down the rate of development in some areas, ~'ar exa.mples in Southern Californ~.a a given developer may be required in addition to conventional zoning and subdivision approval to obtain permission from the regional coastal zoning commission, file and enviroxua-ental,iII,pact report, and possibly obtain the approval of a community p~.annzng group, Amore formal and direct means of accomplishing si~~,ilar ends is the use of the moritoriums a device .which has l~e~n c-mployed. in. several c,.a,~.,anities ' but which is generally regarded as t:,aapoxary measure. Downzoning i5 - a third approach, sghich aims princi,p=ally to reduce the deris.~ty of i 6 t 3 ~ _ _ ~: i~ i 6. CPL Exchange Bibliography #ag9 i. ' peranitto~~ popua~.~ti~n at an a.rr:s.9 brit ,~;~;e proC~~s of e~nducta.n~ 'the docmzaning may also ~'lanction as a delay tactic. Interim zoning may also be used to purchase time as~.cl slow de~relopment, Still another dPVice is the .rewtriction of approval of development proposals to specific periods of the year, thereby reducing the volume and providing time for as~;essment. (99}~ Hawe-vEr, the growth management technique which has xeceived ~4 the mast attention in the literature on the subject as w~:ll as the ~! literature on exclusion is that which relates to the timing or phasing of development through a. combination of zoning and the . capital expenditure program, In the case of Ramapo, New York, the zoning for. the community was set at density 1EVels which would. not only maintain the general suburban-rural chiarac•ter of the ~ community, but a7_so affect the ultimate population which the community could accommodate. Since the znaaing was set at over- ,~ whelmingly low denr~ities that population 'evel would be lower than .} under what might emerge under less restrictive zoning. In the case ,~ of Petaluma, California, a quota of ~d0 unity per year. was established to wlow the pace of development. However, the salient _ characteristic of the growtYz management systems of both: communities is the e;~tablishrnent of point systems related to the capacity and availability of local infrastructural abila.ty to accommodate new. development,. The Ramapo regu7.atien system concentrates heavily upon proposed development impact upon sewers, drainage, park and recreation facilities, schools, roads and firehouses. The points required for development permission are computed on the basis of the proximity of the proposed development to existing facilities or to areas for which new facilities are scheduled (based. on an 18-year capital improvements plan}. Petaluma's system bears several similaritiesa Lake Ramapo's it op~:rates on ~a point system covering the "capaci.ty" and service ability of the wa~i,er system, sewers, drainage facilities, schools, firehouses, and the ~sirculation system. Tn addition it .~ contains criteria related to_-ci~e architectural design and environmental . ' ~+ 7. C1'L Exchange Bibliography ~~889 characteristics of the ps~oposala. Botk~ systems have rece~.ved judicial tests, piamapo's being sustained by the state's Appella-t.e ~Di`vision, and P/etalluma' ((;';~ hnavinlg~7beJetRn1 s~e`nt- -aside.Il~ Thhre~ latter. ~is aurre~nytl.y [on apypeal. \~! l~-F9 1J9 Gj9 L~I ! `+"9 JG9 ~~9 ~"h9 "GY "~! ~~9 1~f l~ll, ~~/, ~G~! .16U, 183). . The A,uestion of Exclusion As noted above the growth management issue has aome to the attention of planners and urbanists somewhat contemporaneously with the issue of exclusionary land use practices. It was also mentioned that growth n~ana.gement practia~s have emerged largely at -the local, or municipal level of land use control. To some, degree a tension 'haU emerged between local and regional concerns. . Qne expression of this tension is evident in tkae alleged effects of growth management practices upon the demographics of urban regions. By placing limitations upon the rate af.community population growth oithor directly through quotas and moritoxia9 ax indirectly through xezonings to lower densities ox phasing of capital expezaditures, several aonditions may emerge which may limit the ability of lower and moderate income groups to obtain residential locations (and access to decentralizing employment - opportunities} in the suburban portions of metropolitan areas. Lowered zaning densities bear strong similarity in effect, if not intent, to exclusionary zoning practices designed to`force up the cost of final housing units and thereby limit the ability of lower and moderate income groups to obtain housing. Tndeed9 it is most difficult to determine whether laudable abjeetive.s for these - practices such as maintaining the character of a conununity, preserving the environment ar holdiaag the line on increases in taxes, function and camouflage for rec.txictive and discriminatory objectives. A second and related economic effect is that upon the general supply and demand situation in a giver land anal housing market area. Lowered densities and slowed or arreLed development permissions, in reducing the supply of land for dE:~elopment and the supply of t . .; • 8 • C:~L E~cchange Bibliography ~~889 hou;~zn~' ;~r~i t~ com.irg info ~~;.~ m_~:~~~~ ~1 ~~, wi:L1 :~~cn~~~ ~ rf.:~al;ion~,~^,~ effects upon the pri..ce of l~.nd ar~d hauling (given constancy in the level. of demand~° Moreover, while it is argued that one of the purposes of gxcwth management is to obviate undesirable characteristics of much oi' sui~u:~ban development such as suburban spraw]_4 the effect of growth limitations may be to worsen this condition by forcing development into more remote areas, which may also aggravate the income limitations o,f:' less-advantaged populations. A number cf commentators have consequently seen fit to question growrt~h m}a''n~~agemenRt on the Ig'rounds Caf equity considerations. (2, ~O! 2~9 '-FG9 7"9 87! 899 9~! 9B! 191)° ny and large, the central judicial questions and standards around which the growth management question ha.s been focused have related 'to potent7.al conflicts between local horse rule powers in planning, zoning and capital budgeti~ag a.~d questions of regional or area wide general welfare. A number of state courts in the East4 in part~.cular those in Pennsylvania acid New SersGyp have tended to expand review of local zoning and plw~~ning deciaibns to include qu.estiorys of regional welfare and the "standing" of groups . who are not at present residents of such communities. Alsop some aouxts have applied the question of the "right" to freely move and settle to the scrutiny of growth management practices, However, in,contrast, two U. S. Supreme Court decisions appear to strengthen the position of localities in the area of local discretion in land use practiceu (Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, ~2 U.S. h•W. ~.~75 (197+), and I~~Jarth, et al. v. Seldin et a]., No. 72-202l~, .3une 21.x, 1975 • l.n sum, the relationship of growth management practices ' appears at this time to ren.~ain unsettled at the judicial level and promises a continued and interesting battleground for planners of various porsuasions about i;hnne pro(p]er e:~efrlIcise of ~lfocal regulatory potters. (s, 1G! [179 199 4 ~-4~! 397 1.~1! `+~9 ~O! ~~9 ~~~y-~8! ~r~~{9] 70!}~ 71f19 789 "1lL; ("~79 /91`-', l00"~l~l.~y I.O71p. 111, 1p12p 11.7p 1G1, 1ry28q lIG'J9 l~"9 1`-h~! 1539 1J79 16l~p 1664 ~. i779 171+9 177-1814 181-1869 .?929 1940. ~~ r{' • PLANNING COMMISSION Rgenda March 4, 1976 'te`a ~~ ~C'~ai~~~ ~ ~~~ ~n~ 1. Meeting with Town Council and the Lionshead Citizen's Committee General Introductory Meeting 2. Consideration of applications for.the vacancy on the Planning Commission -~ • PLANNING COMMTSSION Summary March 4, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Dudley .Abbott John Dobson Jim Lamont Bi11 Hanlon Bill Heimbach Terry Minger Gordon Pierce Kathy Klug Diana Toughill Dave Sage Bob Ruder Gerry White Bill Witty LIONSHEAD COMMITTEE: OTHERS PRESENT: Bud Benedict Pete Eichstaedt Chins Kaiser Andy Norris Paula Palmater INTRODUCTORY MEETING WITH LIONSHEAD COMMITTEE, TOWN COUNCIL ,_ AND PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor John Dobson opened the meeting with a few introductory remarks. He felt that this group needed to outline the areas of difficulty and decide what part the Town should be active in, what part Vail Associates should be active in, and what the Lionshead business owners should take responsibility for. Terry Minger then went on to give the background as to the formation of the Lionshead Citizen's Committee, Vail Associates had been looking at the possibility of making some major changes to the Gondola II terminal building which would make it more adaptable by adding commercial space and removing their administrative offices from the building. They have done some studies on the problems of the building, i.e. loading and unloading.of commercial goods, and they decided that the problems were much greater than they appeared on the surface. They hired outside consultants to work out exactly what these problems were and come up with an Urban Study as to how the Lionshead area could be improved .and what impact the Gondola TI terminal redevelopment would have on the area. Upon Vail Associates' request, the Town decided to join in on the Urban Study as it would be beneficial to not on]y Lionshead but to the total village. The cost of the consultants' work (approximately $4,000) is to be divided by Vail Associates and the Town -- each paying $2,000. Minger said that the consultants hoped to come up with .a pre- liminary work plan of the area by March i6. If the problems are mainly economic ones, he felt that this is the problem of Vail Associates and the business owners • of the area to work out but that the Town would donate the economic resource material that Jim Murray, consultant for the Town, had done. `.I March 4, 1976 ,. Page Two • Mayor Dobson then asked the Citizen's Committee to outline what they expect from this study as well as what they feel should be done to improve the area. Bud Benedict said that the group was primarily seeking help and at this time they really,; dont` know what the problems are:.. Paula Palmater said that they do have some ideas of what needs to be done but they needed the help of an organized plan to solve the problem areas. Andy Norris, representing Vail Associates, then outlined what they wanted to focus the redevelopment of the Gondola II terminal at. The first was to correct the present inadequacy to satisfy the day-skiers by upgrading the fast food service, the restrooms, warming huts, locker space, ski check in and out -- all the experiences that will make people want to and feel comfortable to linger in the Lionshead area. At present the office sufficiency of Vail Associates is "hurting". The quality and quantity of space is lacking and by moving their offices this should be corrected. The last item was aimed at the improved operating conditions for their employees. George Rockrise, consultant in the urban Study, said that the present Gondola II terminal building impeds the flow of traffic and it acts as a "blockade" for movement throughout the Lionshead Ma]1. By changing the use of the building this problem might be alievated. Vail Associates ,was thinking of using the space created by redevelopment as "public interest" places --- movies, ice rink, artisen centers, etc. Vail Associates management has accepted the preliminary idea of the redevelopment of the Terminal Building, and they are ready to do an economic feasibility study which would probably start mid-April. They are willing to hold off an this study if it is for the betterment of the Lionshead area -- which is up to the group to decide. Terry Minger felt that the Urban Study would take approximately three months to complete. He felt that there are four keys to the Lionshead situation: i) Overall Planning, i.e. landscaping, development standards; 2) The Proposed I-70 Crossing ~- which would give a high potential of increasing traffic flow to the area; 3) Proper Development of Site 24 -- Minger felt that this is the most important; 4) Proper Promotion of the Product. Paula Palmater felt what needs to be done is to make Lionshead enjoyable for the people. Site 24 is an important step, but what is to .stop the people from doing what they do after skiing in Lionshead -- a mass exitus for the bus to take them to other areas. Gordon Pierce felt that one of the problems that has not been mentioned is the Tack of available lodging in the area as well as the lack of permanent residents in the area. The Town agreed that this was something to study. Chris Kaiser felt that economics was the main problem of the area. The Lionshead businss owners must market their product. The committee should find out now exactly what is the problem and then decide if they can afford to make the suggested changes. The business owners must create the "draw". ~ ~ Andy Norris pointed out that the situation is not as dismal as the business owners fees it is. The area is only five years old and.aiready it has more beds than Snowmass. The good merchants are doing well --- they are out "hustling" and the growth rate experienced by these merchants is unbelievable. Minger pointed out the success of the Mark as an examplQ --~ they have good promotion and good ,• o,~ • :7 March 4, 1976 Page Three entertainment -- they create the draw. Kaiser f~l:t that maybe the business owners are just being too impatient. Bud Benedict came up with a specific list of problems experienced in the Lionshead area: traffic flow; clean-up, i.e. construction debris, dirty streets, etc; walkways need to be improved, i.e. landscaping; community activities, i.e. concerts that have been held in the Village should be shared with Lionshead; lao.k of control of employee parking, i.e. shoppers can't find convenient parking places because the main lots are full with employee cars; adequate signs; poor street lighting. A development plan must be worked out to correct these problem areas. Bill Hanlon expressed concern over the proposed commercial space for the Terminal Building. At present there really is no demand for it, and the additional commercial space might be expreme1y detrimental to the business owners in the area already. Andy Norris said that the proposed 21,000 square feet of commercial space was planned for a three year period and that the shops were designed to be non-competitive with the existing businesses. Maybe if this concern does exist that a sub-committee consisting of a lodge owner, business owner and a. restaurant owner should get together to discuss the problem. Chris Kaiser, as a business owner in Lionshead, fait that competition would better his business -- competition is not necessarily detrimental. To sum up the meeting, Terry Minger outlined the areas that need to be studied and the group agreed with this: 1} Master Plan 2) I-70 Crossing 3) Site 24 Development 4} Marketing of the Product 5) Socielogical and .Economical Considerations Before the next meeting, Mayor Dobson asked the committee to select a chairman. A date for the next meeting has not been set, but that when it was the committee would be notified. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE VACANCY ON THE PLANPJING COMMISSION The members present went through the applications --.na official business transpired. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. i• PLANNING COMMISSIO~J Agenda February 26, 1976 1. Consideration of Land Transfer Between Vail Associates and the Forest Service. 2. 'Discussion of "Growth Management Study" PLANNING COMMISSION Summary February 26, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Dave Sage Garry White OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Diana Toughi17 Jay Peterson Rogert Tilkemeyer Ernie Nunn Various Property Owners Cindy Lamont - Late of Potato Patch CONSIDERATION OF LAND TRANSFER BETWEEN VAIL ASSOCIATES ANp THE FOREST SERVICE Jim Lamont, representing the Town of Vail, said that their policy was Mated in a highly-qualified letter sent by the Town Council to the Forest Service in which they felt that the policy of land trade was fair and just. Roger Tilkemeyer,of Vail Associates, said that up to now they have only talked to ~-l0 of the 40 land owners of potat© patch lots and they would like to temporarily withdraw their request until such time when Vail Associates can determine what otE~er ovrners would like to see developed if anything. Ernie Nunn, of the Forest Service, said that he wi77 not proceed with any land exchange until the Town of Vaii and the Town of Minturn can agree with the proposed land exchange. Jay Peterson asked Mr. Nunn what status the letter from the Town of Vail had since Uail Associates has temporarily withdrawn their application. Mr, idunn said that the letter was now superseded by the Va.i1 Associates decision. Jim Lamont suggested that Jay Peterson should go before the Council during their next worksession and ask them their feelings concerning this matter. Herman Staufer, a property owner in Potato Patch, felt that the Town of Vail Planning Commission could not seriously consider a land trade between land in Minturn and Vail without informing the public and asking for their consideration. Planning Commission Summary February 26, 1976 Luc Meyer, a property owner in Potato Patch, said that when he bought the ]and from Vail Associates it was with the understanding that the land surrounding his lot was Forest Service land and under no circumstances could that land be developed. Now a year later Vail Associates has plans for developing the very land that a year before said was to remain natural. pave Sage felt that ~~fore any more development plans of~this nature are gone ahead with that the plans should be brought before the Planning Commission before they go to the Town Council. Roger Tilkemeyer felt that as a "good neighbor" policy they will go to the Planning Commission before the Council but that a land trade between two parties is really not the concern of the Planning Commission, Since the party withdrew their application, the business at hand ended. GROWTEI MANAGEMENT plSCIfSSTOid ~3im Lamont then went on the discuss what is expected of the Planning Commission in relation to the ''Growth Management Study"~- the goals that the Town has set and the hopeful outcome of the study. As there was no more business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. P~ANNTNG COMMISSION Agenda March l l , 1976 1. 5unbird Parking Variance €~ I ! t PLANNING COMMISSION Summary March ii, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Sage SUIiBIRD PAR~CING VARIANCE Since there was no quorem, Commissioner Sage postponed the meeting until next week. No official consideration. was taken on tlie.Sunbird Parking Variance. . As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. ~} ~. `•r ~ ~ • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Gommunity Development DATE: March I8, 1976 RE: Dr. Peter Wells, Conditional Use Permit The applicant has requested a conditional use permit that would a71ow for the change of use of a Z50 square foot accommodation unit in the Pension Isabel Building into a dentist lab. The lab is to be operated in conjunction with the present dentist office use. The Departmento:f Community Development has reviewed • the criteria and findings provided far in Section 18.600 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our conclusions are as follows: FACTORS 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The proposed change of use falls within the provision of the Horizontal Zoning Provision of the Zoning Ordinance in that it is located on the second floor of the building. The second floor allows for •a dentist office. We consider the lab facilities as an extension of the present dentist office. There are two remaining accommodation units within the Pension Isabel. In our view their removal would not adversely effect the short-term bed base within the area, The request, in our opinion, is not inconsistent with the spirit of the Horizontal Zoning Amendement. The short-term accommodation unit bed base within the area generally consists _ of larger numbers of units. We agree with the applicant that the continued operation of these accommodation units is no longer justified in Iight of ~~ ~ Well s 3/18/76 Page Two ` • established uses within the building, 2, 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. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. 3. 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 the streets and parking areas. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. No additional parking will be required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. There will be no external changes to the exterior of the building. The uses are consistent with the business offices found existing in the area. 5. :Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No further factors or criteria deemed applicable. 6. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report isr.equired by Article 16 of this ordinance. An Environmental Impact Report is not required. FINDINGS The Department of Community Development has reviewed the above factors and has determined that the following be applied: 1. The dentist office is a permitted use within the CCI Zone - 'r• ~ Wells `a 3/iS/7fi page Three District and a permitted and conditional use on second floors is in accordance with the provisions of the Horizontal Zoning Amendments. 2. We have identified no adverse effects upon the public health, safety and welfare. To the best of our knowledge, there wi17 be no noxious noise or odor emitted from the use, The change of use does not adversely effect the ratio of available accommodation units within the zone district. The argument favoring the conversion of this space cannot be applied to the remaining- dwelling unit within the building or accommodation units in the district. 3. The permit conforms with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. i• ~• i MEMORANDEJM ! T0: Planning Commission FRONt: Department of Community Development DATE: March 18, 1976 RF: R.F. Ke7iy Setback Variance i~ The applicant has requested a setback variance that would allow a 1 foot setback rather than the approximately 15' required. The purpose of the request is set forth in the variance application. (see attached application). The Department of Community Development has reviewed criteria and findings provided far in Section 79.600 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our conclusions are as follows: FACTORS; 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There does not appear to be a conflict with existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal, interpre- tation 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. According to the application relief is being sought due to the following statement: "Alternative locations for the addition would cause the removal of healthy trees, and depending upon the alternative, either block views from within our present residence or obstruct the existing entrances." Further, the application states that other alternatives would "jeopardize the ... ~ ; ~ Kelly Q/18/76 Page Two • architectural characteristics of the existing home." We believe that this degree of relief is justified given the above factors and does not constitute a 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. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, No other factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. The granting of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty of un- necessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. b, There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation a.nd enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, Kelly 3/l8/76 Page Three The location of the existing structure, the jack bf interference with existing or potential uses or structures and existing vegetation creates exceptional circumstances that are not generally applicable to other properties i n the same zone. ... The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance request. i• r • ~Er~a~A~auM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Ben Krueger Superintendent of the Golf Course DATE: March 19, 197G RE: Kelly Residence, adjacent to #6 Green on the Golf Course i have personally inspected the site of the proposed garage addition as it relates to tree golf course and have also looked at the plans. There is plenty of room between the addition and the golf course playing area. It won't be a problem especially since it is a non-use area in regard to traffic and golf play. } r • MEMORAE~DUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 24, 1976 RE: F.C. Larkin Setback Variance The applicant has requested a zero setback in order [] to construct a deck extension.on the south side of the Mountain Haus. The purpose of the deck is to obscure an electrical transformer and restaurant vent. The applicant has received approvals from the condominium association, Holy Cross Electrical Association, and the Design Review Baard. The Department of Community Development has reviewed criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our conclusions are as follows; 1) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There does not appear to be a conflict with existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2} The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter- pretation 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. The degree of relief sought is of a minor nature -- it will improve the visual impact that the present electrical transformer and vent present to the occupants of the building and the passerby. This factor is consistent with the design objective of this ordinance. r . ~'-~ LARKIN VARIANCE " March 24, 196 Page Two • 3) The effect of the~requested variance on light and air, distri- bution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Ne do not forsee any adverse effects upon these factions, 4} Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 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 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 ar more of the fallowing reasons; 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. The negative visual impact of the vent and transformer are unique to this property, and therefore do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance request. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Manch 25, 1.916 1. Interview with Applicants: 3:15 -- Ed Drager 3:30 -- Oran Palmatere 3:45 -- Dan Corcoran 2. Consideration of a conditional use permit for Dr. Peter Wells 3. Consideration of a setback variance for the Kelly Residence 4. Consideration of a setback variance for the Larkin Residence in the Mountain Naus 5. Consideration of a setback variance for the Morgan Residence • r + PLANNTNG COMMTSSION .Summary March 25, 1976 Members Present: Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Dave Sage Gerry White After a thorough review with the staff at-the last meeting, March 18, 1976, the Planning Commission made motions on items 2-5 on the agenda. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DR. PETER WELLES Gerry White made a motian for approval of the conditional use permit and Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A vote was taken. and the motion was approved by a vote of 5-O with Dave Sage abstaining. SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE KELLY RESIDENCE Pam Garton made a motian for approval of the setback variance and Dave Sage seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5=0 with Gordon Pierce abstaining. SETBACK VARTANCE FOR THE LARKIN RESIDENCE Gordon Pierce made a motion for approval of the setback variance and Gerry White seconded the motion. The motian was approved unanimously. SETBACK VARIANCE FOR TWE MORGAN RESIDENCE Because there was insufficient information, Gordon Pierce made a motion to postpone this variance request until April 1, 1976 and Pam Garton seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. . CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS -- INTERVTEW l Ed Drager was the first applicant to be interviewed. He has been living permanently in Vail since Fall, 1975. and he now runs the Vail Jeep Guides. He was formerly an attorney in Denver before moving to Vail and he has had • PLANNING COMMISION March 25, 1976 Pa'~e Two a great deal of experience in zoning and environmental control matters. He has worked as a consultant for firms throughout Colorado in zoning matters. Oran Palmatere is the general manager for the Westwinds Condominiums and has been for the past six years. Before moving to Vail he had extensive training in the educational field; he is a real estate broker and he feels that he could gain alot from being on the Vail Planning Commission. Two more applicants will be interviewed next week before the Planning Commission gives the Council their recommendation. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned, • ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGDNDA April 1, 1976 1. Interview with Planning Commission Applicants: 3:00 -- Dan Corcoran 3:15 -- Ed Goldbarb 2. Morgan Setback Variance 3. Racquet Club Variances: a. Height b. Offset on the rear elevation c. Covered Parking 4. Sunbird Lodge Parking Variance 5. Vail Associates Parking Variance for the Employee Housing Project 6. Rezoning the parking area around All Seasons from PA and HDMF to Parking and Recreational Zone. • PLANNING COMMISSION Sums~ary April 1, 1976 MEMBERS PRESEIVT: Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gordan Pierce Dave Sage Gerry White OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Ben Strahan Jim Morgan Walter Kirsh Dan Corcoran- applicant Ed Goldfard - applicant • INTERVIEW WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS: On this date the Planning Commission interviewed the remaining two applicants for the vacancy on the Board -- Dan Corcoran; Ed Goldfarb. They decided to recommend to the Council the appointment of either Oran Palmatere or Dan Corcoran. It was requested of the staff to send a letter of thanks to each of the applicants. MORGAN SETBACK VARIANCE The variance requested is to have a i0 foot front setback instead of the required 20'feet. Due to a 30' utility easement running through the lot and the narrowness of the lot, the most assessible point for a driveway is through the south side of the proposed structure. This would require them to get the requested setback variance. The structure could be brought into conformance by placing the driveway somewhere else on the lot, but it was the feeling of the staff and the Planning Commission, as well as the architect that by doing this it would unnecessarily create a long scar across the lat. Jim Lamont then read the recommendations of the Department of Community Devel- opment (memo attached) Comments from the Commissioners. were very sympathetic to the problem at hand, and they felt that it was the best thing to grant this variance request from not only aesthetics and views from the neighborhood, but also from a vehicular safety point of view. The only questions that-were raised were Pram Gerry White who was concerned about the height of the proposed project and from Gordon Pierce who had a problem with the size and bulk of the proposed duplex. SUMMARY April 1, 1916 Page Two As there was no further comments or questions, Gerry White made a motion to approve the setback variance as outlined in the staff memorandum as well as the criteria and findings brought up in the staff mama. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. RACQUET CLUB VARIANCE -- HEIGHT, OFFSET ON REAR ELEVATION, & COVERE© PARKING Walter Kirch, developer of the Racquet Club Project, gave a brief history of the Racquet Club development. Prior to the Town of Vail annexing the Bighorn Area he met with the Town Council, Town Staff, and the Vail Planning Commission to get a conceptual feeling from the Town about the development of the Racquet Club. At this time the general concensus was favorable towards it even though it was known that the pro3ect would not meet all the require- ments of the Ordinance. These problems are summed up as not meeting the: height requirement of buildings; offsets; and covered parking. The height limit on buildings is 35' maximum. The Racquet Club buildings are: the one-bedroom buildings are 39' and the two--bedroom buildings are 4i+ feet. They ..would like the variance so that -they can keep the new buildings in conformance with the other five completed buildings of the project. • As for covered parking Walter mentioned that they had no-plans to cover any parking and that they still don't want to do it. People who use their lots are either guests or residents not shoppers they have no commercial space, They would at some time in the near future like to put in a bar and restaurant to be used only by the guests or .members of the Racquet Club. For this they would either have to get an accessory use permit or have an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow private bars, etc. within their particular zone. Walter Kirch noted that the offset variance requested was for the north side of the proposed building and by.requesting this variance, the applicant would be able to have the proposed buiiding conform with the other existing buildings. It was noted that 5 buildings of the proposed 15 have been built under an Eagle County Building Permit. This summer they propose to construct two other buildings: 1 under a Town of Vail Permit; and the second, in which the foundations have already been put in under a County Permit, under a county permit. To sum up the applicant is requesting these variances for the one buiiding they are going to construct under the Town of Vail Building Permit. Comments from the staff were outlined by Jim Lamont who read the highlights of a memorandum submitted to the Planning Commission -- memo attached. It was the staff's recommendation that these variances be granted under a blanket approval which would allow the applicant to carry on with his original development plans. Comments from the Commission were as follows: Gerry White felt that by reducing the height on some of the buildings it might give a more pleasing effect by stepping up and down. He was opposed to granting a blanket Summary April 1, 1976 Page Three variance for the remainder of the development plans, but he had no problems with the variances requested for the proposed building this summer. Dave Sage and Gordon Pierce had no problem with the variances requested but they felt that a blanket variance for all future development on that area should not be given. The Commission should review the development phase by phase so that they don't commit themselves on something for years to come. Pam Garton had no problem with the requests. She felt that from the highway one doesn't even notice the surface parking and the impact of the height and bulk of the buildings are minimal because of the tree cover and from the relation of the development to the Highway. She did share the same concerns that Commissioners Sage and Pierce had. Both Gordon Pierce and Gerry White would like to see some difference in the scale of the proposed buildings. Gerry White felt that he had not had enough time to review the project totally and suggested that the Commission put a vote off until the next meeting. As there was no further business to discuss, Pam Garton made a motion to approve the variances requested for Building 5 of the Racquet Club development only as stated in the staff recommendations. Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A 4-7 (White opposed) vote was recorded in favor of the motion. It was requested of the staff to look up the minutes of the meeting Walter Kirsh had with the Commission and staff late in i974 before the annexation. SUNBIRq LODGE PARKING VARIANCE Since the applicant had requested postponement of the hearing until the next meeting, Gordon Pierce made a motion to postpone the hearing; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. VAIL ASSOCIATES PARKING VARTANCE FOR-THE EMPLOYEE HOUSI:NG PROJECT The applicant had requested postponement of the hearing until the next meeting. Gordon Pierce made a motion to postpone the hearing; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. REZONE OF THE ALL SEASON'S PARKING AREA The applicant had requested postponement of the hearing unti] the next meeting. Gordon Pierce made a motion to postpone the hearing; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. The Planning Commission had requested the Town Staff to Taok into the present size ailowment for duplex structures -- they would like to see that reduced. They feel that it is becoming too much of a commercial venture. The whole purpose of ', ~ allowing duplexes was to allow people to have a primary structure and a secondary one to be used only temporarily. MEMORANDUM 70: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 1, 1976 RE: Morgan Residence -- Setback Variance The applicant has requested a variance in the front i• setback of 10' from the required 20`. The purpose of the variance is to allow driveways that would minimize disturbing site vegetation and land form. The applicant states that "A 30'-0 utility easement located along the north 35% of the lot. We are faced with an extremely narrow building portion {avg. 42' X 230') It is necessary to have the additional TO' to gain the view of the Gore Range without having to go to extreme height in the building or scar the site badly by bringing the drive from the eastern end of the Tot". The Department of Community Development has reviewed criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance. Our conclusions are as follows: ---- 1. The reiationshi:p of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are currently no existing uses adjacent to the site. The lot is a corner lot surrounded on three sides by roadways. The variance would allow the structure to be located nearer to the R,;O, W. than i.s typical in the neighborhood. However, similar variances have been allowed for sites within the district which have environmental hazard problems. Adjacent sites do not appear to have similar problems and have sufficient building area which would not require similar variances, Morgan Aorsl__l~ 1976 ! 2, The degree to which re]ief from the strict or • literal interpreta~;on and enforcement oi` a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites i.n the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The applicant could brig the proposal into compliance with the ordinance by changing the access point of the driveway. According to the definition of lot or site line front: LOT OR SITE: A parcel of Hand occupied or intended to be oc- cupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of this ordinance and meeting the minimum requirements of this ordinance. A lot or site may consist of a single lot or record, a portion of a lot of record, a combination of lots of record or portions thereof, or a parcel of land described by metes and bounds. 1.OT OR SITE LINE FRONT,: The boundary line of a lot or site adjoining a street .which provides the primary access or street address of the site, or adjoining the primary access from a street to the lot or site. With this situation the major land form alterations • would be necessary which in our view would be aesthetically and environmentally damaging to the site and neighborhood. 3. The effect of the requested variance:o.n ligi~t and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The potential effect of moving the driveway access to the east side of the lot could create significant traffic hazards, The proposed location eliminates such a hazard. There appears to be sufficient snow storage in the area in the front setback as proposed, 4. Such oi;her factors and criteria as the Commission deems app]icable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. The granting of the variance will not consititue a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Morgan ~Apri 1 1 , 1976 Page Three The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege due to the confined shape of the lot and the applicant's ability to build without a variance. 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., The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the above items. The alternative would be detrimental from the standpoint of traffic and excessive grade modifications. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ob- jectives of this ordinance, The location of the driveway on-the east would result in unnecessary physical hardship. Further, requiring the mandatory front setback would ]imit the building area that would inhibit the efficiency of the • structure. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or conditions' applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The Tong narrow configuration of the lot as well as the location of the utility easement creates extraordinary conditions. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance request. s u1iG s ~ ~ ~G[~ April 2, 1976 Jo Kramer Department o~ Community Services Town o~ Vail SuYiject: Parking Variance Hearing Vicar; Lot 9; B1k 2 Vail Potato Patch; V.A. & All Season Condominium rezone Exam PA & ADMF' to parking and recreation I~~ Dear Ms. Kramer: This will confirm our verbal agreement to postpone the hearing on the subject px'oposals until Thursday, April 9, 1976. Sincerely, V L ASSOCIAT , INC. ~lJ' Rog W. Tilkemeier c.c. A. D. Norris J. Bartlett C. Welin AREA CODE X03 476-5601 • BOX 7, VAIL, COLORADO 81b57 • #own of Vaill~ box 100 nail, Colorado 81657 (3031 476.5613 Individual Letters sent to: Dan Corcoran Oran Palmateer Ed Goldfarb Ed Drager office of the town manager April 2, 1976 On behalf of the Planning Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you of your interest in becoming a member. As you may know, the Commission wiii make a recommendation to the Town Councii at their Aprii 6, 1976 work session. The Council will then make a decision. We will contact you of the outcome. Once again, thank you. Sincerely, VAIL PLAN+JING COMMISSION Jo Kramer r~ L .. ~. MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: April 6, 1976 RE: Planning Commission Recommendations on: 1. Conditional Use Permit for Dr. Peter Wells 2. Setback Variance for the Kelly Residence 3. Setback Variance for the Larkin Residence 4. Setback Variance for the Morgan Duplex 5. Variances for the Racquet Club Attached you will find copies of the Staff Recommendations for the above-mentioned variances and conditional use permit. The Planning Commission recommends to the Council that they approve all of the requests as outlined in the Staff Memorandums with the exception of the Racquet Club height, off-set and parking variance requests. The staff memo suggests that the Planning Commission approve these requests for all future development of that project. We recommend approval of the requests for the proposed building this summer only. • ~Er~OR~tNDUM T0: Town Council FRflM: Planning Commission DATE; April 6, 1976 RE: P.C.'s Recammendatians for the P.C, Vacancy We have interviewed all the interested applicants of which we had not talked previously and recommend to the Town Council that they consider Oran Palmateer and Dan Corcoran. We believe that these two people meet the requirements necessary to fulfill the position of Planning Commissioners. Further, their ideas on planning and growth seem to be in keeping with the Town of Vail goals. '~ T ~ . + • • PLANfdTNG COMMTSSTON Agenda April 8, ]976 1. Vail Associates Parking Variance for the Employee Housing Project to allow no parking within the building 2. Rezone of All Seasons Parking l.ot, Christiana, Tivoli, Valhalla, and the Villa parking lots from HDMF and PA to Parking and Recreation District done. 3. Election of a Chairman/Vice-Chairman for the Planning Commission f ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary April 8, T976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Dave Sage Gerry White OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Cindy Lamont Jack Mills Sandy Mills Andy Norris Roger Telkemeyer Lou Parker PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE LIONS VIEW APARTMENTS ' • Vail Associates is requesting that 100% of the parking requirement for the employee housing project be outside of the building -- NDMF zone requires that 75~ of the parking be within a structure. Rndy Norris, Vice-President of Vail Associates, gave a brief run down of the project. Under strict NDMF zoning they are allowed 128,000 square feet of G.R.F.A. with in 240 units; they plan to use only 90,000 square feet of G.R.F.A. in 123 units. Once the project is finished, F.H.A, wi11 be the controlling manager. In doing this project, Vail Associates is creating a3036 square.faot day care center to be open to Town of Vail people. The lease agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates for the day care center will be based only on direct operating costs. Other recreational amenities include a 32,000 square foot swimming pool; 1,000 ~ineaT. feet of bike path; and 5,000 square feet of tot lot, which is required for the day care center. When the project was first brought before the Town, there were two areas of concern: parking and dog control. Norris said that Vail Associates is very much in. favor of the Town of Vail dog control and that as for the project, he felt that no pets would be allowed. In order to stop day skiers from parking in the lot, stickers will be issued for the tenants windshields and the manager of the project will police the area ~- cars without stickers will be towed. There will be 150 spaces available and six spaces designated for the day care center staff. Each unit will be allowed no more than 1 car per unit -- this leaves 27 spaces for guests. With G.E. Johnson as the contractor and B.B. Anderson as the developer, Vail Associates hopes to have two of the three bui]dings finished this season. If the weather holds out, they hope to have the third building completed by Thanksgiving. . ~ PLANNING COMMISSION Aaril 8, 1976 Summary Page Two • The reasons for the requested variance is as follows: With the required 75% of the parking within the building, the height of the building would be raised at least 10 feet and it is estimated that the cost to the renters would be about $30 more a month. Vail Associates feels that with the scale of the building lower and with proper landscaping, that the project would have less of a visual impact on the community with the parking outside of the building. Jim Lamont, staff representative, read the recommendation from the Town Community Development Department. (memorandum attached) Commissioner Abbott, in relation to the incumbent air quality problem, asked haw many fireplaces would the project include. Gordon Pierce, the architect of the project, said that only about 20 units would include fireplaces Commissioner Abbott then asked if snow removal would deniinish any of the designated parking spaces. Norris commented that the snow would be pushed towards the southern berm into the sun and it would not take away any spaces. • Sandy Mi11s, home owner in the Sandstone area, said that the parking area will be in view from the gondo]a, from the mountain, from the overpass, and from some homes in the area. She then submitted some pictures of the Apollo parking lot and said this is something she would not like to look at. Norris felt that the Apollo project could not be compared to the Lions View project. Apollo has no policing of the lot as well as no designated spaces. It also is not landscaped very well -- it is just an open concrete parking area. The Lions View lot would be heavily landscaped. Sandy Mi11s then went on to say that the Zoning Ordinance was created far the safety of the community; there must be some good reason why it requires 75% of the parking to be covered. It is her feeling that the variance should not be granted. Jack Mills questioned the impact of the additional 10 feet of building on the hillside area v.s. uncovered cars. He felt that the 10 additional feet of building height would be much more desirable and have less of an impact upon the hillside than a parking lot. The open area of cars will be visable for at least five years (before the landscaping is com- pleted and fully covering the area) -- he questions whether the community is going to want to see this? Lou Parker, representing the Sandstone community, added that if the people in the Sandstone area were willing to accept the 10 feet of additional height, then the Town of Vail should have ao problem with it. Dudley Abbott then opened the meeting to comments from the Planning Commission. Dan Corcoran and Gordon Pierce abstained from comment due to involvement with the project. Dave Sage felt that the request was primarily from economic concerns and he didn't feel comfortable with it. It was his feeling that Vail Associates in good faith can make committments about the parking and building height, but it is really up to the developer to choose what to do. The rest of the Commission felt similar views. Bill Hanlon made a motion to continue the meeting next week based upon the Commission's desire to talk to the developer of the project. Gerry White seconded the motion. With Dan Corcoran and Gordon Pierce abstaining, the motion was approved unanimously. :,` PLANNING COMMISSION Apf~ i 1 8, 1976 gage Three REZONING OF THE ALL SEASONS' PARKING LOT RS WFLL AS TFkE CNRISTIANA, TIVOLI, UTLLA, AND VALHALLA FROM HDMF AND PA TO PARKING AND RECREATION DISTRICT Jim Lamont explained to the Commission that this request was heard last November and at that time they voted to approve it. It was just a matter of "house keeping" that they revote it. After a brief discussion, Gordon Aierce made a motion to rezone the above mentioned area to parking and recreation district and Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. (White abstained) Bill Hanlon made a motion to amend the present Zoning Map to reflect the change of zone; Dave Sage seconded the motion. With Gerry White abstaining, a unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. SELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE.PLANNTNG COMMISSION Dudley Abbott was unanimously appointed Chairman of the Planning Commission for the six month term with Bill Hanlon as Vice-Chairman. Dudley Abbott was also unanimously appointed to the six month term of Design Review Board. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. ', ~ MEMORAif~DUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATF: April $, 1975 RE: Parking Variance for Lions View Apartments The applicant has requested a variance from the 75% parking within the building requirement. The applicant proposes that the required parking be 100% not within the buildings and that 50% of the required parking would be covered. The applicable F~DMF provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this project. ',° . The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance; our conclusions are as follows: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The primary impact of this variance is the visual impact which surface parking would have upon surrounding uses. Secondly, other property owners in the same district may attempt to use the same argument to justify similar variances. it appears that liven this type of Federally approved project, it is unique and can be differentiated from other variance requests. The uses within the area are primarily occupied by permanent residents which is also the intended use of this project. The School Site is located immediately east of the project. The impact of surface parking does not appear to adversely effect the surrounding uses - provided that significant landscaping is done to block views of the surface parking area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regula- tion is necessary to achieve compatibility and uni- formity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special provi1ege.. LIONS VIEW APARTMENTS . ,RQril 8, 1976 Page Two . The degree of relief sought in this case would permit the applicant to lower the structure to an average height of 35'. The Ordinance would permit 45 feet. if parking were required within the building, the 45 foot height would be necessary, thus increasing the visua] impact of the structures on the surrounding area. Further, the property owners will submit to a special condition that only 90,000 G.R.F.A. will be constructed,-- G.R,F,A. allowable is 126,000 square feet. Consequently, the property owner is committing to a significant G.R.F.A. reduction which is consistent with the Town Planning Policy. The combination of lower height and G.R.F.A. allowables permit greater compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The capability is primarily with the School Building rather than the residential area to the west. It is virtually impossible to argue that the building scale relationship between the residential homes and the proposed structures is compatible. The fact that parking would be required under the building does not improve the scale compatibility. Further, a similar variance was granted from the Lions- . Square North Project. While certain view corridors were improved, others were deminished, Therefore, the relative merit of the 50% covered parking proposal is debatable. It is however preferable to permitting total surface parking. it is our view that the developer has committed to typical restrictions that approval of the variance would not be considered a grant of special privileges. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, and utilities, . and pubic safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Several additional factors should be taken into consideration that would not be typically considered in similar variance requests. It has been a recognized fact that the local's or employee housing has been of limited availability adjacent to the commercial cores of the community. The problem has always been one of land cost and construction as well as zoning requirements. The financial nature of this project imposes many Federal regulations which da not apply to any other project constructed to date. The rental costs are directly related to construction costs. It is we]7 known that parking within buildings increases construction costs, If we considered the need of this housing type close to the commercial core, which has to be acknowledged as a valid community goal, the facotrs of cost should be considered. Further, Federal regulations will contro] the length of occupancy which will, during the term of the mortgage, require that the avaiiab]e housing be occupied by long term local residents. The need for such housing has been demonstrated by the developer through research and interviews. The fact that the pedestrain crossing will be directly accessible from the site encourages less reliance on the automobile. It should be noted that the crossing a7 so increases the attractiveness of the site for short- term condominiums that, as discussed earlier, would possibly have a negative impact. Finally, the property owner has committed to provide a 3,800 square foot day care center that would be dedicated to the municipality in perpetuity. The center will fulfill a community-wide need and goal. The center is. not required under any provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. ",_ LIDNS VIEW APARTMENTS Apri 1 8, 1976 Page Thee • The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. That the granting of the variance wi71 not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. The variance would not be considered a grant of special privilege because of the unusual conditions with which the applicant is financing the project as well as the significant additional restrictions and dedications which have been agreed to. 2. That the granting of the variance wi17 not be detri- mental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The variance will not be detrimental to the above concerns, The view corridors will be affected, however, by the scale of the building. The owner is providing on-site facilities and regulations that will minimize any negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: 3b. 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. The foregoing discussion identifies the exceptions or extraordinary circumstances that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone. However, i.t should be noted if other property owners present variances for similar uses under comparable conditions, the terms of this variance request could be applicable. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance request subject to the ,conformance of the conditions and represen- Cations outlined in the memorandum. ~_"1 ,r ~' r'. • • P. 0, Box b23 Vail, Colorado 81657 September 29, 1975 Mayor John A. Robson and Town of Vaal Council Members Town of Vaal P. O. Box 100 Vaal, Colorado 81{57 Dear Mayor Dobson and Cauncilpersons: After reconsidering the information we received at the September 12, 1975 Planning Commission meeting, Jack and I urge the Town Council to refuse Vail Associates, Int.'s request for variances from the required 75 percent within tie building, covered parking required by the zoning regulations applicab le to Site 9. Our reasons for asking the Council to take this action are enumerated below. Under the high-density, multi-family zoning regulations that apply to Site 9, the developer must provide at least 134 parking spaces; 101 of these must be covered and within the bu.i.l_ding. The proposed building wi11 have a total of x125 units (209 bedrooms). Jen Wright of Vail Associates, Inc. indicated that a maximum of two peaple would be allowed to occupy a one-bedroom unit and not mare than four people would be allowed to live in a two--bedroom unit. Assuming everybody has. a car, there would be a need for 418 parking spaces, 284 more than zoning requires. ~f only half the occupants have cars, 209 spaces would be needed which would leave 75 cats without a place to park: To put it another way, less than 1/3 of the tenants will have an on-site pax'king place. Please see the following Tab 1e. TABLE CARS. WITHOUT PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES xEQ~IxEn WHICH OCCUPANTS BY HAVE CARS? NEEDED ZONING A11 418_ 134 3/4 314 134 1/2 20,9 134 OVEI~tFLOW 284 180 75 w ~ .--. r Ac3di~ionally, folks visiting the occupants and staying with them a5 overnight guests will need places to park their cars an the site, as will the staff of the ta7.ked-about 100--child capacity day-care center and the local parents who will be dropping off and picking up tk~eir kids. Where will they park? We think they'll be parking ille9a11.y along the North Frontage Road, in the K-~ grade school parking lots, in the Sandstone volleyball/tot lot area, in the east, north, and. west day-skier parking lots at LionsHead, in the Sandstone "7Q" complex, and along Red Sandstone Road, Spruce Court, and Red Sandstone Circ~.e. Parking in these areas is already at a level that i5 at ar well in excess of optimum and should not be further impacted by this significant overflow. We feel that this overflow Should be handled entirely an Site 9. We definitely feel that the zoning regulations have to be complied with so that the remainder of the site will be available far a ~tef~l solution to this averflaw_~arkzn~~oblem. If compliance with these regulations .~s not insisted upon, we ~ee~. that adequate open space and landscaping wall give way to asphalt. The Town of Vail was able to find a solut~.on to its parking problem through the new parking structure. Accordingly, the developer must be required to handle this parking problem with a well--designed, well-executed solution to the overf~.ow, wherein the very fewest cars are visible from S--7Q and the LionsHead ski slopes. Since zoning regulations are a property owner's only guarantee that adjacent development is ~.n concert with his land use, we strongly urge you to insist that the developer fully comply with ail appli- cable zoning requirements, Sincerely, Sandy Mills (Mrs.} cc: Tyrrell J. ringer, Tawn Manager William Heimbach, Chairman, Town, of Vail Planning Commission Andrew D. Norris, Vail Associates-, Inc. .~ ~' • ~ , • U PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda April 15, 1976 i. Carnie Residence setback variance 2. Vail Associates for !.ions View Apartments parking variance/ discussion with Developer 8.6. Anderson 3. Garcia (Lenk} Residence setback variance 4. Discussion of Planning Commission Vacation Schedule 5. Discussion of Staff Memorandum on Zoning Controls for Single Family Residential and Residential Zone Districts. 6. Joint Worksession with Town Council on changes to the Pension Isabel n • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary April 15, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Rud1ey Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bi]1 Hanlon Gordon Pierce Dave Sage CARNIE DUPLEX - SETBACK VARIANCE OTHERS PRESENT: Kit Abraham Sandy Mi11s Lou Parker Jim Lamont The required side setback is 15 feet and the applicant is requesting to be allowed to have a 10 foot side setback on the south side. The lot, is bordered by green belt on the south side (tennis courts) and on the east side. The north- side is an undeveloped lvt and across the street on the west side is the Booth Creek Town House Project. The setback variance requested is on the south side of the lot adjacent to the tennis courts. The reason for the request is that the proposed duplex is to be solar and the only place it could be located on the lot would require a variance. Ja Kramer read the staff memorandum in which they recommended approval of the request as submitted. The Planning Commission foresaw no problems arising from the request; Dave Sage made a motion to recommend approval of the variance and Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. LIONS VIEW APARTMENTS - PARKING VARIANCE Wayne Tawe, representing B.B. Anderson Development Company, outlined the terms of their management for the Lions View Project as requested from the Planning Commission last week. He noted that no dogs and cats will be allowed and that parking stalls will be assigned to each unit within the project. They propose to build a semi-structure which will cover 2 of the parking spaces and leave 2 uncovered, Comments from the public ranged from the cast of the rents were too high; the landscaping was inadequate to cover the parking spaces; concern that in the future they would be requesting more parking which would be located outside of the building and full view from the Town and Mountain; to the fact that this variance would be precedent setting for other developers. It was also noted that if the residents of the Sandstone area were willing to accept a higher building for no outside parking that the Planning.Commission should take that into serious consideration. Lau Parker questioned Mr. Towe why they couldn't put the parking within the building. Mr. Towe's response was that it was not economically feasible to do this -- they just couldn't afford it. ' 'PLANNING COMMISSION Summar Apri1.~5, 1976 Page Two • Commissioner Sage questioned whether B.B. Rnderson had an option to buy into the project. Wayne Towe said that they did, but that they had not done so yet. Commissioner Sage then asked if they would buy the option if the variance was denied; Wanye Towe said that no they would not. Commissioner Pierce, as a consulting architect for the project, gave same architectural facts about the project to the citizens present in the meeting. Commissioner Hanlon noted that he would rather see the building ten feet lower and the density substantially Tower as presented -- he felt that the parking variance was a goad trade-off9 it would be much better for the community. Commissioner Abbott read section 19.100 of the Zoning Ordinance which outlines that the Commission cannot consider a variance requested for economic reasons. Bill Hanlon made a motion for approval of the parking variance and' Pam Garton seconded the motion. The vote showed that Gordon Pierce and Dan Corcoran abstained, Pam Garton and Bill Hanlon voted in favor of the motion, and Dudley Abbott and Dave Sage voted against the motion. The vote will be transmitted to the Town Council for their April 20, 1976 meeting. LENK (GARCIA) RESIDENCE -- SETBACK VARIANCE There was two variances requested with this application -- Variance #l was a 0' setback on the east property line; Variance #2 was a l0' variance on the southern property line. Gordon Pierce, the architect, outlined the reasons for the requests, and Jim Lamont read the staff memorandum in which they recommended approval of Variance # 2 and denial of Uariance #7. {attached) Dave Sage made a motion, based on the staff .memorandum, to recommend denial of Variance #i for the environmental reasons outlined in the staff memo, and Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was retarded in favor of the motion (Gordon Pierce abstained). Bill Hanlon made a motion to recommend approval of Variance #2 provided. that the owners of the adjoining Lot 20 were contacted and gave their approval. Doge Sage seconded the motion. R unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion ( Pierce abstained). VACATION SCHEDULE The Commissioners gave the dates in which they would be in Town during the Month of May. Lamont wi71 notify them of the May Planning Commission Schedule. PLANNING COMMISSION Summary April 15, 1976 Page Three ZONING CHAhJGES,FOR RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES Lamont outlined the staff memo {attached) and summed up the suggested changes -- reducing the GRFA in residential and single family zones from .25 down to .15. He felt that there should be a required offset each 40 feet for houses in these zoq~es and that the site coverage should be reduced from 25% to 20%. He asked that the Commission read over his memo and respond next week. JOINT WORKSESSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL ON CHANGES T01HE PENSION ISABEL As time ran out, there was no consideration of this matter. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 15, 1976 RE: Carnie Duplex, Setback Variance Request The applicant has requested a setback variance of five feet '~ from the south property line. The required setback is fifteen feet. The applicant requests the variance based on the following statement: The structure to be placed on this site is to be heated by bath a solar collector system and a passive solar retention system. With these determinants, the conformation of the building must be long on the eastJwest axis with as much exposure to the South as possible. Due to the narrowness of the lot, the centrally located garage, and the solar determinants, the space needed fora proper turnaround behind the garage could not be realized without a variance reducing the side setback to ten feet. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 79.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The south property line is contiguous with green belt which is used for tennis courts. The requested setback does not appear to be in conflict with this use. The north property line is adjacent to another residential lot which is vacant at the present time. The proposed use does not appear to conflict with existing or potential uses on the adjoining lots. • • CARNIE ' ~ ~ April 15, 1976 Page Two 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance have been met by the applicant in that under normal circumstances the structure would conform. However, the use of solar heating requires design determinants which cannot be accommodated by the site. The subdivision of property in the community did not anticipate the need to account far sun-orientation. Consequently, it is our view that in the future, similar requests should be treated in the same manner. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. We believe that if similar conditions exist on comparable sites in the vicinity, equal treatment would be applied. Therefore, we do not believe that'an approval of this variance would constitute grant of special privilege. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity. The granting of this variance wi]1 not be detrimenta] to the above factors. The surrounding uses are compatible with the terms of the variance. • CARNIF ' ' Rpri 1 15, 1976 Page Three That the variance is warranted for i;he following reason: 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. The use of solar heating and the orientation and shape of the site creates extraordinary circumstances that da not generally apply to other properties in the same none. The Department of Community Qevelopment recommends approval of this variance as requested. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM Department of Community Development DATE: April 15, 1976 RE: Thomas Lenk (Garcia) Residence, Setback Variance The applicant has requested two setback variances. A 0' setback on the east property line. The requirement is a setback of 13~'. The other setback is on the south property line, The requirement is a setback of 23'. The applicant has requested the variance based upon the following statement: The original house was built on th e far southeast corner of the property. Due to soil conditions, large existing trees, and the present floor plan, the only proper direction for expansion is in the southeast direction. The property to the east is a large "Green Area" and property to the south is uphill. This addition would not restrict views from neighboring ., properties, The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The east property line adjoins the green belt which contains an existing Beaver Pond. The two lots to the south currently are not built upon. Future construction of these sites will more than likely occur near the southern portion of the property. These sites are sloping downward towards Lot 19. • ~LENK (Garcia} April 15, 1976 P~~e T~v. • The degree to which relief from the strict o~= 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. The floor plan of the existing dwelling dictates that expansion of the structure must occur to the south. This is necessary in order for the use area within the structure to function cohesively. The point closest to the south property line is the fireplace. The average distance excluding the fireplace is 1~-`. It is possible to reduce the size of the addition and bring it closer to conformance while not adversely effecting the use for which the addition is intended, We believe that this variance is valid provided that the addition is kept to the minimum. The east property line incursion is unnecessary in that by staying within the required setback an ample deck can be constructed. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Beaver Pond should be considered a neighborhood resource due to its uniqueness. Consequently, all development should be kept as far back from it as possible. Further such close human contact may disturb the natural habitat of the beavers causing the wildlife to leave the area. For these reasons, the east setback variance should not be approved. The Department of Community Development finds that: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. -- - _ Variance #1 -- We do not see the need for the~arge deck area. _.If constructed, it will conflict with a valuable natural resource.- Consequently, arantina this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. _ _.... ___ , _. -- - -- - - -- ~Iariance #2_--.__By bringing the ~mens~ons fo- the minimum for the addition, we believe that the variance is ~~~L-a gYani,-~f-special --- - privilege given the location and floor plan of the exiMing--structure. • LENK (GARCIA) Apri 1 T 5, 1976 Page Three l~ :,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. Variance #1 -- We believe that the deck extension will be materially injurious to the green belt due to the presense of wildlife. Variance #2 -- If the approved suggestions are adhered to, we do not foresee any detrimental effects. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not app]y generally to other properties in the same zone. Variance #1 --- No exceptional circumstances exist. Variance #2 -- The location of the existing structure and . the nature of its floor plan creates exceptional circumstances that effect the proposed addition. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of Variance No. 1 (a 0' setback an the east property__line) according_to the_ above discussion. Further, we recommend approval of Variance No. 2 (setback request on the south property line). • _ . >: ., _ ~, ~ .r • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: James F. Lamont DATE: April 15, 1976 RE: Zoning Control For Single Family Residential and Residential Zone Districts GENERAL At the Planning Commission's request we have reviewed various alternatives for adjusting the development standards for the single family and duplex zone districts. As can be expected, there are no simple solutions to standardized controls imposed over diverse land areas. The problem as defined by the Commission was as follows: The size of some recently constructed residential structures are larger than desired in terms of their relative scale to the existing neighborhood. The two neighborhoods where the problem exists are the Golf Course and Mill Creek Circle residential areas. The problems appears to exist primarily in conjunction with duplex structures. Several- Commissioners expressed the belief that the standards provided for in the Zoning Ordinance envisioned a duplex structure to be a primary dwelling unit with a minor apartment, The minor apartment was to be occupied by a caretaker or serve as a guest unit. TREND In the last two construction seasons, out of a total of eleven duplexes built, seven duplexes have been built with co -equal units. Of Pl.ANNTNG COMMISSION ' April 15, 1976 Page Two Of the seven co-equal duplexes constructed, three were within l0% of constructing their maximum GRFA. It would appear that there is a trend towards larger co- equai duplex structures. The following table summarizes residential construction during the last two construction seasons. SITE GRFA GRfiA TYPE 'OWNER LOCATION AREA PERMITTED CONSTRUCTED DIfiFERENT 197 5 2U Craig Booth Creek 16,100 4,025 2,511 62% 2E Vigor Bighorn 30,503 7,626 4,499 59% 2E Mullin Booth Creek 22,520 5,630 7,960 85% 2U Nellberg Village 20,918 5,530 2,508 45% 2E Wilson Sooth Creek 15,750 3.,938 3,5b8 91% 2E Vielelwright Sandstone 14,331 3,583 1,917 54l 2U Strauch Bighorn 21,850 5,462 2,850 52% 2E Meyer Golf Course 18,000 4,500 4,300 96% 2E Morgan Golf Course 18,001 4,500 4,417 98% 1 YJilliamson Village 20,782 5,195 4,393 85% l Saunders Bighorn 22,962 5,740 1,262 22% 1 Medsker Booth Creek 19,022 4,755 2,.094 44% 1974 2U Griffin Booth Creek 18,430 4,608 2,488 54% 2E Taylor Lionshead 90,213 22,553 2,875 13I 1 Dooher Golf Course 24,.000 6,000 3,326 55% 1 Hofler Village 21,000 5,250 2,691 5l% 1 Oppenhiem Booth Creek 19,058 4,765 2,772 57% 1 Bailey Booth Creek ]4,274 3,568 1,957 55% 1 Peterson Booth Creek 22,000 5,500 7,322 24% ApJUSTED AVERACtES 19,975 4,994. 2,$20 56I U = unequal sized units E = co-equal sized units. PRESENT STANDARDS The present development standards that effect the size of residential structures are as follows: ,PLANNING COMMISSION April T5, 1976 Page Three • Residential Zone Districi;; Section 3.500 Development Standards. 3,501 Lot Area and Site Dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be 75,000 square feet, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. 3.502 Setbacks. The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet, the minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 20 feet, or if one side setback is at least 20 feet; provided that l foot of ad- ditional side and rear setback shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over l5 feet. 3.503 Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distance between a dwelling on a site and a dwelling on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between dwellings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings, 3..504 Height. Not applicable 3.505 Density Control. Not more than 2 dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site, and not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA] shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. 3.506 Building Bulk Control. Nat applicable. 3.507 Site Coverage. Not more than 25 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. 3,508 Oseable Open Space. A minimum of 500 square feet of useable open space exclusive of required front setback areas shall be provided at ground level fora single family dwelling. A minimum of 350 square feet of useable open space exclusive of required front setback areas steal] be provided at ground level for each dwelling unit of a two family dwelling. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as useable open space shall be 10 feet. 3.509 Landscaping and Site Development, At least 60 per cent of each site shall be landscaped. 3.510 Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this ordinance. Single Family Residential Zone District: Section 2.500 Development Standards 2.501 Lot Area and Site Dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be 12,500 square feet, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area $0 feet on each side within its boundaries. 2,502 Setbacks. The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet, the minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 20 feet, ar i0 feet if one side setback is at least 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional side and rear setback shall be required far each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet. PLRNNING COMMISSION ` `April 15, 1976 Page Four • 2.503 Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distance between a dwelling on one site and a dwelling on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between dwellings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over i5 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings. 2.504 Height. Not applicable. 2.505 Density Control. Not more than i dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site, and not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. 2.506 Building Bulk Control. Not applicable.. 2.507 Site Coverage. Not mare than 25 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. 2.508 llseable Open Space, A minimum of 500 square feet of useable open space, exclusive of required front setback areas, shall be provided at ground level for each dwelling unit. The minimum dimensions of any area qualifying as useable open space shall be ]0 feet. 2.509 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 60 per cent of each site shall be landscaped, ---- 2.510 Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Article 19 of this ordinance The principal sections of concern are: * Lot Area * Density Control * Height * Building Bu]k Control * Site Coverage For the purposes of this section of diSCU5S10n,We Wi11 consider lot area, density control and site coverage. Lot Area: Within the present limits of the Town of Vail there is a wide range of lot sizes from under 10,000 square feet to over 43,000 square feet. A recently completed land use survey inventories all lot sizes within the community. The general size range of lots within the community are summarized as follows: VAIL VILLAGE SITE RANGE Filing # 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, i2, i3 14-20,000 square feet POTATO PATCH 18-28,000 square feet °, .' .PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1976 Page Five BIGWORN SUBDIVISION Filing # 1, 2. 3 4 5 BTGHORN ESTATES GORE CREEK SUBDIVISION VAIL MEADOW. FILING # 1 2 SIZE RANGE 25-34,000 square feet 10-15,000 square feet 18-23,000 square feet 21-24,000 square feet 14-20,000 square feet 11-13,000 square feet 22-25,000 square feet 12-15,000 square feet As can be seen from these figures, the diversity of lot sizes is spread generally throughout the community. For the most part, a pre- dominance of the platted lots conform to the development standards. Far those '~ ~ which do not, the impact of density reduction is obviously higher. Consideration should be given to establishing a policy towards non-conforming lot sizes as to the degree of variances that .would be allowed in order to permit a reasonably sized structure. DENSITY CONTROL: Under present standards, the following table indicates the relationship between the typical lot sizes and present density standards. ' AREA IN AREA IN ~ .25 ACRES SQ. FT. GRFA I/4 10,890 2,722 ]/3 ]4,520 3,630 1/2 21,780 5,945 3/4 32,670 8,166 1 43,560 10,890 In comparing the average GRFA built per lot within the last two years (2,820 square feet), clearly the present GRFA standards are excessive far lots over approximately 11,000 square feet. '. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1976 Page Six The problem with the standards is that small lots may be reduced to a GRFA which is unlivable. While larger lots {those aver z acre} permit exceptionally large structures. The theory being larger sites can absorb more massive structures. It maybe advisable to consider a maximum GRFA standard irrespective of lot size. Caution should be taken to ensure that legal inconsistencies are not created. Given the present standards compared with the actual construction to date, a reduction in the permitted GRFA would not adversely affect the desired GRFA on standard sites. Tt should be noted that the definition of GRFA does not include square footage allocated for balconies, hallways, corridors, stairwells, garages, service areas outside the dwelling unit and uninhabitable heating or mechanical equipment areas. Consequently, GRFA is not an all encompassing indicator of building size. STTE COVERAGE: Reduction in the site coverage would create a proportionate increase in open space, However, by significant reduction in the site covereage, the trend could be towards taller structures. The definition of site coverage is as follows: Site Coverage: The portion of a site covered by buildings, excluding roof or balcony overhangs, measured at the exterior walls or supporting members of the building at ground level. RECOMMENnATTONS We recommend that the following changes in the development standards far Single Family Residential and Residential be initiated: • * Site Area: No change recommended ,PLANNING COMMISSION April l5, 1976 Page Seven * Density Contro]: The GRFA should be reduced from 25 square feet per 100 square feet of the site area. The following comparative table demonstrates the difference in GRFA and. lot area. ACRE SQUARE FEET 15/100 sq. ft. 20/100 sq, ft. 25/100 sq. ft. .25 10,890 1,633 2,178 2,722 .33 14,520 2,178 2,904 3,630 .50 21,780 3,267 4,356 5,445 .75 32,670 4,900 6,534 8,166 7.00 43,560 6,534 8,712 10,890 • A reduction from 25/100 square feet to 15/100 square feet constitutes a 40% reduction in density. Legal Study should be given to setting a maximum GRFA for site irrespective of size. Suggested GRFA limits would be 4,900 square feet. Further a maximum GRFA limit should be set for non-conforming lots of 1,633 square feet. We do not believe it is advisable to restrict the size of individual dwelling units within a duplex structure. Many local residents need the option of constructing a speculative unit in order to finance their own unit. Further, given the high cost of construction locally, an attempt to restrict unit size within a duplex structure might be considered exclusionary. * Site Coverage: The site coverage for bath S.F.R. and R. should be reduced to 20%. This change would have the effect of reducing the overall mass of the structure. * Height: We do not believe that a height restriction should be required at this time. However, a new method of calculating height for residential structures is necessary. Height is used. to determine setbacks. It is our recom- mendation that the height should be averaged based on the mid-point of each wall over 10 feet i n 1 engtft. * Building Buik Control: Currently, no offsets are required. We recommend a five foot offset in building walls over 40 feet in length. COMMENTS We believe that prior to any Planning Commission action that k • this proposal be forwarded to local architects for their review and recommendations. • ,: PLANNING COMMISSION ' April 15, 1976 Page Eight • Additional research should be conducted as to the number of non-conforming sites that would be adversely effected by the density reduction. • r. fawn of ~ailV box 100 nail, coloracio 81657 (3031 a76-5613 office of the town manager April 72, 7976 LETTER SENT TO ED GOLDFARB GRAN PALMATEER ED DRAGE~t As you know the Town Council made a decision on April 6 as to who would fill the vacancy on the Vail Planning Commission. Dan Corcoran was appointedf With all the applicants being exceptionally qualified, both the Planning Commission and the Town Council had a difficult .me making a decision. I would like to thank you for your interest and hope that if in the future a vacancy should arise, that you will apply. Once again, thank you. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT James F. Lamont Director ~.,~ • M°LAUGHLIN' & PETERSON ATTORhSEY5 AT LAW 500 E. LIONSHEAD CIRCLE 5, ~OVGLA5 M~LAUGH LIN JAY K. PETERSON A. O. BOX IA09 VAIL~COtORA~O 81657 FtD SS DAVIS.Jfi. .~P3 4.76 -2a2~ April 21, 1976 Ms. Diana Toughill Zoning 1~dministrator Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100' Vail., Colorado 81657 bear Diana: Pursuant to your request, I am writing this letter to indicate why the parking variance request for the Sunbird Lodge should be granted. The reasons axe as follows: 1. That the granting of this variance will not constitute a granting' of a special privilege to applicant because based on records kept by applicant, the parking which is now provided is fa.r in excess of what is needed. (See attached records}, 2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because the space in question is zoned for a restaurant or other commercial enterprises, that customers of the Sunbird Lodge and proposed restaurant -- bar operation arrive by public. transportation, rental car, or are walking froze other parts of Lionshead, The hours of operation are such that public parking lots are available because the day skier and peop~:e staying out of town have vacated the public lots. That public parking lots are more than ample to provide the necessary four parking spaces which are needed for the restaurant - bar operation. r i •. 2_ In addition, tYie~~re'staurant ~ bar ~w~:ll provide much • needed pedestrian traffic. ,at..night ,in that, section .. i_ of Lionshead. 3. The Lodge needs a ":~fully•~s~rvice;, bar operation to serve the needs of'its cus~ome~s, end the strict interpretation of the parking xequzrements`of the •; zoning ordinance would prohibit such operation when .: all other requirements of the ordinance have been ,met,. even though it has been deinonstrat~d that the Sunba.~el - Lo.c3.ge has provided parking in `expels of .its need. - I:n closing, the purpose: of th.e parking requirement is to, insure that adequate parking is provided fob by .any giv.en..estabTi,shemnt,: In this case., the records indicate that there`'iS excess"parl~ng.now available at the Lodge, that traffic conges.tinn is not:a problem at the,Lodge, and that public parking lots. are~readiiy available at ~,. ri:ight . Sincerely yours, , P~icLAUGHLIN & PETERSON :~- By : y":••K:: ~?~ters,on JKP:jk. , t I I ~~ ~ - `~ _ _ _. k ~ - ..- E ~ ~ :. ~ - ': , h. ~ .- Ear y " M~L.A.UGHLIN & PETER~O~T ATTORNEYS AT LAW S, DOUGLAS McLAUGHLIN JAY K. PETERSON RO55 DAVI $~JR. SOQ E. LIDNSHCAO c~aC~E P. O. BOX 1408 VAI L~COLORA~O 81657 303 476-2427 April 8, 1976 Ms. Jo Kramer Town of Vail P. O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado Dear Jo 81657 Pursuant to our conversation of last week, I am hereby requesting that the variance request which was set for April 1, 1976, be re- set for April 22, ].976. It is my understanding that the original variance request has been misplaced, and I wall, therefore, submit another completed form. If you have any questions, please contact me at my office. Sincerely yours, McLAUGHLIN & PETERSON ti $Y : ~e=,,,,~ ~3~ay K. Feterson JKP : ~ k ~ I; ;~~ l~ 1 _~ MEMORANDEIM T0: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: April 20, 1976 RE: Recommendations on: (1} Parking Variance for the Lions View Apartments {2} Setback Variance far the Carnie Residence (3) Setback Variances for the Lenk (Garcia) Residence After much discussion with the staff (memorandum attached}; the developer, B.B. Anderson; Andy Norris, representing Vail Associates; and concerned citizens, the Planning Commission had a split vote far the recommendation to the Council on the requested variance from the 75% parking within the building as outlined in the HDMF requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The request is to have 1001 of the parking outside of the building with 50% covered within a semi-structure and 50% uncovered. Gordon Pierce and Dan Corcoran abstained due to the possibility of conflict of interests; Dudley Abbott and Dave Sage recommended denial of the request. They felt that the request was based on economic hardship. Pam Garton and Bill Hanlon voted to recommend approval of the request for the reasons outlined in the staff memorandum. Gerry White. was not present for the vote. S~TBACiC VARIANCE FOR THE CARNIE RESIDENCE The required side setback is 15 feet and the applicant is requesting to be allowed to have a 10 foot side setback on the south side. The variance request is for 5 feet on the south side. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends to the Council approval of this request as outlined in the staff memorandum u. - w.. . TOWN COUNCIL April 20, 1976 Page Two U SETBACK VARIANCES FDR THE LENK (Garcia) RESIDEPdCE Variance No, l is fora 0' setback on the east property line in order to construct a deck. Variance No. 2 is for l3 feet on the south property line. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends to the Council denial of Variance No. 1 as outlined in the staff memorandum. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends to the Council approval of Variance No. 2, as outlined in the staff memorandum, with the condition that the owner of the lot on the south property line be contacted by the applicant and his approval received. J i• S ;,~ .HOBEI3T A. GFA~FT ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW 234 GOLUM BINS STR~ET~ SUITE ZOO DENVER,COLORADO 84206 gREA cony sos April 20 , 1975 399-2872 Mr. James Lamont Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Application for Parking Variance Sunbird Lodge at Vail Dear Mr. Lamont: T represent Hansel & Gretel, Inc, ("Hansel & Gretel") doing business as the Hansel. & Gretel Restaurant in the Sunbird Lodge at Vail. An application for a parking variance has been submitted to the Town of Vail by Sunbird Lodge at Vail, Inc. to enable another restaurant to locate in the Sunbird Lodge. I understand that you have requested that Hansel & Gretel outline to you its reasons for opposing the variance application. Before doing so, I believe you should be aware of some pertinent background information with re- spect to the parties prior dealings. At the time Hansel & Gretel decided to locate its business in the Sunbird Lodge at Vail, H. S. W. Associates, the owner of the Lodge, agreed that Hansel & Gretel was to have the exclusive right to operate a restaurant in the Lodge. The pertinent part of the restaurant lease provides that: "During the term of this lease and any extension of this lease, Landlord shall not ].ease any other portion of the building to be used as a restaur- ant or permit any person except Tenant and Tenant`s employees to operate a restaurant in the building." In a small lodge like the Sunbird Lodge, Hansel & Gretel considered it overwhelmingly important to obtain this type of protection before locating there. In January of 1.976, the Sunbird Lodge was sold to Sunbird Lodge at Vail, Inc., a Colorado corporat~.on ("the Corporation"). Almost immediately after the sale, the Corporation informed Hansel & Gretel of renovation plans for the Lodge and requested Hansel & Gretel waive the exclusive provision in its lease and permit another res- taurant to operate in the Lodge. The reason given for the request f was to enable the Lodge to more adequately accomodate its patrons thereby improving business for both establishments. Mx . ,Tames Lamont -2- April. 20 , 1976 Hansel & Gretel refused to waive its right to exclusively operate a restaurant in the Lodge; however, it did offer to sell its restaurant business to the Corporation, but the offer was re- jected. Subsequently, Hansel & Gretel offered, at no cost to the Corporation, to apply for an expansion of its liquor license to include the entire Lodge premises so that guests would be able to consume beverages anywhere in the Lodge. Unfortunately, the Corpor- ation has refused to seriously discuss this approach for resolving the present dispute. The Corporation has gone so far in pressuring Hansel & Gretel to waive its exclusive rights as to attempt to terminate its restaurant lease by alleging that Hansel. & Gretel was in default of certain lease provisions. Hansel & Gretel has always paid its rent timely, and therefore, the letter Hansel & Gretel received notifying it of the reasons for its alleged default did not state that nonpayment of rent was one of the reasons. The reasons alleged by the Corporation were generally that Hansel & Gretel was in de- fault because it was not serving food far consumption an and off the premises at all times that the lease required Hansel & Gretel to be open for business. Hansel & Gretel had designated specific serving hours for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and was open at other times for the sale of beverages and sundries. The Corporation deemed Hansel & Gretel's operating hours totally insufficient and attempted to regain possession of the leased premises by alleging that Hansel & Gretel was in default. Fortunately, Hansel & Gretel was able to cure the alleged defaults and retain possession of the restaurant premises. A review of the applicable correspondence by which the Corporation attempted to terminate Hansel & Gretel's lease is much more revealing than my synopsis of it. Therefore, T have enclosed far your review a copy of the Corporation's default letter, and a copy of Hansel & Gretel's letter curing such defaults. in order to remain in business, Hansel & Gretel. was forced to cure all of the allegations of default, no matter how unreasonable. Despite the irresponsible actions of the Corporation, Hansel & Gretel remains willing to attempt to compromise the dispute through an expansion of the existing liquor license to include the entire Sunbird Lodge. Now that you have been advised as to some of the prior trans- actions between the parties, T feel I am better able to address myself to the specific reasons why Hansel & Gretel is apposing the Corporation's parking variance application. The granting of the parking variance would constitute the grant of a special privi- lege inconsistent with the limitations imposed on other properties in the Lionshead CC-2 district, and would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity and to the public safety and welfare. Further, the variance is not warranted because strict interpreta- tion of the zoning regulation would not result in any physical Mr. James Lamont -3- April 20, 1976 hardship to the Corporation, nor deprive the Corporation of privi- leges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. 1. Variance Would Constitute a Special Privilege. The grant- ing of the requested variance would constitute the grant of a special privilege for the following reasons. At the time the Sunbird Lodge was constructed, a parking variance was granted far the Lodge for additional landscaping. Instead of sixty-five spaces, the Lodge has fifty-one spaces, fourteen short of the minimum required under the old zoning ordinance. The present zoning ordinance requires seventy-one spaces. Thus, the Lodge is presently twenty spaces short of the minimum and the granting of this variance would dramatic- ally increase the shortage at a time when mare spaces are required to accomodate additional patrons. No other improvements in the Lionshead CC-2 District have park- ing shortages the size of the shortage presently existing at the Sunbird Lodge. As of the present date, no other parking variances have been granted in the Lionshead CC-2 District other than for additional Landscaping. Because Lionshead is in almost total com- pliance with the applicable parking ordinance, the granting of the requested variance would be wholly inconsistent with the (imitations placed upon all other improvements in the area. The ~~v~xers of almost all Lionshead restaurants agree that the issuance of a parking variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege to the Corporation not enjoyed by other businesses. Attached for your review is a copy of a petition signed by those owners placing themselves on record as opposing the granting of the variance. The original of the petition will be submitted to the Planning Gommissian at the scheduled hearing. 2. Iniurv to Other Properties. The granting of the variance would be detrimenta'1 to and materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Hansel & Gretel has attempted to obtain a copy of the variance application from the Corporation, but as of the present time has been unable to do so. Hansel & Gretel understands that the restaurant intends to operate more as a nightclub and lounge than as a restaurant. Thus, patrons will be arriving and Leaving at later hours than would be the case with a normal restaurant and there will be more of a tendency for patrons to travel to the area by automobile rather than other means of transportation. Thus, in order not to injure other properties, it is incumbent that the parking ordinance be strictly enforced, zf strict compliance is not required, the result will be a rash of requests from adjoining property owners to ticket and tow vehicles unlawfully parked on their premises. Thus, strict complainace with the ordinance is the only way to adequately protect public safety and welfare. . Mr. James Lamont -4- April 20, 1976 3. No Physical Hardship or Deprivation of Privileges. Refusal to grant the parking variance would not result in any physical hard- ship to the Corporation inconsistent with the objectives of the zon- ing ordinance, and would not deprive the Corporation of privileges enjoyed by other owners of properties in the district, Before a variance can be granted, the applicant must show that its property is subject to a physical limitation restricting its intended use which can only be remedied by the granting of the variance. Further, the limitation must be so severe that enforcement of the ordinance when weighed against the potential harm to the public welfare and safety if the variance is granted would be grossly unfair to the applicant. The Lodge is not subject to such a hardship far two reasons. First, there is land owned by Vail Associates near the Sunbird Lodge which could be leased to the Corporation for use as a parking lot. I understand that the lot is suitable for ten parking spaces. Second, if the application is denied, the only harship encountered by the Corporation, and the only privilege with respect to which it would be denied are that the Corporation would be re- quired to honor its pre-existing contractual obligations and deal with Hansel & Gretel in good faith for the mutual benefit of all. 4. Self-Inflicted Hardship. The Corporation asserts as grounds for granting the variance the hardship to be suffered if the variance is not granted. There is no hardship involved, because the Corpora- tion can avoid such hardship merely by negotiating in good faith with Hansel & Gretel or with Vail Associates. Further, any alleged hardship is purely self-imposed and under Colorado law can be given very little weight by the Planning Commission. The Case of Levyy vs. Board of Adjustment of Arapahoe County, 369 P. 2d 991 (Cola. ~yb2) clearly enunciated Colorado law on the subject. Tn that Case, the Supreme Court at page 995 of its opinion stated that a self-inflicted hardship is a "material element bearing an the issue (of whether there is in fact a hardship) and weighs heavily against the owner seeking the variance." In that Case, Levy purchased one-and-one-half acres of land for the purpose of constructing a single-family residence. At the time of purchase, Arapahoe County required a minimum of two- and-one-half acres of land fnr a single-family residence. The Court held that Levy purchased the property with actual or constructive knowledge of the zoning ordinance and could not assert as a hardship this self-inflicted situation. Tf therefore affirmed the denial of the variance by the Arapahoe County Board of Adjustment. Subsequent cases decided by the Colorado Supreme Court have all held that an owner of property who had either actual or constructive knowledge of a zoning ordinance at the time of acquisition of property cannot rely on a self-imposed hardship as grounds fnr a variance to use the property in a manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of acquisition. Nopro Ca. vs. Town of Cherry Hi11s • • Mr. James Lamont Village, 504 P. 2d 344 (Colo. McDonald's Corporation, 491 P. of Colorado Sprin s, 4$3 P. 2d 434 P, 2d 705 (Coo. 1967). -5_ Apxi7, 20, I.976 1972); Cit and County of Denver vs. 2d 1375 (~olo. ly%1); Nirk vs, city 371 (Go1o. 1971); Madis vs. Hi~ginson, The Corporation purchased the Lodge in January of 1976 with full knowledge of its predecessor's contractual obligations and with actual or constructive knowledge of the existing zoning ordinance. Less than three months after the acquisition, it seeks a zoning variance and alleges as reasons far its hardship the conditions it imposed upon itself when it acquired the property. Colorado law requires that the Corporation must satisfy its burden by proving that enforcement of the zoning ordinance wi11 cause it to suffer a hardship other than ones which are self-inflicted. The Corporation is unable to do so, and its request for a parking variance must be denied. 5. Conclusion. The Corporation's application for a parking var- iance does not satisfy any of the conditions set forth in Section 19.600 of the zoning ordinance. The granting of the variance would constitute the grant of a special privilege totally inconsistent with the limitations imposed upon other properties in the district. A11 other properties are in substantial compliance with the zoning ordinance. Therefore, to grant a variance in this situation would smack of the granting of a special privilege. The granting of the variance would be detrimental to public safety and welfare and materially injurious to other improvements in the vicinity. If the variance were granted, Lodge parking would be grossly inadequate for its intended use. Adjacent parking facil- ities would be strained causing hardship to owners who have complied with the letter and spirit of all applicable ordinances. The peti- tion signed by Vail Lionshead businessmen expresses their concern that the granting of the variance would be injurious to other improve- ments in the vicinity. The Corporation will not suffer any practical difficulty or physical hardship if the request for variance is .denied, and there are na exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or hardships pre- sent other than ones which are self--imposed, and which as a matter of law can be given little if any weight by the Planning Commission. The Corporation presently possesses the same privileges possessed by other lodges in Lionshead, that is a lodge with a restaurant operated by a tenant willing to accomodate patrons and guests in a most gracious manner, Therefore, rejecting the application will not deny the Corporation any privilege it does not presently possess. Ve~ t u o ,~ ~c L - . ,_ Robert R. Graft RRG/ c1w cc: Lothar H. Klaschik • }, R. MODRALL JpME9 C. $P$RLiNG JOSEPH E, ROEHL GEORGE T HARRIS, JR. bAN1Ek A, SISK L ELAN4 S 9ED BEpRY, JR. AL LEH C OEWEY, JR. FRANK H. ALLEN, JR. JAMES A, PgRKCR JOHN R, GOONEY KENNETH L. HARRIG AN PETER J. Ab ANG DALE W. EK DENN15 J, FgkK ARTHUR D. MELENGRES BRUCE D. 6LACK JDE R. G. FU LCHER JAMES p. HOUGHTON GEORGE J. HOPKiN9 PAUL M. Fi9H JUDY A.FRY LAW OFFICES OF Monx~AZ~., SF'E~T.iNC3~~ ~o~x~, ~.p-RRTS & SzsK pUBLiC SERVICE BUILDING P, p. BOX 2188 Atsupur~sq[tE, ]`T~w MExica arras 1~'1~.rCh JL~3 , l9 ! ~i Mr . and airs . Lothar Ei. ~].asch~.k Manse]. and Gretel, Ina, Sunbird Ladc~a at Va#.l ~'a3.1, CoJ~nrado 8157 Lear t~~r . and tars . ~lascha.k JO HM F. SIM M5 (i&H5-~9S4j AUGUSTUS T. SEYMOUR (1907.19 65} TELEPHONE 243-4SN AREA CObE 605 , Reference ~.s herewi.th made to thr~ lease of &epteraber ~.0, 173 between yotzrse3.vas and ~i.S.W. Associates which Lease has been sub-let to Flan;~e3, and Gra tee, , Inc.. You have pxeviously bean advised that the premises contained in tha.s lease, a3.ong with the ent~.re 5unbird Lodge, have been purchased by Sunbird Lodge at Va~.l, Inc, and thus, f thr~ rights under thy: above lease have been- ass~.gned by H.S.'c~T. Associates to Sunbird L©dge at '4~ai.l, Inc. ~4tice is a'~ereby given to you that future renta~.s shall be paid to Sunbird Lociga at Vail, Ina. artd dol~.versd to ~3ur r~.anagar at the o.ff~.ce in the Sunbird Lodge. ~dota.ces pursuant .to ' t~~,e lease likew~.sa shall so be clel~.vsr~id and I c~ou7.d appre- ci.ate a copy of such notices being forwarded to me at the abov~a address. youx base xequires a.nsuraance in paragraph l4 thereof. ~•?~ would appreciate your notifying your insurer oaf the change in o4.nership and ~rau~.d appreciate ~:vidence of a.nsurazace, to-- g~' Cher with evidence that the 5unbird Ilodge a t Vai ~. , Inc . .has U~~~n made an add~.tional 3.nsured and that all nrvviaions of pares-- graph ~.~ in the base have beezx complied with. ~~.tl-xaugh wa have made numerous oral requests, both to you and to your attorney, ~Ir, .Graft, for you-~ to cornp~.y ~vit~~ the terms of your Tease, you have failed and refused to so d4. i~Ie have rQCeived numerous complaints from customers o£ the hotel L n LJ Mr. and Pars . Lathan kI. Klaschik r~iarch 16, I976 page 'iwo ~ . and £ooi that th3.s ~.s adversely affecta.ng our business.. please be adv~.sed that it has become necessary for us there- fore, to dive you notice of exp~.rativn of your lease and notice to vacate the pre~.ses within. five- {5) days fxo~n the date of this notice because Qf the numerous defau~.ts in the re~g,~z,~remants o£ the .ease. During this pera.ad of tz.me, na property sha~.l be removed from the pxemisss anal we expect to receive peaceful possession of khv pre~n3.ses fraxn you because of the expirata.on of this Lease. As you and your attorney know, garagraph 3 of thes lease requ.~res the fol.low~.ng . - "Tenant shall open for business, w~.th adequate personnel, seven {7) days and seven {7) nights per week and si~a~.l ©pen by 7:i30 v"clock each morna,ng and remain open until. 1(3 :4{} o' clack each evening." • You have been openly and notaxivusly vial.sating this rLquirement. 'you have even posted a sign which reads as fo~.lows "Sreakfas t served 7 : 3tl to ~.4 ; 3fl , Lunch served 11: 3U tv 2 : 3b , dinner served & :3~] to ~ : 3(3. " ~~.-- AI though we have rec~ut~s ted that you remain open, .you leave refused. to do sa. Recently, you have Keen leavzng the door ko the rsstauxant oxen, but have turned the l~.ghts off kaestwesexa meal hours and you have nest had_~ any personnel. pre:~ent to serve thW puF~lic during theses times, You have refused to serve food or beverages except during the above hours. ~, on , evara~, occasions, we have had coz~plainks from cuatozaers 1 who attempted to purchases beverages front you during the after- noon and were refusesd serva.cs. On other occasions, we have had camp~.aznts that you c'iici serves beverar~es before G :34 n«m. ? and that your pex~aonzxel ran thes vacutn c~.eaner, thus effectively '~ expe~.~.~.ng the guests from your ].gunge area. On several occasions, ~~e .have had complaints from guests ~~rho have rec{uc~sted to purchase msa3.s to carry to their roams for other guests w'rtd have been unab~.e to leave their rooms. • • r ~ ' ' . ter. and Mrs. La that . (!{arch 16 , l 9 7 ~ Wage Three H . ~tlaschilc The terms of the .ease speca.fical~.y require that you pre pare anal sell food "fcrr cansumption an or off the premises." Paragraph 3 xequires the fo~.lowing i~ conrtectzon ~v~.th the canduct~,ng of your business ". and to conduct zts business at alI tizn~:s in good faith, in a hic}h--grade and r€:puta.~Ze runner, and in such manner as tai 11 px'oduce the maximum amount of sales in and i'rom the leased prem~,ses during tine hours and nn all businessrhy5 which under the tetras hereof tenant is rec~u~.rc~d to be open for business. „ • You have speca.fically violated the above prov~,sion since youx operations are not designed to produce the maxixnurn sales. Instead, your operations are calouZated and designed to produce a low volume, high net yield. Th~.s may be profitable to you, but it is in v~,olation of the speGi~ic terms of the lease. xt damages the lessor's interest by reason of the additional rental provisions of paragraph 5 of the lease and damages the lessor`s entire opQration of tha hotel because of your failure to ~ornply with the terms of the lease. b~Ie rer{uire that you coz~ply with the letter and the spiri t of the lease and that yotx are open continuously from 7:pt} a.m. unt~.l 10:04 p.m. daily, with food anci beverage service for con- suznp lion or use can or off the ~: promises and with ader{uate person n~~l for service during all o£ these hours:. You arcs further adv~.sed that this reguzrezaexzt shall be dai~.y throug?~out tl~e entire calendar y~:ar and that an_y closing of t~ze premises at any tirrsa will _be. deemed atn violation of the leas>~ . Ynu are further advised that you have.~rented one space for par3~ing and that your ass3.gzaed ;pace is in the shelter~:d park- in, aria outside of th`a enclosed garage. henceforth, you wild. not parr your vehicle or allow any of your empl.ayee:~ to park their vei~zcles ~.nside the enclosed garages. Your presently have scarce .tens in the basement of the lodges and you are further advised that these items are to be removed within five {5} days. Unless they are so rezroved, they ~~il~. be placed in storage and you will be charged for the cast af. I• • • Mr, and ~~rs. Lothar March 16,.176 Page Four removal and storage. H. I~~.aschik You.-arQ further adv~.sed that the hours of the opcrata.on o~ ~:he premises and the requirements of adequate persannal include the ,dock area a~ your restaurant. This axea is ane~.osc~d by, a fence and must be main tainad in such a condition that guests can use it at all times when so desti.red and all snow must be removed therefrom. You are further advised that your are in v~.olation of the.terr-s of paragraph 7 of the lease because of your fail- urr~ to furn~,sh the reports regtaix'ed by the lease. Farther, wa plan to inspect your books and r~:cords .in accordance with t;~e prtivisions af~.tha lease and wilt call from them r~rithin 5 to ltl days after the date of this notice. Paragraph 20 {a) vi requires that your lease has term- inated within 5 days from the giving of this nota.ce unless you have per~'ormad all of the covenants under this lease within l5 dayys after this notice. Accordingly, please be advised tt2at unless the lease has Keen fully complies with in accordance with the terms of this r~ota.ce, then we ;vill have no alternative but to exercise the rer~teclie, afforded us by the lr~ase and to rs--enter the l.c~ase premises and term-~ ins to your 1r~asr~. Under the terr.-s df the lease, of course you will still be liablo for th© rQntals provided thereunder. Very truly ~~ours , Le~.and 5. Sedberry, Jr. Secretary/Treasurer Sunbirc3 Lodge at Vail, inc. ~.,~aS/dic cc: Robert Graft, Esq. i~ :;- ~,. .. • 1~os~KZ• R. Gr~~~rr A"lTORNEYAND GOUNSEi.I,OR AT LA1N 234 COLUMBINE S7REEF, SUITE 2D0 DENVER, COLORADO B02D6 March 24, 1976 Mr. Leland S. Sedberry, Jr. Sunbird Lodge at Va~.1 Vail, Colorado $1657 veax Mr. Sedberry: AREA CODE 303 39 S- 26 7z This letter and the accompanying enclosures w~.ll serve to notify the Sunbird Lodge at Vail, 7:nc, ("Sunbird") that Hansel and Gretel, Inc. {"Hansel"} has cured all of the alleged defaults in the Lease dated 5epte~nber l0, 7.973, for the restaurant premises a_n the Sunbird Lodge at Vail as set forth in your letter of March l6, 1976. This letter is n.ot the type of notice requiring corn pl.iance with the fox~nalities set forth ~.n. Paragraph 23 of the Lease. Nevertheless, Hansel. will comply ~urith, -those procedures by Sending this letter certified mail to the manager of the Sun- bird Lodge and a copy to you in Albuquerque, In addition, since you are staying at the Sunbird Lodge until Friday, March 2G, 1.97&, a copy of this letter will. be personally delivered to you. Please be advised that Hansel does not agree with many of Suxzbird's interpretations of the Lease set Earth in your recent letter. However, ~o de~.onstrate its willingness to comply and-to avoid any questioxz arising as to w~iether a particular alleged breach has been cured, Hansel has a.nsta.tuted procedures ~o comply w~.th each ar3.d every paragraph of your letter. However, by do~.ng so, Hansel is not i~npliedly consenting to Sunbird's interpretation of the Lease, and is not waivix~.g any right of interpretation or other right it possesses with respect to the Lease. The first paragraph of your letter states that all rental pay- ments should be paid to Sunbird's manager in the office of the Sunbird Lodge. Hansel has been following this procedure, axad will continue to do so and requests that the manager continue his pre- sent practice of receipti_r_g for each rental payment. That para- graph also States that all notices requ~.red to be deli~rered should be delivered to the manager at the office in the Sunbird Lodge and a copy of such nota.ce be forwarded to you in Albuquerque. Please be advised that Hansel wi11 coFZ:ply with this request_- CJ "••~ '- C ~ Mr, Lexand S, Sedberry, Jr. March 24, 1.976 Page Two The second paragraph of your letter requests that Sunbird be xxamed an additional insured on Hansel's general la.aba.~.ity insurance policy and that Hansel comply raith all provisz.ons of paragraph 14 of the Lease. Paragraph 1.4 also provides that Hansel procure liability insurance ~.nsuring zt and Sunbird with- ~.n certain deductible limits. It also provides that Sunbird be given at Least ten days prior rr.*ritten notice of termination in or reduction of such coverage and that a certificate of insurance together with satisfactory evidence that the premium has been paid be deposited with Sunbird, finch certificate has been previously deposited with H.S.W. Associates, but because of the change of the lodge's ownership, Hansel wi11 supply Sunbird r~rith the appxop- riate documentation. Accordingly, please find the fallowing enclosed: (1) An invoice from Dowis Agency, Inc, indicating that the policy has been paid in fu11 through the period ending December 15 , 1.977 . . (2) An endorsement from Dowis Agency, Inc, indicating that the Sunbird Lodge at Vail, Inc. has been made an additional in- sured under the policy. (3) A certificate af.insurance from Dorms Agency,. znc. certifying to such matters as are standard in. the insurance industry and containing and undertaking to give Sunbird not less than ten days written notice of any cancel.lation~ir or change in the scope of or the amount of the coverage of such policy. The fourth and fifth paragraphs of your Letter indicate that Hansel has violated a provision in the Lease requiring it to be open for business from 7:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. Sunb~.rd's interpretation of this provision requires that Hansel self. food, drink and sundries during each and every opening hour.. Hansel disagrees with this interpretation. The Lease requires that Hansel be open for business during the above mentioned hours. It does not require that each and every item specified be sold during all hours of operation, but only that it be open for the sale of either food, drink or sundries during those hours. It is common practice far restaurants to have designated serving hours, and it is extremely difficult to adequate3.y prepare for the next sexving period if the kitchen must remain open at all Mmes. In spite of the disagreement in the interpretation of • this provision, Hansel will cure the alleged breach and-serve food, drink and sundries from 7:00 A,M. until 10:00 P.~i. Mr. Leland S. Sedberry, Jr. March 24, 1976 Page Three ~Beg~.nning Monday, March 22, 1.976, Hansel has implemented the fallowing procedures to cure the alleged breach. Hansel is serv- ing food, drinlc and sundries from 7:00 A,M. until x.0:00 P.M. in order to accomplish this and still. comply with the requirements in the Lease to conduct its business in a high-grade and reputable manner, Hansel will offer a maim, menu during each of the three daily dining periods and two alternate menus, a morning alternate menu and an afternoon and evening alternate menu. Selections may be ordered from the morning alternate menu from 7:00 A.M. unt~.1 11:30 A.M. and from the afternoon and eveni•rzg alternate menu from 11:30 A.M, unta.l 1.0:00 P,M. Hansel's serving hours far its main menL~s are from 7:00 A.1~1, until 10:30 A.M. fox breakfast, from 11:30 A.M. until 2:30 P,M. for lunch, and from 6:30 P,M. until 9:30 P,M, for dinner. The morning alternate menu consists of sweet rolls, pastries, doughnuts, various beverages and juices, coffee and tea and fruits in season. The afternoon and evening alternate menu. consists of hamburgers, cheeseburgers, hot dogs, french fries, various beverages and assorted fruits in season. In addition, the bar will. be open for the serving of alcoholic beverages from 11:30 A.M, ux~.til 1.0:00 P.M. The introduction of the alternate menu will cure the alleged breaches set forth ~..n the fourth and fifth paragraphs of your letter and still enable Hansel. to offer the type of cuisine during its main menu serving hours for which••it has become noted in Vail. Hansel. is confident thaf 5unbird will be pleased with its introduction of the above procedure. The sixth paragraph of your letter indicated that Hansel. has been leaving its lights off dur~.ng the slack hours of the day, has not had any personnel present during Chase hours to accu~;~.~:odate patrons, and has refused to ser~tre food or beverages during these hours. As stated above, Hansel_ disagrees with Sunb~.rd's interpre- tation of the Lease requzra.ng•the serving of food, beverages and sundries during all business hours. However, it ~urill cox~ply with Sunbird's demands and cure the alleged breach. Kitchen personnel. are present continually from 7:00 A.M, until 10:00 P.M, to prepare food items available on. the main menus and the alternate menus. Besides the normal. staff of waitresses present during the main menu serving hours, beginning Friday, lvlarch: 26, 1976, a waitress will. be present during the hours that the alternate menu is the only menu being offered in order to serve and accommodate patrons wishing to order from that menu or to purchase drinks between meal hours. 1n addition, the lights in the restaurant will. be on at a1.1 times fxom 7:00 A,M. until 1.0:04 P,M. Of course, Hansel. reserves the right to adjust the lighting to accornrnodate its patrons and to create a suitable daytime and evening atmosphere., i Mr. Leland S. Sedberry, Jr, March 24, 1976 Page Four The sixth paragraph also provides that Hansel has re=used to serve food or beverages except during meal hours. As previously stated, this alleged breach has been cured by the implementation of an alternate menu to be offered at all, times during the day and evening. . The seventh paragraph of your letter indicates that you have had complaints from customers who have attempted. to purchase bevex~ ages during the afternoon and were refused service. The preach, if any, alleged in this paragraph is net terribly specific. If it 'refers to persons who have attempted to purchase alcoholic beverages to take out, the Colorado Division of Liquor Enforcement nos ruled that Hansel may only serve alcoholic beverages in the restaurant premises or on the fenced portion of the patio deck. In any event,. the alleged breach has been cured by the adoption of the procedures set forth above. While the Lease requires the restaurant to be open from 7:04 A.M. until 10:00 P.M., Mr. Klaschik has made it a practice fio be open well past 10:04 P.M. if there are customers present.' This practice will be continued in order to .help create an accommodating atmosphere for the restaurant anal for the lodge. The seventh paragraph of your letter also indicates that.Sunbira has had complaints from individuals who have objected to the running of the vacuum cleaner during the afternoon and early evening hours when they are enjoying a cocktail. As there is a provision in the Lease requiring Hansel to keep the premises clean, Hansel does not. believe that the running of the vacuum cleaner constitutes a breach of the Lease. This is a most perplexing complaint for Ha~se1 to attempt to cure, because on one hand Sunbird is requiring that the restaurant be open continuously from 7:00 A.M. until 10:00 P.M,, and on the other hand it is requiring that the business be conducted in a high-grade and reputable manner and properly cleaned and pxew sentable for customers. The Lease provides that the restaurant may be closed during slack hours of the day for cleaning and preparing for the next serving period-upon landlord's written consent. Since Sunbird has not given its written consent, necessary cleaning must proceed while customers are present. Hansel has attempted to have this procedure be as inconspicuous as passible, but it is difficult to please everyone in that regard, A schedule has been established which seeks to allot time for reasonable cleaning and yet accomplish this at times when the restaurant does not have many patrons in it. The morning compliment of waitresses vacuum the restaurant from 6:30 A.M. to 7:00 A.M. thereby removing the debris from the prior evening. The evening shift of waitresses vacuum the restaurant from 6:00 P,M. to 6:30 P,M. thereby removing the debris from the breakfast and lunch servin i d if g per o s. persons are in the rest- . aurant during this period, they are normally asked if they would Mr. Leland March 24, Page Five • i• S. Sedberry, Jr. 1976 object to the running of the vacuum cleaner. The above procedure appears to be best calculated to accomplish the tvao fold purpose of remaining open for business from 7:00 A.M, until lO:OQ P.M. and providing a clean envirnment far serving. Hansel specifically re- quests that Sunbird permit it to close the restaurant from 6:00 P,M, until 6:30 P.M. each day so that cleaning can be accomplished without disturbing individuals, Until notified that this procedure is agree- able, Hansel will be forced to follow the procedure outlined above. If Sunbird has any suggestions as to how this procedure could be modified, Hansel will be happy to discuss them. The eighth paragraph of your letter indicates that Sunbird has had complaints from guests wishing to purchase carry-out food items, The Lease does provide that Hansel must provide food for consumption on or off the premises. Hansel has provided food for consumption on the premises and. thus is in compliance with that provision of the Lease. Hansel does not agree with Sunbird's construction of the Lease tihat it is obligated to provide food for consumption both on and off the premises. However, in order to cure this alleged bx~ach, beginning Monday, March 22, 1976, Hansel is offering two take-out menus. The first menu will be offered from 7:00 A.M. until 11:30 A.M, and will consist of various juices and beverages, coffee and tea, doughnuts, sweet rolls, pastries and fresh fruit in season. The second takeout menu will consist of hamburgers,~cheeseburgers, french fries, various beverages and fresh fruit in season. This menu will be offered from I1:30 A.M. until 10:00 P.M. The ninth and tenth paragraphs of your letter indicate that Hansel has breached the Lease because it is non conducting its business in a high-grade and reputable manner calculated to produce maximum sales and percentage rent for Sunbird, Hansel does not agree that it has violated the..Lease in this regard. The Lease pro- vides that percentage rent shall not be due for the first four lease quarters which ended December 31, 1975, Tenant anticipates suffi- cient gross sales during the quarter ending March 31,.1976, to obligate it to pay percentage rent. Therefore, Sunbird has not been damaged and ~Iansel has not breached its Lease in this regard. Hansel has in the past and will in the future conduct its business in a high-grade and reputable manner calculated to pxaduce maximum sales. It continually strives for culinary perfection. Recently, the New York Times mentioned that Hansel & Gretel is one of the top four restaurants in Vail. Hansel xents approximately 700 square feet of space. Tt is not a large operation. Tn order to increase sales, it has an its own initiative expanded the premises to. the patio deck area so that additional customer may be served and has made a practice of being open beyond I0:00 P.M. It has also, Mr. Leland S. Sedberxy, Jr. Marc; 24, 1975 Page Six effective March 22, 1976, installed a talce~-vut menu and has begun serving food during all opening hours and has hired additional personnel to accommodate patrons during alb. ktaux~s that it ~.s open. for. bus~.ness . Thus , it has i.mplernented: prQCedures to secure maxi.-- mum. sales during its hours of operation and to cure this a~.leged breach, if Sunbird has any suggestions as to haw to impro~re on this procedure, Hansel will be happy to discuss them. The eleventh paragraph of your ~.etter xeitex:ates Su*xbixd `s de~r~and -that Hansel be open for business from 7:00 ~,,.M. until. 1C1:D0 P .M. , provide food and beverages for consxitrtptx..on on ox- off the premises and be stsffed with adequate personnel far such purpose. Foregoing paragraphs have indicated the mPthflds by which Hansel has implemented pracedtzres to cure these alleged breaGlaes. The twelfth paragraph of your letter znd:icates that. Hansel must be open for business during the above stated hours continuously- throughout the year. The Lease has been amended in. this regard to pro,cri de that the restaurant inay be closed for entire days or raee~Cs during the slack season with landlord's corasen~C which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. Hansel inte:cprets this provision to mean that during periods other than the s~.ci season, it may be closed for whale days or weeks and iilay a.d;~tzsL ~:ts~,rsp~'erat'io-zt- ~to~~~e~~~.titi~~ a.nd probab~.e future business demands. Any refusal to grant reasonable requests in this regard are a violation of tlae Lease subjecting lessor to damages and are an unjustified econamlc burden on Hansel. • The thirteenth paragraph of your letter provides that hencefo~t:~. Mr_. Klaschile must park his vehicle outsides of the enclosed garage. Please be advised that Mr. Klaschi.k has cured this alleged breach of the Lease and as of Monday, Maacch 22, 1~7v, is paxkir~g~ his vehicle in. the assigned space~in the sheltered parking area out-. side of the enclosed gaxage and has directed his employees not to park inside the enclosed gaxage. The fourteenth paragraph of your letter requests that several items being stored in the basement of the.ladge be rer~toved. F~.ease be advised that Hansel has cured this alleger~ breach and as of Sunday, March 2l, 1R76, all itez~.s belonging to Mr. Klaschik and located in the basement of the lodge have been xe~rtoved. The f~.fteertth paragraph of your letter indicates teat Hansel. is requa.red to keep all snow removed front the enclosed pat~.a deck area adj acent to the restaurant premises . lIansel has rrtade arrange- ments with ~Tai1 Associates to have the part~.axx of ,the patio deck area enc~.osed by. the fence clear of all snows Ixt addit~.on, please be advised that the patio deck area zs open aG all t~.t~aes set Earth y ,` j f. M Mx. Leland S. Sedberry, Jr. March 24, 1976 Page Seven in the Lease and is staffed with adequate personnel. Your letter did net indicate that there has been a violation of this require- ment, but T thought I should natzfy you that Hansel is aware af. this requirement and is complying with it. Ttie sixteenth paragraph of your letter indicates that Hansel has violated paragraph 7 of the Lease because of its failure to furnish quarterly reports. Reports have been furnished to the farmer owners of the lodge. Paragraph 7 of the Luse provides that sales reports are to be made quarterly reporting sales for the quarters ending ~~arch, June, September and December. Sunbird pur~ chased the lodge in January of 1976, and therefore, no reports are as yet required to be filed with Sunbird. Hansel intends to comply with its obligations under Paragraph 7 when it is obligated to do so. In addition, the Lease provides that no percentage rent is due for the first four lease quarters ending December 31, 1975. Thus, it is Hansel`s interpretation of the Lease that Paragraph 7 has not been violated. However in order to cure the .alleged breach, please find enclosed detailed quarterly sales reports for the. period; ending March 31, 1975; June 30, 1975; September 30, 1975; and = December 31, 1975. The enclosed detailed quarterly sales reports have been prepared by Hansel`s Certified Public Accountants, Lester Witte~.& Company from records supplied to them by Hansel. In addition the reports have been verified as being true and correct to the best of Mr. Klaschik's knowledge, information and belief. Also,. please be advised that the original sales records are being stored at Mr. Klaschik`s residence in Vail. His home address is Vail lnter~ 'national, Apartment No. 209. The sixteenth paragraph of your letter also states that Sunb:~rd wishes to inspect Hansel`s books and records. Hansel is willing to comply with this request, but wants to advise Sunbird that since na percentage rent is due far the first four lease quarters, nothing of any monetary value could be gained by following through with the request. Hansel is desirous of complying with each and every cove- nant of the Lease and by this letter has notified Sunbird of the actions it has taken to cure each and every default alleged in your letter of March 16, 1976, even though there are several allegations set Earth in that ?etter which do not constitute defaults under the Lease. Please be advised that. if there are any additional de- faults which Sunbird believes are Occurring, Hansel will upon proper written notice gladly take all measures within its powers to remedy any alleged breach. Hansel is quite ar_xiaus to continue its land- lord-tenant relationship with Sunbird, and is therefore willing to comply with all reasonable requests of Sunbird to comply with not . only the letter but the spirit of every covenant in the Lease to be performed by Hansel, v., ~, [ • Mr. Leland S. Sedberry, Jr. March 24, 197b Page Eight Please be advised that your ~.etter of l~Iarch 16, 1976, did not constitute valid notice under the Lease, because it failed to comply with the provisions of Paragraph. 23, Therefore, any attempt to terminate the Lease based on L-h~.s letter ~.s invalid and ~rou~.d subject Sunbird to damages for unlawfully retaking possession of the restaurant premises. ~ do want to reiterate my statements ~.n my letter of ~Tarch 12, 1976. Hansel is desirous of expanding the licensed premises to include the Sunbird Lodge if Sunbird will withdraw the parking varience application and be more flexible a.n permitting Hansel to adjust its hours of operation dura.ng the slack season, 1 will be happy to discuss particulars with you at any ta~xne , Very truly yours, Robert R, Graft . RRG/c1w enc cc: Lothar H. Klaschik i• G~ PLANNTt~G COMMISSION Agenda April 22, 1976 i. Sunbird Lodge Parking Variance in order to convert existing commercial space into a discot}~eque and restaurant 2. Planning Commission Vacation Schedule V PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda April 22, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bi 11 Han1 on Gordan Pierce OTHERS ARESENT: Jim Lamont Jay Peterson Lothar Klasick Pat Jackson SUNBIRD LODGE PARKING VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRkJCT A DISC(}THEQUE The applicant is requesting a variance of four parking spaces in order to add a discotheque facility to the lodge. They feel that this addition would enable the Sunbird Ladge to become a total lodging facility. (attached is the variance application) The staff recommendation at this time was for denial of the request. Jim Lamont and Diana Toughill felt that it would be a grant of special privilege and could be materially injurious to other property owners in the area in relation to the demand generated for mare parking. J.im Lamont felt that the criteria and findings had not been met by the applicant; therefore, granting this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Lothar Klasick, owner of the Hansel & Gretel Restaurant in the Sunbird Lodge, was decidedly against the variance request. His lease presently gives him exclusive rights to the bar and restaurant facilities in the lodge. Dudley Abbott mentioned that the Planning Commission was a technical board and that whether or not a new bar facility could be added within the Lodge was not the matter at hand. Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Sunbird Ladge, was asking for the same treatment for Lionshead the CCI had been given in relation to parking exemptions and variances. He then sited same examples. He then made references to the parking survey (attached) that had been done this winter in the Sunbird Lodge. The result was that they did not need the total number of parking spaces that had been required the time the building was built. At maximum peak time, only 56% of the parking spaces were occupied (approximate figure), Dan. Corcoran felt that this study might be relevant to this past winter only. Many of their customers might have come in by charter bus service and next year they may drive, Each year is different from the next. The question was raised as to whether or not they should apply for a parking exemption rather than a parking variance. The staff was directed to do more study on this matter as well as check with the Town Attorney and get his thoughts. Gordon Pierce made a motion to table the issue until next week; Bill I~anlon seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLAi~NING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 22, 1976 RE: SUNBIRD LODGE PARKING VARIANCE Sunbird Lodge at Vaii, Inc., represented by day Peterson, has requested a parking variance of four (4) parking spaces in order to allow the con- version of existing commercial space and lobby to a restaurant and bar of approximately 2,112 square feet. The principals in Sunbird have in- dicated that their intent is to operate as a tavern/discotheque or night club. Consideration of factors (Section 19.600): 7. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Sunbird Lodge is located in a highly developed commercial/resi- • dential area in which all structures and uses are in substantial compliance with the parking requirements.' There exists a significant amount of commercial and residential square footage which could potentially be converted to uses requiring additional parking. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter- pretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treat- ment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. There have been no similar parking variances granted in the Lionshead area or the CC-2 District; therefore, granting the variance would be a departure from treatment of other properties and a grant of special privilege. The objectives of the ordinance are best stated in. Section 14.100: "In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion...off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new uses, enlargements of existing uses, or changes of use. The number of parking spaces...sha7i be in proprotion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Off-street parking ,~ Planning Commission Sunbird Lodge Parking Variance Page 2 areas are to b~e designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact." Granting the requested variance would be in direct opposition to the stated purpose as outlined. A petition containing signatures of every major restaurant and bar owner in the Lionshead area, has been submitted urging the denial of the variance based on the fact that approval of the parking variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other restaurants and bars in the area. 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 requested variance could have a positive affect on the distribution of population as it might attract visitors to the Lionshead area during late evening hours when the area is relatively quiet. We feel there would be little impact on the public transporta- tion system as it is presently under-utilized during the evening hours. Public parking facilities could further be strained. A facility the size of the proposed use could attract 100 to 150 people at any given time which can be related to as many as 50 automobiles. The increased traffic could further aggrivate auto congestion and perhaps contribute to an existing air pollution problem. Rs an example, the Mark currently operates a similar restaurant and bar in conjunction with a hotel and it is evident that a great deal of parking demand is generated by the "night club". On weekend evenings, the underground parking facility is always at or near capacity {approximately 80 parking spaces) with primarily local cars occupy- ing the spaces. A similar use in the Sunbird Lodge could attract the local resident who seems to insist on the use of the automobile rather Planning Commission Sunbird Lodge Parking Variance Page 3 than public transportation. Sunbird presently provides 51 parking spaces, (71 spaces would be required by the present zoning ordinance) which would not be sufficient to provide parking for lodge guests, employees and the additional local cars generated by the proposed use. Findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See item 2 under Consideration of Factors, page one. We feel approval of the variance would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. To date, there have been no parking variances granted in the Lionshead area except those recommended by the Council to gain more landscaped space. . 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. The applicant has argued that the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because parking facilities are available in the public lots; however, Article 14.400 if very clear re- garding approval of off-site parking: "A11 parking and loading facilities required by this Article shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are required, provided that the Town Council may permit off-site or jointly used parking facilities if located within 300 feet of the use Served....Prior to permitting off-site or joint parking facilities the Council shall determine that the proposed location of such parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of such facilities will fulfill the pruposes of this Article, will be useable and convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use, and wi]l not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars." „ ~ ,P1anning Commission • Sunbird Lodge Parking Variance Page 4 The nearest public parking lot is approximately 4g0 feet from the proposed use and therefore not within the permitted range for off- site parking. The proposed variance could be detrimental or materially injur- ions to other properties in the vicinity. If there are insufficient parking spaces provided, overflow could clog private parking lots adjoin- ing Sunbird Lodge which could necessitate additional Police time for ticketing and towing illegally parked cars. 3, That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance.. We do not feel that an unnecessary physical hardship exists on the site except that created by the developer in the construction of a large building which covers almost every available square foot of land on a very small site, thus leaving no space-for additional required parking. (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. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con- ditions are evident. The applicant argues that a full service bar and restaurant is necessary for the operation of the Lodge; however, the applicant fails to mention that a bar and restaurant is currently located within the Lodge to serve the guests. (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 district. See item 2 under Consideration of Factors. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ~~ April 5, 1976 Attachment We request a variance to the set-back requirement of a minimum of ten. feet at the north side of our lot, for the purpose of building a proposed new garage. Winter has demonstrated to us that our present garage is not functional because of the steep grade from the garage to the street. It has been impossible to get into the garage, and nearly impossible to get out of the driveway. Many service trucks have been stuck in our driveway during the winter, as well as guests and many persons stopping for directions. We plan to finish the existing garage as additional finished space to our home. The north side of the present garage would be finished with siding so as to be compatible with the rest of the exterior of the home, and several windows would be insta~.lled. Final plans will not be completed until after the decision concerning the variance. The pro- posed garage would be constructed of the same materials as the house and would be compatible. The area upon which such a garage may be constructed is very limited because of the location of the pond for the Town of Vail water filter backwash. There is a small stream behind the location of the proposed new garage--which stream is apparently fed by the pond and filter system. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing and potential uses or structures in the vicinity is not a problem, since the north end of the lot abuts U. S. Forest Service property, and no buildings or structures will be constructed thereon. The surface space occupied by the house in relationship to the lot is comfortably below the maximum allowed, and the garage could be constructed elsewhere on the lot if it were not for the pond and its easement--which easement was voluntarily expanded by us since the dike containing the pond was located off of the easement onto our property. It has been necessary to get maximum utilization out of the east one-third of the lot, as the remaining part of the lot is unbuildable due to the existence of the pond which is used by the Town of Vail for water filter backwash. Although the pond is not large the banks which hold the water cover a considerable amount of area. Several small streams are located on the property immediately to the west of the existing house. These streams are fed principally by the pond and filter system. The granting of this variance would have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, or public facilities and utilities; but it would, in fact, enhance public transportation and improve public safety. Winter conditions as they presently exist make Booth Fa11s Road very hazardous, and vehicles attempting to go into the Booth Falls Condominiums must travel rapidly up Booth Falls Road and keep their momentum as they turn to the east in order to make the hill within the complex. Many vehicles come out of Booth Falls Condominiums out of control and fail to turn onto Booth Falls Road properly and end up in our front yard. With our present driveway also being at a steep grade, delivery and service trucks and guests often prefer not to park in our driveway but will park ,~ in the street. Parking on the street is particularly hazardous because ~•--• of the vehicles negotiating in and out of Booth Fa11s Condominiums. Our plans for building a new garage wall raise the driveway and would encourage ._guests and serva.ce trucks to park in our driveway rather than on the street, and thus enhance public safety. r Stanley M~gey~d~Jsk ear/~J~ ~ldah M. Medsker MEMORANDUM T0: PLANWTtdG COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMEiJT OF COMMUtVITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 29, 1970 RE: PARKING VARIANCE - SCHOBER BUILDItJG Slifer & Company, representing the owner of the 5chober Building, has re- quested a parking variance for four (4) parking spaces in order to allow the addition of approximately 735 square feet of retail space and 200 .square feet of restaurant space which would add approximately 13 additional seats to the existing Lancelot Restaurant. Consideration of Factors (Section 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Schober Building is one of a few buildings in the CC1 area which is not built to the absolute maximum allowed under the current zoning • ordinance. This building, like almost a17 others in Commercial Core ], was constructed before the adoption of zoning and therefore, space far parking was not provided when the lots were subdivided and sold. 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. The stated purpose of the CC7 zone district is: "The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique charac- ter of the Vail 11i17age commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commer- cial establishments in a predominantlypedestrian environment...The district regulations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure 'Planning Commission ~Schober Building Parking Variance Page 2 I• continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The proposed addition to the Schober building is in keeping with the purposes outlined in the zoning ordinance as the structure remains in scale with the Village, and the architectural quality of the structure is improved by the changes. Forcing provision of ,parking in CCl is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of maintaining a predestrian area. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with many other parking requests in the area. The request is similar to the Hill Building Addition and the Covered Bridge Store which were both variance requests for parking in order to expand existing buildings constructed prior to zoning. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, dis- tribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed expansion of uses should have little affect on the demand for parking in the parking structure, and the parking structure has sufficient capacity to provide for any additional traffic which might be generated by the expansion. The proposed expansion will not necessitate additional vehicular access into the pedestrian area as delivery vehicles are already servicing existing uses. The mass transit system is capable of handling any increased demand, if any, generated by the proposed expansion. The affects of the variance on adequate light, air, distribution of population, public facilities and utilities and public safety are negligible. Findings: 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 district Planning Commission ~' ':Schober Building Parking Variance Page 3 ~J We do not feel that approval of the variance would be a grant of special privilege as approval would be consistent with previous parking variance requests, and other like expansions in the Core have not been required to furnish additional parking. 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. We feel that denial of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as parking on the site would create additional vehicular traffic and could be hazardous to pedestrians using the area. On site parking could be injurious to the plaza area from both an aesthetic and safety standpoint. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. (c) The strict or ]itera1 interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. On site parking in the CC1 district would be inconsistent with the desire to pedestrianize the Core and inconsistent with application to other structures in the same district. AGENDA PLAPINING COMMISSIpN April 29, 1976 i~ 1. Presentation of Vail Associates Plaster Plan - Jim Bartlett 2. Request for 4' setback variance for Medsker residence Lot 12, Block 1, Vaii Village 13th Filing r ~~ Represented by Bob Medsker ~.~,~~-~/ 3. Request for parking variance (four spaces} 5chober Building Represented by Slifer & Co. 4. Request for parking variance (four spaces} Sunbird Lodge Continued from April 22 meeting Represented by Jay Peterson ~. ~\ • i~ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION May 6, 1976 May 6, 1976 Planning Cot mission Meeting Cancelled for lack of a quorum. Dan Corcoran appeared and moved that the request from the Plaza Lodge for a parking and building bulk control variance be postponed until May 1.3, 1976 and adjourned the meeting for lack of a quorum. • r ,~, , i t t. PLANNIiVG CQMMISSI0~1 Agenda May 13, 7976 1, PLAZA ~.ODGE ~R Parking Variance and Building Bulk Control Variance 2, ZONING AMENDMfif~l' ~- to allow grazing of horses in Residential Glister and l.ow Density Multiple Family Zone Districts ~, \' ~. PLANNING COMMISSION Summary May 13, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Dan Corcoran David Sage Gordon Pierce (second item only) OTHHRS PRESENT Mrs. Joanne Hill Ray Storey ' Fitzhugh Scott Representative from the Red Lion Representative from Christy Sports PLAZA LODGE -- Parking Variance and Building Bulk Control Variance The Plaza Lodge is presently a non-conforming building, and because of the way it is constructed, there is no way to correct the violation. The applicant is requesting a one (i} space parking variance in order to add approximately 600 square feet of living space and in addition they are requesting a building bulk control variance from the 10' required offset. The applicant feels that the building as it presently exists is to long to fit into the character of the Village, and with the addition of living space, they agree to add an addl.tional offset into the plans. (attached is some supplemental info.) Ray Storey, the architect, went through the proposed plans. The only exterior visual affects will, be raising the roof about 4' and the addition of a balcony on the west side. Diana Toughill summorized the staff memorandum (attached} which recommends approval. of the two requested variances. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community nevelopment DATE: May 13, 1976 RE: Parking Variance and Building Bulk Control Variance for the Plaza Building Joanne Hill, owner of the Plaza Building, has requested a parking variance for one (1) parking space in order to add the addition of approximately 600 square feet of dwelling space to her apartment. Mrs. Hill has also requested a building bulk control • variance. The existing wall, to which an additional story is being added, is presently nan~conforming with the required 10~'offset for each 50' of wall length. An existing offset of approximately 8' is being retained; an additional $' offset is incorporated into the remodeling. Consideration of Factors (Section 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Plaza Building is one of the few buildings in the • CCI area which is not built to the absolute maximum allowed under the current zoning ordinance. This building, like almost all others in Commercial Core Y, was constructed before the adoption of zoning and therefore, space for parking was not provided when the lots were subdivided and sold. The Plaza was built with only one 8' offset an . May 13, 1976 ' ,Page Two the west side of the building and therefore any possible addition • is non-conforming with the precise building bulk control requirement. 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, ax' to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The stated purpose of the CCI zone district is: "The Commercial Core ~. District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, within its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment...The district regulations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure • continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The proposed addition to the Plaza Building is in keeping with the purposes autlined.in the honing Ordinance as the structure is more conforming with the intent or spirit of the Ordinance in that an additional. 8' offset is being added with the expansion, and the architectural quality of the structure is improved by the changes. The obvious bulk of the building is not substantially increased by the addition. Forcing provision of parking in CCl is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of maintaining a pedestrian area. Approval of the parking variance would be in keeping with many other parking requests in the area. The request is similar to the Hill Building Addition and the Covered Bridge Store which were both variance requests for parking in order to expand existing buildings constructed ,,May 13, 1976 ' Page Three prior to zoning. addition of living space for permanent residential units is in keeping with the intent of Horizontal Zoning which is to encourage longterm residents to remain in the CCI area. If dwelling units can be remodeled or expanded to make them mare, desirable places in which to live, the intent of Horizontal Zoning is achieved, 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 expansion of uses would have no affect on the demand for parking in the parking structure, and the parking structure has sufficient capacity to provide far any additional traffic which might be generated by the expansion. The proposed expansion will not necessitate additional vehicular access into the pedestrian area.as the same number of people will be using the expanded living quarters. The mass transit system will not be impacted by the proposed addition. The impact of the increased roof height on light and air will be negligible as the mountain would tend to block the sun in the late afternoon at an angle greater than the increased roof height. The affects of the variance on adequate light, air, distribution of population, public facilities and utilities and public safety are negligible. i FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not con- stitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent May 13, 1976 Page Four • with the limitations on other properties clas- sified in the same district. We do not feel that approval of the variance would be a grant of special privilege as approval would be consistent with previous parking variance requests, and ..other like expansions in the Core have not been required. to furnish additional parking. An offset variance was granted for the Covered Bridge Store expansion under similar circumstances when an existing non-conforming wall was extended vertically. Several other off- set variances have been granted throughout the Town if the intent and spirit of the ordinance was met. 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. We feel that denial of the parking variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as parking in CCI, even if it could be provided, would create unwanted vehicular traffic and could be hazardous to pedestrians using the area. Granting the building bulk control variance will not be detrimental to the public health, saf ety or welfare or materially injurious to .properties or improvements in the vicinity as the expansion of the structure adds a building offset on the west side where none existed thus breaking up a large expanse of already existing building bulk. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or . unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. (c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation ,May 13, 1976 Page Five would deprive the applicant.o~ privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Requirement of on-site parking in the CCl District would be inconsistent with the desire to pedestrianize the Core and inconsistent with application to other structures in the same district. Strict interpretation of the building bulk control regulation could result in a building addition which could be less aesthetically desirable than the one proposed. Most other structures in the area are at their absolute maximum allowable gross residen- tial floor area and are not in conformance with the building bulk control regulations as they were constructed prior to the current zoning ordinance. The 8 foot off sets as proposed are in keeping with the intent and spirit of the ordinance as they are designed. To force provision of the additional 2 feet of offset as required by the ordinance would create aza undue physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance. • Pepi's • Ligauis Casino •~cliratasseio ...... . .. •r.• ........ Poof .. ~ .~:........ . .. .... ~~~~~• ~- Red Lodge ~ L1Q'~ EXCELLENT ACCOMMODATIONS •Ski Shop VAlL, COLORADO H1657 ;('nndofa TELEPHpNE 303 476-5656 Addi~t~,ona1 Supplemental Information to an Application for Variance Dated April i3, 1976 Existing Problems and proposed solutions thereto: i. Donovan's Copper Bar should become self-contained, with the addition of adequate adjoining bathroom facilities, inaccessable to the general public, except through the lease=d premises, Such facilities would be usable without disturbing commercial tenants, and without disturbing the lodging guests' use of ground floor ski` lockers. This can be accomplished be conversion of space presently leased to Christy Sports, now used for dressing rooms., 2. The Plaza's tenants, Mug Shop, Bridge Street Books, and Christy Sports (apart from its upstairs office staff} have no toilet facil- ities apart from those leased to Donovan's. These small washrooms should be allowed to revert to their intended use by the tenant's employees. Completion of new wash rooms would appreciably increase the security of the Plaza Building, and eliminate existing sanitation problems related to overuse of the present facilities. r r' rn the very center... of the center o thrngs at r repi~5 Casino •Pc4catesseri ~. ~/«;!~;- t)siigs ..........~:i... .............. ..., ... . ........ Red + L1°~~ EXCELLENT ACCOMMODATIQNS LodL=e •ski Shop VAIL, COLORADO 81657 ~On[lola TELEPHONE 3d3 475-5656 Page Two 3. Chr~°sty Sports must also become self-contained, with the addition of an interior stairway between the store and their second floor office. This would make i,t possible to lock off the lodging facil- ity, which does not operate in the summer. This can be accomplished by replacing the present alley entrance to Christy 's with a Wall Street entrance and stairway, at the same time replacing the dressing rooms lost to Donovan~s. 4 .. , 4. The space which would be removed from Christy Sports due to con- version of existing dress~'ng rooms, and that which would be `lost for construction of a stairway from the ground floor to the existing office must be replaced, to allow for the continued efficient operation of Christy~s. The only additional space which can be made available is the second stor~+ deck, adjoining Christy's office, which faces Wall ~~ Street. 5. Apart i'rom these enumerated prob]ems, are the individual needs of the gwner. Plaza ~.odge has no exclusive entry way, and no lobby. Therefore, the owner's living room often serves as a hospitality room for the fifty to eighty guests in the lodge, and it has often r n r of thin sat !"ails in the very cente ... of the ce to g r ,. Pe pi's Liquors / /// Casino ~Uelicatessen .~ / ~ ~..'. • ~~~~ ......... .. . . ...... ........ ~ •Rrd Lodge ~ L1°0 EXCELLENT ACCOMMODATIONS 'Ski Shop VAfL, COLOR/ADO 81657 .Gondola ~ TELEPHONE 303 4-76-5656 Page Three proved to be insufficient in size. Part of the kitchen area must now serve as office, storage, and work space for the owner. The owner's bedroom, approximately l0i by 12' in size, is not convenient to the single bath in the apartment, especially when guests are present, and insufficient privacy is afforded. For business reasons, it is frequently necessary that the owner house her trust off~~cer, directors of the corporation plaza Lodge is a Texas corporation}, her attorney, and her.acc~n_untant at unscheduled times, when the Plaza Lodge is fully booked. In order to provide sui'i'icient space to entertain, to house business and personal guests, and to provide a private meeting space with safe storage of business files, and work area, and independent;lguett room with bath, it is desirable to expand the owner's quarters into the attic above it. 6. Summary: Since the incorporation~of Plaza Lodge in 1974, partial and total solutions have been found to pressing problems, at a cost in excess of $8D,ODD.DD. For example, a trash compactor has been installed, safer and better placed hot water heaters have been added, and heat plates and gutter cheat) tape has been added. Such improve- ments have been made upon the advice and approval of Mike Carlis]e in the ver center... of the center of thin sat O~ y 9 r .,.. Papi's ; • Liquors Casilio •~BiICa[CSSCiI Ponl prugs ked Lod~E • t1O1~ EXCELLENT ACCOMMODATIONS •SSci Shop VAft_, C0LORIaDO $1657 ••Gandola TEL.EPtiONE 303 476-5656 Page Faur i• and Jim Olsen o~P the Fire Department, Jerry Aldrich and his sucessors in the building inspectors office, and the County SanB~tation Officer., and are indicative of the owner's desire to improve the safety, security, and insurability of the property. (Chief Gary Wall can testify to the vulnerability of the Plaza build~1ng to thieves, vandals, and drunEcs at the present time). ~, 6r~r<~r • r of in sat ~'Qi.l~ in the very center... of the cente th g r Y ^ S r i r '* - 6 ~~~~rrw......~.~~~___r~___ .+tite ~.-.. .«.«.~..-...~. ...~.. .~'... .`J. . . .~.` .~ .~. .~~ -..- --~.w f _ r'r ~' ~ . . _ RECEIPT -_- ~______ _____ . ~___ ___~______ . _ r~ ~ :The Town of Vail N° ~ 3 91 ' ~ ~~ `. ~:,~. J~a~. ' DATE ~ 19 ~ ~ " i ~ ~- ` ~ • RECEIVED FROM . , - ~. .;~:,,_~- ~? ~ .lz.-._ ~~ . ,~' ~' . .r - ,~ ~' :" •~ ~:;.E~~ :1~ ':.~ . ' • ADDRESG •~ ~ f - ~ •• ~ " la: ~ ~ ``~ .. it ` . .. : a. -t ~ nOLLARS $ ~. f c:.:%f ~ ..*"""rrT ,r'~1.+':.::., ~°~',•~,•^`" ,. ~ ~+~ ' .,'~' ,mow ~ '~ Panting Permifr Occupation Taxee Bldg. Inspection FePG Liquor Licenser Court Fines and Fees Sales Taxec - Highway Users T~v OthPr ' ~ ~ HOW PAID---Cash-__ r -_Checlr 13y - _ ~.. ~• ~____.~___----------------- --~-----.---------_-.W __ i ~ - _ ~. • r . J ~. .. ~ ~ .y PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda May 20, 1976 1. McLaughlin Residence setback variance request 2. Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow grazing of horses as a Conditional Use in RC and LDMF Zone Districts. 3. Proposed amendment to allow private clubs as a conditional use in MDMF Zone • MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION Summary May 21, 1976 OTHERS:: PRESENT Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Dave Sage Gerry White Jim Lamont Diana Tougha~ll Mr, & Mrs. McLaughlin McLAUGHLIN RESIDENCE --- SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST Mx, & Mrs. McLaughlin would like to add 993 square feet • to their present house in order to have a family room and a solarium. In order to do this they need a 4 foot variance on the east side of Lot 9, Block 13, Vail. Village First Filing. The staff recommends approval of the request as outlined in the criteria & findings of the attached memo. Pam Garton made a motion for approval of the request as outlined in the staff memo. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote to recommend approval of the setback variance was recorded. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW GRAZING OF HORSES IN RC AND LDMF ZONES. Diana Toughill sand from the research she had done, the State requirements for grazing of horses was 6 acres per horse. There are presently 12 or 13 possible sites within the Town of Vail that could accommodate horses. She then outlined them to the Planning Commission. The staff feels that this permit could be granted by the staff just like the homeowners occupation permit Planning Commission ' Page Two • as long as they met the strict criteria. A proposed list of criteria is attached. Planning Commission comments on the proposed list. of criteria is as follows: The permit should be limited from June 1 through October 15, with the exception of a limited winter permit for people who have sleighs. The fence requirement should be at least a 3--barbwire fence with the height to be determined by staff research --- the Commission feels that 5' might be an appropriate height limit. The Commission also wanted the staff to add a section that would prohibit horses from being riden on the bike and pedestrian paths as well as the public streets. Dan Corcoran made a motion to table the vote until next week when more information would be available. Dave Sage seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW PRI~TATE CLUBS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN MDMF ZONE DISTRICT Diana Toughill gave a brief summary as to why this request is being made. After a brief discussion, Gerry White made a motion to amend Section 5,300 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to add Item $ which would allow private clubs as a conditional use in MDMF Zone Districts. Dave Sage seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. • MEMORANDUM TO; Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 20, 1976 RE: S. Douglas McLaughlin Residence setback Variance Lot 19, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing The applicant has requested a setback variance of ten (10) feet from the east property line. The required setback is 14 feet. The variance is requested in order to build a 993 • square foot family room/solarium on the rear of an existing residence which was constructed prior to the current Zoning Ordinance when only a 10 foot side setback was required. The applicant requests the variance based on the fol- lowing information: The 14 foot setback is required due to the height of the existing house and the proposed addition will be lower in height than the presently existing kitchen extension which will be removed. Since the land rises sharply from the base of the house, the addition will have little impact on the residences to be built to the east and west, The Department of Community Development has .reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: • McLaughlin Page Two • The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The plans for the proposed Oh Residence to the east and the proposed Larese residence to the west have been reviewed and the requested variance would have: no adverse impact on either of the future dwellings. The degree to which relief from the strict or lateral 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance have been met by the applicant in that the existing house conformed to the original zoning ordinance, and it is the height of the existing dwelling and not of the proposed addition which necessitates the variance. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities,. public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. The proposed addition is low profile and primarily glass and will not block views and light. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, Due to the height of the existing residence, it would McLaughlin ' , ~ , ~ Page Three be impossible for the owner to construct an addition without approval of the variance. Many of the residences on Vail. Valley Drive were constructed when the 14 foot setback require- ment was in farce, thus we do not feel approval would be grant of special privilege. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially inuurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the above factors. The surrounding uses and future homes are compatible with the terms of the variance and no other structure in the area will be impacted by the variance. That the variance is warranted for the following • reason: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation.would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical haxdship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance, C. The strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. See the owners statement regarding physical characteristics of the site and existing structure. We do not feel the approval of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. Similar variances (Ke11y, Billups, Garcia) have been granted for additions to existing residences where it was not desirable or practical to locate additions in compliance with the Ordinance. • The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance as requested. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT GRAZING OF HORSES IN RESIDENTTAL CLUSTER AND LOW DENSITY MULTYPLE-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS Section 23.400 (to be added as accessory use) Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a Horse Grazing Permit in accord with the pro- visions of Section 17.600 of this ordinance. Section 4.400 - Same as above Section 17.600 Horse Grazing Permit 17.601. Permit Required. The grazing of horses, where permitted as an accessory use by the provisions of this ordinance, shall be subject to issuance of a grazing permit by the Zoning Administrator. Application shall be made on a farm prescribed by the Zoning Administrator, and shall be accompanied by a statement fully describing the property proposed far grazing or pasturing; the number of horses, their brands and physical descriptions; the manner in which the property will be fenced and any structures or storage proposed for the site. Application must be accompanied by any written permission required by this Section. The applica- tion shall describe in detail the manner in which the grazing permit will conform with the requirements of this section. 17.602. Permit Issuance and Findings. After review of the applica- tion, the Zoning Administrator may issue a Horse Grazing Permit if he finds that the proposed use will conform with the requirements os this section. The permit may be subject to such conditions as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary to guarantee compliance with the requirements of this section and compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. The Zoning Administrator shall deny the application if he finds that the proposed use will not conform with the provisions of this section, or would be injurious or detri- mental to other properties in the vicinity. 17.603. Time Limit and Renewal. Horse Grazing Permits, when issued, shall be for a limited time period not exceeding one year. Permits shall be renewable upon application,. subject to such regulations as shall be in effect at the time of application for renewal. The Zoning Administrator shall make the same findings with respect to an applica- tion for renewal as for the original issuance of a horse grazing permit. 17.604. Requirements for Horse Grading Permit. Where permitted, permit shall be subject to the following limitations: (1) The lot, site, or parcel of land must contain a minimum of six (6) acres for each horse proposed to be pastured on the site. (2) Written permission must be obtained from each adjoining property owner. (3) Each horse must be branded or in some manner identified. (4) An animal-proof fence must be installed which must be approved by the Design Review Board prior to. erection of said fence. {5) If horses are to be~pastured between October l5 and June 1, horses must be fed the minimum amount specified by the Colorado Humane Society. (6) The horses shall be used for the riding pleasure of the owner and his guests and shall not be available to the public for hire. (7} The site shall be maintained in a sanitary condition as Pxoposed Zoning Amendment for Horse Grazing ~ag~.2 determined by the Environmental Health Officer and no odor shall be apparent beyond the property ~zne. (S) The brand, physical description and owner's name and phone number for each horse shall be filed with the Vail Police Department so that owner may be contacted in the event of escape. (9} Any storage, except baled hay,-shall be in an enclosed structure which shall be approved by the Design Review Board. 17.605. Revocation or Discontinuance. A horse grazing permit may be revoked by the Zoning Administratox.if he determines that the provisions of this section or the limitations prescribed as a condition of the permit are being violated. A permit shall become void if not used within 2 months of issuance, or if the use for which it was issued is discontinued fora continuous period of 6 months. 17.606. Appeal. Appeal of any action of the Zoning. Administrator in connection with issuance or denial of a horse grazing permit or the conditions attached thereto may be filed with the Town Council by any resident or property owner within 30 days following such action. In event of appeal, the Council, after receiving a report from the Zoning Administrator, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the Zoning Administrator. A hearing shall not be rec~uixed. Failure of the Council to act within 30 days of the filing of an appeal shall be deemed concurrance in the action of the Zoning Administrator. Section 12.300 {6) - Strike the word "horses". Section 12.400 {6) - {to be added as accessory use} Horse grazing, • subject to the issuance of a Horse Grazing Permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.600 of this ordinance. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda May 27, 1976 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT GRAZING OF HORSES IN RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary May 27, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Corcoran Bill Ha~ion Gordon Pierce Dave Sage PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT GRAZING OF HORSES ZN RC AND LDMF ZONE DISTRICTS Diana Toughill outlined the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission with the revisions that were requested Last week by the Planning Commission. These revisions included provisions for drainage from the graying area and storage of horse trailers and trucks on the site. (amendments attached) Larry Rider, Town Attorney, has reviewed the amendments and perceives no. complications. The Planning Commission felt that Section 17.603, Time Limit and Renewal, should be changed in relation to the issuance of a winter permit, They felt that winter permits should be available only for draft animals for sleigh operations. As there was no further discussion, Dave Sage. made a motion to recommend approval of. the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with the above-mentioned change, Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in-favor of the motion. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT GRAZING OF kORSES IN RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS (Revised Nla.y 27 , 1976 ) Section 23.400 {to be added as accessory use) Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a Horse Gt°azing Permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.600 of this ordinance. Section 4.400 - Same as above Section 12.300 (6) Strike the word "horses". Section 12.400 (6) - (to be added as accessory use) Horse grating subject to the issuance of a Horse Grazing Permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.600 of this ordinance. Section 17.600 Horse Grazing Permit 17.601 Permit Required. The grazing of horses, where permitted as an accessory use by the provisians of this ordinance, shall be subject to issuance of a grazing permit by the Zoning Adminis- txator. Application shall be made an a form prescribed by the Zoning Administrator, and shall be accompanied by a statement fully describing the property proposed for grazing or pasturing; • the number of horses, the manner in which the property will be fenced and any structures or storage proposed for t;~e site. The application shall describe in detail the manner in which the grazing permit will conform with the requirements of this section. 17.602. Permit Issuance and Findings. After review of the appli- cation, the Zoning Administrator may issue a Horse Grazing Permit if he finds that the proposed use will conform with the require- ments of .this section. The permit may be subject to such condi- tions as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary to guarantee compliance with the requirements of this section and compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. The Zoning Administrator shall deny the application. if he finds that the proposed use will not conform with the provisions of this section,~or would be injurious or detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. 17.603. Time Limit and Renewal. Horse Grazing Permits, when issued, shall be for a limited time period not exceeding six months. Application may be made for summer grazing from June 1 through October 15 or for winter feeding season from October 16 through May 31. Permits shall be renewable upon application, subject to such regulations as shall be in effect at the time of application for renewal.. The Zoning Administrator shall make the same findings with respect to an application for renewal as for the original issuance of a horse grazing permit. . 17.604, Requirements for Horse Grazing Permit. Where permitted, permit shall be subject to the following limitations: . ; `Horse Graying Amendment May 27, 1976 Page 2 (1) The lot, site, or parcel of land must contain a minimum of six (6) acres for each horse proposed to be pastured an the site. (2) Approval must be granted by each adjoining property owner. Written permission must be requested each adjoining property owner by Certified Mail. Failure of a property owner to respond with- in 15 days of receipt of a written request shall be deemed approval by that property owner. (3} Each horse must be branded or in some manner identified. (4} A minimum three-strand barbed ware fence a minimum of 48" high shall be installed. (5) The horses shall be used .for the riding pleasure of the. owner and his guests and shall not be available to the public for hire. (6) The site shall be maintained in a sanitary condition as determined by the Environmental Health Officer and no ordor shall be apparent beyond the property line. (7} Drainage through or from the site shall not be directed toward public street rights-af-way; adjoining property or any creek ar stream. (8) The brand, physical description and owner's name and phone number for each horse shall be filed with the Vail Police Department so that owner may be contacted in the event of escape. {9) Any storage, except baled hay, shall be in an enclosed structure which shall. be approved by the Design Review Board. No unenclosed storage of horse trailers, trucks or similar transport- ing vehicles shall be allowed. 17.605. Revocation or Discontinuance. A Horse Grazing Permit may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator if he determines that the provisions of this section ar the limitations prescribed as a condition of the permit are being violated or if the animals are not being properly cared for as determaned.by the State Humane Society guidelines. A permit shall become void if not used within one month from the date of issuance, or if the use for which it was issued is discontinued for a continuous period of three months. 17,606. Appeal. Appeal of any action of the Zoning Administrator in connection with issuance or,denial of a horse grazing permit or the conditions attached thereto may be filed with the Town Council by any resident or property owner within 30 days following such action. zn event of appeal, the Council, after receiving a report from the Zoning Administrator, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the Zoning Administrator. A hearing shall not be required. Failure of the Council to act within 30 days of the filing of an appeal shall be deemed concurrance in the action of the Zoning Administrator. • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 3, 1976 1. Town of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Skating Rink, Recreational complex. Kent R. Rose - Director of Public Works 2. Rodney F. Slifer - Request for setback variance of 1L~' in lieu of 20' on south side of residence addition. Lot 12, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing 3. Amendment to honing Ordinance - Article 14, Off-street Parking and Loading to allow more flexibility for changes in commercial uses. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary June 3,1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce (2nd half of ,the meeting} Gerry White (lst half of the meeting) OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Peterson Lothar Klaschik Jim Lamont Diana Toughill Kent Rose • TOWN OF VAIL -- REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SKATING RINK Kent Rose, Town Engineer, outlined the reasons for which. the Town was requesting the conditional use permit. Site 24, Rose noted, was divided into two zone districts -- HDMF & MDMF -- both of which a11ow for a skating rink as a conditional use. He then discussed the existing land uses on the site as well as the proposed changes for the development this year. The bus route wi11 need to be changed with the addition of the ice rink and the central. traffic gate is going to be relocated on public property. Jm~Lamont and Kent Rose then explained the proposed • phasing process for Site 24 and how it related to the Town. Rose discussed the affect that the conditional use would have on the adjoining properties and how it related to the criteria and findings that the Planning Commission must deem applicable. Gerry White made a motion to recommend approval. of the conditional. use permit in accordance with the criteria and Junk 3 , 1976 Fage Two i findings as outlined by Kent Rose. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. RODNEY E, SLIFER -- REQEUST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON LOT 12, BLK. 6, VAIL VILLAGE 7th FILYNG. The applicant..has requested a setback variance of 12~ feet from the south property line in order to construct a dining room on to the existing residence. After reviewing the proposed addition plans, the Planning Commission questioned whether or not preservation of a view corridor .s a~~.physi~al:~.Yrardship; if so, is it enough to warrent a variance? Dan Corcoran made a motion to table the application pending furthex information from the applicant; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in savor of the motion, AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE w- ARTICLE 14, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING Diana Toughill summarized the proposed amendment and how it would affect the Commercial Core areas of Town (amendments attached). She then explained the Town staff's rec©mrrien.dation'.for . this amendment. Jay Peterson, as a resident and a local attorney, said that he was very much in favor of the amendment. It would eliminate many of the problems that CCI had~to deal with in relation to parking, He then commented on the letter submitted by Robert Graft, attorney representing Lothar Klaschik (letter attached). He felt that Mr. Graft's comments. were not justified and not applicable to the Town -- he went on to explain why, June 3, x976 'Page Three • After a general discussion among the Town staff and the Planning Commission, Dan Corcoran made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Town Council subject to final review by the Town Attorney. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. U C, MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 3, 1976 RE: Rodney E. Slifer Residence Addition Setback Variance For Lot 12, Block 6, Vail Village Seventh Filing The applicant has requested a setback variance of 12z feet from the south property line. The required setback is 20 feet. The variance is requested in order to build . a dining room addition on the front of an existing residence 4 which was constructed prior to Town Zoning when no specific setbacks were xequired. The applicant requests the variance based on the following information: "Having never surveyed the property, I did not know the exact location of our south property line and assumed there would be no problem in the design proposed by our architect. Upon completing the survey, we discovered the property line to be much nearer the house then we had anticipated. The actual roadway is then about another 25 feet to the south of oar property line, I would interject that over the years, we have very nicely landscaped and cared for the Town right-of-way." The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: . Sl~.fer Page Two • The relata.onship of tk~e requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Hastings Residence to the east and the Hansen Residence to the west have been reviewed and the requested variance would have no adverse impact on either of the dwellings. There are no adjoining vacant sites on which the addition would have an adverse impact. The degree to which relief from the strict or lateral 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege, The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance have been met by the applicant in that the existing house was located on the site prior to the Zoning Ordinance, and i.t would be impractical to construct the dining room in a conforming location. At the time the addition was designed, the owner had not prepared a survey and thought he had more land to the south. When plans were submitted for review, the survey was requested which showed the south property lane much closer to the house than had been assumed. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon then e factors. The proposed addition is small (12' X 16') and will not block views and light. i ' Gl,ifer Page Three • Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Cammunit y Development finds that: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Due to the location of the existing residence, it would be impossible for the owner to construct an addition without approval of the variance. Many of the residences in the Golf Course Area were constructed when no setback requirements were in force, thus we do not feel approval would be grant of special privilege. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of this variance will not be detri- mental to the above factors, The surrounding uses and future homes axe compatible with the terms of the variance and no other structure in the area will be a,mpacted by the variance. That the variance is warranted far the fallowing reason: 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 ordinance. B. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation • would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners. of others properties in the same district. ' ~ ~1 if er Page Four • See the owners statement regarding location of existing structure. We do not feel the approval of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. Similar variances (Kelly, Billups, Garcia} have been granted for additions to existing residences where it was not desirable or practica]. to locate additions in compliance with the Ordinance. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance as requested. • • Aa~Exr ~. Gn~FT A7tOFlN~V AND CDUNS~I.LQR A7 LAW 234 COLUMBINE STREET, SUITE 200 ~ DENVER, COLORADO 8006 (]'7G AREA CpDE 303 June 1, 1976 399-2872 Mr. James Lamont Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Lamont: On behalf of my clients, Lothar H. Klaschik and Hansel & Gretel, Inc., I am writing concerning the amendments to Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Vail prepared by the staff of the Planning Commission for consideration by the Com- mission at its June 3, 1976 meeting. I understand the amendments were proposed in order to give the Commission greater flexibility, particularly in Lionshead, in premitting uses for existing struc- tures which may not quite comply with established criteria for off-street parking. My clients which to protest the adoption of the proposed amendments to Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance for the following three reasons: 1. Amendments Will Have Broad Effect. The amendments were proposed to help remedy a problem involving Lionshead. However, the amendments would affect all of Vail and i.n particular those areas where parking and congestion are already a problem. The amendments would permit a change of use for an existing commercial structure even though the new use would normally re- quire additional parking. The practical effect of this amendment would be devastating, because throughout all of Vail, including highly congested areas, the Commission would be relinquishing its regulatory authority aver parking requirements for all commercial structures. The amendments would make it possible far an indi- vidual to use a c~.AU.~ercial area in any manner without considering its effect on traffic and congestion. It is easy to foresee that the probable effect would be the concentration of uses requiring large amounts of parking in a building ar area with minimum park- ing available, thereby producing serious congestion and aggravated circumstances for patrons and nearby commercial establishments. If such a situation did occur, the Commission would be virtually help- less in remedying it, because even if the ordinance were repealed, uses permitted by the prior law would be required to remain in existance. Thus, the abdication of the Commission's responsibility to review commercial parking requirements would produce serious short-term and long-term consequences which would never be fully ,~ remedied. • PROPOSED PARKING AMENDMENT ARTICLE 14 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SECTION 14.]00 PURPOSES. I~ order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or new use which converts existing dwelling units, accommodation units, meeting roams or convention facilities to~a new use. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this Article shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Off-street parking and loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, a71 or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this Article are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations of exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures. SECTTON 14.200 APPLICATION OF OFF~STREET PARKING. AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS Off-street parking and loading space sha11 be provided for any new building, for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or far any new use which converts dwelling units, accommodation units, meeting rooms or convention facilities to a new use. C 14.201 EXISTING FACILITIES Off-street parking and loading facilities used for off-street parking and loading on the. effective date of this ordinance shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this Article, or reduced in area to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this Article. 14.202 ADDITIONS OR CHANGES. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, the additional parking shall be required only for such addition, enlargement, or change and not for the entire building yr use. .] • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda June lp, 1976 1. JOINT SESSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL -- Consideration of Phase I -- Vail Village I~-n 2. RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT E, VAIL VILLAGE 11th FILING 3, RESUBDIVISTON OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE I3th FILING 4. CON~IlITIONAL USE PERMIT -- Vail Interfaith Chapel; 5. KELLY RESIDENCE --~ Amendment to Setback Variance Request 6. CONSIDERATION OF ZONING AMENDMENTS 7. AMENDMENT TO HORSE GRAZING ORDINANCE i+ • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary June 10, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gerry White John Dobson John Donovan Bill Heimbach Josef Stauffer Bill Wilto Bill Ruoff Tom Briner Roger Telkimeyer Cindy Lamont The Planning Commission would like the staff to investigate • the possibility of downzoning the lower potato patch area. They would like to know what the possible ramifications to this proposal would be. Dan Corcoran made a motion to have the staff look into the possibility of down-zoning the above-mentioned area; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. PHASE T -- VAIL VILLAGE INN DEVELOPMENT According to the Special Development District, the applicant • must have approval of both the Planning Commission and Town Council far each phase before development can start. Bill Ruoff,architect, gave a detailed explanation of Eldon Beck's comments and recommendations for Phase I of the VVI (letter attached). (After a thorough review of the project, Eldon wrote a number of comments and recommendations to the Town Staff in xelation to that project and how it would fit into the Master Plan.) Bill Ruoff explained the project_by use of plans,(on recordl and a small model and how it was modified to fit into Beck's recommendations, OTHERS PRESENT: Commissioner Abbott was concerned about how the applicant was ~ Jane 10, 1976 Page Two going.to control the construction of the total project. Joe Staufer, the applicant, plans to go ahead with Phase I this summer and then start Phase II sometime in 1979. He is very concerned about not making the Vail Village Inn into a construction camp. He foresees the total development.as a 15-20 year project. One thing that was stressed was that each development must stand on its own as far as design compatibility with the rest of the Town. It must not look like a phased development project. The applicant and the architect are both sensitive to this. Councilman Donovan questioned why there was no setback requirement for the south end of Phase I. The Town requested that xiQ~setback requirement be made for this section of the project within the SDD. They felt that it was too much of a maintenance problem. (more ~ detailed explanation is' on the tape.) After a brief discussion, Gerry White made a motion to approve Phase I of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. At this point, Gerry White left the meeting. RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT E VAIL VILLAGE 11th FILING Diana Toughill gave an explanation of the reason this area was to be resubdivided. She said that, after a thorough review with Kent Rose, the replat meets all the requirements of the subdivision regulations. She sent letters to all the adjoining property owners and utility companies, and received no negative responce. Commissioner Corcoran expressed concern about the bike path. Roger Telkimeyer pointed out, after discussion with Kent ~~ June 10, 1976 ' Page Three Rose and Jim Viele of Vail Associates that the bike path could easily be moved if need be. It was pointed out that the bike path presently encroaches an area where it should not. Bill Hanson made a motion to approve the resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing; Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded for preliminary approval of Tract E, Vail Village 11th filing. RESUBDZVISION OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 13th FILING Roger Telkimeyer, representing Vail Associates, is requesting to have Lot 27 subdivided into 7 residential lots. Diana Toughill, after a brief explanation of what they plan to do with the subdivided lots, said that the staff was in favor of the proposal. Dan Corcoran made a. motion to preliminarily approve the resubdivision of Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion, with Dan Corcoran abstaining. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VAIL INTERFAITH CI3APEL The applicant is requesting .a conditional hse permit in order to add approximately 2,000 square feet to the north side of the Chapel. Attached is the staff memorandum which outlines the criteria and findings of Section 18.600. Diana Toughill affirmed that the addition meets all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the staff were in favor of the request. r June 10, 1976 ' Page Faur i• According to the criteria and findings outlined in the staff memorandum, Bill Hanlon made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the Vail Interfaith Chapel. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. KELLY RESIDENCE -- AMENDMENT TO SETBACK VARIANCE The applicant is requesting an amendment in order to allow construction of a balcony (approx. 4' X 10'). Tom Briner, architect explained the reasons for this request. After a brief discussion, Pam Garton made a motion to amend' the previous setback variance for the Kelly Residence in order to allow construction of a balcony. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. ',^ ~ A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. ZONING AMENDMENTS Since the Planning Commission had not had enough time to properly review the proposed amendments to the Zoning Oxdinance, Bill Hanlon made a motion to table discussion and recommendation until the June 17th meeting. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE ALLOWING GRAZING OF HORSES Diana Toughill read a letter from Dr. Parks of the Humane Society which stated that 6 acres per horse was definitely in excess of the requirement. He felt that 2-3 acres was sufficient ground for feeding a horse in the summer. Diana explained that she had also talked to other horse owners in the area, and they felt that 6 acres Jude 10, 1976 ' Page Five • was definitely too strict a requirement. Bill Hanlon made a motion to amend the above-mentioned ordinance to require 3 acres per horse for grazing. Pam Garton seconded the motion. A 2-.2 vote was recorded for the motion. (Abbott & Corcoran apposed) As there was no fhrther business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. • • PROFOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS June 7, 1976 r~ L FxNAL DRAFT (with explanatory material) Page, 1 ARTICLE 1 Definitions Section 1.600 Dwelling Unit: Any room or group of rooms in a two- family or multiple family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in a multiple family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. COMMENT: Present definition of Dwelling Unit would allow a "lock-off" short term rental unit without kitchen facilities up to I/3 the size of the dwelling unit for each unit in a two- family zone. Grade, or Finished Grade: Finished ground level, provided that the distance between natural grade and finished ground elevation at any point adjoining the structure may not exceed ten (10) feet. Height: The average of the vertical distances.:bettiueen the finished grade of a structure at the midpoint of each exterior wall more than 20 feet in length to the highest point of that wall, to the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest ridge of a sloping roof. COMMENT: Corrects technical error in original ordinance with respect ~,, to how height is calculated, Solves problem of finished grade being raised unnaturally to allow additional floor within the height limit. The 10.' proposed for maximum grade increase would allow screening of parking within the building without adding garage floor to height. Landscaping: Planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flower beds, and ground cover together with decorative elements such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying more than 20 per cent of a landscaped area. For the purposes. of this ordinance, natural or significan rock outcroppings, trees, or native vegetation shall be deemed land- scaping in a single-family, two-f amily, residential cluster, and low density multiple family districts. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 15 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT: Present definition allows "natural" vegetation (including weeds) to be cosidered as landscaping in any zone. We feel that more formal landscaping such as sodded areas, shrubs, and trees should be included in higher density zones. There is presently no minimum size for areas to be considered as landscaped area, which allows 5 or 10' strips to be included in the minimal area required to be landscaped. • -1-- Y i ~ Seasonal Use or Structure: A temporary covering erected . over a recreational amenity' such as a swimming pool or tennis court for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold v~eather months, Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven (7) months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this ordinance a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to .building bulk control standards. COMMENT; Ordinance does not presently recognize any type of temporary ~~ ~i structure and does not allow covering tennis courts; swim ming pools etc, without a building bulk control variance. We feel this is important to extend the useable season of recreational amenities. Setback; The distance from a lot or site•Line, creek or stream measured horizontally to a line or Location within the lot or site which establishes the permitted location.of uses, structures, ar buildings on the site. COMMENT: Present definition does not include distance from a creek or stream. See Article 17 for specific stream setbacks. Useable Open Space: Outdoor space useable for out- door living or recreational activities, including patios, terraces, gardens, lawns, swimming pools, water features, or recreation area, and decks or balconies, but excluding driveways, parking areas, access walks, utility and service areas, and required setback areas. COMMENT: Definition now requires useable open space to be less than 10% slope which requires tremendous cuts and fills to meet the requirement. Article 2 Single--Family Residential. District Section 2.505 Density Control. Not more than. one (1} dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site, and not more than 20 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. (Alternate: 15 square feet GRFA) Section 2.507 Site Coverage. Not more than 20 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. (Alternate: 15 per cent). Article 3 Two-Family Residential District Section 3.505 Density Control. Not more than 2 dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each sate, and not more than 20 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be -- 2 ~- ARTxCLE 3 -- Two-Family Residential District, cont. Section 3.505 Density Control, cont. permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. (Alternate: 15 sq. ft. GRFA} Section 3.507 Site Coverage. Not more than 20 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. .(Alternate: 15 per cent) Section 3.505 (Alternate Solution). The aggregate gross residential floor area for the two dwelling units in a duplex structure may not exceed 4,000 square feet; pxovided, however, that a single-fam~.ly dwelling or a single-family dwelling with a rental dwelling unit not to exceed lJ3 the total GRFA may contain not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA} for each 100 square feet of site area. COMMENT: Many mirror image duplex units are being constructed to the maximum GRFA (.25 presently allowed} which have the _ appearance of small hotels. There are two possible solutions -~- ~~ reduce overall GRFA or limit the total size of "mirrax image" --~ duplexes while still allowing for large primary residences with smaller rental units. We feel the last approach best meets the original intent of the two-family residential Zane. Article ~ Low Density Multiple Family District Sectton 4.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any _ __ wall or building __f ace shall_ be 125 feet, and each building wal]. ,50' '__ in length__or more shall _ be off-set _a minimum of one (1 } foot for ~, each five (5) feet of wall length with no off-set less than five (5) feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 160 feet. COMMENT: Corrects technical error in building bulk control. Proposed definition allows greater design flexibility while maintaining the integrity of the ordinance. Article 5 Medium Density Multiple Family District Section 5.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length. of any _wall or_ buildin_g__face_ shall__be 125 feet, and each building wall _ 50' in length of more shall be off-set a minimum of 'one (1) foot for _ __ - --- ------ each five (5) feet _of wall length with no off-set less than five 5 _ _ - T-~eet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners oLLf a building at the same elevation shall be 160 feet, • COMMENT: Same as 4,506 -g_ ARTICLE 5 -- Medium Density Multiple Family District, cont. Section 5.510 Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided ih accord with Article 14 of this Ordinance. At least one-half the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area, COMMENT: Requires minimum of 50 per cent of required parking be within the building rather than in accessory structures as is now permitted. We feel this is important as it reduces ovex-all site coverage and apparent bulk. Article 6 High Density Multiple Family District Section 6.200 Permitted Uses, The following uses shall be permitted: lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 10 per cent of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. COMMENT: Restricts accessory commercial uses to 10 percent of the GRFA rather than 10 percent of the total gross floox area. Section 6.503 Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distance between buildings on the same site sha11 be 20 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 25 feet; provided that-one {1) foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each one (1) foot of building height over I5 feet, calculated on the height of the building. COMMENT: Increases separation between buildings by approximately 10' and calculates required separation based an height of one building rather than an average of the two buildings. Present requirement penalizes a new building if it is adjacent to a very tall existing building constructed close to the property line Section 6.505 Density Control, Not more than 60 square feet of gross residential floor area {GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. Nat more than 60 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area for any conditional use listed in Section 6.300 (1)(2}(3). _4- ARTTCLE 6 --- High Density Multiple Family District, cont. Section 6.505 COMMENT; Limits total square footage of conditional uses to the same square footage allowed for permitted uses. Present regulations does not have a maximum square footage limit. Section 6,506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall or building face shall be 175 feet, and each k~uilding_ wa11.._70' in length or more shall be off-set a minimum of one (1)_~oot for each _~ seven ~7} feet of wall length wa.th no off-set less than five (5) feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a _. _ building at the same elevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4.506 Article 7 Public Accommodations Section 7.200 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted: lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishemnts located within the principal use and not occupying mare than 20 per cent of the total • gross residential floor area of the main structure or , structures on the site. Additional accessary dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. COMMENT: Restricts accessory commercial uses to 20 percent of the GRFA rather than 20 percent of the total gross floor area. Section 7.505 Density Control. No:~ more than 80 square feet of gross residential floor area {GRFA} shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. Not more than 8Q square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area far any conditional use listed in Section 7.300 (1)(2)(3). COMMENT: Same as Section 6.505 Section 7.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall or any building face shall be 175 feet, and each building wa17. 70T _~ ---~in lengt or more sha1.L be.ott-set a minimum of one ~l_} foot f_or__.__ _ each seven -(7 } feed of wal..~. .Length ~ wzth no off-set less _ than f ive _( 5 )__ ~~ feet in depth. The maaimuni distance between any two corners raf a building at the same .elevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT: Same as Section 4.506 -5- Article S Commercial Care 1 Section 8.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of a~ wall or_a building face shall be 125 feet, and each building wall `50' in -- ---- - --- - - le_ngt.h or more shall be off-set a minimum of one (1) foot for each ~' - - five (5~ feet of wall length. with no ofl-set less than five (5) feet - _ _. - -- in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building ~at the same elevation shall be 160 feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4.506 Sect~:on 8.508 Useable Open Space. Useable open space for~~multiple family dwellings and lodges shall be required as follows: (1) For dwelling units a minimum of one {1) square foot of useable open space shall be provided for .each four (4) feet of gross residential floor area, but not less than 150 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit. (2) For accommodation units, a minimum of one (1) square foot of useable open space shall be provided for each (4) feet of gross residential floor area, but not less than 100 square feet of useable open space per accom- modation unit. Useable open space may be common space accessible to more than one dwelling or accommodation unit, or may be private space accessible to separate dwelling or accommodation units, or a combination thereof. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as non-ground level useable open space.shail be fa.ve (5) feet, and any such area shall contain at least 50 square feet. COMMENT: Removes requirement that 50 percent>of the useable open space be at ground level and at least 75 percent of ground level open space be common area. Present definition discourages dwelling and accommodation units in the core area and conflicts with the intent of horizontal zoning. Article 9 Commercial Core 2 Section 9,606 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall _ _ _~, or ui ing_ ace shall be 175 feet and each building wall 70' in length ' or more shall_ be off-set a minimum of one (1) foot for eacY~ seven ('!) __ feet of wall length with no off-set less than five (~ feet in~.epth. -____The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the ~ same elevation shall be 225 feet. ' -6- `• ARTICLE 9 -- Commercial Core 2, cant. Section 9.606 Building Bulk Control. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4.506 Article 10 Commercial Service Center Section 10.606 Building; Bulk Control. The maximum length of and _ _ wall of building face shall be 175 feet, and each building wall 70' in length or mare ska~l be o~z-set a min~.mum of one (T) foot for -eac~seveii- (Y7} feet- off- wall--length with no off-set less than rive ~- 5 feet in do th T -- -- _~ p die maximum aistance between any moo- c~l-~~~~-s of -- --~- - - - -- a ui1-ding at the wine ezevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4.506 Section 10.609 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 20 per cent of the total site shall be landscaped. • COMMENT: increases required landscaping from 10 to 20 percent. The combination of 10.609 and proposed 10.610 should lessen the impact of shopping centers with their large parking areas and little green space, Section 10.610 Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this Ordinance. At least one-half the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. COMMENT: Required one-half of all required parking to be within the building rather than just one-half the required parking for dwelling units. Article 11 Heavy Service District Section 11..300 Conditional Uses, (16) Accessory dwelling units fox service personnel (17} Business offices (18) Existing item (i6) (19) Existing item (17) - 7-- ARTICLE 11 ~- Heavy Service District, cont. Section 11,300 Conditional Uses, cont. COMMENTS: Adds {l~) and (17) as additional conditional uses. Proposed amendment allows business offices ar dwelling units to be included in a heavy service development. Section 11.413 Regulations Applicable to Particular Uses. The following regulations shall be applicable to the uses listed herein. Gasoline service stations shall be subject to the following requirements: (1} All fuel storage tanks shall be completely buxied beneath the surface of the ground. (2) All gasoline pumps, lubrication or similar devices, and other service facilities shall be located at least 20 feet from any street right-of-way line. (3) A11 servicing of vehicles,_except sale of gas and oil services customarily provided in connection therewith, sha11 be conducted completely within a structure. (4} Ail storage of goods shall be completely within a structure. COMMENT: Moves regulations for gasoline stations from Article 17 (Supplementary regulations) to the only zone in which they are allowed. Article 14 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 14.501 Parking. Standards for off-street parking shall be as follows: (3) Accessways: Unobstructed and direct accessways not less .than 10 feet or more than 20 feet in width shall be provided from off-street ,parking to a street ar alley. Driveway grade of less than 8% is recommended and no driveway of more than 12% slope will be permitted Driveways in excess of 8~ grade not exceeding 12% grade must be approved by the Department of Public Works. In MDMF, HDME, P.A,, CSC, CCI, and CC2 zone districts, drives of more than 8% must be heated and drained. Heating system shall be designed by a registered engineer. Drainage shall not adversely affect adjoining properties, In multiple family, public accommodation and commercial districts, the total width of all vehicular accessways shall not exceed one {1) foot for every three (3) feet of lot frontage, or average width of the lot. -S- ' t ARTICLE 14 -- Off-Street Parking and Loading, cont. Section 14.501 Parking. COMMENT: Sets maximum driveway slope at 12% and requires heating of drives over 8% slope in higher density areas where winter parking is the worst problem. (6) Landscaping: Not less than 10 percent of the interior surface are_a_ of unenclosed off-street parking areas containing ten (10)'or more parking spaces shall be devoted to landscaping. In addition, landscaped borders not less than ten (10) feet in depth shall be provided at all edges of parking lots. COMMENT: Excludes single-family and two-f amily parking lots _from interior landscaping requirement and increases width of required landscaped borders from 5` to 10`. This should be a better visual buffer for large exposed parking lots. Section 1q.601 NOTE: To be inserted after Theaters, Meeting Rnoms... USE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Accessory eating, drinking, recreational, retail or other uses within a.lodge The sum of .the require- ments for such uses pre- scribed above, less the requirement for multiple family dwelling or lodge use within the same building or group of buildings. COMMENT: Reduces parking requirement for lodges by eliminating duplication of spaces for accessory uses being used primarily by the occupants of short-term retail units. Article 15 Design Review Section 15.300 Design Approval. The Town shall .not authorize site preparation, building construction, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure or paving, fencing, planting, or other improvement of open space unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this Article. COMMENT: Requires DRB approval of landscaping on sites with existing buildings which are now not required to seek approval. -9- Article 16 • Environmental Impact Section 10.100 Purposes. Submission and review of an Environmental Impact Report on any private development proposal or public project which may affect to any significant degree the quality of the en- vironment in the Town or in surrounding areas or is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, is required to achieve the following objectives: {4) To ensure that buildings ar.e not constructed in geologic hazard areas (by way of illustration -- flood plains, avalanche paths_,_ rock fall areas ) where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning .Commission and the Town Council COMMENT: Clarification of existing regulation specifically designed to prevent building in geologic hazard areas where protection against the hazard cannot be provided. Article 17 Supplemental Regulations Section 17.400 (Existing 17.401 has been moved to Heavy Service District) Section 17.401 Restaurants, Bars or Similar Uses. In districts where restaurants, bars, or similar uses are allowed, they shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Noise generated .by the use may not exceed 50 decibles outside the enclosing walls or ceilings of the use. 2. Dwelling units in the same structure or in structures adjoining restaurant's, bars, or similar uses shall .have the right to privacy and such restaurant, bar or similar use shall be designed in such a way that view from such use is not directly into adjoining dwelling unit. or units. Windows may be treated with appropriate covering. COMMENT: There are presently no regulations pertaining to noise or privacy and we feel this is important. Section 17.600 Property Owner shall be responsible fax improving the area from his property line to the edge. of roadway including necessary drainage. Tmprovement of such area shall be designed so as not to impede snow plowing or impair visibility at street intersections, which improvement shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. COMMENT: Designed to prevent unsightly unlandscaped strips between property line and pavement. --la- . ~, . ARTICLE 17 -- Supplemental Regulations, cunt, Section 17.700 Minimum setback from creek or stream shall be not less that 30 feet from the established creek or stream channel,as defined by the contour line at the law side of the bank whhch forms the channel. Article 25 Public Use District Section 25.100 Purposes. The Public Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which because of their special characteristics cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for .other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to.~.achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 1.100. The Publa.c Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain ~:t~.ypes of quasi- publid uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. • Section 25.200 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted: (1) Public parks, playgrounds, and open spaces (2} Pedestrian and Bicycle paths (3) Equestrian trails {4} Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational, or cultural activities. Section 25.300 Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this Ordinance: • (1) Public theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities (2) Public parking facilities and structures (3) Public transportation terminals (4) Public utilities installations (5) Water and sewage treatment plants (6) Public service facilities (7) Public buildings and grounds (8} Public schools and educational institutions (9) Public recreation facilities other than those prescribed in Section 25.200 (10) Public recreation facilities other than those prescribed in Section 25.200 (11) Golf courses (12) Ski lifts and ski tows (13) Churches (14) Hospitals -11- I Article 25 -- Public Use District, cont. Section 25.~a0 Accessory Uses.. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: Other uses customa~raly incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. Section 25.500 Development Standards. Prior to acting on an application for a Conditional Use Permit for any of the conditional uses pre- scribed in Section 25.300, the Planning Commission shall prescribe development standards for each particular .development proposal or project in each of the following categories: (1} Lot Area and Site Dimensions (2) Setbacks (3) Distances Between Buildings {~) Height (5} Density Control (6} Building Bulk Control (7} Site Coverage {$} Landscaping and Site Development '. ~ Section 25.600 Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading requirements shall be established by the Planning Commission and Town Council for each project. COMMENT: This is a proposed new zone district which would lend more design flexibility for public projects which are now subject to standard zone distract use regulations and development standards. -1~- ,; ~ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 10, 1976 RE: Vail Interfaith Chapel Addition Conditional Use Permit The Vail Religious Foundation {Vail Interfaith Chapel) has applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to construct a Chapel addition of approximately 2,000 squaxe feet. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided far in Section 18.600 f ~ of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows; G Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. We find that na adverse affects will occur from the proposed addition. Addition conforms to Town Master Plan. 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 facilitles needs. No adverse affects are foreseen at this time. 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 the streets and parking areas. ' r MEMO 6/10/76 Page Two The applicant is proposing to add 13 addita.onal parking spaces, which meets the requirement for an addition of this size. The main use of the Chapel would be at times when other adjacent parking is also available, New Chapel addition would house people who are presently being jammed into the present existing space. Such other criteria as the Commission deems applicable .to the proposed use. There are no other criteria that we feel is applicable to the proposed addition. The following findings must be made prior to the grant of the Conditional Use Permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The purpose statement for the Agricultural zone district is to prevent intensive development and to preserve open space. The design for the proposed addition should not be con- sa.dered as intensive development and the site remains predominantly open in character. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detri- mental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We find nothing in the operation of the Vail Interfaith Chapel which would be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the Town. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. 4i l i i-r_,mc ara i n r.mm~7 i an~.P wi t.h 1-hrP 7t~t~~f ng Ordinance. M .,~ i• 3une 9, 1976 -~~~.... ,;~~;} ..., ~.~ .~-1._. Town of Vail Attn: Diana S. Toughill Box 100 Vail, CO 81657 .• . , q.` ~a J+•~s7 i. 2~J7 .~ ^ k u~~-~,: „v~~. Ref: Replats, Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing and lot 27, Block2, Vail Village 13th Filing Dear Mis. Toughill, The replats of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing and Lot 27, Block 2, Vaal Village 13th Filing as presented are deficient from an easement point of view. • Since it is nearly impossible to design an efficient electrical network before a plat is finalized, Holy Cross Electric finds it imperative that utility easements be dedicated as such on all lot lines. This is a standard requirement in Eagle County and should also apply within the Town of Vail. Normal utility easements are 7.5 feet on each side of interior lot lines and 15 feet on the inside of exterior lot lines for areas such as these which are to be provided with underground electric power. Holy Cross will utilize the minimum number of these easements necessary to complete a workable electric power distribution system serving all building sites. Sincerely, Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. ~~ ~ ~' ~ - r ~%~%L~'~ V V L Walter p. Darman, Engineer WDD/csb cc: Bob Waldrop, Vail office ."~ • i ~t~ 6 F~~ i f ~Aa R ^.47~~:~~ N" 'r~~r~~~~~~ 1°' ~yt~~l~'7~. ~,(ti4"N ~-'tip r~'-,; 4, ~.~ •`. try ~s^.h9%,~w d}~,YI r~ (" ~ 5,4~~1sr~r,'lr „~ .iy~ t. .t}7t y„i5 ~ or r~' `\' 1,1+/ . '114. t `.Y YY~ty h•i 1 t /~~y~~j~I ~~~`~ r 1~ Y i ~ ~,fl. ~ G ~R A N ~d A It ~ r--'G fit ~ ~N W U ®[~ '` S ~y~^,., ` Y ~py ,p~ yaaCy ~~y ' pl•In i,.. ~' 4 hC••:' t c` ~ ;w? ~~~ ,~~.,•+~.V ~•~~ ~»f ti~Yf:R ~!ISF`~.. ~~`,\ I.~ti h~^ ~~i-.!~ Jane 9, 1975 Town of Vail Attn: Diana S. Toughill Box 1D0 Vail, CO 81657 €~ ~ ~~y '~3~ E.f k 4,1 E ~ ~t~C _, t4'kYh ; • y a ti' ; ~ 6a r ~ al ~ ~ 1 ~~ ! rx~~ `~ll~p 1i yf'~ ~ Vier q~'Yi ~. 4y j~pj 1 { y-5 }s• /~(/~ q. ff 4 .. (~ v. r ~ ~ / f Ylt. ~{5.a // Fl k ~~' ~.' ~• !.-,.'K~h?f,•k+~'kbw'a'1~ c ~`~,~?? .: ~~.*5!, '' _ I.~~ir ~~i.•~\~ ~r -t; r .f;.6+ itef: ~teplats, firact E, Vaii Village 11th Filing and lot 27, Block2, Vail Village 13th Filing Dear Mis. Toughill, The replats of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing and Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing as presented are deficient from an easement point of view. Since it is nearly impossible to design an efficient electrical network before a plat is finalized, Haly Cross Electric finds it imperat~.~re that i~ti'lity easements be dedicated as such on all lot lines. This is a standard requirement in Eagle County and should also apply within the Town of Vail. Normal utzlity easements are 7.5 feet on each side of interior lot lines and 15 feet on the inside of exterior lot lines for areas such as these which are to be provided with underground electric power. Holy Cross will utilize the minimum number of these easements necessary to complete a workable electric power distribution system serving all building sites. Sincerely, Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. ~~ ~ ~~^ r ~%L~~~' ~. v 1. Walter D. Dorman, Engineer WDD/csb CC: Bob Waldrop, Vail office ~, i~, ., Roystol~: Hat~amoto Beck &. Alley • • April 15, 1976 Mr. James !=. Department of Town of Vail P, Q, Box iQ8 Vail, Colorado Lamont, Direcfor Community Development 8i 657 Re; Vail Village Inn - ^esign Review Dear Jim: On April 6 and 7, ]976, Bill Ruoff and Ross Cooney met with me in Mill Valley to review progress drawings far implementation of the first phase of the projECt. The fallowing documents were discussed, modified, Labeled and signed by me as representing satisfactory design progress: Drawing "A" - Schema#ic Building Massing Revised Drawing "B" - Phases i and 2 Schematic Plan Drawing "C" - Phase i Schematic Plan - Lower Level L7rawing/Models "D" and "E" Preliminary Floor Plans - 1/8 scale; Three Drawings The review of the design was primarily in reference to adherence to the overall project concept, to bulk, mass, height, and to circulation re- lationships. The drawings were not to a level of completion far response to detailed floor plans or elevations. My reactions are included on a drawing by drawing basis. Overall, I consider the design to be consistent with earlier Town approvals and find that Drawings A, B, C, and Massing Models D and E are acceptable sub-- mittats. I assume that these documents are suitable for Council/I~lanning Board aCtlon . landscape Architects: Principals: Associates: 225 Miller Avenue Land Planning ~Rohert Royston FASLA Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA: M~i~Vulie~. ' Mr, James E, hamont -Z- April 15, 1976 More detailed 1/8 scale plans and elevations are necessary for Design Revises Board action an the first phase. There is need for coordination between the Town and the development along East Meadow Drive. It is possible to began coordinated design of the pedestrian precinct with construction of pavements and landscape likely in the Summer of 1977. It is difficult to see completion by the end of this summer. In any case there is an opportunity to develop design jointly and to see a sharing of development. will plan on being in Vail on April 22 and 23 if there are questions concerning this review. Sincerely, ROYSTON, HANAMOTO, BECK E ABEY Eldon Beck ~~ tm [: cc; Mr. Terrell J. Minger, w/encl. Mr, Josef Stauffer, w/encl. Mr. William Ruoff, w/encl. Mr. Rass Cooney, w/encl. Ms. Diana Toughill, w/encl. Encl . • VAlL VILLAGE INN - DESIGN REVIEW [] April 6 and 7, 1976 DRAWING "A" -SCHEMATIC BOILDING MASSING REVISED A. First Phase commercial has extended to the east as required, in comparison with the March 16, 1976 approved Schematic Plan. The intent was to decrease the "Tower Plaza" size to improve scale and intensity of activity. The resultant space directs both circula- tion and views to the southeast, toward the Village, which is a part of basic site design ciriteria. B. The vertical tower is well located in relation to the total space as seen from the hotel development, and as viewed along East Meadow Drive, C. The southeast end of the hateI "step down" portion decreases properly in state and concludes the "Tower Plaza" space as discussed on March 16, 1976. D, The future phase commercial building grouping in the center of the site responds to discussions of March 16, 1976 and improves the overall plaza spaces. This grouping requires further study in re- lation to building function and proportion. E, The proposed third phase of commercial will be in the Tower level of the ascending hotel complex, east wing. It is well placed and would complete the shopping experience of the "Tower Plaza." The concept of a gradually rising plaza space, rather than that of a highly constructed appearing space, is excellent. F. The placement of Phase One which respects the Outback is goad. The placement of Phase Two which respects the existing swimming pool location and the operations of the Vail Village Inn, as it exists, is also very good. G. The south facing store fronts; related walkways, and connection to the pavement of East Meadow Drive requires coordinated design be- tween the devel~,pment and the Town. This is apart of the scope of wor3t of the first phase of development. H, The "Tower Plaza" design relates directly to future design decisions of f=ast Meadow Drive, This design requires coordinated effort be-- tween the development and the Town. The final solution witl pro- bably extend over the property line with a sharing of construction timing and construction costs, This is a part of the scope of work of a future phase of development. DRAWING "B" -- PHASES I ~ 2 SCHEMATIC PLAN A. Massing concept of Phase One is good. B. Center portion of the indicated future phase requires proportioning of the Intersection "A" of spaces to create a node of more importance. This is a mid~-point of interest, in effect a minor plaza rather than a portion of a widened space. DRAWING "C" -PHASE ONE SCHEMATIC PLAN -LOWER LEVEL A. Concept of using the existing paved parking area for service access is good. The service corridor between Phase One and the Outback respects phased growth in a highly logical manner and appears workable. There must be a successful interim visual termination to the northeast portion of this corridor as seen from upper levels of the Vail Village lnn. B. Points of entrance, windows, stairways, and floor elevations will be resolved in final design solution. C. The north and east walls of each space require special care in design for they must invite circulation of shoppers from the "Tower Plaza." The ascent must be gradual, there must be all of the quality visual elements in this north edge corridor which are exciting, friendly, warm, etc. D. Tile west end of Phase One requires successful interim visual termination of the project. Temporary landscape must be installed In lieu of the westernmost future building in at least. a portion of the site. • II ~ DRAWING/MOD1rLS "D" AND "E" A. The building massing is good and acknowledges the recommendations of previous discussions. In that the westernmost building along East Meadow Drive is a future structure, the design of Phase One must successfully conclude the project in the event the final building is delayed or deferred. The detail must be sensitive to being com- plete and of itself. B, The variety in bulk and roof pitch indicated by the mode! is good and represents a valid direction of design. C. The comments related to Drawings A, B, and C, all relate to this massing model. D, The model indicates the need to give particularly sensitive design thought to the east facing north side walls of Phase One (Drawing C, paragraph c). E. The heights are within the 2-1/2 level overage height, plus roof height, required by Council action of March 36, 3976. The Tower • is within the spirit of the approval in #erms of location and height. PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS - 1/8 SCALE; THREE DRAWINGS A. The drawings are progress in reaching final plans and provide information as to shop arrangement and related spaces. l•,, The comments of Drawings A, B, and C, and Drawing/Model "D" and "E" apply to these drawings as well. C. Particular emphasis is required in the study of floor elevations related to the street, the coordination of landscape along l=ast Meadow Drive, and successful solution of the east end of the project as related to the "Tower Plaxa." This last statement is particularly important and deserves very careful design study. PLANNING COMMISSION Summary June 17, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton David Sage CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VALHALLA The applicant had requested a week's delay from the Planning Commission's review of this request. Dan Corcoran made a motion to table discussion; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. CONSIDERATION OF ZONING AMENDMENTS Flannxng Commission would like to see modifications to: definition of height definition of landscaping Questions were raised about the definition of seasonal use or structure --- staff is to check with the Town Attorney, A definition for creek or stream is to be added ~~ U _ ~ s i ir' .Y --,~ ~ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION June 24, 1976 1. Vail Associates - Request for resubdivision and rezoning of Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 1.3th F~.ling. 2. Vail Associates - Request for resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village llth Filing. 3. Hugh Hyder - Request for setback variance on Lot 1, Block 1 Vail Village 8th Filing. 4. Bill Fisher - Request for rezoning or Lot 4, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. 5. Vail Run - Request for building bulk control variance to cover additional tennis court (Motion to postpone until July 1). B. Valhalla Lod e - Re nest far Conditional Use Permit to convert g q lodge to private club. (Motion to postpone until July 1). 7. Zoning Admendments - Final review prior to referral to Council. i [] MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Gorcoran Pam Garton Gerry White OTHERS PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION Summary June 24, 1976 Roger Telkimeyer Jim Lamont Diana Toughill Bob Buckley VAIL ASSOCIATES -- RESUBDIVISION & RELONING OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, VV 13th The applicant would like to rezone Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. The present zoning on the property allows for a maximum of 78 units, and Vail Associates, the applicant, would like to resubdivide the property into seven residential lots which would allow for 14 units maximum (attached in the staff memo). Since the final resubdivision plat was not ready for the Planning Commission's review, the applicant asked that they consider the rezoning of the lot at this meeting. Gerry White made a motion to rezone Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing; Pam Garton seconded the motion. Abbott, Garton & White voted in favor of the rezoning; Dan Corcoran abstained from voting. VAIL ASSOCIATES --- RESUBDIVTSION OF TRACT E, VAIL VILLAGE 11th FILING Since the final resubdivision plat was not-ready for the Planning Commission's review, the applicant asked to have the matter postponed until the next meeting. Pam Garton made a motion to JUNE 24, 1976 ` Page Two • postpone consideration; Gerry White seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. HUGH HYDER -- REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VV 8th The applicant is requesting a 10' setback on the north and west property lines instead of the required 12'6" required in order to build a residence.on a very small lot. Diana Toughill said that the closest neighbors. had been contacted, and thoy had no abjection to the request. The Department of Community Development recommended approval of the request to the Planning Commission for reasons stated in the attached memo. Dan Corcoran made a motion to recommend approval of the request in accord with the criteria and findings outlined in the staff memorandum. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. BILL FISHER -- REQUEST FOR.REZON.ING OF LOT 4, BLOCK 3, BTGHDRN 3rd. The applicant would like to downzone his property from LDMF, which would allow 8 units, to RC, which would allow 4 units. He feels that the vegetation and topography on the lot are not compatible with ~~ high density use and he has no desire to see that many units constructed on the property. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the rezoning as stated in the attached memorandum Gerry White made a motion to rezone Lot 4, Block 3, Bighorn • 3rd Addition from LDMF to RC; Pam Garton seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. ~UNE~24, 1976 Page Three • VAIL RUN -- REQUEST FOR A BUILDING BULK CONTROL VARIANCE The applicant has requested a building bulk control variance to cover additional tennis, courts, Since their information is not complete at this time, they have requested to have a motion from the Planning Commission to postpone consideration of this request until July 1, 1976. Gerry White made a motion to postpone consideration; Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. VALHALLA LDDGE -- REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The applicant has requested to have consideration of this matter postponed until July 1, 1976, Pam Garton made a motion to postpone consideration; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. BONING AMENDMENTS -~ FINAL REVIEW PRIOR TO REFERRAL TO COUNCIL Diana Toughill explained the new section on density control regulations for single family and two~f ami.ly residential districts, as well as the changes to the landscaping,. environmental impact section in relation to noise, and the two new public zones. All of these changes met with the Planning. Commission's approval. It was requested of the staff that bzke paths and paved pedestrain paths be conditional uses in Article 26. Gerry White made a motion to appxove the proposed zoning changes; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. It was noted that with the Planning Commission's approval of the changes, that the legal notice would JUNE 24, 1976 'Page Fm.ur republished. The zoning changes would go to the Counca.l on July 20, 1976 fox the first reading. • • T0: MEMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 24, 197B RE: Vail Associates Request to Rezone and Resubdivide Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing Lot 27, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing contains 284,950 square feet (6.541 acres) and is presently zoned Low Density Multiple-Family which would allow 7$ dwelling units to be constructed on the site. The request for resubdivision and rezoning is for seven (7) residential lots which would allow a maximum total of 14 dwelling units, or a reduction in density of 64 dwelling units. ~Ye feel that the rezoning is in the best interests of the Town of Vail as the character of the Booth Creek area is primarily residential and the site is completely surrounded with two-family residential sites .and greenbelt. Our current Growth Management Program is an attempt to addressreduction of density throughout the Valley and this type of rezoning is a big step in the right direction. ,S ~~ ~ , s MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 24, 1976 RE: Hugh Hyder Residence (Single_f amily} Setback Variance for Lot ~., Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing The applicant has requested a setback variance of 10 feet from the west and north propexty lanes. The required setbacks are 12'6" The variance is requested in order to build a sangle- family residence on a very small lot (9,320 sq. ft.) which re- spects views of surrounding existing homes. The applicant requests the variance based on the following information: "Lot 1 is a small lot, .therefore the house is small. Reducing the west side by 2'6" will make small bedrooms smaller. We would probably have to go higher to solve problem. A view of the Gore Range is possible between a break in the pine trees if we can keep the house to ten feet on the north line. Therefore, a variance to build to the 10 foot setback would be most helpful." The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other exist- ing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Johnson residence to the west, the Brittan residence to the east and the Steinberg residence to the southeast have been ` reviewed and the requested variance would have no adverse impact on the adjoining dwellings. There are no adjoining vacant sites on which the proposed residence would have an adverse impact. Hyder Page 2 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is neces- sary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ox to attain the objectives of this or- dinance without grant of special privilege. The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance have been met by the applicant in that the house has been designed anal located on the sate to respect view corridors in one of the most tightly clustered residential areas. A building could be designed for the site which meets every technical requirement .of the ordinance, but would have an adverse impact on the adjoining neighbors, which we feel would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. This site is one of less than 1Q in the entire Town of Vail of such a small size. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. The proposed residence is small (2,155 sq. ft., average height 20`) and will not block views and light as designed. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Due to the small size of the site and the location of surrounding dwellings, it would be nearly impossible for the owner to construct the residence without approval of the variance and ~' still respect adjoining properties. Many residences in the Golf Course area were constructed when no setback requirements were in ,' ' , ~~ MRMORANDU~I T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: Tune 24, 1976 RE: Request for Rezoning or Lot Lot 4, Block 3, Bighorn Third Addition Mr. Bill Fisher has requested that his property located in the Bighorn area be rezoned from Low Density Multiple Family to Residential Cluster. The sate is 32,095.85 sq. ft. (.805 acres) and is presently zoned for 8 dwelling units. The requested down- zoning would reduce the density to 4 dwelling units. The rezoning is requested as the applicant feels that the topography and vege- tation of the lot are not compatible with the higher density use and he has no desire to see that many units constructed on it. The reduction of densities is in line with the Town of Vail policy; however there could be a question of spot zoning as the surrounding land use is of a higher density character. Even with the possible ramifications, the Department of Community Development recommends appxoval of the .requested rezoning. E i~ PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS June 24 1976 FINAL D11AFT (As Approved By the Planning Commission) ,~ ARTICLE 1 Definitions Section 1.600 Creek ar Stream: Named body of flowing water Dwelling Unit: Any room or group of rooms in a two- family or multiple family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in a multiple family building may include one attached accommodation unit na larger than one third (1f.3} of the total floor area of the dwelling. COMMENT: present definition of Dwelling Unit would allow a "lock off" short term rental unit without kitchen facilities up to 1/3 the size of the dwelling unit for each unit in a two-family zone, Grade, or Finished Grade: Finished ground level, provided that the distance between natural grade and finished ground elevation at any point adjoining the structure may not exceed ten (10} feet. Height: The average of the vertical distances between the finished grade of a structure at the lowest paint, the midpoint, and the highest point of each exterior wall more than 20 feet in length. Vertical distances at each point of each wall shall be to the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest ridge of a sloping roof. COMMENT: Corrects technical error in the original ordinance with respect to how height is calculated. Solves problem of finished grade being raised unnaturally to allow additional floor within tie height limit. The 10' proposed maximum grade increase would allow screeing of parking within the building without adding garage floor to height. Measuring at three points allows more architectural flexibility. Landscaping; Planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns flower beds, and ground covex together with decorative elements such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying mare than 20 percent of a landscaped area. For the purposes of this ordinance, natural or significant rock outcroppings, trees., or native vegetation shall deemed landscaping in a single-family, two-family, residential cluster and low density multiple family districts.. COMMENT: Present definition allows "natural" vegetation (.including weeds} to be considered as landscaping in any zone. We feel that more formal landscaping such as sodded areas, shrubs, and trees should be included in higher density zones. Seasonal Use or Structure: A temporary covering `~ erected over a recreational amenity such as a swimming pool or tennis court for the puxpose of expanding their use to the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven (7} months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this ordinance a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. COMMENT: Ordinance does not presently recognize any type of temporary structure and does not allow covering tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. without a building bulk control variance. We feel this is important to extend the useable season of recreational amenities, Setback: The distance from a lot or site line, creek or stream measured horizontally to a line or location within the lot or site which establishes the permitted location of uses, structures, or buildings on the site. COMMENT: Present definition does not include distance from a creek or stream. See Article 17 far specific stream setbacks. Useable Open Space: Outdoor space useable for out- door living or recreational activities, including patios, terraces, gardens, lawns, swimming pools, water features, or recreation areas, and decks or balconies, but excluding driveways, parking areas, access walks, utility and service areas, and required setback areas. COMMENT: Definition now requires useable open space to be less than 10% slope which requires tremendous cuts and fills to meet the requirement. Article 2 Single-Family Residential Distract Section 2.503 Distances Between Buildings: The minimum distance between a dwelling an one site and a dwelling on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between dwellings shall be required for each 2 feed of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the proposed building COMMENT: Present regulation penalizes new dwellings constructed adjacent to tall or very large existing dwellings. Section 2.505 Density Control. Nat more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site, and not more than 25 square feet of grass residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet for the first 12,500 square feet of site area;- plus not more than 10 square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area over 12,500 square feet. -2-- ~~ Section 2.507 Site Coverage. Not more than 20 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. Section 2.509 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 60 per cent of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 10 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT: Stets minimum dimensions for required landscaped areas Article 3 Two-Family Residential District Section 3.503 Distances Between Buildings.. The minimum distance between a dwelling on a site and a dwelling on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between dwellings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the proposed building. COMMENT: Same as for Section 2.503 Section 3.505 Density Control. Not more than 2 dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site, and .not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet for the first 15,000 square feet of site area, plus not more than 10 square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area over 15,000 square feet not to exceed 30,000 square feet of site area, plus not more than 5 square feet of gross residential floor area for each 100 square feet of site area in excess of 30,000 square feet; provided however, that the aggregate gross residential floor area ,for the two dwelling units in a duplex structure may not exceed 4,000 square feet; and that a single-family dwelling or a . primary dwelling with a secondary dwelling„.unit not .to excee_d_~ 3.__._ the total GRFA may contain the maximum gross residential floor area permitted for the site area. COMMENT: Many mirror image duplex units are being constructed to the maximum GRFA (.25 presently allowed) which have the appearance of small hotels. We feel that limiting the total size of "mirror image" duplexes while still allowing for larger primary residences with smaller rental units is the best solution as it seems to meet the original intent of the two-family residential zone. We also feel there should be some maximum GRFA limit on very large lots. Section 3.507 Site Coverage. Not mare than 20 per cent of the total site ares shall be covered by buildings. Section 3.509 Landscaping and Site Development., At least 60 per cent of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum dimension of any area -3- i~ LOT STZB SRF min. in zone: 21,765 avg. in zone: 22,963 largest in zone; 25,020 R BY AREA Bighorn min. in zone: `:~ 10,837 avg. in zone: 24,000 ~'~largest ~ zone: 47,657 Boothcreek min. in zone: 14,207 avg . i.n zone 20,000 *~largest in zone: 45,328 Golf Course min, in zone; 8,761 avg. in zone: 17,000 ** largest in zone: 36,781 Beaver Dam/ Forest Road mina in zone: 13,766 avg. in zone: 26,000 *~laxgest in zone: 58,498 SI~T4ARY OF AFFECT OF PROPOSID GRFA REDUCTTON TN SFR AND R ZONE DTSTRTCT GRFA ALLOWABLE FOR ~- ADDITTONAL GRFA FOR = TOTAL MIN. SIZE LOT @.25 LOT AREA TN EXCESS OF MIN. GRFA .10 f .05 3,125 926 - = 4051 3,125 1046 - = 4171 3,125 1252 - = 4377 2,709 -- - = 2709 3,75D 900 - = 4b50 3,750 1500 882 - 6132 3,552 - - = 3552 3,750 500 - = 4250 3,750 1500 766 - 6016 2,190 - ~ - 2190 3,750 200 - - 3950 3,750 1500 339 = 5589 3,441 - - = 3441 3,750 1100 - - 4850 3,750 1500 1424 - 6b74 ^ . ~~ . Page 2 ' SUMMARY OF AFFECT OF PROPOSED . GRFA REDUCTION IN SFR AND R ~~ - ZONE DTSTRTCT LOT SIZE GRFA ALLOWABLE FOR + ADDITIONAL GRFA FOR r TOTAL SRF MIN. SIZE LOT @,25 -LOT AREA IN EXCESS OF MIN. GRFA Mi11 Creek ..IO ~ .05 min. in zone: I1,7~1 2,932 ~ -~ = 2,932 avg, in zone: 13,000 3,250 - - - 3,250 ~*largest in zone: 29,607 3,750 1461 ~ = 5,211 Fotato Fatch min. in zone: 15,821 3,750 82 - -- 3,832 avg. in zone; 22,000 3,750 700 ~ = 4,450 largest in zone: 2,458 3,750 1500 1123 = 6,373 *Pxcludes isolated nonrepresentative lots north of I~70 which have no access. ~~Largest lots in each area are unusual cases. Section 3.509 Landscaping and Site Development, cont. qualifying as landscaping shall be 10 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT: Same as for Secta.on 2.509 Article 4 Low Density Multiple Family District Section 4.503 Distances Between Buildings, The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 15 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings for buildings on the same site, and calculated on the basis of the average height of the proposed building for buildings on adjoining sites. COMMENT: Same as for Section 2,503 Section 4.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall or building lace shall be 125 feet and each ,bu~:ldin~_.wall_ 50 feet in length or more shall be off-set not less than five feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 160 feet. COMMENT: Corrects technical error in building bulk control. Proposed definition allows greater design flexibility while maintaining the integrity of the ordinance. Section 4,509 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 40 pexcent of each site shall be landscaped.. The minimumdimension of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 15 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT; Same as for Section 2.509 Article 5 Medium Density Multiple Family District Section 5.503 Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 15 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings fox buildings an the same site, and calculated _ on the basis of the average height of the browsed building.for buildings on ad,7oin'Lng sites. _4_. Section 5.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any ' ~ fall or building face shall be 125 feet, and each building wall ,50 'feet in length or more shall be off-set a minimum of one foot ' for each five feet of wall length with no off-set less than five feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 160 feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4,506 Section 5.509 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 30 percent of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum dirnensior~ of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 15 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 2.509 Section 5.510 Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this ordinance. At least one-half the required parking shall be located within_the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. COMMENT: Requires minimum of 50 pex cent of required parking be within the building rather than in accessory structures as is now permitted. We feel this is important as it reduces over-all site coverage and apparent bulk. Article 6 High Density Multiple Family District Section 6.200 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted: lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 10 per cent of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site, Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. COMMENT: Restricts accessory commercial uses to 10 percent of the GRFA rather than 10 percent of the total gross floor area. Section 6.503. Distances Between Buildings, The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 20 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 25 feet; provided that one (1) foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each one (1) foot of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the height of the building. COMMENT: Increases separation between buildings by approximately IO' and calculates required separation based on height o~ one building rather than an average of the two buildings. Present requirement penalizes a new building if it is adjacent to a very tall existing building constructued close to the property line. -5- 'Section 6.505 Density Control. Not more than 60 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 1.00 square feet of site area. Not more than 60 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area for any conditional use listed in Section 6.300 (1)(2)(3). COMMENT: Limits total square footage of conditional uses to the same square footage allowed for permitted uses. Present regulation does not have a minimum square footage limit. Section 6.506 Building Buis Control. ~'Yie maxi~rar:y lc~n~th of ~.~y wall or building face shall be 175 feet, and each building wall 70' in length or more shall be off-set a minimum of one (l} foot for each seven {7) feet of wall length with no off--set less than five (5} feet in depth, The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT; Same as for Section 4.506 Section 6,509 Landscaping and Site Development,, At least 30 percent of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as .l~.ndscaping shall be 15 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet, COMMENT: Same as for Section 2,509 Section 6.510 Parking and Loading. Off--street parking and loading shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this ordinance. At least 75 percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area. COMMENT: Would allow the "Lions Square North" type of covered parking and would solve the parking within the building which meets the technical requirement of the ordinance but is still highly visible. Article 7 Public Accommodations Section 7.200 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted: lodges, .including accessory eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying mare than 20 percent of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. COMMENT: Restricts accessory commercial uses to 20 percent of the GRFA rather than 20 percent of the total gross floor area. -~6- Section 7.503 Distances Between Buildings; The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 15 feet, and the `;~ minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each 3 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average ' height of the two buildings for buildings on the same site, and calculated on the basis of the average height of the proposed building for buildings on adjo-fining sites, COMMENT: Same as for Section 2.503 Section 7.505 Density Contxol. Not more than 80 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area.. Not more than $0 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area for any conditional use listed in Section 7.300 (1){2)(3). COMMENT: Same as for Section 6.505 Section 7.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall or any building face shall be 175 feet, and each building wall 70' feet in length or mare shall be off-set a minimum of one foot for each seven feet of wall length with no off-set less than five feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4.506 Section 7.509 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 30 percent of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as landscaping :shall be 15 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 2.509 Section 7.510 Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this ordinance. At least 75 percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. COMMENT: Requires that parking be hidden from view as well as within the building. • -7- Article 8 Commercial Core 1 • Section $.506 Building Bulk Control. The maximum Length of any wall or a building face shall be 125 feet, and each building wall 50' in length or more shall be off-set a minimum of one (1) foot for each five feet of wall length with no off-set less than five feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 160 feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 4.506 Section 8.505 Useable Open Space. Useable open space for multiple family dwellings and lodges shall be required as follows: {1) For dwelling units a minimum of one square foot o~ useable open space shall be provided for each. four feet .of gross residential floor area, but not less than 150 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit. (2} For accommodation units, a minimum of ozae square foot of useable open space shall be provided for each four feet of gross residential floor area, but not less than 100 square feet of useable open space per accommodation unit. Useable open space may be common space accessible to more than one dwelling or accommodation unit, or may be private space accessible to separate dwelling or accommodation units, or a combination thereof. The minimum dimension. of any area qualifying as non-ground level useable open space shall be five feet, .and any such area shall contain at least 50 square feet. COMMENT: Removes requirement that 50 percent of the useable open space be at ground level and at least 75 percent of ground level open space be common area. Present definition discourages dwelling and accommodation units in the core area and conflicts with. the intent of horizontal mooning. Article 9 Commercial Core 2 Section. 9.603 Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 15 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each 3 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings for buildings on the same site, and calculated on ..the basis pf the average height of the proposed building for buildings on adjoining sites. COMMENT: Same as for Section 2.503 ¢:: r ~> f ~. "'4 - ~ - ~i __ d~• ,.,, _~ IE Section 9.606 Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall or building face shall be 175 feet, and each building wall 70 feet in Length or more shall be off--set a ~ninzmum of one foot for each seven feet of wall length with no off--set less than five feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the -same elevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT; Same as for Section 4.506 Section 9.609 Landscaping and Site Development,. At least 20 percent of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 15 feet with a minimum axea not less than 300 square feet. COMMENT: Same as for Section 2.509 Article 10 Commercial Service Center Section 10.606 Building Bulk Control. The maximum Length of any wall ox' building face shall be 175 feet, and each building wall 70 feet in length or more shall be off-set a minimum of one foot for each seven feet of wall length with no aff-.set less than five feet in depth. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 225 feet. COMMENT; Same as for Section x.506 Section 10,609 Landscaping and Site Development, At least 20 percent of the total site shall be landscaped, The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 15 feet with a minimum area not less than 300 square feet. _ COMMENT: Increases required landscaping from l0 to 20 percent and -- -- - - __ ___ sets minimum dimension for landscaped areas. The comb.nation __ of 10.609 an_d px'opased 10.610 should lessen the impact of shcipping centers with their large parking areas~~~and little gxee~n space, Section 10.610 Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this Ordinance. At Least one-half the required parking shall be located within the main building or bu~,ldings. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. COMMENT: Requires one-half of all required parking to be within the building rather than just one-half the required parking for dwelling units. -9- Article 11 Heavy Service District Section 11,300 Conditional Uses. (16) Accessory dwelling unit for service personnel (1?) Business offices (18) Existing item (16) (19) Existing item (17) COMMENT; Adds {16) and (17} as additional conditional uses. Proposed amendment allows business offices or dwelling units to be included in a heavy service development. Section 11.409 Landscaping and Site Development. At least 10 percent of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be 10 feet with a minimum area not Less than 200 square feet. COMMENT:. Same as for Section 2,509 Section 11.413 Regulations Applicable to Particular Uses, The f ollawing regulations shall be applicable to the uses listed herein. Gasoline service stations shall be subject to the following requirements: (1) All fuel storage tanks shall be completely buried beneath the .surf ace of the ground. (2) All gasoline pumps, lubrication or similar devices, and other service facilities shall be located at least 20 feet from any street right-of-way line. (3) All servicing of vehicles, except sale of gas and oil services customarily provided in connection therewith, shall be conducted completely within a structure, {4) All storage of goods shall be completely within a structure. COMMENT: Moves regulatians far gasoline stations from Article 17 {Supplementary Regulations). to the only zone in which they are allowed. Article 14 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 14.501 Parking. Standards for off-street parking shall be as follows: (3) Accessways: Unobstructed and direct accessways not less than 10 feet or more than 20 feet in width shall be provided from off-street parking to a street -10- ,. , Section 14.501 Parking, cont. or alley. Driveway grade of less than 8% is recommended and no drai.veway of more than 12% slope will be permitted. Driveways in excess of 8% grade not exceeding. l2% grade must be approved by the Department of Public Works. In MDMF, HDMF, P.A., CSC, CCI, and CC2 zone districts drives of more than $o must be heated and drained. Heating system must be operable and in use when weather conditions dictate. Drainage shall not adversely affect adjoining properties. In multiple family, public accommodation anal commercial districts, the total width of all veh:i.cular access- ways Shall not exceed one foot for every three feet of lot frontage, or average width of the lot. COMMENT: Sets maximum driveway slope at 12% and requires operable heating system to be used for drives over 8% slope in higher density areas where winter parking is the worst problem. (6) Landscaping: Not less than 10 percent of the interior surface area of unenclosed off-street parking areas containing ten (10) or more parking spaces shall be devoted to landscaping. In addition, landscaped borders not less than tan feet in depth shall be provided at all edges of parking lots-containing more than 10 parking spaces; land- scaped borders nat less than 15' in depth shall be provided at all' edges of parking lots containing more than 30 parking spaces. COMMENT: Excludes very small parking lots fxom interior land- scaping requirement and increases width of required landscaped borders from 5' to 10' when lot contains more than l0 cars and 15' if lot contains more than 30 cars. -This should be a better visual buffer for larger exposed parking lots, Article 15 Design Review Section 15,300 Design Approval. The Town shall not authorize site preparation, building construction:, sign erection,. exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure or paving, fencing, planting, or other improvements of open space unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this Article. Paving, planting or improve- ment of open space common to t.WO ox fewer existing dwelling units shall be exempt from this provision. COMMENT: Requires DRB approval of landscaping except for single or two-family dwellings on sites with existing buildings which acre now not required to seek approval. -11- ~r Article 16 `~~ Environmental. Impact Section 16.100 Purposes. Submission and review of an Environmental Impact Report on any private development proposal or public project which may affect to any significant degree to quality of the en- vironment in the Town or in surrounding areas or is detrimental to the public hd.alth, safety or welfare, is required to achieve the following objectives: (~) To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas by way of illustration -- flood plains, avalanche paths, rock fall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the Town Council. COMMENT: Clarification of existing regulation specifically designed to prevent building in geologic hazard areas where protection against the hazard cannat be provided. Purpose statements do not include geologic hazards as a reason for requiring environmental impact reports. Article 17 Supplemental Regulations Section 17.400 (Existing 17.401 has been moved to Heavy Service District) Section 17.441 Restaurants, Bars or Similar Uses. In distracts where restaurants, bars, or similar uses are allowed, they shall be subject to the following requirments. (1) Noise generated by the use may not at any time exceed 50 decibles outside the enclosing walls or ceilings of the use. (2) Dwelling units in the same structure or .in structures adjoining restaurants, bars, or similar uses shall have the right to privacy,and such restaurant, bar, or similar use shall be designed in such a way that view from such use is not directly into adjoining dwelling unit or units. Windows may be treated with appropriate covering, COMMENT: There are presently no regulations pertaining to noise or privacy and we feel this is important. Section 1.7.600 Property Owner shall be responsible for improving the area from his property line to the edge of roadway including necessary drainage. Improvement of such area shall be designed so as not to impede snow plowing or impair visibility at street intersections, which improvement shall be approved by the Department of Public Works -12- ~w •~ Section 17.600, cont. COMMENT: Designed to prevent unsightly unlandscaped strips between property line and pavement. Section 17.700 Minimum less than 30 feet from as defined by the Town Natural creek or stream without permission from setback from creek or stream shall be not the established creek or stream channel of Vail comprehensive plan base maps. channels may not be rechanneled or changed the Planning Commission. COMMENT: Present ordinance does not require setback..from_stxeams nor protect streams from environmentally unsound tampering. Article 25 Public Use District Section 25.100 Purposes. The Public Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi--public uses which because of their special characteristics cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed fox other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescr~.bed for each particular development proposal ar project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 1.100 and to provide .far the public welfare. The Public Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi- pub].ic uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses, Section 25.200 Permitted Uses, The following uses shall be permitted: (1) Public parks, playgrounds, and open space (2) Pedestrian and Bicycle paths (3) Seasonal structures or uses t.o accommodate educational, recreational, or cultural activities Section 25,300 Conditional Uses. The fallowing conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this Ordinance: (1) Public Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities {2) Public parking facilities and structures (3} Public transportation terminals (4) Public utilities installations excluding transmission lines and appertenant equipment (5) Water and Sewage treatment plants (Fi} Public service facilities (7) Public buildings and grounds {$) Public schools and educational institutions {9) Public recreation facilities other than those prescribed in Section 25.200 -13- 1 ~ i Section 25.300 Conditional Uses, cont. {IO) Public recreation facilities prescribed in Section 25.200 (11} Golf Courses (12) Ski lifts and ski tows {13) Churches {1~) Hospitals (15) Equestrian Trails Section 25.00 Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: other than those Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses,. and necessary for the operation thereof. • Section 25.500 Development Standards. Prior to acting on an application for a Conditional Use Permit for any of the conditional uses prescribed in Section 25.300, the Planning Commission shall prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories: (I) Lot area and site dimensions (2) Setbacks (3} Distances between buildings {g) Height {5) Density control (6) Building bulk control (7) Site coverage (8) Landscaping and site development Section 25.600 Parking and Loading. Off street parking and loading requirements shall be established by the Planning Commission and Town Council for each project. COMMENT: This is a proposed new zone district which would lend more design flexibility for public projects which are now subject to standard zone district use regulations and development standards. Article 20 Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District Section 26.100 Purposes. The Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District is designed to provide areas, which because of their environmentally sensitive nature, should be protected from encroachment by any man-made structure other than picnic grills and tables; and is necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 1.100. The Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural, undisturbed state. The intent shall not proclude improvement of the natural environment -14- y ... Section 20.100 Purposes, cont. by the removal of weeds, deadfall, or similar compatible improvements, Section 26,200 Permitted Uses, The following shall be permitted uses: (1) Greenbelt and open space (2} Bicycle and pedestrian paths Section 26.300 Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this Ordinance: (1) Public parks and playgrounds (2) Golf Courses (3) Equestrian Trails ~ ~- i. Section 26.400 Accessory Uses, Not applicable Section 26.500 Develapment.Standards. Not applicable Section 26.600 Parking and Loading. Not applicable COMMENT: Proposed new district is designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas from development and preserve open space in its natural state. -15- SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Gaxton Gerry White k OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Diana Toughill The Planning Commission at this meet~.ng further investigated the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. .~ • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda June 17, 1976 i. Conditional Use Permit Valhalla Lodge 2. Consideration of Zoning Amendments i• • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1976 1. Horst Abraham - Request for setback variance to enclose existing carport; Lot 11, Vail Village 9th Filing. 2. Sunbird Lodge - Request for setback variance fox starway to cross property line and encroach on Vail Associates property. 3. Valhalla Lodge - Request for conditional use permit to allow conversion of existing lodge to a private club. 4. Vail Run - Request for building bulk control variance to allow covering additional tennis court. _~ J • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary July 1, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT:. Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Gordon Pierce Gerry White SETBACK VARIANCE FOR HORST ABRAHAM RESIDENCE Horst Abraham Roger Tilkemeyer Warren Klug Attached is the staff memorandum which outlines the request. Dan Corcoran made a. motion to recommend approval of the request; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded, SUNBIRD LODGE -- SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST Attached is the staff memorandum which outlines the request. Some Commissioners voiced concern about the unpaved area around Vail Associates loading dock. They would like to require Vail Associates to pave the above-mentioned axea. As there was no further discussion, Gerry Wh~.t~e made a motion to recommend approval of the request; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. With Gordon Pierce and Dan Carcoxan abstaining, the vote was recorded 2--4 zn favor of the mot ion . VALHALLA LODGE -- REQUEST FOR CONDITIOI~,AL USE PERMIT Attached is the staff memo which outlines the request. Dan Corcoran made a motion to recommend approval of the request with the provision that a maximum of SO people be allowed in OTHERS PRESENT: the dining room at one time. Gerry White seconded the motion . Summary 7/1/76 • motion to recommend approval. of the conditional use permit request. With Gordon Pierce abstaining, the vote was 3-0 in favor of the VATL RUN -•- BUILDING BULK CONTROL VARIANCE This request is made in•order to a11ow covered tennis • courts within the Town of Vail. Attached is the staff memo which outlines the request in more detail. Warren Klug pointed out to the Planning Commission some of the benefits of having a year-round covered tennis court.. He would like to talk to the Council about the proposed amendments in relation to building bulk contxol before a decision is made. Gerry White made a motion to table the request; Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A.unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. RESUBDSVISION OI' TRACT E With this matter having been broug~it back to the Planning Commission from last week, Gordon Pierce made a motion to recommend approval of the resubdivision; Gerry White seconded the motion. With Dan Corcoran abstaining, a 3-0 vote was recorded in favor of the motion. AS THERE WAS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS, THE A~EETING WAS ADJOURNED. [J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 1, 1976 RE: Horst Abraham Setback Variance Lot 11, Vail V~.llage 9th Filing; The applicant has requested a setback variance of 1.07 feet to allow enclosure of existing carport which is located 10 feet from the north property line. The required setback is 11,07 feet. The variance is requested to enclose existing carport for additional living space. The residence was constructed when only a 10 feet setback was required by mooning. The applicant requests the variance based on the following information: "During the building of this dwelling the height--proximity to the property line ratio was met by staying 10 feet away from the property line. N.ew regulations assess the dwelling to be 1.07 feet too high to be at this distance (10'} to the property lane. X therefore wish to apply for a variance to make this project possible." The Department of Commu;:it;r Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the honing Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of th e. requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As the proposed addition is an enclosure of an existing ~ roofed area, the requested variance would have no adverse impact on the adjoining properties or on the neighborhood as a whole. ' F The degree to which relief from the stirct or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified xegulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites.in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this c~~~~,inance without grant of specia? privilege. _~ -- -- __ _______ The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance have beem met _~_the applicant_ in that .the existing house conformed to the original zoning orclnnace, and it is the height of the existing dwelling and not of the proposed addition wha.ch necessitates the variance, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Due to the height and location of .the existing residence and attached carport, it would be impossible for the owner to construct the proposed addition without approval of the variance. Most of the residences in the Sandstone area were constructed when the 10 foot setback requirement was in force; thus, we do not feel that ', ~ approval would be grant of special privilege. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health ,_ safety,_or Vwelfare,~or materially injur~.ous to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the above factors. The proposed addition is compatible with the character and bulk of its surrounding neighbors and no adverse impact on other structures will be created. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or un- necessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. C. The strict ox literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, r1 U ' We do not feel the approval of the requested variance would be a grant oir special privilege. Similar variances were granted to allow enclosure of existing carports or garages (Davis and Billups) where it was not desirable or .practical to add additional bulk where existing goofed areas could be used, The Department of Community recommends approval of this variance • • « y • MEMORANDUM T0; Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE; July 1, 1976 RE; Sunbird Setback Variance Request The applicant has requested a setback variance that would allow a stairway to be constructed over the Sunbird Lodge property line and onto property owned by Vail Associates who will share i.n the cost and use of the proposed stairway. The purpose of the request is set forth in the variance application (see attached application) The Department of Cammunity Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the 2aning Ordinance. Our conclusions are as follows: FACTORS: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. All existing structures adjacent to the property are compatible with the pxopased stairway. There does not appear to be a conflict with existing or potential use and structures in the vicinity. The Gondola Terminal is considering redesign in the near future. However, the proposed stairway does not appear to conflict with the proposed redesign in so far as it has been discussed to date. The degree to which relief literal interpretation and regulation is necessary to and uniformity of treatmen vicinity, or to attain the ordinance without grant of from .the strict or enforcement of a specified achieve compatibility t among sites in the objectives of this special privilege. Sunbird ,; Page Two The honing Ordinance provided that exterior stairwa s are '~ considered as part of the building. The principle reason for~he variance request is to improve pedestrian circulation in that portion of Lionshead. The design of the Lionshead ball did not provide for adequate pedestrian circulation from projects located on West Lionshead Circle. With: the completion of the Lions Square Project, Antlers, and the Mark considerable increases in pedestrian traffic have occured. The location of an additional bus stop at the terminius of West Lionshead Circle has also contrib ufed to an increase in pedestrian traffic flow. The present access to the Lionshead Mall in inconvenient for pedestrians in that it adds considerable distance to the principal destination point on. the mall which is the the Gondola Terminal. The proposed stairway will considerably shorten the walking distance. In our view, it is a desirable obje~ive to seek to irr~prove the efficiency of the mall system whey ver possible. Therefore, any similar proposal. for projects in the vicinity would be considered on comparable mertis, Consequently, we do not view this proposal as a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, and traffic facilities,. public facilities, and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. The proposed stairway should significantly improve pedestrian circulation in the area. We suggest to Vail Associates that they consider improving the area immediately east of the stairway in order to expedite the flow of returning ski ers to West Lionshead high density lodging area from the south side of the Terminal, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No other factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, saf ety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: 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. Sunbird • ;Page Three The specific location for the stairway a.s the only place where an additional access to the pedestrian mall can be made. It allows for a direct access into the Gondola Terminal as well as a midpoint penetration of the mall system. Therefore, the proposed stairway can be considered an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance request, • r: MEMORAI~TDUM T0: Planning Corrunssion FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 1, 1976 RE; Valhalla Conditional Use Permit to Change Existing Lodge to a Private Club The applicant washes to remodel the existing Valhalla Lodge into a private club containing 16 accommodation units, a dwelling unit of 3956 square feet, 4 employee accommodation units and approximately 1,200 square feet o.f.pravate dining room and lounge. The proposed remodeling would add approximately 16500 square feet to the private residence on the fourth floor; well within the allowabl grfa:~ The existing building now contains 24 accommodation units, 9 dormitory rooms and a large meeting room. The owner had made the application based on the attached information; The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.600 of the Zoning Ordinance, Our conclusions are as .follows: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The purposes for the Public Accommodation District state "The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations fox visitoxs, together with such publa.c and semi--public facilities...and private recreation, and related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district." The proposed use is compatible with the purposes outlined for the district and further achieves the Town's desire to reduce overall density. The existing building use will accommodate approximately 68 people and the proposed use would reduce this to about 36 people. Valhalla . .,. Page Two 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. The proposed conditional use would have a positive impact on the above factors due to the density reduction. 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 the streets and parking areas, Again, there should be a positive impacts particularly since the meeting room has primarily been used to accommodate large wedding receptions and similar functions in exce~~ of 150 people. The proposed private lounge and dining roam if for club guests only and designed to serve at the most 80 people. This change should have a positive affect on traffic, parking and public transportation, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Character of the area will not be changed by the proposed conditional use. The proposed addition to the building is in keeping with the scale and bulk of the existing neighborhood and the new stairtowers increase the conformity with building offset require- ments. All proposed changes conform with the Zoning Ordinance. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Because the existing parking lot a.s 2 spaces too small if the dining room were a public restaurant and bar, the Conditional Use Permit should specifically restrict the operation of the restaurant and bar to private club .members only a,s a condition of the conditional use permit. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Article 16 of this ordinance, No Environmental Impact Report was required as there was no significant impact, fihe Department of Community Development makes the following findings : Valnalla Page Three That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes .of-the district in which the site is located. See statement (1) of criteria and owner's statement regarding the location and the proposed use. FYe feel the proposed location of the use is compatible with the purposes. of the Zoning Ordinance and of the PA District, That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We do not feel the proposed use would be detrimental in any way as the operation would be substantially the same as the current lodge. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The proposed alteration and use is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The parking would not be in compliance with the requirement if the restaurant were open to the public; however, since overall density is being reduced by almost. one-half, there should beno~roblem. The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to set the parking requirement for conditional uses which have no specific requirement and we feel the existing parking is adequate for the proposed use. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Valhalla Lodge. s , ,~ -. ,~ ., _ ,~ The nw owners wish to totally :rein®de1 artd upgrade ;the ex~stin~ ' ...~uZ l~d~ ~ s.p ~t~a~ ~ ,.can fie: oper~t~d `as.~a ~~''~ U~~e e1 ub ~Bas~ ca11 y ;.: • .:' the.'ope.ratomwoul'd.fje s~m~1'"ar`tb th:~ pi^e~~Pn~t1y z~ne~ ,,P 1~';. extent ' -~ ~ ~° ~ that occupancy wool d,.;,be ~ i,m~ ted to ;t~e~bers and ~he~ r, guests In _ ~ - addi t~ on to remodel z n.g .roams ,"'the otivr~er w Shes to have a"--pri vaire ,; t ~- . _ , :: dining i~~om far„~e-~~ng ervo:nt~nei~tal^ type breakfast and limited' y - menu, d~ nners -for their members :; • Th1 s d~ni ng ~ roor~ would riot be opened to the p~1bl i c. . ~ n ~ _ ~ .. ~ - , .. : ' ~ ~ ~ , _ -.: y ;di ffer~ncebetween the r The type of management is the.'on1' p es~nt '. ' zoni rig .and the conditional .use. request .far a cl ub - - -. ., The .number of possible beds h,as begin reduced in:: this. proposal by ~ ^ -` = •• about ~0%. The p1 ans:.~ nc~ ode space for .six tu17 't ~ me .11 ve ~ n -- I e~~pl.oyees .who will be res onsi b1 e .for mairitai ni:ng the bui l ding. ' p. Due ~o the smaller. populat:aon and' rearrangement o,f~ bedrooii~s the . '. • : buy 7~tli=ng wi 11 be safer .and a :':posy ~i ve e.f~ect on: 1•i ght, ~i r, di try fju- . ~ ` ~t~cn``~ o~'. popu1ati~on, transpor~tati.on•; ut~lit~es;_ sehools;':parks~; ei'c.,'• 1 - ~ . .. .. _? ~:, The~new.;proposal wi71. upgrade the qua1~'ty,:~f the b`u=ldirig funct.ioria.l~ly . - _ _ and ~ateri`a11y. `Nearly. 5.0°~~ o'f. th.e bu~'l ding wi 1:1 be rena.vated. °. The `. _ b[~i1di~ wi`11'not-~han a s:ubstantia'!iy .in val~i~me or` visual size ` `~ 9 ~~ ,. - '~ The ro osed desi n wil.l~.~e- in scale w~th,~ts nee hbor~,n bull-dins p . p g ~ ~ `° ~ ~ 1'i~e 'present parking lot wi 11 - 'be upgraded:°to denote`more preci ,~.1y;`' • . . , ass,,gned ~parki ng stalls.. The .entry, into and o.ut of.,~he l.ot iii l1 be_ . . - , `more defined ,a.nd l imi'ted to one standard ,;~~i-ze entry :and ~~~x~ t.... Thi s' - . -. ' . p ~ ~ p t, the st.reet.. .. ~ : : , . w~ll:permia i~ roved lan.dsca ink a. ~ - ~ - ;~, . _ , • .. ,- ~.. ., _ .. - ~. - ~ -. . : 4,. ~ - . ,4 ., a . • . ,. ~- . _- ... ~ - * XS ~ ~~3r ^'~.$m'~'~JFY^a i... .. ~ ~~ ..... ...F.~-•~~~ t .c c.~ .. .~ 5: .. -: .3. ~~ ~' x - n~ ..r'# ~.. t'i't ._, a~.rYi-~a _. 3. ... } ~i. ,s :.. .fa ~ ~.i} MEMORANDUI4I n LJ T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: VAIL RUN - Building Bulk Control Variance to Cover an additional tennis court in an RC zone District DATE: July 1, 1976 Vail Run has applied for a building bulk control variance to allow covering an additional tennis court with an air bubble structure to match the existing structure, The pxoposed bubble, including the existing two courts will be approximately 185' x 1~0' with a diagonal of 220' and with no offsets. The Residential Cluster zone allows a maximum wall length of 100' and requires at least a 10' offset for each 50' of wall length; • the maximum allowable diagonal is l25'. The owner states the basis for hardship as "Such tennis enclosures are not allowed under present code. Any work to the existing structure requires variance approval. The third court is already on the site, and the structure expansion will include an addition to the length of 64' total. Entire bubble will still be within the existing tennis fence area." The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: I'ACTORS : 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The bubble directly adjoins the Vail Run building to the east and the land to the west is vacant and also zoned Vail Run ' ~ Page 2 . Residential Cluster. The Interstate is to the south and Snow Lion is to the north. Zoning for adjacent parcels wauld not allow a building the size of that proposed as a permanent structure to cover the tennis courts. The bulk would be out of scale with exi-sting structures as well. 2. The degree to which relief from the interpretation and enforcement of a tion is necessary to achieve compat fortuity of treatment among sites in or to attain the objectives of this without grant of special privilege. strict or literal specified regula- ibility and uni- the vicinity, ordinance There are no comparable uses or sites in the immediate vicinity. To attain uniformity of treatment with other comparable uses in the Town of Vail, we feel the tennis bubble could be allowed as a temporary, winter use if it were removed in the . Spring as are the Vail Racquet Club and Vail Intermountain bubbles. The objectives of the ordinance are not met by in- stalling a structure which is twice the bulk normally allowed in the zone district. A zoning amendment is now before the Town Council which would allow the bubble to be in place for seven months in any twelve month period. We feel that approval of the variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by any other property owner in the Town. 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. There would be no impact on the above items. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. i Perhaps the most important factor which should be considered is one of aesthetics. The all white bubble is Vail Run Page 3 . extremely visible against the green of the background and the sate itself is very visible from the Interstate, the Frontage Road and from the entire LionsRidge area. if it were to be in place only in the winter months with snow on the ground, it fades very well into the background and becomes less of an aesthetic detriment. The Department of Community Development has considered the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsis- tent with the limitations on other properties or improvements in the same district. We feel the approval of the variance would, in fact, be a grant of special privilege which would be inconsistent with . other properties in the same district.. Na building bulk cantrol variances, with the exception of offsets, have ever been granted in any multip7_e-family residential district within the Town of Vail as one of the express purposes of the boning ordinance is to control total bulk of structures, whether for recreation or habitation. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detri~ mental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Department feels that. the addition to an already non-conforming structure, which is nearly twice the allowable size, could be detrimental or materially injurious to other properties and improvements in the vicinity from an aesthetic point of view. Nearly every residential unit in Lionsridge has a direct view of the tennis bubble and the proposed addition. ' -, Vail Run ` Page 4 8. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: {a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The literal interpretation would result in practical difficulty in that a tennis court cannot be covered within the building bulk control limitations; however, we feel the solution to the practical difficulty is met with the alternative of allow- ing the bubble as a temporary use. We find no physical hardship outlined in the application or apparant on the site. (b) There are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or donditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. We find no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site. (c) The strict or literal interpretation and en- forcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. ~o other owner in the Town of Vail enjoys the privilege for which the applicant is asking. The Department of Community Development recommends disapproval of the requested variance in view of the fact that no physical hardship exists and any practical difficulty is being resolved by a proposed zoning amendment which should be approved in the near future. r~ w P~.ANNIN~ CQMMISSIOf~ July 15, 1976 There was no business to be discussed at this r~eeting, so the greeting was called oi•f. PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda July Z2, ]976 1. Resubdivision of Lot 27, 81ock 2, Vail Village 13th Filing -- presentation of final plat 2. Land Mark -- Setback Request • U PLANNING COMMISSION Summary July 22, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Gerry White RESI~BDiUISION OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE lath FILING -- FINAL ALAI Roger 7elkimeyer, representing Uai7 Associates, presented the final plat of the resubdivision of Lot 27, Bloclc 2, Vail Uillage lath Filing to the Planning Commission, They had preliminarily reviewed this request at a meeting earlier this month. Gerry White made a motion to recommend approval of the request; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A 3-0 vote was recorded in favor of the motion (Dan Corcoran abstained}. LANDMARK -~ SETBACK REQUEST Since the information submitted to the Planning Commission was incomplete, Dan Corcoran made a motion to table discussion on this request until the July 29 meeting; Aam Garton seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. e ~r PLANNING COIvIMISSION Agenda July 29, 1976 1, Ski Club Vail. -- Conditional Use Permit 2, Landmark -- Setback Variance • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary duly 29, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT; Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bi11 Hanlon Gordon Pierce Gerry White PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY After interviewing Sandy Mills, Erwin Bachrach,Sam Edwards, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Town Council the appointment of Ed Drager with Oran Palmateer as an alternate. SKI CLUB VAIL ~.- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Attached is the staff memo which describes the application. After dise~ission with the applicant and the staff, Dan Corcoran made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the conditional use permit for Ski Club Vail, LANDIVIARK R^ SETBACK VARIANCE Attached is the staff memo which describes the application, After discussion with the applicant and the staff, B~,11 Hanson made a motion to recommend approval of the application; Gerry White seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion, The Planning Commission unanimously directed to staff to have the Zoning Ordinance printed and bound, They would like to see tkiis done within 60 days , C~ Consideration of factors (Section 19.600); T0: PLANNING COI44MISSION FROM: DEPARTPIIENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: LANDMARK SETBACK VARIANCE DATE: JULY 29, 1975 Landmark Condominium Association has requested a setbaca:: vari- ance to allow construction of roof structure to cove~~ existing deck area. New roof is approximately S' from the north property line along its length, with one entrance area at the property line. The required setback under current zoning regulations is approximately 31' due to the height of the building. i-nNi~IORANDUM 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The location of the requested variance is adjacent to the Vail Associates parking structed, The proposal in the vicinity, Other ice problems in a simil of tall buildings where long. lot on which no buildings will be con- will have no impact on any other building structures should be encouraged to solve ar manner particularly on the north sides ice is a continual problem all winter 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regula- tion is necessary to acheive compatibility and uni- formity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The intent of the setback requirement is to prevent build- • ings from being constructed too close together and thus crowding their sites. As there wi11 be no structures to the north, we feel the intent of the setback requirement has been met by the applicant, The declaration of purposes for the zoning ordinance state: "To secure safety from ... accumulation of snow, and Landmark Page 2 • other dangerous conditions," We feel the roof addition is in line with the declaration of purposes stated in the ordinance and that granting the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilit~.es, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance would have no impact on population, transportation, traffic or utilities. The day skier parking lot would not be adversely affected by the proposal as there is a large, landscaped berm and a significant elevation change between the parking lot and the proposed covered deck, There would be a positive impact on public safety as the ice buildup at the entrance of the townhouse units is dangerous and the roof structure would help prevent the ice accumulat~.on. Findings: 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 district. See item 2 under Consideration of Factors, page one, We feel that approval of the requested variance would not be a grant of special privilege. Most of the buildings in the Lionshead area were constructed uncbr the former zoning ordinance which required a 10' setback and most exterior modifications would requixe a similar variance. The roof structure as proposed improves the north facade of the Landmark building and makes it more desirable for the guest. 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. Landmark Page 3 • We think that the proposed variance will, be beneficial to the public safety in that it could prevent "slip and fall" type accidents. The proposed variance would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity, 3, That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. There could be physical hardship created by any other type of solution to the ice problem as the concrete deck where the problem exists has been in place since the construction of the building which makes heating of the deck area impractical as it • serves as the roof of the parking structure beneath the deck area, Approval of the variance is consistent with the objectives of the ordinance as stated in the declaration of purpose for the zoning ordinance. (b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, See statement of physical characteristics of the deck area in (a} above, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. , i TO: r~ I4~EPQORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 29, 1976 RE : SI{I CLUB VAIL CONDITIONAL USE PERI~'IIT Russ Speirn, representing Ski Club Vail has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow approximately 31000 sq, ft. to be constructed in an Agricultural zone district to be used as administrative and meeting space for Ski Club Vail with the possibility of sharing the facility with Town of Vail and CMC recreation programs. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.600 of the zoning ordinance. Our conclusions are as follows: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Gold Peak area where the facility is proposed has developed a recreational oriented character and the proposed Ski Club Vail use is in keeping with this established character, The development objectives of the Town for this area are to maintain the open space and recreational use pattern,~~ fi,he objectives have been met in that the building design does not detract from the green space anal is recreational in nature, The purpose statement for the Agricultural district states; "The Agricultural and Open Space District is intended to pre serve ,.,open space lands from intensive development while permitting.,,certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also suitable in the Agricultural and Open r Ski Club Vail Page 2 Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominately open, 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, The impact an park and recreation facilities could be a very positive one in that the Town of Vail will possibly share the building during the summer months when it is nat being used by Ski Club Vail, It could serve as storage and meeting area for a diverse range of recreation programs. There could be an impact on the transportation system in that no on-site parking is proposed and members will be dependent upon the bus service. There should, however, be little change since Ski Club Vail has always used the Gold Peak Area for activities, Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and con- venience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera- bility' and removal of snow from th.e streets and parking areas, Particular attention must be given to the alignment, turning radius and design of the driveway to prevent traffic congestion as parents drag off children. Effort will be re- quired to prevent parking in the drop-off area--which could become a police problem, Driveway should be designed in such a manner to allow one-way entry and exit and exiting to either east or west without congesting traffic along Vail Valley Drive, We strongly recommend an entrance from the top of the structure for the purpose of pedestrian safety. Since a Large number of children congregate at the same time, entrance away from the , Ski Club Vail Page 3 street and auto drop-o~~ area would be desirable. Special attention should also be ga.ven to driveway design to facilitate snow removal, both from the public street and from the drive, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relat~.ons to surrounding uses. See previous comments relating to the character of the general area and purposes of the zone. The scale and bulk of the project are minimal since most of the structure is below grade. We would suggest that the front of the structure be further concealed so not to have the appearance of a store front, We would further suggest that the retaining walls and facia match the stone accents at Manor Vail, °~ Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The need for a permanent facility for Ski Club Vail has been a major one for some time. The Club has grown to the point that the temporary facilities are not adequate for an important gxowing program, The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Article 16 of this Ordinance, No Environmental Impact Report was required as there is na significant environmental impact, Berming and sodding over the top and sides of the structure should respect the natural landforms surrounding the recessed structure. The Department of Community Development makes the fol- lowing findings; That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. ., Ski Club Vail Page 4 See statements in criteria and findings, We feel that the proposed location of the use is compatible with the pur- poses of the zoning ordinance and of the Agricultural and Open Space district. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We do not feel that the proposed use would be detrimental in any way if the traffic and design suggestions arecommended are followed by the applicant, That the proposed use wi11 comply with each of the appli- cable provisions of this ordinance, The proposed use and structure is in compliance with all • of the regulations of the zoning ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to set the parking requirement for conditional. uses which have no specific requirement and we feel that additional parking in this location is not appropriate. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the suggested modifications, L J • ~ • p ~ A & ~ ENl"ERP~I S ~S, I N C. . ``'~ , ,P. O. 19ox 955 VAI'L, COLORADO 81657 476-52G6 August 2, 1976 APPLICATION FOF~, CONDITIONAL b'SE ~t~t~n.'IrT by A Rc D Il~'1r~xISES, INC 286 Bridge Street Vail, Colo. The proposed use as a business office for ]..ease to a real estate company is fairly self explanatory. The office will acca~ramodate a real estate sales staff which will transact business relevant to the sale and purchase of real estate, primarily property situated in the Vail. area. The proposed use is certainly compatible with other properties in the vicinity. There are six real estate offices within a half block, including orae already in the building (Byron Brown}, and three in immediately adjacent buildings, (Garton, Arthur Bishop, and Kelton}. Changes in the promises to be used for these offices wall consist mainly of refurbishing ar~d redecorating. 7.~e proposed use is in line with development objectives of the Town of Vail; i.e, vehicular traffic will be reduced because of less "personal" business {wiloading groceries, laundry, kids, various bulky itans, etc.); less "long term" vehicular parking (these apartments have generated five to ten "permanent" vehicles in the past plus the usual influx of vehicles belonging to "guests"). The applicant is of the opinion that the residential units being eliminated are not suitable far dwelling; because of the location at the busiest corner in Vail, thus being subject to a great amount of noise and congestion that greatly reduces the ability far residents to maintain a decent quality living environment. ~camples of the noise level are - noise from Vail`s two largest night clubs which are immedia.te]~y adjacent to the prc~iises; street bands and brass ensembles; entertainers at various restaurants; early morning street sweepers, snow plows, delivery trucks and trash removal. vehicles; and general noise being generated by pedestrians in the street. Economic factors, primarily reduced volume in the applicant`s retail liquor store operation because of restricted vehicular traffic, plus steadily increasing expenses such as taxes, utilities, insEZrance, payrolls; and general. inflation, has caused the applicant to seek additional revenues in order to offset these factors Gvhich are compounded by the fact that the building in question is now unique in Commercial. Core I because of its size, mid its revenue producin; capabilities are definitely hindered because of this limitation. r Conditional Use Permit Page -- Ttvo The applicant feels that the "change of use" should be permitted in order that the subject property may more readzly be comparable to the configt.iration of similar properties in the immediate area x.e. Pension Isabel, Clock Tower Building, Rucksack Building, Gondola Ski Shop, Covered Bridge Store Building and the Gore Creek Plaza. u ~ ~ .~M MEMQRANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 26, 1976 RE; Jonine Hixon Setback Variance North 2 of Lot 2, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition Ms. Jonine Hixan has requested a setback variance to allow retaining a patio structure that an unlicensed contractor con- structed. without benefit of a permit. The patio is appraximately 3 feet from the east & west properly line as is the existing house. The required setback under current zoning regulations is 10'. The Site is zoned MDMF. Consideration of Factors (Section 19.600) 1. The re~.ationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential. uses and structures in the vicinity. The location of the requested variance identical unit with the same parch design and lot owned by Vail lsast 1~odging. The proposal impact on any other building in the vicinity. should be encouraged to make small units mare for long-term residents. is adjacent to an to the south is a will have no adverse Similar structures livable and attractive 2. The degree to which relief from the stra.ct 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 ordinance without grant of special privi].e~;~e. The intent of the setback requirement is to prevent buildings . from being constructed too close together and thus crowding their sites. Tire existing house is 3' from th:e properly line and the • porch is nit more non--con:torming. The very small lots created by subdivision in I3i~;horn prior to annexation mare it impossible: to moot current setback: regulations and still maintain good aesthetic design. v vas .r.uu as ~.nvaa 8/Z6/ 7fi Page Two We feel, the porch addition is in line with the declaration of purposes stated in the ordinance and that granting the variance would not be a grant of special privilege as the small site creates a physical hardship. 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 requested variance would have no impact on population, transportation, traffic or utilities. FINDINGS; 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 district. Bee Item 2 under Consideration of Factors, Page 1, ~Ye feel that approval of the requested variance would not be a grant of special privilege. All of the buildings in the Vail East Lodging ax ea were constructed prior to annexation and zoning, and most exterior modifications would require a similar variance. The parch structure as constructed improves the south facade of the dwelling and makes it more desirable for the longterm resident. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public Health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. The proposed variance would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity, and adjoining property owners have voiced no objections to the variance. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: {a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance.. There a.s a physical hardship created by the small size of the site and the location of the existing house, The contractor a7.so created <t hardship in constructing the deck, although it is a financial hardship which we cannot consider. Approval of the . variance is consistent witl2 the objectives of the ordinance as stated in the declaration of purpose for the zrani.~ig ordinance. V vaa i }A lJ AA JL f1 VLA "8 j~6 j76 Page Three 3, cont. {b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the site a~ the variance that da not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. See statement of physical characteristics of the property and location of the existing house. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance with the condition that a building permit be obtained and the handrails which do not meet the Uniform Building Code requiremeni;s be corrected and the Design Review Board's approval sought, • • PLANNING C0~'~ItSIiSION Agenda August 5, 1976 Silbey/Tofel Theater ~.~- conceptual presentation • r~ PLANNING C01~i~:RISSION Summary August 5, 1976 MEt~~IBERS PRESENT Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Sandi 1!~ills Bill Hanlon Gordan Pierce Gerry L'Vhite n U PRELIMINARY LOOK AT POSSIBLE UNDERGROUND THEATER Jeff Silbey and Ron Todd presented a plan for an underground movie theater with landscaping and parking on top which they called scheme B, Scheme A had a Commercial space and parking on top, Diana Toughill explained the legal aspects of the property {the illegal sub-division) sa the Commission was aware of the problems involved, The Planning Commission suggested that the plans be reviewed by the Town Council and Eldon Beck, Informally the Planning Commission was in favor of Scheme B with reservations due to the tremendous legal problems and possible number of variances required. INVESTIGATION OF 500 YEAR I'LOOD PLAIN Dudley Abbott made a specific motion for an investigation of the 500 Year Flood Plain, which was seconded by Gordon Pierce and voted unanimously by the Planning Commission, Diana Toughill said she would contact Hydro»~triad. BUILDING BOOKLET Gordon Pierce made a specific suggestion of having a Building Booklet to help prospective builders in Vail, Diana Toughill stated that she and dim Lamont have been working on this for the past 22 years but due to the heavy work load they haven't progressed very far, Gordon Pierce also, suggested on Planning Commission days when there wasn't a large agenda perhaps the members could work on the booklet and then the staff could edit it. • AGENDA PLANNING COMMTSSION August 12, 1976 1, Vail Racquet Club - Request for Conditional Use Permit far club including restaurant and bar 2, Cornice - Request for Conditional Use Permit for real estate office in HDM~' gone 3, Vail East Lodging - Request for rezoning of Lot 3, Block 9 and lf2 of Lot 1, Block S, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition, 4. Crossroads Cinema ~ Request for joint use parking for 71 additional. theater seats, a • CJ • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary August 12, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT; Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Sandi Mills Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Gerry White VAIL RACQUET CLUB Walter Kirch representing the Vail Racquet Club requested a Conditional Use Permit for the club including a restaurant and bar, Gerry White made a motion to recommend approval of the request; Dan Corcoran seconded the motion in accordance with staff recommendations. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion, CORNICE • Mike Palmer and Ross Davis, Jr „ and Malcalm Hunt requested a Conditional Use Permit for real estate office in HDMF zone, Gerry white made a motion to recommend denial of the request based on staff recommendations, Bill Hanlon seconded the motion; Gordon Pierce opposed, Request was denied. The owners further requested approval of a driveway which. encroaches a street right~of~-way and to fence anal landscape a small green belt area. Motion was made by Gerry White to recommend approval to the Council, seconded by Bill Hanlon. Vote was unanimous to recommend approval, VAIL EAST LODGING Erika McCall requested rezoning of Lot 3, Block 9 and ~ of Lot 1, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition, Dan Corcoran made a motion. to recommend approval of request; Gerry White seconded the motion in accordance with staff recommendations. A unanimous vote was recorded in savor of the motion, CROSSROADS CINEMA Rod Todd and Merv Lapin requested for aoint--use parking for 71 additional theater seats, Gerry White made a motion to recommend approval of request; Dan Corcoran • seconded the motion in accordance with staff recommendations. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion, ,. , MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSTON FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1976 RE: Request fox Rezoning of Lot 3, Block 9 and z of Lot 1, Block 8, Third Addition, Mrs, Erika McCall, representing Vail. East Lodging, has requested that subject property located in the Bighorn area be rezoned, Applicant requests that Lot 3 be rezoned from Medium Density Multiple Family to Agricultural and that Lot 1 be rezoned from Low Density Multiple Family to Agricultural Lot 3 is 13,942.12 sq, ft. (.320 acres) and the ~ of Lot 1, is 6,520.57 sq, ft, (.149 acres) and are presently zoned for 10 dwelling units. The requested down- zaning would reduce the density to allow no dwelling units, The re-- zoning is requested as the applicant feels that the topography and vegetation of the lot are not compatible with development and has no desire to see more units constructed in the area. The reduction of density is in line with the Town of Vail policy; however there could be a .question of spot zoning as the • surrounding land use is of a higher density character. Even with the possible ramifications, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested rezoning. C7 THE MORTER/TODD PARTNERSHIP, AIA August lO, 1976 The Town Council and The Planning Commision of The Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Council and Commission: On October 1, 1976, the Crossroads Cinema is to come under new management. The new tenant desires to undertake extensive remodeling of the existing theater. One phase of the improvements package, would involve the removal of twelve ex- isting seats, and the addition of approximately eighty new seats, becoming a second smaller theater, thus creating a "twin-cinema" concept. The Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance provides that parking shall be provided in the amount of one space per ten seats for a theater occupancy. During 1973, with the authority set forth in the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance #7, Series of 19fi9, Article III, Section 3, the Town Council allowed the existing Crossroads Cinema a joint-use parking status in the amount of 28 spaces for the 272 seats in the theater. As I understand it, the basis for this decision was the reali- zation that few of the remaining Crossroads business establishments were open at the same time as the theater. Therefore the parking requirements would not come into conflict with one another. Since the proposed remodeling will add a net of 62 additional seats, the total seating capacity will be 334, and its new parking requirement will be 34 spaces. Section 14.400 of the current Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance #8, Series of 1973, provides that the Town Council may permit jointly used parking facili- ties. Therefore, on beha]f of our client, we respectively ask joint-use per- mission for the additions] six parking spaces. As a point of additional information, the current Crossroads- complex 21,1 total parking spaces. If all of the potential nighttime tenants peak operation, the parking demand according to the Zoning Ordinance only 91 spaces, {Crossroads Cinema -- 34; Village Market - 18; Burger Tramps - 15; Baskin-Robbins - 5; and 17nc1e Ern's - 6). In addition, ski season, the parking control syster~ will be kept operational until is over, thus assuring proper operation and control of the 211 spaces We appreciate your consideration of this request. You s truly, ~. Ronald A. Todd THE MORTAR/TODD PARTNERSHIP, AIA cc. Bill Pence contains were at would be King - 13; during the the movie(s) available. CROSSROADS AT VAIL BOX 1180 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 476-5105 MEMORANDUr,~f • T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPIYZENT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1976 RE: JAMES M. PALMER REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE OFFICE ~- CORPdICE BUILDING The staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request according to Section 15,600 of the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments: The applicant has requested that two existing dwelling units consisting of approximately d64 square feet,. located on the ground floor of the Cornice Building be converted to a real estate office. The request does not require a parking variance, Subject building is located in an HDMF zone district. ~'ACTOF~S Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The purposes for the HDMF zone district states "Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, where permitted are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district," We do not feel that a real estate office is harmonious with the residential character of the building, The Cornice provides affordable employee housing near the core area and removal of this rare type of housing unit does not seem compatible with the Towns desire to keep a balance of housing (particularly longterm employee units) and commercial space, Cornice Page 2 ~'~~e feel that it is imperative that the commercial area be limited to the CCl area and not allowed to spread into the areas which are primarily residential in nature, Effect of the use on light and airs distribution of pope- lation, transportation facilities! and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The primary concern is one of distribution of population. We believe that long-term residents should be encouraged in the area. Further, since there are no parking spaces on the site, there will be slight impact on the transportation center. The applicant has also requested that he be allowed to put a driveway for loading and unloading on the site. We would strongly recommend that such a driveway not be approved as it could create a tremendous traffic hazard due to the steep hill, curve and narrow bridge, . Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to conges- Lion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas, A real estate office could contribute additional traffic in an already congested area where no on-site parking is available. We fear that customers will double park along the roadway which would create an unsafe traffic condition, and make snow plowing a problem, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses, We feel the proposed use would have a negative impact on the residential character of the neighborhood. The surrounding uses (Apollo Park, Texas Townhouses, Vorlaufer, Grey &Whites) are all primarily residential in character. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems i ' Cornice Page 3 applicable to the proposed usee Applicant has stated that he intends to do a great deal of landscaping and general rehabilitation on the site and the build- ing, We feel this is an important site visually and should be given a general face-lifting, As a part of the application, the owner has requested permission to fence a small triangular area east of the building which is owned by the Town of Vail, Pedestrians are cutting through the lot and have worn a pathway through the grass. The small tract of land is isolated from other green belt areas and would benefit from additional landscaping as requested by the applicant, and the fence would be necessary to protect the land- scaping, The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Article 16 of this ordinance. No environmental impact report was required as there is no significant environmental impact, The Department of Community Development makes the following findings; That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the pruposes of this ordinance and the pruposes of the district in which the sit e. is located, We do not feel that a real estate office is in keeping with the purpose section of the HDMF district since it does not relate to the Vail visitor as a resory oriented business, That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and would be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, The probable traffic problems which could be created by the proposed. office where no on-site parking is available could be Cc3rnice Page ~k detrimental to the public safety, and detrimental to the residential. character of the nbighiaorhood, That the proposed use will comply with each of the appli- cable provisions of this ordinance. The request is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, The Department of Community Development recommends dis-- approval of the Conditional Use Permit. • • I~dElt~ORANDUM • T0: PLANNTNG COMMISSION FROM; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1976 RE: RACQUET CLUB ~- REQUEST FOR CONDTTTONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLUB INCLUDING RESTAURANT AND BAR FACILITIES Mr, Walter Kirch, representing the Vail Racquet Club, has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a club which would include a restaurant and bar facility. This use was pre- viously approved as an accessory use by the Planning Commission and Town Council; however, upon recommendation of Larry Rider, the zoning ordinance was amended to allow clubs as a conditional use in a Medium Density Multiple Family zone district, iE The Department of Community development reviewed the application previously as the zoning ordinance amendment was pro- posed and at that time recommended appxoval, • .. _~ • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda August 26, 1976 1. A & D Enterprises Request for Conditional Use Permit to convert 2 dwelling units into a Real Estate Office Z. AAA Acme Hair Cutting Company Request for Conditional Use Permit far Barber Shop 1st floor level in the Mill Creek Court Building 3. Jonine Hixon _~ Request for Setback Variance'to ;allow patio addition 4. Discussion of Appointment of Planning Commissioner to Design Review Board (for 6--month term) • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: August 26, 1976 RE: A & D Enterprises to Allow Conversion of Two Dwelling Units to a Real Estate Office The staff has reveiwed the Conditional Use Permit request according to Section 18.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments: REQUEST: The applicant has requested that two existing dwelling units consisting of approximately 900 square feet each, located on the second floor of the A & D Building be converted to a real estate office. The request would not require a parking variance. 1. FACTORS: A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. B. The purpose statement of the Horizontal Zoning Ordinance is to maintain the mixture of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Com- mercial Care I so as to protect the existing character of the area. Our principal concern with the converstion of this type of unit (GRFA l,$00 square feet) is that long- term housing is relatively xa~e in the CCI area. Of the total estimated GRFA allocated to dwelling and accommodation units, long-term rental. housing accounts for only approximately 15% of the total estimated square feet in CCI. These units constitute 4% of the sq--., ft . allocated for this type of dwelling unit. Due to the limited availability of this housing type, we believe it would have significant impact on the desirable mix that currently exists in CCI. A & D ENTERPRISES • ~ 8/26/76 $age Two C. Effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Our principal concern under this factor would be the distribution of population. We believe that the size of these units make them condusive to permanent residents, which we feel is desirable. D, Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and canvenience,traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. We foresee no major conflict with these considerations, The applicant states that traffic Will be reduced because of less "personal" business trips such as unloading groceries, etc, E. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to sur- rounding uses. Assuming that character refers primarily to physical concerns, we see no .conflict with this provision. The real estate office is a permitted use on second floors under horizontal zoning. F. Such other factors and critexia as the Commission deems applicable to the propose use. Crowley.and previous applicants state that the noise emanating from the Nu Gnu and Gartons',which are located adjacent to the dwelling units in question, make the units undesirable for housing. We suggest .that the Planning Cammission__visit the. units in the evening to determine the reported negative effect of noise, The applicant. has inferred that economic conditions have changed in the district which has encouraged him to consider conversion to a commercial use. As the Planning Commission is aware, we are not able to accept these reasons for justification of the request because they are concerned with economic factors. _ A & D ENTERPRISES ,8/26/76 Page Three It is of the concern to the staff that several changes have occurred within the Schrober and McBride Buildings within the last several years which are changing the xesidential character of the area. 100% of the building would be in non-residential uses. Assuming that 64% of the total area allocated .to residential uses is the average in CCI, this building would exceed the average for the entire CCI area. The Planning Commission may want to consider the proposition that no building should be allowed to convert beyond a standard percentage level. We should consider the consequences of continuing to increase available commercial space in CCI. Figures indicate that major new areas of commercial use are becoming available or are under- utilized. By limiting expansion of commercial uses in CCI, it may have the effect of improving utilization of other commercial areas. II. FINDINGS The followirng findings must be made prior to granting a Conditional Use Permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes. of the district in which the site is located.. The horizontal zoning ordinance specifically states "..,it has been and continues to be the intent of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to maintain and preserve the nature and character of the Vail commercial. area...with a mixture of residential and commercial uses...and to prevent entire buildings... from becomming c~~~,~~~ercial space at the expense of dwelling and accommodation units." The proposed use creates a building that is totally commercial. which is in direct opposition to the purpose stated for zoning in CCI. n A & D ENTERPRISES ,8/26/76 Page Four 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not. be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We feel the proposed location of the use, since it eliminates two longterm dwelling units, would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and would be injurious to the character of the CCI area. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The proposed use does conform with applicable provisions of the ordinance. The Department of Community Development recommends disapproval of the Conditional Ilse Permit based on the foregoing criteria and findings. • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: August 26, 1976 RE; Conditional Use Permit AAA Acme Hair Cutting Company Mr, Bill McElhaney has requested a conditional use permit to enable him to convert the area which was formerly Vail Securities on the ground floor of the Mill Creek Court Building to a,-barber shop and retail beauty supply shop. A building permit was inadvertently issued and remodeling completed before the applicant was informed . of the need for a Conditional Use Permit. Upon review of Section 18.600 "Cr~.teria and Findings", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: i. Relationship and impact of the__us.e on_ deve_lopment objectives of the Town. ~--~~--- No negative impact is created on development objectives of the Town. The space opens on the interior court yard of the building and not on a pedestrian way and is therefore not as desirable for a retail shop. 2. 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. No negative effects are created by the proposed Conditional Use permit. 3. 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 the streete anal parking areas, AAA ACME HAIR CUTTING COMPANY ,8/26/76 ` Page Two . 3. cont. The applicant is not proposing a use which would generate customer vehicular traffic; therefore., negative impact from customer traffic is not expected 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located...in xelation to surrounding uses. No negative impact on the character of the area or on the scale or bulk of surrounding uses. A 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No other factors should be considered. 6. No environmental impact report is required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: • 1. The use is compatible with the terms of the horizontal zoning amendment in that the proposed use will occupy previous office space and the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the ordinance and the district in which it is located. Z. The proposed location on the .interior malt and the conditions under which the barber shop will be;operated will not be detrimental .to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The noise, odor and traffic levels will not have a detrimental affect on the current uses within the building nor on uses within surrounding buildings, 3. The proposed use.wiil comply with each of the applicable provision of the ordinance. • ~ a • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August ~6, 1976 RE; Jonine Hixon Setback Variance North 2 of Lot 2, Black 8, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition Ms. Jonine Hixon has requested a setback variance to allow retaining a patio structure that an unlicensed contractor con- strutted without benefit of a permit. The patio is approximately 3 feet from the east & west properly line as is the existing house. The required setback under current zoning regulations is 10'. The site is zoned MDMF. Consideration of Factors (Section 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The location of the requested variance identical unit with the same porch design and lot owned by Vail East Lodging. The proposal impact on any other building in the vicinity.. should be encouraged to make small units more for 1ong~term residents. is adjacent to an to the south is a will have no adverse Similar structures livable and attractive 2. The degree to which relief from the stxict 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. The intent of the setback requirement is to prevent buildings from being constructed too close together and thus cr.Qwd.ingtheir sites. The existing house is 3' from the properly Line and the porch is not mare non-conforming. The very small lots created by subdivision in Bighorn prior to annexation make it impossible to meet current setback regulations and still maintain good aesthetic design. Jonine Hixon ~S/26/?6 Page Two We feel the porch addition is in line with the declaration of purposes stated in the ordinance and that granting the variance would not be a grant of special privilege as the small site creates a physical hardship. 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 requested variance would have no impact on population, transportation, traffic or utilities. FINDINGS; 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 district. • See Item 2 under Consideration of Factors, Page 1. We feel that approval of the requested variance would not be a grant of special privilege. All of the buildings in the Vail East Lodging area were constructed prior to annexation and zoning, :and most exterior modifications would require a similar variance. The porch structure as constructed improves the south facade of the dwelling and makes it more desirable for the long-term resident. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties car improvements in the vicinity. The proposed variance would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity, and adjoining property owners have voiced no objections to the variance. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons (a) The strict or literal. interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. • There is a physical hardship created by the small size of the site and the location of the existing house, The contractor also created a hardship in constructing the deck, although it is a financial hardship which we cannot consider. Approval of the variance is consistent with the objectives of the ordinance as stated in the declaration of purpose for the zoning ordinance. ' Jonine Hixon ,8/26/76 Page Three 3, cont. (b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to-other properties in the same zone. See statement of physical characteristics of the property and location of the existing house. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance with the condition that a building permit be obtained and the handrails which do not meet the Uniform Building Code requirements be corrected and the Design Review Board's approval ~, sought. • • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 26, 1976 RE: Conditional Use Permit AAA Acme Hair Cutting Company Mr, Bill blcElhaney has requested a conditional use permit to enable him to convert the area which was formerly Vail Securities on the ground floor of the Mill Creek Court Building to a~barber shop and retail beauty supply shop. A building permit was inadvertentlq issued and remodeling completed before the applicant vas informed of the need for. a Conditional Use Permit. Upon review of Section 18.600 "criteria and Findings", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following lectors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. No negative impact is created on development objectives of the Town. The space opens on the interior court yard of the building and not on a pedestrian ~vay and is therefore not as desirable for a retail shop, 2. ~;ffect of the use on light and air, distribution of populat~.an, transportation facilities, utilitz.es, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and publ~_c facilities needs. No negative effects are created by the proposed Conditional Use permit. 3: Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traJ:fic flow rznd control, access, maneuverability, and removal ai' snow from the streete and parl~ing areas, A11H AI:ML HEM{ LU'1"i'1NCi C;UMl'Ai~fY , '8/26/76 Page Two 3, cont. The applicant is not proposing a use which would generate customer vehicular traffic; therefore, negative. impact from customer traffic is not expected ~. Effect upon the character of the area in which the praposecl use is to be located...in relation to surrounding uses. No negative impact on the character of the area or on the scale or bulk of surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No other factors should b~ considered. 6. No environmental impact report is required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Fermit be approved based on the following findings: 1. The use is compatible With the terms of the horizontal zoning amendment in that the proposed use will occupy previous office space and the proposed location of the use is in accord With the purposes of the ordinance and the district in which it is located. 2. The proposed location on the interior mall and the conditions under which the barber shop will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ar materially in,~urious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The noise, odor and traffic levels will not have a detrimental affect on the current uses within the building nor on uses within surrounding buildings, 3. The proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provision of the ordinance. i• MEMaRANDUM • T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE; September 2, ]976 RE: Lodge At Lianshead Phase III Building Bulk Control Variance and Parking Variance Lot 6, Resubdivision of Lat 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing Charles R. Anderson, representing the Lodge at Lionshead,has applied fora building bulk control variance and a parking variance. The subject site is located in two different zone districts, HDMF which comprises 29% of the site and NEOMF' which is 71% of the site. A legal decision has been made to • a11ow an averaging of the development requirements for each zone district, ie. .6 GRFA for 29% of the site and .35 GRFA for 71% of the site for the aggregate total allowable. The same process was followed for determining permitted wall length, percdntage.of required covered parking. Based on these calculations, the permitted maximum wall length would be 139.5'. The applicant has requested a wall length of 748.5' or 9' in excess of the allowable length. The applicant has further requested~la parking variance to a11ow 12 covered spaces and 3 uncovered spaces. The requirement is for 14 covered spaces and 10 uncovered spaces. The proposed building consists of 72 condominium units of approximately 1,400 square feet .to 1,850 square feet each and a total GRFA of approximately 18,000 square feet which is the maximum GRFA allowable on the site. The zoning would allow approximately 35 units of a smaller size. Page Two We have asked Edon Beck of RN8&A to review the :proposed project, both • from an aesthetic standpoint and to review its relationship to and impact on Site 24. Eldon's review is attached. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 79.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our con c7usions are as follows: FACTORS: ]. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A. Building Bulk Control The proposed structure is directly adjacent to the proposed ice arena and community facilities structure. There are no other similarly zoned vacant sites in the vicinity except the Clinic/Hospital site which is zoned MDMF. The applicant states that the Lodge at Lionshead I is 12H', Phase II is 160', and Vail International is 240'. The proposed ice arena is approximately 200'. The applicant states the following in support of the bulk control variance: " The physical configuration and natural beauty of Lot 6 place definite design hardships on the development of the site. The southern half of the lot, adjoining the bike path, is heavily treed and provides one of the most beautiful scenic corridors in the area. The northern half of the Tot is sparsely vegetated and generally unp].easantin appearance. It is the opinion of the owners, their architects and the Town of Vail's consultant (See Eldon Beck's Memorandum) that it is preferable to contain develop- ment to the northern half of the property. Therefore, the proposed building was designed within very limited parameters. While preserving open space and the natural qualities of the site, we have been able to comply with all aspects of the applicable zoning except the maximum length requirements. The current design is slightly under its allowable height and GRFA requirements, In many areas the proposed structure complies with ]ow density multi-family standards --specifically:. number of dwelling units, height, most bulk requirements, site coverage, useable open space, landscaped areas, and parking. More significantly for this site the proposed design has 56% less site coverage than allowable and 140% more landscaped area than is required under MDMF standards. Qur useable open space is also significantly above the requirements." Page Three B. Parking Variance • The applicant states the following in support of the variance as it relates to other uses and structures in the vicinity. "1. The Town of Vail has informed us they may ask for an easement across the northeasterly portion of our property for improved access to and from Site 24. If we comply with Article 14, we cannot grant such an easement. 2. That portion of our property fronting Lionshead Circle has a major visual impact on the entrance to Site 24. It is the general opinion of those who have studied the area that landscaping rather than parking would be preferable. (See Eldon Beck's Memorandum) 3. The present conceptual plans for Site 24 indicate beginning a pedestrian area in the same general area where our parking lot would be feeding into Lionshead Circle. Creating additional traffic would seem to be contra-productive to the pedestrian area." 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. • A. Building Bulk Control The applicant has the following observations in support of the variance: "1. The visual impact of the length of the proposed building, Where ever possible, the building has been broken up and landscaped to de-emphasize its length. This is particularly true of that portion of the building facing the front setback which has no wall longer than 25 feet and is heavily landscaped. 3. That the proposed building configuration is the best possible alternative to preserve the scenic beauty and open space of the area because to reduce the length would create far more serious ramifications in the area of building height, buck, site coverage, landscaped aeras and parking, 4. That granting of the requested variance has been recommended by Mr. Eldon Beck, Landscape Architect and Consultant to the Town of Vail. 5. That the design is consistent with the Declared Purpose of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance (Article 1, Section 1.100), which states These regulations are enacted for the purpose of... the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that would conserve and enhance its natural environment..." Page Paur Strict design compliance with the ordinance would necessarily move the building further south and require great site coverage, thus:unnecessarily destroying parts of the scenic corridor." B. Parking Variance Two parking variances, Lionshead Lodge II and Vail International have been granted in the immediate vicinity to preserve landscaping or to allow for additional 1•andscaping. The Town of Vail is not providing parking on Site 24, also in an attempt to preserve the natural beauty of the area Therefore we feel that such compliance ..with the ordinance would clearly create 'practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of (the zoning) ordinance {Article 19, Section 19.100}" 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, A. Building Bulk Control Variance The proposed variance would have a positive impact on light and air as it allows a greater portion of the site to remain open .and in its natural state. There should be little impact on the other factors. . B. Parking Variance Traffic as related to Site 24 and the proposed Lionshead Lodge project should be improved by granting the variance. Theonly area available for additional on,site parking, without encroaching on the heavily forested area south of the building, is on the east side directly adjacent to Site 24 in an area where the Town of Vail will probably seek an easement for bus and pedestrian movement into the Lionshead area. Aublic safety would be promoted by granting the requested variance, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Perhaps the most important factor which should be considered is one of aesthetics. The building could be made conforming to the Zoning Ordinance in all respects; however, the appearance of the building and the site would be less desirable and in conflict with the master plan for Site 24. The Department of Community Development has considered the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties . or improvements in the same district. E Page Five .~ We feel that since the building cou]d be constructed without the need for any variance, there is no special privilege involved, The applicant has, in requesting the variance, honored the integrity of the Site 24 plan and the physical beauty of the site. 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. We feel the public health, safety and welfare is best served by granting the requested variance. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specif~Fed regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. See the applicant's statement under Ttem 1 of. the criteria. A physical hardship is created in an attempt to make the building compatible with plans far Site 24 and by the attempt to maintain the integrity of the site. b. There are exceptional or conditions applicable to apply generally to other The site is the only heavily fors the exception of Site 24 and is therefore special consideration. extraordinary circumstances or the site of the variance that do not properties in the same zone. ~sted lot in the entire Lionshead area with an extraordinary site which warrants The Department of Community Development reocmmends approval of the requested variances in view of the fact that physical hardhsips exist and practical difficulty is created due to the proximity of the proposed ice arena and community facilities center. s .~ PLAI~I~JII~G COP4MISSIOPd AG EEV~A September Z, 1976 1. A & D Enterprises Request for Conditional Use PErmit to convert two dwelling units into a real estate office. 2. AAA Acme Hair Gutting Company Request for Conditional Ilse Permit for barber shop on first floor of Mill Creek Court Building. 3. Jonine Hixon Request: for setback variance to allow patio addition 4. Lionshead Lodge Phase XII Request for Building Sulk Control variance and parking variance. 5. Discussion of appointment of Planning Commissioner to Qesign Review Board (for G-month term). • • 4" ~ ~l4 • P[.ANNTNG COMMISSION SUMMARY September 9, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Bill Manion Sandy Mills Gerry White R & D ENTERPRISES -- REQUEST FORA CONDITIONAL USE HERMIT The applicant, Mr. Charles Crowley, would like permission to convert two dwelling units into a real estate office. He feels that these apartments are too inconvenient to have as dwelling units mainly because of the noise factor and the parking problem. { He played some tapes of recorded noise at different times of the day for the Planning Commission to listen to in order that they see how difficult and "nerve racking" it is to live within the main part of the Care Village.) ( Attached is his formal statement of hardship) The Department of Community Development (memo attached) felt that granting of this variance would not be in keeping with the horizontal zoning amendment,. The mix of social and residential was a key factor to Iife within the Cvre. Gerry White made a motion to deny the request for a conditional use permit and Dan Corcoran seconded the motion, A 5-l vote was recorded in favor of the motion. {Garton opposed because she felt that the Horizontal Zoning Amendment was dictating too much what a property owner could and could not do -- she was very smypathetic with the applicant's case.) AAA ACME FLAIR CUTTING COMPANY -~ REQUEST FOR A CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT Attached is the memorandum from the Department of Community Development describing the request. Bi11 Hanlon made a motion to approve the conditional use permit as outlined in the staff memorandum. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. ~7QNINE FlIxO~J -~ SETBACK VARTANCE The applicant is requesting a setback variance in order to allow a porch that is already built, Diana Toughill gave background information into this request. (Also, a staff memorandum is attached). Dan Corcoran made a motion for approval of the request according to :t he criteria and findings of the staff memorandum, Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the request, ~ "s MEDSKER SETBACK VARIAidCE The Piedsker setback variance was first considered in April and then withdrawn by the applicant. There were no problems with the variance and a motion for approval was made by Corcoran and seconded by White. The motion was unanimous. (Attached is the memorandum under the April 29, 1'976 meeting) A & D BUILDIfJG -- REQUEST FDR CDidDITIDfdAL USE PERMIT An additional hearing was held before the Planning Commission as requested by the Council. It was decided that the noise level indicator, borrowed from EPA, would be placed in one of the empty apartments of the A & U Building to test for noise levels. It was noted that even though this was the low season, some levels would be detected. According to State and EPA data that 45+dBA was barely acceptable and anything above 7DdsA could damage the eardrum. Standard noise levels for Uail had not been agreed upon as of yet. ';~~ It was suggested by Jim Lamont that a «oise Ordinance be created which would set the standards for the area. Ted Keene, owner of the Rucksac Building, commented on living in that area. He said that if was difficult to live within the Core area for the following reasons: unloading of materials, i.e. groceries, furniture, firewood, etc. was very difficult, utility trucks were distracting. He suggested that if a space could be set aside for people occupying these units that conditions might be improved. Charlie Crawley commented on the staff memorandum of last week. The term "desirable mix" was a nebu1us term which really could not be evaluated. "Lang-term" occupancy for the reasons of security was really no guarantee that someone would be in this building every night. If the units were converted to an office, there would be at least some guarantee that there would be someone there every day for at least 3 hours and possibly spending some time at night. /\..~ r ~, q~ y ~~ G The applicant was not willing to wait for a decision until December or January. Diana Toughill suggested that if the information gathered from the noise meter were conclusive that both the Planning Commission and the Town Council meet on Tudsday, September 2l, to come to a decision before the Council Meeting that night. Unanimous approval was heard from the Planning Commission with the applicant agreeing as well. Decision on this matter was deferred. CORNICE BUILDING -- CONDITTONAL USE PERMIT The Planning Commission reconsidered the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of one dwelling unit of 232 square feet to a real estate office. The Planning Commission generally felt that a real estate office was not appropriate in a primarily residential neighborhood; however, feelings were mixed regarding how much impact 232 square feet of office would have. A motion was made by Cordon Pierce and seconded by Pam Garton to approve the Conditional Use.~pern~it. The decision was to deny the Conditional Use permit with Pierce, Abbott & Garton voting for and Corcorn, Hanlon, Mills and White voting against, The Corr¢nission generally had no strong feelings pertaining to the small pu]1-off area proposed TOWl~ OF VAIL REZOidIi~G OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TO A ~dEW PUBLTC ZONE The areas to be rezoned under the public zone were: Antholz, Transportation Center, Post Office & Municipal Building, Site 24, and the School Site portion of Lot 8. Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the rezoning and Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous for approval. ' PLANN"~fSG COMMISSION SUMMARY 9/9/76 LODGE AT LIf~NSHEAD ~- REQUEST FOR BUILDING BULK CONTROL & PARKING VARIANCE After the Planning Commission reviewed the memorandum from the staff, Diana Toughill have a summary of the memorandum and stated that the Department of Community Development recommended approval of both requests. Chuck Anderson and Tom Griner were present to show the Planning Commission the model of the proposed building. In this model there were 18 parking spaces shown rather than the 15 proposed in the original request. The applicant agreed to amend his first application for the parking variance in order to allow for 18 parking spaces. Bill Hanlon made a motion for approval of both the building bu~]k control variance as well as the amendment parking variance. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. If at some time in the future additional parking is required, the parking variance may be revoked in order to provide the required parking for a building that size. The applicant felt that this was only fair. (It was noted that the applicant did not have to apply for any variances, but to be in keeping with the Master Plan and to preserve the beauty of that particular site, the architect designed the building to be aesthetically sound and in keeping with the Town`s Master Plan;therefore,needing the building bulk control variance and the parking variance.) APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE DESIGN REVIEW 80ARD Gerry White was appointed to serve an the Design Review Board for a six month term starting September 9, T976. y .~ E ~, . AGENaA PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1976 • 1. Vail Associates - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Chairlift No. 16 on Tract E, Vail Village 1st Filing in an Agricultural zone. 2. Racquet Club - Request for Building bulk control, height and covered parking variances to constructs two more buildings. 3. Medsker Residence - Request for setback variance to allow construction of a garage. 4. A & D Enterprises - Rehearing of request for Conditional Use Permit to convert two dwelling units to real estate office. 5. Cornice - Rehearing of request for Conditional use Permit to convert dwelling unit to real estate office. 6. Town of Vail rezoning of public property to new public zone a PLAiJ(JIi3G COMMISSIO}d ' ~ SUMMARY September 16, ]976 MEMBERS PRESEPdT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Pam Garton RiTT }ianlon Sandy Mills Gerry White OTHERS PRESE}~T: Jim Lamont Diana Toughill VAI,L ASSOCIATES -- CO}dDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CNAIRLIFT #1G Ted Riseck, representing Vail Associates, was present. The Planning '~ Commission heard the request for ChairTift #16. They had the following suggestions, laased on the staff recommendation: that the maze structure be removed prior to the Vai] Institute season and that measures be taken by the lawn to discourage additional vehicular taffic for dropping off skiers either from P~i11 Creek Court or Siebert Circle. A motion was made by -Pam Garton and seconded by Gerry White to approve the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the staff memo dated September l6, 197G. VAIL RACQUET CLUB -- REQUEST FOR BUILDIidG BULK COi~TROL, FfEIGHT & COVERED PARKI~'VG VARIAlVCE The applicant asked that consideration of this request be postponed until September 30, 1976. Gerry White made a motion and Bill NanTon seconded the motion to postpone discussion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. ~ Commissioner Pierce joined the meeting at this point. MEr~lDRANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 16, 7 976 RE: Vail Associates Chair Lift i~o. 16 Vail Associates has made application for a high speed double chair]i.ft with a capacity of ],200 people per hour. The proposed chair will replace Gondola I which served 450 people per hour. The proposed location is southeast of the vaii Institute Tent and is zoned agricultural. Upon review of Section 18.600 "Criteria and Findings", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail has, as a general policy, attempted to locate intense uses in the two care areas and a greater lift capacity would be in keeping with this philosiphy, 2. 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. The increased capacity could have on impact on the Transportation Center; however, from an economic standpoint, the Town of Vail wants the structure used to the fullest extent and additional capacity exists on all except 3 or 4 peak days. The chairl~ift could also have an affect on the shuttle bus system ~- if more people are using the Transportation Center and walking to Chair 16, it is possible that bus use could decrease. 3. 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 the street and parking areas. VAIL AS50CIATES x/16/76 Page Two The Town will have to take steps necessary to assure that cars are not being driven into the Core by way of Manson Ranch Road to drop off additional skiers, !fie do not foresee any other negative impacts. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located.,.in relation to surrounding uses, No negative impact on the character of the area or on the scale or bulk of surrounding uses. The staff feels that particular attention to the character of the area before plans are made for conversion of the Gondola Terminal Building be given. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No other factors should be considered. 6. No environmental impact report is required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: 1, That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the ~- purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially in,~urious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance, • »~ MEMORANDUM • T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1976 RE: A & D ENTERPRISES APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT TWO DWELLING UNITS TO REAL ESTATE OFFICE REHEARING AT REQUEST OF TOWiJ COUNCIL The Town Council met with Charlie Crowley in work session on September 7, 197b. Mr. Crowley expressed the feeling that he was not given a fair hearing by the Planning Commission as he felt that the members had already made up their minds before he was allowed to present his argument. He further painted out that the staff memo contained incorrect information--there will be two dwelling units remaining in the building rather than 100% commercial as reported. I. • After consideration the Co i unc 1 felt that the Planning Commission should rehear the application. The staff would request further time to allow study of the noise problems in the CC1 area. We would be more sympathetic to the proposed change if we could establish definitive criteria that results in a c1 ear distinction between these units and others in similar circumstances in the neighbarhaod. Toward this end, we have acquired a noise analyzer that produces a statistical record of noise volume. We would propose locating the noise meter on the site to determine any adverse affects of noise. Unfortunately, the use level in the core are at a low during the next two months. We wi11 not be able to record the most negative levels until December or January. We would ask that the applicant withdraw his proposal until these readings can be taken and properly evaluated. It is our concern that at least 28 dwelling units can make a.simiiar case which could potentially reduce the dwelling unit inventory by 20%. .~ A & ~ ENTERPRISES Page 2 September 16, 1975 • Therefore, it is critical that this request be delayed until sufficient information can be obtained. • U `~ _ , MEMORANDUM i TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE; September 76, 1976 RE; Medsker Residence, Lot 12, B1oc~c 1, VV 13th Filing Setback Variance in April, Mr. & Mrs, Medsker applied for a setback variance to allow the construction of a garage to serve their existing residence. This request was withdrawn as the Medskers decided not to build at that time. They have now reapplied for the same variance and the original staff r~;~ ~ 4. recommendation is attached. ~ ~.,~.~ ~,~' ~ : ~'~~ M ~ ~ . . MII~IORANDUM a TO: Planna.ng COI71m1SSIDn FROM: Department of C~,~ll,~anity Development DATE: April 29, 1976 RE: Medsker Duplex, Setback Variance Request The applicant has requested a setback variance of four feet from the south property Tine. The required setback is ten (10) feet. The applicant requests the variance based on the follow- ing information, Present drive and garage is not functional in winter due to steep grade. Area in which garage may be Located is extremely Limited due to encroachment of Town of Vail water filter backwash pond which has cxeated numerous streams on rear 2/3 of lot. • The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19,600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The north property line is contiguous with Forest Service property and Forest Service has no objections to the variance. The requested setback does not appear to be in conflict with public use. No structure can be built north of the proposed garage. ~ _.~- The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity o:~ treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance have been met by the applicant in that under normal circumstances the structure could be located on the site in conformity with Zoning; however, due to the location of the Town pond, this is not possible. y Medsker April 23, 176 ;~ Page ~4ao The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors Owner feels that new drive will be safer because it will get cars off of Booth Creek Drive. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 't'hat the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special pr~.vilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Due to the presence of the Town pond a physical hardship exists on the site and thus we do not feel approval of this variance would constitute grant of special privilege. 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. The granting of this variance will not be detrimentai to the above factors. The surrounding uses are compatible with the terms of_ the variance and no other stxucture in the area will be impacted by the variance. That the variance is warranted for the foliowing reason: of the site. 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. See owners statement regarding physical characteristics The Department of Cu„~~Fanity Development recommends approval of this variance as requested. • PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the Town of Vail intends to rezone the following parcels of land from their existing zone districts to Public Use District created by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976, an amendr~~ent to the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973: Vail Municipal Building and Post Office Complex parcel located west of the Vail interchange and south of X-70 described by metes and bounds. Property is presently zoned High Density Multiple--Family. Vail Transportation Center - a portion of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Parcel is presently zoned High Density P~4ultiple-family. Antholz Park and Nature Center - a 39 acre parcel located east of Vail Village Fifth Filing described by metes and bounds. The property is presently zoned with numerous zone districts, ranging from Medium Density to Commercial Core 2. Vail K - 4 School Site - A portion of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, Parcel is presently zoned High Density Multiple Family. Site 2d -~ Lot 5, a Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Property is presently zoned Medium Density Multiple Family and High Density Multiple Family. Application has been made in accordance with Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973. A Public ~Iearing will. be held on September 16, 19"76 in accord with Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordz.nance before the Vail Planning Commission whose decision will be transmitted to the Town Council for final decision. The Public Hearing will be held at 3:00 p.m. in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN F VAIL DEPA MENT OF COMM TTY DEVELOPMENT ~". /a Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Traa.l August 27, 1976 r• _% i~r MEMORANDUM Y0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 23, 1976 RE: Conditional Use Permit for the A & D Building INTRODUCTI0IV We have all wrestled with the residential housing in the Vail Village Core far many years. The debate has been long, and at times heated, but with the passage of the Horizontal Zoning Ordinance we believe that the Town has. found at least one measure that pointed our beliefs in the right direction, I don't think that anyone thought that with the passage of the ordinance the problem would be solved. The Department of Community Development felt there was a significant social and economic or safety benefit to the area by having fu_11 time residents occupying dwelling units in the Core. If a problem developed it could be dealt with more efficiently and humanly. Our dilemma has been and continues to be how to prove the need for this type of li,virig circumstance. A11 of us~ involved in the initial legislation felt intuitively that such a proposition is correct, But we have no means to make a non-intuitive decision, only experience to date. Again, we suffer from a lack of the facts or aimore objective method of evaluating the problem. THe following is offered at least as a first faultering step at providing a level of quasi-objective information on .which you can base a decision. This information has been accumulated under the least advantageous of situations. We believe the issue to be fundamental to our planning effort. It is evident from the discussion to date that we lack definitive criteria for judging the merits of { ,Page Two certain types of proposed changes in use. As we all know there are certain inconsistencies in the existing legislation which need attention. However, the basic motivating force behind t~~re ordinance was a recognition that residential housing in the area was beneficial to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 4Je do not believe that this philosophy has been altered totally since the ordinance was adopted. Therefore., we need to find a method that will allow for minor changes allowing the area to adjust gradually to changes in use. If we do not have agreement as to these underlying philosophies then the ordinance should be seriously reconsidered and amended. We are concerned that if an overall standard for changes of use is not established that the ordinance will be ruled by the court as arbitrary. We have spent considerable time in trying to isolate this request from other similar circumstances in the area. Our success has been minimal. We do believe, however, that through a variety of changes in'-the environmental quality of the area that future requests will be minimized to those which can present a more factua] case for their proposed change. The better the criteria,th.e better the evaluation, We cannot rely on experience from other communities because there is no other comparable. Should this request be granted it must be proven that any mitigation effort, whether public or private, would not substantially, inprave the ]iving quality of the area and that the unit is not essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Legislation now exists that would require improvements to be made that would mitigate against the problems outlined by the applicant, it is a matter of proper enforcement. However, the cost of enforcement, both on the public and private sides, may be too great of a price to pay for the benefits gained. In the end we must ask oursd7~ves if there is in:fiact a problem and to wkrat degree are we willing to solve it. There is a need to confront this problem in the near future; however, there is sufficient time for the Planning Commission and the Council to review the data in depth and request any additional information that they may need. There '~ ,Page Three . remains only to document further the problems that exist in the area, the potential Impact of further reducing the dwelling units in the area, and any mitigation strategies that can be applied, CURRENT SITUATION The Planning Commission and the Town Council are currently considering a change of use request for the A & D Enterprise Building which would allow for the conversion of two dwelling units to office space. The Department of Community Development in its initial review of the proposal recommended rejection of the request. The Town Council has subsequently referred the request back to the Planning Commission far further review based on erroneous information in the Department of Community Development's recommendations. The Planning Commission has tab1ed~~~the matter until the Department of Community Development could obtain specific information as to the desirability of retaining these dwelling units due to environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Department of Community Development has conducted its investigations of the area and has the following additional findings and recommendations to make to the Planning Commission and the Town Council. DFN[OGRAPHIC FINDINGS 1. The current inventory of living units in the area (see appendix for the building summaries) AC. Units DW. Units Pt. DVJ. Units FT. Bridge Street Wall Street '~ ~ Gore Creek Dirve Gore Creek Plaza TOTAL ` ,Page Four 2. The inventory by floor of living units AC Units DW Units PT 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd Bridge Street Wall Street Gore Creek Drive Gore Creek Plaza TOTAL DW Units FT 2nd 3rd 3. Inventory of units most likely to change uses in the next 12 months AC Units DW Units PT DW Units FT Res. Com~i. Res, Comm.. Res. Comm. Bridge Street Wall Street Gore Creek Drive Gore Creek Plaza TOTAL 4. Inventory of changes or requested changes in the last 12 months* (*See appendix for summary by building etc.) AC Units DW Units P7 DW Units FT Bridge Street Wall Street Gore Creek Drive Gore Creek Plaza TOTAL " Page Five . 5. Inventory of percentage ratio of uses in the Core area. Retail Sus. Office, AC Units DW Units PT DW Units FT Bridge Street Wall Street Gore Creek Drive Gore Creek Plaza TO TA ~, 6. The estimated population of the area is: Winter Summer Off~Season Resitent Population: Visitor Population: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FI~dDINGS; NOISE: The major noise sources which contribute to a negative residential environmental in the area are; a. Delivery vehicles in the time period from 7AM to IOAM b. Restaurant and bar noise from 5PM to 2AM c. Service vehicles from 7AM to 4PM (varies} d. Pedestrian traffic from 8:30 AM to 7PM e. Late night drunks from iAM to 2AM f The two major sources of noise irritation to residents in the area are restaurant and bar noises due to live or amplified music which eminates from open doors and windows or inadequate sound proofing as well as latie night drunks. ,, •, Page Six i~ The present sound levels on a 24-hour basis1in the area are: a . Dec i b7 es 30-40 41-50 5160 61-70 71-80 of time period 5a% 45% 4% 0.9% O.l% b. The present sound level on a $--hour increment for a 24-hour period is: It is evident from the above information that there are significant noise related problems in the Core area. The measurements were taken at the worst possible location in the area. The levels were high enough to indicate that the noise problem is common to a large majority of dwelling and acconVnodation units in the area. The appendix outlines various levels proscribed or recommended by the State or Federal Governments. ~~Je are recommending at this time an acceptable range of 45-50 dB during the hours from 8:OOAM to 8:00 PM.) c. _ -~ % of time period _ Decibles 1PM-7PM 7PM-3AM 3AM-9AM 30-40 50% 50% 50% 41-50 48% 49% 40% 51-60 1% 0.9% 8% 61-70 Q.9% 0.1% 1.9% 71-80 0.1% 0 0 d. Noise levels for a 24-hour period dB maximum 80 dB median. 45 dB minimum 32 A survey of the owners/managers/residents of the existing dwelling units on Bridge and Wali Street indicate that there are varying ranges of noise irritations in the area. The Department of Community Development contacted a representative 1 worst-case day * measured from the second floor of the A & D Building on Sept. 17 - 20, 197& Page Seven from each building with a subjective questa~nnai~e to determine those units which were mast adversely affected by objectionable noise sources. The results of the questionnaire are summarized in the appendix. The findings indicate that all but 20 of the 65 dwelling units in the BridgeJWall Street area are not adversely affected by noise irritation. A summary of this value weighted survey is as follows: NOISE IRRITATION VALUE POINTS # OF UNITS 1- 9 10-19 - •. 20-29 30-39 40-above AIR: 1. The principal source of complaint of air quality degradation in the area comes from improperly vented exhaust from restaurants that are adjacent to living units, 2. ~Jith increased commercial use in the area it can be assumed that the volume of delivery vehicles will increase. This could increase the incidence of carbon monoxide in the area by a minor amount. 3. Fireplace emission will be reduced should dwelling units be commercialized but again by an insignificant amount. TRAFFIC: 7. Parking: The present residents of the area currently have the problem of finding adequate parking for their units. The lack of adequate parking for the full-time residents discourages prospective tenants from living in the area. The following figures indicate the number of parking spaces allocated to dwelling units occupied full time. • .Page Eight • Bridge Street Wa11 Street Gore Creek Drive Gore Creek Plaza TOTAL. # of DW Units # of Parking Spaces • • 2. Deliveries: The difficulty with gaining entrance through Check Point Charlie is extremely difficult causing unnecessary frustration with making personal pick-up and deliveries relative to their lining uhit. SOCIAE FACTORS: :'. The most difficult impact of continued changes in use are the social implication. The science of evaluating these kinds is in its infancy. We have been able tb identify several factors that can be considered, Most of the theoretical works in this area were conducted by Jane Jacobs. Her basic point was that by having permanent residents living in an area that their care and concern would ensure the continued vitality of the neighborhood. Her approach allows far gradual change to occur in a manner that would strengthen the area through mutually agreed upon factors. It is our contention that the fallowing factors are critical elements in the social fabric of the area. 1. Safety 2. Environmental Quality 3. Ownership (local} The lack of anyone of these elements can set the area into a deterioration cycle. The crux of the problem is what are the proper percentage mix of each of these elements. We unfortunately at this time cannot answer that question. However, we do know that each is functionally satisfactory in the area now in that incidence of deviant acts is minimal. The principal component parts of these factors is as folloWS: •Page Nine ]. Safety: Our concern here is to minimize the frequency of violent and unpredictable events such as fire, robbery and other criminal acts against people, and unsafe conditions. In order to prevent such occurances other than by police observation during the area's low use periods is through resident observation. Therefore, it is necessary that the occupant of the dwelling units have the ability to observe unusual conditions in their immediate territory. It is essential for them to observe surrounding buildings and streets as well as to discern unusual noise disturbances. Further research needs to be conductdd to identify those units which can provide such a function, 2. Environmental Quality: The key factor here is that all environments] factors are at a level that are nonirritating and not detrimental to physical and psyco1ogical health. We have already identified that noise levels in the area are detrimental to the psycological health of the residents. As with nearly al] environmental factors, they can be mitigated against. 3. Local Ownership: It has been said many times that one of Vail's reasons for success was that the ski corporation was locally owned and controlled. Therefore it benefited from the efforts of the entire community expertise and committment. The same principal applies to local ownership within the core area neighborhood. It has been proven many times over that absentee landlords do not maintain their property to the same levels as on-site owners. Obviously, economic factors play a large part in the process. In Vail there are many exceptions to the rule. Given the nature of peer group pressure in a small community ,the demands on properly maintaining and improving one's property is far greater. This situation currently exists. This pressure is exerted on landlords and tenants alike. We fear that if there is no inducement for people to remain living in their own buildings or that long-term rental are removed, the care towards maintaining these buildings at peak efficiency and repair will significantly deteriorate. It is clear from the condition of the core area buildings that a great deal of ', Page Ten 1 ~: pride is taken in them. This is directly related to the nature of each building ownership. The following table indicates the ownership patterns: # of Buildings Owner Occupied Locally Owned Non-Locally Owned • • • APPEfVDTX • NOISE TRRITATION EVALUATION BUILDING UNIT Fi~OOR Covered Bridge l Bldg. *2 Gallery *1 Bldg. *2 3 McBride 1 Bldg. *2 Gramsham er~ Bidg. i 2 3 4 *5 A & D T Build. 2 *3 4 Rucksack 1 Bldg. *2 *3 P1 aza 1--4 Bldg. 1-5 1-5 l-7 *1 Red Lion *1 Lazier 1-3 Arcade 1 ~lauserman *1 Bldg. 2 2 2 2 unocc 2 3-4 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~I 2 3 2 3 3 2&3 2 3 3 2 LOCATION Bridge St. Bridge St. Bridge St. Gore Creek upied Gore Creek Dr. Clock Tower Bridge St. Bridge St. Plaza Plaza Bridge St. & Gore Creek Dr, Bridge St. Bridge St & Gore Creek Drive Gore Creek Drive & Mill Creek Ct. Mill Creek Ct. Bridge St & Mill Creek Ct. Red Lion Alley Bridge St & Mill Creek Ct. Bridge Street Bridge Street WaII Street Wall Street Wall & Bridge St. Hanson Ranch Rd. Wall Street Wall St & Gore Creek Drive Bridge Street NOISE IRRITATION SOURCE VALUES 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 4 3 9 5 3 5 4 i ~5 2 2 2 3 3 2 7 7 IO 10 6 4 8 4 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 8 7 7 5 70 9 9 10 10 10 6 8 9 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 9 7 9 9 7 7 5 10 2 2 2 3 4 8 3 2 2 3 2 7 3 2 2 2 2 7 5 7 4 3 3 1 6 I 1 1 7 1 1 3 3 l ~ 7 17 7 4 10 8 7 7 5 5 8 9 IO 10 7 7 l l0 8 8 8 8 2 8 9 1 25 25 22 15 25 2l I8 l8 ; I7 l7 38 34 45 35 27 ~~ 29 16 42 22 22 23 23 25 17 24 36 l5 NOISE IRRITATION EV,~LUATION~ cor~ir, Gold Peak Bldg. • BUILDING UNIT i=L00R LOCRTION *1 1-4 i-5 7 -3 2 2 3 4 NOISE IRRITATION SOURCE VALUES i 2 3 4 5 TOTAL Mountain Side 3 3 3 1 1 it Bridge Street 7 3 3 i 1 15 Bridge Street 7 3 3 i 1 i5 Bridge Street 7 3 3 1 i 15 • i• NOISE SOURCES: SUMMARY: KEY TO THE NOTSE IRRITATION EVALURTION 1 -- Delivery Vehicles 2 -- Restaurant & Bars 3 -- Special Service Vehicles 4 -- pedestrian Traffic 5 -~ Late Night Drunks 9 points 0 Units 10 - 79 points 7 Units 20 - 29 points 32 Units 30 - 39 points 4 Units 40 - above points 2 Units * Units occupied full-time • Appendix Page One All measurements of sound pressures all expressed in decibles (d®). This unit of measurement is a ratio and is logarithmic, that is, each 1-bel increase in the measurement represents a tenfold increase over the last measure. 30dB has 10 times more energy than 20dB, 40dB 1O .times more than 30 and so on. The abreviation L used in all the following analysis represents the sound 1 evel . The proceeding graphs are a statistical analysis of noise levels measured in the southeast apartment located in the A & D Enterprise Building, Measurements were taken from September 16-20,1976. The measurements in Figure,l_were taken from lPM-7PM; 7PM-3AM, and 3AM-9AM on September 16 & 77. Lmax is the maximum reading obtained during that time period. L10 means that only 10% of the time the readings exceeded 45dBA between • 1PM-7PM; 43dBA for 7PM-3AM; and 52dBA for 3AM-9AM. L50 is the 7eve1 at which 50% of the readings were above; Lg0 90% of all readings were higher than that number, etc. The Leq and Ldn are completely different concepts developed by Governments in an effort to establish a means to average the amount of energy at a receptor. The Leq, or Equivalent sound level, is formulated in terms of the equivalent steady noise level which in a stated period of time would contain the Sa~1e noise energy as the time varying noise during the same time period. The coh,cept of representing a fluctuating noise 7eve1 in terms of steady noise having the same energy content is wide spread in recent research. There is evidence that it accurately describe the onset and progress of permenent noise induced hearing loss, and substantial evidence to show that it applies to annoyance in various circumstances, The Ldn is similar to the Leq except that IOdBA are added for the hours 10PM to 7AM since individuals are much more sensitive to noise during these hours. It must be understood that the levels represented by Leq and Ldn are not simple ,Rppendix - Page Two L~ • • averages, they are complex averages which take into account time intervals, varying noise levels, and duration of noise, After considerable research the Environmental Protection Agency identified specific noise levels requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. ~~~~ These levels appear in the following table: I:;PI~LCT L1/VEL ARI~~~1. Hearing boss I.,e~CZ,I} 70 dI3 All areas Cutdi~or. activity Ldtj ~ S5 c1I3 Outdoors in residential areas artd ijsterFcren~e and farms and other outdoor areas ~~.nnoya;ice where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in vrhich cluict is a basis for use. Leq(2'~) ~ 55 dI3 Outdoor areas tivirere peol>Ii spend limited amounts of tin~c, such as school yards, playfrounds, etc. Indoor ~ ctit~ity I.dt1 45 dIi I;3door residential areas interference and --- annoyance Lecl(?4} ~ 45 dI3 Other indoor areas with human activities such as schools, etc. These levels are not to be construed as standards as they do not take into account cost or feasability. However, they are levels at which an individual is affected. Looking at Figure 2 the Ldn was 4t3, 47, and 49 forSeptember l8, 19, & 2Q respectively. This is in excess of the level of 45dBA established by E.P.A. Control measures could possibly bring this level down to an acceptable level. The other levels on the graphs show distribution of noise levels.- In Figure 2 only 2% of the levels were above 55dBA, so that levels as high as 79dSA were recorded, but they occured very infrequently. Figure l describes the noise '•,Appendix - Page Three • levels varying with time of day. As one would expect, the morning and afternoon with Monday showing an increase in noise levels. This ©~u1d possibly be attributed hours are more noisy than late night hours, In .Figure 2 three days were analyzed to increased vehicular traffic at the start of a work week. It appears from this data that the area is "noisy" and some form of controls are necessary in order to improve the environmental quality of the Core area. Figure 3 was included to show noise distribution and levels in the center • of Denver. As one would expect the general noise levels are considerably higher than those recorded in Vail; also, a much higher percentage of higher levels occurs. The Leg at this particular site is approaching the level at which E.P.A. has stated will cause a chronic hearing loss. • ,. «` • • -~ ~d ~S ~O &~ 6~ ,5-s so ~~ <$-O 3~ L~~ I 1~ ~ per. ~~ ~.~~ ~L i~ L oZ ~ ~ ! ~'`~ ~i ~ ~ r~ ~. ... } ., s So IC! • ~~ O 3 0. f E ~~ ,e • ~~ SS. ~~ ~~. ~~ ~,S . 6~ .ss ~o - ~'o 30 • .~ :~ ~ ; S- MEMORAiVDl7M • T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 30, 1976 RE: Gordon Miles Setback, Separation between Buildings, GRFA & Parking Variances an the north a of Lot 2, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition Gordan Miles has applied for the several subject variances in order to allow construction of an 864 square foot dwelling unit in an MDMF zone. The lot was subdivided into four separate parcels in 196$ prior to Eagle County Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Miles acquired 1/3 of the north ~ of the Tot in 1972 prior to annexation by the Town of Vail. The site is 1889.04 square feet, a legal non-conforming site in an MDMF Zane; the minimum allowable site is 10,000sgaure feet. Below is a listing of the requested variances and the applicable zoning requirements. a. Setback Variance -- 7` from the west property line, 3' from the east property line -- required setback is TO' b. Distance Between Buildings --- 10' on the west side, 11' on the east side --~ required distance between buildings is 20`. c. Grass Residential Floor Area -- proposed 864 square feet -- allowable 661,16 square feet. d. Parking -- proposed parking off-site at Bighorn Lodge -- required one space on the site, • Gordon Miles Page Two Consideration of Factors (Section 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The location of the requested variance is adjacent to two idential units with approximately the same setbacks, grfa and site area and to the south is a lot owned by Vail East lodging. The proposal could have an adverse impact on the building directly west which is owned by Jonine Dixon. Similar structures on a number of very small lots exist in the vicinity of the requested variance. We feel it would be appropriate that the proposed unit be sited further to the south to avoid blocking views and light. This would also allow grading on the north side of the lot to accommodate one on~site parking space. 2, The degree to which relief from the sti^ict 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege, The strict or literal interpretation would result in the lot being totally useless for any type of structure and could be construed as inverse condemnation on the part of the Town, This property and others in the neighborhood should be considered far the proposed townhouse zones. 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. See comment that pertains to resiting of the unit. The only impact we foresee is the impact on light and view and we feel this can be solved. There are no significant impacts on the other factors. FINDINGS; 1. That the granting of the var~i~ances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See Items 1 & 2 under Consideration of Factors, We feel that approval of the requested varinace would not be a'grant of special privilege. A71 of the buildings in the Vail East lodging and Bighorn Terrace areas were constructed prior to annexation and zoning, and most exterior modifications or new consturction would require similar variances. If the variances, excluding the parking variance, are not granted, the lot is not buildable in keeping with the established character of the neighborhood. ~~arclon Miles ..-'~"Page, E°hree ~:~ ! 2. That the g~~r~ting of the variaace will nat be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. If the structure can be resited as proposed by the Department of Community Development, we do not feel that the proposed structure will be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. See description of requested variance -- practical difficulty is created by extrertrely small lot size and location of er,isting buildings. We do not feel, however, -that on-site parking would be a hardship as grading can be done to accommodate one car. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditians applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply Generally to other properties in the same zone. There are very few legal lots of this size and configuration that do not apply Generally to the MDM}= Zone District. The Department of Comrtiunity Development recommends approval of the requested variances for setback, distance between buildir~gs and for GRF'A. We vaorald recommend denial of the request for off-site parking as we feel it can be accommodated on the site with proper planning. ~'' ,. ,~ , +~ s PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda September 30, 1976 ~~.w 1,~ l . Va i 1 Racquet Gl ub ~~ „~,,,~ w~ Request for Height, Building Bulk, & C red Parking Va ances far Buildings 3 and b ' 2. Cornice Building ` a'~~1/~, 5~~~"~ Request for Setback Uariance in orde-r• to extend exterior balconies /// ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ • f~ w ~- Y 3. Gordon Miles Residence .z II~~-~'t~ t ~ ~ • Request for Setback, Separation between Buildings, GRFA & Parking Variances on the north 2 of Lot 2, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision Third~}Addition 4. Pul is Subdivision W~~'~'~^'~ ~° ~°'"'`"~~ ~ ~` ~ ~~ i~ MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION Summary September 30, 1976 Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Gordon Pierce -- late Gerry White -- late VAIL RACQUET CLUB -- Request for Building Bu1k.Control,Height & Covered Parking Variance for Buildings 3 & 6 Staff recommendation is attached -- it was noted that this request is the same request as was heard in April, T976. The staff made a recommendation that the Racquet Club try to bring future proposed buildings more into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant agreed to work with the staff on this request, . The Commissioners being familiar with the project, Bill Hanlon made a motion for approval of the building bulk control, height & covered parking variances for Buildings 3 ~ 6 according to the criteria and findings set out in the staff memorandum. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. CORNICE BUILDTNG -- REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE The applicant is requesting a setback variance on the north, west and south sides of the Cornice Building in order to add approximately 5 feet to the exterior balconies on the north and south sides: of the Cornice Building. He feels that this request is needed in order to improve ingress and egress on the balconies, (attached.is the staff memo giving a mare informative description of the request), It has been suggested by the staff that Pete Burnett review the proposal to see if the balcony extension would interfer with snow removal of the pedestrian path {from Apollo Park to the street} in the winter. Commissioner Pierce felt that an addition of 5 feet to the northern balcony was not really needed (the balcony addition would not improve the winter ice conditions.-- it would probably made it worse}; he felt that it.wauld probably be used as a storage area for the tenants. This differed from the southern balcony where he felt that the five foot extension was justified because people would probably use this as a place to sit in the sun. The majority of the Commission felt that this was a reasonable assumption. Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the addition of 12 feet to the northern balcony and five feet to the southern balcony with the condition that there will never by any storage on the balcony; that the balconies will be used primarily for ingress and egress purposes and Page Two CORNICE BUILDING, cont, !• sunning and that precautions for ice build up be taken by the applicant. Gerry White seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. GORDON MILE5 RESIDEPdCE -- REQUEST FOR SETBACK, SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS, GRFA, & PARKING VARIANCES OPd THE NORTH 2 OE LOT 2, BUCK S BIG110RN SUBDIVISTON THTRD ADDITION. Jay Peterson was. present to represent the applicant. The..' request is for setback variances on two sides, distance between buildings on two sides, density control and grfa, and a parking variance for one off-site parking space. It was mentioned that there were two issues involved here: one of granting variances for a legal non-conforming lot; and one of a moral value ~- should the Town of Vail allow someone to develop his own property. If not, then the courts would probably rule this decision as inverse condemnation. Attached is the staff memo which recommends approval of the setback, separation between buildings and GRFA variance, but recommends disapproval of the parking variance. Commissioner Pierce agrees with the staff that the proposed building could be lowered onto~the gentler portion of the lot (southern end) thereby with proper grading could accommodate a parking space. Commissioners Corcoran and Mi17s did not feel confortable making any motion until a topographical map was submitted. Jay Peterson, speaking for himself and not his client, said that he would rather have some of the variances granted rather than to have the • application tabled. After considerable discussion, Dan Corcoran-made a motion to approve the request for setback, separation between buildings & GRFA variances subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission of the re-siting of the building with the stipulation that a topographical map be submitted showing the relocation of the proposed house moved to the southern end of the lot. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion, The motion carried 5-1 (Mi1.1s against granting of too many variances. She felt that the Town rather than granting variances should consider buying up all the legal non-conforming loi;s that would have any impact upon the Town.) Dan Corcoran made a motion to deny the parking variance request; Bi11 Hanlon seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Rt this point the staff was directed to make an inventory of the remaining legal non-conforming lots before the Council meeting. PULIS SUBDIVISION The Pulises have one acres of land which they would Tike to divide into 2 parcels thereby making the land more conforming with the other lots in the neighborhood. (Vail Valley 1st filing) The proposed Lot 1 would be .3979 acres and the proposed Lot 2 would be .3979 acres. !~ It was noted by the staff that this request meets ail the requirements of the subdivision regulations. The staff has reviewed the protective convenants and they have a problem with one minor section -- they suggest that it be reviewed by the Town Attorney. Pale Three PULTS, cont. Bi11 Nan'lon made a motion to approve the requested subdivision (making the land Vail Valley 2nd Filing) subject to the Town Attorney's review and approval of the protective covenants. Gerry White seconded the motion. A 5~-0 vote was recorded in favor of the motion (Gordon Pierce abstained) • t i MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September i6, 1976 RE: Vail Racquet Club Request for Height, Building Bulk, and Covered Parking Variance for Buildings 3 and 6 Walter Kirch has applied for the subject variances in order to construct two additional buildings of the 15 planned. This application is identical to the previously requested variance, and we feel the same criteria and findings apply; therefore, our recommendation is for approval. Attached i5 a copy of the April 1, 197fi staff recommendation. ~` • MEMORA~[DUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April i, i976 RE: Racquet Club Variance Request The applicant has requested three variances that would apply generally to all future development of residential structures within the development area. The variances requested are as follows: 1. Height Variance of 4'13/8"for the one-bedroom building and 6`-45/8" for the two bedroom buildings. Maximum height permitted is 35'. 2. Offset variance on the rear elevations of the structure from the required 10' to 2 feet. 3. Covered parking requirement variance that would eliminate the 50% covered parking requirement. The applicant requests the variance, "to allow the development of the Vail Racquet Club Condominium Subdivision'~to proceed in accordance with the original subdivision and development pl°an that was approved by the County prior to annexation and zoning by the Tou~n_gf Vail. The residential development conforms with the requirements of the zoning ordinance except in the previously discussed provisions." The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance, and our conclusions are as follows: .' • 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The development includes at least four existing structures Racquet Club April 1 , 1976 Page Two of a similar nature. existing are resident development standards neighborhood are of a to be a conflict with vicinity will be of a The uses for the proposed structure as well as those ial in nature. The proposed variances continue the established and character for the project. Other projects in the similar nature but of lower density. There does not appear existing or potential uses. Future development in the clustered, multifamily nature. 2. The degree to which rel.i:ef from the:stri~ct 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 ordin- ance without grant of special privilege. The strict enforcement of the zoning regulations would cause a departure from the character of the existing buildings. Conformance with the standards would allow-for a similar architectural treatment. On the other hand the design being considered approaches the intent of the ordi-nonce in terms of the offset requirements. The height variances are a more difficult issue. The more supportive argument is that it "is necessary to achieve com- patibility and uniformity" with existing buildings on the site. It is apparent from existing structures built prior to the Town of Vail Control that the applicant intends the remaining building to conform with the established pattern. A similar argument can be made for the covered parking variance. 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. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. 4. Such other factors and .criteria as the Commission deems app1icalbe to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special provilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties calssified in the same district. ' ,- ' Racquet C1 ub Apri 1 1, 1476 Page Three The variance would not be considered a grant of special privilege in that similar cases involving a transition between County and Town jurisdiction would be given similar consideration as long as essential provisions such as density and uses are conforming. The rational being that projects having existing sturctures and design standards should be acknowledged and conformed with whenever possible. Further, that the variances required do not deviate significantly from the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the above factors, The development is consistent with existing an-site structures as well as surrounding land uses. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: b. There are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The transition between County and Town control, the design standards of the existing development, and the degree of the variances needed to bring the project into conformance creates extraordinary circumstances. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of these variance requests. • Cornice Page Two . ~ Since the building is presently non-conforming, no exterior changes could be made without granting a variance. One of our goals has been to encourage dwelling units for long-term residents. A variance is appropriate if it encourages this use and makes the units more desirable for long-term residents. The large deck areas on the Texas Townhouses across the creek, which is in the same district, are all non-conforming as are the balconies on the Blue Cow and the rear of Apollo Park. Allowing the balcony extensions would achieve compatibility among sites in the vicinity and would not constitute a 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. We see no adverse impacts upon these factors. 4. Such other fae:tors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors appear to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development would like to point out that the proposed addition would improve the appearance of a building badly in need of improvement. The Department of Community Development finds that; The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (See Section 2 of the criteria and findings. Most of the balconies in the district are non-conforming.) 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. ~Jo other structures or properties are directly adjacent to the building in question. The property is isolated by two roads, greenbelt and Gore Creek. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 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. This is a non-conforming building on a non-conforming site which was subdivided and constructed in the early days of Vail prior to zoning or sub- division regulations, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance as requested. ~• MEMORANDUM • T0: P1anning Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: September 30, 1976 RE: Cornice Building Setback Variance Request The applicant has requested a setback variance on the north, west and south sides~of the Cornice Building in order to extend exterior balconies an ad- ditional 5' on a non-conforming building. The required setback is 10`; the applicant proposes approximately 6' on the north, 72' on the south and 6' on the west. The reason stated by the applicant for the variance is to improve the useable exterior space by making it easier to remove snow and to allow passage of two persons. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structured in the vicinity. There are no other structures in the vicinity which would be impacted by the proposed variance; however, the balcony on the south side would be within 5' of the existing pedestrian path along Gore Creek. The balcony itself is approximately 8 feet above grade but a supporting post is at the edge of the balcony. This should be checked by Pete Burnett on the site to make sure it wou1dn't interfere with snow plowing of the path. 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 ordinance without . grant of special privilege. "~~ ,, . .~ r MEMORANQUM To: Planning Commission From: Department of Community Development gate: October 14, 1976 Re: Colorado Investment Services Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Radio Station in Special Development gistrict 5 The staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request according to Section 1$.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and had the following comments: The applicant has requested a radio station operation occupying approxintate1y 900-1OD0 sq. ft. of floor space be located in the lower level of Vail Run along with an ~nergency transmitter and antenna to be located in an obscure location on the roof of the building. This building is in an "Sq5" zone in which botfs residential and commercial uses are permitted. Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In an "SD5" zone, one of the conditional uses allowed is far Public Utilities and Services. I!e feel that a radio station serving the Vai] community is providing a public service and should be considered as such. The proposed use of this space as a radio station his no apparent negative impacts on the development objectives of the Town. No ~~ additional population growth or traffic wi11 be generated. The impact of this proposed use on Town services and facilities will be minimal. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities and other public facilities and public facilities needs. This project will have no negative impact on the above mentioned items. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic f]ow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. This project 4,ri11 have no negative effects on traffic, since the staff of the radio station will be small. Commercial uses which are permitted in the district would generate a great deal mare traffic than the proposed Conditiona3 Use. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This project, located on the interior, will have no adverse effects on the character of the area. The only visual part of the project, an antenna, will be located in an obscure part of the raoi; and should not present any problems. ~~ , Page #2 Memorandum To: Planning Commission ,~ From: Department of Community Development October lfi, 1376 ' ~ Continuation of Factors: The environmental impact report concerning the proposed ~~ use of an environmental impact report is required by Article 16 of this ordinance. An environmental impact report is not required as this project wi]1 have no significant impacts on the environment. j 1 The Department of Community Development makes the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. ~.: The proposed location is in accord with the provisions of the Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance and the development objectives of the Town. That tha proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the pubic health, safet;~> and welfare, and would not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, The operation of the .radio station should not have any adverse impacts on surrounding properties or on the Town as a whole. That the proposed use wi]1 comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance.. The request is in conformance with the zoning ordinance. The Department of Community Development recommdends approval of this Conditional Use Permit. • i~" • MEMORANDUM T0: PLAPdNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT DF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 1r1, 1976 RE: LIONSHEAD THEATRE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE, PARKING AND DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, RODE OVERHANG FOR SPACE FRAME Rich Tofel and Jeff Selby have applied for the subject variances in order to allow the construction of a 400 seat theatre to be totally underground, with a lobby arld approximately 2,300 square feet to retail space located above grade. The site, of approxima*.e1y 8,000 square feet was illegally subdiviued about two years ago by Shareholders Recreation Programs, a corporation that rso longer exists. The site was subsequently sold to Jim Cunningham who proposes to sell it to the applicants. Each variance request will be discussed separately below: a. Non--conforming lot size and shape. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 10,00D square feet and capable of enclosing an ar~ea 80 feet ^n each side. The lot is approximately 8,000 square feet • and the north-south dimension is approximately 5O square feet on the east and 55 feet on the West. b. Distance between buildings. Required distance between buildings is 20 feet. Proposed distance from Montaneros is approximately 11 feet. c. Parking variance. Required parking is 40 spaces for the theatre and 8 spaces for t}te retail space. • At the request of the Planning Commission on preliminary review and Eldon Beck, all parking has been removed from the site and landscapiny and pedestrian improvements substituted. d. Roof overhang for space frame, Maximum al7owab1e length is four feet; the proposed length is 8 feet. CONSIDERATION DF FACTOt2S (SECTIO.N 19,600) , 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are no other potential theatre sites in the Lionshead area which abut the existing mall system and also adjacent to • the major bus route. The proposed site is unique in this respect and forms a. necessary completion of the ma11 system at the West end of Lionshead. The only structure that could be adversely impacted by the separation between buildings variance is Montaneros and their view corridor is to the South. The lack of parking could create some problems for the surrounding buildings if theatre patrons drive and attempt to park in private lots adjacent to the • theatre; however, there is the large day-skier lot directly north of the site which is not used at night which should accommodate auf.o traffic to the theatre. Hours of use of the theatr°e should he strictly control]ed so as not to create a conflict with day-skier par^king. , a Page 2 Lionshead theatre request far 10/14/76 variance for non-•conforming lot size, parking and distance between buildings. • I don't feel we can justify a parking variance for the addition of 2,300 square feet of retail space. There have been no parking variances of this nature granted in the Lionshead area and this could constitute a serious precedent and granC of special privilege. The retail space was added at the request of Eldon Beck who analyzed the project from strictly a design standpoint. 2. The degree to which relief from the ~rict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regu- lation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uni- formity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would not allow any building on the site which leaves the area in an unsightly, • muddy mess. A number of variances from setback regulations and distance between buildings have been granted in Lionshead in order to bring buildings closer to the pedest:•ian mall, which seems desirable in achieving the goals of the Master Plan. The parking variance for the theatre is simila~• to the Crossroads request for joint-•use parking and approval of the variance vaould be in keeping with treatment of Crossroads Cinema as they were not required tb provide separate parking for the theatre. Approval of the parking variance for the retail space, even though it is extremely desirable as a terminus for the mall and from a design standpoint, would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other projects in the area. When . ' we have completed a comprehensive parking study, variances of this nature may well be justifiable. We strongly support Eldon's recommendation for the retail space and landscaping instead of parking but feel that the parking must be accom- modated in order to avoid the "CCI Syndrome" again. 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. A positive impact could he created pertaining to distribution of population. The Lionshead ar-ea is in critical need of night-time activity to draw people through the mall system and create interest in the area. Transportation could be impacted as we feel the majority of thoatre•-goers will use the bus system; however, use of public transportation is lightest during the hours of operation and the proposed use should not require additional public expenditure. Applicant proposes to provide a waiting station for a bus stop within the project. We foresee no adverse impact on the other factors as the hulk of the proposed use is primarily underground. FINDINGS 1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. SEE ITEMS 1 and 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION OF' FACTORS. Grant of the distance between buildings and theatre °~ parking requests is consistent with treatment of other sites and like facilities. We feel approval of the parking variance would be grant of special privilege and should not be approved. M Page 3 Lionshe.ad theatre request for 10/14/76 variance for non-conforming lot size, parking and distance between buildings. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or ~3iaterially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We feel the project would have a vet positive impact an the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment.of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. see description of requested variance--~~ractical difficulty is created by extremely small lot size and location of existing buildings. We do not feel, however, that there is a hardship involved related to the parking for tiie proposed retail space. 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 zane. There are no other sites in the CC2 area of this size and dimension. Even though the site was created illegally we feel the applicant was not a party to the illegal subdivision which created the unique problems. The proposed solves a long standing problem of a very unsightly gravel parking lot which probably cannot othervrise be resolved without costly litigation. The proposal also provides a.salution to the "end of the Ma11" quandry and gives much needed life to Lionshead. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances far distance between buildings parking for the theatre and non-conforming lot size and shape. We recommend denial of the parking variance for the retail space and propose that the applicant investigate the possibility of sharing space with another project which exceeds the parking requirement. • i r ,• -' f Fs` ' +~ • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 1976 n 1. Colorado Investment Company ,Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow radio station in the Vail Run Building in SDD 5 zone district. 2. Selby/Tafel (Lionshead Theatre} - Request for Variance for separation between buildings, parking and non-conforming site size and conformation. 3. Gordon Miles - Resubmission of variances requested at September 30 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the Town Council. (re- citing of building with topographic detail} 4. Preliminary review of request for parking on Town of Vail property by Justine Taylor Smith. 5. Selection of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for Six-month term ACTION 8Y COUNCIL Colorado Investment Company ~`~`~~ Lionshead Theater ''"~ U Gordon Miles Parking Request by Justine Taylor Smith -- s` l _~ :., , , .4' ~ ti PLANNING COMMISSION Summary October 74, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Sandy Mills Gordon Pierce Gerry White COLORADO INVESTMENT COMPANY -- REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This request is made in order to allow fora radio station in the Vail Run Building which is located in a special development district zone. As stated in the staff recommendation, a radio station is a public facility and is an acceptable conditional use in an SD zone. The only discussion by the Commission was over the location and size of the antenna. After seeing plans and receiving a description of this antenna, Dan Corcoran made a motion for approval of the conditional use permit; Gerry White seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded, LIOPdSHEAD THEATER (Selby/Tofel) -- Request for Separation between Buildings, Parking Non~Conforming Site Size and Conformation Variances The applicant is requesting four variances for a proposed theater to be ]orated in Lionshead between Montaneros and Landmark. The variances are described in detail in the staff memo attached. A letter from Eidon Beck was first read into the record. In this letter, Fldon supported the proposal fora theater in Lionshead. He further added the fo]lowing suggestions: 1, To have plaza space with small commercial uses at the theater entry. 2. To eliminate the parking requirement foir~the site. 3. To build a bus shelter adjacent to the theater. 4. To extend the pedestrian mall from the existing Lionshead Plaza through the theater complex to eventual]y connect with the I-70 pedestrian overpass. Jim Morter, architect, outlined his proposed changes in the original plans, mast of which were based on Eldon's recommendations, Discussion followed among the Planning Commission on a favorable note, Jim Morter requested permission to be allowed to extend the roof overhang from 4feet to 8 feet, using a space frame, Gordon Pierce made a motion, incorporating all the requested variances, for approval; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote. was recorded. ~' ' Page Two CORDON MILES -- RESUBMISSION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 30 PLANNING GOMMTSSION MEETING ~- reciting of the building with topographical details. The original request for variances for this property are fully outlined in the Sept, 30, 1976 staff memo, At that time, the Planning Commission approved the various variances allowing a building to be built but denied the off-site parking variance, A stipulation of the approval of the building variances was that a topographical map be submitted to the Commission showing the resiting of the house. At this meeting, the topographical map was submitted for the Planning Commission's review. After some minor changes noted on the official copy) a final plan was arrived at which was acceptable to Jay Peterson, attorney representing the applicant; Janine Hixon, property owner next to the proposed Miles residence; and the Planning Commission, The stipulations of the approved topographical plan was that the lower elevations of the building would be $435 feet and that the lower wall line would be 28 feet south of the Miles' north property line, No formal motion was recorded. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PARKING REQUEST ON TOWN OF VAIL PROPERTY BY JUSTINE SMITH Justine Taylor Smith, whose property is located on Forest Road directly across Gore Creek from the Sewage Treatment Plant, is requesting that her ori- site parking be located on Town of Vail property. A driveway had been proposed originally but it was decided that it would be too steep and would cause too many problems because of the erosion that was being caused. The Planning Commission felt very favorably towards this request provided that complete and final landscaping plans for:~bhe..~,rea surrounding the parking lot be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. No formal motion was recorded. SELECTION OF CHATRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN Pam Garton was selected as the new chairperson; Dan Corcoran as Vice-chairperson Their terms will be for six months. s PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda October 21, 1976 1. Interview of applicants for the up-coming vacancy 3:00 -- Mike Palmer 3:15 -- Marcy Petersen 3:30 -- Charlie Crowley 3:~5 -- Barron P. Lambert 4:00 -- Scott Ldwards 4:15 -- Mary Ann Jensen. 2. Peter Brant Residence Setback Variance Request Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Third Filing MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 21, 1976 RE: Peter Brant Setback Variance Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Third Filing The applicant has requested a setback variance in order to construct an outdoor deck on the rear side of his house, The required setback is 13'; the applicant proposes a setback of 9', The Zoning Administrator requested a relocation of the house on the site when the house was originally built in order to save five (5) large trees in the front of the building. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Mr. grant's property abuts on National Forest Land in the rear where the proposed deck is to be located. There are no structures or critical land use and wildlife features that would be impacted by the deck. 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 ordinance without grant of~speeia1 privilege. The Zoning Administrator requested a relocation of the house to save five (5) trees on the front side of the property. For this reason, a request far the variance is justified. Page Two ~_ 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic faci]ities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The deck will have no adverse T.mpacts on these factors. 4, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No additional factors seem to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district Due to the special request of the Zoning Administrator with regards to the original location of the house, the granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, This request is similar to other setback variances granted in the same district, 2, That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. No other structures are within the immediate vicinity of the proposed deck. Land use and wild life are not adversely affected. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 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. Refer to Fining #1. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance as requested. • j ,. ~r M PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda December 9, 197fi :] A 1? The Mark Special Development District 2) Sky Lion Special Development District 3) Bequest for rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn Second Addition 4} Request for xezoning of Lots 11,12 and 13, Block 4 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Bighorn Third Addition 1.._ ___ ._ _ ~_ _. _.._.~__ ~. .. _. W ___ . in~ni ~ i. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MARK SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DATE: December 9, 1976 COMPARISON OF MARK SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL WITH CURRENT ZOP~ING Site Area Allowable GRFA Proposed GRFA Allowable Units Proposed Units Lot 4 67,852 sq, ft, 37,711.2 Lot 5 123,562 sq, ft, 74,137.2 Site considered as a whole Lot 7 40,040 sq. ft. 23,032.0 225,454 sq. ft. 143,280.4 Less existing bldg. 40,276,75 103,003.65 94,000 max. 129 - 258 210 accommoda- dwelling units tion units converts to 25$ ~ 516 accom- 20 suites (DU) modation units Less existing units Less Existing Bldg. Less existing meeting room (74 acc. units 14 dwelling units) Allowable Commercial 17,531.24 3,225,00 l4 306,24 Proposed Commercial 4,500 Disco and commercial 4,860.00 10,000 proposed meeting room 9,446.24 Additional sq. 14,500 sq. ft. proposed ft. allowable The Town of Vail generally feels that the project is in line with the proposed growth management plan in that it is located in a high density area, is directly adjacent to pedestrian areas, transportation, and provides a community benefit (convention center) ~t private expense. We do not feel that we have had sufficient time to review the proposal since it is a very involved one as the Environmental impact report was sub- mitted only today. We would recommend a conceptual approval and suggest that the J s any formal action be withheld until such time as the staff and the Planning Commission have had an opportunity to review both the revised drawings and the environemtnal impact report. We do not feel it is fair to either the Town or the applicant to base a decision on information that we have not had the opportunity to review. A complete report will be prepared prior to the December 16 Planning Com- mission meeting which will give staff recommendations and review of the Environmental impact report. • • ,, . I• PROPOSAL MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 9, 1976 RE: Sky Lion Proposed Special Development District The applicant proposes 30 units on 13.307 acres of land? a comparison of current zoning and proposed 5DD is as follows: CURRENT ZONING ZONE LOT AREA DISTRICT ALLOWABLE UNITS ALLOWABLE GRFA A-1 62,988 Residential 28,270 sq. ft. 1.446 acres Cluster A-2 50,094 Residential 15 1,150 acres Cluster No Maximum A-3 41,121 Assume 4000 per unit .944 acres Agricultural 21,400 _~.- 5 Excepted Parcel 1.394 Agricultural Road & Unplatted 8.373 Agricultural 13.307 acres 20 units 49,670 allowable PROPOSED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 30 units 65,318 proposed The proposal increases density from 1.54 units per acre to 2.3 units per acre or an increase of approximately 49.8%, A GRFA increase of 78,648. sq. ft. is requested which is an increase of approximately 4O%. The request is comparable to a request far rezoning A-3 and excepted. from A to RC which would allow 29 units total for the RC and 4 units on the A or a total of 33. units. After a careful review by the Deptment of Community Development, the Fire ~'~ ' Department, Department of Public Works, and Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, E ' f. SKY LION Page Two the staff has the following comments and concerns relating to the proposed project: 1, DENSITY -- The Department of Community Development report concerning Lionsridge indicated that potential. population in the Lionsridge area should be minimized. Recent surveys completed as part of the Growth Management planning effort further enforce the need to reduce population in this neighborhood, as well as the entire Gore Valley. The proposed density increase of approximately 50% is not in line with the proposed growth management program and comprehensive plan. Proposed density per buildable accessible acres is 24 units per acre. 2. SLOPE -- Of the total site of 13.307 acres, 9.557 acres are in excess of 40% slopes with some portions in excess of 70%; none of the site is less than 30% slope. Attached is a slope analysis map indicating the ` ~ area in excess of 40% slope and square footage calculations of areas Tess than 40% . 3. ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT,-- The report as submitted is unacceptable as it does not sufficiently address the impacts of the project in the following areas: a. Traffic -- The Environmental Impact Report assumes that only 30% - 40% of the short-term visitors wi11 bring a car and that the use wilt be minimized by Town:~of Vail bus system and the pedestrian overpass. These assumptions were drawn from a report prepared by Vail Associates. for Lionshead and we do not feel this area can be compared to Lionshead because of its location, A traffic study prepared as a part of the Potato Patch impact study more accurately reflects this area and indicates that each unit averages 6 auto trips per unit per day. This could increase traffic on already congested Sandstone Raad by as much as 180 cars per day. ~r ' 5KY LION . ' Page Three b. Fireplaces -- Impact of 30 fireplaces is not addressed. A statement is made that since the project is so high on the side of the valley that the wind will blow the smoke away. This is incorrect as the inversion layer which creates the worse air pollution problems lies considerably higher than the proposed project. Natural downslope air drainage could cause fireplace smoke to aggravate an already bad condition.. A fireplace study currently underway indicates the Gore Valley contains more fireplaces that the air shed and weather conditions will allow. c. Population -- Population impact on the area was not addressed, Given characteristics for short-term rental units established by Town of Vail survey, 5.9 people per dwelling unit, the project would have an impact of approximately 177 people at peak times, Given an estimated population in Lionsr~dge of approximately 1300 people, this would be a population increase of 13% - i4%. d, Biotic Conditions -- A statement was made that disturbed soils will be revegetated and additional landscaping will be added, Experience has shown that revegetation on south-facing steep slopes has not been very successful. e, Geologic -- The report submitted, again, was prepared only for Site A-3 and does not address the proposed road system and cul-de-sac. On this steep site, a complete geologic and soils report must be submitted which evaluates the project and site improvements as proposed. f. Visual and Aesthetic Impact -- refer to memorandum from Bill Pierce, 4. DRAINRGE -- The preliminary drainage report as submitted is not adequate for the proposed project as it was written specifically for one large building 7ceated on Lot A-3 and addresses only the prevention of damage ',' SKY LION Page Four r • to the proposed building by a l0O-year storm, It does not cover the impact of surface drainage on adjoining sites, nor does it.prapose a drainage plan for the surface run-off. There appears to be a large natural drainage channel on the west side of Lot A-2 which seems to have a building located directly in the center, A statement is made that drainage will be handled by a series of swales and culverts as necessary. We feel that a complete drainage study and plan is mandatory for a project of this magnitude with such a large drainage basin, 5. ROADS -- A statementis~made that the maximum grade of any road is 10%, The cross sections and profiles, provided at the most advantageous locations, indicate slopes of 13%x-; our calculations, given the contours provided on the site plan, indicate that some of the corners are in excess of 2O% slope which is totally unacceptable and unuseable in the winter, Due to the extent of the road system and residential sites to be individually sold, the Town of Vail would strongly recommend that a 40' dedicated road right-of-way be required. The impact statement states the asphalt width will be 25' and the site plan scales on 2O' of roadway width. The private roadway system a7 lows greater land area to be counted for GRFA & circumvention of maximum 72% grades. On a road system this extensive and steep, we must have actual centerline roadway profiles with stations and elevations, both existing and proposed; and roadway sections to edges of cut and fill every 100'. Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate bath the environmental impact and useability of the roads. Given the average snowfall in the Vail area and road slopes, it would be impossible to plow the snow up-hill, No snow storage areas have been provided and plowing snow toward buildings on these slopes could creates"man-made avalanche" conditions. It is further noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that all drives over 8% grade be heated, •~~ SKY LTON Page Five • 6. UTILITIES -- A water system which incorporates a 90,000 gallon storage tank to assure water pressure is indicated on the plans; however, there are no specific plans for pumps, pressure reduction valves or other equipment. The Lions Ridge Water District must be asked whether they are willing to assume the ~aintenance~necessaryY~._for this system; if not, it appears that owners could be faced with tremendous maintenance casts for the extensive water system. A letter from Lyan-Collins, representing the Water District, indicates the ability to serve 25 units which were proposed on Site A-3. They did express a number of reservations about water pressure and precise design of the system. Is the Lionsridge Water District willing and able to serve 30 units and accept the system as designed? The Division of Water Resources must also review the project in light of the requested, revised • service plan for the district. Impact of constructing the water tank was not addressed and the tank site was not evaluated in the geologic report. An access road of some sort would have to be constructed to the tank site both for construction and maintenance of the facility. No such access is indicated on the plans or in the EIR. • Sewer connections to the main sine and between cul-de-sacs appear too steep far construction and could further create a situation where solids and liquids would separate and potentially clog the lines. There are also opposing flows at manhole intersections. 7. FIRE PROTECTION -- The Fire Department has indicated that the road grades are too steep for access and that two of the corners have a turning radius less than the 30' required for maneuvering a fire truck around the corners without backing up several-times. The building on the south side of Lot A 1 and both buildings on Lot A 3 are inaccessible from one side due to site steepness. If cars were parked- in the driveways, the uppermost floors of ~•' gKY LION .Page Six I~ • some buildings would not be reachable with the ladder for rescue. 8. irCONOMICS -~ The EIR estimates the cast of site improvements which seem to be unrealistic given the site characteristics. We have re-estimated these costs based. on our recent experiences in similar locations: ITEM BUDGET ESTIMATED BY TOWN OF VAIL Electrical 45,000 45,000 (not re-estimated) Landscape 25,000 25,000 (not sufficient to screen this visual site) Roads - 25,377 55,000 (Based on cost in Potato Patch) Retaining Walls not included 16,000 (only for wall shown on upper cul-de-sac. More seem to be necessary} Sewer 1 • 17,800 17,750 ' Water 25,000 42,000 ~; Water Storage 50,000 50,000 (not re-estimated) I'~ -~ 25% factor 47 ,000 47 ,000 F $229,677 * $292,250 * report indicates total Cost per unit Land Value Per Unit ** Construction Cost at $35 COST PER UNIT ** based on 4.398 acres of $207,677 7,656 9,742 12,772 12,772 sq. ft. 63,000 63,000 $83,428 $85,514 in area B @ $2.00 per sq. ft. Based on both the developer's and Town of Vail's estimates of casts, the project does not seem to be economically viable. We must be cautious in this respect as part of the site development could be completed and the project not completed, leaving a visual blight -- we must not be faced with another ••, SUS LION ,Page Seven E~~ Sunburst of King Arthur`s Court, The Department of Community`Development strongly recommends the developer restudy the areas questioned and that given the existing proposal, the project be disapproved. The environmental impact report submitted with the proposal is not acceptable. A third party, approved by the Town of Vail, must restudy those areas of the environmental impact statement questioned, • e ~_, 9 • MENIORAN~DUNi T0: {1) Planning Commission (2) Diana Toughil1 FRONT: William F. Pierce Architect and Town of Vail Building Official DATF: December $, 197b RE: Aesthetic Review of the proposed Sky Lion Project At Diana's request I have reviewed at length the visual impact of the proposed Sky Lion development. My comments follow: A.~ The conventional design of the buildings is visually unacceptable on this steeply sloping site, The vertical character of the proposed structures does not compliment the existing land forms. A structure on this site should step horizontally into the slope of the hill at each vertical floor level to minimize its visual impact. B. The existing drainage way on the west side of the site is disturbed by placement of structures and access roads, Vlore respect must be paid to the existing land forms for visual harmony with the existing and future environment. C. Due to the sloping character of the site, the visual impact of any vertical building surface is increased. Open space and landscaping are screened by buildings when viewed from 6e1ow. Adequate visual screening with heavy plant material would be inordinately high in cost in that trees of significant height would be necessary to be effective in a visual sense, • ='' ~' Page Two D. This leads to a questions which is quite general in nature, In a Colorado mountain valley, which side of the valley is more acceptable for building? North-facing slopes are generally graced with natural dense tree cover, thereby providing excellent screening for developments. South-facing slopes, on the other hand, are generally devoid of significant native tree cover making any artificial disturbance to the environment visually prominent. Visually, developments should be confined to the valley floor ar to the north-facing slopes. E. Visually, cut and fill slopes are a great problem in the Vail Valley. Efforts to provide visually attractive retainage; especially on the south-facing slopes, has proved futile, Measures, such as those used on the Vail Pass construction, to modify land forms to accommodate roadways are very expensive and environmentally questionable. Earthwork of that scale seems impractical on this site. F. Due to the high casts of accessways, grading, utility placement and adaquate landscaping, it seems that some compromises in design may be necessary to make the project competitive financially, Due to the visual prominance of this site in the Vail townscape, any compromises aesthetically would be inappropriate. In conclusion, I find the project quite unacceptable. Details of the architectural treatment of the structures were not investigated at this time; in that,I find the conceptual forms inappropriate. The entire project must be completely rethought with high priority given to creation of structures and their impact on the environment. .+ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FRAM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 9, 1926 RE: Request for Rezoning of Lots l7, 12 and 13, Blook.4, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Bighorn Third Addition Major Bonnie O'Leary, who awns Lots 12 and 13, Block ~, Bighorn Third Addition has requested that her property be rezoned from two-family residential to single family residential zone, J.A. Zarnowiecki and P.J. P1claughlin, who jointly own Lot 11, Block 4, Bighorn Third Addition which is adjacent to Major O'Leary`s lot, have requested that similar action be taken on their lot. Mr. and Mrs, Ronald Kendricks, owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Bighorn Third Addition -- the two other subdivided lots in this area -- have been notified of the proposed rezoning of the other lots and have not expressed objection to the inclusion of their lots in the rezoning. The requested rezonings are a]1 in a contiguous, iso]ated area on Columbine Road just North of I-70 underpass, ~e feel that this area should be treated as a whole, due to its separation from adjoining areas by the new interstate. The existing character of this area is small, single~fami1y structures on small Tots, and we feel that the remaining buildable lots in this area should conform with what is presently there. The size of the lots range from .101 to .333 acreas, and we feel that single-family structure are more appropriate far these lots than duplexes. ~e also feel that a similar policy should be considered for • Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Third Addition when and. if it is brought forth for a resubdivision request. ' • Page ~'wo l'he reduction of densities is in line with.the on-going..: Growth Management Study. Since a whole area is being rezoned, we do not feel that spat-zoning is occuring, Far these reasons, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested rezonings. t; • MEMOf2,4ND11M T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 9, 1976 RE: Request for Rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn Second Addition Mr. and Mrs. C. Stanley Wilson have requested that their property located on Lot 16, bighorn Second Addition, be rezoned from two-family residential district to agricultural. The site is 131, 567.75 square feet 03.02 acres) and is presently zoned for two dwelling units. The requested down-zoning would not permit any development on this piece of land. ';~~ The rezoning is requested as the applicant feels that the topography of the lot is not compatible for.;development purposes. The lot is in an avalanche hazard zone and at the bottom of a waterfall, making it virtually unbuildable. Since the lot is unbuildable, due to natural hazards, and the reductiorr in density is in line with the on-going Growth Management Study, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested down-zoning. f PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEPJ THAT C. Stanley and Martha B. Wilson have applied for rezoning of Lot T6, Bighorn 2nd Addition from the existing two family residential zone district to agricultural. Application has been made in accordance with Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973. A public Tearing will be held on December 9, 1976 in agcord with Section 21,400 of the Zoning Ordinance before the Town of Vail Planning Commission at 3:00 PM in the Municipal Building, The decision of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Town Council for final decision. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail .Trail November 19, 1976 G~ r .~~ ~. ,~ • laws of rail box 1 UO nail, Colorado $1657 (3031 476-567 3 MEMO office of the town attorney December 16, 1976 TO: Planning Commissison FROM: Larry Rider SUBJECT: Pending litigation as to annexation, zoning and other land use matters I. C.I.S. v. Town of Vail, et a1 (Vail Run) Filed 1/3/76 - No action taken to date. Attacks the validity of the annexation statute, procedures of the Town and the annexation of the Town (Lionsridge). TI. Courcheval & L.R.B, v. 'Down of Vail, et al Filed April, 1976 - Principal question is whether the Plaintiffs have a vested right to praeeed in accord- ance with the building permits issued by the County. Hearing held before Judge Seavy and awaiting a decision. If that decision is adverse to the Plaintiffs, they are also questioning the validity of the annexation, annexation emergency ordinance and the zoning (Lions- ridge) . III. Knox & Payne v. Town of Vail Filed April, 1976 ~- No further action. Challenging the annexation statute, annexation proceedings of the Town, and the emergency ordinance (Lionsridge). zV. Nottingham v. Town of Vail. Filed - April, 1976 - No further action. Challenges the agricultural zoning on his property (Lionsridge). V. Val d'Gore v. Town of Vail Pending in the Colorado Supreme Court. In the trial court challenged the Bighorn annexation. Dismissed for procedure irregularity. Appeal question is whether the matter should have been dismissed by trial court. /sjm 2 ~~ 4 t ti rra~asal ~'ar The Town off' Vail Vall, ~Olorad0 t'ro~i '.~`.tze bth ~een~~ r. ~. pox ,3b~ts Vail, Colorado December l~, 197b • ~~ , 'f € • t'roUOSa1 -fit is the aesire of `i'he bth scents to retail F roasted chestnuts and escargot ih ~ionshead 1°-all area. `Phis is done in i'ew states but widely known and accepted throughout ~uro~e. ~:~ties such as t'aris, ~•ugano and ~t. 141oritz, among many others, looms upon vending chest- nuts and escargot romantically. xs rorraan.t~.c as tree cities the vendors are in axzcl the streets that tYzey are on. we a.ntend to E ' bring trxis Barrie romanticism to ~ai.l; a city x-iuch like those mentioned and similar in criaracter and atmas~here. S.•ocation ~itYr the unof'f'icial a~~rnval of Vail ~ssaciates, we hole to locate our kio~t~ in .~ionshead .1°~all ` on ~lataeway treated sidewalk) near int'orrnation stand or more ~:ref'erably, next to stairway at northwest area on walk across i'Y'ofri gondola wilding. • '~ . ` Wage 2 r'acility ti pentagonal, ~urapean-style kiosk as shown in the attached diagrarrr/photo with dlmen.sions, it is constructed of cedar with rough wood sningles and appropriately decorated to blend with the decor the 'T'own of bail has established, we feel that this will prove cornplicr~entary to the merchants in the Lions- head ~°lall area. hef'use upon considering the possibilities of trash disposal, we nave tried to keep it minimum. we will be using toothpicks for the escargot and loo. 2 pager bags as containers for the roasted chestnuts. 'l'he escargot will be served in mushroom caps, eliminating the problem of shells. rie propose to do the following: 1) '1'o furnish waste receptacles in selected areas, and; • ' f- ~'a~e ~ ~) '1'0 police-the surrounding area at regular intervals throughout the business day. ~susiness riours, '1`ne business Hours f'or 'b'rie 6th Scents will be from 10:00 am until g:00.~m. °:.~;:> - • 1 j ~, s~,zmmarv .. . Vail has been Fashioned and ,Manned after the general layout of a .~uropean ski resoart. The narrow streets, small. shoes and numerous restaurants offering international cuisine are complimented by V-airs majestic mountaa,n,s ~ E towering in the background. vesigned with f quaintness and character, Vail leads itself ` to roxn.anticism. what would be more natural than the smell of hot chestnuts and escargot ~ ~,ermeating throughout the narrow streetsY we believe that, with the a~;~roval of the "Town ' '~ of Vail, this business could only enhance the characteristics of the town- -~ i .~. ~ r , t PLANNING COMMISSION ` ~ Agenda December i6, 197b 1. POOR RICHARDS/SHORT SWING 2. 6TH SENSE -- PERMISSION TO RUPd A VENDING OPERATION 3. REZONING LOT 16, BIGHORN SECOND ADDITION -- for staff memo see December 9, 1976 4. REZONING LOTS ii, 12, 13, BLOCK 4 & LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, BIGHORN 3rd. for staff memo -- see December 9, 1976 5. SKY LION SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6. THE MARK SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT • 1 i PLAPd~dING COMMISSION SUMMARY December 16, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Abbott Corcoran Garton Wanton -- late Drager Mills White POOR RICHARDS/SHORT SWING This item not being on the agenda, just a short summation by the application, Gordon Pierce, was heard. In order to complete their plans for development of a HEALTH/ATHLETIC CLUB with some condominiums, they need to acquire about 100 square feet of land from the Town. They wanted to notify the Planning Commission, that the advertisement in the newspaper was just promotional. They know that nothing can happen unless they get the appropriate approvals from the Town of Vail. They have discussed their plans with the Town Council, and on a very preliminary basis, they have gotten some affirmative responses. 6th SENSE -- PERMISSION TO RUiJ A VENDING OPERATION Attached is the applicants request. They would like to set up a vending operation in Lionshead to sell escargo and chestnuts on a year-round basis. The structure housing this operation is a building purchased from Vail Associates, located on Vail Associates land, is approximately 6 square feet and it is to be lcoated in the North Day Skier Parking Lot. As mentioned by Diana Toughill, the Zoning Ordinance is totally silent about vending operations and the Community Development Department staff feel that some sort of legislation is necessary to control these operations. What they would like from the Planning Commission is some guidence in this matter that the staff could forward on to the Town Council. The main problem with this request is that a building needs a site and this one doesn't. The Planning Commission felt that the Town should allow these people to go ahead with their plans with the understanding that if legislation should follow, these people will have to conform. The Commission felt that vending operations should be on a licensed basis; with the licenses reviewed seasonally. • ti Page Two ;~ REQUEST FOR REZONING LOT 76, BIGHORN SECOND ADDITION. Attached is the memo describing the request. The Planning Commission, after review, were very happy with the request. Gerry White made a motion for the request; pan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF LOTS 11, 12, & 13, BLOCK 4, & LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, BH 3rd. Attached is the staff memo describing the request. It was noted that if 50% of the property owners in an area want to have a zoning change that it can be done unilaterally. {an area is decided upon the character of the lots and neighborhood). Gerry White made a motion for the request; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded.. SKY LION SPECTAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRTCT (Bill Hanlon arrived at this time.) Dana Ricklie, the architect, gave a bried history of the property in question. One problem with the parcel is an area designating a platted roadway. The road starts nowhere and goes nowhere and is not paved. There are 13.3 acres with Residential Cluster zoning which would allow 20 units to be located on the total parcel. In their request for a SDD they propose 9 single--family residences and 3 duplexes. It was noted that the lots are surrounded by Forest Service Land. Mr. Ricklie then gave an explanation of the clustering and development p1ans_including the various roadway grades and the amount of cut & fill necessary with the height of the retaining wa11s that would be necessary. For the staff presentation, Jim Lamont presented a map showing the area housing slgpes over 40%. It was noted that only 55,000 square feet (approx. 1.25 acres) of the parcel was lower than 40% slope. This buildable area was in the open and natural draingage area of the parcel. The staff, he felt would not have as much problem with the project if it was in a heavily wooded area. He has reservations about the amount of cuts needed to build the project and the fact that it is nearly impossible to revegetate the lot back to normal, natural conditions. Under the Zoning Ordinance, driveways aver 8% slope need to be heated. He mentioned that maybe one way to mitigate the cut & fill problems was to allow 0 setback from the driveways. One other area-that bothers the CDC staff was the grfa proposal. Lamont then goes on to .mention why. After a preliminary review by Eldon Beck, planning consultant, Beck feels that no development should happen on the southern side of the valley -- the site is much too visable. i The staff also brought up the economic question. Even though this is not to be considered by the Planning Commission, the staffi thought this point might be an important one -- thinking ahead so that the Town does not end wp with another unfinished project like Sunburst. '- Page Three ~~ Planning Commission Comments; Dan Corcoran felt that this site was not suitable for the proposed development because of the eeees~at~y cuts & retaining wall necessary to make it work. The only development that he thought would work were the 3 single-family dwellings on the open area. His vote for the proposed project was NO Ed Draper had problems with the project because of the visability of it. He vote was NO Sandy Mills voted NO because of the visability of the project. Dudley Abbott voted NO because of the environmental impact on the hillside Gerry ~lhite voted NQ because of the environmental and visual impact the project would have on the valley. He felt that this project would be a detriment to the valley. Bi11 Hanlon voted NO Pam Garton voted NO because of the environmental and visual impact and she had problems with the necessary cuts & fills and how it would be revegetated. As requested by the applicant a preliminary vote was taken. The Planning Commission unanimously felt that the project was not a desirable one for the Vail Valley & Community. THE MARK Jim Lamont gave a summary of the discussion held at last week`s meeting. Attached are some figures of the proposed project that were prepared by Diana Toughi7l. After a lengthy discussion between the Developer, Kaiser Morcus, and the Planning Commission, it was decided by the Planning Commission to table final decision on this matter until next week when they would have had more time to thoroughly digest all the information. r~ -~ ,,~:~:.a s. i AGENDA DECEMBER 24, 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Meadow Mountain Plan - Vail Associates, Roger Tilkemeier 2. Mark Speciai Development District - Kaiser Morcus MERRY CHRISTMAS f PLANNING COMMISSION Summary December 24, 7976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott £d Drager Pam Garton Sandy Mills Gerry White MEADOW MOUNTAIN ALAN Roger Tilkemeier, from Vail Associates, presented their long-range development plans for the Meadow Mountain Area including the King Ranch. It was noted that they have no plans for developing the area as recreational land. Commissioner Abbott felt that VAI should be encouraged to develop this land as a back up ski area to the Vail Mountain and Beaver Creek because of its prime terrain for beginning and intermediate skiing and crass-country trails. anything that could take the load off of the Vail mountain should be encouraged. ile also felt that it would held out with the Town's "westward" annexation and growth management program. The Planning Commission in general felt that over-flow capacity of the Meadow Mountain area from the Uail Mountain would be an asset, THE MARK -- SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Diana Toughill pointed out that the Planning Commission was to vote on the first draft and parameters of the Mark Development SDD 7 only. The Town should still have the right to vote on the final design and environmental impact statement at a later date. The Planning Commission then discussed the total project according to Gerry White's planning coordinates (attached is the scale}. On a preliminary basis the Mark Special Development District scored an 86. Dudley Abbott made a motion for approval of the first draft and parameters of the Mark Development -- Special Development District 7. Gerry White seconded the motion. A 4-1 vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Sandy Mills was against the motion for the following reasons: she had problems with the number of people, units, and mass of the building structure. The project by itself she liked but she had problems with the possibility that a developer would come it at a later date with a similar proposal and the Commission would have to turn it down because of the mass, addition of units and people that The Mark Project represents, Arguments for the project were: the benefit of increased facilities, i.e. the Convention Center, handball courts, tennis courts; the increased traffic generated in the Lionshead Area; it was better to have people concentrated in one mass; and this project offers an alternate pecember 24, 1976 economy to skiing -w the Convention Center which would run on a year-round ba51S. As there was no i'urther business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. • • ~ _~ ~~.- MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 30, 1976 RE: Poor Richardsi5hort Swing Request. for a Conditional Use Permit, Parking, Setback, and Site Coverage Variance, and Distance Between Buildings The applicant proposes to construct ]2 Condominium uni.ts,cornprising approximately 18,000 square feet of grfa,which are made up of a primary unit and three lock-off bedrooms each, to comply with the requirement that at least 50% of grfa be in accommodation units and 14,000 square feet health c]ub facility and 3,700 square feet of architectural office space. The request is for a parking <<' variance for 16 cars, a setback variance on the south side of the building, a separation between building variance on the west side; a site coverage variance is also necessary unless the acquisition of Town property can be consum~~dp~~;. i currently being considered. Each request wiT] be discussed separately below: A. Required setback is 20' assuming on average height of 45'. ,The setback at the closest point is 72' on the southwest corner. 6. Required distance between buildings is 20' + 1' of distance for every 3' of height over l5' or approximately 30' of separation. The proposed distance is 14' . C. The required parking is 2~ spaces for the units and l2 for the architectural office. There is no required parking for the health culb, The proposal is to provide 20 underground parking spaces. .~ -°,. Poor Richards/Short Swing 'Page two •4 , D. The maximum site coverage allowed is 551. The proposed building covers approximately 61% of the site excluding proposed acquisition from Town of Vail. Conditional Use Permits are required for the proposed 14,000 square foot health club and 3,700 square-foot architectural office. CONDISERATION OF FACTORS FOR THE VARIANCES {SECTION 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This is an unusual site as it is the first major redevelopment to take place in the Village area, The distance between building variance is necessary because the Mountain Huas is built on the east property line and encroaches on the applicant's property. The parking variance is similar to the 30-car variance granted for Village Centre i~ order to allow more landscaping. There are potentially similar requests as other projects are proposed for redevelopment. The setback variance 15 in keeping with others granted where a building abuts greenbelt. There is in excess of 100' to Gore Creek, The location of the building is also, compatible with the others in the neighborhood such as the Mountain Haus, Vorlaufer, and Wedel Inn. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation I, ~ 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would not allow an economically viable project on the site which leaves the area in its present unsightly condition. A number of variances from setback regulations and distance bewteen buildings have been granted in Lionshead and Vail Village. Since the area in front of the Transportation Center has ~n closed to traffic, it has developed into a major pedestrain area, and it seems more desirable to have landscaping adjacent to this area than surface parking. We do not feel this would be a grant of special privilege as it is consistent with the Village Center variance. Eldon Beck has suggested deleting parking from the site entirely. 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. There are no adverse impacts on light and air. The proposed use of the bull-ding represents a decrease in population which is in line with proposed growth management program and has a positive impact on distribution of population in terms of oiler night guests, The health club could have an impact on the transportation system as no parking is being provided for the facilities. due to the close proximity of the transportation center, this should not be a problem as most patrons will probably P.oor~Richards/Short Swing Page Thnee ~~ park in the center and walk accross the street, If the surface parking were provided on the site adverse traffic conditions-could be created on an already bad corner. The underground parking for the units should not create a probelm as guests will not need to use a car after arrival because of the location on the bus line. FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the varinace will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classifed in the same district. SEE ITEMS 1 and 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION! OF FACTORS. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We feel the project would have a very positive impact on the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcemer of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty~~of~ unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. • See des~i"Iption of requested variance -- practical difficulty is created by the location of .t he adjoining buildings and the long narrow shape of the site. The parking variance is desirable from an aesthetic standpoint and cons:~~tent with the variance granted for Village Center and a number of buildings in Lionshead. 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. See Items 1 and 2 under consideration of factors, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances for distance between buildings, parking, setbacks and site coverage. The staff has reviewed the Conditional Use :Kermit request according to Section 18.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The purpose statement for the PA=~xone states that the "district is~'i'~tended to provide sites for lodges and red-dential accommodations for visitors, together with.,. • limited:. professional offices... and private recreation and related visitor-oriented uses .• Poor Richards/Short Swing ' Page Four _~ as may be appropriately located in the same zone. The proposed health club and architectural office are consistent with the purpose statement of the zoning ordinance and the health club takes the Town one step further toward achieving the goals and objectives prepared by the Citizens Committee and adopted by the Council which state:' ...A. Encourage the establishment of a broad range of individual and team programs for all age ranges -~ guest and residents alike. B. Encourage the development of recreational facilities that allow for individual and team activities. C. Encourage the formation of athletic clubs and groups with a strong inter- and intra~community competition oriented programs to ensure maximum participation by spectator and athlete an a regular basis. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. There is no adverse impact on use of light and air, distribution of population. There is a very positive impact on public facilities needs in that needed recreational facilities are being provided by the private sector which will be available to the public on a fee basis, There could be an impact on the transportation system; however, we do not feel this is a significant problem. The proposed office contains approximately the same amount of square footage as the existing office and we have not experienced any adverse impacts from the existing use. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and contro], access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. We see no adverse impacts on the above factors as on-site parking is not proposed for the health club facility. Pedestrian safety should be better because the project proposed pedestrian flow across the landscaped area instead of on East Meadow Drive. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. See discussion of puppose statement of zoning ordinance. The scale and bulk of the building is compatib]e with surrounding buildings. Zf the building were smaller, it could look peculiar beside the Mountain Haas which is extremely massive. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use: The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Article 16 of this ordinance. ~o environmental impact report was required as there is no significant environmental impact. We would, however, strongly suggest that fireplaces be dis- couraged in individual units as we are developing a serious air pollution condition. .,Poor Richards/Short Swing Page Five _~ The Department of Community Development makes the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental tv the public health, safety, and welfare, and would not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The request is in conformance with the zoning ordinance except for those items requested as variances. The Department of Gommunity Development recommends approval of the Conditional Ilse Permits. L'