Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 Planning Commission Memos & Minutes January to June, 1977AGE~{DAS Planning Commis.i.an 1977 January. 6„ .•1972 LOTS 4,5,fi,7,8 61k 1 VAIL LIONSHEAD 3rd, resubdivision TRACT C,b:+Lot 8, " LOT 9, BLK 1, POTATO PATCH, rezone LOT 14, BLK 4, BIGHORN 3rd Addition resub LIONSHEAD THEATER January 13,-1977 LOT 1, BLK 2;,~POTATO PATCH rezone and resubdivide LOT 9, BLK 2, POTATO PATCH rezone LiONSHEAD THEATER January 20,;1977 LOT 14,.'BLK 4, BIGHORN SUB 3rd (80RWiCK, resub THE MARK - final EIR LOT 9;l~BL K 1,:~POTATO PATCH rezone January 27; 1977 MARK EIR MANOR VAIL setback variance LOT 1, BLK 2, POTATO PATCH 2nd,.=resub TIMBERFALLS ZONING February. l0, 1977 LOT 11, BLK2, GORE CREEK, Griffin setback EMPLOYEE HOUSING discussion HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE discussion Feb r u a ryl~• ~4;, -•197 7 LIONSHEAD 4th Filing, Selby/Tafe1 setback and Parking variance SITE 9;idecrease from 90 to 60 units r t ~. PLANNIfJG CO~ff~IT5SI0id Agenda January E, 197 1. Resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block 7, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. 2, Resubdivision of a portion of Tract C and a portion of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. 3. Rezoning of Lot 9, B1 ock i , Vai l Potato Patch from HDMF to f~1DNiF 4. Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition. 5, Lionshead Theater li ~r ,• MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Gerry White PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ Summary January 6, 1977 RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, & 7, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIOFJSHEAD THIRD FILIfJG Attached is the staff memorandum which describes the above-mentioned resub. Gerry White made a motion to approve the request/Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. RESUBDIVISIOfJ OF A PORTION OF TRACT C APJD A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 1, VAIL LIONSHEAD THTRD FILTPJG This resub. is related to the Lionshead Theater. By resubdividiog this parcel of property, it will correct a non-conforming lot size and configuration, and will create a conforming subdivision. It was noted that the only way this resubdivision will be approved by the owners of the land is if the Lionshead Theater variance is granted by the Council. There was also discussion about incorporating a 20' pedestrian easement through the property. Gerry White made a motion to approve the resubdivision avith the incorporation of the 20' pedestrian easement. Ed Drager seconded the motion. A 4-l {Mi17s against} vote was recorded in favor of the motion with Dan Corcoran abstaining, (Bill Hanlon had not yet arrived at the meeting). REZONING OF LOT 9, BLOCK ], VAIL POTATO PATCH FROM HDMF TO MDMF Diana Toughill asked that this matter be postponed until next week. Dan Corcoran made a motion to postpone discussion; Gerry White seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded to table discussion. Ed Drager asked that the staff investigate an alternate means of transport through the Lionsridge/Sandstone area -- this parcel of land may be the perfect location to take some of the pressure off of Red Sandstone Road. i• Planning Commission January 6, 1977 Page Two RESUBDIVTSION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 4, BIGf~~ORN SUBDIVISION THIRD ADDTTION. The Planning Commission ,had made a visual inspection of this property last week. Applicants would like to subdivide the parcel into 6 duplex lots with sizes ranging from 15,500 square feet to 26,700 square feet. it was noted that these lots are designed to meet the requirements of the up-coming 40% slope requirements and that the applicants followed the staff request of no more than 4 units per acre density in the resubdivision. Leroy Tobler & Tim Garton made the presentation of the proposed resubdivision of the Borwick Property ( Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd). The Planning Commission felt very positively towards the resubdivision but withheld voting until the following problems have been worked out: 1) Easement committments (re: water) 2) Low water pressure (re: fire protection} 3) Road profiles approved by Kent Rose (re; sections, culverts, cuts & fills} 4) The easement across Lot 13 (owned by Bonnie O'Leary) should be dedicated as a road 5) CATV service 6) Letter from Chen & Associates stating that the resub. is in line with all geologic concerns 7) How the parking is going to be handled on the site. LIONSHEAD THEATER -- PARKING VARIANCE This variance is for 11 spaces needed far the proposed retail area located on top of the theater. Jeff Selby & Ron Todd gave a historical description of the development of the theater. In doing so they presented a schematic plan showing the development with the ll spaces needed for the retail area on the site, as well as their proposed plan showing no parking on the site, Attached is the staff memorandum which outlines the Community Development Department's concerns. It was suggested that the applicants investigate the addition of a loading dock, and the placement of the cue stairway away from the bus stop. Dudley Abbott made a motion to grant the parking variance for the Theater; Ed Draper seconded the motion. A 4-2 vote was recorded in favor of the motion (Mills & Hanlon opposed & Corcoran abstained}. Mills and Hanlon were against the variance because they felt that at a future time parking will be needed and that the trade outs were not good enough to justify the variance (i.e. completion of the mall, landscaping) Arguments for: the theater was a needed thing for Lionshead; completion of the mall was necessary to the economic viability of the Lionshead area; on-site parking vras very unattractive; committing the applicant to a future need of parking was not feasible or fair especially when looking at the unused spaces presently required by the Zoning Ordinance -- same sore of leasing agreement should be looked into. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FKOM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 6, 1977 RE: Resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, Black 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. The applicant, Kiaser Morcus, is requesting a resubdivision of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. This parcel of property presently consists of a portion of the Mark Property and Vai:~l Associates North Day Skier Lot, The applicant would like to trade parcels of property with Uai1 Associates in order to move the present parking lot further west so that his new proposed project would fit better within-"the site. With the trade, 20 additional parking spaces would be added, but the square footage of the new lot would remain the same as the old•but having ~ifi-erent_ configuration. The Department of Community Development foresees no difficulties with the proposed resubdivision and recommends approval of the request. ~,,,, RONALD C, McLAUGHLlry _ i(E ryr~k'TH R. WRIGHT J HALF'ORD E, ERIC H!iON DOUGLAS T. 50VERN JOHN T. McLANE WILLIAM C. TAGGART !I ._ ' THOMgS W, MORRIS I~ JIM MtL O, WHIT FIHLO k WFZIGH'1"-McI..AUGFILIN CNGINEERS COMPLCTEENGiNEERING'i1.RVIGES IN TIiG SF'EClA L7Y FFE LDS C)F ENGIN EERIN6 CONSULTANTS WATER SUPPLY AND OFSTRIRUTItlN 220 wLC0T7 STREET WATER AND SEWAGE 7FeCATMLNT ' DENVER, COLDRApo 80211 SEWAGE COLLECTION AND R£U5E INO USTRFAL WASTES 1303) 468-6201 STORM DRAINAGE F L04D CONTROLANO OTyER WgTER~O RIE NT L'O PROJECTS ASPEN OFP'{C F_ BT P.AMOOAT OF FICC DILLON LAK E^ dF FI[E P. O. BOx ~axa P, o, Box S22O A SPEND dOLONADO f{611 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE, COLORADO aR499 FRISC V~ COLORADO {09.3 January 3, 177 Mr. Mike Carlisle, Fire Chief Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 8]657 pear Mike: We received the drawing of the praposed Borwick Subdivision from you today and we would like to make some preliminary comments on behalf of the Bighorn Water District. First, it appears that adequate water pressure cannot now be provided to the subdivision and that some means of increasing the. pressure will i be necessary. This could be via a booster pumping station, intercon- nection to higher pressure zone, and/or storage above the praposed site. Whatever method is selected, it must provide adequate fire'flaws as well' as adequate domestic service. We would recommend to the District that the developer be responsible for the cost of his share of any facilities necessary to serve the site. At this date, with limited time available before the January 6th dead- line you mentioned, it is not possible to determine either the most feasible service method nor the District's policy on service to this property. We would just like to indicate that there is an unresolved problem at this time. We are available to the applicant or his engi- neer to discuss possible solutions. Yours very truly, WRIGHT-Mcf_AUGHLIN ENGINEERS By ~~~ ~i Francis D. Barrett FDB:ms cc: Walter Kirch Jil~ Collins 7~+2-63 -' :: ~~ux~, C~~~~i~c~ & C~~~, ~1~~. .LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 1740 Williams Street / DenUer, Colorado 80218 / Phone E303] 399-7063 January 5, 1977 Mr. James Lamont Planning birector Town of Vail Box loo Vail, CO 81657 Re: BIGHORN WATER DISTRICT Preliminary Plat, Borwick Resubdivision of Bighorn Filing 3, Approximately 3 Acres Containing 6 Duplex Lots Dear Mr. Lamont: The Bighorn Water District has been requested to respond to the availability of water for the above-referenced proposed resubdivision. Bighorn Water District has previously indicated its ability to serve this property and does reaffirm its expectation that water service will be available to it. At the present time, the District believes its Water Rights option contract with Princeville Corporation provides it with more than adequate domestic water supplies to serve the prospective build-out of the Bighorn Water District. Also at the present time, the Big- horn Water District has just recently consummated an intercon- nection with the Gore Valley Water District, providing back-up water storage and raw water supplies in the event of an emergency need. Finally, the Distract is proceeding, along with the other water entities in the Gore Valley, to research and resolve remain- ing water supplies, storage and capital facilities issues. We expect that w:itIiin the year this revised master plan for water facilities in the Valley will be complete and the Bighorn Water District is prepared to engage in capital construction which will serve the needs of its constituents. We are aware of the water pxessure problems of this particular parcel. We believe that supplementary fire flow pumps and/or stor- age. on the property will resolve the existing problem. We fur- ther believe that within a year following the completion of the Valley-wide water study that the supplementary water supply pumps or storage will be unnecessary, since pressures in the area and/or additional storage will be increased so that the property will be c i r Mr. James Lamont January 5, 1977 Page 2 able to be served normally and adequately. Should development take place prior to this time, of course, such supplementary water flow facilities would have to be installed by the develop- ers of the property. Finally, the District has an outstanding issue with Mr. Borwick, which could affect the ability to provide water service. Consequently, unless this issue is resolved within 30 days--this commitment to serve will be withdrawn. We will for- mally ratify or withdraw this commitment to you well before your consideration of a Final Plat. if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, HORN WATER DISTRICT /~, ~~ James P. Collins Lyon, Collins ~, Co., Inc. DISTRICT MANAGER JPC:ah cc: W. Kirch All Other Board Members Thomas T. Grimshaw Fxank Barrett Kent Rose Terrell Minger Leroy Toblex, P.E. ., ~~ . ~,. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 6, 1977 RE: Lionshead Theatre Request for Parking Variance and Resubdivision of a portion of Tract C and a portion of Lot 8, Block 1, Vaii Lionshead Third Filing Rich Tofel and Jeff Selby have applied for the subject variance in order to allow the construction of a 380 seat theatre to be to:i;ally underground, with a lobby and approximately 3,300 square feet to retail space located above grade. The site proposed for resubdivision is 11,480 square feet. • PAR~CING VARIANCE: Required parking is 38 spaces for the theatre and 11 spaces for the retail space. At the request of the Planning Commission on preliminary review and Eldon Beck, all parking has been removed from the site and landscaping and pedestrian improve- ments substituted. The variance request is for 11 parking spaces far the Commercial area. The 38 spaces required for the theatre are being satisfied by a joint-use parking agreement with Vail Associates in the north day skier parking lat. Ernie Nunn of the Forest Service has stated that he agrees with evening use of the day skier lot but would have reservations of use of the theatre were not specifically designated for evening use. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (SECTION 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 mall system at the West end of Lionshead. The only structure that could be adversely impacted is Montaneros and their view corridor is to the South; however, the proposed bui]dings are one story in height and the project is a definite aesthetic improvement over the existing use. The lack of parking could create some I• .Lionshead Theater 'January 6, 1977 Page Two ;. 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 ]ot d7rect1y north of the site which is not used at night whack should accommodate auto traffic to the theatre. Hours of use of the theatre should be strictly controlled so as not to create a conflict with day-skier parking. We don`t feel that we can justify a pai^ki,ng variance for the addition of 3,300 square feet of retail space unless the applicant can demonstrate that parking can be provided on the site. We then feel we could justify removal of parking for aesthetic reasons to obtain mare landscaping. There have been no parking variances granted in the Lionshead area except those removed to allow more landscaping. This could constitute a serious precedent and grant of special privilege unless applicant can meet the criteria outlined above. 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would not allow the proposed building on the site which leaves the area in an unsightly, muddy mess. A number of parking variances have been granted in Lionshead (Vail International, Sun bird, Montaneros, Lodge at Lionshead) to allow for more landscaping. In every case, the parking could be provided but ]andscaping was more desirable in meeting the ~: goals of the Master Plan. The parking for the theatre is similar to the Crossroads request for joint-use parking and approval of the agreement would be in keeping with treatment of Crossroads Cinema as they were not required to 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 unless the applicant can demonstrate that. on-site parking can be provided and that the pedestrian mall and more landscaping would be desirable. When we have completed a comprehensive parking study, variances of this nature may well be justifiable. We strongly support Eldon's recommendation for the rethil space and landscaping instead of parking but feel that the parking must be accommodated 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 be created pertaining to distribution of population. The Lionshead area 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 theatre-goers will use the bus system; however, use of public transportation is lightest during the house 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 bulk of the proposed use is primarily underground. ~, Lionshead Theatre January 6, 1977 •,, Page Three ~I FINDINGS: ], That the granting of of special privilege properties classified the variances will not constitute a grant inconsistent with the limitations on other in the same district. SEE ITEMS 1 AND 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS. Grant of the theatre parking request 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 unless the criteria outlined in Item 2 above can be met. 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 mare 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. See description of the requested variance -- practical difficulty is created by the small lot size and location of the existing buildings. We do not feel, however, that there is a hardship involved related to the parking for the proposed retail space. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. There are no other sites in the CC2 area of this size and dimension. The proposed project solved a long-standing problem of a very unsightly gravel parking lot which probably cannot otherwise be resolved without costly litigation. The proposal also provides a solution to the "end of the Mall" quatadary and gives much needed life to Lionshead. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested joint-use agreement for parking for the theatre. We recommend denial of the parking variance for the retail space unless the criteria can be met, and propose that the applicant investigate the passibility of sharing space with another project which exceeds the parking requirement. wr rt ~~` ~ Vail Associates, lnc. January 4, 1977 Mr. Jeff Selby Gore Range Properties P.O. IIox 152$ Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Jeff: This letter is to confirm our conversations the other day wherein Vail Associates indicated that it had no objection to the use of oux north day-skiers parka.ng lot by the general public during evening hours. Our understanding is that you contemplate developing a theatre at the west end of the LionsHead mall which would be open only during the evening. We would have no objection to the use of the north day-skiers parking l.ot by theatre patrons during the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, Such hours would avoid a conflict between the parking requirements of your patrons and those of our skiers and still permit us to properly plow the lot after midnight. <du should be aware, however, that should you plan to offer matinee showings during the winter months, there would likely be a direct conflict with the lot's intended use to provide parking for our skiers and our employees. By agreement with the U.S. Forest Service, a minimum number of parking spaces must be available for skier use. Accordingly, in recognition of this obligation, we will continue to control the daytime use of the lot. Tn addition, there may be times when the lot may be closed to the public for construction, maintenance, or other similar reasons, and again, we reserve the right to close it for such purposes ~~t our discretion, although. we believe that these occasions will be infrequent. By way of clarification, this essentially represents our position with respect to the use of any of our public lots by non-skiers. Jack Barr, our Mountain Services Manager, is directly responsible fnr the admini- stration of these public lots and you should contact him if you have any further questions. Sincerely, VAIN, ASSOCTATFS, TNC. James R. Bartlett -F'XECUtive Vice President cc: Jack Barr Town Council Sox 7, Vail, Colorado 81657, 303/G76-5601 r~ ~ . <<~.~r. ` . PLAfJNING COMMISSION Agenda January 13, 1977 s 1. Vail Associates, request to rezone and resubdivide Lot 1, 81ock 2, Vail Potato Patch 2. Robert Lazier request to rezone Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch .from HDMF to MDMF 3. Presentation to the Council Members on the parking variance for Lionshead Theater i~ ~. _. i~ PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Lunch Meeting January 13, 1977 TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION 1) Request for printed copy (up-dated} of the Toning Ordinance 2} Request for Continual up-dating re: litigation 3} General consideration of F{igh Density Zones 4) Evaluation of Growth Impact Analysis rating scale 5) Parking -- a) general philosophy -w what it is/what it should be b) real situation -- as it is/goal c) grounds far variances (is the ordinance realistic re parking requirement) d) CCI Parking Contract Situation • a~~ PLANNING COMMISSION Summary ~ January 13, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Pam Garton Sandy Mills Gerry White VAIL ASSOCIATES, Request to Rezone and Resubdivide Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Roger Tilkemeier, from. Vail Associates, gave the Planning Commission some background information pertaining to the site in question. Their proposed plan is to down-zone the property from MDMF to two family residential, and subdivide the property into four duplex lots and one single family lot. Attached is the staff comment and recommendation which was for approval provided that the road right-of-way prab7em be resolved. Diana Toughill did raise the issue of: possible "spot-zoning" pertaining to :the one single-family lot located within two family lots. VA's reasons for having the one SFR lot is that they would like to have 4 good sized duplex lots and 1 good sized SFR lot rather than 5 nominal sized lots zoned two family, and there. seems.to, be a natural boundary bet4veen;the SFR lot and the adjoining duplex lot. If forced to have 5 duplex lots, one piece of property would have a natural drainage line right in the middle of his lot, it was suggested by Commissioner Abbott that some other form of access be investigated other than the use of Sandstone Road w~iich is already tao congested and becoming a problem. The staff felt that this was an item that might be brought up as a separate item on another Planning Commission agenda when the people directly dealing with this problem could be present. As there was no further discussion, Gerry White made a motion for approval of the rezoning and resubdivision of Lot i, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch provided that Larry Rider review the question of 1 SFR lot within duplex zoning as "spot-zoning" and the appropriate action taken; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A 5-0 .vote was recorded in favor of the motion with Dan Corcoran abstaining. PROPOSED REZONING OF LOT 9, B1..OCK 2, VAIL POTATO PATCH FROM HDMF TO MDMF The applicant, Robert Lazier, requests dawn zoning the above-mentioned property from HDMF to MDMF. His preliminary plans for the site include a 90 unit project with a GRFA of approximately 75,000 square feet. Ron Todd, the architect, gave a presentation of their preliminary master plan as well as similar plans located on lower density zone districts. (This was done as a staff request for the Planning Commissions information). Attached on the staff memorandum is a chart which compares the proposal with the allowable factors in various zone districts. Diana Toughill gave the staff presentation which summarizes the staff memorandum. She touched upon the following factors in re]ation to the project: Planning Commission -2- January 13, 1977 n 1) Visual and aesthetic impact; 2} Popu]ation 3} ~'arking and traffic flow 4} Recreational amenities 5} Relationship of the undeveloped sites .in the surrounding area to this project as well as the relationship of the developed sites. It was noted by the staff that the general neighborhood is of a residential nature and would a project of this size fit in? Commissioner Corcoran felt that the area is not primarily a residential area. There are a few single family and duplex lots nestled in with multi-family dwellings, i,e. Sandstone Condos. Brooktree, Almond Apts, etc. Commissioner White felt very favorable towards the project in general. According to the chart, the applicant has severely cut his allowed site coverage, added more landscaping, and has cut down the height of his buildings. He felt that this project was definitely in keeping with Growth Management was was willing to vote on the project, Ed Drager, Dudley Abbott and Sandy Mills felt that they needed more time to think about the project and to decide which lower density zone is the most appropriate given the exising conditions and character of the surrounding neighborhood, A 3,3 vote was recorded in favor of tabling final decision until next week. LIONSHEAD THEATER -- PARKICdG VARIANCE The applicants gave the same presentation to the Council members present as to the Planning Commission last week. The Planning Commission voted 4-2 in in favor of the parking variance with Dan Corcoran abstaining at their January 6, 1977 meeting. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Rod Slifer 8i11 Wilto John Dobson i• ~~.i ;~ .r ~ , MEMORANDUM i• TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 13, 1977 RE: Proposed rezoning of Lot 9, Block 2, Vail/Potato Patch from HDMF to MDMF The applicant, Robert T. Lazier, has requested a downzoning from }iDMF to MDMF with a total maximum of 90 one- and two-bedroom units and a gross residential floor area of approximately 75,000 square feet. The Planning Commission and the staff have discussed at great length what the proper zoning should be far the subject property. We have all felt that HDMF was too high in density. Since there seems to be no consensus, each zone district through residential will be compared for the site. (See attached chart). There are several important factors which must be considered before an intellegent decision can be made to determine the proper zoning for this important site. 1) Visual and aesthetic impact -- Eldon Beck`s visual analysis of the valley flags this site as one with a great deal of visual importance due to its location and visibility from almost every angle -- It may be to our advantage to allow the additional units and population in order to gain the covered parking and in turn less total site coverage, 2} Population -- The impact of population on the valley is critical tv the proposed growth management plan. If we assume that all our efforts will lead us to a population in the range of 30,000, HDMF zoning would allow approximately 10% of the remaining population in this project; MDMF' approximately 6% of the total; the proposed project approximately 3.6%; LDMF approximately 2,3%; RC approximately l.l% and R less than 1%. 3) Relationship of the use to the development objectives of the Town,-- After controlling the population, our goal has been to concentrate density near the pedestrain areas and mass transportation. With the completion of the I-70 overpass, the proposed project meets bath these criteria, It also has good auto access from the North Frontage Road. • ~.s= Lazier -2- January 13, 1977 4) We must also consider the effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, .~ traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The proposed project could generate 120 cars. If we assume the normal average trips per unit per day of 3.7 per unit, it could increase traffic on the Frontage Road by 333 cars per day. This may not be a valid assumption given the pedestrian over- pass and the proximity to mass transit. There is adequate snow storage area on the site. Careful attention must be given to entry and exit from the Frontage Road. Since the entrance to the Frontage Road is on a fairly streep hill, we would strongly recommend that there be only one entry and exit paint rather than the four ramp system as proposed. 5) Another consideration is the effect of the proposed project 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 project could make it necessary to add an additional bus or larger bus to the Sandstone route, There should be little impact on light and air as buildings are lower than most surrounding structures. The requested down-zoning has a positive impact on distribution of .population as it is significantly lower than is now permitted. There could be some impact on schools if some units are long-term, and some impact on water and sewer usage, as well as other utilities. Use of solar energy on this south exposure should be carefully considered. Adequate recreational facilities should be encouraged on the site to provide for the project so as not to create an adverse impact on public recreation facilities. The proposed project is directly adjacent to the Sandstone Tot Lot, b) Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located must be considered, including the scale and bulk of the proposed structures in relation to surrounding uses. The character of the Potato Patch/Sandstone area has changed significantly since Lot 9 was originally zoned HDMF; 9th Filing was down-zoned from MDMF' to R as have two' other Potato Patch sites. The entire Potato Patch area was down-zoned approximately 35% by Vail Associates at the time it was subdivided in 197G, The character is residential, primarily made up of long-term residents--short-term housing may be in conflict with the established character. 7) We must be extremely careful in evaluating the impact of the project, both visually and physically., on the adjoining neighborhood. Special care must be taken that views are not blocked and that any surface parking is screened with landscaping to protect views from 9th Filing and upper residential lots in Potato Patch. S) Another consideration is the relationship of the proposed project to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. One of the most important factors we must realize is what can be built given the existing zoning which would take an absolute minimum . of 45 days to change. There are two remaining MDMF sites and one HDMF site in the vicinity. •• ~••{" Lazier - 3 - January 13, 7977 ~• i• We, as a staff, feel that this is one of the most important decisions ever faced by the Planning Commission and feel that any decision reached should be based on the positive and negative factors enumerated, and nat on a staff recommendation. We do, however, feel that down-zoning -is very much in order, but it must be decided which lower density zone is most appropriate given the existing conditions and character of the surrounding neighborhood. ,' .~ ~ r ~ ~ 0 0 rS M M d' O I~ ~ N N N Q 1 N 6 O O ~ LL' ^ ^ " ` ~ `7' ~~ N O r ~ N _.~ - ~ 0 00 M + ~ M 61 ~ O I.i) O ti 1 O I to N^ cJ• N l0 n N O N t0 N ~ ~ N 00 L r r ~ U ~ ~ d- r-• ~ M N. r- t.~ N N N S. V o\°\° o\°\° ~ ~ t1. N ~ ~ ~ ~ M N lp Cf' 1 M ~ ~ N O N r r N p J d• ~ '"- d' ~"~ r ~ N N ue .. 4- s `~" s ~ ro o n • o "I•~ CT i- d' O ~ L.t_ N N ~ ~ ~ o _, 6. M 1 t ~ LS7 l!') O O ~ til p ~ ~. ~ ~ d- N l0 M M N n M ~ ~"'• r 1 n ~ (V O (~ M ^ N ~ ~ X ~ L!7 •~ ~ tl,.. ~ ~ M ~ 'O O •I~ ~ p- . O ' tV •r ~ V ~ to C3"' ss N N ~ ~ N N ~ O V •r X _ N~ ~ M M O O CO N LCS N In M o ~ S, Q7 O L ~ L d' N ~ ~ ~ r r- l0 N . ~ ~ ~ M ~ d ~ ~._. N n O ~ ~ ~ O N .O ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ . 4 M ~O ' CTt LL.. V I CT ~ N ~ d' N O ~ N ~~ m - •[-~ ~ N ~M 1 I f+'i L.f) t-C) Lf) O lf') lf7 CI• ~ 07 I lp LS) ~ N M 1 •~ N ~.fY M 4c7 N ~ ~ ~ O r- ~ r- N N r r ~ ~-•~ s~'1 ~ .Q ~ r L51 4J N fC ~ •r N J S` •r S. ~ • ~ r O1 tis ~-? -}-~ ~ ~ r- ro v N ..~ •r f/1 ~ N ~ O ~ r ~ O tl1 tV •r U O ~ ~ .r ~ m J ~ (I~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ (/7 •r ~- ro R7 ~ b ~ 'r`"' ~ i Q.1 ~ •r Q . r--• r- ~ O (n Q ~ C~3 ~ fb m t~ Q ~ ~} ~ ~ U 3 ~O CT ~ O O C? ~ O O r ~ M • .O r^- ~ O d ~ {.) N O O •r '~ i. M S. ~ O•r N Q ~ V 7 O" ~ ~ ~ • ~ S-. ~ ~ -- >1 ~ O N O r--• S- 1 CL~ 41 ~ i ~ ~ - a~ N ~ i M Q- O O al 1 O S]. l0 I O O 1 ~ N G1' ~ L t O N l ?~ tL 1 ro 7 V 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ro 1 id C i.. 1 CCI 41 •i-~ L fG • O 4J 41 1 ~ •r' ~ ~ O r O N 1 ~ a ~s a- a o i .l r~ N L U l~ 1 •I--ti QJ •,_ S.. O.. N t -I-3 ~r 04 d• 1 ~ O 00 ~ ! O C L ~~ ~ O Q1 1 V)r'.1-~ 1 I 1 O O O 1 L S- S` • 1 rCS ~ O 1 r- 1 f/7 VI 1 •F-t ~ C31 1 •r •r S. -p I ~ C [C CU ~ 3 N ~ ~ a •~ ~ ~ r •r •r •r C U ~ ~ O 0 2 ~F- ~ ~ >~ ~ n •r •rr r- r O r- ~ ~ Z7 ~ ~ N 4J CI1 -C 5= y_ O 4^ ~- O -r O O ~-+ Rj \oeO oz$ G O E• M r QJ Gl S` ~ ~ .. •r ~ N ~ •r ~ S.. ~ X 0. N ~ +~ ~ "~ Q~ S., (11 ~ N - • ~ N UI Q Q' ~ N ~ U d -K r r i • • • THE tV~ORTER/TODD PARTIVERSI-~~P, A[A AROROSED DEU~LOFMENT LOT 9, BLOCK 2, VAIL/POTATO PATCH PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ,lanuary 12', 1977 PRELIMINARY SITE DATA Total Site Area Total Coverage by Buildings Residential Parking Structures Club House landscaping and Open Space 26,400 S.F. - (6 @ 4400 S.F.} 24,ooa 5.F. -- (2 a 12,Oao s.F.} 1,000 S.F. 214,273 S.F. 60,400 S.F. (28%) 140,000 S.F. ~- PRELIMINARY BUILDING AND UNIT DATA Total Units - 90 42 one bedrooms @ 680 S.F. = 28,560 G.R.F.A. 12 two bedrooms @ 970 S.F. = 11,640 G.R.F.A. 36 two bedrooms @ 965 S.F. = 34,740 G.R.F.A. Total Gross Residential Floor Area {6 Total Buildings with approximately 12,49.0 G.R.F.A./Building.} PARKING DATA Total Parking 64 covered fi4 uncovered CROSSROADS AT VAfL 128 Spaces 74,940 S.F. BOX 11$6 VA~L, COLQRADO 81657 476-5105 4 ~ r MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 13, 7977 RE: Vail Associates' Request to Rezone and Resubdivide Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch contains 8b,4~54 square feet (6,54T acres) and is presently zoned Medium Density Multiple-Family which would a1Tow 30 dwelling units to be constructed on the site. The request for resubdivision and rezoning is for five {5).lots zoned two family residential which would a11ow a maximum of 10 dwelling units, or a reduction in density of ZO dwelling unit. The resubdivision and rezoning of this site meets the specifications of the subdivision and zoning regulations except for the fo]1owing: 1} We have allowed the right-of-way width of View Drive and Simba Drive to be reduced to 30 feet, It should be 40 feet, but this has been reduced so that the road conforms better to the topography of the site. 2) Parts of the road right-of-way lie outside the boundary of the property and are awned by the Sun Company and Joe Staufer. These easements must be acquired and officially dedicated to the Town . The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this rezoning and resubdivision request. The density reduction is in line with the present effort to reduce densities in the Valley. This area of Potato Patch is relatively flat and can absorb the type of development proposed for the site. CJ y 4 * ~ s MFMOl~ANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: January 25, 1977 RE.t Rezoning of L.ot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch from HDMF to MDMF On January 20, 1977 the Planning Commission voted 5-1 in favor of recommending this proposal in accordance with the staff memorandum and development chart. In general the Planning Commission felt that this request was in keeping with the ~up-coming"Growth Management" program and the schematic design of the project fit well within the surrounding neighborhood,i.e. Sandstone 70, Srooktree, Almond Apartments, etc,. which is a predominately multi-family neighborhood with a few residences nestled in. ( See staffi memo .for complete description} Alternate residential zone districts were investigated closely in relation to this project (see chart located in the staff memo} ,and the Planning Commission felt that the applicant had severely cut his allowed site coverage, added more landscaping, and cut down the height of his buildings under the allowable of MDMF. Ed Drager made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with a 90 unit maximum development to be placed on the approval. Gerry White seconded the motion. A 5-1 vote was recorded in favor of the proposal. (Sandy Mills was against because of the added density and the location of the proposed project). s 1i. 7 r ~~ PLANPdING COMMISSION Agenda ~7anuary 20, 1977 1. RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 14, BLOCK 4, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION THIRD ADDITION (BORWICK) 2. THE MARK ~- FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3. REZONING OF LOT 9, BLOCK 1, VAIL POTATO PATCH- FROM HDMF TO MDMF (LAZIER} i~ PLANNING COMMISSION Summary January 2O, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Pam Garton Sandy Mills Gerry White UPDATE ON COUNCIL ACTIONS Jim Lamont gave a brief update of the Council's actions related to Planning Commission matters. RESUBDIVISION OF LOT lA~, BLOCK 4, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION THIRD ADDITION (Borwick} Diana Toughill and the applicants, Leroy Tobler and Tim Garton, gave a brief summary of the proposal (reference January 6, 1977 P.C. meeting}. Most of the problems mentioned at the last meeting had been taken care of. One of the major questions to be resolved before final plat approval is who will be responsible to pay for the CATV service? Tim Garton is to work that out with Frank Thompson of the Vail CATU. Road dedications and pedestrian easements are also to be taken care of before final plat approval. It was decided by the Planning Commission (Mills and Drager against) that the $% land dedication was not necessary in this case -- the land that would be dedicated would be of no real value or benefit because of the location to the TOV. The applicant agreed to write covenents and allow agricultural zoning to be placed on that parcel so that open space would remain. Dudley Abbott made a motion to approve the preliminary resubdivision plan without the land dedication; Gerry White seconded the motion. A 4-2 vote was recorded in favor of the motion (Mills & Drager apposed), THE MARK --~ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT John Ryan gave a brief descript-ion of the changes in the Mark's EIR report. The additional factors to be considered consisted of: 1) Economic Impact 2) Bus System 3) new section dealing with Mitigating Strategies The Planning Commission deferred final action on the report until next week when they will have had time to completely review it. Planning Commission -2- January 24, 1977 ,~ r RE7OiVIf~G OF LOT 9, BLOCf< 1 , VA~L POTATO PATCH FROM HQMF TO MOMF (LAZIER) As requested by the Planning Commission, at their January 73, 1977 meeting, the applicant, Robert Lazier, returned to the Planning Commission for a final vote on his request (reference January ]3, 1977 meeting. After considerable discussion, Ed Prager made a motion to approve the rezoning with a 90 unit maximum development to be placed on the property; Gerry White seconded the motion. A 5-1 vote was recorded in favor of the motion (Mills against). As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. °~. M ti~ PLAI~~lING COMMISSION Agenda January 27, 1977 1. The Mark Environmental Impact Statement -- Final approval 2, Manor Uail -- Request i'or setback variance on Building B 3. Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 2> Vail/Potato Patch 2nd Filing final plat approval 4. Discussion of Timberfal1s zoning -- Ron Riley •_R ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION Summary January 27, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Bill Hanlon Ed Drager Sandy Mills Gerry White THE MAR~C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,- FINAL APPROVAL The applicant, Kaiser Morcus, had no additional comments to make, so Diana Toughill outlined the staff metnorandum.to the Planning Commission. Areas that should be noted or identified some problem areas were as follows: 1) Occupancy data ~- staff felit that the figures were understated approximately 1i~-12% during the peak times. 2} Overflow guests -- where will they stay? 3) Employment --~ more jobs created but poss~b1e lack of employee housing for people employed not at the Mark 4) Recreational Amenities 5) Energy Consumption --~ alternate energy sources should be investigated and possibly incorporated into the design process 6) Sewer Gapacity -~-~ it was noted that the project will be completed summer of 1975 rather than winter of 1975 (phase I of the project) -- this should have a benefitial effect upon the sewer capacity 7) surface runoff 8) fireplaces -- the total project is limited to two fireplaces 9) pedestrian access from the project to Lionshead 10) parking 11} increased bus usage The Planning Commission felt that the report covered all of the areas that needed to be discussed and was very complete. The mitigating measures must be followed throughout the project as was outlined in the Report, Dudley Abbott made a motion to recommend approval of the report provided that the mitigating measures must be followed throughout the project; Gerry White seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of recommending approval of the report. ~., Planning Commission -2- January 27, 1977 :; MANOR UAIL ~- SETBACK VARIANCE FOR BUILDING B Dick Elias gave a presentation of the design of Building Band explained why the proposed variance of approximately 8 feet is requested. Diana Toughill went through the staff memo (attached) and recommended approval of the request, Gerry White made a motion to approve the request; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the request, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT L, BLOCK 2, VAIL/POTATO PATCH 2nd FILING It was noted that this plat and resubdivision request has been changed to incorporate 6 du p1 ex lots rather than 4 single-family and 1 duplex lot as was originally proposed.* Jim Lamont requested that the applicant obtain a letter from CATV stating who is going to provide the service, who vrill pay for it, when it will be put into effect before the final plat is brought before the Council for action. * This change was made due to legal imp7icatians of possible "spot-zoning". Ed Drager made a motion to recommend approval. of the requested resubdivision provided that the applicant submit a letter of committment to revegetate the cut areas far the road and to do proper bank recontouring; Gerry White seconded the motion, A 5-0 vote was recorded in favor of the motion, Dan Corcoran abstained from the vote. DISCUSSION OF TIMBERFALLS ZONING Ron Riley, representing TimberfaTls, would like to volunteerily dawn-zone his property provided that he get a guarantee from the planning commission or council that his project would not bet down zoned again when the Growth Management program is put into effect. It was noted by the staff & Planning Commission that this kind of committment can't be made, The areas that will probably be down zoned without density transfer will be hazard zoning: mass wasting, avalanche, flood plain, rock fall It was suggested that the applicant create a special development district ; incorporating his existing zoning, This would allow his a "cushion"' against down-zoning, • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 27, 1977 RE: The Mark Environmental Impact Report The Department of Community Development has reviewed the revised impact statement for the proposed Mark project and have the following statements: 1) Given occupancy data produced as a part of the Growth Management Study, the potential peak population impact could be understated (page 9.) 2} The estimated overflow guests raises an interesting question -- are there enough vacant rooms in the Lionshead area to accommodate the overflow? Using the occupancy characteristics outlined on page 9, a total of 438 condominium units or 875 accommodation units would be necessary to house the guests that could not stay at the Mark. The greatest overflow is projected in July. Using current units surveyed in Lionshead (accommodation for approximately 2,675 people} and occupancy figures far those units (51% in July) and assuming their occupancy will increase at the same rate projected for the Mark, adequate accommodations do not presently exist. Approximately 200 additional accommodation units or 100 condominium units would be necessary. With the proposed complex on the Vail 8 site, there should be enough units in Lionshead (page 22}. 3) Projected employment of 272 persons at full capacity creates an additional 129 jobs which in turn creates the need for additional employee housing units, If we assume that 80% of the employees reside in the Gore Valley and that each employee unit houses an average of 3 persons, an additional 34 employee dwelling units (impact report estimated 40) would be required, Kaiser controls Fall Line apartments which he utilized for employee housing. There are 54 apartments . Mark Environmental. Impact Report -2- January LI, i~i~ in the complex or possibly fewer than the additional demand created by the project (page 24 & 31). The additional residents generated in Eagle County compounds this. We must also consider the non-Mark employees that will be displaced by Mark employees. 4) In an analysis of projected revenue to the Town of Vail, one important category has been over looked -- the Recreational Amentities Tax of approximately $81,000.00 of which approximately $25,000 will be retained by the Town after appropriate credit for on-site amenities has been granted. Another major income category is tap fees to the Water & Sanitation District of in excess of $60,000. No attempt was made to estimate increased lift-line waiting time created by the Mark (probably an impossible task as the use characteristics of Lionshead will probably change with this being the only Gondola). But, if we assume an average lift wait of 15 minutes, a 19% increase would be no more than a 3 minute increase which does not seem significant (page 37). 5) The negative impact of firepiaces has been lessened by limiting fireplaces to 2 in public areas (page 40). 6} Energy consumption has been addressed, but the report does not state whether the additional natural gas and electricity is avialable to meet the demand. We would again strongly recommend that alternative energy sources and conservation techniques be thoroughly investigated (page 41 ). 7) Sewer capacity seems to be a possible problem during the 1978 season, but will be resolved prior to the 1979 season. In the meantime, the Town will be placing the burden on the Upper Eagle .Valley Sanitation System, which they will be equipped to handle (page 43). 8) Surface runoff should be provided for as outlined in the report or by an alternate method, This should be a requirement for approval of the E.I.R. (page 44). Mark Environmental Impact Report -3- January 27, 1977 9) Pedestrian access through Lianshead to the gondola area must be thoroughly studied by the Town and Vail Associates. The Mark plan must provide access through the project from the West Parking Lot (page 45). 10} The Porest Service is providing a general policy statement regarding day-skier parking lot use. There appears to be no problem in utilizing the west lot for overflow parking in the summer months {page 46}. If current winter parking trends continue, conventions during this time should have adequate on-site parking. 11) The estimated increase in bus useage generated by the project tends to indicate the necessity of purchasing at least one additional bus to serve the project, The estimated additional revenue generated annually is sufficient to purchase several new -buses each year (page 49 - 52). We strongly recommend that the Planning Commission review the proposed mitigation measures in detail and make recommendations to the Council to incorporate the.necessary measures as a part of the final approval, Our staff specifically recommends adoption of all the mitigation strategies that apply tb design and landscaping (page 54) and pedestrian circulation (page 55). A specific requirement for on-site employee parking should be required during winter months (page 57). Alternatives outlined for large groups during winter season should be carefully considered. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the final draft of the Mark Impact Statement. R11 areas of concern have been adequately addressed, •~. ~~ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: gepartment of Community Development DATE: January 27, 1977 RE: Manor Vail Setback Variance Request The applicant has requested a setback variance on the east side of Building B of the Manor Vail Lodge in order to construct a single story circulation hallway addition. The required setback i~ 12 feet 10-~ inches; the application proposed a setback of 2 feet 6 inches at the eastern corner of the proposed addition. The area in violation is a triangle with a base of 11 feet and a height of 24 feet. This triangle is shown in red on the enclosed site plan. The reason stated by the applicant for the variance is to improve the appearance of the finished product by permitted a regular instead of an irregular shape and a11ow for improved circulation within 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. The smaller triangle on the rear side of the building does not interfere with existing or potential uses in the vicinity. Directly behind the rear of the building is a greenbelt area which extends down to Gore Creek. The location of the variance is mare than 100 feet from the Creek. The required setback from the center of Gore Creek is 50 feet, 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. • Manor Vail Setback Variance -2- January 27, 1977 • ~ ~el;ef from strict or literal interpretation is being sought sa Chat the building is mare in conformance with bulk regulations and so that the proposed addition fits in with the shape of the existing structure. The Northwoods project is comparable to the requested setback as a part of the SDD approval. 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. !fie see no adverse impacts upon 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 wi11 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. 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 or properties are located adjacent to the proposed setback request. 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, The area being considered in the variance request will be attached to a building which presently has a non-conforming setback distance. The variance request is warranted due to the past history of the building, and due to the fact that it will improve the use and appearance of the present site. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance as requested, r. ~ ~ r PLANNING COMMISSION Ag~.nda February 10, I977 ~., SETBACK VARIANCE, J.C. GRIFFIN RESIDENCE Lat 11., Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision 2. Discussion o~ Employee Housing 3. Discussion at Hazard honing Ordinance i A PLANNING COMMISSION Summary February 10, 19'77 MEMBERS PRESENT; Dudley Abbott Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Gerry White DISCUSSION OF INTERPRETATION "OF SECTION 3.505 OF TIIE ZONING ORDINANCE Merv Lapin and Diana Toughill, Zoning Administrator, brought a disagreement as to the interpretation of Section 3,505 of the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission fox final dec~.sion, The interpretation of Section 3,505, Density Definition for 2-Family Residenta~al, is also related to Section 1.600, The Planning Commission decided unanimously in favor of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, J.C, GRIFFIN SETBACK VARIANCE, LOT ll, BLOCK 2, GORE CREEK SUBDIVISION Attached is the staff memorandum relating to this application. Bill Hanlon made a motion to recommend approval of the setback variance as outlined in the staff memorandum; Ed Drager seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion, HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE AND DISCUSSION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING These two items were postponed until February 17, 1977. MEMORANi]UM • _ - -_ T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1977 RE: REQUEST FOF2 SETBACK VARIANCE ~ J. C, GRIFFIN LOT II, BLOCK 2, Gore Creek Subdivision The applicant has requested a setback of 15 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 20 feet in order to construct a single family residence, The variance is requested in order to conform to the required 50 foot setback requirement fror~~ Gore Creek and due to the topography of the lat. The Department ofi Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclu- sions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The plans for the proposed structure would have no adverse impact on other existing or proposed structures in the area There are several other lots in the Gore Creek Subdivision which will require similar variances in order to place houses sufficiently away from Gore Creek, 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, One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the environment and to discourage excessive cuts or fills. The proposed location of the residence is in keeping with this objective. Existing houses in the area which were built prior to zoning are as close to or closer to the front property lines due to the same lot configuration problems. ><Ve have not had any residences constructed among Gore Creek since the institution of the creek setback requirement. G;~iffin w February 10, 1977 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distitubtion of population, transportation and traf#ic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safiety, We do not fioresee any adverse effects upon these factors. The proposed residence is quite small (less than 1,000 sq, ft. of site coverage} and a fow profile. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, No additional factors seems to be pertinent. The Department of Community Development finds that: Tha# 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, We feel it is more important to preserve the Gore Creek stream bank It and avoid excessive cuts or fills than require precisely 20 feet of front setback. The lot topography and location of stream bnaks dictates proposed placement of the residence on the site. Considering the very small size of the proposed residence, it would be nearly impossible to construct anything on the site without some variance, either from the front or from the stream. We do not feel that the grant of the variance would be a grant of specie! privilege. The Department' of Community Development recommends approval of the I• requested setback variance, L PLANNING CCMMISSI4N Rgenda rt~ February 17r 1977 1, Cartwright/M~ieller Subdivision Preliminary Review 2. Selby/Tofel setback variance and/or parking variance- ~iv 1' F i PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda February 24, 1977 1. Selby/Tofel -- request for setback variance ox request for parking variance and setback variance -- Lionshead 4th filing 2. Site 9 -- decrease from 90 units to 60 units as requested by the developer 3. Cartwright/Mueller proposed resubdivision of I,ot $, Vail Village 10th Filing 4. Pulls property preliminary hearing on the possibilty of a PUI} for a portion of the Sunburst property and the 14 acres north of I-70 across from. the Go~.f Course PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY February 24, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT; Ed Drager Dan Corcoran Pam Garton Sandy Mxlls Gerry White SELBY/TOFEL --.PARKING VARIANCE The applicants proposed two options to. the Planning Commission. Option A required a setback variance on the north side of the property and a 17 parking space variance. Option B, which would give more landscaping, required a 16 parking space variance. Jeff Selby gave a brief history of events surrounding the various variance applications and the Council reaction. Ed Drager made a motion to grant a 9 feet setback variance; Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Ed Drager then made a motion to recommend approval of the 16 parking space variance for the 4,804 square feet of commercial space with the stipulation that $3,500 per space be put into a escrow account 99 similar to the CCI agreement. Pam Garton seconded the motoon. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote. At this time Fam Garton suggested a zoning amendment so that the 16 spaces could be used from the Landmark Parking Lot (which is awned by Selby) on a leasing basis. Ed Drager made a motion to approve that suggestion; Gerry White seconded the motion. A 5-0 vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Option B was approved. SITE 9 -- DECREASE FROM 90 UNITS TO 60 UNITS AS REQUESTED BY DEVELOPER The developer, Bob Lazier, Voluntarily wants to down-zone the property from 90 units to &0 maximum. This would be a reduction from 6 buildings on the property to 4. There would also be a difference in 30 surf ace parking spaces. It was noted that the majority of the project would be 2 and 3 bedroom units. Gerry White made a motion to recommend approval of this request. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded CARTWRIGHT/MUELLER --- resubdivision of their l.ot in the 10th filing The applicants would like to subdivide their lot into 2 single family residential dwelling units, with conditional uses as stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance. (This proposal was discussed at the Feb. 17 meeting with Jay Peterson representing the applicants. Gerry White made a motion to recommend approval of the subdivision; Ed Drager seconded the motion, A 4-0 vote was recorded (Dan Corcoran abstained.) JAY & WARREN PULIS -- PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THE NORTH 17 ACRES ADJACENT TO SUNBURST AND A PORTION OF THE SUNBURST PLACED IN A P.U.D. The applicants would like the 17 acres, on the north side of I-70 accross from the Golf Course (not within the Town limits) to be considered for LDMF zoning with the residential portion of Sunburst property zoned LDMF if residential is not practical. There would be the possibility of 30-40 homesites. They then went on to give the current status of the Sunburst project. The Owners (FDMI) would like to sell the existing units individually, It was noted that a certificate of occupancy could probably be issued if the area was resubdivided and rezoned with the landscaping requirement completed. The Sunburst PUD called for 585 units on a 40 acre parcel. 72 units presently exist with plans in the making for 30--40 additional homesites. The area north of I-70 at LDMF zoning {12 units per acre) would give approximately 150--200 long-teem housing units, {There exists about 14 buildable acres.) The Planning Commission did not make any motion at this time . As there was no further busa.ness to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. w ~ ~ A MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE; FEBRUARY 24, 1977 RE; SELBY/TOFEL REQUEST FOR SETBAGK VARIANCE OR REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE LIONSHEAD 4th Filing Rich Tofel and Jeff Selby have applied for variances which consider two different proposals. One requires a setback variance of 9' and a parking variance for 16 spaces for 4,864 sq, ft. of commercial space; the second proposal is for 4,558 sq, ft. of commercial space which requires a setback variance of 9' and provides 17 underground parking spaces. For a recap of all issues involved in this particular site and project, please see staff memoranda dated October 14, 1976 and January 6, 1977. Issue of setback variance will not be discussed as the same factors have been previously covered in the memos. The pri- merry issue as we see it is the request for a parking variance for 17 cars with a request that it be handled in a similar way to those granted in Commercial Core 1. The applicants have stated to the Council that they would be willing to escrow sufficient money to cover the $3,5p0 cost of a parking space at the time they received a Building Permit. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are no other similar sites in the Lionshead area which abut the existing mall system and also are adjacent to the major bus route. The proposed project forms a necessary completion for the west end of the Lionshead mall system. It is very probable that Vail Associates Selby/Tofel , February 24, 1977 Page 2 will apply for a large variance to remodel. the Gondola II Building if this variance is granted, In our January 6 memo we felt that we could not justify a variance unless the applicant could demonstrate tk~at parking could be provided on the site and then removed for aesthetic reasons, which they have been able to do. 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 tine vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege, A number of parking variances have been grazated in Lionshead (Vail International, Sunbird, Montaneros, Lodge at Lionshead} in order to allow for mare landscaping, The mall system would probably work better if there were not the conflict between cars and pedestrians introduced and also a more attractive landscaped area could be provided. Many variances have been granted in Commercial Core 1 with the pro- vision that the applicant pay far spaces in the Parking Structure. Data from recent parking surveys indicate that public lots in Lions- hear are at capacity and that private lots are less than 50% full which seems to imply that more public parking and less private parking are necessary. If we were to escrow money which might have been spent on private parking which is not being uses and instead apply it to structuring additional parking in th.e public lots, bath public and private needs seem to be best served. The following is a recap of four days of surveying private and public parking lots: % Occupied %.Dccupied Covered Uncovered % YM Cars Hilton 51.5% 0.0% 4,1% Vail International 59.1 29.3 9.5 Sunbird ~ - 72.0 12.5 V.A (Gondola) 66.6 66.6 58.0 Lionshead Lodge 66.6 40 15.7 Treetops 27.5 27,7 4.2 Lionshead Center 41.6 27.7 22.5 Lifthouse/Vail 21 71.7 45.3 44.0 Vantage Point 50,0 42,3 17,$ Westwind 57.5 66.6 28.2 Landmark 71.1 49,7 28.0 Vailglo 64.4 0.4 9.5 Enzian 45,8 15,1 29.0 Montaneros 92.7 '44.7 13.6 Mark 63.6 37.0 13.4 Lion Square North 33.3 41,1 44.4 Antlers 43,2 36.9 4.0 Lion Square Lodge 81,8 48.8 6,3 ' ~, SelbyiTofel February 24, 1977 `Page 3 East and North day skier ,parking ~.ots - 71.4 ~ 94,5% fu11 with 10% to 40% of the cars with YM plates, depending upon the day and the time surveyed. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, anal public safety. A Positive impact could be created population, The Lionshead area as activity to draw people through the adverse ampact on the other factors project is quite low and small, FINDINGS; pertaining to distribution of in critical need of additional mall area. We foxesee na other as the bulk of the prapased 1. That the granting of the variances will not cansatute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distract. s See Items 1 and 2 under Consideration of factors. Grant of the parking variance with a contract to escrow money in lieu of providing the spaces is consistent with treatment of Commercial Core 1. Even though these are two separate zone districts, their characteris- tics are very similar. Criteria as outlined an January 6 memo has also been met. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detri- mental to the public health, safety, or-welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, We feel the proposed project (with parking variance) would have a very 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 hard- ship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The request for setback variance is necessitated by the proposed mall through the center of the project which makes the west end of Lionshead a more desirable place for people. • e Selby/Tof e1 February 24~ 1977 Page ~ b. There are exceptional. or extraordinary circum- stances ar conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. There are no other sites in the CC2 area o~ this size and dimension. The proposed project solves. a long-standing problem of a very un- signtly gravel parking lot which probably cannot otherwise be re- solved without costly ligigation. The proposal also provides a solution to the "end of the Ma11f` quandary and gives much needed life to Lionshead. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance and far the parking variance so long as the applicant is willing to escrow funds to cover the $3,504 per space at the time a Building Permit is granted. • ~. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1977 RE: PROPOSED RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 8, VAIL VILLAGE 10th FILING The applicants, Johann and Ann Marie Nfueller and William H. and Alice Cartwright, have requested a resubdivision of the subject lot which contains 33,504 square feet. A two-family residence has been constructed upon the site. The proposed plat consists of Lot $--A which contains 16,741 sq, ft, and Lot 8-B which contains 16,763 sq, ft, The proposed lat line follows the centerline of the existing duplex, Both lots meet the minimum size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants have agreed to place a restriction on the plat which restricts each subdivided lot to no more than one single- family residence. The Town has the further protection of the pro- posed hazard legislation which would not allow further development of either site. With the restriction placed on the subdivision plat and the control which would exist through the hazard legislation, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the pro- posed resubdivision of Lot S, Vail Village 10th Filing. PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda March 10, 1977 ~. 1. Lapin Residence Variance from Section 3.503 of the Zoning Ordinance Lot 7, Vail Village 2nd Filing 2. Pierce/Nilsson GRFA Variance Sandstone 70 -- Units lOD and 15D 3. Benysh Setback and GRFA Variance Unit 7, Bighorn Terrace 4. Lazier Parking Variance Lot 9, Block 2, Vail/Potato Patch 5, Hazard Zoning Ordinance formal hearing s F ~• ~~ _~ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE; March 10, 1977 RE; Benysh GRFA and Setback Variance for Bighorn Terrace Unit #7 The applicants, Kathryn R,, Ruth E. and Howard M. Benysh, have applied for a gross residential floor area variance of 130 square feet and a setback variance of $ feet on the north side of the property facing U.S. 6 in order to enclose an existing balcony on the north side of the property. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (SECTION 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance in other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. "The proposed addition is compatible in size and style with similar additions in the area..," We foresee no adverse impacts. on any other buildings in the vicinity. It should be noted that the proposed addition does not encroach on any other existing structures and there is sufficient right-of-way on Highway 6 for the snow storage wzth the setback variance. 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 original intent of the Bighorn Terrace was for second family homes. Over the years it has made a transition to housing for permanent residents. It is evident from the floor plan that the units are not sufficient for long-term housing. The proposed changes are intended to improve the common living area only and not to increase the bed capacity. Similar additions could be permitted in the neighborhood provided that they do not violate the setback between buzlding requirements.. In addition, the location of the deck on the south side of the structure improves its usefulness. .~-,~ r Benysh ~- ~~~• Page Two 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public faci~,itics and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance would have no impact on population, transportation, traffic of utilities. FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special provilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties classified in the same district. We feel that approval of the requested variances would not be a grant of special privilege in the the proposed addition conforms to similar structures in the vicinity. All of the buildings in the Bighorn Terrace area were constructed prior to annexation and zoning, and most exterior modifications would require a similar 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 proposed variance would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity, due to the distance from other existing buildings and the fact that the occupancy rate is not increased. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following 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 Declaration of Purposes in the Zoning .Ordinance state; "These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and. general welfare of the Town of Vail, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." There is a physical hardship created by the small size of the lot and the location of the existing house. We feel. that approval of the requested variances is consistent with the objectives of the ordinance in that the addition would give a "higher quality" of living for long- term residents, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances. °;.^ r _~._-.i ~~ . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March l0, 1977 RE; Merv Lapin, Variance from .Section 3.505 of the Zoning Ordinance for Lot 7, Vail Village Second Filing The applicant, Merv Lapin, is requesting a variance from • Section 3.505, Density Control, in order to construct 2 unconnected single-family units on a lot zoned 2-family residential. The ordinance as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, speaks directly to the fact that two structures must be connected on a duplex zoned lot. Currently, there exists two separate single family residences. The applicant would like to remove the "3-Pad" structure in order to build a single-family residence that would better suit his needs for a permanent residence. His basis for hardship is the deep, natural drainage ditch that runs through his property which is also used by the Town of Vail to dump snow. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The applicant is across the street from the Clinic, and then surrounded on both sides by duplex structures with a southern boundary on Gore Creek. The proposed structure would have no more impact on the surrounding neighborhood than what presently exists, 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. Lapin Page :.Two ,~ ~ Strict interpretation of the ordinance could produce some environmental problems to both the applicant and the T6wn - chan~ing the natural path of a drainage area could be very hazardous environmentally. It is far this reason we feel that granting of this variance would not constitute special privilege. 3, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distributionof population; transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public saf ety. We foresee no adverse effects on these factors, FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitutE a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same district. Other properties in the 2--family residential district have complied with this regulation, but to our knowledge none have been faced with the natural drainage problem that exists here. It shoulc also be noted that the app~.icant is not completely starting aver wit a new site plan. He proposes to remove the one 3-pod structure and replace it with a residence approximately 1.,500 square feet less in grfa that what exists,as well as to let the one single family residence located on the eastern side of the property remain. 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 foresee no adverse effects in granting of this variance. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: (a} The strict or literal interpretation and enforce of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The drainage way that runs through the applicant's property is mare like a small creek in that water is Tuning through it at all times of the year; this, in our view, constitutes a physical hardshi that would be unnecessarily expensive and environmentally unsafe to try and mitigate. With the applicant's voluntary reduction in grfa, the fact that two separate buildings already exist on the property and the physica. hardship created by the drainage, the Department of Community Develop recommends approval of the requested variance. _~ ~. "lam ~i ~'' MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 10, 1977 RE; Pierce/Nilsson GRFA Variance The applicants, William Pierce and John Nilsson, are requesting a grfa variance in order to enclose their respective balconies in the Sandstone 70 complex. The enclosures would add $5 square feet to each unit; bringing the total floor area of each unit to 1,053 square feet. Currently, the Sandstone 70/Westview development is over its grfa allowance by 13,988 square feet; therefore, any additions to living area would require a variance. It should be noted that the proposed additions together would add less than .3% to the GRFA for the total site. 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 proposed balcony enclosures face Sandstone Creek on the western side of the property and will have minimal impact on its neighbors at Breakaway West. During the enclosure process, the balconies will nat be extended, only made more factional by the enclosure. In fact, enclosing the balconies would give more form and diversification to an already uniform neighborhood. We feel that similar additions should be encouraged to make small units more livable and attractive for long-term residents. 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+ There are 67 units on 3.0 acres within the Sandstone 70/Westview development. The small living space, 968 square feet per unit, makes it very inconvenient for permanent occupancy. The development did conform to the county regulations when it was built prior to annexation, and due to the existing amount of grfa, any additional floor area needed to make the units more livable would require a variance. We feel that this request is in line with the declaration of purposed stated in the ordinance, and that the granting of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege as the number of units placed on the small sate creates a physical hardship. It should be noted that the applicants wish to enlarge their dining room space rather than to add more "bed space". One such enclosure already exists in that neighborhood and it has minimal impact ozx the surrounding areas. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and publa.c safety . We foresee no adverse effects on these factors. FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grnat of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See Item 2 under consideration of Factors. We feel. that approval of the requested variance would not be a grant of special privilege. All of the buildings in the Sandstone 70/Westview area were constructed prior to annexation and zoning, and most exterior and interior modifications would, in our view, not be detrimental. The western facade of the buildings would be improved as well as make them 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 or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed variance would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity, and the adjoining property owners have voiced no objections to the requested balcony enclosures. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or mare 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 number of units on a small site thus giving each unit a very small amount of living space. The applicants want to use the space afforded by the balconies on a year-round basis to increase the size of their living and dining area. As noted above, the increased grfa requested by the variance ~~ Pierce/Nilsson •Page~ Two would add less than .3% of the total grf a in the deve~.opment as well. as making the units (lOD and 15D of Sandstone 70) more livable. ~. Approval of this variance xs consistent with th~:~bjectives of the ordinance as stated in the declaration.of purpose for the zoning ordinance. The Department of Community Development can foresee no adverse affects created by the proposed variance nor a grant of special privilege, We, therefore, recommend approval of the variance sought. C :7 . .: • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda March 3, 1977 1. Review of Avalanche Report for Lot ].6, Bighorn Subdivision for Mr. & Mrs. Hemby 2. Preliminary discussion of employee housing (American Development Corporation) • PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY March 3, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Gerry White OTHERS PRESENT; Bill Heimbach Rod Slifer Bill Wilto Rich Tofel American Development Carp. John Ryan LOT 16 AVALANCHE REPORT Jim Lamont gave a brief summary of the staff recommendation in regard to the avalanche report for Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision for John R and Margery J. Hemby. (attached). The staff recommends that the Hemby's be contacted to get their permission to send the report to the property owners of Lots ll and 13 due to the fact that their lots are also endangered by possible avalanches. Linda Lovejoy, representing the Hemby's,stated that the owner of Lot 11 was contacted about possible avalanche danger but chose to not respond, and that the Hemby's did not know of the danger to Lot 13. Gerry White made a motion to approve the report and the approve of building on Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision with the constraints outlined in the report. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEEDS Jim Lamont noted that this portion of the meeting would be an informational session on long range housing needs in relation to the Growth Management Plan. He then sited some figures from John Ryan's studies that showed the need for long range employee housing. This was followed up by a summary of the staff investigations: i,e. how many new projects are being proposed and the affect they will have on the number of new employee jobs created.-- haw will this affect the availability of housing? It was noted that there are three types of employees and their individual needs should be studied: i.e. 1) transient; 2) 1-3 year employee; 3) the permanent employee. John Ryan then gave a brief summary of the work he is presently doing for Eagle County in relation to housing,& major forces .affecting the county's economy i.e. mining, new ski areas, growth management controls, the construction element; the area operator, tourist spending -- things that are feeders into the basic employment level. He also went into a discussion about areas of concern in relation to employee housing: i.e. the present shortage, the potential shortage, the number of jobs being created '.with expansion of the county's economic base in relation to the availability of housing, the differing income levels, and the question of what kind of options can we or should we give people in the choice of housing types? All of this material will be included in Ryan's final report for Eagle County. EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL FROM AMERTCAN DEVELOPMENT CARP. -- PRELIMTNARY Gordon Mikkelson gave a brief overview of what American Development is and what it is trying to do as well as who they are affiliated with, Ne sited some of the projects that they have completed and some that axe in the process of completion. Brent Miller, the architect for American Development, gave a schematic overview of their proposal. They would like it to be done in 2 phases with 200 units on 10.1 acres at the completion. The site they have picked out is Block C, Lionsridge area. It was noted that this area was earmarked by Eldon Beck as being one for possible employee housing. Phase T of the project would include 96 units on 4.6 acres of land. 60% of the units would be 1 bedrooms renting for approximately $230.00 a month, not including furniture or electricity, and 40% of the units would be 2 bedrooms renting for approximately $310.00 unfurnished. The 1 bedroom units would be approximately 560 square feet with the 2 bedroom units at 725 square feet, Mr, Miller then went on to explain the floor plan, the reason they had orientated the buildings the way they did, etc. If this project were to go ahead, the applicants would have to request an upzoning from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family. What they wanted from the Planning Commission was some direction; is what they are planning a viable solution? Should they proceed in the direction they are headed? Commissioner White felt that employee housing was definitely needed, and he felt comfortable with the direction they were taking. Sandy Mills questioned the legal aspects of upzaning this parcel of land when in fact the town is considering a major down zoning for all undeveloped parcels -- would it be fair? Bill Heimbach suggested that the developers, go to the media, in order to get feed back from local citizens because they are the ones who will either make the project or break it. He then went into discussion about the employee housing project that VA proposed for Potato Patch, they problems they had, and why it was eventually abandoned. Rod Slifer had the same concerns as Councilman Heimbach. Commissioner Corcoran felt that the rent structure was not good enough to justify the needed upzaning -- it is too comprobable to what is already available. Commissioner Drager had the same concerns as Corcoran. With a fairly negative feedback from the Commission on this project, the meeting adjourned. 4 '4• ` M ,, MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 3, 1977 RE: Avalanche Report, Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision John R and Margery J. Hemby An avalanche report for the subject lot prepared by Art Mears indicates that a portion of Lot 16 is free from avalanche hazard, but could be subject to power blast. The report recommends structure placement on the north side of the Lot at least 10 meters from the boundary of the run-out zone. The report also recommends . that engineering criteria similar to that required in the Boulder area be used to prevent possible wind damage which could result from the stagnation pressure created by the powder blast. The report also recommends that protection be provided for the existing houses located on lots 11 and 13 of the Bighorn Subdivision. To quote the report "Assuming a useful economic life of 40 years for this building and an avalanche probability of 5 percent at its location, there is an $7 percent chance it will be reached once by an avalanche. if it is occupied for 10 years by one owner, there is a 40 percent chance it will be reached once during that ownership. Such risks are unacceptable and it is recommended that an avalanche def:ez~se system be designed land built to protect this building." Our staff strop 1 recommends that the Hemby's be contacted g y to get their permission to send this prrtion of the report to the ~~ property owners of Lots 11 and 13. _~ 'f ~r t- Based on "Avanalche Dynamics of the Bighorn Path" dated '~ January 1977, the Department o~ Community Development recommends approval of building on Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision with constraints as outlined in the report. • • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda ~~ March 24, 1977 1. Hazard Zoning Ordinance G ust a reminder -- this must be finalized today!} 2. Site 9 --- Lazier review of possible rezoning to either Residential C1.uster or 2-Family residential --- per Council request 3 . Vax.l. Athletic Club acquisition of Parcel B • • . ~ .~, d •'~ • • • PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Maxch 31, 1977 1. Consideration o~ h4emorandum on Site 9 to the Cnuneil 2, Finalization of Hazard Zonxn~ Ord-Hance DRAFT MEMO TO: TowEi Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: March 34, 1977 RE: Recommendation on Site 9 Zoning I'he Planning Commission wants to reaffirm its recommendation o£ approval of the down-zoning of Site 9 from FIDIvkF to MD1kF (The 64-unit proposal), with the exception of Sandy Mills, who now supports a lower density zoning on this site. • Because of the Council's decision to reconsider the proposal, the Planning Commission feels that this single issue, i.e. the applicant's request for downzoning tkie property from IiDMI~' to t,_~]MF • with a 60-unit maximum on the site should be decided on it s: own merit. The consideration of rezoning Site 9 to either 2-family residential or residential, cluste:* has been tabled at this time; however, the • Planning Commission would like the Town Council to be aware that they have looked at various zoning and. density alternatives during the • months that they reviewed the proposals for Site 9, and have reviewed a residential scheme as recently as last week. The Planning Commission would like to reiterate the background for its recommendation of apprw al for the applicant's proposal . on Site 9. 1) This site has been the g~n ter of contxoversy fox over ~ Q "~ W~" ~ yeah in regaxd to its HDMF zonS:ng.n The Planning Commission had recommended to, Council a review of the site to consider xezoning it __ ~ ~ to a lower density; however, the Council dec]ined to consider rezoning on this single, isolated site at that time. 2) The present applicant came in to voluntarily regnest. ;~~ -.~.~ ~~~If~ 1~"' ^erVa+-C+s ,~ ~d.X•twtaw, a~'~C( (j (,I V3 f down-zoning of the site from HDMF, with a maximum of 94 units. At the urging of the Cauncil, the proposal was further reduced to 64 units, which basically reduced the project to LDMF standards. After long review and consideration of the project, the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the following facts: a) that the Town Council. had declined to down-zone the site previously . b) that the current proposed down--zoning was of such a significant degree tp bring the; density down to a very comfortable and logical Ieve1. r '•~ c) that the proposal seemed consistent with the school site and Sun-Vai.l project to the east, and was a logical buffer zone between the Frontage Road and the surrounding xesidential and agriculture zones. d) that the current proposal, with just four buildings, would have the least visual and aesthetic impact on the site and would allow for minima]. distrubance to the site, 'as well as providing a very large amount of. open space. Both the Town Staff and the • applicant's architect presented some very preliminary schemes of lower density zones which the planning Commission felt would have a considerable impact because of the greater road cuts, dxivoway • access, more privacy, more buildings and less open space. e) that the app]: ant had consistently responded to the concerns of the Planning Commission and Town Council and ha~ made changes in the proposal ~„~:~~_,~,;,,,,;;;'.~ • ~ i• • • • i• • • r Avalanche, High Hazard Area - shall moan any area impacted by a snow avalanche with impact pressure in excess of 60U pounds per square foot and/or return interval of less than ~~ 25 years. High hazard avalanche areas shall be designated by ~ r¢ M ars ~~~ avalanche maps prepared for the Town of Vail by Arthur ~ ~~ or by definitive study as prescribed by the Toning Administrator according to commonly agreed upon scientific method of ana7.ysis and calculation. ~S 1 V1 ~"~ €~~'~~ `~ ~~ ~ Avalanche, Medium Hazard Area - sha7.1 mean any area impacted by a snow avalanche with impact pressure less than 600 pounds per square foot and a return interval between 25 and 100 years. kiedium hazard avalanche areas shall be designated ~;y avalanche ~. rnaps prepared far the Town of Vail by Arthur Nlears or by definitive study as prescribed by the Zoning Administrator. a~ Construction shal3 not be permitted i.n these areas without definitive studies outlining appropriate defense measures as prescribed by the 'Coning Administrator. Avalanche, Zone of Influence - shall mean any area in a . potential avalanche zone where detailed information is not presently available. These areas are designated by avalanche maps prepared for the Town of Vail by Arthur Mears. Con- struction shall not be permitted in these areas without further ~, ,~ detailed studies, as prescribed by the Zoning Administrator. ,.ter )flood Plain - shall mean any area subject to impact by 100 year flood as defined by the Gore Creek Flood Plain Information P Report, June 1975, prepared by Hydro Triad, Ltd., or as 'designated by demfi~ni~tilv~e s udy as prescribed by the Zoning Administrator. IJ4./t_~~,JS' ~ R Garage - space or spaces limi ed to the housing of automobiles ~ not including accessory storage areas. A garage parking space in a single-family or two-family structure shall be limited to an area of 11 feet by 21 feet per space with each space having unencumbered egress to the exterior. ,: -2- ;~ Rapid ?lass Wasting, High hazard Area - sha11 mean any area sub,~ect to debris flows, debris floods, debris avalanches, rock- i'all or rock. avalanches which, because of their probability and destructive potential, could endanger life and property. High hazard rapid mass wasting areas shall be designated by maps prepared for the Town of Vail by Arthur Mears or by definitive study aS prescribed by the Zoning Administrator according to commonly agreed upon scientific methods of analysis and calcu7_ation. Rapid Mass Wasting, Medium Hazard Area -- shall mean any area sub- ject to debris flows, debris floods, debris avalanches, rockiall or rock avalanches where the impacts are less severe than i.n a hi.gH hazard rapid mass wasting area. Medium hazard rapid '• • 3nass a~asti.~3g areas shall be designated by maps prepared for the Town of Vail by Arthur Mears or by definitive study as pres- cribed by the Zoning Administrator. Construction shall not be permitted in these areas without definitive studies outlining appropriate defense measures as prescribed by the Zani.ng Administrator, ~ ~,~--•~- Slope - The gradient or configuration of the undisturbed land surface prior to site improvement of a lot, site, or parcel which shall be established by measuring the maximum number of feet in elevation gained or lost over each 1Q feet or fraction thereof measured horizontally in any direction between opposing lot lines; the relationship of elevation or vertical measure-~ ment as divided by the Horizontal measurement shall be exprESSed as a percentile as a means of quantifying the term slope. • • ~ , .. r • • .. ~ / "`11 '..~.,.. j _.~e ~.. _~ I ..... •~. .. ....-... - ~ .., s t _-.-~.~ _ _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi If~~. "may ~ ~ { ` ~y ~ III ~ -- - ---._...W.._. I ~`` ~ ri ',.,~~ t, ~ ' y ~ ~ ~ - ... ~ ~ I ~ f 5 -^ i ~ ' '~ ' ~ - -----'...v y a i ~. 1 ; ~, F L ~ ~ . _.... - ---- ._.~. - _- ~ ; ~...____.. _ i --. _ -~ ,~ 1 ... -_ ~ 4 . _.... Q_ ~_ ~... ©. ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ <~ i ~ ~ _....~ _ ~-._.....`.. -~ -_--o---.~`_ .~ ~_ __ i _.. ..i ~ i ~~ ...... ~~ - -.... ~ r' ,, C _, ~~ ~ J~~ -- I ~ q~ . .. .. _ :: __ . . .. -.-- _ 3 _~ r PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda April 7, 1977 I. The Mark -- ResubdiVision of Lots 5 & 6 Vail Lionshead Third Filing and a Vacation of the Vail/Lionshead Filth Filing 2. Vail Athletic Clu3a -- Preliminary Discussion of Building Bulk Control Variance 3. Apollo Park -- Preliminary D~.scussion of the Addition of the Poor Richards Building to the Project PLANNING COMMISSION Summary- April 7, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT; Dudley Abbott Ed Drager Pam Caxton Bill Hanlon Gerry White THE MARK -- RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 5 & 6 VAIL LIONSHEAD THIRD FILING AND A VACATION OF THE VAIL/LTONSHEAD FIFTH FILING Fred Otto, representing Kaiser Morcus, exp<lained.that xn the original plat of the resubdivision, Mr, Morcus neglected to get the signatures of the individual condominium owners on the plat, By failing ~o do so, the subdivision plat was invalid. What they propose to do now is cxeate a resubdivision of Lots 5 & 6 which wi11 exclude the present Mark project but will be in keeping with all of the requirements of the Special Development District, Planning Commission asked that the staff have Larry Rider check on the legal aspects of this change to make sure that it will be in conformity with the requirements of the SDD. Bill Hanlon made a motion to approve the resubdivision of Lots 5 & 6 Vail Lionshead Third Filing and a vacation of the Vaal Lionshead Fifth Filing subject to the approval of Larry Rider that this change would meet all the specifics of the SDD. Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB -- PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF BUILDING BULK CONTROL VARIANCE _ _ Tt has been noted that this project is in need of a building bulk control variance due to the fact that it is approximately 20` over the allowable. The applicant, Gordan Pierce, wanted to get a "straw vote" from the Planning Commission to see what their feelings were in relation to this up-coming variance. Jim Lamont read through the criteria and findings of the honing Ordinance to see if the Planning Commission members could foresee any difficulties arising. It was mentioned that the configureation of this particular site was difficult and that the proposed structure blended well with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission unanimously felt at this time that the variance would cause no difficulties. (It was noted that if the building was made to conform to the regulations, that the swimming pool would probably have to come out of the project.} • APOLLO PARK EXPANSION The applicant, Chuck Ogliby, wanted to get a preliminary feeling from the Planning Commission as to the viability of purchasing the "Poor Richards" building and placing it on his Apollo Park project. Apollo Park at this time is a legal non~canforming development in relation toy;the parking requirements of the HMDF zone district. By placing this building, approximately 2,400 square feet of additional grfa, on the site, he would need to supply additional parking spaces which he would like to have above ground. The Planning Commission questioned whether an alteration to a non- conforming development would necessitate bringing the total development into conformance. They directed the staff to find an answer to this point. Before the Planning Commission could give any indication to Mr. Ogliby, they wanted to see the site plan redrawn to reflect how the parking area currently exists and how the additional parking would fit into the scheme. ~ t r MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: April 5, 2977 RE: Recommendation on Site 9 honing The Planning Commission wants to reaffirm its recommendation of approval of the down-zoning of Site 9 from HDMF to MDMF (The 6Q-unit proposal), with the exception of Sandy Mills, who now supports a lower density zoning on this site. Because of the Council's decision to reconsider the proposal, the Planning Commission feels that this single issue, i.e. the applicant's request for down zoning tlae property from HDMF to MDMF with a 60-unit maximum, should be decided on its own merit. The consideration of rezoning Site 9 to either 2-family residential or residential cluster has been tabled at this time; however, the Planning Commission would like the Town Council to be aware that they have looked at various zoning and density alternatives during the months that they reviewed the proposals far Site 9 as well as residential schemes as recently as March 23rd. The Planning Commission would like to reiterate the background for its recommendation of approval for the applicant's proposal on Site 9. 1} This site has been the center of controversy for over two years in regard to its HDMF zoning. Over a year ago, the Planning Commission had recommended to Council a review of the site to consider rezoning it to a lower density; however, the Council declined to consider rezoning on what they judged to be a single, isolated site R Council -~- April 5, 1977 (Site 9) at that time. 2) The present applicant came in to voluntarily request down-zoning of the site from HDMF, with a maximum of 246 units, to MDMF with a maximum of 90 units. At the urging of the Council, the proposal was further reduced to 60 units, which basically reduced the project to LDMF standards. After long review and consideration of the project, the Planning Commission recommended approval based on the following facts a) that the Town Council had declined to down--zone the site previously; b} that the current proposed down-zoning was of such a significant degree to bring the density down to a very comfortable and logical level. c) that the proposal seemed consistent with the school site and Sun Vail project to the east, and was a logical buffer zone between the Frontage Road anal the ..surrounding residential and agriculture zones. d) that the current proposal, with just four buildings, would have the least visual and aesthetic impact on the site and would allow for minimal disturbance to the site, as well as providing a very large amount of open space. Both the Town Staff and the applicant's architect presented some very preliminary schemes of lower density zones which the Planning Commission felt would have a considerable impact on the site because of the excessive road cuts, driveway access, more privacy, more buildings, and less open space. e) that the applicant has generally responded to the concerns of the .Planning Commission and Town Council which has ~. resulted in changes~~in his original proposal. ~: • r Council -3- April 5, 1977 a (Site 9) ADDENDUM It zs common knowledge that the purchase of this property by the present applicant is tzed to a 60-unit minirr-um by the contract with the se~.ler. Because of this situation we have the strong impression that tha.s site will continue to be the center of controversy if the present request is rejected. ~^ .~ PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda April lg, 1977 1. Borwick Subdivision 2. Beaver Creek Presentation - Dave Mott 3. Hazaxd Zoning Preparation 4. Timber Txuck on Red Sandstone Road 5. EIR For Vail Village Inn i. • • _w r ~ MINUTBS VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION 14 APRIL 1977 3:00 P.M. Present Chairman Pam Garton, Sandy Mills, Dudley Abbott, Gerry White, Bi11 Hanlon and Ed Drager Staff present Jim Lamont, Jim Rubin, Kent Rose Rosalie Jeffrey - Recording Secretary BORWICK SUBDTVISION Tim Garton was present fox final plat approval of the resubdivisaon of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision, Third Addition. Kent Rose was called in for technical advice concerning the roadway easement, percentage of grade on MH-6 and dedication of land. After some dis- cussion, Dudley Abbott moved to approve the request subject to the changes in items #2, 3 and 5 of the Staff Memo of 4/14/77 to the Planning Commission, as noted below. Changes: #2 The property in question is presently deeded to Barwick and the improvements are deeded to the water district. Tim Garton agreed to sign a statement that the land under the easement will not be built on, and that, if the treatment plant is abandoned, the sate is to be returned to its natural. state, #3 The permanent roadway easement is held by Barwick. The development requires an easement through Lot 13, which parcel is owned by Bonnie O'Leary. Tim Garton stated that he would attempt to obtain a dedication from Ms. O'Leary. The Planning Commission agreed that if the dedication cannot be obtained, a roadway easement would be sufficient. #5 With regard to the sewer line for the develop- ment, a 38 o grade exists in the Brie. Kent Rose stated that the VWSD would require an 18% grade for that distance, since there would be a possibility of the line clogging at such a steep grade. Tim Vail Planning Commission ' '' Minutes x/14/77 Garton agreed to redesign the sewer Iine and put MH-6 at the corner of Tract A with a length of 40' and a lower o grade. This was acceptable to Rose, representing the VWSD. With regard to the bridge on Columbine Road, the Planning Commission was advised of a problem concerning; bridge access. (See attached letter: KRR to R.A. Prosence; 4/5/77). The motion by Abbott was seconded by Bill Hanlon; a1I present voted in favor, and the motion carried. APPROVED. _. ~... A Rec rding Sec ~J • MEMORADUM TO; Flanning Commission, FROM; Department Of Community Developement DATE: April, 14, 1977 RE: Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Sub- division Third Addition ~~~,.~.~~ Lot 14, Black 4, Bighorn Third Addition contains 159,865 square feet (3.67 acres} and is presently zoned Two-family residential which would allow 21 units to be constructed on the site. The request for resubdivision would allow a maxi- mum of 12 units on 6 lots. The lots have been piotte:t. to be in compliance with the new hazard Zoning ordinance. The Department of Community Developement recommends ap- proval of the resubdivision with the following conditions: s 1} Tract A be dedicated to the Tawn of Va~.l as public open space --2) The site of the Booth Creek Water treatment- G~~/.L ~ plant be dedicated to the Town of Vail as ~~,~~C: public open pace, if the treatment plan s removed, ~~~~, ,OJ~'~,QCIn~ f~2i. ~°.~ ,~ -''3 T roa wa easem nt throw h Lot 13 be fil~d } he d y e g and recorder' at th County ar~d recorde on - the F i na 1 P 1 ~,t ( rn ~ ~ C~1 ~.e e~z~.~' ~ ~ ~ G~~--'~% ~ ~-c ~• ~ 4) A correction be made a.n the sevezYth line of the legal description changing the number 50.00 feet to 5$ feet "~5} The sewer ia.ne fallow the road between • MH--6 and MH-7 .. -~ `i [7 p~A~~ p~ ~GI~~ ~~ E box l00 vaii, coioracio $7657 (303] 476-567 3 ' office of the town manager April 5, 1977 Mr, R.A. Prosence District Engineer Calorado Department of Highways P.O. Box 2107 Grand Junction, Calorado $1501 Deax Dick: As.a paxt of the Interstate 7Q project, a concrete box culvert was constructed to serve as access to a small piece of private Land that was not condemned during xight-of-way acquisition. The local road is Columbine Drive in the Bighorn-area. The Town of Vail has been maintaining the box as a part of the roadway system, but not without gxeat difficulty. I would like to enumerate the problems we have had, anticipate additional concerns, and ask if5the highway Department can offer any relief in the matter, PROBLEDiS I) Poor visibility; sight distance on north end is not adequate due to .the alignment of the box with the roadway. .2) Icing condition; water flows into the box and freezes, making it impass~.ble due to the combination of ice and excessive grade. If two vehicles enter the box simultaneously, downhill .vehicles cannot stop without hitting the box walls or the o~hher vehicle. Snow plows often ride the walls of the box ~vith the blade because they cannot straignten out. Residents of the area park on the south side of the box and walk over the Interstate because they cannot drive ar ~valk througl~ the box, 3) Blowing snow forms a cornice on the north en.d that must be knocked off into the road~vay and plowed away. i Mr. R.A. Prosence ~`UTURE CONCERNS: 3) Additianai of twelve additional fn the one-lane box. -2- Apr~.l 5, 1977 traffic created by the proposed development units will increase the accident potential. 2) Feopl~: walking over the Interstate after it is open wl.1l place themselves in dangerous situations and interfere with traffic. 3) Snow ploGVing operations on the Interstate could potentially load the rna:d on the north end of tine box to the extent that the local plows could not push through on the uphill grade, I feel the Highway Department has a responsibility to help alleviate these problems, At this sate date it only makes sense to try to work with what we have rather than consid~:r major revisions in the box, The area on the north end of the box should be regraded and shaped to improve site distance for vehicles entering or exiting the box. At the same time, the existing culvert, related drainage and snow storage areas could be increased to stop the flow of water into the box, A permanent snow fence might possibly be installed to stop drifting into the area. We have documented these conditions on fa,lm and would like to meet with your representatives to cooperatively solve our problems. Thank you. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC iYORKS `~ j ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~~~ v~ ~~::~ c ent R. Rose, P.E. Director KRR/ j ek cc: hir. Tim Garton • r, .... ~~~ UNI7EU SPATES DEPARTMENT pF AGRICULTURE FOREST SE32VICE " W111TE ftIYER NATIdNAL FORE5T Mi:nturn, Colorado 81645 .. ,. ,:~ IN RErIT REiER YO: 2400 April 5, 1977 , i• ,t.:f...:..~ ~i West Vail Association Mr. Al Weiss 1905 West Gare Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Weiss: -• `The Forest Service is planning to se11 a timber sale in the Moni.ger and Dickson Creek area. The sale wou3.d be sold in 1978 and would require that log trucks use the Red Sandstone Road. We would like public input concerning the proposed timber sale and the use of the Red Sandstone Road. The road and its use by heavy truck traffic may be of concern to some of your members in the Red Sandstone area. VJe would appreciate your passing this on to members that would care to comment or have questions. For further information-, please contact the Holy Cxoss District office in Minturn. • Sincerely, • .1 J ERNTE R. NUNN District Ranger f ~~1~ ,L , . ~, PLANNTNG COMMTSSIQN AGENDA April 21, 1977 1.) Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the addition a~ a sub-committee to Design Review Board to review signs. 2.) Re-subdivision of a portion o~ the Sunburst property to Vail Valley Third. Addition 3.) Apollo Park -- Preliminary discussion of the addition of the Poor Richards building to the project. ~.) Vail Village Inn - Phase II - Environmental Impact Report is ,; -., MINUTES VAII., PLANNING COMMISSION 21 APRIL 1977 ,3:00 P.M. Present: Gerry White Ed Drager Sandy Mills Absent: Chairman Parn Garton Staff Present: Jim Lamont Jim Rubin Rosalie Jeffrey Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Members of the Commission voted to appoint Ed Drager as Acting Chairman for the meeting due to the absence of Pam Garton. RESUBDIVISION OF SUNBURST PROPERTY - Vail Valley Third Addition Warren and Jay Pulis, owners of a portion of the Sunburst property known as Vail Valley Third Addition, were present to make a preliminary presentation to the Planning Commission for development of the property. Jay Pulis explained the plan as including 23 Duplex units along the 18th fairway of the golf course on 1500 square foot lots. The land is currently part of the Sunburst P.U.D. He noted that an avalanche area has been designated by Hydro Triad, Inc. and is outlined on the preliminary plat. Mr. Pulis then commented that the Town will have to vacate the bicycle path which is on his property and relocate it along Sunburst Drivo. The Town will have his cooperation in the matter. Jim Lamont stated that the Department of Community Development will study the proposal in depth and bring a report to the Planning Commission concerning the legal status of the project as it relates to the existing Sunburst P.U.D. With regard to Sunburst Drive as it exists, Jay Pulis said that he will request it be vacated; will then build another road and a cul-de-sac to the east on the Katsos property. Bill Hanlon commented that he feels there will be an outburst to the proposal to separate from Sunburst and make duplexes, also to suggest a cul-de-sac be placed on public property. Warren Pulis noted that the purpose of the cul-de-sac is to give access to the lake and picnic area only if wanted by the Town and VMRD. Jim Lamont remarked that Article 13, which provides for SD#l, of the Zoning Ordinance will have to be reviewed and amended. There is also a question concerning access to the land between the old and the new Katsos parcels, both of which are now owned by the Town. • PC Minutes 4/21/77 Page 2 • Mr. Pulis then stated that the land in the high hazard area would be dedicated to the Town of Vail, totalling approximately 8% of the development. Dudley Abbott questioned the passibility of building single family residences rather than duplex. Mr. Pu1is replied that it would not be economically feasible to do that; he noted that his proposed 42 units represent a dawnzoning from the current P.U.D. Sandy Mills asked to have the relationship between Sunburst and FDMI clarified at the next hearing. Gerry Whitecommented that he feels that the market is SFR. Dudley Abbott then moved to table consideration of the re- subdivision of Vail Valley Third Filing until May 3, 1977; Sandy Mills seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. TABLED. VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE I - E.I.P. REPORT William Ruoff, architect representing the project, presented the Final Environmental Impact Report on the entire project to the Planning Commission. Jim Lamont commented that the staff had reviewed the report; he noted that questions which the staff had have subsequently been addressed and recommended approval of the report. Lamont then noted changes as outlined concerning water consumption, water supply, impact on bus service, economic impacts (e.g. employee increases as related to housing and parking). Gerry White moved to accept the Environmental Impact Report for the VVI; Hanlon seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. MINUTES of x/14/77 Dudley Abbott moved to approve the 4/14/77 Minutes as submitted; Gerry White seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. APOLLO PARK Chuck Ogilby was present to request that the Poor Richards building be removed to a portion of the Apollo Park property. He is also requesting a building bulk control variance of ten feet and a covered parking variance of 75%. After making a study of. the available parking on the site, Ogilby reported: Parking requirement per ordinance - 117 cars Actual parking/standard sizes - 121 cars Mini lot/standard lot combination - 131 cars Ogilby stated that he would install traffic control gates and issue a card to each permanent resident and a sticker to be placed on the windshield. Parking lot will be divided into West and East lots. He is then within the requirements of the zoning ordinance regarding parking. • PC Minutes 4/21/77 Page 3 Concerning the operation of Paor Richards, Ogilby explained that he will rent both double and single rooms on a six month lease basis. Bi11 Hanlon remarked that Ogilby's proposal will convert green space into units and that controlled parking should be required. dim Lamont stated that the Town Council wants a heavy commit- ment to a good landscaping plan around the property with berms, and there must be green space within the parking lot. Ogilby told the Commission that his architect will photograph and superimpose the building on the Apollo Park site so that heights can be related to the area; redesign of the Poor Richards building exterior will be studied to include balconies. Ed Drager commented that the project could alleviate employee housing problems, and reminded Ogilby of the time frame re- garding hearings before the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and the Town Council. Jim Lamont suggested that a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Town Council be held the following week. Sandy Mills said that she would need to further study parking, site, location, and that the project must not be rushed, due to potential controversy. Gerry White remarked that the primary Design Review Board concerns are heights, landscaping and bulk. . BONING AMENDMENT RE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Lamont explained the concept of the ordinance amending the zoning ordinance, terms of appointment and the appeal process. The amendment would increase the Design Review Board to seven members, with a three-member subcommittee to review signs. Since the ordinance was not in final farm, White moved to table it; Mills seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. TABLED. QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS TO BOARDS The staff was directed to include qualifications of applicants in public notices for vacancies on planning commission and design review board. TIMBER TRUCKS ON SANDSTONE ROAD Dudley Abbott noted his concern regarding the proposed use of Sandstone Road far logging trucks. His concern centered on the hazard (primarily due to a blind corner and the residential character of the neighborhood), dust, noise and general nuisance. Lamont was instructed to contact the USFS and request details from Ernie Nunn since the upper part of the road is owned by the Forest Service. He stated that he would have the matter on the following week's council work session agenda since the Planning Commission would be meeting jointly with the Town Council con- e cerning Apollo Park and the hazard ordinance. +' PC Minutes 4/21/77 ' ~ Page 4 • IiAZARD QRDINANCE Gerry White commented on the conservative reaction of the Town Council to the presentation by Art Mears on hazard areas within the Town of Vail. It was his feeling that we shauid have adequate legal backup to prove such statements. With regard to the question of high hazard areas with 4Qgo slope not being buildable, White remarked that details must be definite, As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Rosalie Jeffre Recording Secretary i• • AGENDA PLA~3NINCx COI4IMISSION APRIL 28, 1977 1. Consideration of a request for a landscaping and parking variance for the Rucksack building. 2. Consideration of a request far a building bulk control variance for the Vail Ath letic Club. 3. Preliminary discussion concerning the Apollo Park proposal ~. Cor~ideration of Minutes of April 21, 1977. MINUTES VAIL PLANNTNG COMMTSSTON APRIL 2&, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Garton Absent: Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Sandy I47iI.ls Staff present: Jim Lamont Diana Toughill Gerry White Bill Hanlon RUCKSACK - LANDSCAPING AND PARKING VARIANCE With regard to a request from Jeff Selby, representing the Rucksack, to postpone consideration of his request for a landscaping and parking variance, Dudley Abbott moved to postpone; Ed Drager seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. POSTPONED. VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB - BUILDING BULK CONTROL VARIANCE Gordon Pierce was present and requested that the total length of the buYlding be allowed to extend to 195 feet rather than the 175 feet required by the ordinance. Ed Drager moved to approve the request according to the staff memorandum; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion; Garton, Drager and Abbott voted in favor; Mills voted against; the motion carried. APPROVED. Gordon Pierce also requested an offset variance if it is needed. Abbott moved to approve the request if necessary; Drager seconded the motion; Garton, Drager and Abbott voted in favor; Mills voted against; the motion carried. APPROVED. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION - APOLLO PARK PROPOSAL The Planning Commission requested that the staff do a complete comparison of the proposal by Ogilby with the ordinance. They also wanted size standards for mini car spaces to be checked with the architectural graphic standards. DESIGN REVTEW BOARD AMENDMENTS Drager moved to postpone zoning amendments for the Design Review Board; Abbott seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. • • MINUTIi;S - APRLL 21 , 1977 It was decided by the Planning Commission that Minutes from previous meetings would be given to commissioners for their review and considered for approval at the following meeting, As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ' .. -r ,-~ MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 28, 1977 RE: Vail Club, Variance from Section 7.506 of the Zoning Ordinance far parcels in Tract B, Vail Village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County Colorado (Poor Richards/Short Swing) including adjacent Parcels A, B, C, approximately 26,852 sq. ft. The applicant, Fitzhugh Scott, is requesting a variance from Section 7.506, Bulk Control, in order to construct an athletic club, hotel and office on his property. The ordinance requires that the.:length of any building face or wall shall be 175 feet and there be an offset of 10 feet in every 70 feet of wall length. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 225 feet. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed structure is adjacent to the Mountain Haus, across from the Transportation Center and backs up on the large green belt to the south. The proposed building will provide a very goad transition of scale and bulk between the "oversized" Mountain Haus and the "in scale" Vorlaufer. 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. Strict interpretation of the ordinance could result in an alternative design that would be higher and wider. This in turn would diminish the large sunny landscapped front yard which is very desirable as a relief from the deep shadow created on the north side of the Mountain Naus. 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 foresee no adverse effects on these factors. Vail Club Page Two .., ~~ FTNDTNGS: 1. That the granting of the variance w711 not const7tute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same district. The adjacent Mountain Haus is approximately the same in length, but with a much larger face due to the height. The Vaii Club building has a considerably smaller vertical face due to the steep shingled roof. The large vertical offsets in the roof more than compensate, visually, for the offset and length requirements. 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 foresee no adverse effects in granting of this 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. The large module of the handball courts, the indoor swimming pool and under- . ground parking as well as the shape of the property have created obvious dimensional problems; this, in our view, constitutes a physical hardship that would be unnecessarily expensive to accommodate with other solutions and the aesthetic considerations in our judgment would suffer. The health club in particular will greatly supplement and enhance the available amenities in the Town of Vail. The massing and architectural concept will also visually and functionally improve and "clean up" a very important corner of the Town,; the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. . ~~_ _ .J • ~rrHOG wrrwrfnwa•~ w• v'u~,e, nH~roa•boawMati-t nn Nw•r•r- DNwKwwoNOwHW tK 'ztia~ n~o rn a ro rt d H wNC~ ••Y"~l~wl wcrCTMH- w:~ oo ro ,0 n • w Ya O w.:NNHw' 'SXOH V~ ~ eta w N N O ~~ NN B p ~ 7r M ~~ .+ C --~ i M O R] H ' = LY 010 a' t" r m N i+ w , r~ d a n N N rt a C" N P' H a 1 W D p Gi a :~ Pa H N rt CI b7tlrUM N w N A+ Rw ~ w rt I R7 a I r+"i aa'nwrtRYN ( w• N w K w r+~ N 0 n n D H a •'t~ w rtOr~ro MO w~' n H N • b rt ~ ' " " • >3 N N O R <- N H iD m GR 1A 04 c: O rtN a s C C rD b •c m ' ' C rt c ] Y O K •• N !. C 7 ' ' O d A ~1 I ?~ d I M C+ ' J r.+ Q. a r C N rt H d w H oNrn a'N o • H ~ n ; aP,M N I--'~ Eawart 1 'caNn NN Q r~ r•WKR r.rt wn r n ee m N ro a 'r1 w a -+ o a ti r• ro n m rn G~ eo ,-1 zt a w r• ^. w. c w N ~s W . ' ' r ~ w f!J W 3 0 4 m '3 n !/ O H eF 6 a' w R ro N L• • N a H n c n H n a t ' ) N 3 :Y rt r~ w rt+0 r• Cn O O 7 S N ~ 3 a' rt w tl H N O rt O Ga N •.r' _~ M d M w N r a ^~ O?^ rt„ N O ~ r~ N~ a ~ N W tl^ C a N a r~ a •C ^ w N _ •• w R~ ~. - •iK VI N ~ 7~ O N'cs N nh rtrtwdw-.. w m R'i _ '+7 ~ n ~ w • O a a R roc N G r• [D w ti ro rt r• C h O Y (/1[ A rt a r. H p. ~ va a• • ~* :~ ul b o K m~ rt O O N N '<D H O C M'C Y VJ M o a O~ O G as ~ G.l a w w• r• a r~ N a' • - \ E N a G O M F M m d '^ a b rt Ul R Zn O'b ~' r~ C H U. Y H Y• 3 9 ' 1 -I N w w n a N d C N O a' ~ C d= rr. w rte w N 1 N• w d r' rt r "' Cn [h W 'D c0 A ~-! G n N F~ w 7 ~'~ H C r •*i a' H r- t • O :~ N ' 'C [0 C n. !n ,-+ a' N w J1 O 7.7 t F C ~ t-I *'- n a' r w N O 7 R r CY n C • N ~D O w c-F r w • N r + ~~~ ~n O ti n+d O:vw s: 'C m CE Ul U r•O C+ a rt O # +P w o N '1;nartrt Od NN ~•~a' H1n HC~: hOHaF~a H as 4 aa w N n >•• a C d O W H rt H a N rt O w R b N w• O rt " (D O N rt H O Y H N• t+'O w N a M r~ W 7 w. H rl Ri w w •1 b- ;~ C, M c+ 'p a ~+ rt M I C A H N< ~ r' P. C7 b'4 N O M Uf N tt N N ~ rt 0 M O a w n r• R U' n N <* a N a4 a m m H N C "i w r V d ' r• rt K h N a' O E N w a•~ rt H x 0 w n O O 09 b R7 r• b 5 N N ` n h W Y w t r~ •~ t m w U n w < -' a''1 IP rt h+•C :1 M h1 Ua W. G ' NPCN aNnwr- FN r. rt a•H N Nr. O .'r ~ ~ ~ Y w• N N w T.' w 7C r- - 7 n ~ ` 7 w^ H a r! ~ W 004 O r9 C +3 C R rt C O N a r N (1 't3 N wa+ rr. O W~ a0 ~ O rt n 4 n•a N ~C . ~ UQ fi W R "i rt w h C a N n a ~i .+. O N Ul 't W c+ O H ! w ~' R p. rrw W. O a d N d NR7 C 10 O rtN . Y N N rt a'n 3 wn• a'•C SryH rt."7 Yw b O d 2 •E m`c1 N a-:L 'rt tlR d ro~@ a N N F-~+ C G"J ro ' ' rtn Na' rtKww mw W KO Of.1 rt hi Rr• ' ' w O ~ C , C O' tD r~ rr O n N a 'a a N d w~ O ,-3 r G b Y N• r+, +^3 r• a • a ' wna w. w rt r. a'a w as NHn ' a' 'C Y. H N • ~w a ONc+ wC 7 E N w rt N n ... y ' Orr r d O V+ N a Ur N as N O O a C' 7 C•• N a; C C ~+ C aOna a'Na00 C Od M C rt,•-t7 r~ N C He rt m M' nw w a R.w Y a a M ~ w w m [5• a a 0 rt 8 0 N H O cG ~• c H w 4 - 4 rt a 4; 3-n N r rr • • w a w x ~ + ~+ Y w+ to a' s e w~ rt N C ~, c -• R w ~ a w n ~• K •; F; • c W a a ~ r. m N a Y r• w m w a r~•o as a' N N o n c n H• n H N N W 'G r• F+ N rt C H Y ;~ N a H tYN R wnNOrt a'd Dort DWW~wc~H ' nw w N a N a o~ ro rt c w r~ w r~ o N rn M H `C a • y ' N Oa w YaN aN ff~+67rtY • ~*w •<a~ C e+ N Ha N 3 'c a a ~'~ ro o ~s H p+ a (~ p M r~ N ^n o o r• a r C YN N c* t7 o N w a n ~rt 2' N•LS W n C O Rr~"i [7' H M Rw0 r+r-.N rtwH ~ mOC NHa dK r, Nna f1 w a ~ H U O r• C a N `. N 'S H O W N H .+ N N H ' N O dN C7 N 7~ m~ H w r~m N 'O rt Y r•rtE R N rt ~ - a ' ENp U1 n P3 w 0w OOart Ha"O NV^a waa + a a r,Rb O '• N YF ,ra NR7 a w R N^ L: 'f ~ F o N•a O H rrm a. w, a w S a N r-' b r• E 1G R w cf e-F O O rt N N a r• w `C r ~. rt aN _ N roa wa• n a Rwrt w o r' Na R O aW n <+ rd a ~ p. N R rt m w Y • N-'Tl r~O NM',.r1dA a wOtl wrt G~N•x Oa•a'nn-' C NViNb L]dO rtw.MC7 ' HO•"~ K +C1b ON wN09 r*mNGd b amC ~+ OdN~w nWwOa•N• 9 aweiw NNG a'nW F a'N ?C2 0 aNwNr• C N w•C O R"!R 'I, RN ti'art an NY Wa an " h~+'sw 3n ' N 9 N~ r-rtnCY 0.rtr~wn C 'fY C H wn rt rt w RnY t ` H2 KrtE w•~ ' O. t'- a fb N CY 'C N a X ' t" .rt `C (~ ' • a e-t C'C n +i '7 d H d ~] r• + rD N ru rU w w [-5 a C r- m rt '~- a ti; C C N O D Y m a a- C •C •G N R N b tU n C N v 49 w n `C a w d N W- `:: 9 H•O w O a w a O c O ^ N ~ . Ul N ~•+= N n C C a B . H N ,'i, H• . -'a <+r• Y < H• r+ F O R O N a rt H M n +-+tl? tla b '•7 a .7 O 'S N W~ rC3 ~^., • C ,'• N r~ a- N R K Y N n r• c} H a A n r-C x' N w~ a ,^~ r~O" wl.a N ~ r~w7] O ~ t" ~ "r•d r•v5b N d ' ~W N N R rn W N w r~ ct G O O' r ~ -O rt rS M C .'Z' ~+ N N +C N e w C ~ O w O d ' r} C v7 a fR ~, + '- U rt -/ N w• w rt K rt Y Y a ~ 1U d ~v rt N O r1 A• N C O C O K hi O G] (+ N . , O . p 1 O r m a ~ Ki N : • ~ aNSnN o na NnH ~ w• ~r ~ r•a n~~HdWa^M ' hi r~ ~+ nd• orart t nRa ~ • s, rtN R rta oNH ou, rr G rtN r~C M Ow~ ocnorr Orr Cro mg N N t Lv p rr ~ w H w C A (F~ x a a ID n~ N a 0 0 rt N~ n }3 w- ~ a <Nr aa-oaK a m M 7: o cr H Oda ~N NNna a ~ a r+o r nt-•~ort Nor- a• w rn~N .<N C t+r.fl wHNCN noo , n Nao CN o w z no a~ Nrt N NC N `. r+amw ww•c r•NN wad ~ wmfl.aarm C~aH wawN a V7RNNS0 rtr ~r 'i N R W n a s r• .-~ a rt ro v H R m N H (D .-~ • a a r o s n ro +s R r~ o rt w w n yr c w N N n o. a7 'i W ~- R h H s4 n H n r+ D ~ rf Cu 3 O a' S H m r~ N a A ,P O 'i rt N n OR a' a• a' w ~ N a"d a N - R w. O O 'C O 'G ~ a r. c ` m 3~ N~ f1 ~ a n a. N a W r• • N w r• N HNC YwtlgrtN o rrtc+ c+ Na N w a• m N ^o c o,*a r HR o Hx:G'I~ artm nH o1n F..*o nLZF,mrtrt Hmwm rn P-~~wc ' n s coca ' ~ E rt n N Y ro E w '~ x- w a a' N n N 6 n Ul Y n W O a a r~ nl N a C7 H " 3 ^• w• a 'S O C r• • 9 C Y a n 'O r• w rl O R W a d N w R n r~ H rt [~ ~• r• rt 'G O a a' N O ,•+ H N w n N w ~. Y• r~ n n rF ,-~ w rt ?' . w ' 07 N w I•' rt W 't1 ~i 0'4 C Y3 rt 9~ ro 9 rr •p n N N -a a' a~ H I 3~ `d rt w N I-' rt rt O rt a ID H N x .+. 0 0 •r1 O H b d e+ H~ a m 't1 1D a o O d o 1n ~+ s~ ' M 'C rt b N h O. +i r• c ~-+ +'i b rt O ro N N 'cJ W W ro h] LG rt H N Y H e w N rt wawar- o a WR<+"S ~w~C '~ ~+w'G a¢a nH ' ['w drt ww1D a ' • CQ N HmHna ENO aaHr•r-N mwouo ~,~-+m Dom osa toDww ~ a w, *I.Hl/i a ' w x a x N p- w~ H r~ a o .P a C a tO N •C rt K rr r~ N t~ a H c ' ro r• ~ H N o, o = r• r~ r• H rt r~ N a o W 7a a s; h7 •' rt r1 ~+ N- m m N a x~ m d -- a w N M m m m c N w Y • - a$ a N w a N r ~ a a O t7 S d r hi R U+ R N a "' N ' r r~ a N N T3 N - w Ua w, Pa N r rt r- Y W UI a n 0' O N rt N rtN C M c+ w N O a w r~ ?~ t ~1 rt Y~ c V7 ~ n m rr w O w a +7 x1 r- w n N N m r~ w r• R n a O' N d a rt R a'rR r- a ^' Y Y,P ••• w• J :Ya~~ H a hi wwO h O rtYJ N• ' O r• O N rt O O N O Y.' n rt ~ H H w w w o rt OR 'p W C w O Y a ' .+ r• L1 rt a H a N ~-I+ a' a' ~7 Y w 0 N n a W n a b '6 7 N ` p> r• w rt a w a - rr w N n N w K IP Y a Yet oq a rt 0 rt ~J 'f 0 a r• .~ w rt rt • " w + rt E M W ~7 O M N~ N 3 V N P..C II~ ' .-3 r,i R a+ a O- -C - "f - N w r ' . >`Y r• w W, rt U~ 'J Oy N: r 0 N C O m N N rIl C ro rt a O • r~ 5 rOwar• Na'1rt•Ort m ~+ ¢sama HN Ort - NoK N ~R• o a ti aN wan - Hoa• 'rs a H•*R arom an artw o to N rt ' oq ' H O YN rt~ Nw 6N nn~NH r+r•rt :7a N b a N d w n o w w r• N w e-r C e w. N o Y r- B N N a rr c c ' w' ' aro o Day o+cs ~a N omo~cam~• a C a ra ~ ;p ~ o O r a C wr a~~ H rt H w- w r• r~ ~~ ro a' G N a H•(y ~+n I 1 i r• M C D Ye'f S.i '[)O O C rt rf rt 7 a'N ~+N U. m n n rt w T N a n N Y H H ~ '~ Y Y Y C• N +i Y H N N b O N Y a R r- rt N •C O tD a' Y pe} -~ R 0 7 N C O U W N w .C H N• H R N C w G H H• R% H• R ro rt ro w "S w ' k W r• 7i" w Y w J V 'F• '.b O n N ~: a rJ CS .f N ~ ' '13 W r• • rt fP :S w rt M a H• h r~ K N Yi Oq w• N ~ w N n m aiD HUR rt 0. W K 9 a r• ()nn Nwntsn w w w 'O F N H a' r~ W rt M r~ r~ T R r a aN N anf1. n Wb'-! R ~7 09 N W d rt H N a a' h-• N Nr•00 r a a 3 a r•• N P'H rt P, N rt ct H 'i H O w~ O w ' .-n N N n b O N (D • v P, O 'C rt N V M CO 4f J H UA 09 N O N t+• '=1 a' N P R N P' M• O eG O a N N N N 'T a O 6 7 R Oq M O n . N C r C d a O a m ;T H C• a' N `.3 ': N N . ~1 r• a' N Qa ^ ~ H M H .7 fQ H N O E3 H 0.n n O O m nrt O•• 1 '~ N R n Y N O N W R w rt rt H r•• .a n 0 O - rtN H d N Oo N •• q~ •~ ~ w ."7 a i .~ N N d - •• W aR • ~ 7 n H, MPt o ~ ~rt n ~ rt s1 N O OO'Y :3 r~ W w fl, H H p5' r- a rn M - OD M C a R ma ~, ,. ' ~~: nt~rM~ftornrtrno ' ~i Rw•.j m a ~' w.+~B*aHr nww•~u~•aw ~ o a•K9M~+~rvaa•hf mm~ Fa•rn c,paa d~+nrtw~c, Nn~rtn Gm coamw• a•cm~o b'V' pn w c moooHwaw ro a A I~ n m x• ~ 3 R b' d~ N b ~ w• ~ N~ m~ w H a w• r•• m ~~ R a i o~ w w a as . K~ .- K~~ w ~ w~ro:~ ~• ~ ~ ... ~ n6 .. ... mxs r. Hn,ma .gym, - r.. .•« C ~~rn ro m • m~ w• • w• r• o +n m e w b• N m r» da e m +-~ rt is ro ro w~~ ' y a• K a .., r• a r• w• K m r, n r r• i~ a +b- -rW RK b'~s ~~ ' 13 {p Yeh nnw~+`< 7] adrt *tl 3 ffJ ~+ a' Kr + G1 rtFb roOa bbw• 7q w o9 6q 9D t9 O H w+ V , r•rt w~~ b N 9 ~• N 0 3 rr d m a ~ 9q !R r• % c* N O w L7 C/r C F N w a 9 ~ ~ ~--~ w H w• I ~] N w r m m h b' •• b O N 9 . i A. ct r+ O N aG 'C7 ID K 0 Q• ~ h• rt S• O OG ro a F~ ^I K ro ~ ~ M ro n < .2' H ~ - • ra P. 's x 'O O ~ b t7 to m o o C. c'a r tt 6 n s! i-n f0 7 o m m moo z7 N W trf t l n •s r~ r• v4 m ~e ' b R K tY N 0. Q O E C O ~ 0 C C] r~ a 8 rl . ~* E: O r• rD r• r~ ~ w ,~ m C w~ r+ w O n k a rD O~ 79 K N U1 h~ A ri $ 1D w• N wro~O rt X ro O w O ' w~w• K •* a b N ' tj a w Fz a ~-* a' K dO •e 'Nw.Y r+ N C O to r9 ro r-•<+ rodre3NOrt .c.a a' i ~ ' rOroOr~a 'dw~+ U! xrtm ! Cn rtNw. OYRb • a C d V~ M ;99a A.c`K UI C O a f~ K (D 'a'w• rt O. p C "! N N O~ xtp a N r+ H A. n r~ ~,• n rx. „ - man m i n ~•+ m rs r .a vo a m m N rr r+. rn tom N ' bdN NHNB M0 '1, ONw• U n w UroR H P'a'aw m'c3O yr 41a 'a m m ~s m ~ - .+ O H Ui O'rtD KT7 r•q0 - K N o' w• W p Q. m w .- n r~ ~ N w c won t+n a H HMS I` K U'o' cn w w K K m ~ w m b .* ~- K N n a-r~ ~* x r•• Rxxm a d m roc o a Rn Y m ~7 \ . . T.OOW ~rtN r~ Q. ~ 0.Mn y ~ln rp ~t iL .+7 M ~'O- r~• ^ ro wR C' *+ a x, wr•n OR fl.rt m dH w r r-+ H V3 b• ' C O w C N ro w~ Y ~+ n :s ^ •• ! C3 O rt K rp b R7 r'• O (D ro N m a a N }+. ~t Pj H ^ a - . + w- C]. tl9 ~. D O Q. rt , . H+ m Ca. cr N n w r• w rt n w 9 a bl P• ~ ~ amn~-+~ b' aaY ~ a r RRN i ~~n d waa- v,b cis a• •r• wRw~mw~* ~a ^ ' G (C w p "J rt D' R ~ ~~ .~ .; •ti !~ U. ~ .. J ~ V a nr ro _' .7q ~ rp K p' f5 n • : R `: ~ ..., .f P' ' .~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ r m r: F„ ;•f V . - 'G O J s= r H a n F` ~ U G ~ eW n O '~ } Y R K a a 3 RI O n . , `C e+ w~ i1. [] w• r4 3 N O (11 a b' S O' ri t f- ro a' a E R K n a' Va O tcl w 1 '',r+O d w ~+•N G1 d O rt4: O ~-• a'r~ rt • D 7'b 9R cD G C O * N aC O O 0 r a a w• H~ ^v a' n ro N 'ci * L F t7 ro ~ m a a W fi TY - [; 3 R ro i 6 ro N c+ a :•- p .~ ~+ tr' N n 'o r-3 w• N i--~ M rr'O .'~ D O •+ n ' + ro ' ~ O n b r~ n UJ f~ ro H N w < C-' N• s ~ , x N O r~ N~ 't7 N C n cr ro w• O n ~ o 'tl mac.. 5C :r w c p. K w O w H w ~• w F H • ~ ~ N r-3 4,.•7 ~ a to rr KY O ;; t f1 . w. rt r• r N ^-. r-• 7D.'cl d~ a' w i w ~: [v w 0 "` •~ w p m ~..Y ~ - d ~ N k.. o, ~ .~ , : w, v m N. H ~ ~ n m N• ~ o O o ri ~ w x• 5 n m n ~ Krtu,~o ar+nK om ~ tav w~r+•n ~~ oaotjrt c' t~ ~ nw o ama~.. ~7 r•rtN^t"w•w•rD Rro:~-~rtwt~ ama w~r•YHO S1R z RYmo».rtcw m •e~- a~ma r.: a a• aw~ti~m ~ rowr•w wain rt•~o~ •o~ mN• • O O E n~ rt R w R7 C ~ 3 N m •~ W [p < ~--•O w~ w 3 P3 CY c+ • 0 .-+ro b C a rt rt r~n n an a'a'76 KEpOa' - 5K ' Yp >/ C7 ~ F°r-a0 p ~-+~ rt ~` rt H O ~ r• aRa 0 C N n- C'- a C] n Kr w• ro O M c+ P. w~ w w D•4' w n r~ a R• w• C n C. w~ ~* w r• i~ b O N w a w• Y O rr b R '.~ < O c! rt 0 0 0 p Q• a' r-' 'rr rr N K ' aa'P7 RH>nOH a a r+, rK(G wr• Fsa b CJ w;rH ~roF tT] rr a w o N F+ ~s COn :c d nw wN w ~- a- F n 0 N w tp O U)r•a nq3 +aa•w mmo r-Y ^n ~ N 'a- mfl.w oHRrt<cr-ha c ~>yY'~mw oaaK- o • a. na•awRwmKart oaw K n n po bo`a~~ ~rw ~ as••o aa rt~o0 a K'rsr wmw< b na• n n • m~ow•nn `+' ro 7' ro N H <hm n~u,rnw R N a' ~ ~[] rp w~ r . m N 'Cr n- K U! K d '~ ov . N w• d p p N O Vl N a^ K w O O . m w >i a N K w ro O U+ D c+ h' O' O ~•~ ~ w~ O O 'C N r• y O w• n H R a. a~ ~ b a ct 1D w n m rt n p t•- iJ O`< E~N~ ~< w »• ~+ O b b w r - ~' >r rorr [C.}ro MNOa Eaa'oO H n Pi rt n O a n N ~ (R w• cF (D tdw 9 ti~ O b N b rt O [~ Q N r• n ~+ O M a m ^ 'C . m aCN dro23 NO r ~ <~NP''C b O O E *f r1 R n dG w• [7 w N sD w r~ c+ cp rn i+ O~Na4 Yrtro L. 27 rD O 'i O 'C ~•+ H N N [7 a N 1D 7 rD a O rt N ry} ro + n n w• rt< R w r• H .n 0. b' U1 K fJ. b'• w H Ti O k ' i D ~ w R G a' r+ rt H K rD fJ O w N N !h r ~ a a r- b O' N r• N a (D 'i7 cr'z3 " 'C p 't7 N ' a o ct d p (G K O. b J R 0. r• N o3 N K K a ro n U4 B N KON b(-~ N O a a rrh n T: N 9C w Ow n m'CpwNro w• b K tD r• R G a W r D90Z3 3y rt a K n p `C v. O~ w 'o +i n w O a O ~. N w• Hr rt..bR N ' b~• Rn aONmaa' N n N *3 roA.tD SlK`-+ fU "n r-'u. rp ro 0 aQ4 ~ a~'~ a ,K1 Rr• d~ 4a O N w 0 a w C N O N n~arow.w.^~ w ~. crn ~nr+RCC rti• D w ~mr~ ~^ a d K rt r• ch O a t~ N n O a rt w ro N ~ an Y- C w• w• t t+ ~m m n a• ~a i Yb• aw•r Nww M '~ ' W N rt E ~ N Y ~ . 1 a a 0¢ c~ M n H K N • R N ~ ~7 $d /~ 7J p Y R a K a' w ~-i G] "' K1 'd n ro 0 n N r f~ rt V7 N i0-n c0•F Q9 C N£ ti' N tlQ O ~ b K w ~ ~ N ~ h t N ~ e, ~ f fi CY 'b tY K C1 ~ xt C7 ~ b R w n N (D w• [D a w oq c. ~ b ore O G ~ ~ rt I7 m ro E U i U} * h Y ~ w iY c~ p r• r• N ~-+ O r+, 'C U1 G a' cr b ~+ n K r~<D N n Y `~ H N N a Y rtcrO N o ~ O ' rt 6 w C cL O to ~ ~ r-h d [D 6q rt ro • ~ y ~ . ~ ~ C w (n w ~>3 a ~rY~NN K ~ r r + c awa~¢ m o. ~ - K 6• n O tD O r• O 7s' r-n N b F N ~'l d ',ro7 rF w a• w ~ a• w- K w• .~+ w• w N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - x W o ~ m m r+ ~ ti .•+ ~• ~ a K E c m rto.m N pp ~' cmKrt f4 rD Y. ~ (D ~+ 0. W r/1 Vf N - w romr+ w H ~ ~+ w M, H ro w wxrtmrnp r• r• SD (D n 8 YFt~ro ct ~ m~~~~aa ~ ,n ~. aq r a w CoN w • R may. nNo 4. rh ~ p rn O N ?~ K ~ mom`+a~ m m ~ m ~ • R t ~ ~- PLANNING COMMISSION AG~I~TDA May 5, 1977 • 1. Dr. Mizner Residence - Request for varia 3.505 in order to allow two separate uni lot. ice from Section ;s on a duple 2. Selby/Tofel - Request for variance for d$stance between buildings for the Lionshead Commercial B~iilding. 3. Rucksack - Request for variance for landscaping and parking. 4. Amended Plat for Resubdivision of Tract ~, Vail Village 11th Filing. 5. Apallo Park - Request for variance withdrawn. U t 42NUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1977 3:00 P. M. Present: Chairman Garton Absenta Gerry Tr7hite Ed Drager Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Sandy Mi11s Staff present: Diana Toughill Rosalie Jeffrey MIZNER RESIDENCE - Bighorn 5th Addition Dr. and Mrs. Mizner and architects wheeler and Piper were present to request a variance to allow two separate units to be built on a duplex lot. Diana Toughill noted that she had received a letter of opposition from a neighbor who had apparently read the notice in the newspaper; she had been unable to contact the party by telephone. Duane Piper explained that the reason for the request is the topographical canfiguratian of the site. He showed photographs and a drawing of the proposed buildings to the Planning Commission. Toughill mentioned that the total site coverage would be 1800 square feet; the total GRFA would be 2481 square feet. Piper commented that there are other residences of this type in the area, and that there would be no removal of trees. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of building out to the total allowable GRFA. Abbott wanted to put a condition on the variance regarding square footage. Mills and Garton found the variance acceptable as proposed. Drager commented that there is a need to amend the ord fi- nance concerning duplex zones to disallow each unit to be built any greater than 500 of the total allowable GRFA. Hanlon moved to approve the variance request according to staff memo (see attached); Mi11s seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. SELBY-TOFEL - LionsHead Commercial Building Toughill stated that the applicant had requested the matter be postponed. The Town Council had asked that the ma11 area in the center of the project be widened, and it is now being worked out by the developer. Minutes Play 5 , 19 7 7 Page 2 • Hanlon moved to postpone at the applicant's request; Drager seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. POSTPONED. RUCKSACK -- Landscaping and Parking Variance 'i`oughill stated that the applicant had requested that the variance request be postponed again. Hanlon moved to postpone; Drager seconded the motion;. all voted in favor; and the motion carried. POSTPONED. Planning Commission then requested a Memo from the Staff regarding non-conforming uses. RESUBDIVTSION OF TRACT E, VAIL VILLAGE 11th FTLTNG Due to view corridors and the spring runoff, Toughill ex- plained that lot lines on this tract had been moved. She presented the amended plat for the commission's approval, stating that the plat was initially approved earlier in the year. There would be no change in the square footages of the lots. Drager moved to approve the amended plat; Hanlon seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. REPOR".C ON APOLLO PARK Toughill stated that Chuck Ogilby has withdrawn his requests for variances due to a time problem for approvals from Planning Commission, Town Council and Design Review Board. Abbott commented that it was too bad the project didn't work out because it would have provided much needed employee housing within the Town of Vail. TOWN COUNCI~PLANNTP3G COP~IMISSION JOINT MEETI~3G Proposals to be reviewed jointly are: 1. The Spa {across from The Mark @ LionsHead) 2. Phase TT Vail Villages Inx~ 3. Vail Run - preliminary proposal. for completion of development project Minutes May 5, 1977 Page 3 APPROVAL OF APRIL 21 MINUTES Corrections to the April 21 .Minutes include the following: 1. Line 6 - should read 15,000 square foot lots 2. Pulis dedication of about 50g of development, not 8% 3. Last Line - Apollo Pax'k - should refer to number of parking spaces Abbott moved for approval as corrected; Drager seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPROVED. OTHER ,ITEMS Drager suggested that if there are no applicants far the Planning Commission vacancy, the position should be re-advertised to include the qualifications. Chairman Garton noted that there will soon be a need to re-appoint a chairman and vice--chairman to the commission. As thence was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. r\ L_.J MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: May 5, 1977 RE: Dr. George L, Mizner, Variance from Section 3.505 of the Zoning Ordinance for Lot 17, Block 5, Bighorn Sub division, 5th Addition Duane Piper, representing Dr. Mizner, is requesting a variance from Section 3.505, Density Control, in order to construct two separate single-family units on a lot zoned two family residential. The ordinance, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, requires that two units be in a single structure or that the units be physically connnected by common wa11s. The proposed project comprises a primary residence and a garage with a simall rental unit above, connected by a walk- . way. The basis for hardship is the topographical configuration of the site. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant is in an area where there are a number of garages separated from the dwelling unit (see pictures). The proposed structure would have no more impact than a garage separated from the primary residence. There are several residences constructed in the golf course area with the same type of configuration which were built prior to the existing ordinance. 2. 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 acheive compatibility t among sites in the objectives of this special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would destroy a significant • rock outcropping and require cutting of several large trees. The guidelines for the Design Review Board specifically states that Mizner Page 2 ~ve~y ef~o~~ sk~ould b~ m~.de ~o ~~ooo~vo ~ign~~ie~.n~ ~a~ural ~oel~ outcroppings and preserve the natural vegetation. We feel. that the possible environmental damage which could result from connecting the two units is justification for separating these units as requested. We therefore feel that granting of this variance is not a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distributl.on of pauplation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilit~.es and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no adverse effects on these factors. The small rental. unit and a primary residence fulfill the Town goal of reducing overall population. The lot could sustain a large mirror image duplex. FIi~llINGS 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties in the same district. See Item 2 under Consideration of Factors. The geologic and topographic considerations dictate placement of the proposed duplex. • 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. We foresee no adverse effects in granting of this 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. If the applicant did connect the two dwellings, the applicant would be forced to increase the height of the present tinit 1 and the bulk of the project to such a point that in order to meet the setback regulations the house would probably tower over the presently existing trees which in our view would be aesthetically unpleasing. In addition to that, it would be impossible to bring~a driveway up through the rock ledge to the garage so that the applicant would most likely have to have the garage as a separate building down below the house which would result in practical difficulty and would serve no purpose as the visual impact would be the same. >• Mizner Page 3 The Department o~ Community Development recommends approval o~ the proposed variance. • s~ .> .-- ::y ;~~ ~: r PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 12, 197? ].. Rucksack - Request for parking variance for two (2) cars Jeff Selby 2. Vazl Village Inn - Phase Y1 Preliminary review of proposal Ruoff/Gooney 3. Vail Run - Preliminary presentation of master plan for completion of proposed project Bob Byrd, Cab Childress, Bob Yeager 4. The Spa - Preliminary presentation of ~rariance requests Tom Brinex 5. Lionshead Commercial Building -- Request for distance bet~+reen buildings variance Jeff Selby/Ron Todd i' ~ ..~ ~. PdINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION 1~4AY 12, 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Acting Chairman Abbott Absent: Gerry White Dd nrager Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Sandy It4ills Staff: Diana Toughill Jim Rubin Rosalie Jeffrey Town Council: Rod Slifer Bill Wilto Also Present: Tom Briner Jack Curtin Bryan Pendleton Doug P~~cLaughlin Leon Deicas Ross Cooney Jeff Selby Cab Childress Bob Yeager Bob Bird LIONSHEAD COM1!7ERCIAL BUILDING Jeff Selby was present to request a variance for distance between buildings. As a result of a request from the Town Council to widen the distance in the mall area, Selby stated that tY:e n~ontaneros Condominium Association -had reviewed the proposal and it was satisfactory to them. Draper moved to approve the variance as outlined in the staff memos of February 24 and May 12, 1977; Hanlon seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPR!~VED. RUCKSACK ADDTTTON Jeff Selby, owner of the Rucksack Building, requested a parking variance for two cars.,fox his proposed addition of B_l0 sq. ft. of commercial. space. He also presented plans for the addition to the Planning Commission and explained that it is his intention to enclose the entry on the north side and enlarge the apartment on the second floor east side. He commented that he needs the variance only far the commercial space. He stated that the former owner had received approval to put up gates on the soutiz side walkway in December 1976, which eliminated the passageway between the Rucksack and the Red Lion Building. Tt was the consensus of Minutes/~.L. May 12, 1977 ~ ,~ ` Page 2 , the Planning Commission to wait for the Town Council's ruling an core area parking with relation to variances. Hanlon stated that he is and has always been against granting parking variances. Abbott was concerned that the living space would become commercial space in the future and with the impact of pedestrian traffic with the elimination of the walkway. Doug McLaughlin, legal counsel representing twenty condominium owners and eight business in the ll~ill Creek Court building, was present and objected to the granting of the variance to allow the closure of the walkway. He stated that it is his intention to bring a quiet title action against Selby. He also noted that he had not been advised of the development, and that he had offered to pay for half of the improvements along the walkway to eliminate the ice and snow problems. Jack Curtin, Bishop and Company and representing two owners of the Mill Creek Court Building, objected on behalf of his clients. He commented that they had been working with the Town to improve the courtyard area to the east of the Rucksacl~; said improve- ments to be done during this summer. Selby then remarked that his development will not .affect the Mi11 Creek Court area, and that the Red Lion has not objected. • Abbott then noted that due to the pending parking decision by the Town Council, citizen objections and the need to further study the ordinance, the Planning Commission should defer ruling on the request at this time. Hanlon was of the opinion that the Planning Commission should vote according to the present law. Drager then moved to table consideration of the request until May 26; Mills seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. TABLED. Preliminary plans were then presented for Vail Village Inn Phase II, Vail Run and The Spa. As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned. n L.J ~* _ y r°°~ f ~ ~~ MEMORANDUt~2 T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FRO~'~: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 12, 1977 RE: PARKING VARIANCE - RUCKSACK BUILDING Jeff Selby, representing the Rucksack Building has requested a parking variance far two {2} parking spaces in order to allow the addition of approximately 610 square feet of commercial space and 246 square feet of gross residential floor area {2 bedrooms and a bath) to be added to an existing residential dwelling unit. The site area is 4,202 square feet which permits 3,61 square feet of GRFA. The existing building contains 1,600 square feet of GRFA; br- inging total proposed GRFA to 1,84b square feet. Existing commercial space consists of 3,751 square feet. 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 Rucksack Building is one of a few buildings in the CCl area which is not built to the absolute maximum allowed under the current zoning ordinance. This building, .like almost all others in Commercial Core 1, was constructed before the adoption of zoning and therefore, space for parking was not provided when the lots were subdivided and sold. 2. The degree of which relief tram 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 CC1 zone district is: 11The Commercial Core l District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly • Rucksack Building May 12, 1977 Page Two pedestrian environment...The district regulations prescribe site development standards that are intendedta 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 Rucksack building is in keeping with the purpose 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 CC1 is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of maintaining a pedestrian area. Retaining long term dwelling units in the core area and making them more livable for long term residents is consistent with the goals stated for Horizontal Zoning. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with many other parking requests in the area. The request is similar to the Schober Building Addition, the Hill Building Addition, the Slifer Addition and the Covered Bridge Store which were all 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, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed expansion of uses should have little effect 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 and the increase in GRFA is an addition to an existing unit. The mass transit system is capable of handling any increased demand, if any, generated by the proposed expansion. The effects of the variance on adequate light, air, distribution of population, public facilities and utilities and public safety are negligible. The addition does make access from Mill Creek Court more difficult..as this area has been used for pedestrian access to Bridge St. FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classif led in the same district. 'M Rucksack Building '~~ . ~' May 12 f 19 7 7 ` ~ ~ Page Three We do n.ot feel approval of the variance would be ~of special privilege as approval would be consistent parking variance requests, and other like expansions have not been required to furnish additional parking. a grant with previous in the Core 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 pedestrian 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. • (b) 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. On the 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. The Council discussed parking variances and contracts at the Tuesday work session. Larry Rider explained the legal ramifications of the existing contracts to purchase parking in the Transportation Center. The Council has stated that they will consider the entire issue of parking variances in Commercial Core ]. at the May 17 Council meeting and wi11 reach a general policy decision at that time. Any action on the subject variance should be consistent with this important decision. MEMORAi~1DUM • TO: PLANNIP~G COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 12, 1977 RE: LIONSHEAD COMMERCIAL BUILDING - REQUEST FOR DISTANCE $ETWE%~N BUILDINGS VARIAI~ICE The Town Council requested Selby/Tofel to restudy the proposed commercial building in an attempt to widen the pedestrain ease- ment through the project. This request necessitated a distance between buildings variance to acheive the wider pedestrain ma11. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the request and find that the criteria and findings are consistent with recommendations in memo dated February 24, 1977 relating to a setback variance for the same project and would therefore recommend approval of the subject variance in accordance with those criteria and findings applicable to the setback variance. • r~ ~~ ._ ....... .... ..._ ~.n,....,.w~.~.;~ ._h. t. ., .... I 11 u • O F N V7 ppa N F U ~ O UH F ~ V) iµii a to v1 H 4] I N i of :G J II 8 °' 7. O li ~ r' ' N 4 H' W y N ~.~ ~ C h ~ u c~•i ~ j u u G f3 u N (; G U y W A C '.1 n N O V •N 7 d ~ G •+ T O ~ N E3 ~7 ~ O 4 OVOua a~ l q w n C F+ u ~ ~ ~,-! !r U O W w N ?+ Nib °.~i n u~ dp u a k V G~ .i e 7 u s. d w u H U H N d x N 'J 1 }+ 0 i 00 ~ O G i 4 N '. i 4 b •. G N M V H 1r N ~++u ~ uv O C E i u v . i n O • d .-i ca v v 7 t. F € b .~i u ^~ O ~9 G a N w 3 a+ d c C G C i+ u O u cl GL'C V GT ~ u C d I 'ri U d H vi E C •.~ O H +Yi O G N 3 U ~ •Ai C Lb •.i ? o~ n C u v ++ n s ~ d o O G ~ W N ~ +L-+ U E C V ti L O b C w d~ ~ ~ T ~ O 9 •ri V` N 1+ N E ~ •^ s~ ~ 0 N z O i. y + N ai '. O N~~. U C n M~ •.i O G O V N .i .H. .N O N ~„ N eAj U C c6 C :~ ~ O S~ N~ u p u O M n i 'U I N N •ri U ,C , Fa (y }~ •d u W a N y~ u 'V N N F, ~ r. n ~ ~ n~+ o w,a a.w b N U GO u rt M C w u u .~i G N 7 U N r! d u ~ N V d O N N N N T y ~ ~ a ~ ~ V r ~F' 7 ro u .~ u d ~ 7 d u v co ~, G u y w o •.u! C w ~H N N •.+ ti H •O O H d O • N O b 6J L V c03 •.Ni +U+ ~ ~ +~ u a O N ~ ~ 0.u c U tl T T ••+ N N A M. a7i v ~-y ~'~ ~ j u N U tl1 L U •.i y. C }~ y I N M s 'MV ~ H V ~ 7 O ^] fn cNi w ~ ~ w N V N W H ?~ •N u ~ o u u .~ r ~~ N ri m d ~ n N G 3 O 0. W N ~ L iO.i N L (] ~U N N O V: b N T o•y+~ o IM.roai~~ z OC 0.u E•N o ~ •~ es u •cl O E 'C •~ O "J ~ m 4+ d ~ H w •.i p O L a W s+ N V d L.~~ ~ O ~ u id.+ ''~ '~ U ~ N ~ N LOi itl Vi a ro a'•a N u i+'~~t n u N u u u •.Vi .tea 'n 0 k ~ H «-1 u ~ O h +~ 'O M a~•O aA a .~ V ?. IM.s ~ i ur.x.-+uy w ~' /. rroa A~daa P W d O fJ U+ +~ :s ii w .-i ~ b +Gi u v ;~ 1R O C W v N fl d C d C O ++ ~ n n ..Oi G Ski P N C u O O a+ •n n U r-1 C ry N .-1 u b Z.1' C ._ L G U d C iJ N G 7 11 b ~.'v d G v.fl c ~ H O [C d L ,av 9 L V b•O .i m m a ~. u,CA 7 u+~ C 3 •.~ ~ •.i s. n U •N N ~ ^ d u u w N C Ol a~ d W 3 ro F1 V u a ~- d G []. O •.i c ,~ b .O O ~i C5 T} F+ N u ~ Z ~~i w E~ v d O .-I .~ V b U W p a YI d •r) •ri 7. u ~ M ~ N V a o a~i ~ N ~ z H•~ .,~ °z ~~ouLx o w ^~ •.a r •.i v N U ri y •~ v Gil U O y.i. .N J r~ C u '.7 •ri f~ U d a U H »1 f~ N d cd ~ .a O sn L j~'1 •r} !J N n O 4~ ~p d u •~; T C C ro v r7-. d y •~ ri .y' a ,6 H la W •tl H U v-1 N C ~ U Sri ~ N ++' U O ~7 ~ 41. N W V V T b U d W W H d ~.b V N ~ W G. 1] C O ~ d N T V 7 n a ro a C. tq O ri d .C d u~P~O~m~_n u,-~i u•pw o b O }+ D~0 u c-0 d .a ~ O d s. a w g w v H~ H u N •rQi 1+ P. ~ N 9Ci G O N G q ~ M O t6 u f6 V d d •N G d +~ A 'O S+ E H N,^_ M d iO •N n ~rl ~ ri W .r~i o .c ~ a u ~ i0i q u V L U •d GI •.i u ri N U N G N as ~ 3 d ~ p s. O N +~ •H n al .~ C C a~ O ro .--I o w ca c o •d a w V •rGi .C i ~ GHO N O V~~ C d ro r-I C Sa W d d 'd T i+ U N O ~'3 H d 0 uvv I fi uA U u C O C O s~. v u c ~ ~:i o N r!L W J•b SJ y 3 u U CU N ~A 'O O a O N •O N a N idi C, W F •H 'J' rrol •ti ro 7 T C N Ci v u .A ~ ~ G w o~ u 0 ~ A QS N ~ b 7i U u0+ idJ M N ri O d n C C w s+ V N ~f~a U v U N e d •.i I N •.gi Fi O u a N O C u ri 1 ~~-1 1 • .~ a N 0. rl ~. eC. O O w :. ,., .. . L I ~ ! { A c u 4J V d Vi u r u u H W~ d' M C O S+ `V < L . , °C O u u w c . O '~ W •r• V ••'+ u O G . u 7~ +0 u C] y : N C Ll d Iii W N E 7 00 ill O C u G I+ u N P O "'r w$ O O "] H-n !i •.~ E ! pa~roro OpHo , ia~c n„ -u3 O u v u a 0 H ° ••+ b N ~.~ G l + ' 0 ° a° - ~~ ~ a o ~ n ~ ~ ti u~ . n o H 7 •i ' t d X U C 1. u V ~ O . a u m ~ v N Nl U K 4 .1 :! N 'p ~ G N H M~~ M U d U 7 U L' V N v } H • P g O O M I O > w C I' y' ~ ~;, U O d 0 J L G ~ y O N {? 1. u d ^ w CI v. ~+ O P F, W C C D W k U~ orl U O ~ ~~ ~~ v T O Gxi H M r+ O I.r t 0.N V ~ O '•O'l C ~r1 M w rF~ u G lu1 C k F G. U" O i. F u 7 U M 6 cA u W O i N . "- N p q C ] b u ~ W M CA ' ' l a o L: r F L r ~ V W ~. w >. d ~.-~ ~ V U 1 c 1 •O Y A +] T 'fJ O. G U •rl •.E A C E O P. ~ L C . O to ~ = N C 7^ u b U~ N a„ L O y . i .r L 'U C 1, O C V. • •n V }. +1 V W t u u u J ~ ~ 'U J C .. t 4 0 0 7 i O~ C w l != '•, .•+ u n m L H U D .-1 w ,C C u a V C M G C U `c 3.. U T O O u~ •rl N N ' -! V H A u 7 F u W W 'G u F N U 7 G U u G . ; W C • + 7 l3 P C: G L Ci .N N '9 d 6 t'„ O ~7 O N C J •O " W V n b' ^ U ~J u M 0 w O U d V G .:: +' I . y • o u L O O V A O J P V C u C O~ L U H u~ ~ 9 T y u w W F ~ w 0 t N .^.. O r .a A ~% G d m 0 ri O d C U 7 ~ G u• O p O u u C 7 C •~ O ^~ ^ ri M O J y S] q u t-0L y 6 'a L 3 U 4 O u Vt b u 'U u ~Vi U EE C u i~ K w 'Ji N y ~ •d u 0~ p s^ w >. o i. •o V H H V I• t i • U A N 6 U O Ir .W O O U W r~ u [J V ' ll u n •rl H sJ u V: ^ p •y '~ M U F n W w •J F> R C ,C ~ N u O G V V. V ~ ~ ~w ' .O ° L u F t15 C I i G ~ E H O p ~ I:7 C N C W L V U G i +~ R u f -. i F V V N w ~ W C V i u w O O V 'a ~~ y H ` M L O ^ iJ ~~ b Y U O N V u H n .~ c .] A ~ ~ M O b ~ N 0 h ~ H C ~ 4 Z c C u o~ G c s + d ra o o d sl ~~ r ~Lf...~~~NL ~ uu.CF.G u G T ~ F ~ ~ Vl U • U Fr y u O ; U V c 4 w C -i W 7 • 0 '• ' ~ ~• ^+ M F J L I~ O U N O 1 j 4 i u U C 3 d C O L G l U O j ~ r + u l V ^~ >+ M u C GO w o r r 0 •.'I k ~ : d ~ of I cL .+ •7 •.~ u C W 1 u ^ n+ n: u Cl .. O ~ ~ I G J tE J A u V ~ '= u 0. ~ c .-l a 3 G 0 a l C •~ •~ M y u ~ ! •. O ' ~ ++ ~ 7 A C 3 Ifii N~ T T r-< C O I V •Mr{ .ti [ E H V O> O U l7 Vl b P •Q ' ~ ° i 0~~ °~ O97 u ~~ ^u u ab d ~a ~w 0 0 6 O i u 1+ N L V I+b'~] M V m L 1VFH ~! C . U •N •r I I fy ~ O V n U . C W M i ~ ^ V 1 V a •. U~ O V I l •.i H .•I b E •. M n U :J U 1 ~ E v 3 u .-i 7 M u 3 u LG`I U F u H u M ~ ^ 'I d A E= 7 [-0 7 + ~ +-~ J C M V Q 7 S y c3 N I• .C 7 O N C1 ~ - N u V '6 V1 G C ~ u •r+ p U O. N T O N 3 d L]. N . O. • • ~ V EE ^~ H d N d 'O d b ~ N 1; k u Iy W '' 'O A M M H O , O ' v~ ~ u T p'b 'O d M d G d 0 W V rr~~ d G E d mro u d G O I+ ld w fC tp vl ~ L G ~ N G N H ~A M w ~ C r l V O •H r i b d 'J1 L ~ •r t JC y M C W V 'c1 L W JJ ~ ~ W iJ ,~ ' V N n >> t G 7 r+ a0 •6 N H d ,ti C d C u N d d G 1~ b y u d n •.a E L N d O t6 d u `~ O C N ,J cua ri u O d a p ao • + i ~ +c cm W" ~ `~` d G I+ t GI'~ C ~++° R T . . ^ ~ro „ d ~ ~ A c •. i e i No tM T u •~ O b U b b C p o p o~'1 N iJ C i •rl T U .+ Y U V l+ y ~ C Q' u O Y u 't0 G I d r i N d vA ~d }+ .-i N u I+ CC y ° n IOi ~ C ~ S L ~ L ~ O i . C .--I .- `t 7E+ ry ~ ~u 3 7Ui 1E+ m M u NI 'G T G N v '~ ,O d d~ A !1 G. a j •r [ i J N .--i 4 'C ? + + d i. ~.. ~ .H A t rs O CL C C ~ .C rGi O O C V U d E~ •r i U ^ d 00 . Z ~ W "I . Cj H C Jl 7 1C-i r-OI .-~ V . y G ••-I O A +J a C -N ae ~ L •.VI G y ~ ~ I •{y L' N J , • 0 7 U F M V m u W ! O F O G U M W G O St 7 ^y u U L L~ G. -• C O O r-1 0 0 F ~ + .-1 G D G . V . --1 [~ d m C M W u S .C a ~ V N u G F T V LO '4 1-: 4: a 'r< 1/ . N W O U 1 I M• u ~>..• F N 'V C L 00 C J E 1. C C] N T C G +J y u V C >r G N V~ >O O N C N ` 3~ H I A l C ~_ . i 1 a p N w w r: .. •SS r .y U .+ y O •-~ C ^ O u U M L ~ U i+ '6 u F H •V O W ~ C U H 1J b O C: U •1, V J: 'O .C L u N ^J ^ V G '4 N V O J CL N N U L. F u J^ M G M I .O O b .-r l d ~ V n P. 7 u M ~ ro 0 y w H I V G .] 3 I• Jl '~ U V.~ d M V ro C ~ L VI 7 Y C w Is 0-I ~ ' ' w ~ W F d O N •. J L i o N' F u J i V T O I L U V U~ :1 4. - .e U V o x I r . r N O II .C v +. ro O u t v u N o V aJ M ,~ H j, u I tl l • i III . U H} ~ , u> ~: C C 3 G O V H O~ n aJ 41 0~ d 3 ~: 7 C] U A 3 M 0. T EO d H] O. O O ^"I V N ~ N yl p n V C u u N H U N E O u F V ' N. N f0.. W e'L'a u ...1 C H u 0 •~ w Y V L . 9 U •JI U V: b 1. 1+ O N a f1 U L U W d N •.J R C~ 7 +J 'd M d d • M ~ O •" P. W I O C •O + L aJ n+ U H O GC C V C + r w C C U u G O u. w C C W •r i w y v ~~ m •.di d u Iy ~ N d ~ a l .-+ O , u 'v •.. G r] cat E N r, u •o C W u: u •, J E a ^V u v F 'C V O U d U r'J u U X M ~"~ I y r m d W F 1 b v u 1, .,J C O L D W ~ u ° ° "' ~ U O > ca ., M H > o ~? a G v ~ ~ ~ G p ~ a ~ H M O J > c o x o c u + V C n " c v c 0 d ''~ y 1 C M l! V ~ O ~~ w~ d O wg N~ W rS 2 y` r+ H A F'C '~ ,LJ u v G b N U n G A d E i ~ u C F O N b U +J C H F~ N W N w •. I, u G d a+ G •.Ei ~Ia.' O C V U i+ . ~ U V h t N ti+ lV d t N N u 0 b N C O C7 I I u ~ • W ~ .~ d p O "~ •1 M U C u W y 0 4 u ly ' N V ~ d C N d V ~ E 7 O 5~ U '~ u }i !n 1 6 •3 V N O O V Cl ~n .J ••+ C C~ VI O V ~ I+ l C? C n t r-~ u a i V ' W u W u C 'i I •.i 7 ' H I M C :J •+ N c+ G V .. y~ y p V L ll O r-, xi •.+ O O 3J K M F f7 l N Y N C I U u U O SJ k 0. n 4 C ~ u 0 U N ev N G_ r N O F 'J N f3 w ~ M 1 y V }+ H H N G w y~ W u u r r V O A 'tl "J T ~ ae u A r. :.~ w 'O n~ ~ ~ r4 .n C N ( 9 M •c O y N b N O p• b •C) ?+ d A '( { ~~ I a~{ a w CJ N ill 41 I 7. I 7 M ~ O C 0 4 •.Ei p 0 N O Y 7 ~ 0 3 M d O G V G w d U ( F . ! Cyl <y!l O V FF C'V T ro W y V W V N V A C~ aHJ w V: U w L ^ u j U d i f ~ U Ci e G V W O 7 M'l y d O ^ N Vl k c C C ^-i v N W O, Ilf N ^-l cO )r Q 00 'O r: G C c: SJ b l'] ' U .-• O C C ' L (: F= G ? C- 11 U k . :] ~ W F :J O 1tl ~ H :~ U R N C: ~ ~ U y C~~ ~ ~ d r~ .p O~ F C ~ u O J G :J 7 • 'O V L *+ •.~ 00 G • .~ M O l.+ -I+ U O d ' C N 1+ M M ~ C ~~ F V ..I u W . u M W~ a .,J .a ..+ w aJ V U .y r •.~ d u! V N 7 1 d U N N ' P µ a O w ~ •y 7 0 p G N 'r. N O M 7 7 •-+ > u >' ••~ O~ -r U l d N ' O C O .: u a .tl N L f. ~ h ~O N N L d P ~ O S r' b O rJ A N r tl . N U•'•+ O N .~ ~ b W d O i O aJ d V C w 'a w N • f N u N .w U . Vi y ~ M° M y H A F'C ~ n .o (n y U: N M 'D M~ W N O P O 4~ G g N I y M G. I Vl d 1 • •a a Q N u N O wro•v 1] I C b IJ d ro N 1d+ V~ A U Di N I'I ~ Z G d 4! C ••+ O 1<'d V M ! O O N w .C C 'ti M V U O M G u v U V O ~ W V V V N M N G 0 ~ DH V U 7 V N u F ' - ~-t U N i S J aNi C [~. O Gl H G 7 V VI . 0 d u T o C. d f: ••1 u 3 ~ I.r w d u ~ V7 [ L . M 6 le ~ V1 'O h U •.l . W a ~. O U O O a0 Q N 7. O N V N l rMl 1 1 k :.~ ~~' . t PLANNING COMMISSIQN AGENDA May 12 , 1.977 1. Rucksack - Request for parking variance for two (2) cars Jeff Selby 2. Vail Village Inn - Phase II Preliminary review of proposal Ruoff/Gooney 3. Vail Run - Preliminary presentation of master plan fqr completion of proposed pro,~ect Bob Byx°d, Cab Childress, Bob Yeagex 4. The Spa - Preliminary presentation of variance requests Tom Briner 5. Lionshead Commercial Building ~ Request for distance between buildings variance Jeff Selby/Ron Todd :~ ~' ~~ • • MINUTES VAIL PLAPdNING COMMISSION ~44AY 12 , 1977 3:00 P.M. Present: Acting Chairman Abbott Absent: Gerry White Ed Drager Pam Garton Bi11 Hanlon Sandy Mi11s Staff: Diana Toughill Jim Rubin Rosalie Jeffrey Town Council: Rod Slifer Bili Wilto Also Present: Tom Briner Bryan Pendleton Leon Deicas Jeff Selby Bob Yeager Jack Curtin Doug P,4cLaughlin Ross Cooney Cab Childress Bob Bird LIONSHEAD COMPdERCIAL BUILDING Jeff Selby was present to request a variance for distance between buildings. As a result of a request from the Town Council to widen the distance in the mall area, Selby stated that the ",4ontaneros Condominium Association had reviewed the proposal and ~.t was satisfactory to them. Drager moved to approve the variance as outlined in the staff memos of February 2~ and May 12, 1977; ~Ianlon seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carried. APPR7VED. RUCKSACK ADDITION Jeff Selby, owner of the Rucksack Building, requested a park~i.ng variance for two car s. for his proposed addition of 01.0., sq. ft. of commercial space. He also presented plans for the addition to the Planning Commission and explained that it is his intention to enclose the entry on the north side and enlarge the apartment on the second floor east side. He commented that he needs the variance only for the commercial space. He stated that the former owner had received approval to put up gates on the souti~z side walkway in December 1976, which eliminated the passageway between the Rucksack and the Pied Lion Building. It was the consensus of • Minutes~~.c:. May 12, 1977 ~'~ . ~ ~~ Page 2 • • the Planning Commission to wait for the Town Council's ruling on core area parking with relatian to variances. Hanlon stated that he is and has always been against granting parking variances. Abbott was concerned that the living space would become commercial space in the future and with the impact of pedestrian traffic with the elimination of the walkway. Doug McLaughlin, legal counsel representing twenty condominium owners and eight business in the Mill Creek Court building, was present and objected to the granting of the variance to allow the closure of the walkway.. He stated that it is his intention to bring a quiet title action against Selby. He also noted that he had not been advised of the development, and that he had offered to pay for half of the improvements along the walkway to eliminate the ice and snow problems. lack Curtin, Bishop and Company and representing two owners of the Mill Creek Court Building, objected on behalf of his clients. He commented that they had been working with the Town to improve the courtyard area to the east of the Rucksack; said improve- ments to be done during this summer. Selby then remarked that his development will not affect the Mi11 Creek Court area, and that the Red Lion has not objected. Abbott then noted that due to the pending parking decision by the Town Council, citizen objections and the need to further study the ordinance, the Planning Commission should defer ruling on the request at this time. Hanlon was of the opinion that the Planning Commission should vote according to the present law. Drager then moved to table consideration of the request until May 26; Mills seconded the motion; all voted in favor; and the motion carr:~_ed. TABLED. Preliminary plans were then presented for Vail Village lnn Phase I1, Vail Run and The Spa. As there was no further business the meet~.ng was adjourned. • ,.. ~,., .~• ~ ' s k r MEMORANDU~T T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 12, 1977 RE: PARKING VARIANCE - RUCKSACK BUILDING Jeff Selby, representing the Rucksack Building has requested a parking variance for two (2) parking spaces in order to allow the addition. of approxi:r-ately 610 square feet of commercial space and 246 square feet of gross residential floor area (2 bedrooms and a bath) to be added to an existing residential dwelling unit. The site area is 4,202 square feet which permits 3,361 square feet of GR~'A. The existing building contains 1, 6DD square feet of GRFA; br- inging total proposed GRFA to 1,846 square feet. Existing commercial space consists of 3,751 square feet. CONSIDERATION 0~` FACTORS {SECTION 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses .and structures in the vicinity. The Rucksack 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 all others in Commercial Core 1, was constructed before the adoption of zoning and therefore, space for parking was not provided when the lots were subdivided and sold. 2. The degree of 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 CCZ zone district is: °'The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly .- • Rucksack Building May 12, 1977 Page Two 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 Rucksack building is in keeping with the purpose 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 pedestrian area. Retaining long term dwelling units in the core area and making them more livable for long term residents is consistent with the goals stated for Horizontal. Zoning. Approval of the variance would be in keeping with many other parking requests in the area. The request is similar to the Schober Building Addition, the Hill Building Addition, the Slifer Addition and the Covered Bridge Store which were all 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, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed expansion of uses should have little effect on the demand for parking in the parking structure, and the parking structure has sufficient capacity to provide £or 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 and the increase in GRFA is an addition to an existing unit. The mass transit system is capable of handling any increased demand, if any, generated by the proposed expansion. The ~fects of the variance on adequate light, air, distribution of population, public facilities and utilities and public safety are negligible. The addition does make access from Mill Creek Court more difficult.as this area has been used for pedestrian access to Bridge St. FTNDTNGS: 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. ` Rucksack Building ~- ~ ~ May 12, 1977 . ~ ~ Page Three We do not feel 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 pedestrian 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. (b) 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. On the 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. The Council discussed parking variances and contracts at the Tuesday work session. Larry Rider explained the legal ramifications of the existing contracts to purchase parking in the Transportation Center. The Council has stated that they will consider the entire issue of parking variances in Commercial Coxe 1 at the May 17 Council meeting and will reach a general policy decision at that time. Any action on the subject variance should be consistent with this important decision. L-..~ MEMORANDUM T0: PLAtdNT~~G COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 12, 1977 RE: LIONSHEAD COMMERCIAL BUILDING - REQUEST FOR DISTANCE BETWEi~N BUILDINGS VARIAI~ICE The Town Council requested Selby/Tofel to restudy the proposed commercial building in an attempt to widen the pedestrain ease- ment through the project. This request necessitated a distance between buildings variance to acheive the wider pedestrain mall. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the request and find that the criteria and findings are consistent with recommendations in memo dated February 24, 1977 relating to a setback variance for the same project and would therefore recommend approval of the subject variance in accordance with those criteria and findings applicable to the setback variance. n U L.~ • • G] H rl N nH' }. u •t7 N N d b S{ 'O 01 d ?~ i H M /C U 3 W v-r ip W {: G • W ~ [: O l: ~ A Gi ++ G w ; ~ u •' u ~1 •r} ry •N O 0[ N G W d : T C G N U H G O G N d w ~ U 7 N W w O 7 •n H +i > + q u N v . ro ro ~ t6 Y .a u C ij V N W .LS w [1 V O U •ti G C. d N F ' 00 d V id O M G u> H .O C ] 7 N rp N U 00 u ~ u Ll w .•I }. O V A .O tl .-i fJ d A +•i H W > •r•1 N 06 O~ 19 m w n o r w N A` N u ro ' i H~ n 7 ~ H .•~ u O N 'O • ..a H C L' U O b d p. V1 {A ! ^~ ~ G a 0..-i }. H w~ VJ ~F ['J V O V W N O U N r-/ +f is '~ ~+ G N H 7 'G G A o V VI U V p F ~~ G 0.~ V idn t 77 C V u r'S N G M H w~GG X 0.~ U 9. H U l m 0..p a O ,Z V d U W O fA ~ •O w 0.+'I U H G u .+ U V u d V ~ C Vf 7 U G C r V M .-i N C V1 >. V} b d itl ~ L I d w r1 G H W O iq m W E M N d d C: ~7 O rl a L N d G r• etl N V T V .. C . w H CII }+ C +d w d O rJ L .G O G u H 1-r D U iti IQ +~I fd O C w E Ih T ^ G W G w O N O O H rl ~ . 'at ri ^Y U ~ ~ "' u C1 . r p QI ~ N d tt~~JI L ~ N O N W W H N H W vi Sa H 'O ~ E 7~ u 'Lf 'c7 H u ~-i u •O W O f0 O kj O •lHf rJ u .G-i N ,D d 7 N G O d d H a w 1J V L'. 17 7 M V d 0 O 1.i C9 a to .-I H [~. u d H V C r •r+ U V, co •n G :J '!7 ~ D V W H G w G w H y G C 7 V V H d u V H U N G N J C] u 19 W ,H 7 ~ P. fy N C Oy N 1+. C 'U f0 H rl u M [7 t O H Vf rl N H w H V l7 u W -'I G 'N N G O w u c4 O. N C O L O L] % N N a+ N d c7 •.i V+ H O w v a m yr ul ¢i C N w u [~ • 7 a N eo H •~ of H M u °• ul •o O H ti b m 7 •.I C H .G G +, 0 0 ++ ~ a r+ c D 7 O ~S G G ~ w G .c G +J •a •a H E H H ~ ro G u w N H H tl] b d W C r+ N r•-i G 'U w] A w N CJ •.+ N N d w W V] V b G of ri •ri w a u •d ry£ v L C U A O w L H .•i .--I d d -~I r-t G Gl ~ E .. 7 C 1• O •.i U u . L ._. . r O U •H CO u 'U 11 N G O N H rl 'b N u V L V w d •N N~ A G C n H 0. U C b T'O G U +! w N U N g W V W a 'G ro M v q o ff G Ir q s.1 7 N w C p G p >. }, ~ w m A os b .a C 7 H O m a W^ •v H Vi A O d 3 G F H o m ++ •.. is N a s U H Goa u m Oro o y N •.I E: C ~ 'c7 v u >, w 7 ++ ++ M V] U W C :3 V L •p .-I w G W d N C G G 5V n C J G U !7 +, U U 7 u .G A 7 u W r-I O ••i c-0 G O •V d 1 G N • ~ w 4i u 0 u V 7 b N V !~ G 3 •"I C •r1 H p U G N ' >+ W E !f0 W ' '1 t, y W fll.• C V C A p u C U l '~ U P. H C w C d ++ U ++ H R H !p l t6 H M V1 7 7 d V V w r . 3 u it E u U 01 IA H w G •.+ O ~ N y O • • GJ 1 E N U :n C V H C G O = G V] W I tV O U F. 7 d ttl r1 G •ri o C b ~] U O ^ .-t E ••~ •.1 v1 0 C to 3 U w A •y C V q u k G 1 I . 7 U H W u .`.] V: I H W 'ii d '!. .-I A •O ? •~ n V V 7 0 :7 I!1 f L1 C O. ~ I G N V G H H 0. y ~ ~ ~j N G u •V VI G .1] c7 U W ••i N Vi I V FF •M CG rF •O A D ~~ I V I H U v! O ~3 d G a O •~-1 V p U G] H O ~ u 0 A •rV G C Y3 W H T •~ u 5 t •O H rh u O ' ^ 7. 1 I i.i 'O '6 1 H V U U G O G O y H ty W .-t /~ N v 0. u U E Y Is] 1 7 V V .-i u •~ N, N ~_ ! ~ I G O u T J= G Py N ~ I a .F O b U• V U C 7 i O U V •N V ro H E +• V V I ! 1 W V 7 Y H W w V 1 O 1 N VI p l/ •'I M ^c U Q] O I H U .- +, •N L W 'J' N ++' '~ N I C U FF++ H q •L] C I. n G~ O G 0.! •-i .G G 'V G ~. I ~+ +"- L .Lr G .C • D M W I U u G C '+ C I 7 N !S z I A W ^ N •,~ •.a ' z l N m 3 U o o 1 G Si W H ~' a V] Q I T w p. G G A i5 U 1 H I V O ~-'I W .C u V N u V O! U I h W A -0 u 7 [•; 7 O i O F : O H ih w 7 CJ] O W I 'r• G N H UI F 1 w t M 7 1 1 H W G 7 U. L I 1 N O •C7 w d H N - `! P+ 1 :J I ri •rl G O ~: '++ z 1 G I '/] H a ~: •d ~ b•'I u :r l O 1 G O G iJ u Hw 7 ,Z O I V] d u w o • u G Cw 7H ` ' . O V1 0. 1 u ++ N L H i O + U C ~ + U / 1 w u G G T H cq d> ~ ,'Z 1 I N V! T V v. 7. •.'I [~yy 7 .~ f. N C G A G d I p I , ~ H u ••+ o I . OC a W~ •.i o 1 r•i u C U G] O O I •N V u E~ 7. O 1 W 7 E b o 1 C •~1 N u b o f rw l9 b H u Z O I N v ~ m H C d •N O H 1 r1 W L • U n C N 1 'H E} U G V • C] I I G ^J M W w + m '~ '+ .T 3 H N L O A w O C u E z I p V u N G a G b •~ i 7 •rl O C b U I o 1 v ~ o A 1+ W ••i H w w o I ~ • ~ C 7• o I O •rl [6 W H G I N H .--I •n •.I. •r1 N I O .C 0.w 7+ N I c6 N U N N N I TS U d O d 0 ~ I H V A W I} V h-0 I ` W V ~ C1 V M • I Z N} ~, ~ CA U M. •.a G C ~ 1 1 d N k ro H U V< V Yi '] •r1 G rJ r6 G G w u /.. H 1 C N fJ U C N G u 7 o H •ri J-i 1 O 1 N V G O .-1 F d d O I s~ .9 •.a [~ G • CJ 1 H 7 L •~ Q u a N N y U O V U V V H I H 1 V A ~+ ~ H I ro N F H I E N V J; O d d U H -i I F I m y U +'I k li ""I H I V I i N +'i •O to N +'. U 1 C u u V I u w ro •ri ••1 ~] U l G ~+ 6 i.+ •V G W~ W G u U d H W I u N M 2@ u k ro 3 O I O G u H F O N P M r /l ~ } 'e S + ~~ r A t ll rn U d A U) . L O I v1 H } • ri •rf O N W W m~ F•. Yi ;. 0 M P4 E _'. .. . ~~ I~..iIV a. iii. ~. ~,. -.. .. • ' 4 k O N G d d d . O Y. N !. RI N •y d N~ N ua U d G O u N V + w i U ~i 'N v O F ~u •~ } X 0 7 ,i m N - 7 gg N C N G w A W .-1 N N 'd u 4 C ~. u V A O *'~ k Y O w V O .y U U Yi 1 F •' O n u U~ v w O U ? k'V .~ dH C W V b O U M U •.{ •b N H G -1 O dl V, u 'b N . r5 U~ ~ O T H H Y p w a 3 /i A N . r] G fJ O U u ~~' U M ~ 7 A u 'O V, b H ^~ O U G NKyN p~V k V M N U w a °Q n . u n U(:Uk uv a N•r. M ~ u u O H • P y k y .7 0 C U 7 w ~ u W U U N O y~ nCj N O d O F E7 U H N U N u O P ~ U E H E G U 0. O ~~ cod ym J a O'aiu ~.o°~•,a V out kNU d V •' U -C Op 6 cG v U O V rr~3 L ••C+ N A M E u N 0 a k o0 d u M k '~ ~ ~~ c o r, 0 u u ++ Nw0 Tu.•M •p d~•Ni~ ~ G . + + s G O o-~~ e i w ,O N croi ai rHi v ~ N a w m ~ n i . . c .~ `= H °O s H ~ , , G • G ~ ~ r T ~' ~ w ' ° ~ as r. O A ~ ~ u' , u w • . u w ~ ~ , , ;, r ~ v e N C C C F k G 7+ 0 O P •~ 0.w i. 0o i.G+NU a k.. r •,°,ro.'W. y N ~ G .,n p. H..+ro a p,m G cs ,~ c u a N G J " 0 O a ~ r ., c >+ u ~,. U n C' w U :i G :1 ~ H .^. H ro m m c u U ~ . 7 G^ ' k O Y .y s. +' d O O N V a i O 3 +. C w N F G O L 1. U k T~ 7 P T N w • W ~ C EC •y U C U 7 ,O G •~ L y CO ~ O O ~ O M ~ N v G O O 'V 0 C n U N r5 N i G N E 'ni w .y k ~~ 3 U ~ 'O O N A ~ ro u'} N p ~ .. h 7. U X 0 0 0 y r. "" L u ~ .l .rS r'. O M •O G k i ~ ai E• v t V . . G ro ro }. k F ~~ C •;n U 0.O F. V 'l. U d O •• i N rL ~ 7 . ,q u U N 0.~ L H O ~ O ro N N N G iJ C ^i N U U C •. i v 5 C V U L d V G Ji w ~ e V ~ O ti W C u u ~' H J O O V n } f5 O ~ rs~ N C w u L E 'O O ' u U H ~ vi U O C L H r N 4C n tl 6 w ~'M G N.O J 'f7 . ~ G - H G w" y u z] ~ Gr-I N 4 ~ 1 p ro .. u L JI ^+ ~ ~ n k k dL UOx~" N F J.. .ro u •~ O =1 I V :J C i `.. G +. V: O •^ C~ T u O a •'~ k G N ' k k N 7~ 0 ~.. y lE-' F~ W .- J u~ T k U G ~~ , tow O~ N ~ U~ / 'O V> I , U •- N N u J .-1 O V n O •r4 }+ v ~ 3 G 9 a l H G M •~ ~~ o A C V n F. r fl %1 ~ i U F . ro a+ b . '~ l P r' V ~ .+ S+ N ~ J ri ,p 7.'r C w O c, u c1 y ' ` V] T L H G O i a. y V ~ •'~ G F~ V O 7 7 O V N ;n •C P • l O 1 H ra O T C W w.-{ +i r" ~ ..1 1 U J 7 J . ' k b ' r U U U X L 'V N ' O I . . G G e R" • N W N I ~ C t3 k . a+ V .. u u u U C J d Fro ..e a A7 .1 0 0 0 '•a . ~ i O k N U k 'O 'J1 H U . u Y H '! G N V Z I J ~ - ~.; l N O F > ro a J r5 U L ty U ++ N X r3 n N~ Ti M k ~ U , G Vt N r] r o~ •-1 1~ V :J ~"~ I U ~ 3 U .-! a fa L~ .C .~1 r4 i L •r C• k ~ S3 E 7 CA U 1 U "J 6 1~ ~ .O N [3 u -,i O P i ~~~CC VI ra N S..1= C N O N W N V U 'V N C A N S . N T ~ s. •N A U H d P• . . C • N y ~ ' N H ? •O A U id N G ' y ronikma W O ~ ' u y uv N G E t9 mro ~, V C O N .6 •r~ U i. ku w~ ~ W 00 M N O6 ri b • L G ri .0 C N N U O~ iV N rl H A .'-I U •.s a7 N ~ n Cl M ~ N .~1 C 4 N b~ C W ro +-~ ~ fl 1.~ n ?. ~ ro V W N~ L C N U U C E N N O E M ~j t0 N 41 O O N G ' xl N G .+ u O V O U I N l u C k r r i 0. N • $ CP PJ ± + C I G X 0 . u a 15 •d .O OC r r ..I »i U N O ro C . . '6 N O 1 O 6 '. 'Cl A -~, U ..{ T V H ~ T~ N O 'p a V ro Uri C a.. k 0• .C C ,O .p O N N y ~ ~Q k IU . Cd rJ N VI u W ~ tN6 .-Ua "J ~ ~ E O n ~ C .-{ .i :. O' O H .'' 'W .C{ a a G~ u fi N M G N d D7 a~ D k U n Vl 1 o c n :r .- v O o 0 N N }+ L 4+ L E k n W h. H N C~ 'E' 41 ro ~ W ~ J k 'C ~ is r~ ' A V ~ O V U .. j tp t3 W C U G N E W F G +1 O •r i U n U ;~ $ i ~ C -. C O i ^ W H U •.~ .-~ y; O C •.+ 7 A .~t O C u •r< u X i L I a L •. ~ 7 k g _ C +s J 'G G] L W 0 7 U G N O N q] C 50j q U r-i N M V w n b N •.~ O . I ^~ N A U .fl p V G .^.. V C O .. C O OH 0 0 v L+~ W G o o c G~ N H ry ; L ~~~~ t. k N O~ S OL I v G T- '9 L L U~ u G y~ C y ~ O '~ ^ G V O ' p w. k I• u^ T C ~ j a f7 ~ J N U _ I C C u U r ~ N G A O O N ] " H A 3~ ~ C . , C • .. b w= •-. U J . p ,--i ^ G ... O U n w a. ' •d O. k a b O~ N W y G ~ ~ O u U u •1, n fro ' ~ d F. 3 :.+ O u a. U W V N U S. ~ . v ~ i 7 N li] j U ~ W ., V U: .C .t 1. H 'O ~ V C U V; V M S C C U 11 .!~ Oro L U G^~ •.G-I V W H ' . u P• N yC.l H O ' H k U G C u J ~ ro ~ C p ^y w H •N 7 .Y c$ W k ~ Q1 ~ ~~ N? N N k 0 V N N ' I ~= T O :J E k V G d U -f i U Ci • X l ~ V 'J N 7 L' H ,• O . . t V v O U k n' k u1 O V +' 3 N O N m a CO Dry ~ - n A l u V 'u ~ 7 1 . i 3 F p u >v u~ n w a v 3 n 7 a . k a a, en m H C 4+ O y 0 ..I ~ ~ ~ Y: L w 1 I u V J V U G h F O u h + A cL 'O N P. J: S u u co N .-~ ,. 0. 0. u ..7 N ,,r a y . 3 p .-, d rn ~ L ~ u ~ ro M H o C .'• N u .-. V H O OC C ^1 y Ui C 7 CCI .Ci N W N N ' II N C N H ro~ u d i W .ni C b w oC I V ,O -• C t1 Cn ~ r. w ~ ~ N G u C al C C H N ~+ ~ U V w E h~ CAN F. v ,-1 b U O U N V q 1. U K >•. } H I U • N N N N N N ,~ 1 M b u u p u H •.-. C O n U u J Z n U +, o w i ~ U O 7 t~ ++ k k 7 0~~ G q ~ d l C G .. y 4 i O N t j ~ v ~ s :. O b O .1 ~ ~ p O Ci H U O ` u R U C • C~ U H rJ '.~7 1 ` ~ C C k N O 4/ O N M y k V 0 UC: N N j U A d'l7 H U 0. U S O N 'O U iJ 7 N 0 N I ._ S. u C ?! 4 u l0 N C u H N~ C J~ ~ ^ I u C W •~{ O E u ~. . L •• U •.. O N a ' G ,. - ~ v O C V u n . C j t ;i; C n N~ ~ I ~ I +a N. U M ,7 la N U~ N •C W V G J U C~ G ~ b V N N n d G G 09 u U~ tl N ] G U { { 3 ~ V 4. u) # G a TI I a ' H 1+ S CJ H I G G U V. O U W a k u ' ~ .C M i i U M k C r .'i Sri O O 3 k •N N C Y W 1 11 U ~ W U R 4 W u S' N y a h s. .+ •-1 k O .C S ~+ O V V N V . G ~ r-1 N . N O h ~ ~ N W C 1. N W C O V ti u N r W N O W J O T ro •-1 T h w A u ~"' `~ U U U k C M O~ 7 N '[3 N O h ^'7i 14 U .C ~ ~ ..1 T U k H[ I [ 7 + ~ 7 `r l Y+ O W Fi N 7 Ci ^ .i r3 J C 'ri O N H U O N .J b ro T A 1`'] n vJ N N p . C V n ~p G G D k "4 u •N 1 e-1 N O M %+ O U O :J M . Vi ~0 ~7 N C .e H w N U . 1+ N . JI C C C 'J tl Vl ~lJ :7 U N V r O tl • N~ H C! N 1 U M T fC N N I 'f N ~ C G [~ k '9 t" u ' . l• a E E ~ C: k V H .G M L k n ~ ~ ~ 7 y C N .G (Ha S0 W O y u~ O i 60 i' :1 O •.pI t . y ~ 7 Y. + -L V 1-~ a L. O l .., uF w H H ~ u a C C N ry • p ' 'l. ro V k s, ++ ro V k G~ U U •r H •.. 0.N V N G ro U I V V •r~ H '• O c~ m O p O y o !n . . 0 ~ ~ •• a U 7 0 7 w I. N U i6 c• 7 P •O is ~ L ~ N A ~ G O ~ n d N ,G N N U N l . . u' O ~ -+ 'a i V U N C ' w k w N 0 ti. n7 ... w w N a . j N N u .C k O V. .V O ~ O a1 d 3 N M 7 VI k .0 n'ci .A N .O V1 ,V k N O A W ro N V] M ro k ,6 ~ N~ C1 ``' U N k h N 1 o N w G m N N ~v { G '!. y O~ O ~' v N V ~ y V O }~ O N 'V N U H I"' 1%i d C b l. H I". u k G iJ ~}'':: b > i '~ ~ . ~ W } 'U1 U h N A 11 n H N ~ ~ N U} 6 V! i i1 u V k O 'N j~j . W. . y, y N 'O a U ~ . . y+' r ~F PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 19, 1977 1. Vail Village inn Phase II - Approval required by Special Development District Bill. Ruoff • a r ~ ~J r~INUTES . VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION 19 MAx 1977 3:oa P. M. Present: Garton White Mills Todd, new member Staff; Toughill Jeffrey VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE II Absent: Arager Hanlon Abbott Bill Ruoff, architect for the project, was present and reviewed the preliminary presentation made at the previous week's meeting. He conf firmed the project's conformity to the requirements of the Special. Development District. Toughill agreed that the project complies with development standards as required in the SDb. She noted that there will be a parking problem,with a shortage of spaces to occur during one phase of the development plan. Toughill then presented a Staff Memo (5/19/77 see attached) outlining further requirements to be complied with and referred to Section 13.303-6 (#l) of the Zoning Ordinance which must be conformed with in this development. Ruoff noted that construction of Ahase TT is to commence August 29, 1977. He then read a letter from the Town's consultant, Eldon Beck, of Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey, concerning the planned development.{See Letter attached.) With regard to parking, Ruoff stated that at the completion of Phase II parking will be insufficient, but with the construction of Phase III parking will be more than adequate. Phase III will contain 6Q~ of th.e total parking. The in- sufficiency will. occur during the 78-79 season, and rqr. Staufer will have controlled parking to alleviate problems. Toughill then presented a Memo concerning parking statistics far the project. Chairman Garton commented that Mr. Staufer has excellent statistics regarding his actual parking-versus his 'on~paper' required parking, and that at the time of the initial study of the SDD he was asked to plan for. maximum parking. She also stated that the Planning Commission has been aware of the use and numbers in. the parking lot all along, and Mr. .Staufer has cooperated in this regard . ~ ,~ . i• i• i~ • 19 May 1 ~ ! ~i _ Page 2 white commented that there is currently insufficient parking: . Garton replied that that is the reason that there must be a stipulation concerning controlled parking for the 77-78 season. ' Toughill informed the commis-ion that although it was not ' mentioned in the Memo .there should be restrictions con- cerning a con~:truction entrance and storage of construction materials and the parking of construction vehicles. She also said that at the May 12 meeting, the Planning Commission asked for a resolution regarding commercial space as related. to Public Accommodation Units., and that the caznmercial must not exceed 20$ GRFA of the entire project. The Town Council would have to pass the resolution a„~d Dudley Abbott. wants the details regarding parking controls tied down in the Planning Commission approval. Ron Todd then moved to approve the proposed Phase lI to include the conditions in the Staff Memo plus the following stipulations: ~.. The usage of the parking lot is to be documented, 2. All construction activity for Phase lI will take place in the northeast corner of the property. The construction ingress and egress wiL~l be along the northeast side of the building. Construction activity and storage is to be concentrated on the east side of Phase 1L and nowhere can It come . within 30 feet of East Meadow Mall. 3. Construction storage is-not to be allowed an the' southwest parking lat. White seconded the motion; all present voted ~.n favor; ~- and the motion carried. APPROVED. As there was Rio further- business, the meeting`was adjourned. r ~> :~ ;. r :. ~. MEMORANDUM -i T0: PLANNIiVG COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 19, 1977 RE; VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE II The Department of Community Development has reviewed the proposed plans .for Phase II of the Vail Village inn Special Develop- ment District, The proposed building is in conformance with all regulations of the Special Development District Zone. Phase II will contain 7,918 square feet of commercial space, 2,917 sq. ft. of GRFA in three dwelling units,and 1,600 sq. ft, of storage which becomes part of the underground parking when Phase III is built. There is one problem associated with Phase TI which is not addressed in the Special Development District Ordinance, but was discussed at the time approval was given for the SDD. Parking will be approximately 50 spaces too few untzl Please TTI begins. Our staff suggests two conditions for approval of Phase II: 1. That the parking be controlled either with a gate or by a parking attendant so that the available parking will be used only by guests and customers of the complex. The available park- ang will also have to accommodate construction vehicles and materials, and this use should be closely supervised. 2. In the event that Phase III is not constructed within a two year period from the completion of Phase II, that the Planning Commission and Town Council review the parking which exists (approxi- mately 114 spaces) and determine if that number is adequate. If the Planning Commission and Council determine that parking is not adequate, an alternative plan to provide the required parking be submitted. 3, During this intervening time, Vail Village Inn should document parking usage in as much as practical. This will assist in setting a reasonable parking requirement for the balance of the project or document the actual need in the event that the project does not proceed, We would strongly recommend the approval of Phase TT of the Vaal Village Inn. • • • • ~: .. .~ ~. .~ 0 M a 1 O w N Vl PWL O 7 n c.1 U f-r ("' ~ C vi H V z O p~ U `~J.. y O L0.'. 0. O 0 N O H Rl N tll I+ H ~ • T7 W V m v i u ~± r, O O i f: I' u ~ 4 N n U t7 U n C u > N ,LI G w O :! +~ [!.~r. kir ro H G~ {., H T Y p f in ~ ra c 0 G 4 h q o w ~ -~s a ++ uH r,u e, ,c 1 h w r3 ~ u ~ G H n J V ~ >• • G G J - + G ~ ~ •.Oi al u'C V N 'CS ~w n NN 71 ,u0 u al ^ V C ~ •~ G _- 7 ff e1 !I U u N H V e ~ i ~ u d ~ .+ K U Ul H tC M . ~ n 0. C v i ro ti m u .w u C r 1 w :J q V r J G H O y td u 't7 U H 7 5+ G G 'V .+ L C O n ~ q W C ~ u U ~ C :J C u 3J J u U 4'C V GS.' r u C u I '-+ ~ 0. EE . C p .. V ,w w . • Ev r/ O G g S U H A U > o c ° u - o r: : u p A w V L Cj u N V G 'C A +~ L ~ V pS . i L U U E ~ u L w C'O < u >. w [a. r 'r• - ~ d N 3+ q F w ~ 6 U. ~ C _ w q u u Ia •~ U C ~ O + U U ~ E • b ~ G N '•'. C U C p U V .~+ J +~ O c O V L Y. H ••1. w d N 4 g y 7 0 i+ ~ 4 q 1+ V O u h+ [~ cJ N 'C +~ H al y ~uro +. ~ u ~: o ~: y w O ~ t1 N w w,n ~n.u H N V rL u f. C .yY H ~ V h N ~ r. a .~ C! p N q N O U N ~ O !. - :.+ 0. ~ n u +a F ~ .C< V V • 7 V u ~ cC N CS •ui ,lr 7 ~+ r q N +~ N L . ~ O ~ ~ O U u C G Vl H M H :•~~ r++ ~ v G O q g w~ 0. V O U O >+ >+-n O al »i R Ii n u u b H u n u cr v ~ u'JCs ci N j w O %+ H :d H ^~ -' H l 'C V L. ~ M V u 7 0 n y cn ^r .r. r, V w •.+ •r. A C.7 q w 1+ ,, •N Z. 7 :J U N •~ q r+ ~+ E ~ .. a c. g O c.. O q ~ 7 u O ~ O N V U C r; 7 1 q k O V. V q 'l. N L G U 'n :~ 1+ ~J U ~ A tG F ++ 8 '~ O E 7 u v ~ ~.Q .. a W a J rt i+ rl O p ~., w L N W J ^.- "1 U G H U .1 J1 .2 Ori ... CJ,U O C~ u u y~ U O U: O 'ri O N h1 .Z C1 31 q JJ N {n droU'n~ u L s ~: 10 k1 •.qa u u e+ H T O u .n A M e-! u n o ~ •, '~s k ~ •q N ft C 0.+i d T N O u w ~ ~ V q aps G u c~i u V. H tC } +~ w d O ri l+~ :r Vs 7 u N '[} t H M N V f! C7 O C J 'C N ((!! q u r u ~ L+ C •T7 u l7 M C sv+ A q O +-' D O ++ N V N rl ~ 'iT ~ u •.+ n ~ u N G N v G 7 ~ O T'O ~ 'u b A L' ] ~+ u _ r u U 'll 'p ~ V w 47 CJ L "" u A 7 N C ~ •.+ G •-t t. 7 J U u g w ~A U N C to i r.~ o_p w G C C V w ']' •.~ c H 'C J1 u H L7 u O u 5, n H C [, N i, 'K E ~ V Ci COG Hu•cuv w n u w u~ A O u ^J r: U O O U ++ u V 2 N .~ 3 O q w q :G N +-~ C C1 "J1 O O ~-+ ~3 O N Z G w ^] •N ~C rl ~T m ~ • C~} O W N :J NO '-1 ~ ~ ~ y G .-. i ;7 r. U ai U V r+ -•+ N In CI N ~ A O N d T H tl1 A u .nv u~ pp m a u .[. T P G ~ v N +ryJ uANf3 ~'.'.youoaro w ^ N u U 0~ d 0. ~} u rJ V T N V N IGV w l~ V 0.'C V N .C w ..a 7 O 7 ++ O N T V? A a! ~4 m r. o '.+ d .G u o u m ~ ~ 4 'C u C d W M L: H u 'C w O N 0 7 n V d 0 O O V u L U W G W ~+ n [: O f+ u q Wi a !~ ~ H 0. m YI CG7 C O N O '7 7 w O r6 u ~7 U V "l '.+ W u u .n v w E sa ++ u w.-I +O+ O H O N~ C.. ~ u r o .c' a V ++ 3 N u .Vi w V g R tp 1' as E 3 N O F 1s w ~ M ~ ~ r~i CS n .- 1 C G H ~ ~.+ coc oro d I 7 V G n '~ U 1. ~ u ~ E i a 3 u u E + + .-ni c° •.~i o n a v ro U v. L U T ~ A v ~ c~ u n u•vv I H u U O O O U • 1 O .: V ~ TM y u•, i ~ w ~ ux ~c.nga O U O q 'C1 q p 4~1 u w C d "J H a + G rr~~ 7 T C C W ~ ~p s i nA O 0 0 ~ u ra sg+ cr G L +-0 +-1 O N g G C w 7 +A~+ +~1 G V a N N 7 U v! 7+ w V w.c ~~ N OXH D u s]. w O C u .i .•- I H ., 1 ' T d Ir v N '; N ~ u N d m ~ U f. O L u ": i w M • • ~ . ~ W t. v re N N f U 7 L 4 µ C W V N N C 45 V ~ w W u • -4 y. C V .• u C u v 4 .b o~ L. ;~ a O Ci~i ai .e .e ~ . 7 040 V h r3 . .0. O ~N-. O 4 L u h.~ C ~ b N .-1 C y D k p .. b a y 'O ~ w ~, .a D a .J b y o .., O 7 j O }• !J ~ ~ 7 C UI a ^ G w U N i= U C U .,O .•t : • p U ta -~ n O ., •A ~ U p ... N ~ .. a N '' r u j•e,4i~HCUSw l ~ ~ u D O N • 4 . ~ N u y V ~.• u a d 0 u a o F~ Ft O O R N .. V ^e d v O ' f: % u w G V h V a U o 1• l x V. 4 V 7 7i d O : r w T o U N .~+ tf N u Iv d ~ r, w i ~ u a w C 1, ,a .V7 L G w [L. O .a 0 0 0 U S' ~ 0. O N t+ V O n u H~ T 3 -.,,~ ~ U U b Q. •./ •r~l p 4• G O 6~ .G G G 7 D tll A N u~ H ~n L u O U r. y u u L 7 " v C C , . ., G" O '^r '~ p . G . . . J O C " A C ..e L i V 4 Li ,J ' M ie rj ~. F u ~. . • L O u u 4 ~ n f s. H b o w b o y u V w ,J 7 V Nb.+ u W 7 C• C e m ro N ~ O u w i 'J+ G U •J C 3 . Y .H v t .~ V. 7 G . a V G a ~ r. _. G 1, ~~ h G W O O ~ 1 C. O r, ~ N C J u J" O O V ~V V , t1 J ~ U 4 L' u N V OO C ~ H aDi p r: U G ~ G d W C .. C u C O 4 U H O A T G CI N O r+ O ~ A ~ ~ i.y is N 9 .p U~ V 7 0 '~ V _ • : O ' O ti ^ u u C Y 0 'V 0 f 'J j M yl ~ 1 L L •.e 4 N -J U O O ~~ •3 U C -.Oi M C A U b u N N O O V L u h 'rt ~ u O H~ 1 H J .C ~' V L C .d O^. V c G '- n u li " ° ~ ~ _ v y y a L a a , . , w~ o r c u c L l LV+ ~. } N ~ p ~ u U b ~ U N U r 'a .n G V V F 0. N C V •~ '~ ^> .'- 7 b a, G~ vi V L v .... O J N M . -i U O `'~ '~ .) n N 1, ~ b r J ~ G 5- Y CC . E lr+• A A C ~ . :l ~ i Y U G `~ V 'O E= > L; f] ~ u L .,e e rG ~ + U f1 K L .+ C . 7. I V ~ ~~ .,.. o G 6 O b V O N = + r Y X } q [, + w u C ^ ~ w a. J ' ~ T ... ^1 .~, :I: u u 7, m J L . V . 1 V] Ave ~ V N Y I E w V~ W ~, 'ki u 7 .., .,Ee N O~ N V O .^ G V V C S. .. ~ y 1 1• G V a+ V C O .C A ~ C 3 tpw O'^ u p u E H L O ~ I ^[ 1 ~ ~ J' U u .l .N C~ C1 f O y 0. O -. D [n I K 1 ^+ y G ! .: [JS y p ~ C J7 v+ •.+ C Z. V C FVi ~ 'V ~ O U 3 U O C ~ r~ ~ V o 1 u O ~ ;1 U1 V i lR 4 G 3 r r' c0 v s, V O ,J u t7 v A ,n ~ O V ?~, >. ^a G o 1 f1 V m C ~ y ~ U ., . G E~ u 0 ~ v ..~ .. - ' 1 W ~ . e~.e •`e Y. C t' •4 ~~ G •O !, •O C .d ~ fxJ C~1 V r re !. N ~ D O •.+ .-r N W u G n V U ,J V V U .,.I a l~ G !1 1, 'G 'll ~ :J al u .-1 ~ M L+ O I` j m N C~ ^•; D ~ i ~ 7 •C i :J ^ u L L, 4 Y. r! <7 lJ .11 ~ ..If-~i •-I u ~ V ~ H f ~ C :J t' .-1 7 4 u O .~-. •rr :J >~ ,,1 L. 3 V _ r' 1+ ~. p F 7 [J7 U 1 N C3 N 1..C 7 V J„ V y 7 u G N ,H, •.1 ~+ d W b O b W ~` U U 7 0 0 0 N ~ u P iJ W VJ T O N Y (• (y F N U U 'O i ~ Z j ~ , , ~ 0 • • u ~ w d ^~ Ts ~ ai tJ N G 7a ~ ab a o ~ba~ • ~H O ~ Rs F O L ~ 4 ~ 1' U ' L rr~~ b. ~ m " y G 8 '~ t0 .N ~ C r-4 u p . e .r A '.Qa H ~ N N ~~ NM G V d 'G .C .^Gj N~ C D ~, ~ tJ N s+ ~ .O v • G aJ N U N b J O d E ^ ~ G VG G 'J W L ~ M M u 4 U 0 .,e F of ~ U u G y '~ u + H _ U N ZY ~ F rl b •tl . v F M CO _ ^ ,•' 7 q C 'u .P C7 ~ rN O 4 y r_ :f 0 , j L U V u U •.a fTs•~~ ~ N F w .b :J .-, .N O a' O J u g G 'n L G .-e ..~ t rr' S, .-1 •t G1 •r. V ~ a+ N 7 T C d d l .C N N J . + V N t: }, tL H q ' ",J ~ u C O O F tr T. y,, ~ H H ~ CH Yr t9 t7 G H N ~ M V ~ C« N 1 O u t7 ~ H 1 . i O . y ... r 1+ C 'V V N S+ L N •.d a .= ~ O 't p i •=i i> >C O C b w y rGe u y U d m A .•, G 1 G. L' G G~ O~ •-I V ~ i, W O ,r.l o ^ V; + '"' 1. 7 w w • r3 ^ E i J -r J C W S H '~ . V« J b L G - O I -. i 0 3 U y, ~ ;0 w t7 H H ~ V O O G 0.y G u G V u ^ t J r-I E d ^-1 b p p U 4 u d .. U A A 1+ G. V~ r L o c o r u .e r ~ d n F ,,, 1 .Ne L .,Vn T '" N u U U O J C. L [ ^'~ G ~ ~ J N H O N E 'U D W H• 3 lY ' r ' '. ^ rl .e 1. C G^ .. .. , O J '~ : O U u 'O ~ S u 0. H G r ~ a V M 7 N H i ' ~ r .y H C ~ •f b w J tJ +V. N V w r ., r.L C ~ ~ v '7 4 'V ^ r O y a, L ~ ^ HG e wA ~ w L]. 61 .,4j L D . -. u V G w' ~• .pi H ^ T + i . + u ~ .,.r ~ ^ w 4~ ~ V~ x M U .r O .V.. 7 ti C: W Y d ~ d ' m L 0 C fNL. aaJ Y I VI C r' ~ .Ve 7 V G_ _J M C u V V ^ J~~ 4 V [Y r N O V _ l CJ N ~' o 3 ~ Iq P. U O to ~ V y G7 v . ~ Op N N u V r a 3 G o U u .~.•~ i u~ ~ a a ~ J r V V . H~ ~ ° y "' d x ~ o ~ ~ co u . i v. •r. :J N c o L r_ y ~ ~ ~ m . ~r - w a ~ J .o V N v ~ L N 1 ~ O .a• h • Y. N' N GC G C: C C l C 7 V .. ..~ ~ .•. ^~ L .. 0 y ~ W. ~ l 01 b v U K I N G~ .~- ~i . . . i , C 'O N F i r N ^J C .+ 1 a E~ V O V U U h ., U% } O ~ ~ .I C t0 ..t6e 1a O 1 O ~ J ^ ;. V u G H O > .l 4, N u J 1 -' V e ro O v .< U G • Cr. 1 ~ I N G G M O D N .re U u b •.. ~~ b U f. H u v O X O ct } U f u A C,'U t' ~ s c ^ 1' G 1 V I N V ~ u 7 :~ r H m a[ 1 V o ~. H u o o e - r .. ~ f s. b n ~~ .-~ ., iJ G v C d 7 y :.' e r r: u N /. v p i r ti G N d 1, d w w N E ~ p G u v ~ u 0 G u w ~ J ' S ~ ,+ s, A N ~ ~ 7^ U C 3 ti u ~ V v G .y .~ U O F H i.+ ~ G> C U U o o ~ J, G w w o -~ H a n ~ ° C.1 ~ v 1 C k +J ~ 1 ~ 1' N '= y `~ a n G c ~ QI g U C 7 ~ ~ ce m Y y . ~. ., .. n ~ '~ ~. L :7 w A 1, n F Te A r V V ~' J 8 in ti "Y r N • p ~ ~~ ~ N ~ li 7 V V ± J c -. 3~ O ~ W - ~ O r~ V .`' . gy .. .+ L . V Y u J= A G _- O N u b N D C. . J .0 ?] U tJ J ~ is N 1 w h a N k O O 1L > •0 [] ~ L. ~ 1. 7 •.r~ri m u b D !r ~`: .~ U N 0 ~ • u C G G~ N Cl .. G V +, U L 4 . N ~~ H~ V N 4: d O ^ N [J ~ .. ~ Gi b O _ CJ C O ~ w O ~ •,.r U . u C .- w V w N V C ..~ C' V , L. Lr 1: 1' I: ti C- 4 V L• F 3 J [: V 0 0 J C' V 1 7 4 G 9! .,e L VI H C:, . .V 1 '~ C N V ^C N U: y O N V~ ~. .. 9 4 .a ., C« L: ~ u C t: L. y 4 ... J V u 'tl V 4 V J U V "~ O •' ~` N a f V N V w ~+ L. _ V 'a J ~ H 3y F1 O 1 O ~ ~ G O a T . i N r: d A O f~ O YO O ~y G O ~ W O q~ n N ~ 7 : C 7~ 'l V .X w' ~ .i V N 1. Y C`i J U~ r7 W d 0 ` w y ~ ~ >r U .C Q N Li V1 i v H V. N 1. 'O 1+ N .•1 Vf O A L n d N ~ G G N d ~ ~•C+ O . i A h'9 N f 4. V V .n u O :ti b Ci N . w H V V V ~ n ~ v l C G d d y .N O K N U V H C. V t3 N V O Y. dl it v1 n y F ~ H ~ V t F .+ ~ •rl 7 a In f~ q 4~ ~ t~ f.l - L7 u o L G u v [ . U 1 U M n kl , C d N •~ H V C i y 6 a n yr .~ la 5 S1f u N •J F H ./ V 4' V 1 H a J N Hv Mu a ~ _ *.. 1 n 4 r ., . ----- .. • April 25, 1977 Mx'. Boss Cooney Cooney Wadman Dalton 1737 15th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Aar. William J. Ruoff, AIA Drawer 2178 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Village Tnn Phase 2 Deax Koss and 13111: Roysto~~ Hanamoto deck & Abey Thank you very much for sending drawings, slides and the black and whits photographs. I continue to be impressed with the project and the emergence of a contemporary village with a strong historic flavor. It's very difficult to create something tY:at fits well in either the 17th or 20th century, but it seams to be happening. My comments are very few for overall it feels good: 1. The base of unit H feels abrupt.- I cannot reed well where the lower floor windows are. It seems that this is an important facade and should be quite open - the view in and out can be great. 1-iaw about pulling the steps out and run them along the south face? 'Phis might relieve the abruptness and create a nicer plaza space. 2. The buildings all seem a bit bulkier than the original model (Drawing/Model "D", dated April 6, 7, 197b], and the central plaza space a bit tighter. You might look at that space very carefully, and consider widening it by about ~4'. Please check sun angles, try to determine where a few key trees might be placed and judge its scale with all ingredients present. The slight step back of the second stoxy in some places does help. Landscape Architects: Land planning Chtaan i)csign hrrk 1'larmirrg )/nvironntcntal Planning Principals: ltohcrt 12~~yston ~A5LA ilsa kl;rn:tntcx~i ASLA E~ldun k3eck ASLA Kazuo Ahcy ASLA l.uuis G. Allry AlA Patricia Carlisle ASLA /355~(.latCS: Harald N. Ko#rryushi ASLA Robert']'. E3aitCrtnn ASLA George W. Uirvin ASLA EiuF,crt S. Seca ASLA 225 Miller Avenue Mill Valley Cali(ontia 94441 4 t 5 :1837906 ,~ Fi .: ,. Mr. Ross Copney Mr. William J. Ruoff -- 2 - April 25, 1977 _~ 3. Many windows at the lower level will open the space greatly. '~ That is hard to read from the photographs. Any balconies or dormers at the second level to change-scale? That is all. It feels very good and I recommend that the Design Review Board, Planning Com;nission and Town Council all give their respective stamps of appxoval. The Phase Two i5 consistent with the previous special Development District approvals. Hest of luck. Thanks for keeping me posted. I have no schedule to appeax in Vail, but will let you know if plans change: 5'i erely S N~ , HANAMOT~J, CK ABEY ~ ~ ~ ' don Bec bh CC: Mr. James Lamont Ms. Diana Toughill Mr. Josef Stauffer . . MEMORAidDUM TO: pLAPdNII~G COMMISSION ~. FROM : DEPARTMEI`IT 0~' COM~~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAX 12, 1977 . RE: LIONSHEAD COM1~lERCIAL BUILDING - REQUEST FOR DISTANCE BETWELN~ BUILDINGS VARIAI~TCE The Town Council requested Selby/Tofel to restudy the proposed commercial building in an attempt to widen the pedestrain ease- meat through the project. This request necessitated a distance between buildings variance to acheive the wider pedestrain ma11. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the request and find that the criteria and findings are consistent with recommendations in memo dated February Z4, 1977 relating to a setback variance for the same project and would therefax~e recommend. approval of the subject variance in accordance with those criteria and findings applicable to the setback variance. €I r i .~ ~~~ .~ . MINUTES VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 1977 PRESENT: Abbott ABSENT: Hanlon Drager Mills Garton Todd White STAFF: Toughill Jeffrey THE SPA -- REQUEST FOR BUILDING BULK CONTROL VARIANCES AND SETBACK VARIANCE People present representing The Spa were: L. Deicas, owner; T. Briner, architect; B. Pendleton, attorney: Tom Briner outlined the details of the project specifying that it would contain 56 condominium units in addition to a health club. It was noted that the building would be owner occupied approximately 3-6 weeks a year with no rentals. Dudley Abbott felt that the proposed fireplaces were not realistic from the standpoint of the pressing about the decisions reached by relation to the feasibility of An environmental impact report The variances requested are as ordinance allows 225' maximum; requires 25' minimum. air quality problem. He then asked the Growth Management committee in this project was requested of the owner. follows:. 345 feet diagonal, the and 10 foot setback line, the ordinance Ed Drager was concerned with the length of the building facing The Mark. Other than that he liked the project. Gerry White would like to see the building set back more than it is, and he would prefer not to see such a long wall. He would like to see some alternative proposals for the project, Ron Todd felt that the design was good and had no problem with the bulk control variance or setback variance particularly since the setback area in question is pedestrian, At this point a favorable letter was submitted from Eldon Beck, RHB&A consultant, critiquing the project. Pam Garton liked the approach to the site and project but she wanted to be sure that there were good, solid reasons for the variances. It was stated that a solid rationale was needed before the Commission could recommend approval of the building, walls without the required offsets on the diagonal, Tom Briner felt that the basis for hardship was the large scale of The Mark project which does not allow for a view corridor; the topography; the shape of the site and its relationship to the adjoining - ~ buildings. It was noted that the Flanning Commission has granted variances on these reasons before. t' It was also noted that 1f the patio was removed, a lesser setback variance ~ will be needed. BUILDING BULK VARIANCE Ed Drager made a motion to approve the 120 foot diagonal; Ron Todd seconded the motion based on the staff memorandum and Eldon Beck's recommendation. A unanimous vote was recorded, APPROVED Ron Todd made a motion to approve the maximum wall length variance of 55 feet subject to the provisions of the staff memorandum. Gerry White seconded the motion, A 3i2 vote was recorded. APPROVED On the question of wall length with no offsets, Pam Garton requested that if the variance was approved that it be built according to Eldon Beck's recommendations and that it be sent to Design Review Board to solve the problem, Ron Todd made a motion with a directive to DRB to consider Eldon Beck 's recommendations for approval of the variance mentioned above, Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, {it was noted that he was not strictly tied to Beck's recommendations}. A 4:1 vote was recorded•in favor of the motion. APPROVED. SETBACK VARIANCE -- l0 feet at the stair tower and three feet at each of the other two building points. Ron Todd made a motion far approval of the setback variance; Ed Drager seconded the motion. A 4:i vote was recorded. APPROVED PULTS RESUBDIVISION AND REGONING AND VARIANCE Dudley Abbott made a motion to table discussion at the applicant's request; Ed Drager seconded the motion, TABLE}? RUCKSAC BUILDING PARKING VARLANCE This variance request is for two parking spaces so that the applicant, Jeff Selby, can expand the building. Tt was noted that the gates between the Rucksac Building and the Red Lion were approved by the DRB on a temporary basis, The staff has taken nQ position :Qn the variance request. Jeff Selby requested that they be treated as all other parking variances have been treated and granted in CCI. Ed Drager asked whether the applicant would be willing to sign a parking contract; Selby answered affirmatively and said that he would honor it, Doug McLaughlin protested the application stating that hardship must be shown in order to grant a variance. Ron Todd, on the question of hardship, agreed that the store does not function well but the owner knew that when he purchased it. Gerry White could see no hardship since economics are not to be considered by Planning Commission. He was also concerned about the possible blockage of the pedestrian way between the Rucksac and the Red Lion. Ed Drager could see no hardship and he wants the Town Council to make a decision on the whole question of parking variances and contracts. Dudley Abbott felt that the applicant can use his property within the limits of the Zoning Ordinance. He feels a.f the variance is granted then the Planning Commission would be put in jeopardy. He can see no justification, Pam Garton sees a • uniqueness of CCT in relation to pedestxianization and the TOV's efforts f ~. . r ''Y to discourage parking in Town. She is open to the parking variances but does not want the variance tied down to a contract. Gerry White thinks that two cars could be put on the site, so is against the variance. Jeff Selby said that he could upgrade the building to an additional 1~9 square feet without benefit of the parking variance. Doug McLaughlin, as an interested party, felt that there was no basis for hardship, the aesthetics of the addition would be unpleasing; and the addition would cause hardship to people who use the walkway. He stated that he was willing to pay far 2 of the upkeep of the walkway. A question of title to the property was raised in relation to the walkway. Pam Garton then entered into the record letters of apposition. {Dan Telleen, Jack Curtain, Tim Garton, Gregory Keltchner, Cindy Sexton, Bill McElhanie, Mark Young) Dudley Abbott made a motion to deny the application; Gerry White seconded. A 4:1 vote was recorded in favor of the motion. DISAPPROVED (Garton against) CYRANO'S PARKING VARIANCE Ed Drager made a motion to postpone discussion at the request of the applicant; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. TABLED ,` Ed Drager and Pam Garton stated that they wanted to forward on to .the Town Council a request to consider parking exemptions in CCI. It was their feeling that parking is wrongly being used as a tool. to keep out expansion. 1 ~~ i MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE; THE SPA - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM BULK CONTROL STANDARDS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DATE: May 24, 1977 Tom Bxiner, representing Urida, N. V. has applied for several vari- ances in order to allow the construction of 57 condominium units in a single building rather than in several separate buildings, The site is a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, con- sisting of 142,742 sq. ft. which would allow 92 units and a GRFA of approximately 84,000 sq. ft. The proposal is at the maximum GRFA but well under the allowable units, thus haveing a positive affect upon the peak population possible. The requirement in the HDMF zone is a maximum of 225' diagonal, a maximum wall length of 175' and 'a minimum wall offset of 1' for each 7' of building length for each wall in excess of 70' in length. The developer proposes a maximum diagonal of S45', a maximum wall length of approximately 2$0' and three walls which do not meet the offset requirements. The longest wall with no offset is 160'. The setback requirement is 25' and the closest point on the south side is approximately 10'. CONSIDERATION 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. The proposed structure is directly across the street from the proposed Mark which is a very large structure. The project, as proposed is in keeping with the architectural character of the Mark and smaller buildings would be dwarfed by the imposing Mark structure. We do feel, however, that the long unbroken walls could be offset somewhat to relieve the flat expanse, especially towaxd the Enzian. The requested setback variance is in keeping with the zero setback included in the Maxk Special Development District< The proposed building location{ does create special problems in the area where the Mark is on the property line and the proposed Spa is within 10' of the property line, A very narrow space (approximately 45') is created that must be considered. We would recommend that this section of Lionshead Circle be pedestrianized in order to alleviate the conflict between the pedestrian and auto in. this narrow space. The narrow area could then be landscaped in such a way that a '"17th Street" cavern is not created. The spa Page 2 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 or- dinance without grant of special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would require at least three separate, or perhaps four, structures on the site which would greatly diminish the amount of green space and possible recreational amenities on the sate. The site is also peculiar in that it is a difficult one topographically. The "hill" is a man-made one which apparently resulted from the construction. of Highway 6. The proposed plan recognizes the existing topography and deals with in an imaginative way rather than flattening the entire site. Again, the bulk and mass of the proposed Mark shauJ.d be considered in approving a building size criteria for this site. 3. The effect of the requrested variance on light and air, distri- bution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, and utilities, and public safety. We see no adverse impacts on the above factors. The proposed use of the building represents a decrease in population which is in line with proposed growth management program and has a positive impact on distribution of popplation in terms of overnight guests. The project is proposed for the use of the owners only, and is not proposed far short-term rental. The project is on a major bus line and will have some impact on the bus system, however, much less impact than a short- term, maximum number of units project which could have been built on the site. A major plus is that all auto access to the site is from the Frontage road which enables a major portion of the landscaped area to be adjacent to pedestrian access fxom the West day skier parking lot. As the project is an the bus line, there should be little impact on traffic and parking requirements in other parts of Town. 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 Items 1 and 2 under Consideration of Factors, 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welf are, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. We feel the project would have a very positive impact on the neighborhood, both on the basis of design and landscaping quality, and would not be detrimental to any other properties i.n the vicinity 3. That the variance is warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified xegulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical harship inconsistent i ' '' The Spa ,Page '3 with the objectives of this ordinance. The ro osed structure has the a earance of several p p pA structures rather than one very large one, and is in keeping with other projects, both completed and proposed, in the neighborhood. b. There are exceptional or extraord~.naxy 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 would strongly recommend that the Planning Commission review the building bulk control standards to determine if they are valid. We would point out that only one building since the 1573 adoption of the ordinance has been built without a variance from these standards. We would also point out than several projects either approved or under con- stxuction, are in variation from these standards. Possibly the best example of a vexy good building that does not meet these standards is the Vail Village Inn r.edevelopment.' It inay be in the best interests of good design to remove the bulk control standards, and use them merely as guidelines in reviewing individual projects. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances with special attention to points raised by both the staff and Eldon Beck in achieving the intent of the ordinance. i r, x'i Royston Hanamoto Beck & Abey May 20, 1977 Ms. Liana Toughi7l Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 ~E: Vail Spa Condominium Dear Diana: On Thursday, May 19, 1977, I met with Tam Briner and Leon Diecas in ~ office to review the proposed design of the Vail Spa Condominium. Overall, I found the project to be well conceived and in most cases in conformance with Town design criteria. My comments are as follows: 1. The placement of building mass on the site is good and the three resulting open spaces are we1T located and in relation to adjacent streets and to the Enzian. The only tight relationship is the southeast wa11 line fronting on West Lionshead Circle. The space between the proposed project and the proposed ex- pansion of the Mark will be tight. At this location, the building appears to extend into the setback at one corner by only two feet. This is not a significant problem. We discussed the one apparent option of building this wing to the north edge of the property on top of the garage. This would transfer bulk from within the site to the outer edge with significant detrimental visual effect on the spaces as seen from the Interstate. 1n r>ly opinion the plan proposed is the best of the two options in terms of community impact. 2. The height and bulk of the building have limited impact on existing important sight lines. It was represented that the height of the building conforms to ordinance. Landscape Architects: Principals: Land Planning Robert Royston FASLA Urban Design Asa Hanamoto ASLA Park Planning Eldon Beck ASLA Environmental Planning Kazuo Abey ASLA Louis G. Alley AIA Patricia Carlisle ASLA Associates: Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Robert T, Batterton ASLA George ~! Girvin ASLA Robert S. Sena-ASLA 225 Millar Avenue Mill Valley California 94441 415 383-7900 . '~-.~ C Ms. Duna Toughill -2- NEay 20, 1977 3. The long walls do exceed ordinance requirements. However, because of the building shape and the break up of facade 6y stairways, I recommend that a variance by granted. One condition should be assigned, and that would be the re- quirement that 15 to 20 mature conifers (30' - 35` in height) be clustered in three or four locations along the long walls. Plant materials can achieve almost the same effect as an architectural setback. The condition should further state that these trees are "architectural features" and that they must be well maintained and replaced promptly in case of loss. {The Owner and Architect agreed to this condition.) ~. A request was made to study the interior right angle wall intersection.(the two tennis court spaces}. A notch or an angle or some other solution to create shadow and a better connection would alleviate a potential visual problem. 5. The amount of parking is deficient by 13 spaces. 106 covered spaces will be provided in comparison with 119 required. In my opinion, 13 surface stalls at the north side of the building result in loss of critical landscape space and force a poor service area access design. Approximately six to eight surface spaces work fairly well. I suggest that the approvals be worded requiring conformance with the ordinance within a period of two years after full operation of the project and then only if a parking deficiency is apparent. 6. The service area and luggage pickup area is not well solved and does not have the quality of the rest of the project. Mr. Briner agreed to study this area further. 7. The site plan and landscape plan requires further design and must show access to tennis courts, exterior terraces and kiosks, earth form, and a more detailed planting plan. It was suggested that the west tennis court be depressed by approximately four feet and that mounding on the southwest perimeter would da much to lower apparent building height. Also, mature tree planting along West Lionshead Circle (east of the pedestrian access to Vail Spa) would soften the building relationship with the dark. It is apparent that West Lionshead Circle is very important to the visual image of Lionshead and improved landscape south of the Enzian Condominiums, in concert with new landscape by the Vaii Spa, is essential. The Town and the Enzian should both participate in environmental improvement. • a ~. Ms. Diana Toughill -3- May 20, 1977 8. The need far a quality bus waiting shelter and terrace on West Lionshead Circle was discussed. Mr. Diecas may be willing to participate in the development of such a facility. 9. A winter time tennis bubble was discussed. A single court bubble on the east courts would be better than a double bubble. Conclusions: I recommend that requested variances be granted, but including the conditions described in this letter. There should be further detailed review of the site and landscape plan with an agreement to plant material size and quantities. As any building reaches maximum size and, in fact, exceeds the maximum, it becomes extremely important that extra care be given to proportion, scale, materials, and color. The skill of the Architect becomes very important and the Town should continue to require careful design dialogue. I believe that this pro,~ect is well conceived and potentially can be one of the most attractive in Lionshead (in part because of space for strong tree planting). This opinion is being expressed as a concern for both the Vail Spa and for any future political actions on the Mark. Please feel free to call me if I have missed any of your concerns. With best wishes. Sincerely, ROY HANAMOTO, El Beck th SEC & BEY cc: Mr. Stan Bernstein Mr. James F. Lamont Mr. Tom Briner Mr. John Dobson l 9 ~ Plerce Brlner Fitzhugh Scott Inc. Architecture Planning P. O. Box 2299 VBiI, Colorado 81657 303 476-3038 May 24, 1977 Mr. Jim Lamont, Director Department of Community Development Box lOd Vail, Colorado 81657 near Jim: With reference to your letter of March ~8, 1977, regarding the proposed Vail Spa Development, T've taken note of your concerns and have attempted here to give some answer to the items spec- ified. I don't consider this letter an Environmental Tmpact Study but hope that it fulfills your own requirements for infor- mation concerning these relationships, Should further documen- tation be necessary, T, through my consultants could, I'm sure, more accurately, i..e., with numbers, references, etc., describe the specific impact of this proposed project. #4 Relationship of project to proposed Mark development ... Adjacent construction is generally large in scale. The proposed Mark addition is also large. -The Vail Spa will not have a roof line above the Enzian Lodge or the Mark I. View corridors have not been interfered with. Views toward the village 'and/or to the mountain remain open and perhaps enhanced with development on that particular piece of land. "Mass" will be broken up by the staggered, non-symmetric, sawtaoth plan. The building is composed of three wings arranged to farm three courts, which with significant planting will offer a foreground to break up building sur- faces behind. The flat roof, being "crenelated" by pent- houses and solar collectors, will not have a horizontal, straight profile to persons at ground level. Considerable attention has been given to the visual effect of this project from various viewpoints including Red Sandstone Road, the fron- tage roads, and the pedestrian approaches along West Lionshead Circle. Sketches are available to indicate the project's "fit" into its setting. The interest in facade generally obtained by offsets will instead be developed through pattern- ing of windows and door openings and location of wood and/or Mr, Jim Lamont Page Two stucco panels with relief being given by projecting bay windows at stairways and occasional balconies recessed into the building's form. Additional commentary is available in Eldon Beck's letter of May 20, 1977, to Diana. #10 Relationship ... ~to existing sewer and water ... surface drainage from parking areas. Using the Colorado Oept. of Health Design Requirements and the Colorado Plumbing Code as a guide and assuming full occupancy of the living units, restaurant and health club facilities, we have approximated the following sewer and water demands: Sewer - 24210 gal. per day Dater - 28500 gal. per day with peak AM and PM requirements of 180 gal. per minute Neither the water or sewer loads account for the probabl:~ . use of water-saving water closets. With regard to surface drainage of parking areas, the project, to meet parking requirements, proposes 15 surface parking spaces. (It is the suggestion of Eldon Beck that these spaces be hel d i n abeyance unti 1 the full requi cement i s justified.} Parking, service apron, and approach driveways amount to approximately 9700 sq. ft. of paved area. We do not feel that the area involved or the amount of use, particularly the, parking spaces, justifies special means for detention of silt and oil droppings. #12 Relationship of project to ... population increases ... mountain capacity ... Town of Vail revenues ... Aside from a manager's unit, it is not expected that this project will add to the Vail permanent population. it is projected that the condominiums wi11 be sold to families interested in visiting Vail during the summer season as well as the winter. Average length of stay may be two-three weeks. When not occupied by the owners, the units will not be rented out -- present architectural plans do not allow far the splitting off of bedrooms for rental purposes. The health facilities are considered primarily as an amenity to the condominium owners. However, a limited number of ,~ ~. Mr. Jim Lamont Page Three • memberships may be offered to locals -- no competition is envisioned with the proposed Vail Health Club. The restaurant will have a seating capacity of sixty persons and will offer two evening sittings, lunch, and possibly breakfast for the occupants of the Spa. Though figures have not been formulated, it is presumed that. revenue to the town through the development of the flail Spa will be in excess of the costs to the town's provision of police and fire protection as well as other municipal costs including shuttle bus service. Utility casts very likely will be borne by tap fees. Sources of revenue to the town will include: 7. Building permits :_ 2. Amenities tax 3. Sales tax accrued through Spa residents spending in Lionshead and Vail 4. Town of Vail share of real estate taxes based upon approximate market values of $160,000.00 per unit #14 Relationship to pedestrian, mass transit, vehicular cir- culation ... transit system service levels. Vehicular traffic generated by the Vail Spa would not occur on West Lionshead Circle thus allowing that street to become pedestrianized. Access to patron's, owner's, and service vehicles would be from the South Frontage Raad -- over 400 feet east of the intersection with West Lionshead Circle: A proposal to the Town of Vail will be made to share the cost of a sheltered bus stop along with the Mark. This could be located on, or possibly across, West .Lionshead Circle convenient . to the pedestrian entrances to both the Vail Spa and the Mark addition. John Ryan has calculated that for every visitor in Vail, there are generated i.65 bus trips*. This figure does riot reflect the incidence of use during peak AM and PM periods or cans4d- eration of proximity of loading point to destination. Assuming full occupancy of the Vail Spa to be approximately 204 persons; at 1.65 trips per person, the increased service level would be 339 passenger trips per day. In light of this project's con- venience to the Gondola ono less than the Mark's), it is probable that this figure is substantially higher than what it actually would be. • • * Mark Environmental Impact Study, Page 50 ,. ,' ~, .. ., Mr. Jim Lamont Page Four Re: Energy conservation ... water conservation -- the developer is desirous of constructing an energy efficient project and techniques to that end include: 1. Use of double glazed windows 2. Provision of solar collectors for the domestic hot water requirements 3. Probably electric heat 4. To the extent possible, exhausting building heat through the parking structure 5. Minimizing building projections (balconies) to reduce insulating/infiltration problems 6. Location of sidewalks and terraces on south and southwest side of building 1. Research into efficient fireplaces (57') 8. Use of water-saving water closets Finally, Jim, I again recognize that this is not an Environmental Impact Study. However, I hope you and your staff will agree that those concerns you have on the impact of this project on the town can be met in a positive way and that benefits .to the town, while not without some expense, still justify the development of this project. Sincerely, Thomas A. Briner TAB:Iw cc. Diana Toughill, Town of Vail Brian Pendeltan, Denver ,. ~ . • PLA.NNXNG COMMISSION ,Agenda June 2, 1977 1. Sunburst pxeliminaxy presentation of the proposed plans for the balance of the property 2, Ha7.y Cxass electric candit~.onal use permit 3, Colorado Mountain College conditional use permit 4. Town of Vail rezoning of Katsos Property and Parking Lots 5, Approval of minutes May 5, 12, 19, 197'7 6. Discussion of appointment of Chairperson and Vice--Chairperson and Design Review Board member 7. Discussion of recommendations to Council regarding the parking situation 8. Discussion of County Planning Workshops PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes June 2, 1977 PRESENT: Abbott Dragex Garton Hanlon Todd White SUNBURST PROPOERTY ~- PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED PLANS FOR THE PORT ION OWNED BY FDIV~ I ABSENT; Mills STAFF: Toughill Kramer Blair Ammons and Rob O'Donnell were present for the discussion. There is approximately 40 acres in the total approved PUD for Sunburst. The Pulis' own a portion of it and FDMI owns the building and 11 acres of propoerty contiguous to the building. Presently there is no formal zoning for the open land, It was noted that FDMI has been working with the Recreation District and the Pulis Family to work out some of the existing, contractual problems surrounding the Sunburst project, i.e, sewer line location, road rights-of-way and alignment, parking, landscaping, and bus service, as well as working with the Town of Vail staff, On the question of parking and car location, Dudley Abbott .felt that the Recreation District ought to take another look at using the existing underground parking spaces (143} located under the existing building which would be more aesthetically pleasing than relocating the parking above ground as they have requested be done. The problem of doing so arises from the question of distance and convenience for the golfers in relation to the clubhouse, greens, etc. Pam Garton felt that if the Commission felt strongly on this paint that they should send a memorandum to the Recreation District about it because it was not a problem for Planning Commission to work out due to the original parking contract and negotiations between Sunburst and the Rec District. Building A, which presently exists, consists of 71 condomimium units with 54 lock off units in addition to commercial space which brings the total building to approximately 89,761. square feet of net floor area. FDMI would like to have the building zoned a special development district with the remainder of the land, approximately 9 acres, zoned residential cluster. They proposed to have a density of 6 units per acre which would bring the density to abt 50-54 units. It was noted that FMDI does not want to be involved in the development process, They want to iron out the problems, get the Land zoned, and sell it as a package. If necessary they would be involved in the sale process of the existing condominiums in Building A, but would prefer to sell it in total. When asked about any additional recreationa amenities being placed on the project, Blair Ammons commented that FDMI had no plans to add any more than what already exists. • Page 2 0n the preliminary concept that was outlined above, Ed Drage~ felt that the building was a reality and was always going to be there and there was not much to be done about it. He felt that Residential Cluster zoning for the other portion of the property was good. Dudley Abbott felt comfortable with residential cluster for the vacant ground but had some concerns about how the property and respective zoning would relate to the Pu1is' plans for their property. It was noted by staff that this proposal is identical. to what the Pulls' propose for their property except for the diff erence in housing types. In general Dudley Abbott had no problems with the concept. Gerry White felt that the plan was a substantial down zoning, which was very acceptable, and that the SDD zoning for Building A was a good solution to the problem. Ron Todd thought FDMI's plan was a good solution but he wanted it noted that some of the open space that was rewired by the original SDD will now be taken up by development as shown by the preliminary concept. Bill Hanlon suggested that when the applicant appears for final review of the proposal that he draw up a site plan using existing houses to show how the duplexes, might relate to one another -- whether they be mirror images or primary and secondary units. day Pulls stated that on their s.ubdivisxon, they were planning to have restrictive covenants on the allowable size for the second units but at this time did not have any size breakdowns. The Pulls family was in agreement with FDhiI's plans. The applicant was directed to work out the various problems surrounding the project before coming back to the Planning Commission, who found the general concept of the plan agreeable. HOLY CROSS ~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Holy Cross Electric is applying for a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow erection of a gas pump and buried tank on their site west of the Vail Associates Shop. The pump would service five vehicles. The tank would be a,2,000 gallon capacity with the dimens-ions of the pump being 5z' X IZ'. The pump would be the only visable portion of the operation. Dudley Abbott made a motion for approval based upon the criteria and findings of the staff memorandum; Ron Todd seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. APPROVED COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This is an application for a temporary conditional use permit in order to allow erection of their summer tent to be used from dune 13 to August 19th. The proposed location is northwest of the A-Frame and is presently zoned agricultural, Bill Hanlon made a motion for approval based upon the criteria and findings of the staff memorandum; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded, APPROVED. • Page 3 TOWN OF VAIL REZONING OF KATSOS PROPERTY AND PARKING LOTS The Town would like to rezone the 150 acres of property located directly east of the golf course fxom the existing LDMF zoning to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District in addition to rezoning the two public parking lots owned by Vail Associates located in Vail Lionshead First Filing and the public parking lot west of the Mark located in Vail Lionshead Third Filing from the existing HDMF zone and CC2 zone districts to a Parking District. Bill Hanlon made a motion far approval; Ed Dragex seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded, APPROVED. It was noted that a conditional use permit would be needed if some time in the future the Katsos property was developed as a recreational use. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- MAY 5, 12, 19, 197'7 Ed Drager made a motion to approve the amended May 5 minutes; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A 5-0 vote was recorded. Todd abstained. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the May 12 minutes; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A 3-0 vote was recorded. Garton, Todd, & White abstained. Gerry White made a mot~.on to approve the May 19 minutes; Ron Todd seconded the motion. A 3-0 vote was recorded. Hanlon, Abbott, and Drager abstained. DISCUSSION AND APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBER In response the the Council's question of who should appoint the Planning Commission officers, either the Council or the Planning Commission; it was a general conce:~a:sus of the Commission that they appoint their own officers for a 6 month term. Tt was felt that the Planning Commission should appoint a member each week to attend the Council work sessions and to attend the Council meetings so that they could be on hand to make their own presentations. Dudley Abbott made a motion to appoint Ed Drager as Chairman and Gerry White as Vice-Chairman; Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A 4-0 vote was recorded. (Drager and White abstained}, It was decided to wait until Sandy Mills returned next week before appointing the rotating Design Review Board member. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL REGARDING PARKING SITUATION It was felt that CCI should be kept pedestrian and that parking should be discouraged. It was the Planning Commission's feeling that parking was wrongly being used as a tool to keep out expansion. Their question was whether or not the contracts were valid. Bill Hanlon felt that if we did away with the parking requirement that every porch and patio would be enclosed in order to give the business' more commercial space and as he could see it parking was the only handle to control this. The balconies and .patios are what makes CCI work in terms of commercialism. Page 4 Garton agreed but felt that the parking requirement was the wrong way to go about controlling it. She felt that there was some other way within the honing Ordinance to control it. Diana Toughill ~~~~ suggested an amendment to the Ordinance that would require all increases or conversions within CCI, CC2 and the surrounding areas to be regulated by a conditional use permit. That way each addition or conversion could be considered on its own merit. Ron Todd questioned whether or not we could control additions and conversions with the landscaping requirement. Dudley Abbott felt the answer to the problem was in two parts: 1, create a parking district that would include CCI & CC2 (both areas should be considered equally), and the District would have a dollar amount for membership. Each variance that has been or will be granted will require money to be put into the District. 2. He felt that the variances that were granted pose a problem that has not been addressed. The fact that-some of the contracts are not enforceable make all of the variances granted invalid and the Council should act accordingly in respect to the parking district and making some of the old variances, which are invalid, justifiable under the parking district. He felt that most people would pay up. Ed Drager felt that mandatory deconversion could be used as a means to make those who were not willing to join the district pay up or suffer the consequences. Diana Toughill felt that the question of mandatory deconversion was one which the Council should decide. The Planning Commission asked the staff to work on the "conditional use idea" and try to come up with consistent regulations that were equitable and beneficial to the community for-CCI, CC2, and the immediate surrounding areas. It was felt the Planning Commission should present to the Council a few positive ideas for which they could accept, modify, or disregard. DISCUSSION OF COUNTY PLANNING WORKSHOPS Diana Toughill gave a summary of the planning workshops that were being held in Eagle. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. f~ June 7, 1977 Mr. Jay Pulls Vail Valley, Inc. 3841 South Magnolia Way Denver, CO 80237 clear Mr. Pulls: You have requested an additional classification of the runout areas defined for the wet spring avalanches bey®nd that cos~tairaed in the report "Clubhouse Gulch Avalanche, Vail, Colorado" April 1977 and the subsequent letter to you of May 24, 1977. This additional classi- fication is whether the wet spring avalanches should be classified as a high or moderate hazard. Based upon the flowing and damming densities and velocities for these wet snow avalanches, the runout limits as defined will not experience the b00 pounds per square foot pressure which is used in the Vail hazard regulations for the pressure demarcation between high and moderate hazards. The recurrence interval for many of these wet avalanches is on the order of 5 to 10 years but mat sliding uniformly to the runout limits defined. For the purposes of your planning for the preliminary plat submittal, I would recommend that you consider the defined ]imits of the wet spring avalanches as the moderate hazard classification and that a secondary classi- fication line be used in the plat process located 3Q feet (^°1fl meters) uphill south) of the indicated runout limit line as the demarcation between moderate and high hazard because of the frequency of occurrence. This would be in accordance with the hazard ordinance definition as adtministered by Yai], although rigorous demarcation of the wet spring avalanches by the hazard categories developed primarily for the mayor slide paths may be overusing the methodology due to the inaccuracies of frequency determitlation. If I can be of further assistance or if questions arise on this aspect, please contact me. Sincerely, YDRO-TRIAD, LTD. Ronald L. Kelley, P.E. President RLH/jh CC: Tri-Consultants, inc. i MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 2, 1977 RE: HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL GAS PUMP AND UNDERGROUND TANK IN HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT Holy Cross Electric has applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow erection of a gas pump and buried tank on their site west of the Vail Associates Shop. The pump would serve four service vehicles. 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 an development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and aim, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs, 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to con- gestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed use has little or no impact on the develop- ment objectives of the Town or on the other factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to toe located.,.in relation to surround- ing uses. We forsee no negative impact on the character of the area or on the scale or bulk of surrounding uses, The site is surrounded with other heavy services uses--V. A, shop to the east and the' Texaco station to the West. The proposed storage tanks are located well away from Sandstone Creek and should not create X C. .~~Holy Cross Electric June 2, 1.977 an environmental problem. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The Fire Department should review the proposal from a fire and safety standpoint. 6. No environmental impact report is required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional. Use Permit be approved based on the follow- ing 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 injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. C, J ~, . . ',~ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 2, 1977 RE: Colorado Mountain College Rec}uest for Conditional Use permit for Summer Tent Colorado Mountain College has made application for a ~0' X 60' green and white striped tent to be erected in the A-Frame parking lot. The proposed tent is far use as Summer Vail Art Work Shop space to be used from June 13 to August 19th. The proposed location is northwest of the A-Frame 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 an development objectives of the Town. One of the primary goals of the Town has been to expand the available cultural and educational opportunities in the Community. The proposed tent furthers this objective. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public faci~.ities and public facilities needs. As there is a great deal of public parking, which is not used in the summer, directly adjacent to the proposed tent, parking should not pose a problem. The site is also on a bus route and should not adversely impact the transportation system Impacts on other factors are positive. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to cc~~~~s,t~a~:; . automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and contra]., access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking aromas. . M Colorado Mountain College ti Page Two ', ~ The effect on traffic should be positive as the small amount of parking which has been available near the A-Frame has been a tremendous control problem. 4. off ect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located...in relation to surrounding uses. The the quality of Site and will also serve Lodge at Lionshead. on the character of surrounding uses is applicant feels that the tent will enhance 24 by eliminating the parking by the A-Frame as a barrier for construction underway at the We do not feel that any negative impacts the area or an the scale or. bulk of the created by the tent, 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 injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. ~' ~ . K PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GTVEN THAT the Town of Vail intends to rezone the parcel of land known as the Katsos property consist- ing of approximately 150 acres located directly east of the golf course from the existing Low Density~Multiple Family zone district to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District. NOTTCE I5 FURTHER GTVEN THAT the Town of Vail intends to rezone the two public parking lots owned by Vail Associates located in Vail Lionshead First Filing and the ,public .parking lot west of the Mark located in Vail Lionshead Third Filing from the existing High Density Multiple Family and Commercial Core 2 zone districts to Parking District. Application has been filed pursuant to Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance Na. $, Series of 1973, as amended. A Public Hearing will be held on dune 2; 1977 before the Town of Vail Planning Commission ~_n accord with~Section 21.00 of the~Zoning Ordinance. Said hearing will be held at 3:OO,p.m. in the Vail Municipal Building TOWN OF VAIL D~PARThiENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail May 13, 1977 • PLANNING COMMISSION '~ AGENDA June 9, 1977 1. Vail Valley Medical Center - Preliminary Review Chuck Tubbs and Dale Watson 2. Pulis Resubdivision, Rezoning, Avalanche Repoxt and Variance for two lots with no frontage - Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Warren and Jay Pubs 3. Design Review Board Zoning Amendment 4. Bob Voliter - Request for setback variance Motion to postpone until June 16, 1977 5: Cyrano's Request for parking variance for two cars Ross, Davis, Jr. 6. Discussion of Planning Commission projects • • PLANNING GOMMTSSION mutes une 9, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Ed Dxager Pam Garton Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Ran Todd Gerry White STAFF PRESENT: Toughill gamer VAIL VALLEY MEDTCAL CENTER -- PRELIMINARY REVTEW OF PROPOSED ADDTTION Chuck Tubbs, of the VVMC, gave a brief description of the various approvals needed before the addition could take pla©.e, including State County, and Town, They need and want to offer more services to the residents of Eagle County, as well as visitors, and Ms'. Tubbs went into a description of what is existing at the VVMC and what is proposed in addition to the proposed location of the new services. He also outlined the proposed parking layout and traffic patterns. The new services, are for the most part, for the convenience of the out patients and they will be flexible, if the need arises, to expand the hospital bed base. Diana Tougill noted that on dune 30, 1977 the VVMC will be coming before the Planning Commission to ask for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a hospital addition in a Medium Density zone and the variances needed are: 1) Wall length -- required 125' -w proposed 128' 2) WaI1 offsets ~- required l' per 5' -- proposed 128' with no offsets 3) Wall diagnol -- 160' --proposed 300' * 4) determination of the parking need because the Zoning Ordinance does not directly deal with parking for hospitals. On the parking requirement, Dale Watson noted that the majority of hospitals require one parking space per hospital bed in addition to one space per employee on etch shift, The VVMC proposed to have 65 parking spaces with the ability to expand into the parking area presently being used in the winter by the skating xink if the need arises. The proposed time frame for completion, as noted by Chuck Tubbs, will be hard to determine. They had planned to being this summer, but due tv some unforeseen delays they propose in-house remodeling in either February ar March and once that is completed they will begin with the exterior modifications, Once they are "out of the ground", construction will probably take one year. * It was noted that a variance will be needed to allow uncovered parking in a Medium Density Zane. Page 2 CYR~NO'S PARKING VARIANCE Ross Davis, representing Cyxanos, at this tame did not want to proceed with the variance application but wanted a "straw vote" of the Planning Commission's feelings on this application. It was noted that the application would be tabled until the eminent changes in the parking requirements far CCI are decided upon. The applicants would like to add 14 feet to the existing bar area and this addition in GRFA would require two more parking spaces. The addition consists of approximately 320 square feet of additional GRFA. Basically they are exchanging or trading existing exterior space for interior space which would be used for waiting area and more bar space. It was noted that the building is presently a non-conforming building from the standpoint of parking and that the ph.oposed addition would not make the building any mare non-conforming except from a parking aspect. Dudley Abbott expressed concern about the number of variances that this restaurant had been granted as well as asked for in the past. Bill Hanlon echoed that concern. The Planning Commission did not want to give any commitment of their feelings on this variance due to the instability of the total parking situation in CCZ, but the applicant pressed for it. No official vote was recorded but inkgeneral discussion it appeared-that Ron Todd was far the variance, Sandy Mills had no strong feeling either, way, and the remainder of the Commission was against granting of the variance. Bill Hanlon made a motion to postpone action on this variance for an indefinate time at the request of the applicant; Gerry White seconded the motion. A Unanimous vote was recorded, TABLED Y. 0. GIIRTZ -- PUSH CART STAND An item not on the agenda, Ross Davis, representing the applicant wanted to get a reading from the Planning Commission as to how they felt about a mobile frozen yagert cart in Lionshead and occasionally at the atheltic field during soccer and rugby games. Vail Associates, owners of the Mall, have given their permission and all of the health questions have been worked out. It was noted that the Zoning Ordinance is completely silent about vending operations on private land. There are regulations against vending operations on public streets and there is also a regulation against having a business not located within a structure. Gerry White questioned the administration of such an operation and felt that it could become an over commercialization within a small community. Ron Todd also questioned the administration aspect but felt that the idea had merit and it would add charm to the area. Porn Garton felt that a controlled amount of this type of operation would add a great deal to the area, Dudley Abbott liked the idea and Sandy Mills questioned how the cart would get from Lionshead to the tennis courts and soccer field. She also was worried about the possiblity of a precedent setting action -~ where do we draw the line on who can vend their wears and who can not. Page 3 Bill Hanlon felt it was a good idea as long as it didn't hurt the other businesses in the area and if the people in Lxonshead wanted it hen we should let them go ahead.. Ed Drager felt that definate plans and more detailed information was needed before the Planning Commission could come to a vote., i.e. trash pick up, type of vehicle, a letter,!. of endorsement .from the Lionshead businessman's association, etc. Dudley Abbott made a motion to postpone consideration of this request for:one week until more information could be submitted; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. TABLED PULIS RESUBDIVISION, REZONING, AVALANCHE REPORT AND VARIANCE -- VAIL VALLEY 3rd On the avalanche report,a letter from Hydro-Triad dated June 7, 1977, was submitted as an amendment to the original avalanche report for the area~in question, With this amendment the staff recommended approval. Gerry White made a motion to approve the avalanche report as amended by the June 7, 1977 letter fox Vaii Valley Third Filing; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. APPROVED On the proposed resubdivision, it was noted that all of the lots axe above 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The average lot size is 17,421 square feet. The applicants are going to "enthusiastically consider" protective covenants restricting the size allotment for the second unit within duplexes. They are aware of what has happened from an aesthetic standpoint with mirror image duplexes: A pedestrian easement has been gxanted in order for people to get from the bike path nd small parking area to the picnic area near the lake on the .golf ~ourse. The bike path generally follows the easement and they would like to vacate it and have the bikers use the existing Sunburst Drive for a short way. It was noted that one very small portion of the bike path, that the applicants would like to have vacated, has never worked properly and the staff recommends that it be removed at the developers expense. This seemed to be agreeable with the developers. Dudley Abbott felt uncomfortable with the lack of single family lots and how this proposal will fit with FDrdI's proposal of RC on the remaining portion of the Sunburst property. Diana Toughill noted that given the togopraphy there is a natural break between the area being proposed for residential cluster and the area being proposed two family residential so that the projects will not interfer with each other. Abbott felt very strongly that the applicants develop a strict protective covenant to discourage large mirror image duplexes. Bill Hanlon voiced an objection to the variance for two lots with no frontage (Lots 16 & 17 as shown on the plat) because he thinks a better solution would be placement of a cul-de~sac in order to smooth out the traffic flow, parking situation, and fire safety. Both Ron Todd and Gerry White think that the solution as shown on the plat is the superiox due to aesthetic reasons.. It was noted that the Fire Department has not reviewed the plat as yet and any approvals of the variance will have to be subject to their approval of the plan. On the Resubdivision of the Sunburst property, staff recommends approval subject to the Fire Department's review and approval. Dudley ~bott made a motion to approve the resubdivision with the conditions noted y staff; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. APPROVED. Page ~ On the rezoning from High Density residential, with a rezoning of Tract A and a rezoning of Tract B to public use motion to recommend the rezoning noted motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. Multi-Family to two family to green belt and open space district, Pam Garton made a above; Ron Todd seconded the APPROVED On the variance for two lots with no frontage, Gerry White made a motion for approval; Ron Todd seconded the motion. A 5-2 vote was recorded in favor of the motion, Bi11 Hanlon was against for the reasons stated above. APPROVED. ~apd~ Mills was also against the vote, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ZONING AMENDMENT Due to the changes made by staff and the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission wanted to table consideration of the matter until the changes had been incorporated. Dudley Abbott made a motion for postponement for not more than two weeks; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded, TABLED BOB VOLITER REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE `~ Due to the inaction of the applicant to~~ubmit the necessary ~' information, staff requested a postponement of the application. Ron Todd made a motion for tabling the application; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. TABLED. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS PROJECTS Dudley Abbott and Pam Garton were assigned to Task 1. Gerry White and Bill .Hanlon were assigned to Task 2. Ron Todd and Sandy Mills were assigned to Task 3. Ron Todd and Ed Drager were assigned to Task 4, Ed Drager, Pam Garton, and Gerry White were assigned to Task 6. It was. noted that a staff member would also be assigned to each sub-committee to assist. SELECTION OF A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBER Ron Todd was selected to be the Planning Commission's representative to the Design Review Board for the next •s ix months. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. As noted by Chairman, List take tap priority. It define the problem and come were also requested to subm so that at a later date one Ed Drager, items 1-4, and 6 on the. attached was decided to set up subcommittees t`O up with positive solutions. The sub- ommittees it all ideas, good or bad, within the r~~ort could transcend their train of thought. ~' • PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECTS June 9, X977 • 1. Parking w CCl and CCs and other commercial areas a. Parking District - Rider preparing legal memo reviewing statutes b. Zoning Amendments/enabling legislation 2. Additions in CC1 and CC2 a. Conditional use criteria b. Zoning amendments 3. Building bulk control a. Research building types and signs b. Zoning amendments 4. Subdivision Regulations a. Redraft to reflect hazard amendments b. Redraft to reflect zoning standards 5. Landscaping ordinance a. Include creek bank requirements b. Include paving standards for existing drives and parking lots. 6. General zoning amendments - Growth management • 7. Vending and street and mall activities 8. West Vaii annexation 9. Mall act 10. Land acquisition program - establish priorities 11. Mini special development districts or PUD legislation 12. Capital improvments - establish priorities 13. Solar/energy/conservation legislation ld. Economic diversification 15. Housing • 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6, 7, ~- 8. PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda June 16, 1977 Discussion of work programs and genera]. business 12:15 a. set priorities b. assign subcommittees c. Council representative for the June 21 meeting and worksession Growth Management Sub-Committee presentation 1;30 Bob Byrd, Dick Gustafson, Jim Morter The Spa -- reconsideration of the wall length variance at the 2;~5 request of the Council Studio in the Rockies -- request for joint-use parking 3:00 Sunburst -~- discussion of cantx~actural agreements 5:30 First of Denver Mortgage Investors Elias Residence 4':00 gross residential floor area variance Bob Voliter M- request for setback variance 4:30 Approval of minutes for May 26 and June 2 5:00 Reminder: 11th Filing Plat must be signed! a) Zoning Amendment for Design Review Board 5:10 b} Discussion of Design Reva.ew Board memorandum re: paving problem 5 : l Of? PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes June 16 , 19'77 MEMBERS PRESENTt ABSENT: Dudley Abbott Ron Todd Ed Drager Pain Garton STAFF ; Bill Hanlon Sandy Mills Diana Toughill Gerry White Jo Kramer GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUB--COMMITTEE PRESENTATION Jim Morter, Bob Byrd, and Dick Gustafson were in attendance for the presentation. A copy of their report was handed out to the Planning Commission and a general discussion followed. Ed Drager asked that the Planning Commissioners review the report in detail during the week and give their questions, areas of concern and or recommendations to the staff so that a list can be compiled. It was noted that the Planning Commission should give their recommendation to the Sub-Committee by June 30th,so that the package can proceed to Council. SYMPOSIUM It was suggested that if the Planning Commissioners had a topic or an area of concern they would like to have discussed at the Symposium, that a decision be made and list of possible speakers be given to Colleen Kline in the very near future. The Commission felt that a specific topic would be the most beneficial to them; ia,e., having a major company like Ralston/ Purina who developed Keystone, come to talk about their views and findings on planned development. Ed Arager asked that the Commission think about what they would like to hear and report back to him ASAP. STUDIO IN THE ROCKIES -- JOINT USE PARKING REQUEST Thl.s is a request for 37 parking spaces to be located a.n the North Day Skier Parking Lot from the hours of 6;PM to Midnight. A letter affirming Vail Associates' approval is attached. The applicants, as noted by Jim Jacobson, would like to put a concert hall/audio visual and sound studio in the basement portion of the new Selby/Tofu. Building in Lionshead. In order to do this they need permission to locate their required parking on someone elses property, Attached is a complete description of the applicants' proposal, It was noted that Selby/Tofel have nothing to do with this request; they are just suppling the building. John Perkins, from Morter/Todd, ran through the proposed plan for the space, Attached is a reduced copy of the layout, Jim Jacobson stated that the concert hall will not be used as a public commercial use before 6 PM. If other town organizations, under special circumstances, needed to use the space before 6 PM the applicants would Page 2 be amenable to work something out, Jacobson stated that they were willing to sign a contract binding them to the fact that the parking would be used only after 6 PM, Sandy Mills felt that a problem exists and that this proposal is along the same lines as the Lionshead Theater request. She felt that we may not have a parking problem now, but in five years the problerr~ may become apparent, She questioned the use of the North Day Skier Parking Lot once the school qym and pedestrian ovexpass are finished, Jacobson argued that this ~7equest was not like the theater because of the fact that it is a totally new service to Vail and the entire area. It was pointed out that this service could be a good promotion deal for the Vail area especially during the off-season, They propose ~a:have big name artists come and record during the day and then at night give a series of concerts for the community. When refering to the staff memorandum which stated that this request is similar to the one granted Crossroads Cinema, Sandy Mills felt that this request was very different due to the fact that Crossroads already owned the parking lot they regeusted to use for joint-use whereas the applicants did not, Gerry White felt very comfortable with the proposal. He felt _ that it satisf_i_ed a community need and would not become a precedent setting action for the north day skier _lot due to the fact that bot_h_ Vail associates and the~Forest Service closely monitor the area, __ Dudley Abbott felt very bositi.ve~_. towards the _idea of 'the_conc_e_rt hall and audio visual studio but did nod want to commit to the joint-use parking request due to the instability of the total parking situation in CCI and CC2. He wanted to wait until it was solved because this joint use request if granted might become, at a later date, a problem, In general., he felt that the proposal, would be a great asset to the Vail community and was in favor of what they wanted to do. ~ Ed Drager felt that the request fit into Section 14.500 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with joint use parking and could be justified under such, He was in favor of the idea and it put to good use parking spaces that are not presently being used, Gerry White made a motion to grant the joint use parking request according to the staff memorandum; Pam Garton seconded the motion. A 3-3 vote was recorded, (Hanlon, Mills and Abbott against} SUNBURST (FDMI) DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTURAL AGREEMENTS , Warren Pulis, Blair Ammons.., Bob O'Donnell. and Ted Kindel,, representing the Rec, Board, were all present for the discussion, Diana Toughill noted that the staff had worked out the majority of contractural problems with FDMI and the Rec. Board surrounding the Sunburst Property, Bob O'Donnell went through the various planning steps that lead to ~DMI's master plan for the parking area. They want to remove the 90 spaces presently located under Building A and relocate them with the 60 spaces used by the Golf Course Clubhouse on land that is owned by FDMI, Page 3 It was noted that in the parking plan a bus turnaround would also be supplied in addition to the I50 spaces. Ted Kindel, representing the Rec. Board, was very much in favor of the proposed plan, They felt that the parking plan now brings the golf course parking area in line with the first class golf course, Diana Toughill went through the staff memorandum giving a brief. description of its impact (attached). It was noted that FDMI would like to receive a credit towards their rec. fee on Building A because of the two acres of land they are providing fox the Golf Course parking. Dudley Abbott made a motion to approve the results of the negotiations between the staff and FDMI; Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded, APPROVED. ELZAS SETBACK VARIANCE This application was tabled for reconsideration due to misinformation on the staff memorandum. Dudley Abbott made a motion to table the application; Gerry White seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded. TABLED. VOLITER SETBACK VARIANCE The applicant proposes to build a garage onto his residence, See staff memorandum for complete description. Gerry White made a motion to approve the request; Pam Garton seconded the motion, A 5-1 vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Mills against because she felt that there was not enough information to make a conclusive decision, APPROVED, Y.O. GURTS Ross Davis, representing the applicant, submitted a detailed plan of the cart. It was noted that the cart would be used only at the Gold Peak area. The Planning Commission felt comfortable with the request as long as the permit was a temporary one for the 1977 season only; it was subject to an agreement or contract drawn up by Larxy Rider, Ross Davis, and John Foote, the applicant; and that Bill Wright and the Rec. Board's approval be sought. Gerry White made a motion outlined above and subject to plan; Dudley Abbott seconded APPROVED, to approve the request subject to the items the conditions set forth on the submitted the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FROM Department of Community Development DATE June 16, 1977 RE Elias GRFA Variance (Vail Valley First Filing Block 3, Lot 12) The applicant, J.R. Elias, is requesting a GRFA variance to convert a garage and a laundry room into two bedrooms and a recreational room. There is also a new addition of approximately 30 sq. ft., which is to be a window seat for one of the bedrooms. The conversion and addition would add approximately 760 sq. ft. of GRFA to the unit. The current GRFA of the existing duplex is 6456 sq. ft.; the allowable is 5012 sq, ft. The present duplex is approximately 1444 sq. ft., over what is permitted. The proposed addition of the 760 sq. ft. would result in the GRFA exceeding the requirement by 2204 sq. ft. 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 requested variance would make only a minor modification to the exterior of the existing structure, but would eliminate a covered parking space. This would increase the number of cars parked outside the unit which could have a negative impact on the area. Also, protective covenants for Vail Valley First Filing require garages. 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. Due to the great extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA requirement, we do feel that this would be a grant of a special privilege. The additional 760 sq. ft. would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by almost 500. • Page 2 Memorandum Planning Commission Elias GRFA Variance 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. We foresee no adverse effects on these factors. FINDINGS 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See Item 2., under Consideration of Factors. There have been no other GRFA variances granted in this area. 2. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. See Item 1 under Consideration of Factors. Garages are not only for the protection of cars; they are also to decrease the visibility of cars in residential neighborhoods. 3. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons: (c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same District. Structures in the residential neighborhood are generally in compliance with the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. This house as it presently exists is well aver this requirement. We, therefore, feel that a further variance is not warranted and would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in his District. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the variance sought far the reasons stated above. C MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: June 16, 1977 RE; Robert Voliter -~- Request for Setback Variance Lot 2, Block ~, Gore Creek Subdivision The applicant has requested a setback of 4 feet from the side property line in lieu of the required 13 feet in order to construct a single car garage addition to the existing house, The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings porvided 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 plans for the proposed structure would have no adverse impact on other existing or proposed structures in the area. There are several other lots in the Gore Creek Subdivision which are presently non--conforming in the same vane, The degree to which relief from the strict ar 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. Due to the configuration of the Iot and the placement of the existing house on it, the proposed location of the garage is the only viable one. It is close to the road, so that a minimal amount of asphalt will be required; it is far enough away from the creek, so that it is environmentally safe; and it does not infringe upon the rights of other property owners. As stated above, there are many residences that were constructed without regard to setback requirements. We feel that the proposed location of the garage is in keeping with the objectives of the Ordinance in.so are as compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. 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 garage fronts on Kel-Gar Lane, There is an eight foot right~of-way from the property line to the pavement; with this in mind we can foresee no interference with public safety or transportation if the setback variance is granted. 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: 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. Due to the configuration of the lot, it would be impossible for the applicant to construct a garage on this site without some variance, either from the e~asem~ent:ar from the othex:prope~ty lines. We do not feel that the grant of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance. MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 16, 19'77 RE: Sunburst -- Review and Recommendations Regarding the Contractural Agreements At the direction of the Planning Commission, the Department of Community Development staff met with Blair Ammons and Bob O',Donnell, who represent First of Denver Mortgage Investors, to attempt to resolve the various contracts which are a part of tie Sunburst Special Development District. The following are our recommendations: I ~ FDMI WILL BE REQUIRED TO LANDSCAPE THE EXISTING BUTLDING. 1) A new landscaping plan must be submitted for Building A and time commitments should be agreed upon. Plans must be submitted to ~,ndicate completion of exterior o~ Building A, 2) A resolution of the Rec. District's contract which involves. providing a parking lot for the Golf Course and a road realignment and concurrent land trades. As of Wednesday, June 15, the Rec. tentative , Board gave their/approval of the proposed parking and road plan. 3) With resolution of (2), a survey must be prepared both as a preliminary plat and to calculate acres to be traded. 4) The requirement for a private transportation system, should be eliminated, 5) Open space being dedicated with Vail Valley Third Filing' would satisfy the 8% dedication requirement for both subdivisions (11,4 acres). Sunburst 6} Platted Road should be vacated and a new right~of~way with a minimum width of 40' be dedicated from Vail Valley 2nd Filing to Vail Valley 3rd Filing. The improvement and realignment of this road is to be at the expense of FDMI, 7} Underground parking in the building contains mare than the xequired number of parking spaces, FMDI agrees as long as it is in a position of control the use of additional parking, They will encourage the developer of additional land to locate the existing overflow parking under the/building, S} FDMI will be required to pave the Fire Lane. 9) FDMI should have the ability to relocate the existing recreational amenities and where appropriate remove the existing facilities and replace the facilities that FDMT and the Town might find mare appropriate, 10) The Town of Vail staff recommends that landscaping money on Building A ,~~ spent by FDMI/be applied to the Rec Fee due to the Town of Vail, 11} A new drainage plan must be submitted which reflects the revised building plans, 12) FMDI should not be required to build a new ??ridge. 13) The Department of Community Development staff recommends that FDMI not be required to submit a letter of credit or bond guaranteeing the construction of amenities; however, FDMI should be required to restrict by covenant certain types of recreational amenities as a condition of building permit approval of future building, 14) FDMI should not be required to provide, build, or pass on to . an eventual land developer the requirement for on~site employee housing units. Sunburst Page 3 15} FDMI will be required to have the Fire Department prepare a Fxre Safety Report on the existing building. FDMI will also be requixed to have the building inspected by the Town Building Official, 16) The Town should not require the realignment of utilities as both new subdivisions work with the utilities as they presently exist, 17} FDMI has requested and the Department of Community Development agrees that the cost of the parking lot for the Golf Course should be credited to xec fee and that the area owned by FDMI be allowed for density calcuXations, • • AGENDA '` PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ^ June 23, X977 Z;00 Discussion of proposed Town of Vail Public Works facility Terry Mi.ngex, Allan Gerstenbergex 3:00 Preliminary consideration of Conditional Use Permit for Vail Institute Tent 3:15 Request for vacation of property line between lots A-$ and A-9, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No, 1 Harold Engstrom, 3;35 J, R. Elias - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance 4:00 Mike Palmer - Request to rezone the Cornice Building from High Density Multiple Family to Commercial Core 1, 4;45 Approval of minutes of June 1& meeting and appointment of representative to June 28 Council work session, 5100 Zoning amendment relating to Des~.gn Review Board __ /~ ~~ R , PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY June 23, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Abbott, Drager Garton Todd FIanlon - late Mills STAFF PRESENT; Toughill White Kramer DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED TOWN OF'VAIL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Terry Minger gave a brief description of the Town's criteria for selection of the proposed public works facility~~~ including .location, cost per acreage, utility location and cost, and how it will relate as a "good neighbor", He wend.through each of the four major contenders (Pulls, Selby/Tofel',r Elmore, and McAil:ister) and stated that the Town was leaning toward the Pu1is site even though it was a~ very visable site. Gerry White mentioned the New Electric building and land as well as the site east of the Mountain Bell building as ~. possible alternatives, Kent Rose spoke to the disadvantages of both of those sites. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 2 & 9, 1977 -- Garton seconded the June 16, 1977 ,.- Dui Garton seconded the VAIL INSTITUTE TENT Dudley Abbott made a motion to approve; Pam motion, A unanimous vote was recorded. APPROVED .ley Abbott made a motion to approve; Pam motion. A unanimous vote was recorded. APPROVED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -~. PRELIMINARY REVIEW It was noted that the Tent needs to be erected by July 3 and the formal hearing for the tent is not until July 7, The Vail Institute would like a preliminary approval from the Planning Commission at this time. Pam Garton made a motion for preliminary approval; Sandy Malls seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded, APPROVED PRELIMINARILY J,R. ELIAS -- GRFA VARIANCE Attached is the staff memorandum giving a complete description of the request and reasons for the request. It was noted that the problem that occured last week was due to the figures being based on floor area ratio rather than on grfa making the house much bigger than reality. Those figures have been corrected, ,, The house, as it presently exists, is a legal nonconforming use due to the fact that is was built under the old zoning ordinance grfa calculations, Pam Garton felt that this request, if granted, would be a grant of special privilege without any strong technical reasons far hardship, and that a negative precedent would be set in this neighborhood if the requestw.~xs granted, This was the general feeling of the whole Planning Commission, Pam Garton made a motion to disapprove the request; Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, A unanimous vote was recorded. DISAPPROVED, Request fox vacation of property line between Lots A-8 & A-9, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No, l The applicant, Deane Knox as represented by Hal Engstrom, would like to join properties with Leo Payne in order to have a cluster housing development consisting of eight duplexes and one triplex. The vacation, is needed because under the present plan, one of the duplexes would rest right on the property line, If the vacation was not granted the applicants would loose only one unit; Diana Toughill felt that the trade off of one additional unit was worth it. due to the proposed cohesive development plan, Ds. Abbott made a motion far approval; Garton seconded the motion A unanimous vote was recorded, APPROVED CORNICE BUILDING REQUEST TO REZONE FROM HDMF TQ CCI . _~ It was noted by Mike Palmer, the applicant, that the primary reason for the request was financials The Planning Commission felt that there was no justification for the rezoning because the Cornice Building was not contiguous to CCT and the pedestrian area, It was surrounded by PA and HDMF zoning. Tf this request was granted, the issue of spot zoning would become apparent with no logical reason. BiII Hanlon felt that if this building was commercial pedestrian traffic would be increased on an already bad corner and could develop into a safety hazard, The applicant felt that with the parking structure and the proximity of the Blue Cow that the Cornice Building ].ens itself to a commercial use. Dudley Abbott felt that the horizontal zoning ordinance in CCT might be more restrictive to the applicant than his present HDMF zoning, Due: to the fact that the Planning Commission could find no justification for the rezoning, Pam Garton made a motion to deny the request; Sandy Mi11s seconded the motion; A unanimous vote was recorded. DISAPPROVED. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE; June 23, 1977 RE; Elias GRFA Variance Vail Valley First Filing, Block 3, Lot 12 The applicant, J.R. Elias, is requesting a GRFA variance to convert a garage and a laundry room into a recreational room. There is also a new addition of approximately 30 square feet which is to be a window seat for one of the bedrooms. The conversion and addition would add approximately 330 square feet of GRFA to the unit, The current GRFA of the existing duplex is 4,863 square feet; the allowable is 8,255 square feet,. The present duplex is approximately 60$ square feet over what is permitted. The proposed addition of the 330 square feet would result in the GRFA exceeding the requirement by 938 square feet. CONSTDERATION OF FACTORS {SECTTON 19,600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, The requested variance would make only a minor modification to the exterior of the existing structure, It would, however, make this unit inconsistent with other units in the neighboring area by allowing a greater amount of GRFA than is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 giant of special privilege. Due to the extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA requirements we do feel that this would be a grant of special privilege, The additional 330 square feet would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by almost 20%, Fliers Variance -2- June 23, 1977 ~!~ 3, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities~~ We foresee no adverse effects on these factors. FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance-will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same district. See Item 2., under Consideration of Factors, There have been no other GRFA variances granted in this area, 2. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental to the public healthy safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. See Item l., under Consideratia.n of Factors. Granting of this variance could set a negative precedent by allowing excessively large houses to be built or allowing additions on houses which already exceed or are very close to the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Many of the structures in the Vail Valley Subdivision are at or over the maximum grfa and have similar garages. Several of the units have two or three car garages, which if converted, would add substantial density to the neighborhood. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: (c) the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Structures in the residential neighborhood are generally in compliance with the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. This house as it presently exists is over this requirement, We, therefore, feel that a further variance is not warranted and would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in this district. The Department of Community Development strongly recommends denial of the variance sought for the reasons stated above. ~e alga feel that there has been no haxdsh~p shown in the xe~uest, • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 23, 1977 RE; James M, Palmer Request for Rezoning of the Cornice Building from HDMF to CCI The staff has reviewed the request for rezoning in accord with the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments: The applicant has requested-that the Cornice Building be rezoned cram the existing HDMF to CCI, The building consists of seven dwelling units and one real estate off ice. FACTORS: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives • of the Town. The purposes for the HDMF zone district states "Certain non-residential uses are permitted as conditional uses ,which relate to the nature of Vail as 'a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, whose permitted are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district." We do not feel that a totally commercial building is harmonious with the residential character of the area. 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 Town's desire to keep a balance of housing (particularly long-term employee units} and commercial space. We feel that is is imperative that the commercial area be limited to the CCY area and not allowed to spread into the areas which are primarily residential in nature. Effect of the proposed rezoning on light and airy distribution of population, transportation facilities., and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The primary concern is one of distribution of population. We believe that a lang~term residents should be encouraged in the area. Further, since there axe no parking spaces on the site, there could be a greater impact on the transportation center, Conversion to commercial of the approximately 3,000 square feet would require a parking variance of four cars (the difference between the requirement for residential and commercial), Cornice Page 2 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, A commercial space could contribute additional traffic in an already congested area where no onWsite parking is available. We feel 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 that passible uses would have a negative impact an the residential character of the neighborhood. The surrounding uses (Apollo Park, Texas Townhouses, Vorlaufex, Grey & Whites, Vail Club) are all primarily residential in character. The only commercial building in the area is the Blue Caw, a non-conforming use, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use,. Applicant stated at the time the conditional use permit for the real estate off ice was granted that he intended to do a great deal of landscaping and general rehabilitation on the site and the building; to date, substantial landscaping has not been completed. We feel this is an important site visually and should be given a • general face-lifting, The Department of Community Development makes the fallowing findings: That the proposed rezoning is not in accord with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, We do not feel that a commercial building is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance nor in accord with the residential character of the neighborhood. That the proposed rezoning 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 commercial building where no on-site parking is available, could be detrimental to the public safety, and detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood, The request is not in conformance with the zoning ordinance as the probable conversion to commercial would require a parking variance for a minimum of four cars, Requests for rezoning have been the subject of many court decisions in Colorado and in other states as well, Generally, the Colorado courts have ruled that an applicant must prove one of two reasons for rezoning, one that the original zoning was a mis- take, or two that there has been a substantial change in the neigh- borhood, The Department of Community Development strongly recommends Cornice Page 3 denim. of the requested rezoning as the applicant has shown neither an incorrect axiginal Zoning, or a S].g27i~~.Carit Change in the nezgh~ borhood, (Moore vs, the City of Boulder, Rooseve~:t vs, City of Englewood Kizer vs, $eck), Each of these cases ~.s similar to the rezoning requested by the Cornice i.n that they were requests for rezoning from residential to commercial or from lower zone districts to "higher and better uses". In each case, the courts found in favor of the mun~.cipality denial of the request. • • ~ r PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda June 30, 1977 3:00 1, First of Denver Mortgage Investors and Pulls' request to rezone the Sunburst Property 3:30 2. Vail Valley Medical Center building bulk control varainces and conditional use permit to allow a hospital addition and a variance request from the covered parking regulations, vacation of property line between Lots E & F Vail Village Second Filing 4:00 3. Zoning Amendments relating to Design Review Board 4;30 4, Approval of June 23, 1977 Minutes and Council representative fox July 5th Council Meeting (work session and night meeting} w i^ .. _~ ~~ ~ T • MINUTES PLANNING COMh1ISSI0N TOWN OF VAIL 30 JUNE 1977 3:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Chairman Drager Todd D. Abbott Hanlon P. Garton Mills G. White Staff Present; Lamont FDMI/PULIS REQUEST TO REZONE SUNBURST PROPERTY The first rezoning will vacate SDD#1 and create SDD#8 for the existing Building A on 1.3 acres. Garton moved to approve the request according to the Staff Memorandum of 6/30/77; Abbott seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. The second rezoning concerns the remaining 11.3 acres now owned by FDMI. There will be a 54 unit and density maximum on the parcel. Abbott moved to approve the rezoning with the condition that a notation regarding maximum units and density be on the final plat and deed restrictions; White seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous for approval; APPROVED. The third rezoning is for the remaining 5 acres owned by the Pulis'. Garton moved to approve with the condition that there be an 18 unit and density maximum notation an the final plat and deed restriction; Abbott seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. The fourth item was the submission of the final plat fora minor re- subdivision approval so that the Sunburst property may be divided by Pulis and FDMI. White moved to approve the resubdivision; Abbott seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Chuck Tubbs and Dale Watson made a presentation regarding the proposed expansion of the Vail Valley Medical Center. Several requests for varianceswere also made. ~i Minutes/2 - .~ ` , 30 June 1977 r~ U Building Bulk Control Wall Length - Garton moved to approve the proposed wall length of 128 ft.; White seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. Diagonal - White moved to approve the proposed 300 ft. diagonal; Abbott seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. Offset - White moved to approve the request to eliminate the offset requirement; Garton seconded the motion; the vote was unanir~ous in favor; APPROVED. Conditional Use Permit With regard to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a hospital in an MDMF zone, White moved to approve; Garton seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. Parking Variance With regard to the VVMC request to have no covered parking, Garton moved to approve; Abbott seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. A second motion was made to set the number of spaces required for the project as it has not been designated in the zoning ordinance. After some discussion, White moved to set the required parking at 101 uncovered spaces with the following conditions: {1) the westerly portion of the site be subject to site cleanup and revegetation plan; and (2) the Planning Commission would retain a continuing right to monitor parking needs with the right at a future date to require parking an the westerly lot if deemed necessary. Garton seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. Vacation of Lot Line Vail Valley Medical Center awns Lot E and has an agreement to purchase Lot F. The request would allo4v for the treatment of Lats E and F as one site, upon purchase of the land. Abbott moved to approve; Garton seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. Chuck Tubbs requested a copy of the Minutes of this meeting for his reference. Chairman Draper asked that the Planning Commission be notified when the Design Review Board reviews the project so that PC members might attend. ~- . Minutes/3 30 June 1977 • ZONING AMENDMENTS TO SIGN CODE These zoning amendments would create a Sign Sub-Committee as recommended by the Design Review Board. Certain revisions have been made to the draft at the Town Counci1's request. dim Lamont presented the Commission with copies of the proposed amendments. Chairman Drager commented that violators of the Sign Code should be dealt with more strictly and noted that the DRS can still overturn decisions of the Sub-Committee. White moved to approve the proposed amendments; Garton seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor; APPROVED. MINUTES OF 6/23/77 After reviewing the preceding week's Minutes, Abbott moved to approve them; White seconded the motion; the vote was unanimous in favor, with Drager abstaining due to his absence at that meeting; APPROVED. The Planning Commission then requested to meet with the planning attorney, Kirk Wickersham, at his convenience. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. • :.°s~i,. ..~, ~ CHAPTER 18,52 - SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 ~ FD11~II SECT.iON X8.52.010 PURPOSES, Special Development District 8 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the honing Ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning Commission, and there are significant aspects of the special. development which cannot be satisfied through ~e imposition of standard districts on the area, SECTION 18,52,020 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 ESTABLISHED Special Development District 8 is established for the development of multi-family dwelling and commercial enterprise on a parcel of land comprising 1.3 acres in the formerly created SDI area of the Town; Special Development District 8 and said 1,3 acres is referred to as "SDD8" The existing building consisting of 71 dwelling units contains approxi-. mately 85,000 square feet of gross residential floor area and approxi- mately 5,250 square feet of commercial space, and 143 underground parking spaces, shall be included in SDD8 SDD8 is more particularly described as follows! (legal description} SECTION 18,52,030 PERMITTED USES Tn SDD8 (existing building and recreational facilities), the following uses shall be permitted: (A) Multiple family residential dwellings (B) Accessory retail and restaurant and service establishments not occupying more than 5'y~250 square feet including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Specialty food stores Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Newsstands and tobacco stares Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Barber stores Beauty shops Travel and ticket agencies Delicatessens with food service ~~. .~ ~. x: ~ ~ . _ . ,..... t Cocktail ~. lounges .'° taverns and bars Coffee shops- Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants ,,~ {C) The leasing or selling of excess parking spaces in order to attempt to accommodate automobiles generated by development on adjoining property, ,: {D) Additional businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section of this ordinance. SECTION x.8,52,040 CONDITIONAL USES In SD8 the following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 60 hereof: (A) Public utility and public service uses; (B) Public buildings, grounds and facilities; (C) Public or private schools; (D) Public park and recreational f acilitios; (E) Meeting rooms, SECTION 18.52,050 ACCESSORY USES In SD8 the following accessary uses shall be permitted: (A) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools; tennis courts {B) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section• hereof, (C) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, SECTION 18,52,060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS General Density Plan of SD8, Existing Building Maximum gross residential floor area (square feet) 85,000 Maximum number of dwelling units 71 Maximum grass commercial floor area (square feet) 5,250 Underground parking spaces 143 SECTION 19,52.070 RECREATIONAL AMENITTES The Developer shall provide a parcel of ].and of approximately 2 acres from land adjacent to SD8, presently owned by it and not necessarily contiguous to the SD8, which parcel shall be used for re- creational amenities to be provided by Developer, and determined jointly by the Developer of the SD8 and the developer of the said adjacent land subject to approval by the Town, The owners of dwelling units located within the SD8 shall be entitled to use such amenities pursuant to the rules and regulations of the homeowners' association .governing the recreational amenities parcel of which all owners of dwelling units in .. SD8 and an skid adjacent land are members. =~ ~- t MEMORANDUM TQ~ Planning Commission FROM: Design Review Berard DATE: June 30, 1977 RE: FDMI and Pulis Request to Rezone and Resubdivide the remainder of the Sunburst Property There are three separate rezonings and one resubdivision to be considered, On June 9, 1977 the eastern portion of the original Sunburst property was approved by the Planning Commission as Vail Valley Third Filing. The first rezoning is the creation of Special Development District 8 (see attached SDD ordinance} for the existing building on 1,3 acres. Using an HDMF zone (previous zoning on property} there would need to be 3';2 acres of land for the existing building, It is our recommendation that by allowing the building to be placed on 1,3 acres would permit greater flexibility for the placement of the new building and provision of recreational amenities. The difference between 3,2 and 1,3 will not be used for additional density calculations, The second rezoning is on the remaining 10,1 acres now owned by FDMI, At the request of the Council, the proposed zone. for the 10,1 acre is LDMF, but with a 54 unit maximum to be noted on the final plat and in the deed restrictions, The reason for LDMF instead of RC is to allow for greater design flexibility in the subsequent construction to give a better ma~~ing relationship, Along with this rezoning are the following conditions concerning parking for the Golf Course Clubhouse; 1) The Town of Vail will purchase one acre from FDMI at approxiamtely $2,00 per square foot, 2) FDMI will pay entire recreational fee of approximately $67,000, 3) The Town of Vail will build the parking lot, The third rezoning is on approximately four acres which is owned by the Pulises, The proposed zone for this four acres is residential cluster. The fourth item to be considered is the submission of the final plat for a minor resubdivision approval. This is necessary for the proposed division of the Sunburst property by the Pulises and FDMI, MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM Department of Community Development DATE June 30, 1977 RE: Vail Valley Medical Center Request for Three Building Bulk Control Variances A Parking Variance, a Conditional Use Permit and a Vacation of of the property line between Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing for construction of an additianai 8,700 sq, ft, to the existing VVMC (A) BUILDING BULK CONTROL VARIANCES {SECTION 18,18,100) The Vail Valley Medical Center is requesting three building bulk control variances: maximum wall length, building daaganfll, and building offsets. PERMITTED PROPOSED ~' Wall Length 125' 128' Diaga,nol 160' 300' Offset 1'/5' over 50' 128' w/no offset CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS FOR THE VARIANCES (SECTION 18.62.060) The proposed addition is in an MDMF zone with the Professional Building on one side and the Hilton Inn on the other, Due to the high intensity use of these buildings and the already high intensity use of the medical center, the proposed addition should create no additional adverse impacts on this area. 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 sates in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this or.- dinar~ce without grant of special privilege. The Vaal Valley Medical. Center is a unique entity in Vail,. The reason for the bulk control variance request is to permit mare efficient utilization of space within the, hospital complex. We, therefore, do not feel that these requests would be grants of special privilege 1 The effect of the requested variances on light and air, distri- bution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, and utilities.' and public safety. We see no adverse impacts on the above factors. The proposed addition should not have any negative impacts on surrounding property owners or uses. FINDINGS; That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant of special provilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district See Items 1 and 2 under Consideration of Factors, That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental tp the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. See Item 3 under Consideration of Factors, That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following 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, See Item 2 under Consideration of Factors The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances to allow for the most efficient operation of the new addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, CONDITIONAL U.SE PERMIT-(SECTION 18,18,030(b) In an MDMF zone, one of the accepted conditional uses is for "Hospitals Medical and Dental Clinics and Medical Centers", The proposed addition to the existing medical center fits within this category, Upon review of Section 18,00,060 "Criteria and Findings", the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, One of the primary goals of the Town is to provide the best health services possible to both the visitors and permanent population, The proposed expansion of the medical center would work towards this objective ~ , The effect of the use on light and air, distribution or population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public faczlztzes and public facilities needs, The proposed addition should have no adverse effects on the items listed above. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convena~ence; traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Along with the proposed additio entrance of the hospital to the west The parking lot on the south side of j'Vest Meadow Drive) will be removed, cars using the medical facility from also allow for better circulation in 1 is a relocation of the main of the existing building, the existing building (along This will further separate the nearby residences It will and around the Medical Center. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,,,in relation to surrounding uses: The two building located adjacent to the Medical Center are the Professional Building and the Hilton Inn, On the south side of the Medical Center are a few scattered residences The addition to the existing Medical Center should have no significant effect on these uses. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use, No other factors should be considered. 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 purpose~~ 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 injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, 3 , That the prop:o,s~ed ; use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. `.~*, ~,P~;RKZ'I'T~ V~'R~~NCE (~S~ECTION ],8`,~1,~8,1"40) In a MDM~' zone, 50% of the xequired parking spaces must be coyexed, The Vail ValJ,ey Medical Center proposed 138 parking spaces in its new plan, with none of them covered. The actural number of parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance is not specified for this project, The proposed number of spaces does conform with national standard for this type of facility, CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (SECTION 18,62,064) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, The new parking lot is a relocatio of an existing parking lot and therefore should create no new adverse impacts on surrounding structures or uses, The removal of the parking space along West Meadow Drive should have a positive impact on residences in that area, The degree of 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, Since an existing uncovered parking lot is being moved to another location, w e do not feel that it should be necessary to cover 50% of the new lot, The new parking arrangement will also provide better access to the site, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population`~f transportation and tr~.ffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, We see no adverse impact on the above factors, b ~ , 1 FINDINGS: 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 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, See Item 1 under Consideration of Factors 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. Since the parking lot is being relocated';' it would be a hardship to require the applicant to cover the new lot whereas the previous lot was not covered, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the parking variance. VACATION OF LOT LINE BETWEEN LOTS E & F VAIL VILLAGE 2nd FILING The Vail Valley Medical Center presently owns Lot E and has an agreement to purchase Lot F. Thy request would allow for the treatment of Lots E & F as ane site, once~~e land has been purchased. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request to permit development of the expanded medical center on both lots. z The Department of of the three rezonings in this memorandum Community Development recommends approval and the one resubdivision in the manner described •