Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 Planning Commission Agendas, Memos & Minutes January to June~ PEC AGENDAS 7978 January 2A~, 1978 January 7 0 LOT 8;-•BLK 7,VAIL VILLAGE 6th,-setback variance HIGHLAND MEADOWS proposal PRINTERY BUILDING amendment to conditonai use to allow CENTURY 21 VILLAGE CENTRE landscaping plan February 74,-1978 CCI zoning amendments LOT 2;,~BLKC 1,. VV 13th, •Thomas setback variance PRINTERY - sign shop VILLAGE CENTRE amend to landscape plan GORE CREEK FLOOR PLAIN February 28,-1978 Lots 1..5;~B1 k C, Li ons] ri ge #l , rezane to MDMF HAZARD ORDINANCE possible zone /March 14, 1978 Work CREATI6IN OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Session CCII proposed zoning GORE CREEK MEADOWS REVIEW FOR COUNTY CCI EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES VAIL ASSOCIATES conditional use permit far real estate office LOTS 7 ~S,~BLK C,=~Lionsridge #1 rezone Marche 28, 1978 Lat 2, Blk 6 Vail Village 7th, request for GRFA variane ICE RINK, a11ow to cover LOTS 1T5;~BLK C, LIONSRIDGE #1 REZONE April 1~, -1978 ABC SCHOOL ., conditional use to allow private school in Ag zone LOT Q~, VAIL MEADOWS #1, Weber resub and variance from min, lot size VAIL VILLAGE INN BLDG 5 remodel amend, to SDD LOTS 1~,5, Blk C, Lionsridge #1 rezone VAIL GUIDES,.-•Printery Bldg conditional use PEC AGENDAS 1978 (Continued) April 25, 1982 PUBLIC/PRIVATE JOINT VENTURE GROWTH MONITORING COMMITTEE HONG KONG CAFE conditonal use for greenhouse and sparking variance WEBSTER HOUSE GRFA PEC final authority in approve variance,~etc, HAZARD ORDINANCE changes LIONSHEAD A~th FILING RESUB TRACT C AND LOT 8, Block l,.Lionshead 3rd May 23.. •"1978 LOTS A~8, A-9, CASOLAR resub VAIL ASSOCIATES shop site temporary building LOT 11,~'RESUB OF LOT 7, BIGHORN ESTATES, setback variance VOLITER NURSERY„=south frontage road, conditanal use permit to have nursery in Heavy Service District LOT 26:%BLK 2.-AVAIL VILLAGE 13,-Shapiro Cohstr,.~excess wall length TRACT R BIGHORN SUB, building bulk variance in excess of permitted wall length TRACT A BIGHORN TERRACE SUB Rowe,. GRFA variance CYRANO'S Parking variance to allow addition to patio AMENDMENT TO ZONING to require screening in Heavy Service District June 13, 1978 LOT C, Resub of LOTS 8m10, VAIL VAIL ASSOCIATES w bulk control VILLAGE 7th setback variance variance for new warehouse JOHN MCBRIDE conditional use to allow conversion of apartment of office or retail space on a second floor. LOT 1;,•VAIL VILLAGE 10th, setback variance VAIL ASSOCIATES ~ Conditional use permit for temporary public parking lot SKY LION Lot 3, B1k A, Lionsridge #1 from Agri to RC LOT 30 .f VAIL MEADOWS #l,.~setback variance LIONSHEAD PLAZA, request for canopy design change SDD,~ordinance TRACT A, BIGHORN TERRACE,-GRFA variance June ~28:.~19J8' LOT 10, VAI VALLEY 3rd,: setback and site coverage POTATO PATCH CLUB Units 1,2,3 setback variance LOT 16~lVAIL MEADOWS #1 setback variance VILLAGE CENTRE BUILDING D real estate conditional use GONDOLA I, preliminary review PEC 1978 July 11,-1978 ,LIONSMANE II,~~Request for GRFA variance;:units 23 and 25 (BLOCK A Lionsridge #l) LOTS 4 and 5. &LK 2;-~VAIL VILLAGE 3rd LEARNING TREE,:-private school in Ag zone SPA, Lot 1;~B1k 2 ~LH 3rd, parking variance CANADAS OF UAIL, conditional use for real estate office on 1st floor CC2 BIGHORN TERRACE, Alder, GRFA request LOT 2, Gore Creek Meadows, Sitel, setback variance, Tilkemeier July 3O, 1978 LOT 10, VAIL VALLEY 3rd Slatter setback and site coverage variances LOT l,SfiINBURST #3, SHAPIRO, setback variance for 5A~ unit townhouse project August=~ ~,-'1978 LOT 20~D Bighorn Townhouse, setback variance LOT D ~~B1k 2,~VAIL VILLAGE lst, setback, site coverage,-variances SUNBIRD LODGE, Units per acre and parking variances POTATO PATCH 2ND EILING,~PIat amendment PEC AGENDAS August ~2, ]978 SUNBURST #2 Shapiro Recreation Easement Trade GONDOLA I, parking variance 1ST BANK,~conditional use and parking variane WEDEL iNN ~ Rezone from FA to CCI LOTS 20r1,~~20~.2,:;~Rewub Lot 20, Bighorn Sub, vacation of lot line CASOLAR VAIL II, Lot 7,.=Blk A request for resub BIGHORN ESTATES, avalanche report Sept.. 12 1978 COLDSTREAM, INC., Amendment to SDD4 LEEWARD RESIDENCE postponed SUNBIRD LODGE density and parking 1ST BANK conditional Use and parking PIT KIN CREEK PARK, Amendment to SDD3 postponed BIGHORN LODGE density variance rquest WESTBYE DUPLEX GRFA variance request ELMORE PARCELS preliminary review B1~;HUKN ~,SIATES avalanche report September 26, 1978 LEEWARD setback PITKIN CREEK PARK, Amendment to 5DD3 WESTBYE DUPLEX GRFA LIONSHEAD CENTER, Benchmark Investment real estate office VAIL RUN, Alan Woods SDDS amendment and addition October ~ 0~, 1978 BOYER lets"5=&~6, Blk 1 Potato Patch VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB parking variance VAIL MOUNTAIN SHCOOL conditional use permit ELMORE PROPERTY zoning CLOCK TOWER BUILDING ~ discussion of improvements October ~24, 1978 ANTLER5 GRFA employee housing BOYER, lots 5 & 6t-~Blk 1,-Potato Patch LOT 8-B, Blk 9, Bighorn 3rd, Felker..Smith setback variance VAIL MTN SCHOOL, conditional use for private school BRANDESS/CADMUS conditional use for real estate office ELMORE November 24, .l•978 LOT 8, Blk 1, GORE CREEK SUB, Piper ELMORE PARCELS PINTKOWSKI,-°ORANGE JUICE;-CROSSROADS WEDEL INN„~ Coffee shop parking variance BIGHORN SUB 3rd addition, vacation of lot lines between 3-~4, 4-5, 6-7 Blk 1 November 28,-197$ CORNICE BLDG, MIKE PALMER real estate ~ enlarge office space TYROLEAN INN request for diataNCE BETWEEN buildings variance VAIL ASSOCIATES conditional use to put trailer in maintainance area BIGHORN UNPLATTED Sheehan/Thomas request for building bulk variance ZONING ORDINANCE amendments December 1 ~;:~1978 CORNTCE BLDG, MIKE PALMER real estate withdraw application VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL revised site plan FIRE STATION 1 sale AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION January 10, 1978 1. informal consideration of proposed Highland Meadows Planned Unit Development to be heard by Eagle County Planning Commission on January 1$, 2. Approval of Minutes of November 1, 1977 3. Discussion of fork session agendas • MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY lO, 1978 RE: HIGHLAND MEADOWS Highland Meadows is a proposal for a Planned Unit Development located directly South of the West Vail interchange. The proposal is for 150 apartment units and 42 duplex lots on 53 acres. (See Attached Project Summary). After reviewing this proposal, the staff has the following comments: 1. The density is considerably reduced from what was previously submitted, but might need further reduction to satisfy concerns outlined below if they can not be dealt with adequately. Past submittals had proposed densities for 496 and 346 units respectively. 2. The rental apartment concept for the lower part of the site seems desirable. 3. The following areas were identified as technical problems with roads and parking that need further study and solutions: a. The road cuts along Meadowbrook Drive and Vermont Road are ex~ cessive. A 1:1 slope ratio along the banks of these roads is much steeper than the 2:1 maximum ratio recommended by State Highway Department, and the 1.75:1 maximum ratio proposed far Beaver Creek by Vail Associates. At a 1:1 slope ' ratio, revegetation of the disturbed banks would be extremely difficult or impossible and serious erosion could result. The proposed road page 2 Highland Meadows January T0, 1978 s grades in cgnjunction with the indicated 1:7 bank slopes renders serveral lots inaccessable [i.e. Tot 26 which will have a 23 foot bank off of the proposed road). b. The grades within the parking lots for the multi-family units appears to be approximately 8% and access into one of the lots is approximately 6% with a 90 degree turn with 8% grade directly after the 90 degree curve. We feel that use of these lots would be difficult in the winter. c. The parking lots as proposed have approximately 10~ difference in elevation and approximately 10' separation between them with no retainane indicated. To minimize erosion and caving from one parking level to another, retaining walls would be necessary. The landscape ~`~ plan indicates heavy landscaping between the parking fats, which would be impossible with the 1:1 slopes as proposed. 4. The site is extremely visible from the north side of I-70. There are several significant landfarms which will be disturbed and heavily wooded, steep slopes and large meadows which are encroached upon by massive cuts and fills. Site improvements could cause destruction of these important environmental assets and create a negative visual impact. A large natural drainage course is proposed to be crossed using fill for an area approximately 300' in length and 30' in depth in the center of the drainage way. Drainage is provided by culvert under the fill. A significant number of large trees will be removed to cross the drainage and to construct the west end of Vermont Road. The removal of the trees, compounded by tremendous cuts and fills could have a significant visual impact upon the area, both from within and without. • Page 3 Wighland Meadows January 1Q, 1978 The parking lots for the multi-family, together with the buildings on the western portion of the lower site, cover approximately 3z to 4 acres with impervious surface directly adjacent to Gore Creek in a highly visible area adjacent to the South Frontage Road. 5. The water system, if supplied from the Vail Village West system, would not adequately serve the upper lA~ lots in the proposed PUD as the blueiine for adequate fire protection is at the 8080` elevation and the upper elevation in the subdivision is approximately 8750`. The applicant has indicated that the blueiine for the Intermountain Water District is approximately 8200' which could be adequate, but should be verified. 6. Sue Smith of Colorado Division of Fish and Game has indicated to our staff that the upper meadow area is valuable both as a grazing and migratory area for both elk and deer. 7. The project could create traffic problems at the West Vail Interchange. C7 • w EXHIBIT C PROJECT SUMMARY HIGHLAND MEADOWS Eagle County, Colorado High ].and Meadows is a 53 acre planned development located immedi- ately south of Gore Creek opposite the West Vail. Interchange on I-70. The proposed development is composed of 234 units; 42 duplex lots located in two high meadow areas and 150 apartment units located in a lower area adjacent to Gore Creek. OBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT The intent of the project is to provide rental apartment units and to provide home sites aimed at the higher economic levels of the market. There has long been a demand for long term hous- ing in the Vail area and the 150 apartment units should help fill this need. With the limited availability of home sites in the immediate Vail area, the 42 duplex units should help meet the need also . LAND USE A planned unit development procedure for this site was chosen in order to best utilize the buildable areas. The mild slope area adjacent to Dare Creek is best used far higher density apartment units with the flatter area used to obtain the required two park- ing stalls per unit. The high meadow area is more suited to low density duplex lots. The overall density in the project is about 4.4 units per acre with the number of units per build- able acre equal to six units per acre. The proposed development has 25.7 acres of open space which will be dedicated to the county. This open space will be primarily used for hiking/riding trails. The Vail Cross-County Ski Trail traverses the property thru the open space area. Access to the national forest to the south of the property is also provided by use of public open space. An easement across Tract A will be provided to give public access to Gare Creek. The open space will be developed and maintained by the proposed recreation dis- trict or the Highland Meadows Homeowners' Association. Highland Meadows will be compatible with the surrounding develop- ment. The proposed apartment area is adjacent to I-70, a ser- vice station on I-70 frontage road and multi.-family building north of Gore Creek. There is a commercial shopping center north of I-70. Vail Village West, Filing 3, is immediately east of the high meadow area. National forest land is south and west of the proposed development. The Eagle County Master Plan shows this area as suburban-medium density with a general commercial center adjacent to z-70 front- age road. The proposed uses and densities are compatible with the Master Plan and this plan removes ail commercial uses from the site as projected in the Master Plan. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE The proposed project will be platted in two phases with all public improvements tentatively scheduled for construction in 1978. Duplex lots will be sold individually with building construction probably occurring over a five year period. The apartments will probably be constructed in two phases with construction occurring over a two year period. IMPACT ON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEP4 Using the Lyon-Collins & Company, Int.'s update memo to the school district dated June 2, 1977, we project the following students: .44 students per duplex unit = 36.96 .08 students per multi-family unit = 12.00 Total students - 48.96 Distribution: Elementary School - 40% = 19.6 students Middle School - 34~ - 16.6 students Senior High School- 26~ - 12.7 students ESTIMATED DEMANDS 1?OR COUNTY SERVICES: 0.72 miles of road service to 42 duplex units will require snow removal in winter which is about 0.170 addition to the 430 miles of the current county road system. Normal maintenance of paved roads will be required. The multi-family area is serviced by a private road connection to the south I-70 service road which is maintained by the county. The sot id wastes generation for the landf ill site will be 4 0 tons annually when fully developed. PROJECTED COUPdTY TAX REVENUES A. Estimated assessed value each duplex $20,000 84 units $1, 68 0, 000 B. Estimated assessed value each apartment . $4, 000 _ 600, 00'0 Total assessed valuation $2,280,000 y • _ C. Mill levy: ~. County Services - 13.14 mills School - 43.8 mills D. Current assessed value of 52 acres $ 127,160 E. Current taxes 1976 9,456 F. Schedule o ~ Projected Receipts: Count School 1978 $ 1,670.88 S 5,569.60 2979 5, 012.64 16, 708.82 1980 7,640.64 21,024.00 1982 12,896.64 38,544.00 1982 28,152. G4 56, 064.00 1983 20,780.64 64,824.00 1984 23,408.64 73,584.00 1985 26, 036.64 82,344.00 2986 28,664.64 91,104.00 1987 29,959.20 99,864.110 Assuming 5Q apartment units completed by November 1978. • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 1978 3:00 P.M. Present: Staff Members Present: Pam Garton Dudley Abbott Scott Hopman Ed Draper Sandy Mills Gerry White Ron Todd Diana Toughill A11en Gerstenberger Dr. Feder1ine`s Request for Setback Variance, Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing Represented by Morter/Todd Dr. Michael J. Federline, represented by Morter/Todd, has requested a setback of 10 feet from the east property line in lieu of the required 19 feet in order to construct a two-family primary/secondary residential unit. The applicant stated that the steep topography and the existing trees greatly restrict the area available for building on the site, and the structure has been designed and sighted to minimize the site disturbance. 'The structure is designed to step up the hill, and this adds to the height of the structure which increases the required setback. Moving the house so that the corner does not pro3ect into the 19 foot required setback would result in the loss of at least 8 large Aspen trees and possibly more. After a discussion, Pam Garton moved that approval far a setback variance on Lat 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing according to the guidelines set forth in the memo from the Department of Community Development, dated January 24, 1978, be granted. The motion was seconded by Gerry White, and the motion passed with a vote of 6 to 0. (Ron Todd abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest.} Printery Building Request for Rmendment to Conditional Use Permit to Allow Century 2i Real Estate Office. Application has been made by Lou Parker for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit on the Printery Building to allow the Century 21 Real Estate Company to occupy approximately 450 sq. ft. formerly occupied by an advertising agency. The Commissioners were concerned about the traffic at an already dangerous intersection, and about having a commercial real estate office in a residential neighborhood. Also, they would like to get input from the Sandstone residents about having a real estate office in their neighborhood before making a decision. f MINUTES (Continued} January 2~, 1978 Pam Garton made a motion that the Printery request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow Century 21 Real Estate office to occupy 4b0 sq. ft. in the Printery building be postponed until February 74, 1978. The motion was seconded by Ron Todd and it was carried with a unanimous vote. Discussion of Proposed Amendment to Village Centre Landscaping Plan When the Village Centre was built, the Town Council requested that instead of providing 21 parking spaces that a variance be sought to allow landscaping adjacent to the proposed public mall instead. The landscaping had not been completed as originally approved because it was not practical as too many dogs use the area. He (Mr. Fred Hibberd~ is asking to amend the original landscaping plan and he presented his new ideas 'and alternatives to the Commissioners. Instead of having grass, he wants to plant wild flowers and grasses within a fence. This is just a verbal discussion to get ideas and comments from the Commissioners. A formal plan will have to be approved by both the planning Commission and Town Council. Appointment of Design Review Member from the Planning Commission Scott Hopman made a motion that Ron Todd be appointed to the Design Review Committee for an additional term of six months (until July 1, 197$). The motion was seconded by Dudley Abbott and was carried by a unanimous vote. January 10, 1978 Minutes were approved. Sandy Mills made the motion, Scott Hopman seconded it, and the motion was carried with a unanimous vote. The meeting was adjourned. C MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 24 January 1978 RE: TUE PRINTERY BUILDING APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE OFFICE Application has been made by Lou Parker for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit on the Printery Building to allow the Century 21 Real Estate Company to occupy approximately 450 square feet formally occupied by an advertising agency. The Zoning Ordinance requires in Section 18.60.020 that application be made which includes a description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. Attached is a summary from the applicant describing the characteristics of how the space will be used. The Planning Commission will make the following findings before granting the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit: l.) That the proposed location of the uses in accordance with the purposes of this Title and the purposes of the District in which the site is located. 2.) That the purposed 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 purposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. Page 2 The Printery Building Application to Conditional Use Permit 24 January 1978 ~~~ Section 18.60.060 Criteria and Findings of the Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission must consider the effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, manueverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The Department of Community Development feels that a Real Estate office in this particular location could create an additional traffic burden at an already dangerous intersection. They also feel that a commercial nature of a Real Estate office could be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood and would therefore recommend ~; denial of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. r; MEMORANDUM T0; PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 24 January 1978 RE: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE DR. MICHAEL J. FEDERLINE LOT 8, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE 6th EYEING The applicant has requested a setback of 10 feet from the east property line in lieu of the required 19 feet in order to construct a two-family Primary/Secondary residential unit, Closest existing structure is Dr. Uihlein's house located to the east of the proposed Federline residence which is located approximately 25 feet from its west property line. The Department .of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.G.2.060 of the Municipal Code 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 little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area as the bulk of the structure projecting into the setback area is only approximately 40 square feet and the basic 10 foot side setback has been observed. The degree to which the relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatability and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Page 2 Request for Setback Variance Dr. Michael J. Federline 24 January 1978 One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the environment, discourage excessive cuts or fills and preserve existing large the residence is in keeping states that the steep topo~r, restrict the area available structure has been designed disturbance. The structure and this adds to the height trees. The proposed location of with this objective. The applicant ~.phy and the existing trees greatly for building on the site and the and sighted to minimize the sate is designed to step up the hill of the structure which increases the required setback. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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. That the variances warranted for the following reasons; a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unneccessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, Page 3 Request for Setback Variance Dr. Michael J. Federline 2~ January 1978 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 applicant states that moving the house back so that the corner does not project into the l9 loot required setback would result in the loss of at least S large aspen trees possibly more. We leel that it is important to preserve the existing large trees and minimize cuts required on steep sites. Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance. • • MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE; 23 January 1978 RE: Summary of proposed Special Development District Ordinance The existing Zoning Ordinance has no provision for the review or approval of Special Development Districts. The proposed ordinance provides for a 3-step process for review and approval. The first step is the pre-application conference with the Zoning Administrator to acquaint • the applicant with the Town of Vai1's requirements. The second step in the process is the formal application which requires that a detailed development plan be submitted for review. This development plan must include topography, proposed land uses, location and size of buildings, the height, density and type of building and the proposed traffic and circulation system including parking, service areas and access points from major highways or public-rights-of-way. The application must also include the areas proposed to be dedicated to the Town and areas subject to natural hazards such as flood plain and avalanche. A general landscape plan must also be included in the submission. The application must also include a written statement which includes the following information: L~ Page 2 Summary of proposed Special Development District Ordinance 23 January 1978 1.) Ownership and legal description of the land to be included in the District. 2.) Explanation of the objectives of the District. 3.) Development time schedule. 4.) Any special agreements or covenants that will apply to the District. 5.) A list of all abutting property owners located within 300 feet of the property lines of the proposed district. The third step in the process is physical review and approval which may be accomplished in one of three ways: l.) Review and Approval by Zoning Administrator - Any Special Development District application which proposes uses and densities consistent with that allowed by the zoning which currently exists and does not reduce off- street parking requirements may be approved, denied or modified by the Zoning Administrator or may be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission may call up for review any application acted upon by the Zoning Administrator. 2.) Review and Approval by the Planning Commission ~ All other Special Development Districts may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission after holding a Public Hearing. After application is made, it is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and submitted to- • Page 3 Suzramary of proposed Special Development District Ordinance 23 January 1978 gether with an advisory report to the Planning Commission within 30-days of application. The Planning Commission then holds a Public Hearing and may approve, modify, deny,. or refer the application to the Town Council. 3.) Review and Approval by Town Council - The Town Council must review all Special Develo applications referred to it by Commission and may call up for Development District which has either the Planning Commission Administrator. oment District the Planning review any Special been acted upon by or the Zoning A written opinion, which includes conclusions and finding of fact must be filed by the approving agency i.e., the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission or the Town Council. The following is a brief summary of the standards, guidelines and other provisions of the ordinance. 1.) Standards: (A.) Uses Permitted: Uses permitted by right are those which would be allowed in the Zone District in which the Special Development District is located. The Ordinance also allows by special review certain commercial uses in residential Special Development Districts if they are for the service and • Page 3 Summary of proposed Special Development District Ordinance 23 January 1978 convenience of the residents in the District and the character of the neighborhood is maintained. (B.) The Ordinance provides also for minimum usable open space and lot area requirements. {C.) Off-street parking: This section of the ordinance is quite flexible in that it allows the parking requirement to be increased or decreased according to the • probable number of cars. (D.) Development Plan: This section includes flexible criteria for review, and requires that a buffer zone be provided between any multi-family or non-residential buildings and low density residential uses. 2.) Administrative Guidelines and Policies: Since the ordinance is quite flexible in its requirements for various development standards, it requires that the Zoning Administrator file guidelines or policies that have been followed by any approving agency in passing on applications. 3.) Development in Stages and Time of Approval: An applicant must begin and substantially complete the Special Development District or a phase of the Special Development District within two years. If the project or phase of the project is not begun and substantially completed with the time limits, Page 4 Summary of proposed Special Development District Ordinance 23 January 1978 the application is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who then recommends to the Planning Commission whether the time be extendedJthe approval revoked, ar the SDD modified. 4.} Guarantees: Approving agency may require that Bonds, Letters, of Credit, or other Guarantees be submitted to assure that the development plan is completed as approved. 5.) Changes: Minor changes in location, siting, ar character of buildings may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. 6.) Zoning Administrator's Review: annual review of all Special Development Districts by the Zoning This section of the proposed ordinance provides for an Administrator. Tf any violation exist, a report is required to go to the Town Council. 7.) Completion of Special Development District: This requires that each Special Development District be issued a certificate of compliance upon completion. S.) Subdivision and Resale: The Special Development District may be subdivided or re-subdivided in conformance with the zoning regulations and shall go through the same hearing process as provided for the initial approval of the Special Development District. 9.) fees: The Town Council may establish a fee schedule for Special Development District applications to cover the cost of processing Page 5 Summary of proposed Special Development District Ordinance 23 January 1978 and review. 10.} Existing Special Development Districts: Special Development Districts existing at the time this ordinance is passed are exempted from these requirements. J • •;; • AF'Pi. ICAT 1 O~J fOR VAiZ I ANGE And/Or CONDI i~ I OVAL USE i'Eith11 T Ordinance Pao. T3 ( Series of 1 473) • Application Date December 22, 1977 Publication Date Hearing Date Nearinc fee $iM_fl(l final Decision date for Town Council I (we) ~r 4.4irhaal .1 FQriarlinA of1~cl f~n_ RD~rli~a _ Nn_ )~7 {Applicant) (Address) Louisiana New Orl fans Phone Ana ~a~ _~an~,~ (State) (Glty) do hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the follo~•ring: (X ) Variance from Article 2 Section 2.5x2 ( } Zoning Change from to _ ( } Parking Variance ( } Conditional Use Permit to allow in Zone. For the following described property: Lot/tract 8 Block 1 Fi I ing iJumber Vail Village Sixi;h Fili~la Clearly state purpase and intent of this application $nP ~~~arhprl Nntr~ Nn_ l _ ~ ~ ---- Ylhat do you feel is the basis for hardship in this caso? See attached Note No. 2 4~ - ~/ ~ .JPmOs BoxM 1.86r~Vai1, Co.) /~ as agent for ~...-~/ Dr. hli chael J . Federl i ne ,~ K r ~ i_°` December 22, 1977 Attachment to Application for Variance Ordinance No. 8 (series of 1973} Dr. Plichael J. Federline Note Na. 1 The purpose of this application is to obtain a variance allowing one column to be located in a required side set-back of 19 feet., and for the subsequent construction to project nine feet over this same setback. The total square footage overhanging the set-back would be 40.5, and no construction would overhang the basic 10 foot side set-back. Note No. 2 Hardship exists because both the steep topography and the existing trees greatly restrict the areas available for building on the site. The building is designed as a pole structure to minimize site disturbance by allowing the building to step up in response to the topography. This stepping results in minimal excavation and surface disturbance; but causes the building to assume an average height of about 33 feet. The height of 33 feet requires a side set-back of 19 feet. The shape and position of the building are a response to an existing small clearing located on a mare gradually sloping portion of the site. This solution results in the loss of a minimum number (4 - 6) of the large (12" - 14" diameter) Aspen trees which cover the site. Ta move the house back so that the corner would not project over the l9 foot set-back would result in the loss of at least eight additional large Aspen trees, possibly more. Tt should also be noted that because of the diagonal orientation of the building, most of the building mass lies well behind the 19 foot set-back. CROSSROADS AT VAlL BOX 1186 VAlL, COLORADO 81657 476-51Q5 • PUBLTC NOTICE NOTICE TS HEREBY GTVEN that James A. Morter, representing Dr. Michael V. Federline, has applied for a variance from the provisions of Sections 18.13.060 xequired setbacks, of the Municipal Code for the Town of Vail in order to allow a residence to be constructed within 10 feet of the property line in lieu of the xequired 19 feet on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Application has been made in accoard with Chapter 18.62 of the Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on January 24, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. before the Town of Vail Planning Commission. Said hearing will be held in Vail Municipal Building. TOWN F VATL DEPA '~MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'ana S. Taughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail December 30, 1977. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMMERCIAL CORE i (CC1) DISTRICT SECTION 1$.24.060 Conditional Uses - Generally The following uses and building additions shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.24.070 and Chapter 18.60: E. Any building addition which adds i50 square feet or more of floor area. 18.24.130 Density Not more than 150 square feet of floor area sha11 be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. 15.24.180 Parking and Loading Off-street parking shall not be required. Off-street loading shll be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. COMMERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2) DISTRICT 1$.26.070 Setbacks The minimum front setback shall be i0 feet, the minimum side setback sha11 be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 10 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional front, side, and rear setback shall be required for each 3 feet of building height over 15 feet. A maximum of 50 percent of the length of any wall fronting an established pedestrian mall may encroach into a required front or side setback provided that the portion of the structure encraacYiing on the setback is no more than 15 feet in height. 18.26.150 Parking and Loading Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 for accommodation units, dwelling units, professional and business offices, theaters, and any use fisted as a conditional use. Page 2 Proposed Amendments • 18.52.110 ~arking - Schedule Applicability Where fractional requirements result from application o~ th'e schedule, the fraction shall be rounded to the next higher whole number. :] • nREMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPi+dENT DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1977 RE: PROPOSED BONING AMENDMENTS TO CC1 AND CC2 The proposed amendments for CCl attempt to address the goals which have been expressed by the Planning Commission, the Council and the staff. The primary objectives seem to be retaining the existing character of the ~.illage through control of expansion and pedestrian- ization in so far as possible. A combination of existing regulations and proposed amendments should achieve the desired cantxol. Existing controls include: 1. Horizontal zoning which requires a conditional. use permit far changing an accomodation unit or dwelling unzt to any other use. 2. Building bulk control which limits size and shape of buildings. 3. Height limit of 35 feet Proposed amendments add further controls as follows: 1. Floor area ratio of I,5 to 1 - a study of ex~.sting buildings in CC1 indicates that the average F.A.R. is 1.9 to 1 and that only five buildings are below 1.5 to 1 (A & T Building 1.4, Gondola Ski Shop .96, Red Lion ,77, Slifer Building 1.0, Hill Building .74) A total of 24,37E square feet could theoretically be added to these five buildings; however, given other development criteria (Section 18.24.070) provided ~. for review of conditional use permits in CC1, we have Page 2 Proposed zoning Amendments to CCl and CC2 the flexibility to approve or disapprove building additions based on their own merit. 2. wilding additions in CCl in excess of 150 square feet of floor area require a Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed in accord with the following factors: 1. Effects of vehicular traffic on commercial core 1 district; 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core 1 district; 3. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking; ~k. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; 5. Development of public spaces for i use by pedestrians; 6. Gontinuanace of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in commercial care 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; 7. Control quality of construction, arch~.tectural design, and landscape design in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; 8. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors an the environment of commercial core 1 district. {Qrd. 1~(197~) 4.) 3. We have proposed that the parking requirement in CCl be eliminated. The proposed CC2 amendments are attempting to accomplish two goals - encourage pedestrian scale commercial. additions adjacent to the ma11 to increase interest in the Lionshead area. The parking Page 3 Proposed Zoning Amendments tp CC1 and CC2 :7 requirement was altered in an attempt to reflect the actual parking demand based on our utilization studies. The Planning Commission may want to consider limiting total building area by an F,A,R, as is being proposed in CCI. Other development controls are similar to those outlined above. PARKING MONITORING PROGRAM (1977-78} In conjunction with Vail Associates on the mountain survey, the Tawn staff will be compiling information nn the occupancy characteristics of the public and private parking lots in the Vail Village/Lianshead areas. On the eleven days lasted below, a complete count wi7,l be done of all the public and private lots in the Village and T.~ionshead areas. The dates for this count are: December 28; January S, 16, 28; February 11, 19, 24; March 9, 21, 26; and April 1. (These days are also the days when Vail Associates will be conducting their on the mountain surveys). Another part of the parking monitoring program for this year will be the conducting of interviews ~.n Town. These interviews will try, to define the characteristics of thane .people not skiing. The informat~.on from this survey wild. be cornbzned with information from Vail Associates mountain surveys. This will hopefully give us a better understanding of the skier to non-skier ratio and parking characteristic. for both the visitors and locals on the mountain and in Towri. Enclosed is a copy of the Vail Associates mountain fox this w~.nter. The e~uestionnaire form for the in-Town be similar to this. It will be a random survey, using a point of reference in both the Village and Lionshead an people as they pass this paint. survey form survey will certain d interviewing PLANNING COMMTSSION ~~ WORK PROGRAM AND PROPOSED TIME SCHEDULE 1.} Floor Area ratio and parking - Commercial. Core 1. TTME SCHEDULE (a) Planning Commission discussion 1/24 - x./31 (b) Concept report to Town Council 2/ 7 (c) Planning Commission Hearing 2/14 - 2/28 if necessary :~ (d) Town Council Public Hearing and first reading of Qrdinance 3/ 2 2.) Mall improvement and parking - Commercial Core 2. TIME SCHEDULE (a) Same Time Schedule as item 1. 3.) General honing Amendments: (a) Concepts l.} General decision making areas. 2,} Environmental Commission. TIME SCHEDULE {a) Planning Commission discussion 1/31 (b) Concept report to Council 2/ 7 {c) Planning Commission Puialic Hearing 2/14 - 2/28 if necessary (d) Town Council discussion with Planning Commission 2/21 (e) Town Council Public Hearing and first reading of Ordinance 3/21 i~ Page 2 Work Schedule ~~ Planning Commission 24 January 1978 (b) Legislation 3.) Amendments to reflect (1) 4.) SDD Amendment 5.) Hazard Ordinance 6.) Corrections and moda~fications to Municipal Code TTME SCI~EDULE {a) Planning Commission discussion 2/I4 (b) Draft of legislation to Town Council 2/21 (c} Planning Commissiion Public Hearing 2/28 - 3/14 if necessary (d} Town Council discussion with Planning Commission 2/21 (e) Town Council Public Hearing and first reading of Ordinance 3/21 4.) Growth Monitoring 5.} Subdivision Regulations 6.) Land Acquisitions Program 7.) Vending and street and mall activities 8.) Landscape ordinance 9.} lo.) ll.) l2.} 13.) LJ x., ~~. .f, •.~ ~`~ _~ • f i. s • PROPOSED P.U.D. ORAItdANCE CHAPTER 18.40 '5P1;CIAI, DEV)/LOPtS1:NT DISTRICTS Section 18.40.010 F'URPOSZ: The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to ' promote its most appropriate use; to im~srave the design, char- acter, and quality of ne~h davciopment; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision o£ streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of apsn areas. . Section 18.40.020 SCOPE (a} Applications far Special Development District designa- ~on may Yee made~for land located in any zoning district except. r ~ :- . - 3V L,~ ~,~ r ! re ~•...r. ~,~:..'L i~f :-e~~. ..,~, ~ ! 1 ~n~ r~r ~~~ r^e ,.. ~t .= `~ - l'.r ~ yes C./. r. r..c ~l ~Y -{- i C ~t i c : ^rf i r rc: ^~-L. ~L~.:( < ~ ~ ~Cf Lr~.L ~ (_ ~i~ -„I.{~1 c c:, f'- (b) The setback requirements of this Title shall not apply to Special Development Districts. Setbacks shall be controlled by t2~e criteria and standards of this Artiale and as shown on the approved 'development plan. • Section 18.40.030 PREAPPLICALION COidFERE?fCE,- ' All applicants are encouraged to arrange a pre-application conference to br he)-d wit the Zoning Administrator in order for '•the applicant: . {~} to become acquainted with Special Development District procedures and related TOWn requirements; (b) to obtain from the Zoning Administrator a written list of what the application shall include, in addition to the mini- mum information required by Section 18.40.040; (c) to obtain from the Zoning 1'ldntinistrator copies of any guidelines to the interpretation o;: the.provssions o£ Section 38. 40:060 as rec~uircd to be maintained by subsection (~~1 t2tereof. Sec Lion 1©.40.040 POFt,1nL APPLTG'~'i'TC1N . An anf~lic.ttion fnr ~-t~~prov,31 of a Spc~Gial Devclo;~iitant District may bc: filed ley n pcr~:oti havznr; an inCerest in the' property to br. • ~ S .. ~ .- .Y '#''Y: t f.~~. ~,. '~ y, ~ .'• ~, .~ ~~ .. ,.. .., w. - ~ _ Page 2 ~ ~ -~----~.... ~... __... ,r~ : ,.- included in the Special. Development Districti. Th© application will be made nn the form provided by the Town and must include a consent by tfie owners of all the Property to be included in the Special Development District. The application must be accom anied by a development plan and a written statement. r. , (a} DL•'V£LOPI9LNT YI,AIi. A complete plan showing the major details aF the pzoposed~5pecial Development District prepared at a scale of not less than l inch w 100 feet, shall be submitted ' ~ in sufficient d~tail to evaluate the land planning, building design and other features of the Special Development pistrict. The site plan must contain, insofar as applicable, the falJ.owing . minimum informations (l) The existing topographic character~of. the land, (2) Proposed land uses, (3} The locaticn and size of all existing and proposed • ~ ~ buildings, structuzes, and improvements, {9) The maximum height of all buildings, (5) The density-and tyne o£ buildings, . (6) The internal traffic and circulation systems, offstreet parking areas, servica•areas, loading areas, and major points of access to public rights of way, <•~ ~c~ ~ r/~ / {7) The location, height and sine of proposed signs, ;`Lt~~' •~~~"' lighting and advertising devices, (B) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated, ox reserved as common areas, including public parks and 'rec~e<itianal areas, and as sites for public buildings, ~. • {9) Areas subject to natural hazards, including flooding, 'avalanches, geological hazards, or with slopes of 4Db or greater,. {10} A general la:adscape plain at the tame of initial sul3mission, to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan, once the development plan has been approved, showing tfie spacing, sizes ~znd specific types of 1as~dscapiruJ materials; (b) liRIT'1'I:~Q ST,ITI:P1FtJ'1'. The: written sLatc~nc:nL- to be sul»~1iL•i~.ed with the dc:vclolsmen#: plrur and application must contain the follow- ing inforuiatian: ,,. T y _.... _.. .. _ . __ .... ,. .. ::: .. .. .. ~ ,' ' Page 3 ~ ~ . ~~~~ ~' ' , . . .. , ~> rt= • (1) A statement of the present ownership and a legal ~r description of all the land includccl in the Special Deve,top- ~'~ 'meat District, .` ~„ (2} An explanation of the objectives to be achieved r. by the Special Development District, including building d= descriptions, sketches or elevations as may be required to ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ .. describe the objectives, ~'~ {3) A development schedule indicating the approximate . ~ date t~>',~en construction of the Special Development district 1'; or stages thereof can be expected to begin and be completed, {A) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions, or covenants Fvhich will govern the use, main-- I`~ tenance and continued protection o£ the Special Development ~~~ d District and any of its cotranon areas, including the pro- visions for a homeowner or lando:vner organization, and, ' (5) A list a£ the owners of abutting properties. and <<~ .~ properties located t~~ithin 3D0 £eet of the property lines oi= '~~ t. ~ the land included in the 5 ecial Develo [Went District, and P P • th11eir adc3resses from a vailable LCounty records;- r ~ r •-'-- .~ c(.~~ ~..'.4 I~ f r ' ~ ' ' L ~ ( _ . I f[ .! c .. ~~L. I.. r .. '. . - s I.... ,. 1.. f'~( i.~ !: w ~ .C e.[~~r~ l.'/ /L C%!h ~ ` L l~ . ! (a) The applicant shall also submit any other information a. that may be required by the Zoning Administrator to properly ~~ evaluate the application. • {c~ The applicant may submit any other information or ~' • ~. exhibits he deems pertinent in evaluating his application, f. ' g' x- i ~- . :: g. }. Section lII. X10. 050 I2EVIls'Sd t1iQD ~1PPROVAI, ,(a)• F~fter receipt of an application fora Special Develop- ment Distract, the Zoning ldmin3.str3tor shn11. post the property indicating that a Special Develaptnent District application has been filed and that more detai3,ed information may be .obtained from the 7.oning l7droinistrator. The Zoning Administrator shall ,also notify ley mail t}1e_owncrs of abutting prapcr-t.c.~,~astd pro-- pertics lacZted tivith 300 feat of: the ~~ropcrty lines of the•J.nnd• included its the SpCC].:il Dcvr.lal~xtetit District, that an applic~lt-inn has been filc~l, <1n~i ihzt they rt,ty rrv5c,w the application ciur3.ng the rec}ul.tr nfficc ho~tt.-s oL the '1Cawt~. Such writl:r.n notice ::1712 rul~lrc. also aiczt :;uch oEVncrr, to the tact th.it ~+/lze:tiinca Warty Up held ,# .: .L ~'?3 ~, ~. r ~`.~• , before the Planning Commission at a Later date For wlilch notice .: . f..• - ,~~ must only be published, and also the possibility of a Further public het-ering~~bePore the Town Council, again For which only ~,: published notice is required. ;..- (b) Far all~Special Development Districts not involving a ~~ ._.._. in which .~. use other than those allowed by the zone/Y-al the subject property'. ;. ,.~ is located, a conditional use, a ehange•_in•densi.ty or reduction . . • ` '~' in offstrcet parking requirements, the Zoning Administrator shall ' review the 'Application and either grant the application in-whole or in part, with or without modifications and conditions, deny it_, - - or refer it to the Planning Commission for review. The applicant and the owners o£ properties located viithin 300 feet of the property lines of the land included in the Special Development District .may ~; .appeal such decision to the Planning Commission by filing an y. appeal vrith the Zcning Administrator within 14 days of his decision. - i .. . In addit~-on, the Planning Commission may call up for review a~r~ { proposed Special Development District which has been acted upon by the 7.oning Administrator, by serving notcice on the Zoning .. :t f. . ' Administrator within 14 days o£ his decision. Within 30 days after . f such call-up, ax within 34 days after a referral or appeal has been filed, the Planning Commission, after giving,natice, shall. t e ~ ~ hold a public hearing to act upon t17e application. The Commission • ` shall either grant the application in whole nr in part, with or ~' ' ~, •. without modifications, or deny the application. • (c) For a].1 other Special Development District, the Zoning } ' Administn.~ltor shall revie~a the application and, within 30 days of b. the Ellin of a coy: lete a lication, subms.t an advisor re or ts. to.,th~ yPlauning_.Conunission. The applicant shall be Furnished a c. ~ r copy of 513C11 report. (d) within ,30 days after receiving an advisory report, the •~ :~.. Planning Co[;uisi~s~ on, after giving notice, s.hallNhold a public ~" hea_xinci.,on the application in accordance faith Seckians 18.GG.OGO ° `_ ~ ~ d ~. ~ tiirougli lII. GG.090. the Commission ;hill.,- within {;~} days of ttte ;` public hearing. or within such time as is mutually agreed by tha `~ ~ Conuai.snion and the af~plirant, either cir.lnt the E;},`.~~~osad_ Spc'csi^a .l . ,_ ' E f i. Dav~].o nsu.nt Di.,trxc.t in whole ~r i,0 -art wa.th or wa.thout mn~1i. _..... # , ., eiria~ra .ancl cond.l.t_a.on.r„ deny it;, or rester it to fire+_:wn. Council ... ~•'~! ~' ;" ~.. ~:' ~,~ ¢ `; ~~; ~... 'r ~. ~.. ., ,. .~ . .. :. .... .....~ ... .-... ...1 ~~ ~ ~• 11 1 D • 1 ~ i a t t i v , {e} 'the Town Council sl1~.,11 review a Spac~.a w_ cvc opment Districts referred to it_by the Planning Comma Sion, and 'may, in addition, ea21 up for review any proposed Special Developmenk District which has been•acted~upon by the Rlanning Commission.:. or Zoning_Administrator, by serving written notice on the Commission nr Administrator within 14 days of their action on the proposed • Special Development District. (f} do all Special Development Districts referred to or called up by~tite Town Council, the Council, after giving notice, •. shall hold a public hearing on the anplication in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The Council shall, within. 3~ • . 60 day-s o{ the public hearing or within such time as is mutually agreed by the Council and the applicant, either grant the appli- cation in whole or in part, with or without modifications and conditions, or deny the application. {g} All approved development plans for Special Development District", inluding modifications or conditions, shall be endorsed ,by the approving agency. The applicant shall file :the approved development plan with the Zoning Administrator, who shall indicate on the Zoning District Map that a Special Development District has been approved for the area included in the development plan. (h) . T~7hen the Zoninc{ Ac3minis.~rator, the Planning Commission, or the Town .Counciifi.her g~ants• an application in whole or in part, with ox without modifications,- or denies an application, its decision shall ~,e.,;.,~,p,_ the form of~a,-w~tep~'n,.io~~,___s2ttinc~ forth not only conclusions, but also findings a£ fact relating to the specific application and shall set forth with speciL:icity why and in tahat manner the application is or is not consistent with the requirentents and criteria set forth an Section 18. 44.060 of this Chapter. Section 18.40.064 ~STAtiDAItD3 A Special Uevelopmcnt District- shall implement flit purposes of this Ch~zptcr anti Tit1c, and, in addition, slizl.l meet tha fol- lowiltic~ stai~dard:~ a3zd rccluircmt:nts: e> '~ ?: ~ :,~ r~• 4• h' . ~_~ .~.= .~:=. ~ ~ ,.,, ~~ .. ,,. .. ... .,~., (A) L1SL5 PI,I2t9ITT1:D: The uses in a Special Development District must be uses "permitted ~ right" ar "permitted by special review" _in the zoning district in which the Special pevelopmcnt District is~located. In addit,i_on,. uses by right in q ~, Z~ /NNi Cti- Nil, ,._.:....- . l~+r. [_ r.~. ~ L ~ r . r ..-t.t~. ' ~n~n•t.ic<ri ~~C ~ / 1:.4,~~.ii ~'.~~n(~~'ti and ~~t• l ~_i'rCC.<<f•. •. •1d15tr2Ct5 ` • ~~ ~,_ .shall be uses by special review in residential Special bevelc~pmcnt Districts, and may bn permitted if, in the opinian'of the Planning Commission, such uses are primarily for'the•service and convenience of the resi.deats of the Development and the immediate neighborhocd, Such uses, if any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly residential character of the Special Development District. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a • residential Special Development District shall be.established by the Planning Coswnission on the basis of these criteria: {b) The Special Development District is consistent with the puxposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. of the Town of Vail, _ . {c) The Special Development District`s relationship to its surroundings shall be considered in order to avoid~adversa affects ~f fhe Development caused by traffic circulation, bui2.ding height or. bulk, lack of screening or.intrusions on privacy; (d)• 2~IZNSMUb7 USABLD OPEI~T SPACD AND LOT AREA F:EQUIREP4ENTS: . ~,c~uc.: ~.L1 The requirements of this Title xegaAding minimum us,.':l: open space and minimum lot area shall apply to Spcci.al Development Districts except that the approving agency may reduce such requirements if it finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for ~tr-ski open space and a conu;ton areas ~s authorized ir. this Se: tion, . ~ Lc./ ~ or that an increase in density is warranted by the desigrlnand Ei amenities incorporated in the development plan, and the needs of the residents for. ~.~~~1-e open spice c1n be met. Ft reduction in minimum ~,e~i:l~ open space or lot area shall not be permitted if suc3t reduction would be dctri.n~ental to the character of the pro- po;,cd Special Devclop,tcnt Distract or. the char~tctcr oL- the sur- ~ ~ J~t 4v~~ .. rounding area. Desic~nnand amcttitics th:tl ntrty justify reduction of mitliuit~m a:.:tblo. open space ~~ncl ~ainisnum lot r-rca ~°ccluircrnents incltulc, but aro tat lintitcd to: ' f- s t J r I' p . y,, ', (1) The development plan contains area:, allocated ,, , ~~ } for tta~ab-le open space in a common area designed £or use .~. ,~.~ by the propased occupants, , -~." (2} Ttie buildi~rtgs area oriented to insure privacy ~.~ ' ~~ for all the units' balconies, and ' (3j That the needs of the occupants for ~~C.~1e open ". space aze unique and are being satisfied by either or a .~ ~~ combination or: r-; {i) public parY., mall or recreation features, or ..:• i" ' a combination thereof, for which the site of the 5p~ial 1]evelapment gistrict has or will be levied a special ~: '~i ,, i. t 1 L s f' Y ~' r' ,~: . .Y ' ~• assessment; or ' (ii) develop facilities i.n the Specia] Development bistrict such as, but not limited to, common recreational areas or facilities, plazas, balconies, or rooftops improved for zerreational use, ' ' (e) COi~L~lO?d AREA: The approving agency may .approve a common area if the area meets the following requirements: (1j It is to be used and is suitable £or scenic, land- scaping or recreational purposes, and, ' (2) zt is land which is accessible and available to • a3~ occupants of dwelling units, for cahose use the common area is intended. {f} OI'FSTFZliET PARKING: ,The number of offstreet parking spaces required for the ioni.~~, di.:.trict in which the Special Development Distzict is located shall not be reduced, except that, the approving agency may increase or decrease the required ,. ,:.. ~.,::r~ ~__._,.. number of offstreet parking spaces in consideration of the £a1- lowing factors: (l) Probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the Spacial, Devclopt;tcnt nistrict; •~ {2} Parking needs of any non-residential uses; (3} Varying ti.mc peziods of use, whencvcz joint use ' .. of parking areas is propased. ~ .. WhencvGr the number o£' off :tr,-cct pat:ki.ncl s~~accs is reducccl bc:cau:,c ot: the :taturc af: the accul~nnry, the ~'tppz~ov.i.tig ar~c:ncy nt~iy ., .._. ~. t 5 ; ~-~~ require assurances from the applicant that the: na~urc o~ tElO ~` . ~- . . occupancy will not change. .~~` (g} i1EVLLOPt`1L•'N'S PT,AN: The ztpproving agency must bd satis- .. .. fied that the dcvclapment plan for the Special Development District ,- ~'~~ has met .each of the following criteria oz can demonstrate that ``. one ox more a£ them is not appiieable, and that a practical solu- `" tion consistent with the public intexest, has been achieved for j=; ~ each of these elements: ~,' ~ ~ (1) Thare must be a bt}ffer zone in any' Special Develop-. ~;,a ment District or multi--family. or non-residential buildings or structures that are adjacent to a low-density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings, or structures, and must be landscaped, screened, or protected by natural features, sa tha: adverse effects on the surrounding areas :~. ~ - are min3.mized. The appraving agency may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the praposed use from the ! ~ surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate A~- "~ ~ 'light and air, air pollution, signage and other comparable pnten- . i tiaily incc[.ipatible factors. k (2) Circulation in teams of internal street circulation t ; system design for the type of traffic generated, safety, separa- k ta.on~fram living areas, convenience, access, noise and i exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if f.hey can be used,~by police and fire department vehicles *, ~° far emergency purposes. Aicycle traffic shall be considered ~, and provided for when the site is to be used for residential r purposes. Proper circulation in parking areas in terms of ~, safety, convenience, separation and screening. }- (3} Functional open space in terms of: optimum ~~ . preservation of natural features including trees and (: ~: - ~ drainage areas, recreation, views, density relief, can- ~; i ~ 'VCnienCC, and functionj. , ' 2 ~ (4) Var,icty in tcxtns of: housing type, densities, . fracilitic^.s z:td open space; (5) Privacy in tcrn[s of tha ncc~ds of: individual:., i~Zmilic:c, ~tncl ncacllkbors, and; 4. ( ,y{ ' 4 ~i ~:. ~-:~ ~~ ~: • ' . Sago 9 .... .... .. .. :,;,. (6) Pedestrian traffic in term:, of: safety, separation, convenience, access to poiitts of destination and attractiveness; (7) ;3uilding typc.in terms of: appropriateness to den- sity, site relationship and bulf:; • (8) Building design in terms of: orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs and lighting, and {9) Lanclscapinci of the total site in terms of: purposes such as screening or ornamental, types used and materials used, if any, mai-ntenance, suitability, and affect on the ' neighboxitood. ~ . Section 18.40.070 AD;-lI~1ISTRP.TTVE C;I#IDLI.TNES AND POLICIES It is xecagnized tliat. in order to achieve the flexibility that Special Development pistricts are intended to achieve and to avoid the rigidity that so frequently has characterized develop- ment under orthodox zoning regulations, some requirements pr stern-• dards of Section 18.40.OG0 must oL- necessity be imprecise and subject to various interpretations. For example, such phrases as "adverse effects", "probable number of cars", ".planned in relationship to", and other expressions will in the~couxse of time begin to acquire more precise meaning as the Boning Adsnin- •istratQr and the Planning Conunission review and pass upon appli-. cations. To insure a reasonable consistency in tf:e application of these terms and fairness t:o applicants, the Zonng..Admini_strator shall from time to time place on public file in his office a report setting forth what nu~i~3,a-1_.a,~ne~ or policies he or the Planning Commission have followed or modified in passing upon-applications .....~ or otherwise with respect to the interpretation of the standards and requirements of Section 18.40.OG0. Section 16.40.OE0 plVl;LOL'61T;NT ~IN STAGES A'~p 2'IhiL•' OI' APPFOVAL, {a) The applicant must begin and substantially complete: the development oC the Special Development:- District within two yc~trs ' from the tisnc of its final app;'oval. If the Spcci.ll Dcveioi~i~te=nl District is to he clevclol~ed in stage:; ~th~ applic~tr:t must bt•esin and sud~stanl.z.u}.J.y conti~lc~i;.a the clevel.ol~inettt of, erich stage wii:hi.rt 2 ycar.e. of the time l~rovi.ded far l:hc stai,'t of conr~tr.uction of each phtt:.C in t:hc~ clr~volol~mr.nG ;~chaQti;].i;. ' `- ;; ,~ 4 ' ~, r .: i ,~. ~~~i N,r r~ , ;i+ #t' , k' ~. ~~ Y . . ~-: K <f I~~ a (b) xf the applicant doca not bcc~in and substantially Complete the Special Ucvclopmci~t District, or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by xhe prccediny section, the Zoning 1tdn5inist~ator shall review the Special•Developmcnt District and may recommend that the timo for completion be extended, that the'•approval of the Special Develop- . ment District be revoked; or that the Special Development District be amended. The Zoning Fdministratox's xecorunendation shall be subject to t.!:c procedures authorized by Section 18.40.050 governing the approval of an initial application for Special Development pistrict. Section 18.40.490 GUA12euvTEES The approving agency may require that the applicant submit to the Town certain assurances that the development plan as approved wi11 be completed, and said assurances may Sae in the form o€ a bond, letter of credit, or ot]ier such guaxantees that may be acceptable~to the approving agency. Section 18. r 0.140 CIIr3~GE5 (a) Minor ohanges in the location, siting, or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Zoning F•.dministrator, if .required by engineering ox other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final development plan was approved. No change authorized by the Zoning Admini~txator under this Section may increase the size of any building or structure by more than 10 R, nor~cl~ange the location of any building or structure by more than. l0 feet in any direction; pio~~icled, notcaithstanding anything in .the foregoing, the Zoning Administrator may not permit changes beyond the minimum or maximum xec~uirements set forth in this Chapter. (b) Alihot:gh the chanc~cs in the Spc:cial Development District, including ch{~nres in the site plan and il~c development schedule,. must be made under tlzc procedures that arc applicnb].c to the initial approval of tlia Speca.al Dcvelopissent t7istr.icL-. ~F. ~ - r ~. ~'r . '~.. ,~,•. .~. ~, ,~ . 1, ~` r ... .: .~.,_. Page ]rl ..._-_.,...w_„ :....... .~. -. ~-..~...._.~~........_. .__.~,.: • ..:.~ +,: ' Section 1II.40.110 ZO[dIt3C ADt4Zt]I~7:IN'i'UI2'S itI,V3LW At least ante every 12 months, t_hc 7.oning Administrator sha-]~3. review all building permits which have been issued for the Spect~j~l Development District and shall examine the construction which has taken piace on the site. If he finds a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or.o£.the terms and con- ' ditions of the Special Development District approval, he shall forward a report of this information to the Town Council. The . Council shall hold a haarinq an the report of violations submitted by the Zoning ~.dr,;iniJtratcr, having first given notice to the applicant, all c;•rners o£ property within the Special pevelopment.~ District, and all o~iners of abutting prc.~erty. Upon review of the alleged violations, the Town Council may, if it deems nec~ essary, require that appropriate action be taken to~ remedy the violations, amend or modify the Special Devalopment District, or revoke approval. of the Special Development District. ?3 . r. Section 18.4Q.12Q COMPLETIt3.~ OI' SPECIAL DF.V3LOPF9ENT DISTk2ICT (a) The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate for the Special Development Distract certifying completion thereof, and shall note the issuance of the certificate on an office copy of the distract zoning map and on the development plan. (b)• After completion, the use of land and the construction, modification, and alteration of any buildinr_,s within the planned unit w5.ll 3~e governed by the approved development plan. (c} Except as provided in 5ectian 18.40. 100, no chan,es may be made in the Special Development District after its approval. Section 18.40.130 SUBDIVISZO~ ACID RFSP>7E (a) A Special Development District may be subdivided or xesubdivided for purposes of lease or sale. (b} An application for approval. of•the subdivision or resnbda.visien must be made if tltc suidivision oz' resubdivision will create a new plat liner The procedures applicable to the in a.t~ial approval of the Special Devc:la]~n~oiit ~ Di~;trict arc: .tls~o al~p].icable to the api~l~aval of tho subciivi ;ias~ of i:hc Special. Dcva~.opiucrnt E~i_.trict. ~ v ~t;3 ~: 5 :~ ~~,,. .'.~~ ~ ~~ ,' (ca The :,ubdivi~ion or rcaubdivision may be apprcived if it does not increase the dwc1.3+~tc3 unit dctt:,ity of the Special pevelapment Ristrict anti if the Special Development aistriC~, following the subdivision ox xesubdivision,~ is in compliance with the standards for Special Development Districts provided in this Chapter. Section 18.90.140 FE° The Town Council ray establish a fee schedule for Special Development District applications to cover the cost of processing" and revic;a. . c~ • Section 18.40.150 EYISTItIG SPECIAL DEVRLOPP4ENT DISTRICTS Nathiny hexein shall be construed to limit, replace, or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of Special Development Districts 1 through ~. The Town Council specifically finds that said Special pevelapment Districts 1 through ~ shall continue in fu11 force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreomnnts contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants therefor and the:.~own of Vail. I ~ / .,,, , G~~ '~r.LGS~L.-r_,-~ ~~ - .-L~-4...~~._~~:-~_f.~.__ [. ~._ .G~~-/~~ . - S.I31~ "f ~'-~ F I t ~ ~' l.~~tic -~"~~~~~ ,t .c chi L ~ , ~. -t Section 18.40.7.60 APPROVIidG AGuvCY ~ . As used in this Article, "approving agency" means the . Planning Commission, the Town Council, or zoning Administrator, whichever finally approves an application for a Special Develop- ment District. . '~~ AGENDA PLANNING CpMMISSION February ]~, 1978 WORK SESSION: l.) Zoning Amendments - Commercial Core 1 2.) Discussion of Growth Monitoring PUBLIC BEARING: 1.) Thomas Residence ~ Setback variance Lot 2, Black 1, Vail Village 13th Filing 2.) Printery - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow sign shop 3.) Village Centre - Amendment of approved landscaping plan 4.) Gore Creek Flood Plain • MINDTES PLANNING COMMISSION February 14, 1978 3:00 P.M. Present: Ed Drager, Chairman Ron Todd Gerry White Dudley Abbott Pam Garton Scott Hopman Sandy Mi11s Staff Member: Diana Toughill VILLAGE CENTRE - AMENDMENT OF APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN, The Commission opened their meeting with item number three on the agenda. Fred Hibbard, along with his attorney is asking the Commission to approve changes in the plaza landscaping plan as approved by the Town of Vail as a condition of granting a parking variance. Mr. Hibberd explained that there has been a tremendous dog problem. The dog owners are walking their dogs in the area and using the area for a rest stop. Mr. Hibberd presented his plan for use of natural grasses, plants and wild flowers in the area; with installation of a fence that will match the iron work on the buildings. He also stated that Rika Elrick, Landscape Architect for the Town of Vail, had reviewed his plans and felt that they would match well with the landscaping done by the Town of Vail, especially around the Transportation Center. It was brought aut that the iron work fence would be 4 feet in height. Jack Curtin was in attendance representing the Condominium Association at Village Centre. The owners are concerned about the new plan for landscaping in the plaza area reducing the chances of the completion of the master landscaping plan for the whole area as promised by Mr. Hibberd, Diana Toughill stated that separate consideration should be made between the landscaping and tree planting and the landscaping in the plaza area which is tied to the parking variance. Mr. Hibberd feels the landscaping that has been done is adequate and that with approval of the change in the landscaping for the• plaza area it is then essentially finished. Mr. Drager asked fora staff recommendation of the interpretation. Diana Toughill stated that there are two separate issues, the Council approved the plaza landscaping as a condition to the parking variance, and that should be all that the Planning Commission should deal with at this time. Jack Curtin stated that the owners at Uillage Centre have been trying to help with this problem, but that granting approval of the plaza landscaping plan would take away their leverage for completion of the overall landscaping plan. r y Page 2 MINUTES Planning Commission l~ February 1978 Sandy MiTis wondered whether Commission should table the plaza landscaping plan at this time and have the Town Council take up the entire project. Dudley Abbott felt that the Commission should give a conditional approval only, to be tied into the decision made by the Town Caunci7 for the entire landscaping project, Dudley Abbott made a Motion to deny amendment of the approved landscaping plan until such time as a Master Plan be submitted to the Vail Town Council. Scott Hopman seconded this Motion, It was then open for discussion. After discussion a vote was taken on Motion: 3 voted in favor of the Motion for denial: Ed Draper Scott Hagman Dudley Abbott • 4 voted against the Motion for denial: Sandy Mills Pam Garton Ran Todd Gerry White The Chair asked for another Motion. Gerry White then made a Motion in two parts: He moved to approve the amendment of the approved landscaping plan, contingent upon the Town of Vail agreement with the Master Plan or completed landscaping plan, or change in the plan by mutual consent, Seconded by Ron Todd. There were six votes for approval, Dudley Abbott voted against, The next item on the agenda was: THE PRINTERY - AMENDMENT TO COidDITIONAL USE PERMIT TD ALLOT SIGN SHOP. The question posed by the Commission pertained to customers far the sign shop causing increased traffic in an area that is predominantly residential, The applicant replied that most of her customers telephone her shop, and she goes to their businesses rather than they coming to her, She does silk screening, painting, and cuts an occasional board; but a1ot of her work is graphics which are done on the customer's premises rather than in her shop. It was noted that approval was given by the Sandstone 70 residents by letter to Lou Parker, and a copy is held by Diana Toughi7l for the record. Page 3 MINUTES Planning Commission l4 February 7978 Ron Todd moved for approval of amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow the sign shop in the Printery Building in accordance with the memorandum issued by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Dudley Rbbott. There was no discussion, the staff has given their recommendation and the Motion was passed unanimously in favor. The next item on the agenda: THOMAS RESIDENCE - A REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE 73th FILING. A set of plans along with a model were presented for Commission review. The applicant asks fora 32-foot variance which is caused by the height of the house, The Commission was in agreement that to keep trees, and to minimize cuts and retaining walls, requests for setback variances of this type are valid. The Motion was made by Gerry White for approval of the request far a Setback Variance and distance between buildings for the Thomas Residence on Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village lath Filing in • accordance with the memorandum as issued by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Scott Hopman. There was no discussion and this Motion was unanimously approved. The next item on the agenda: GORE CREEK FLOOD PLAIN. After discussion Gerry White to accept the Flaod Plain dated January plans, in accordance with Community Development. S~ for approval, by the Commission, a Motion was made by study done by Hydra-Triad on the Gore Creek 1978 and amend the comprehensive maps and the memorandum issued by the Department of ~conded by Pam Garton. The vote was unanimous A Motion was made for postponement of the Public Hearing of all Zoning Amendments as published, to February 28, 1978. This Motion was made by Pam Garton and seconded by Scott Hopman and unanimously approved. Ed Drager then called fora Motion to approve the Minutes of December 13, 1977 with any changes or additions and as written. Sandy Mi11s so moved and this was seconded by Scott Hopman. These Minutes were approved with Dudley Abbott abstaining, Dudley Abbott and Sandy Mills will attend the Town Council meeting. It was then mentioned that the Planning Commission may want to meet again next week, February 21, 1978, so that a complete list of applicants for the vacancies on the Planning Commission can be presented to Council. Meeting adjourned, 14 February 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW SCHEDLELE: David Nelson - 1:00 PM I~ ri i . 14'.--~ 1 .13 ; f ~ Bette Renz - 2:30 PM Roger Tilkemeier 2:45 PM Donald Griffitf~ 3:00 PM • ii ~l • VAIL COLORADA Mayor Rod Slifer Vail Town Council Dear sirs: Box 2874 Vail, Colorado January 30, 1978 My name is David Nelson, and I am interested in serving on the Town of Vail Planning Commission. I am 29 years olc~ and have been a resident of Eagle County and the Town of Vail for the past 21/2 years. D7y primary motivation in seeking this position is that T care greatly what life in Vail will be like ~.n the years immediately ahead. My wife and I enjoy the quality of living that Vail presently provides, and we intend to continue to make Vail our home. Therefore, I am eager to help in the rational planning for the future of the Town, to assure that this high quality of life will be maintained and improved upon. In m_y job as the Food and Beverage Director at the Holiday Inn, I encounter daily the problems and concerns of employees, guests, and management. I feel that exposure to such diversified sources of input helps me in obtaining a balanced view of many of the problems and areas of concern that confront Vail. T am sure that my concern for the future of Vail, my constant exposure to many issues affecting' the Town, and my management experience and ability would be a positive influence on the Planning Commission. Thank you for your consideration, David F. Nelson ~ ti;-~ ~Y ~ ~ P. O. BOX 35 ® I VAIL, COLORADO 81657 PHONE 303/476-5631 OPERATED BY AIRCOA CORP. UNOEii LICENSE 303-476-568 AR~'NUR G. ~~s~o~ ~ co. Realtor ~ BOX NO. 667 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 PROPERTX MANAGEMENT HOME & CONDOMINIUM RENTALS February 4, 1978 Department of Community Development Veil Tawn Council Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Members of the Town Caunci7, ' ~ I wish to apply far the vacant position fln the Planning Commission. i I live in Sandstone '70, in apartment 4C, and have lived there for four years. I have been employed by Arthur G. Bishop & Co. for the past three years and have been selling Rb'a7 Estate for them since August 1977. I am concerned about the quality of living in Vail and would like very much to take part in this town's development. 8L1?/lv Sin r 1 ; Bette Ren ~~ ~~~~Y~ Our Nevv Vail o#`fice ~ Mill Creek Court DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE PENTHOUSE, THE DENVER CLUB BUILDING DENVER, COLORADO 303-893-9961 ~*k ~ `_ Vail Associates, Inc. December 28, 1977 Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado X31657 Attention: Diana Toughill Subject: Planning Commission Vacancy Gentlemen: Please consider this letter as my application to fill the vacancy that will exist in early ,lanuary on the Town of Vail Planning Commission. I have been a praperty owner and part-time Vail resident fram 1964 • to 1975, and a full-time resident from 1975 on. In addition to my experT fence as a developer in Vaii and Denver, and longevity in the community, I have had the opportunity to became well acquainted in the Minturn and Eagle County political arenas. This is an important consideration in the planning activities of the Town of Vail since our communities are so closely related. These factors, along with a historical familiarity with Vail, service on this Commission. broad general business background and should be valid qualifications for Sincerely, VAI RSSOCIATES, NC. r Roger Tilkemeier Manager of Special Projects RWT/sl ~•~~ .~ .'' ~,,,~ ~` Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81657, 303/476-5601 • L~ ~La~bage~ ~ & ~-[ngg Ap~~1.:.i.c~:l ~ ion: :'r1r~~~.n,j r~: ~ ~~o!~7r~~_~~, ,:~r,~7 r ~ ff 1.1 ~, Gs ] , ~; your ros~.~a~,_~.~ of V~:.~l ~~t~.c~~.~L~on: P.O. Box 836 Vail, Colorado 81667 {303)476-4886 u. ~. Vi114~3~ov~ ,.; n.~..~rer'.~i.~Gy - ]~a..o1.©.~y ..Y 1Ii~.1.~~.r~ov~~ i,n.~v~~~r,~~i.~L.T - '~~io1.o_y ILCCQ~ t~'~ P~]:i~. ~~'O.=X't~'~i i;7.o{3i"~:`-::1`•3~;~'.~ -- ti ~]~I.VG-'~'a1~;~ o.~ ~lj;~:i~JLlx'_'i1 ~I~,_;~~ cciool Cher°:i.:,,~L -~T19 b~.o~.o;~:~T, ~~~1 ~~a.~'~a ~er~c?.~~~~' `>:;z~,!!~1~.~~.;.; :-;~~:{ te~r~i_s coy--cis ,~~Lir!~. ~:~:~ 1~~'~.= nc,~ -~ ~r C~L.~~~2c~l;~,r:~_1 ~~~e~ co~;~;~ar?y ~C~,S.1_';y'~'1'_'~ '0~?1~_x~' .'~}:':C~. C3 :.;C--.Y"_j~,G'" f]~ C.%;.1J~7:"?,~Q;~ .... i'~iC?T111.7'~.L` Q~' _~.~~,031~~:'lt':,.c1 ':~~~iS.L3'~c.S.~ k a ~~li~ . -, v ~_i7'"~ ~.S .i 'T~~1:'y C;(?~1GL~'?1:;'C~ _',~C3.'t~~C' y~?~-~i" I'Q`~l~.f-?T"l~; ~!'?~~_ rlo?~ o~,~<IY1Q1' 3y , rl .~~ r~ ~ ~ t ~T 5 ~ ~'uC~ !'1,~ ,- 11ox. ~. ,C. O~ 5C1Gi1G~.:s ~ ~`!,~~i~.l ~ai~).le1C~' r.~~El (; ~. !. Y3C'4~'.Lr1~'; co~~]_~ be o~ v ~.1ta.e ~n t~1~~2n.:i.~~ ~..'ae ~t~.tti~^:; o~ oui city. t ~ GGG /./!' ~'~. "The time has come," the WaZr~cs said, "to talk of many things: of shoes and ships and seaZzng wax: Of Cabbages and Kings." ~udL'Ey og~~~f~, ~z. J3ox 3gS - ~ai~ ~oLOZac~o &i65~ • January 17, 19`Tt3 ltiayor i.~odney Slifer Town ai' Vail Vail, Col,arado Dear Rod, The purpose of this letter is to coni'irm my applicat~.on to continue my serv~:ce on tb.e mown of Vail ~'l.annin~ Comm3.ssion. As you perhaps Ynow I have served on the Commission for .four years and have enjoyed the experience. I believe my demonstrated experience and interest have beer. demonstrated and stand w3.thout further comment on my part. Thank yvu for your consideration. ~J Best regards, ~% -. '. Dud1,e Abbott rams- ora VAIL, COLOF2AC70 8'1657 PHONE {3p3) 476--5646 ,Tanuary 24~, 1978 Vail Town Council Vail, Galorado $1657 Dear Sirs, Please let this lettex- serve as my application for Vail ilanning Commission seat which wi11 be available when my term expires. Recent discussions and research have more adaquatly defined community growth impacts and the planning decisions that are made now will in large pajr,.t determine the future of the Vail community~$,lt.C~ `~ ~G~' Sincerely, Albert G. White Owner/Manager AGW/lab PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT SECTTON 18.24.060 Conditional Use - Generally The following uses and building additions shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.24.070 and Chapter 78.60: E. Any building addition which adds floor area or any building redevelopment. 18.24.130 Building Bulk Not applicable. 18.24.180 Parking and Loading Off-street parking shall be required in accordance with Chapter 18.52 but may not be provided on site. Off-street, on-site loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. PARKING 18.52.110 Parking- Schedule Applicability Where fractional requirements result from application of the schedule, the fraction shall be rounded to the next higher whole number. The proposed amendments for CCl attempt to address the goals which have been expressed by the Planning Commission, the Council and the staff. The primary objectives seem to be retaining the existing character of the Village through control of expansion and pedestrianization in so far as possible. A combination of existing regulations and proposed amendments should achieve the desired control. Existing controls include: 1.) Horizontal zoning which requires a conditional use permit far changing an accommodation unit or dwelling unit to any other use. 2.) Building bulk control which limits size and shape of buildings. (Planning Commission has recommended elimination of this requirement). Page 2 Proposed Zoning Amendments to CC1 3.} Height limited to 35 feet Conditional Use permit review (Section 18.24.070} of any building addition or redevelopment provides control, and the flexibility to approve or disapprove building additions based on their own merits. Building additions or building redeveTopment.in GC1 requires a Conditional Use Permit to be reviewed in accord with the following factors: 1.) Effects of vehicular traffic on commercial core 1 district; 2.} Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core 1 district; 3.) Reduction of nonessential off- street parking; ~.) Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; 5.) Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; b.) Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; 7.) Control quality of construction. architectural design, and landscape design in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; 8.} Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of commercial core T district. We have proposed that the parking requirement in CCl be retained, however with the provision that parking may not be provided on site allowing a method of accumulating funds for additional public parking as demand is generated. • MFMo TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: l4 February 1978 RE: 1978 WORK PROGRAM FOR CITIZENS COMMITTEE In each of the past three years, we've worked with citizen groups to look at a variety of community issues. There has been interest expressed by participants in continuing the growth managment program. We think its a good idea --- as long as there are specific tasks and the relation- ship between groups is clearly understood. Ile re are same ideas to consider: A. Task Force l.} Set up task force to study specific problems: Housing Economic diversification Environmental issues (county wide} 2.) Set questions to be answered by Task Forces, and deadlines for completing report. 3.) What about membership {should be kept small). B. Monitoring Committee 1.} On-going committee responsible for monitoring growth management program and quality of planning decisions of the Tawn. 2.) We should discuss the following questions (if we recommend such a committee): a. What are the general goals? b. What are the specific tasks? c. Organizational structure and relationship to Council, Planning Commission and staff. d. Membership and selection process. • Page 2 1978 Work Program for Citizens Committee 14 February 1978 3.} Could have some of the fallowing responsibilities: a. b. c. d. e. f. g• h. i. Act as public education groups to dissiminate planning informati;on. Citizens group supporting planning programs to the Council. Assist in defining growth management problems, data requirements, and data interpretation. Prepare an annual report on "State of Vail" review of growth situation. Recommend policies to Council. Provide citizen input to Council on controversial issues. Act as an ombudsman committee to look at impacts of Planning Commission and Council decisions. Act as the coordination group with the County. Coordinate task force and make specific recommendations. • MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 14 February 1978 RE: REQUEST FOR SETBACK AND DISTANCE BETWEEN DUILDINGS VARIANCES CHARLES THOMAS LOT 2, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE 13th FILING The applicant has requested a setback of 15 feet from the west property line in lieu of the required 18.5 feet and to place the residence 23.5 feet from Booth Greek Townhouses in lieu of the required 28;5 feet in order to construct a two-family residence. Closest existing structure is Booth Falls located to the west of the proposed Thomas residence which is located approximately 10 feet from its east property line. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided far in Section 18.52.060 of the Municipal Code 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 little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area as the Booth Falls wall adjacent to the proposed structure has no windows. The degree to which the relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatability 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 environ- ment, discourage excessive cuts or fills and preserve existing large trees. The proposed location of the residence is in keeping with this objective. The applicant states that the structure has been designed and sighted to minimize the site disturbance and another location of this structure (which has 3/4 the allowable area for the lot) would require extensive site development. Maximum exposure to the sun and view from the living areas within the units requires the buildings greater length be parallel with the short axis of the lot. Because of the lot's narrow dimensions this length cannot be accommodated without an encroachment on the required setback. Another objective has been to locate the garages out of public view, thus, with this design, the building gains height (and added setback requirements). The alternative would be garage doors facing the road and driveways in place of existing trees and ground cover. Page 2 Thomas Resident • 14 February 1978 Design covenants within Booth Creek require a pitched roof which has increased the average building height over what it would be with a lesser pitched or flat roof. This height makes it necessary to request variances to sideyard setback and distance between buildings ordinances. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, disturbances of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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. That the variances warranted for 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 title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The applicant states that moving the house to meet the setback requirements and separation between buildings would result in extensive site development. ~e feel that it is important to preserve existing trees and ground cover and minimize cuts required on steep sites. The location of the existing Booth Creek building with 10 feet of its property line creates a hardship for the applicant in providing the required separation. Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback and separation between buildings variances. APPS. 1 CAT f OtJ FOR VARIANCE And/Or CONi~ I Z' I OPiAL USE PER1~1 I T Ordinance Peso. 8 (Series of 1473) • Appiication Date January 9, 1978 Publication Late Heart rig i7ate Neari nc F"ee Fina! L)ecision date for Town Council Thomas A. Briner Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh I Cwe) (fn y' ('h~rl,as Thnmas) of ~rn~. lnr_ (Applicant} (Address) Colorado Vail '~ Phone 475-3038 (stag) (Ci~:y) do hereby request permission to appear 6efiore the Vail Planning Commission to request the followings 3.502 (X ) Variance from Article 3 Section 3.503 ( ) 7_on i ng Ct~angE f rom to _ ( ) Parking Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permii~ to a11ow in Zone. For the following described property: Lot/trac-P 2 Block 1 Fi 1 i ng t~iumb4r 13 Clearly state purpose and intent of this appiicat'son The a1a>,licant desires to encroach 3.5' -into sidevard setbacks an!d .i:o reduce by 5.5 feet the required distance between the adjacent structure to the wes.~.ii,nd the nrono~pd huildj~. Thus. thn rPSiiltina Sid~varr! setbacks would be 15' at each side and the distance to the neighboring structure would be 23.5`. r By comparison with ad.ioinina property Lot 2 is narrow (95'). The north 2/3 of the lot is sloped up steeply to the north and east with a~bank forming a limitation to construction along the east property iine._ (See Page 2.) ~ ~ -.~ ~ ..~ lgna#ure of Applicant Irb(,~n, • Ylhat do you feel is the basis far hardship in i~his case? Site characteristics, architectural objectives and 1oca1 (Booth Creek) design parameters have placed restrict ions on the siting of the proposed building: P a ~ Application for Variance and/or Conditional Use Permit Page 2 Thomas A. Briner for Charles Thomas The neighboring Booth Creek Townhouse to the west is approximately 10' from its east property line, being constructed prior to the adoption of the present ordinance concerning setbacks. This building has no windows in its wall closest to the proposed duplex. 2. The design of the proposed duplex has been based on an objective to limit site cuts, retaining walls, and disruption of existing surface drainage for aesthetic as well as economic reasons. Another location of this structure (which has 3/4 the allowable area for the lot} would require extensive site development. Maximum exposure to the sun and view from the living areas within the units requires the buildings greater length be parallel with the short axis of the lot. Because of the lot's narrow dimensions this length cannot be accommodated without an encroachment on the required setback. Another objective has been to locate the garages out of public view, thus, with this design, the building gains height (and added setback requirements). The alternative would be garage doors facing the road and driveways in place of existing trees and ground cover. 3. Design covenants within Booth Creek require a pitched roof which has increased the average building height over what it would be with a lesser pitched or flat roof. This height makes it necessary to request variances to sideyard setback and distance between buildings ordinances. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 14 February 198 R~: THE PRINTERY BUTLDING APPLICATTON FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SWEDE'S SIGN SHOP Application has been made by Lou Parker for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit on the Printery Building to allow Swede's Sign Shop to occupy approximately 180 square feet formally occupied by the 7aundromat. The Zoning Ordinance requires in Section 18.60.020 that application be made which includes a description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. The applicant states that most of the work performed is silk screening which creates no dust or noise and that most signs are silk screened directly on customers windows on site. No traffic is generated as customers do not come to the ~~ shop. The Planning Commission must make the following findings before granting the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit: 1.) That the proposed location of the use and in accordance with the purpose of this Title and the purposes of the District in which the site is located. 2.) That the purposed 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 purposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. The Department of Community Development feels that a sign shop as it is being operated, in this location would not be detrimental to the residential character of the area and would therefore recommend approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. • fJ f' ,,~ ft •~ ••'E I, t]' (?1 ~ ~ C1 'L+ LY fn •, n N 1+•R N'Lt t/1 r-7 Yr ,1 r] ' it It It Tr >^ O i ' ' rl a t+'r' It~ i,l o-: n ~ t l *'7 r.. ro r n rn a :, r r~ r; n r.' r., o i { ( ~ n c :+ i sl•'c n u' n'.} shr., , I;' n :'-. m rr ri n ;.] L..I-' ~~ a• rho .r, of r7 [:' rn :~ s :1 n' rr ~: ,• p,;i (r r., s>, e u I] ~ n. Is :. n 1~ 1,. :7 •, (t P: ~ ~i [: 1,1 !; n i•'•m ',3 O n fJ H rg }' rr . [,' r'•') '-7 ;..f :J •• 1! C1 ~: fl fl. ;l 1'1 Sr G' 1'' I. I! h'• O ' (:• `i '(1 C' V,.'-: r1' !'• •' 't n N .. , ~ S:. •1 ':) I'. ;l h' S' r• ;; rl I r:' .5 'J :"(: [': r', rr' 1'~ iJ : t ir, .1 I I' S.] () (n f: fl Ii ^. 1{ ,1 (:' 1:: o C% r1 r=: ~ 1'I n ;7 Sa . { ' Ul ! :1 1.r I ;• ':, C7 LL `: O V.-' tr 3 i i; ,7 :5 !I ;J :' n i I] ~ C~ 'd 'rs f, ::• z. I: :+' :~. P. In rn C, :I 'i A' 'U ~ o }.•. n 1 n ' ,~ :. ?, {:r) 1t r;. r, 1? 7 1 - rrl I In h7 fn :.~ •' _ O - - () f? O n ~ rJ r' CI rr (i O rr (: , i. •. • • `: ' , M CT [•i 'V I-, ~' ' F ' •.: [I rS r] (~ '! rl '.1 •, ;t' !J l) :I O l7 U t, 1[ ':' •• n ~. -' ^.• f1 [1' LI c: ':1 rl :: . rt r J ~ L ,: l' i q it ;i (" 1 ~ i~ .: ,-] ft IJ ) li r•• n n . t. I h'Cl .`' !~~ J I: {) 'I i'I ! I n }s : r 7 O ~^ ' i ' r ' ht : - 11 :7 i-' ' rr ~_: I? ;;. 11. },~ C (, J I' I : I Ia rS. r:; 1 (.+ '~ : ::. pr ,.. n L. {n Co O C'.. i rt ' . ft f. 1 ' Y 1 t'^ ~ {r 1+:; II (] ~ l'I 1•. , 1:.. (7 ' 1 I'r : t'i I U [t ~? ['1 ' :1 1" :. :• ':1 : '•. :i R r:' (': ' • C; " F. :J"' :t C: IIn i:l I" 11 [J rn ~'t!7 {, I•.:, [1 r! l1I C+ r!,•:? U li 1 n ~ :! :~1 ') ^' :. (~ ~ :' !T RJ 1'• to rl: + 1' ti n (n 4"' {: rt 2i I•~[) [0 :': f, }•. f! . I (' 4' ~' 7 '~i .+ - Sy :'1 r~ - :~7 CJ ~ 1-r - -' ~ [-+ Ij :. :1 .• I :1 I~ rl, :', O r;, I Li It 1~, t'1 rn F' Imo- I.n'.: 41 , F.I li [' _ ':f ,.,' o'~ C'1- Cl - c: I{ 11 ` 1.1 l7 1,•r :5'rn 1:' ~ N II U !~ (" '1 I•~~r l• ~ n }.'.O '•. [) ir 1•.:•: [] I] ~.r I ,) O _ Cn ~ . I... :{ , li !~ ~ j"I % t l `r r( sr rl r` S:.'i C' 'i f' , ~ 1 O :•~ :{ r` ' C -~, ,! 1-I % - p `r a t:1 a 3+• li ~: ID 1. C '~I !" fl 1, p' r Y '1 a `3 ' ; ~' ~~ (` r ~ t' ,'. :] ' r I + G [^ , :c n rr r ". n '1 :n :,< r' s n rr n c~ .s .o ~ m r :, s r :, r. ro n -; n t , i, :1 :.. M ` r ~• :.3 r t 1.. ,,. , r h, t I,. ,j O .7 rI1 CI i" p ri ri ^n ~ r) ~- , n 'i I, ., _ ?[ [" :J . ' f '., rt l': :,, : r Y' I-, 'Ll t" CI N' {.a :~1 -3 () [) [.. F' : t rT, C O :1 ;~ :Z r7 Z3 CI :' 'U~ ., , 4~ ~ ' ['1 l .: [` ~: fl U• F" [.' f;1 41 f:• 'il O :J II' U • fir' fl: f., CI q: C, IS (J .~ fr f,` r'1 "' L" t=: O ' f' "~ '=• R• O K o '7 h3 .r, ~ f: [Z :) n m coc:.'i r, It a - I~ `~ :: :?_ rrr :~ OOIs b n r:: - •,~ ~ ~ c -~ r ~^ r;; tJ' `t n :• :1 fa :I C7 rr C? l9 {p hJ ~: r~ rt rr :f 'iJ n rJ n w-~ rr V- CJ n 7 (> ry C.r ~ • '; ; G ro I,r r r,, i,• [,~ r.. n o •. ',• FJ (4 ..., n r{ p.. r o-~• :r : g : ~ , , m :. r r O : ~ r T C' '^ «: i] I ., rH! ' ; it o-' q• ~ !`~ O f: O N N ~i ti n :' i°. O . F•, (B - C 6e n < v~ ' to a • .~ . I t>I ~ ;t `: -7 •, ' ~ r 'n : I n h• r, 1., w ' n O (.,. r ; O ':3 ., :,; b , U " . n " ~ - n G t . J IJ r r, r + rr r H n, rt .n n ,1 IJ fJ {~: n :.~ °, r•. r: ^ t ~ ry c-, O 7 c .. :' ~ ~ - C ;:. ri '- ca (r D I{ :'.'•.S 1'-' f.' a' O to S' 1< O O G O O - li ~ ca :; r` O °6 N• b C,- ~ : : ~) :' : G, r.: ., • r.. 1,n n'Ii r..n rn [" tr en '-1 m I•- rr rn m I'•r:'o n c, r, n ,^ ,•. .] el ^I v ;J • ._ %~ o z~ n c r( . o t n nl m r; r. rt r' :~ r, y _, I .^, w ~. :; -;: s c o ~> -• ~~ +-' o C rd fa In r: rn n n hs - ~' ?' [=. ~' en N 1-' w m < 4 :? C r~t;; n O .: O ~' is Lr IJ M O r- J ~ ~? ` '~ n ` (` ~::1 m t0 In a' C: J '~ O (n m r~ ~ q. m r, r-•r; ;1 n Ir r' rn f r, ^ v .1 ru h rJ ':' L.: Cr ri n '1 t-' A' CL'r, r: 1-' Ir ` ' `• }~ ry r' Y~ rJ r R Ir ' v] ~+ (] ' ~~ { C E'1 [~ :r ;:-'S 1,. V-~ l1 .Y " f.' rv O -' -`. (J ri f, :%'C . .' S7r -. N~ O O C/ N L, C ' ; ° O • _- ,'; l ' N T• 17 r~7 I n :.' n. q ql C7 .4 ,1 (] :Y Sr O - CJ F! G ', G' ' • I-+ 1Y n O . : L 'S ~J ~ : rJ * ~ n L] n I'. ~; , ~ n. ~~ [~ :i '~ ~7 f, lY rt i < ~ O r• }.~ r r. (, I ~ ~ 1;., ( - ", ` - r- O r t: ;r L, ~.: (r '7 c, Ca O, m tr " M n' 'r r' ( [r n r. CJ C rr ~ 3 G p r, O :° : : 1 J v \ '-, rr :i rl '~. :1 t+ .. [A H• Il 'Y iO rJ L CI 1/ :1 ~^ ri r " ' - n b O C? " "..- U::J t'I ' !'- ,; f:' n f:' rt f' C' rr •'"., N. ,C f, vCT n ii J :' F'~ O I fJ ,C] i~ 4; h;, !'n :~ O ' r.: ' ' '-' (r n fr :>• O C :; r:• O I~ :1 f' n J ~ :i :7 J (:, W F, fr C. F, b ;] J Cn r .• ' a m , r„ C.e N rr r3 n' r-,. n O G - In O :~ p .~ *3 r: ' !v w~ ri rr r• :, L^. C7 ." 3 N r' r] n rr ': :] (. ;Y ', fJ +Y O ~3 U' m iY n rJ rr !:, !? O 5 W q, :i .• n :' ' '^ - r1 r ~ ~ '' " ' ^, rl O r, :~' r3 fl 1'~ "~ C:, r3 CJ [~; O -5 f0 N Y•'J (= (n :. O ~ r- n (J rh.-" - " i :. (7 :. t: • :.. n t) r C? ':J "J fR CO '1 N~ :S n la- n !f f: b' ~< '7 ~ ~C r. S ~. ~ ~ •• 1 n :, r. ~r 1•, CI Y• - r3 ;J rr !-; n M 1-' O f~ 0 r r^. >n I C C O "'J :l: '~ ~ "] ~ ^.' n [:' C, r: :: fJ C.r v. ~; ;t r O fl• fr it n G f1. :1 r+ :? F' C ~ b r' 1•• C r; J L7 : -'• _ '' . • :': ri- O IL O t R " la rr n ;~ f: ^ Cn ri G] I'- 41 ' ~ rr (] F' n C m u. O 3-• F'. ^~ 1 y C7 _ .r ; ra {n ,~ n ',' ~- :r C m z T o w Y G• e a rc '• to X 0 0 0 ~' w r' (~ n K+ s •.: t- ss n n - n r• o s: m rt rt n n.~^ r, r. n r,^ n r[ n o c, ~' , ~ r-f rs "~ .~ n ~, i (, r. r.. c: la li ~h' n r'•~ N-- < ry r. -- n r c, c a rr(•,~ ~ n :r o ~ c, n J M .o r,. r~ c O r t o !'~ is '13 n i5 C7, rte- ^.. c :s rJ n N ti ~ • ' O ter. ~r sr r•n •, v N r' rr r. fs, m _, rt n rr :: n r. s m s•' n _.,Y fn r'-r' c n f`. '" n 0+ ti 1.,. O r, (~ r• }" (~ :T O 0 r'~ 3i r C rJ n n O rr '~ r r !J c~ :i n a ter{ ~ rf n o n a o m W r~ >v fJ :i Ij n r a- ;i rr p r, f, r~. y w (r(m H, n O (r t•~ I r~~ r:- n (n I{ ~ c, ri h i;.':t o r•t^, f, Ir :s cY o n [-' a ~ ~ ;~~ O C ~ n w =~ n i~ ~ b ~ r , r t y , O rr (r p, - p P' ^ ., 'v E b N ~ :! C n (~' :: O m !•. O ri O r' rr I-' r) '; S, ~ r, r'U r m F: r'~ til i1 Jy ., .r'.' ;v ? q• rh , O r' ~' I '- K k rr Sa O (J r O ~ :3 ri i O ~ rr E r-:% F" C n .J' ~ sr ri ri O fJ `G O O P-. 0~ 7 f] ` rr O tt p v7 fJ 1 r ~ H .G r ~ •~1 ~ ~ r~ ri ` ., t `` Of '~! ~ O O ~ ' C I c ' '~ ~ o rs .~;~ ~ c n . L, a i l v t~ C . . • ., r ,D • lfi n ;,' r c, r~ 7 N ~ N CJ o r. m• ~ s td r. r' ~ O O ~+ ` h : ,` ~ , c ` n 4' O `. ~ ti fr .. I{ 1 f ~~ n ^ ] r~ '.1 i~ ... - ` }%, *~ r• N ~~ G, fJ 1 .. n fl •r F•- N H D '-: U r', n C' n 4' rr r ` :: c7 C1 It rr n t7 c; tY C It r•~ :J ~' %: C, M 1-••-' +r. rr LI N p CJ l7 :. :1 i.. .,. r'1 () [: ..1 " : 1 it S! I) F! .7' p H• r-. ('! l i U! :S :J CV I~ ~ U G Yr :Y' ;v 'S ''•. f, C. IJ n n :J '~ l` 't :; :. t! ' - 1-• 1+• Ii 0.` 5`~ w' l; f.' r') !i S 19 t`~ ` a n r .. r ,., n r. n o ~ [: .~r r^ i ro M r, 1 - rrt n, 1-' 1-• s'. f. ,_ .~ n s•' [c ;7 ; i _J n !~ !y t! ~ ~, r •: rr ! 3 R T L' F-. G ~ ' f Q, : r1 4 r [.1. r9 J r .'. O ] n! ,i _~ r t1 c r. (, n .): .. C q 1~ r. ~:. , f7 ^~ , '-' It I r r. P' , lC` O : ~ n w '.3 47: n~ r~ r l ~' ,.-. .. f. r. q O ri }._ r, r7 1•' ` 1 .7 1', rl: t.l 1'i H '• ', ` :', I:~ (S ;Y rr l(i !. li L I,l f'.' i :, I"' :J (:. 'r' . D f , •- U .r1 1! N ,• :; ;' ' ` O '.: ~~ n ^J f1 r^ ~ ` • n u s! ,; . c , •. •:, ;; 1,1 p c' I> Is : ' t n '~ ~ :, .,• I. - - •.. n 'w' o ' ~ u (J IJ n r1 '1 : t n 1J ^ (: I'~ :; N f"r: .'J N ': Ft ;.1 [') D C) + i" rr :) t^ () =' 1 ~3 r , .S ~~ CJ f:, . -~ 1-' r- ~ J C7 t (:, r fr i] [.' l': 11 l: fJ Ir ... ~ •r l- ' [7 :7 f- ri f' L: _ ~ .. F-' • . .. . n O f] r, .r. '3 ~ ' r' .., ri O 53 :~ rn r' n ~ f- 'c'. I~vC C ~+• n i,. U t o~ 1~ ~ r: r •o r u: a o n n r( ~ n r ~: r LJ ;, r, G s. o a t 6 O -' 1-~ cT o:- , L. tJ (~ :J 1.,. O : :3 - ,r (J rr , i rt rt ~ C .n a rr v3 f :7 :, Ci r- 1~ r tn,' - ~ : Ir r3 ~' r' • A.';" r. v ~,~ U a : r r: r; ~ ~ Ll . ' r ~_ ' - V ;,, ' N~ C c, s ~ . C' O : [] d [ r} v n i:: ~ , rt n n ~ 1 r r, ti' a r5~ r i;' 1.. 1+• n, .. ,. r.. i~ r • tr ' 1.., r~ r? ` Ll : r: n n ii J 'S t) :, •, n ~ rY c, _ G r~ ,^, tY 1;' rr (S C O l':, ~ ` r; r' 3 R [J f., rt' 1~ []. r~ r r.`. 'r- rt :: fJ ': :r' y .- :3 r~~ ~i O ('~ rj ~• .' : r: •-' :J [J r : [? ] I+~ 1_ ., .S.l.. rn f', r;' {: 1) • J :.~ : s: .: :i r. . ;~I rr :J i:• C:, r.) I~ f', !'1 !- .~ f-~ 17 r: '3 C'r C=. C1 1-•r;_ 1-.:S :J 'r r- r :! :. J [:. - "-: O ~ D 1.. rt D (.~ , I D ,`.• r ~^, ti f' Ii Ir :' _ rr tC: frl p !+ ~' 'i1 f! f rCj Ul Ih « f) rr lf: ;, .i ~; ! ~ [' ~ r; IS ~ :~ ~ti - SJ 1~ •F rf :3 C:. ':' n I: ~ .+ !~ "t ~ ^J 4'- ~:' F'. Ci !1 ': " ' r: 4, ~. ~ f.~ 1'- +t - ~ r _ :.. :':1 r n u u r: !~ ~ : ~ „ ly .+ .. ~) c: h O!~~r.' m '1 t:J [J to n 1 '~: n l! 9••r. ~ y ,n +, l ~ - . r. ~ U I^ n t, O , ~ i r: U 3-+ : ~ i, C r: % i:! .J Ci iS !~ ~ r; n c.. - _ 73 :.: !} q ~ O I : J '- :. v ` G7 t t v° r- ;^ L; r.. fi n ~ ~ r It b:.! . r r„ : IJ : r rt :a v :: t: c r- c ri s: [..:,) D r ~ :i [~ ;' yy rn It lJ Ir •~ [:, r< I) 1^ ~' .C [r ` v+• ^• r O r' C ;~ L- 4' „!~~ :~~ L, G' ~~ c; r'• • .; ! r.>c f „ t J !- :• 11 n + a ';3 I' O '~ t: ~~, ~] . c ' ~ « c: s rr ~4 ~, n ra 'r cJ ,-' :• ~, O :; :: O t ,~ rt~ It '3 ca t' r. :; o -- 99 ;~ ri i] ,,. ~, ~ ~ n :1 n n M p ? :) -' c~ i] n. •.' 3' ti 1- c ~ N- o - ;J - s~ o -s ~~ a ,-~ rr rr = n [n 'a :~ '' n a' ~. ~ :~ r rr FJ. < F;. ,, r n :~ •o N o r r' r, ~ :: s ; tt ^, n ';', I~ ' ~ c': = 1 n rr 1.,, ~. O N ._' 'C~ ~. `t 1~. ! n ~" ~ r1~ - ;z C n (.` rn rr fJ L~ t] ;,• w• }> ~ O :J O i < r] a C; c c, rJ •,' -.a A. [ G r 1•- •" ~r n -/ rr cs [ r ra u y r. rr n i~' r I: r.. ,~ ~ Y• o ; t_ ~ s'. : n ^' r. rr r c 1 ~ a n r. :- n ri rr : r n : [-' r ~ V: r • :' O. F--• tJ ~ n '~J rti rt n r ~ ^ !-' ' :?. -, I~. ;~ C3 M c. / r- I- r: ~~ r ~ ~ 'J , I r p -. O i3 O ~Y F-• '-l I: -1 o ~ ~ ^ r - C. r> :t ~ n w~ C1 ': r• r ~ V f 'r n :] [u O :1 fl CS f7 '-+ " ' -~ n n *-' t r-' ro " r,' O .) ^~ p r a O [[ 4i ~] r, r' r E--' v- ~ n CJ c, I ~ r, n C ~' rn >~ J o r r. a: •~n r o. n n •~ w, :-s C c - f ri e r~, N'0 v : r :: O 1] Y-ri r, r c- r) n n - r= r) n c ~ rJ n , r• r , '~ ; 3 o ~~~ ~,'- r= c n -r ra r rt .', r ~ ~ r. i-~ c -~ ru ~ ,: ~~ o c r, n c n n iv ~ 0 1 • r is o n, 1-. r r-+ o :] - o C :7 : [:. I-' n ly ,a n n O - ' :" n r , O ~ w h '< r-- ; - 1-- rJ h-, •~ r' N rn r~ ~ rr r.. ~~ .' .: n ~ : • ~• m ~ n rn _ r3 :J ~ r. ~ ., n ~ ri Y3 p •O r `< 't; O _ ~i - ~J a :~ - n r r• r' r' U r5 ~ o fo - =r c c . C. ^- r ^. C n C ., F+. 3.• r ~ t7 C , c^. r~ O ~ r ~ O J [? C G K ^ ~ F'- }.N'_ i . _ ~ i ~ ~ C . ._ L. j M r) t] n v -. ~ n ~ (I) J ^ "` u C :'~ f] ri M ~ r'. !-' r'- N (: IK H ~ M I, r (J : T ti r 1 :-' ri r :' (" ~, h; n r O G C rT uJ n C-V i F-' O .: O. U p iJ r'- fT tJ :- '• 1" r: f' O O I) !-'~ G F" t O -: ri F" 'r' 1.1 n. N- N-:' f7 O rl C7 n S f1 '-`, V~+'[i rr l-'• N O G n f' :l' ti ('.. n !: fr O :- :J :1 is n ~ f- i~ =1 I+~ [~: ^' i-' ^.. r) fJ Ti (n [+ [/] :' D G [-v f] n G n :, O r] -' r:' 1: `• J ['- :" ' • ~ f` C F~ G, :3 rt M F'~ C r: ':J ^, C N S U1 Ii rt O _ .1 [J N`) , D ^. 1~ r ,7 ~n c :J ': r~ rr n i n ~ G M .; :7 n _~ cJ 17 r•- D :J n ~ rr C C - . `J v^ C J ^., n ;: w-'t ~ li .^ :3 r] C. ~. O ~.^, C1 n If. C, ? r •~ N' - F+ G !; :J rJ rJ GI li M is C f' ^ 'r" v^ r' N I O F• C^. IJ f1 I] :T n " [~ C Y ;7 i'3 ri i7 O r - G ~ f n W -+ ly f`' :~ tJ n ' m O O e f] O C' :3 r _ u G r'~ v, i' [I_ ' !i n r. n O .^ (: `-: :i t -" fV `<. C L= Y• r i~ ~ . r5 H :, n :: rT (::-•~ n n o C:, [. G w- w~ r,] I-1 v: iJ K :3 ': cR IJ n I G rr rt >-, n P, 7 .. N rt C K - n w- n r K U a n n a r. n .• „• T~r,~ C+rr roc ' J *i ^~ N O ~. ~ m ^ h<, a Y.' n r-n ft f7 C :~ rJ rr ^.: n r t; ~ c, y 'v Y r~ r. t,. ~' ••. y.. fj ri D G7 ~~ w ::: t:1 7 ' + ~ :~ r r~ • r'1 r ~ p ,.] n N. ri a " n r n . a a c r° u,D -r~^. -, .. r. s, r 1 n F-I ::, n O t l - (n C'1 4i ~ v M u•• - G - , ;) n raaC N r f O r:' 1, r. ~' C•. r~ r s'~ p, (n .'. C C rr n N S'. N C ~ :3 ' ~ C:, li N U r' ' ry (,y ~'] O w n l0 O _ ^ n f,. `:. ._ `s ^~ rr l :c '-' - C Ii cn p r O M y L i4 \ J ; ~ ~ r r 1 j r ~ % ~ ~, - i r r5 i5 \ \ N , ~ 1 J i `: rJ N 1 : ,., r. O .. Ci v H ~ Y +: ri rr rr c. 6 O '~ w. is F~ N .- G r. r-• [, 1` ` •J ~ l ~a~. , n , I~r; ' , ~ Y r D r• r l'7 r' S ~l ~ (i r) rJ ., ~ MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 74 February 197$ RE: GORE CREEK FLOOD PLAIN AMENDMENT Hydro-Traid has completed a study of how the two new Bighorn bridges affect the 100-year flood plain. The two bridges were designed and constructed to accommodate the estimated 700-year maximum .runoff, thus reducing the flood plain both above and below the bridges. The report, Gore Creek Flood Plain Amendment, dated January 7978, prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd. should be adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so that it may be reflected on our comprehensive maps. r L. AGENDA PL,~NNING C4MMTSSI4N January 24 , 19'78 ~90RK SESSION: 1.) Discussion of floor area ratio and parking requirement in Commercial Core 1. 2.) Mall improvements and parking in Commercial Core 2. 3.) Work Agenda fox the next three months. PUBLIC HEARING: l.) Federline request for setback variance Lnt S, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. 2.) Printery Building request fox amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow Century 21 Real Estate office. 3.) Discussion of proposed amendment to Village Center Landscaping Plan. 4.) Appointment of Design Review Member from the Planning Commission. :] AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 1978 1.) Proposed rezoning of Lol;s 1-5, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, 10.08 Acres, from RC to MDMF. 2.} Consideration of Hazard Zoning Ordinance 3.) Approval of minotes of: January 24, T978 February 14, 7978 • C~ ..~:_~, .....~ MINUTES • PLANNING COMMISSION February 28, 1978 3:00 P.M. Members Present: Staff Present: Ed Drager, Chairman Gerry White Sandy Mills Pam Garton Scott hopman Ron Todd Dudley Abbott Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Proposed Rezoning of Lots 1-5, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, 10.08 Acres, from RC to MDMF. Representation from Lionsridge Ltd. present owner of land, and Shelter Investment Company with proposal. The meeting was called to order by Ed Drager. The first item on the agenda was the proposed rezoning of Lots 1-5, resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, 10.08 acres, from RC (Residential Cluster} to MDMF {Medium Density Multi-Family}. The first speaker was Ron Landeck, attorney for Lionsridge Ltd., the ~. owner of the land. He explained that Lionsridge Ltd., is planning to sell the land to Shelter Investment Company who is planning the development. He stated in support of the proposed rezoning, explaining that this property lends itself to this type of development with minimal visual impact, and that with its location on the frontage road it makes it unfeasible to plan expensive luxury condominiums. Diana Toughill advised the Commission that she•..has a7 ready met with the developers, but that no staff recommendation has been made. Their plan as explained to her would be 180 units on the site, with 60 of those units being offered as employee housing on a permanent basis with the Town of Vail as managing agent with total control over the employee housing. The developers (Shelter Investment Company} stated that they are well apprised of the Vail situation, especially insofar as the shortage of employees which has been a problem for Vail, especially this season. One of their partners, Russ Stark, presently manages the Lodge at Vail and has suffered through the employee shortage and wants to see it alleviated by some employee housing within the Town of Vail. They stated to the Commission that they are well aware of Vai7's concern for uncontrolled growth and increased density, but they feel that this is one answer for solving the parking problems within the Town, and they are building the employee units without fireplaces which they feel makes this an environmentally sound project. (Note: The condominiums will be built with fireplaces to enhance their salability.} They also pointed out that the Shuttle Bus Service wii7 be available to this . complex. MTNUTES PLANNING COMMTSSIQN • 2-28-78 page 2. They asked to be heard at joint session of Town Council and Planning Commission as soon as practicable upon recommendation of the staff. They added that co-financing with Town of Vail would allow them to build this summer. Scott Hopman questioned the relevancy of building the employee housing with no fireplaces, when the condos constitute 34 more fireplaces than would currently be allowed in Town. He asked about control features for these fireplaces to reduce the pollution problems. The developer answered that they would incorporate any new control devices for the fireplaces that could be installed at a reasonable cost, they don't feel there is anything on the market now that could be used where the cost would not be prohibitive. Dudley Abbott feels strongly that the Council will not be receptive to these plans. They have never been receptive to the Town of Vail getting into employee housing either by management or acquiring land to build such housing, and that it may not be legal far them to do so. Gerry White noted that this is really not a totally new concept, but one that has been considered and put aside by Council through the years. He does feel that this particular plan has merit, and the site plan is a good ~. one . Sandy Mills stated that in regard to the employee shortage, her feeling is that the maids who come from Leadville, and other surrounding communities would not move to Vail in any case; and that those who would take the housing if available probably would not take a job as a maid or any of the so-called lower scale jobs in Vail. Pam Garton stated that the employee housing question will have to be resolved at Town Council level, she added that the Town policy has been to steer away from the employee housing, they have always felt they should not be involved in it and that private interests should take the initiative. Ron Todd asked the developers whether the rent could be held down to where the description "employee housing" is realistic? Ne added that the high price of land and cost of building has made employee housing a prohibitive thing within the Town of Vail. The developers stated that they have not done an economic study as yet. Al Ten Gerstenberger asked them to put together some numbers so that Council can have a good idea on the benefits and costs; he advised that this could help counteract the Council's abhorence of the increase in the number of units proposed for the property. Ron Landeck, attorney for Lionsridge Ltd., then suggested that he should . get together with Larry Rider, Vail Town Attorney, to go over the legal ramifications and problems that could come up; the staff agreed that this would be a good idea. MrNUT~s PLRI~N~iVG COMMISSIQ~V • 2-28-78 page 3. Ed Drager thanked those in attendance for their presentations. rt was announced that they will be heard in joint session with Town Council and Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 7, 7978. Consideration of Hazard Zoning Ordinance. The second item on the agenda was consideration and approval of the Hazard Zoning Ordinance. The Motion was made by Dudley Abbott to approve the Hazard Zoning Ordinance as submitted to go to Council for public hearing. Gerry White seconded the Motion, the members voted unanimously for approval with the exception of Pam Garton who was absent from the room. Approval of Minutes of Planning Commission Meetings of January 24, 1978 and February 14, 1978. Motion was made by Scott Hopman for approval of the Minutes of January 24, 1978 as submitted, seconded by Dudley Abbott, unanimously approved with the exception of Pam Garton who was absent from the room. Motion was made by Gerry White for the approval of the Minutes of February 14, 1978 as submitted, seconded by Scott Hopman, unanimously approved with • the exception of Pam Garton who was absent from the room. Ed Drager asked for any further business, there being no further business, a Motion was made for adjournment by Ron Todd, seconded by Scott Hopman and unanimously approved with the exception of Pam Garton who was absent from the room. Meeting adjourned 4;34 P.M. • MEMO 70 TOWN COU~CTL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE 2 March 1978 RE Recommendation - Planning Commission Vacancies The Planning Commission interviewed the following people for the two vacancies which currently exist: David Nelson Bette Renz Donald Griffith Roger Tilkemeier Also considered were the two members of the Commission whose terms are expired: Gerry White Dudley Abbott After a great deal of thought, the Planning Commission recommends that Gerry White and Roger Tilkemeier be appointed for the four year terms. MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 28 February 1978 RE: PROPOSED REZONING OF LOTS 1-5, RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK C, LIONSRIDGE FILING N0. 1, 10.08 ACRES, FROM RC TO MDMF. Lionsridge, Ltd., owners of subject property has applied for rezoning on behalf of Shelter Investments Company, potential purchasers of the parcel. Proposed rezoning is from Residential Cluster (60 units} to Medium Density Multiple Family (180 units, 6O of these to be employee housing). Prior to annexation, Eagle County zoned the property at 5.5 units per acre. When the Town zoned the property, the staff and Planning Commission recommended a special development district; the Council, however, felt that there was not sufficient information on which to base a decision, • denied the SDD and instructed the owners to submit a more complete development plan at a later date. The existing density in the developed portion of Lionsridge is approximately 33 units per acre. Existing buildings in the area are zoned Medium Density and are legal non-conforming structures. The undeveloped lots in Lionsridge Filing No. 1 are zoned Residential Cluster and Law Density, with the exception of Snow Lion and LRB that were negotiated to resolve court decisions. Average allowable density for the undeveloped parcels is 8.63 units per acre and average density far all land at full development would be approximately 15.2 units per acre given current zoning. The proposed rezoning would increase average density to 17.88 units per acre. Potential developers have proposed that 60 units be guaranteed as employee housing in perpetuity with the Town of Uai1 controlling management. A number of financial questions, which require Council decisions have been, raised by this portion of the proposal. We, therefore, strongly advise that we meet with the Council in joint sessions prior to the staff or Planning Commission making specific recommendations on this proposal. We suggest that the joint session be scheduled for March 7th. • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 14, 1978 WORK SESSION - 1:00 P.M. l.) Discussion of Ordinance Creating the Planning and Environmental Commission 2.) Proposed Zoning Amendments for Commercial Core II 3.} Gore Creek Meadows - Review for Eagle County 4.) Possible Expansion of Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District Boundaries PUBLIC HEARING - 3 P.M. 1.) Vail Associates - Application for Conditional Use Permit to allow Real Estate Sales Off ice on First Floor in Commercial Core II. 2.) Proposed Rezoning of Lots 1-5, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing Na. 1 from RC to MDMF. 3.) Approval of Minutes of February 28, 1978. • • MINUTES PLANNING COMhRISSION March 14, 1978 3:00 P.M. Members Present: Staff Present: Ed Drager, Chairman Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Sandy Mills Scott Hopman Diana Toughill A11en Gerstenberger Vail Associates' Application for Conditional Use Permit to allow Real Esta_t_e Offices on First Floor in Commercial Core II. The first item on the agenda was Vail Associates' application for Conditional Use Permit to allow Real Estate Offices on the first floor in Commercial Core IT. Vail Associates' representative was Bob Nott who presented the Commission with the plans and explained the location, etc. The real estate offices will be going in where the former ticket offices were located, and the ticket offices will be relocated within an approved addition to Gondola II building. There is a recommendation from the staff for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. After discussion, Scott Hopman made a Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the memorandum from the Department of Community Development dated March 10th. Gerry White seconded the Motion, it was unanimously approved with Roger Tilkemeier abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Proposed Rezoning of hots 1-5, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. l from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multi-Family (NOME). The second item was the proposed rezoning of Lots 1-5, resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from RC to MDMF. The representative was from Shelter Investments Co., Tony Sibert, and the architect, Ken Goff. Sibert again presented the site plan to familiarize the new members of the Planning Commission. He then passed out copies of a report on costs for the proposed employee housing segment of the development for the Commission's review and comments. He advised those present, that he had met with Town Council and staff, and there are some problems with the site plan such as snow removal areas, parking and ingress and egress to the site, and the slope. He is convinced these problems can be solved, and this will be done and presented to staff for their review. He felt the Town Council was receptive to the employee housing concept. He stated that the employee units will be approximately 576 sq. ft., with storage and feels this would be adequate for two people. He also advised that the tennis courts and swimming pool as first proposed will be pulled, but there will be tennis courts available to both the condominiums and the employee housing units. We then went through the cost figures as prepared. He feels that these costs as presented can be met. He explained that on a breakdown, the units would have to rent at $323 per unit, or $161 per person per month. Page 2 • MIPJUTES PLANNTNG COMMISSION 3/14/78 Roger Tilkemeier asked what type of employees he (Sibert) feels this development will attract? Sibert then went through discussions he has had with business people in. Vail regarding the employee shortage this season, the fact that the transient employee has a difficult time finding housing, and feels that a business, such as the Lodge at Vail, would rent multiple units so that they would have guaranteed housing for their employees. Mr. Tilkemeier pointed out that businesses would have to lease year-round even though the employees would possibly only live in the units during the winter season. Sandy Mills questioned the comfort factor for 2 people in a 6D0 sq. ft. unit, would there be adequate space for personal belongings, ski gear, etc. Ed Drager asked. what type of heating would be installed, this was answered that it would be electric heat. Mr. Drager asked whether the utility costs would be a separate item, the answer was the cast figure includes utilities. The Commission stated they wanted to make sure that the employee housing would not appear too utilitarian, and would have an attractive appearance. Sibert stated that they feel they have designed an attractive complex and that the employee housing would compliment the bigger more luxurious condominiums being proposed on the same site. Mr. Tilkemeier asked whether the complex would be built in phases, Sibert answered that they would like to build 40 units this summer. Mr. Tilkemeier felt that this may be too ambitious, taking the length of our building season. Ne added that it would be important from the Town of Vai1's point of view, that a solid agreement from the business community to prelease would be needed. hEe feels that the Town would need to be assured that the business community is sincere in their desire for the employee housing and are willing to pay for it year-round. Allen Gerstenberger asked Sibert what the impact on the development would be if they should be delayed by process, so that there could be no construction this summer. Sibert stated that he cannot afford to delay construction for very long, it would involve a contract modification on the land sale. Eldon Beck's letter regarding the site plan was then reviewed and discussed. The Commission brought up the growth management plan for the Valley, and have same misgivings about the size of this development and the number of people it will house. This was discussed. Gerry White feels this type of growth is needed (one with employee housing included). Mr. Sibert reiterated that he is asking far approval for 80 units, with land cost at $760D per unit, and to be built and held in perpetuity as employee housing. Tn regard to density, he told the Commission that he knows the density in this particular area is in a holding pattern, and he feels that a court decision would uphold the construction of a development, the size of which he is proposing. However, he would not ]ike to have to go through the courts and feels all problems can be worked out. Page 3 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 3/14/78 Sandy Mills feels that the increased density may not be a good trade-off for the employee housing. She also stated that it is imperative that Stan Bernstein, Town of Vail Finance Director go over and review the cost figures as presented by the developer. Mr. Sibert stated that he would work out the site problems with the staff next week, and would also approach the lodge owners and other business people to see what percentage of the units could be rented. Ne will also prepare a scale model of the 80/84 for review with a slight increase in floor space for the employee units. He feels that a size mixture may be workable, such as 600 sq, ft. to 720 sq. ft. They will be ready to report to the Planning Commission in two weeks. Town of Vail Application fora Conditional Use Permit to Build a Permanent Structure over the Existing Ice Rink. The next item on the agenda was brought to the Planning Commission by Pat Dodson, Recreational Director for the Town of Vail. The Town is asking for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to build a permanent structure over the existing ice rink. The Commission had received a memo from Pat Dodson answering their questions on parking, access, drop-off point, trash removal and lighting. It was brought up that the Teen Center may be moved closer to the Vail Medical facility. Ed Drager questioned the use • of this site as this was going to be used by the clinic for additional parking once the hospital portion is complete. Diana Toughill stated that there is no required parking through the Zoning Ordinance, and that a]though there is room available for additional parking, the clinic was asked to defer turning it into parking until they felt a definite need for the additional parking spaces. It was brought out that the clinic had offered to let the Town use this site on a lease basis for five years. Allen Gerstenberger added that if there is a problem with putting the Teen Center on the leased space from the clinic, that the building {Teen Center) can stay where it is. Upon Pat's description of the 12 parking spaces being eliminated, their location being at the east end of Vail Associates' day skier lot, the Commission expressed their concern regarding these parking spaces. It was explained that after 3 P.M., there is no problem with parking available near the rink in the day lot. Roger Tilkemeier feels there may be a definite problem here, stating that Vail Associates needs those spaces in their count done for the Forest Service and that the Forest Service may frown on their elimination by landscaping and the turn-around area. He also stated that the Town of Vail should follow their own parking requirements for a building of this size and location. Ed Drager concurred, and relayed his feelings on the matter. The staff feels there is no impact on the day skier parking by the rink, trying to explain that the rink does not attract early skaters, that is, during the time that the day skier Tot is the busiest. Also, that during the winter there will be skating only, and that the multi-purpose use will be designed far May~June and September which would not conflict with skiing in any way. Roger Tilkemeier was firm in his conviction that the Town must review these plans with the Forest Service and get a firm commitment from Vail • Page 4 MINNTES PLANNING CQMMISS~ON 3/14/78 Associates for the planned use of these parking spaces. The Planning Commission feels strongly that approval for the Conditional Use Permit should be turned back to Council. Diana Toughill advised the Commission that they had already approved the Conditional Use Permit for the open ice rink. The Commission asked staff to bring out the criteria and make their recommendations on Pat Dodson's memorandum. Mr. Tilkemeier feels there is a very real problem concerning the parking for the rink, stating that it is very questionable to have a permanent building with temporary parking. He stated that Vail Associates may not be .able to grant the Town permanent parking for the rink, and can the Town make other arrangements for parking? This should 6e answered as soon as possible. Diana Toughill advised the Commission that other similar facilities have been studied and parking requirements reviewed, she could not immediately recall the numbers, but would make this report available. The Planning Commission feels that these parking questions need much more attention. The staff will be back in two weeks with their recommendations. Allen Gerstenberger reiterated that parking needed for the rink has been gone over thoroughly and he feels the time has past for reconsideration of this problem. The next item an the agenda was for approval of the Minutes of the meeting of February 28, 7978. Scott Hopman made a Motion for approval of the Minutes of February 28, 1978 subject to a change reading from ". . formerly managed to ". presently manages the Lodge at Vail " Seconded by Sandy Mills and unanimously approved with Roger Tilkemeier abstaining. The last item on the agenda was a presentation by Jim Rubin of the Town of Vail staff on Gore Creek Meadows for the Commission to review for Eagle County. Adjourned. • MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE March 10, 1978 RE: Vail Associates ~ Application for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Real Estate Office on First Floor in Commercial Core 2 Zone District. Vail Associates has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing real estate sales office to expand into 570 sq. ft. currently occupied by the ticket office, The space is located on the east side of the Gondola II Terminal Building. 18.60.060 Criteria-Findings A. Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use; 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town: 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs; 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas; 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The applicant states that the real estate offices space is no longer adequate to accommodate the staff required to service our customers. It is our intention to move the present sales manager into the expanded space and to add an additional salesperson and corporate properties administrator. It is our opinion that this expansion will . have very little effect on the character of the area. In fact the removal of the present fortress type, ticket windows and the substitution of a glass, store front type facade on tha east wall should substantially improve the aesthetics of the area. Finally, we see no significant PAGE 2 . Memo to Planning Commission Date: March 10, 1978 • impact on present pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns or on present parking requirements." One of the express purposes of Horizontal Zoning is to encourage retail shops along pedestrian ways to create interest and activity. Areal estate sales office could create somewhat more activity than the existing ticket off ice. We feel that ~n expansion of an existing office will have little affect upon the other factors. B. The planning commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title 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 ar improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. • re~Qr'~ ! ~ .~ t~ ? ~~~ n ~'~~ Q~~ ~ . - ~ ~- ~ - X14 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1T • ~ t ~ 'I { ~ $j " ~ ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ .eJw'r"" -~.Q 8...t5 ~ ~,,r--- ~ ~ r~'F ~~ ~~' . ~ ~~~ ~j~ ~, ~`_ i ~ ~lecan ~p~eCt ~~/* ~~ oystp° j ~( I an~mat4 gate $eCk & g„t,~4et ,bey ~~ cord }~,~~. r ~~ re ,~,,,~- - 5 .fir u~ ~~~ ~ 1~`~~` ~ ~ a,,~'~""`! ~ - ~.~. ~, rte' ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~~ ~ 5. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,.t ~„ a,,,,.~,' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~'`' ~' ~ ~.5 ~ ~ ConfTeleCOn project ~y~ton ~janamoCO Da« Beck ~ Subject jajk?e}~ $~ ~ ~,.~-,~ record ~ Y,,,Sl~~ ~ y~'- ~f"""~ t~ S4 ~~ w- ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~-~ f~- G©of Telecon - - $ l9~ ~ l~ ~ ~ ~4~e~~ oyston ariamot© tiax~ $eck ~ __-- _.~-- ~~~y Suajett REVISED 2/16/78 RULES ANa REGULATIONS FOR VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONERS AND PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION Each applicant must be at least 18 years of age and a registered voter within, as well as a resident of, the Town of Vail. Each applicant should have had residency within Eagle county for at least one year. A point-ranking system may be used by the Planning Commission during personal interviews by which they will evaluate each applicant. The names} of the applicant(s) who are qualified will be forwarded to the Town Council for final appointment. TERMS AND OFFICERS FOR THE PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Each Commissioner will serve a four-year term, in accordance with the Town Charter. Tf a Commissioner decides to resign before his/her term is up, he/she should give at least one month's notice in order to allow the Town staff time to publish notice of the vacancy and arrange for personal interviews for a replacement. The Planning Commission officers will consist of a chairman and a vice- chairman elected by the members of the Commission. The terms of these officers will be one year. SUMMRRY OF DUTIES FOR THE PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION) Upon appointment, a Commissioner will be supplied with the following documents by the Town staff, and should study and understand them: 1.) The Zoning Ordinnaoe 2.) The Town Charter 3.) The Vail Comprehensive 4.) Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations Additional duties are: 1.) Act as the Environmental Commission 2.) Act on variances and conditional use permits in accord with the Zoning Ordinance. 3.) Act on subdivisons and resubdivisions in accord with the Subdivision Regulations. 4.) Review and comment on County & State zoning & planning problems and issues. 5.) Consider street plans and recreation areas and Capital Improvement projects where applicable. 6.) Approve funding for Public/Private Joint Venture Capital Improvement projects. 7.) Understand parking, traffic and pedestrian problems and flow. 8.) Understand community and land use planning matters. ~~ MEETING TIMES, PLACE AND PROTOCOL Planning Commission will meet the second and fourth Tuesday of every month Page 2 at 1:00 P.M. for work session and 3:00 P.M. for Public Hearing unless otherwise notified, in the Municipal Building. The format for each official application will be as follows: 1.) Introduction by staff 2.) Applicant's statement 3.) Staff recommendatian 4.) Applicant's comments to the staff recommendatian & comments 5.) Comments from the general public 6.) Planning Commissioner's questions to the applicant and/or staff 7.) Vote Tf the Planning Commission feels that insufficient information has been submitted, the Chairperson may direct either the staff and/or the applicant to submit additional information. Special work may also be requested by the Chairperson of the staff and/or applicant. QuoRUM Four members present from the seven member board will constitute a quorum. The majority of the members present and qualified to vote will constitute a decision. Abstention votes will not be counted as either affirmative or negative. A Commissioner must vote unless a conflict of interest exists. ABSENTEE POLICY A Commissioner unable to attend a scheduled meeting should notify the Community Development Department. If a Commissioner is consistently absent from meetings, it is the duty of the Chairperson to speak to that individual. SPECIAL COMMITTEES One Commissioner wil] serve, as a voting member, on the Design Review Board fora six month period. One Commissioner, as determined by the Chairperson, will be present for the Council work sessions and meetings to represent the Commission's view on al'_ applications related to Planning Commission recommendations. Special committees can be created at the ins':igation of the Chairperson with the approval of the Board. Commissioners to attend "special committees"' will be appointed by the Chairperson. AGENDAS The agendas will be published one week in advance of the scheduled meetings, in order to give adegf,aate public notice and to allow the Commissioners time to consider an application in advance. The staff will mail memos and materials prior to a meeting. '~ A minimum of two joint meetings a year with the Planning Commission and Town Council will ke held to discuss general planning matters and philosophies. . MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: March 10, 1978 Re: Proposed Zoning Amendments Commercial Core IT (CC2) District. 18.26.070 Setbacks The minimum front setback shall be 10 feet, the minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback sha11 be 10 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional front, side, and rear setback shall be required for each 3 feet of building height over 15 feet. A maximum of 50 percent of the length of any wall fronting an established pedestrian ma11 may encroach into a required front or side setback provided that the portion of the structure encroaching on the setback is no more than l5 feet in height. 18.25.150 Parking and Loading Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 for accommodation units, dwelling units, professional and business offices, theaters, and any use listed as a conditional use. • 600 square feet q00% financing EPiPLOYEE HOUSING LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO ASSUP4PTIONS: 80 units 600 square feet, 2 bedroom, 7 bath each 1,296 square feet laundry and recreation facility 100% financing at 9% 30 years Total square footage: 48,000 units 1,296 7a.undry and recreation 49,296 COSTS: Direct Costs 49,296 square feet @ $28.00/sq. ft. $1,380,000 Indirect Costs Architectural and engineering fees @ 4% 55,200 Loan fees and interest during construction 2% fee 38,000 6 months @ fu11 loan @ 12% 57,000 Carrying costs on ground (9 months @ 10%) 16,500 Miscellaneous fees 5,000 Site work 50,000 Landscaping 50,000 Developer overhead @ 6% 82,800 Contingency 37,200 $ 391,700 LAND COSTS: 80 units @ $1,600 per unit 128,000 TOTAL COSTS: (Cost per unit $23,750) $1,899,700 Rounded to: $1,900,000 100% MORTGAGE COSTS: 9% - 30 years = $15,287 month/$183,454/year n -_J • EP1pL0YEE HOUSING LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO BREAK EVEN ANALYSIS :~ Operating Expenses: Real Estate Taxes {$35.00/sq. ft. X .22 X .9403) Insurance utllltie5 Repairs and Maintenance Resident Manager Bookkeeping Supplies and Sundries Reserves for Replacement Trash Removal ($5.00/unit/month} Snow Removal Landscaping and Grounds Paintenance P1iscellaneous TOTAL ($132.00/month/unit) Mortgage Cast: (100% Financing} ($191.10/month/unit) TOTAL C05T ($323.00/month/unit - $161.50 per person/month) 600 square feet 100% fi nand ncr $34,753 2,100 43,190 ~ , aoo 12,000 1 ,800 1 , 600 6,000 4,800 4,500 7,500 2,500 $126,743 183,454 $310,197 Based on these assumptions each apartment would rent for: $310,117 = $323.00 per month $161.50 per person EMPLOYEE HOUSING LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO LIVING ROOM AND DINING ROOI1 One oak 36 X 36 square dining roor~ table Four oak chairs One swag lamp One Yellowstone sofa One Yellowstone chair One end table One rectangular coffee table Two pictures One lamp BEDROOP9 Two pictures Two night stands Two double headboards Two double mattresses and box springs with frames Two three drawer chests Two mirrors Two lamps TOTAL CAST = $7200 per unit with a minimum of 80 units ($20 per unit per month) AGENDA PLANNING COMMTSSTQN March 2$, 1978 Work Session 1:00 P,M, {Joint Session Town Council and Planning Commission) ~~ ~-. 1.) Discussion of employee housing generally and as 1~'"~J` proposed on Lots 1-5, Block C, Lionsridge Filing No, 1. 2.) Discussion of traffic flaw on Gore Creek Drive from Gore Creek Plaza driveway to Checkpoint Charlie. Public Hearing 3:00 P.M, l.) Sam Cook, represented by Pierce, Brines & Fitzhugh Scott, request fax Gross Residential Floor Area Variance to allow addition to non-conforming residence on Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. 2.) Town of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow multi-purpose structure to cover existing ice • skating rink located on Lot 5, Block 1, Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail LionsHead 2nd Filing 3.) Lionsridge Ltd. - Request to rezone Lats 1-5, re- subdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing Na. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Muitiple- Family {MDMF) - Motion to postpone. 4.) Approval of Minutes of March Id, 1978. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSI01~ March 28, 1978 3100 P,M, Members Present; Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Pam Garton Gerry White Roger Tit kemeier Ron Todd Staff Present: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Sam Cook, represented by Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh ~cott~ request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance to allow addition to nonconforming residence on Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing, The first item on the agenda was a request for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA} variance to allow an addition to a non-conforming residence on Lot 2, Block b, Vail Village 7th Filing by Sam Cook represented by Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh Scott, Architects. Mrs Briner introduced Mr. Sam Cook to the Commission as the purchaser of the home previously owned by Betty Seibert. He advised the Commission that they had spoken to neighbors in the vicinity of the house about the plans for the bedroom, and that the neighbors did not find it offensive to them. He then showed the drawings to the Commissian for their review, He explained the problem as that due to the size of the family members, the bedroom is now too cramped to be comfortable. The plan is to utilize some of the attic space to increase the ceiling height and to build an adjoining bath to the bedroom by building over the existing stairwell. They are asking for 111 sq, ft. greater GRFA. This is a family residence and no part of it is for rental. In answer to a question, Diana Toughill explained that this would have conformed before the changes made in the Zoning Ordinance approximately a year ago, Ron Todd questioned the figures given in the memo, Diana Toughill will check on this. Mr. Cook then addressed the Commission, He explained the interior of the house as to the existing bedrooms; there are 3 bedrooms on the ground level, the master bedroom is on the first floor and the only ful1size bedroom in the house. He explained that the bedroom planned for expansion has an extremely Tow ceiling and needs to be made habitable for adults. He feels that he is really trying to bring this bedroom up to code, as it is not comfortably habitable in its present state, He a7 so advised the Commissian that he is not building an additional bedroom, but just adding space to the existing bedroom within the structure. Roger Tiikemeier feels that this is a practical solution to a practical problem and made a Motion to approve, Ron Todd agreed, and seconded. . Gerry White feels that this would be a dangerous precedent and he agrees with the staff recommendation against granting this request , Sandy Mills has much the same feeling, she stated that this request is similar to the request from Dick Elias that was turned down by the Commission. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION . MINUTES - 3/28/7$ Ron Todd feels that it is fair to ask for the height add~t~on to the ceiling in the bedroom, and he doesn't feel that this would be setting a precedent, FEe added that this would be improving on what is already there, and it will not add people as is mentioned in the staff memo, He added that the height of the ceiling could be a hardship relative to the stature of the family, Pam Garton asked about the Antlers addition of 80 sq. ft. GRFA, Diana Toughill referenced the request to enclosing balconies in Sandstone that would add additional GRFA to enlarge dining room space and not add additional people and was turned down by the Commission, Pam Garton agrees with the staff and addressed the fact that there is no technical basis within the Ordinance to allow this GRFA additian9 especially when reviewing other requests that have been turned down by the Gommission, Ed Draper felt that perhaps Mr. Tilkemeier was not aware of the ramifications regarding approval of this plan, and read from the memo the consideration of factors, Mr. Tilkemeier stated that he would amend the Motion for approval to state that this addition would resolve an illegal structure and that their application will allow the structure to meet code, Ran Todd again seconded this amended Motion. Gerry White feels there are problems with many other buildings in Vail that don't meet code, and that approval of this application would not correct these problems, Roger Tilkemeier reiterated that he feels their application is a reasonable solution. Sandy Mi11s, again mentioned the Antlers example on space already constructed -- feels that people could do things illegally and then come in fora variance, Ron Todd doesn't feel this is the same type of case at aTl, Mr, Cook again took the floor to address the Commission, He does not feel this application would set a precedent, he only wants to bring this room up to code for healthful habitation. He feels the request is very reasonable and that this in no way is a violation. The Eiias case, as he is acquainted with it, is not relevant; and neither are the balconies and loft areas as discussed by Commission members, Roger Tilkemeier agrees with Mr, Cook and maintains the Motion to approve the request for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) Variance to allow the addition to a non-conforming residence on Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. The vote tallied with Roger Tilkemeier and Ron Todd far approval, Ron Todd seconding the Motion made above, Ed Draper, Sandy Mills, Pam Garton and Gerry White voted against approval, This requests by vote, is disapproved, Town of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow multi-purpose structure to cover existing ice skatlnq rink located on Lot 5, Block 1, Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail LionsHead 2nd Filing, Page 3 • PLANNTNG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3/28/78 The second item an the agenda is a request by the Tawn of Vail for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a multi~~purpose structure to cover the existing ice rink (John A. Dobson Arena) to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail LionsNead 2nd Filing. The Commission had received the memo from staff covering the criteria and findings in regard to this request, Ed Drager asked for a presentation by Pat Dodson, Recreatiana7 Director far the Town of Vail so that it would be on the record. Mr. Dodson made his presentation to the Commissions he added that the decision had been made not to move the Teen Center as had been discussed at a previous meeting. Jim Clark and Jack Barr attended the meeting as representatives of Vail Associates, inc. Terrell J, Minger Town Manager was also in attendance. V,A,'s representatives stated that adjustment of the berms on the eastern end of the day skier lot could provide a drop~off paint for the arena, however, they cannot allow any impact on the parking spaces in the lot. They have to maintain the Forest Service count on parking spaces within the lot. They also want the Town of Vail to take care of the snow removal problems that will occur with constriction of this dropToff at the ice rink, Gerry White asked whether the parking lot could be deeded to the Town of Vail for future structured parking that could bring it up to standard for the Forest Service and be ample for rink parking as well. Roger Tilkemeier stated that the Town of Vail will have to have a . pack-up plan for parking within the agreement with Vail Associates. He feels the Town will have to agree to provide more parking if neededo The Vail Associates representatives (Mr, Barr and Mr. Clark} stated that Vail Associates will approve the Town's plans contingent upon use of the skier parking after 5 P.M., and until and up to midnight, at which time the snow removal has to begin, Terry Minger stated that the ice rink will benefit both Vail Associates and the Town. He stressed that the overall parking has to be studied and this should be monitored far the future, However, he is against the Town being pushed into a box on the parking matter. He feels any increased parking capability should nit be ill thought out and that a parking study should be put together by this fall, Gerry White agreed that it would be possible for an over-commitment on parking; and a1sa to be under committed. The V,A, representative stated that the skier demand has gotten to the point where the LionsHead Parking Lot is insufficient as it is, Ron Todd asked about the feasibility of having the road at the rink a one~way street and park cars along it under a controlled situation, Terry Minger agreed that this plan could be used, Mr, Minger then advised the Commissian that he would do three things relative to the questions on parking around the arena, • 1,} That the plan as proposed for a drop-off area will be carried out, the adjustments to the berms and moving the roadway 2,} Develop a Community wide Parking Plan for the fall of this year, Page 4 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3/28/78 3.) Consider structured parking for the future. Pam Garton does feel that the interim solution of using the road for parking, making the road one~way and having control over the parking there should be implemented. Allen Gerstenberger also advised the Commission and those in attendance that the Town and Vail Associates are providing additional parking spaces in other areas of Vail to take the pressure off the LionsHead lot, He reminded the Commission that controlled parking on the frontage road is allowed by the Town on peak days now, Gerry White made the Motion to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit to allow the multi-purpose structure to cover the existing ice skating rink (Jahn A. Dobson Arena} located on Lot 5, Block Ta Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail LionsHead 2nd Filing contingent on discussion in Commission meetings, and on the information from the memoranda by the Town of Vail staff and the letter from Vail Associates, Inc. Ron Todd seconded the Motion and the Commission voted approval unanimously with Roger Tilkemeier abstaining because of a conflict of interests Lionsridge Ltd. ~ Request to rezone Lots 1 - 5, resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multiple- . Family (MDMF) - Motion to postpone, The third item on the agenda is the request to rezone Lots 1~5, re- subdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC} to Medium Density Multiple-Fami]y (MDMF}asking fora Motion to postpone, Mr. Sibert of Shelter Investments Co „ advised the Commission that he has a new proposal, Postponement of the Motion for approval was discussed, The Commission advised that they need staff recommendation before they can vote, Ron Landek, Attorney for Lionsridge Ltd,, advised the Commission that he is fearful that discussion regarding the employee housing will take so much time as to take them out of this building season. It is offered that a portion of the land will be held for the employee housing once ail legal problemsa financing; etc., can be worked out. They are requesting 80 for sale units, with the 80 employee housing units to be constructed as defined by Town of Vail, Alarming Commission and Town Council and the western-most 4 acres of the site will be held open for these employee housing units, They will agree to construct these units when asked by the Town of Vail, and understand they are subject to the restrictions imposed by the Town, Ed Drager asked what protection the Town will have that they wi17 get the employee housing as proposed. Diana Toughill interjected that the Building • Permits for the proposed additional density could be withheld until the Town is satisfied that the employee housing will be or had been built, Ron Todd also asked for the rock fa71 studies,, feeling there may be a possibility that the 4 acres are unbuildable. Page 5 PLANNIN& COMMiSSIDN MINUTES ~ 3/28/78 A new site plan was presented to the Gommissian asking for the maximum 80/80, and they will sit down with staff for their recommendations. Ron Todd feels that an agreement should come before any approval in regard to all the legal ramifications. Tony Sibert stated that if there is no agreement on employee housing, they will build 6T units because the Building Permits could be withheld on the rest {l9 additional units). Diana ToughiT7 stated that the existing property lines will have to be vacated to bring it to one parcel prior to the issuance of any Building Permit or Zoning approval, Mr, Landek stated that this proposal gives the Town time to react by setting the acreage aside and that he feels an agreement can be put together for everyone's protection. Ron Todd stated that he feels the density is appropriate, however, the legal problems must be worked out ahead of any agreement. Mr. Todd asked about the conformance with the proposed Hazard Ordinance, Diana Toughill stated that she hasn`t had an accurate enough site plan to check for conformance, She has looked it over on a general basis and very little of the site appears to be over 40/ slope, and she also wants a copy of the rock fall study to check, Rick Tofel is to present this report to the staff and the Commission for their review. • Tony Sibert advised the Commission that the plan is to build 26 to 30 units this year under the first phase, and that they are a year away from Phase II. Arlen Gerstenberger questioned whether they could go ahead without the rezoning? P4r. Landek stated that the purchase agreement is conditional upon the rezoning. If there are 61 units only, this will mean marketing changes; they would have to build luxury townhouses and the site plan would change too, Mr. Gerstenberger feels that they are gambling on the employee housing and additional units in any case; He feels the legal tech- nicalities are important and that it is important to get together with Larry Rider, Town Attorney. Tony Sibert stated that they can't work out the employee housing until policy decisions are made by the Council/Town of Vail, and that this could be a year away. He feels that with today's proposal approved, this would work well within their time-frame, Pam Garton asked whether the open space {the ~-acres set aside) would be worth the trade-off. She feels this is an important consideration and must be answered and she really doesn't feel this decision can be made quickly, Gerry White made the Motion to postpone the request to rezone Lots 1-5, resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multiple-Family {MDMF) until the meeting to be held in two weeks (April 11, 1978). Ron Todd seconded the Motion, the . Commission voted unanimously to postpone. Approval of Minutes of March l4, 1978° The next item on the agenda, approval of the Minutes of March 14, 1978. Page 6 PLANNING COMMI5SION . MINUTES ~ 3/28/78 Sandy Mills disagreed with the recorder's interpretation in paragraph 3, pertaining to the "576 sqe ft,s with storage' ands "there will be tennis courts available to both the condominiums and the employee housing units." There was no further discussion on the Minutest Gerry White made the Motion to approve the Minutes as recorded, Sandy Mills seconded the Motion, the Commission unanimously approved the Minutes with Pam Garton abstaining, Meeting adjourned at 5:23 P,M. • U March. 2.0, 1978 Mr. Allen Gersteriberger Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Allen: Before making a request to the Planning Comm.issan for a joint venture program, T would like to get a' reaction of the members to a change in the traffic flow on Gore Creek Drive. The Sitzmark Lodge has approximately 25 parking spaces inside the traffic control gate, the Gore Creek Plaza Building about 5. Both.' buildings use the same driveway. At th.e present time, cars from these buildings must drive east on Gore Creeks. Drive across Bridge. Street to Gore Creek Road, then. west on the Frontage Road. Besides Sitzmark guests, our service vehicles make many trips a day over this route. This arrangement would seem to defeat the purpose of the pedestrian area since it creates, more traffic and pollution in the heart of the Village, especially at the Bridge Street intersection. I would like to suggest that Gore Creek Drive be made two way at least from th.e Sitzmark-Gore Creek Plaza driveway, and n.ot more. than from Bridge Street. Since west-baund cars need not be controlled by a gate, the posts extending to the north of the gate house would be removed. T would suggest a new, more attractive gate house, a little to the south of the current one. Since only one arm of the gate is currently used, there is plenty of room to th.e south.. The brick wa11 extending from the Sitzmark Lodge into the stxeet has been sinking for the last few years. This winter it was hit by one of the Town snowplows and must be rebu~.lt. Before doing so, I recommend that the area be looked at in terms of long-range design. I also recommend that a lirni.ted two-way traffic pattern be implemented for this. summer and that we work together toward a long-range plan for the area. . Sincerely, YearAroundResorttodging Ro ert F. FritCli P, O. Box607 • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-5001 Owner ~~ Sitzmark Lodge MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 24 MARCH 1978 RE Sam Cook Application for GRFA Variance Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing The applicant, Pierce, Griner & Fitzhugh Scott, representing Sam Cook, has requested a grass residential floor area (GRFA} variance to correct existing uninhabitable storage of 8l sq. ft. and to add 30 sq. ft. to provide a bedroom area 111 sq. ft. Existing residence is non-conforming under the current Zoning Ordinance. The lot area is 19,352 sq. ft., allowable GRFA is 4,185 sq. ft., existing residence is 4,33$ sq. ft. The structure with the proposed addition is 264 sq. ft. in excess of permitted density. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (Section 18.62.060) 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 ar 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 extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA requirement, we da feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional 330 sq, ft., would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by approximately 6.3%. No other GRFA variances have been granted in the area. Dick Elias was denied a similar variance last year. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities: . An additional bedroom would provide the possibility of housing one or more additional people. This in itself does not seem significant, however, multiplied by the number of units in the Valley could be a substantial number of additional people. • Page 2. MEMO - Sam Cook Application for GRFA Variance Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing 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 Ttem l., under Consideration 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 golf course area are at or over the maximum GRFA. 3. That the variance is warranted for the fallowing reasons: (c} the strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant or 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. We also feel that there has been no hardship shown in the request. MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 23 March 1978 RE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ICE ARENA/MULTI USE FACILITY The Public Use Zone District requires the Town o£ Vail to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for public recreation facilities. Development standards and parking requirements are to be established by the Planning Commission and Council. The proposed multi-use/ice facility is to be xocated on Lot 5, Block 2, a Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail LionsHead, Second Filing, which is 2.710 acres. Building dimensions are 160'X225' above grade and 160'X300` below grade and average height to peak of xoof is 37.5'; seating capacity is proposed to be 850 people; if floor seating is provided, an additional 1,000 people can be seated. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: (1) Relationship and impact of the use an development objectives of the Town. (2) Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. (3) Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. (4) Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. (5) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. (6) The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Article 16 of this Ordinance. . Page 2. MEMO - Conditional Use Permit for Tce Rink Multi-Use Facility One of the major objectives of the Town has been to physically link the Village and LionsHead. We feel a multi-use ice rink will help achieve this goal. Another goal that has been expressed by the Citizens Goals Committee and the Town as a whale, is to provide more year round activities and winter activities to supplement skiing. The proposed structure is also designed for limited use far concerts, conventions, trade fairs, etc. The proposed facility is located on the bus route between the Village and LionsHead. A major event could create a greater transportation demand, but we feel this could be adequately accommodated as evening hours are the least busy on the Town bus system. Parking is not provided on the site; however, the East Day Skier Parking Lot which is under-utilized at night, is directly adjacent to the facility. The Town and Vail Associates are working together to provide adequate parking for the facility. If parking becomes a problem in the future, the Town wi11 have to address alternatives. The pedestrian over-pass should provide • same relief from traffic congestion. Transportation and parking constraint dictate that major events be scheduled in the evening hours only during the ski season. Proposed design of the structure is sensitive to pedestrian safety and convenience. The pedestrian entrance to the facility is from the east and vehicle access limited to shuttle buses only. A turn-around and drop-off has been provided on the west side of the proposed facility which should minimize vehicular congestion; to further decrease traffic problems and in- crease pedestrian safety, the Town has proposed to realign East LionsHead Circle and parking lot circulation. The neighborhood within which the proposed facility is located is of a mixed character consisting of hotel, hospital, condominium and residential uses. We do not feel the facility will have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. The proposed design recognizes that the required structure is a large one, and has made every attempt to minimize the apparent bulk and height of the building. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: (l) 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. Page 3 MEMO - Conditional Use Permit for Tce Rink Multi-Use Facility (2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ox 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. Based on the criteria and findings, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with development standards as indicated in the proposed plans prepared by Everett/~eigel Associates. r1 U REVISED AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, ].978 WORK SESSION: 1:00 P.M. l.} Jaint Sessa.on with Town Council Ref: Employee Housing Task Force Report PUBLIC I-IEARING: 3:00 P.M, I.) ABC School - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow Private School in an Agricultural Zone District, 2,) Lot 4, Vaal Meadows, Filing No. 1, Thomas Weber request for Resubdivision and Variance from Minimum Lot Size. 3.) Vail Village Inn Building V Remodel ~ Request for approval for temporary amendment to Special Development D~.strict. 4.) Laonsridge Ltd. ~ Request to rezone Lots 1~5, Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. i from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multiple-Family (MDMF) 5.} Vail Guides, Inc. _ Request for amendment to Printery Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of west portion of building for business office, MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 71, i9~8 Members Present: Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mi71s Pam Garton Gerry White Scott Hopman Roger Tilkemeier Ron Todd Staff Members: Diana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger Lot 4, Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1: Thomas Weber request for Resubdivision and Variance from Minimum Lot Size. Ed Drager brought the meeting to order at 3:00 P.i~., the first item on the Agenda was the ABC School, the representatives were not present, so the second item on the agenda was introduced. This was a request for resubdivision and variance from minimum lot size on a portion of Lot 4, Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1. Mr. Roger Hyatt, the potential buyer of one-half of the du p1 ex on this lot addressed the Commission. He explained that this request for a variance is made because he is seeking Veterans Administration financing for the purchase of one-half of this duplex. Diana Toughill then explained the property's location on the map. Mr. Hyatt stated that U.A. required i00% security by the owner which means that he has to own the land as well as the building necessitating the lot being divided in ha]f. He further explained to the Commission that he has invested his money in a business in the Town of Vail and needs the V.A. financing to purchase his home. Diana Toughill then explained to the Commission that the lat in question is now a non-conforming lot and that the creation of tiny lots has never been approved by the Town, There is the danger that dividing a duplex lot, additional units could be added; and even with a plat restriction it would be hard to enforce. She added there could be conditions on the variance, but not far the subdivision. Sandy Mills asked about the variance given to John Mueller. Diana Toughill answered that the variance was given, but the lots created by the resubdivision met the minimum lot size and there was a Deed restriction not allowing additional units. Gerry White stated that he feels this would be a dangerous precedent, especially since it is now a non-conforming lot. Sandy Mills asked whether a Deed restriction would work in this case? Diana Toughill answered yes, but that there could be legal problems and she would need to talk with Larry Rider, Vail Town Attorney. Ed Drager feels this request may also constitute "special favor." Roger Tilkemeier agrees that the Commission can't take the risk of dividing the lot and have someone who may buy the property in the future come in and build additional units, however, he also feels that the laws are inconsistent with discussions by the Employee Housing Task Force - - here is a man who needs this type of financing and needs to meet special Page 2. MINUTES . PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON 4/11/78 requirements and it can`t be granted because of the zoning regulations. Mr. Wyatt advised the Commission that the approval of his V.A. loan is contingent upon the outcome of these proceedings and the granting of the resubdivision and variance. Diana Toughill spoke with Larry Rider, Town Attorney, on this problem and he stated that creating more non-conformity where it already exists is totally against the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and he feels strongly that this request should not be granted. He added that there could be a Deed restriction with the Town being responsible for its enforcement, Gerry White made the Motion that the request for Resubdivision and Variance from Minimum Lot size for Lot ~, Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1 be denied. The vote was (4) members, Ed Draper, Pam Garton, Gerry White and Scott Hopman for the Motion; and, (2) members, Sandy Mills and Roger Tilkemeier voting against the Motion, Ron Todd abstained as he was late for the meeting and did not hear all discussion. Mr. Hyatt was advised that on denial this request automatically will go before the Town Council. The next item was a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a private school in an Agricultural Zone District for the ABC School. Bab Manzanares of the Town of Vail staff made the presentation . for ABC School. He went over the plans and explained why this site was chosen for the school. He stated that the building will house 5O children maximum, the school now has 20 children enrolled, The school will have a 15~year lease. Ed Draper asked why the ABC School is being supported by the Town of Vail; Bob Manzanares answered that it is being given support as a non profit organization. The site was explained as being 18 acres of which approximately 8,000 sq, ft. are buildable and useable. This site is located in the vicinity of the Mountain Bell Microwave Tower. Mr. Manzanares advised the Commission that there will be minimum disturbance to the site, and adequate parking can be supplied. The Town of Vail will provide the utilities, the ABC School will purchase the building and do the remodeling. They will pay the Town of Vail $1 a year for 15 years, at which time, the Town of Vail gains ownership of the building, It was further explained that the building being used is the former Western Federal Savings Building that had been located in West Vail, it will be moved to the site and there will be a basement under it. Roger Tilkemeier advised the Commission that the Employee Housing Task Force had discussed this site as being an ideal and prime location far employee housing and there may be a need to have access through that site in the future. It was discussed that the Day-Care Center could be incorporated into the project (employee housing units}, but the lease in question does not provide for this contingency. Could this be included without being detrimental • to the ABC School? Ed Draper stated that he felt that an amendment to the lease could be worked out. Page 3. MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COh1MTSSTON ~-/11/78 Bob Manzanares advised the Commission that there are certain requirements by the state for the size of playground space, and there probably would not be enough space for the emp}oyes housing. After further discussion a Motion was made by Pam Garton to approve the ABC School request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the private school in an Agricultural Zone District in accordance with the memorandum from staff dated April 10, 1978. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Motion was approved unanimously, Vail Village Inn Building No. 5 Remodel - Request for approval for temporary amendment to Special Development District No. 6. The third item on the agenda was Vail Village Inn Building Five remodel, a request for approval for temporary amendment to SOO (Special Development District) No. 6. The Commission was advised that any change in the development plan needs Planning Commission approval. Bill Ruoff representing the Vail Village Tnn explained to the Commission that this building will be the last building to come down, and that this is probably 8 tv l0 years in the future. They want to do some cosmetic changes on the building as to color, etc., so that it will relate to the new VVI buildings that have been built. The roof line will be changed with the addition of a gable, there will be stucco trim added, and these remodeling changes will allow the building to present a better face to the public. He also explained that 4 suites will be added, Joe Staufer addressed the Commission stating that he is very proud of the new VVI buildings and he wants to remodel this building so that it will blend in with the new architecture. Ron Todd made the Motion for approval of the request for temporary amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to remodel Vail Village Inn Building No. 5. Sandy Mills seconded this Motion and the Commission voted unanimously for approval, Lionsridge Ltd. - Request to rezone Lots 1~5, Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC} to Medium Density Multiple-Family (NOME). The next item is Lionsridge Ltd, request to rezone Lots 1-5, Black C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multiple- Family (NOME). Ran Landeck, attorney for Lionsridge Ltd „ had reviewed Larry Rider's opinion, and it was his hope that the issues have narrowed down enough for the Planning & Environmental Commission to vote on the proposal so that it can be brought to Council for their approval. Diana Toughil1 then advised the Comr~~ission that she has reviewed the Engineering Geologic Investigation done by Willard Owens Associates of Wheat Ridge, Colo., dated July 17, 1972. She read the Commission the conclusions from the report where they state that "they don't feel rock fall is a problem." Ron Landeck added that the County had accepted this report. • Ron Todd advised the Cammission that he has reviewed another geologic report for the immediate vicinity and there are discrepancies in the findings, however, he doesn't feel this should hold up their pro,~ect, but that it should be conditional upon a proportional reduction for normal slope and reductions from Page 4. MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION x/11/78 high hazard rock fall, and he also feels that a third geologist should be hired to do another study, Diana Toughill stated that the staff agrees with these conditions and others in Larry Rider's statements, After further discussion, Pam Garton asked whether this really is the best useage of this site, that perhaps by putting the 60 units on one end of the site would create an unbalanced look to the site, and do we really want to lock ourselves into site development that may not be ideal. The architect then questioned whether there would be that much reduction to the site as described by Ron Todd, Diana Toughill stated that anything over 40% slope and high hazard rack fall will be deducted from the buildable area and it reduces allowable GRFA and number of units. The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the request to rezone Lots 1-5, Block C, Liansridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density MultipleTFamily (NOME) subject to the following conditions: 1.) chat the employee housing units would be developed upon terms and conditions mutually acceptable to the Town and applicant, provided, however, that the applicant would receive no more than 60 Building Permits for construction of the condominium dwelling units unless and until such an agreement as to the employee housing units had been entered into with the Town of Vail; and, 2.) Conditional upon the proportional reduction of buildable land area from normal slope and high hazard rock fall; and, 3,} Conditional upon vacation of all lot lines. This Motion seconded by Roger Tilkemeier. The vote was (6) members in favor with (1) member, Sandy Mills, apposing. This Motion carried and they will now go before Council. Vail Guides, Inc. - Request for amendment to Printery Buildinq Conditional Use Permit to allow use of west portion of building for a business office. Chairman Drager had to leave to attend another meeting and Gerry White chaired the rest of the meeting of the Planning Commission. The next item on the agenda, Vail Guides, Inc., request for amendment to Printery Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of west portion of building for business office. Jim Rea, owner of Vail Guides, Inc., addressed the Commission and assured them that no vehicles will be stored on site, just spaces for his employees during the day, and a taxi will be parked there off and on between runs. He will have 2 to 3 employees possible, but most of the time there will be only one employee there using a parking space, Scott Nopman asked Mr, Rea where he was planning on parking his fleet; Mr, Rea answered that he doesn't really know at this time, he may be able to use Gold Peak going through Vail Associates, Inc, He added that the Sandstone Condominium Association has approved the use of the office space in the Printery Building. The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the request for amendment to the Printery Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of the west portion . of the building fora business office subject to the recommendations by the staff that no on site vehicle storage will be allowed, Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve, Page 5. MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 4J11/78 A Motion was then made by Sandy Mills to approve the Minutes of the March 28, 1978 meeting, seconded by Ron Todd and the Minutes were unanimously approved, Scott Hopman abstained. Meeting adjourned 4:40 P.M. • tows of rail box 100 department of community development nail, colarado 81657 (3031 476-5613 April 13, 1978 TO ALL MEMBERS OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Oear Commission Member: Please be advised that the Planning & Environmental Commission meeting scheduled for May 9, 1978 will be cancelled due to the fact that several members of the Commission will be out of town. The two items on the agenda: Casolar - Proposed Resubdivision and Variance for Minimum Lot Size; and Vail Associates, Inc. request for Conditional Use Permit for additional building to shop site; will be moved to May 23, 1978. Sincere , _~.~~--~ D'a a Toughill Zoning Administrator DT/gw MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DATE 10 Rpri1 1978 REF ABC School request for to allow Private School Site. pEVELOPMENT Conditional Use Permit in an Agricultural Zone - Mountain Bell Gail R. A11en, representing the ABC School, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Private School consisting of approximately 1,924 sq. ft. on the Mountain Bell site to be located just east of the existing Mountain Bell Microwave Tower Building. The Town Council has agreed to provide the site for the ABC School and will provide limited funding for the private, non-profit facility. Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect tv the proposed use: 1.) The relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. One of the Town's goals has been a permanent location for day-care facilities to meet the needs of the local population of Vail. This facility will partially fill that need. 2.) The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The site has the potential of supporting one additional private school which may be proposed at a future date. ~e foresee no adverse effects on any of the above items. 3.) 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. An adequate parking area has been provided for all employees in addition to parking and drop-aff areas for parents delivering and picking up their children from the school. Since the site is well removed from a heavy concentration of vehicles, pedestrian safety should not be a problem. 4.) Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed building is approximately 26 x 37, that is approximately one and one-half story above grade. The site is well hidden by large trees and colors are proposed to be compatible with the existing Mountain Be31 Microwave Tower located on the same site. 5.} Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. • The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: Page 2 ME~IaRAND~11~ PLANNTNG COMN~TSSI;QN q~/10/78 1.) That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title and the purposes of the District in which the site is located. The purpose statement of the Agricultural Zone District states; "Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open." 2.) That the proposed location of which it would be operated or to the public health, safety, to properties or improvements the use and the conditions under maintained wi11 not be detrimental or welfare, or materially injurious in the vicinity. 3.) That the proposed use wi11 comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. l.J The Department of Community Development recommends the approval of the Conditional else Permit for the ABC School. MEMORANDUM TO FROM DATE REE PLANNING C4MMISSTON QEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPh~ENT 10 April 1978 Proposed Resubdivision of Part of Lot 4, Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1; and Proposed Variance from the Minimum Lot Size Provision. Thomas P. Weber, representing the owners of the subject Lot, has proposed to subdivide a currently non conforming lot consisting of .306 acres or 13,329 sq. ft., into two separate interests. One parcel consisting of .142 acres, 6,1$5.52 sq. ft., and second parcel consisting of .164 acres or 7,143.84 sq. ft. Lot 4 is zoned two-family residential which requires a minimum lot size of 17,500 sq. ft. The applicant states that the resubdivision is necessary to obtain VA financing for the duplex that exists on the lot. Neither the Toning Ordinance nor the subdivision regulations allow for the creation of a non-conforming lot; however, the plat itself does contain a restriction prohibiting more dwelling units from being built upon either portion of the lot created. Before acting on a Variance Application the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested Variance: • 1.) The relationship of the requested Variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There exist a number of non-conforming lots that contain duplexes for which similar types of variances could be requested. 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 title without grant of special privilege. To my knowledge the Town of Vail has never approved a resubdivision of a residential lot which created non-conforming lots in terms of size; therefore, the approval of the variance could consititute a grant of special privilege. 3.) The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; we see no adverse effects on the above items. 4.) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. . The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting the variance: 1.} That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant Page 2 MEMORANDUM PLANNING CO~M~SSx~N 4/i0/78 of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same District. 2.} That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or elfare, or materially injurious to properties or improv ments in the vicinity. 3.} That the variance is warranted fo~ 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 p sisal hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b.} There are exceptional ar ex raordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c.} The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of this specified regulatio would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by ow ers of other properties in the same District. The Department of Community Develapme~t recommends disapproval of the resubdivision and requested variance o the basis that no physical hardship has been shown and that a very neative precedent could be set for the creation of non-conforming lots. ~ • ~o~n a~ ~ai~ ~" box 10Cf veil, coiorado 81557 {331 a7G-5613 MEMO office of the #t~wn attorney April 11, 1978 TO; ~ Planning Staff & Commission FROM:. harry Rider, Towxt Attorney SUBJFCZ`: Lions Ridge, Ltd. - ~ Rezoning Appli~cata.on I have discussed•with Ronald Landeck, the attorney ~'c~r Lions Ridge, Ltd., the proposal his cla.ents have made for the rezoning and development of Lots 1-5, resubdivision Block C, Town cif Vail. He has asked me to advise you as to those conversations and my opinion concerning their proposal. The principal issues arei i {1 ). Is the rezoning proper, i.e. is the existing zoning in exror or have circumstances substant~.a.lly changed that would justify the rezoning; and (2} Zf the property is rezoned, may the Town impose conditions on the rezoning? - The first .issue is one of fact to be determined: by you, and 1 will speak only to the second issue. The authc~tity to rezone conditionally has been debated for many years. In the l9?7 ~ Kings Mill H6meowners Association 'tr. WEStminster case., the Colo- rado Suz~reme Court held that a municipality. could conditionally ~ rezone. What they approved was a rezoning that. was adt~pted fol-. lowing proper hearings and findings but upon actopt~,on, the City ~ imposed certain conditions on the applicant.. Tdith that authc~.rity, ~ am of the opinion that if the i~lanniz~g Commissa~on and: Town Council find that the .property should be rezoned, conditions similar to those suggested. }ay the .applicant could be imposed.. ~ /sum • F #~ Hurnv F'e~m.r:ro~~ ~~[I CILU:L .\. ti.uuns Ito~nr.n.1, Lnxur:r,r: Gtl.~rer.ra I2. Gu.u~i H'. ~Tuarno-:f. Cr.otivrnrx P1;1\TDI~I~Tt):1, SAI3I~\N & LA1~'~al;t,It, I'.t~. .~T-fux~FSV~ :~~I) a;ol-~~sla.o(is nr f.n~~' S1'1Tli i 710 LIS(:OL\ ('d3\TEIi 16(10 LF\'[:0L\ ti f'12E1:1' 1)li\\'I:lt, (;OLO12>>1)() ti0°fi•F April ~, 1978 Lawre -ce C. Rider, Esq. l~iehy~~y, Rider & Wilson 2 X40 14th 5txeet, Suite i00 ulder, Colorado 80302 'F1iI,riPHgVli: f:10:3} i33fl• I ~O i GAtll.li :11)J}121:55: "C~li\ S 1H" r Re: Lion's Ridge, Ltd. - Rezoning Application Lots 1 -- 5, A Resubdivision of Block C, Town of Vail Dear Larry: Lion's Ridge, Ltd., has made application to the Town of Vail far a rezoning of the above-described property froTn Residential Cluster to Medium Density Multiple Family District. We believe that this request is reasonable in light of several factors including the substantially higher density zoned far neighboring property, the legislative history resulting in the establishment of the Residential Cluster Districlr and the unique topographical features of this site. Moreover, we are willing to place certain conditions upon the rezoning that will reault in a substantial public benefit`ta the Town of Vail. Specifically, we request that the eastern six acres of the subject property be zoned for 80 condominium dwelling units. and that the western four acres of the subject property be zoned for 80 employee housing units. Further, the employee housing units would be developed upon terms and conditions mutually acceptable to the Town and applicant, provided, however, that the applicant would receive no more than 60 building permits for construction of the condominium dwelling units unless and until such an agreement as to the employee housing units had been. entered into with the Tawn. As we discussed, we ask that you prepare a legal opinion for use by the Staff and Planning Commission in their review of our proposal. We meet with the Planning Commission an Apx'il 11, 1978, and will request a vote at that time on this rezoning. . Lawrence C. Rider, Esq. April 4, 1.978 Page Two ~f you have any questian,s regarding this matter; please contact me. . Sincerely, Ronald J. Land.eck RJL:sam bcc: Mr. Tony Seibert Mar. xchard M. To~e1. Mr~oy L. Valzke ~~IS . Diana Toughil.l. b w ~Er~o~ TO FROM DATE REF ANDUM PLANNTNG COMMTSSTON DEPARTMENT QF COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT TO April 1978 Vail Guides Tnc. Application to Amend Conditional Use Permit - Printery Building. Jim Rea has applied for an Amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit at the Printery Building. He proposes to use the western portion of the building as office space for Vail Guides, Tnc. Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: l.} Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The existing office space in the Printery Building does not seem to have a detrimental effect on the residential neighborhood. Use of the subject space as outlined in the letter of April 6, 1978, seems to be in keeping with other office uses in the building and with the residential character of the neighborhood. 2.} The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities, and public facilities needs, we foresee no adverse effects on these factors. 3.) 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.ap~licant states that each permanent employee {estimated 3 employees) will need a parking space during business hours, plus one parking space far a taxi cab also during business hours. As a condition of granting the Conditional Use Permit we strongly recommend that no storage of Vail Guides, Inc. vehicles be allowed on the site either during business hours or at night. 4,} The effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. See item no. 1 above. 5.) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. If mobile radios are to be used as part of the operation, visible antennae should not be allowed on the building. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit. 1.) That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the Page 2 ~~EMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION x/10/78 purposes of this title and the purposes of the District in which the site is located. See Item No. 1 under criteria and findings. 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 title. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with the provision that no on-site vehicle storage be allowed. IL GUIDES Iac. APRIL 6, 1918 •~ . VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION P,. O. SOX 186 VAIL, COLO 81657 DEAR MEMBERS: VAIL GUIDES, INC. WISHES TO APPLY TO AMNIEND THE CONDI7'IOIVAL USE PERMIT ON THE PRINTERY BUILDING IN THE LIONSRIbGE AREA SO AS TO PERMIT VAIL GUIDES, TNG. USE OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THAT-BUILDING AS OFFICE SPACE. VAIL GUIDES, INC., IS IN THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS ANb PROVIDES YEAR ROUND TAXI SERVICE IN VAIL AND TO ALL OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. TN ADDITION, IN THE SUMMER, V,4IL GUIDES OPERATES A SIGHT_SEEING AND TOUR BUSINESS, AND IN THE WINTER, A LTMOUSINE SERVICE BETWEEN VAIL AND DENVER STAPLETON AIRPORT. THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRINTERY BUILDING BY VAIL GUIDES, INC., WOUL[3~BE AS OFFICE USE ONLY. WE ANTICIPATE, DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF 'YEAR, ONE TO THREE, FULL TIME EMPLOYEES USING THE SPACE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. WE ANTICIPATE DURING CERTAIN PERIODS OF THE SUMMER. AND WINTER, THE OFFICE WOULD BE OCCUPIED FROM APPROXIMATELY 7:~~ A.M. UNTIL $:~~ P.M, IN SO FAR A5 PARKING IS CONCERNED WE ANTICIPATE THAT EACH. OF THE PERMANENT EMPLOYEES MAY f2EQUTRE PARKING SPACE DURING THE DAY, PLUS SPACE FOR PARKING O.NE TAXI CAB DURING THE DAY.. WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THE AREA-WOULD BE USED FOR GENERAL PARKING. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ThIE GENERAL STORAGE OF VEHICLES IS POSSIBLE IN THIS OR ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA WITHIN VAIL. IN SO FAR AS TRAFFIC TS CONCERNED, VIRTUALLY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF OUR RESERVATIONS. .ARE MADE BY TELEPHONE. WE DO NOT EXPECT OUR USE OF THIS SPACE TO ATTRACT SUBSTANTIAL, ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC T4 THE AREA. THERE WILL OF COURSE BE THE TRAFFIC NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ANY. OFFICE OPERATION. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM OR HARDSHIP FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA. Scenic Jeep Trips . Limousine Service Breakfast, Lunch Dinner Cookouts - Horseback Aiding . Fishing Elk Hunting Ski Gabbing P.Q. Sox 1474 • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303/476-5387 • PUC 10492 -PUC 7321 2 ON THURSDAY, APRIL 6, X978, I' MET WITH 7HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TF{E SANDSTONE 7I6 GONDOMI`NIUM ASSOCTATION, WHO VOTED TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE REQUEST. IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THAT OUR USE OF THE PRINTERY BUILDING CONSTITUTES AN ACCEPTABLE USE FOR THE SPACE.AND ASK THAT THE PRESENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE AMMENDED TO ALLOW US Tfl OCCUPY THE WEST PORTION OF THE BUILDING, RESPECTFULLY.YOURS~ AMES B. REA VATL GUIDES, INC. JBR/LH CC L~ • ~ ;~? ti; lowo of uaill~ box 100 nail, Colorado 81657 (303} 476-5673 Vail Planning Commission P. 4. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Dear Planning Commission members: office of the town manager April 3, 1978 John A. Dobson Arena development As we discussed in your public hearing on March 28, 1978, the 'Town of Vail will make the following commitments regard- ing the future development of the John A. Dobson Arena: 1) The Town will construct and maintain an automobile unloading zone immediately to the west of the Arena. We are working with Vail Associates to agree upon the final design. 2) We will prepare a comprehensive community- wide parking plan to be completed by November 1 of this year. Tt will address the problem of parking created by the Arena in addition to other community parking problems. 3) As a part of the parking plan, we will pro- pose an action program for solving same of the long- term community parking problems. 4) If in the interim, there is greater demand for parking than supply, w~ will permit parking along at least one side of East LionsHead Loop during busy winter periods. This will be handled administratively similar to the over-flow parking that is permitted on the Frontage Road on peak days, which involves coodina- tion between Vail Associates, the Vail Transportation Center staff, and the Police Department. T would like to express my appreciation to the Planning Commis- sion for the suggestions and very constructive comments that you offered throughout the review process. T am confident that Vail Planning Commission April 3 , 1.978 Page 2 • the final product wi11 represent the Vail image of quality and wi1.l be an asset to everyone in the community. Sincerely, ~''~ .+ ~",.~ ~' Terrell ~i .~.....nger Town Manager TJM/sjm • • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 25, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING 1:00 P.M. 1.) Public/Private Joint Venture Program - Consideration of Application for Town funding of capital improvements. 2.) Growth Monitoring Committee - Discussion of formal establishment. 3.) Hang Kong Cafe ~ Application for Parking Variance and Conditional Use Permit to allow greenhouse to cover existing patio. 4.) George R. Webster W Application for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance and Setback Variance in order to construct a two-family residence on Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. 5.) Zoning Amendments to give Planning & Environmental Commission final authority to approve Variances, Conditional Use Permits and various other planning matters, • C.} Zoning Amendments - Changes in Hazard Ordinance requested by Town Council. ?.) Vacation of easement and rededication - LionsHead 4th Filing Resubdivision Tract C and Lot $, Block 1, Vail/LionsHead 3rd Filing. • MEMO TO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROA1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 21 April 1978 REF Hazard Zoning Ordinance Amended Version #999 On April 18, the Council opened the public hearing on the Hazard Ordinance. They felt that we need more complete information on the geological hazards (rapid mass wasting) and requested the staff to hire another consultant to review these maps and technical reports, In the meantime, the provisions covering geological hazards have been removed from the ordinance. The restrictions proposed on existing residential lots were questioned by Jay Peterson, representing three owners of Potato Patch lots affected by the proposed ordinance. The Council generally agreed with his arguments and instructed the staff to redraft the slope restrictions on residential lots. These changes are reflected in the attached ordinance. • • ME~TO TO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEE3TAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 21 April 1978 REF Zoning Ordinance Amendments to give you POWER" Attached is the proposed ordinance changing the decision-making process for Variances, Conditional Use Permits, etc. Also included is a copy of the Code pages with changes reflected. If you have any changes or questions, please give me a call. Diana Toughill Zoning Administrator i• MEMORANDUM n U n TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 24 April 1978 REF Hong Kong Cafe request far Parking Variance in Lazier Arcade Building Application has been made by Thomas F. Gilbertson, Hong Kong Cafe for a 3-car Parking Variance in order to permit 722 sq. ft. addition to the existing Hong Cafe patio, net sq. ft. of 456 proposed for additional restaurant seating and bar. The floor plan submitted shows 18 seats plus bar area, Building Code would allow a maximum of 30 occupants, on which the parking requirement is based. The proposed greenhouse addition does not make the structure more non conforming in any other way. Based upon the proposed amendments for Commercial Care 1, the parking variance would not be required, but a Conditional Use Permit would be necessary for the addition. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (Section 18.62.060) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are several restaurants with open patios that could request similar permission to enclose existing patio area. The structure is directly adjacent to the Plaza area being acquired by the Town of Vail and should be studied in conjunction with both the Plaza landscaping and the Gondola I redevelopment proposed by Vail Associates. A number of Parking Variances have been granted in CC1 because of the desire of the Town to pedestrianize the area and implement the Mall Act. 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 would not allow the proposed building addition on the site. A number of parking variances have been granted in CC1 (Red Lions, Pension Isabel, Covered Bridge Store, Cyrano's, Slifer Bldg., Sheika's). Page 2. Memorandum Hong Kong Cafe 4--24-78 • The proposed amendment to CCl world not allow on-site parking but would require that parking be provided off-site or that money be contributed prior to issuance of a Building Permit to provide the public parking spaces necessary to serve the demand generated by the expansion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, dist~^ibution of .population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no adverse impacts with the exception of the possible additional demand for public parking. FINDxNGS The Planning Commission shall make the fallowing findings before granting a variance; 1. That the granting of the variance wall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See items 1 and 2 under consideration of factors. • Grant of the parking variance request is consistent with treatment of other sites in the area. 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. See General Comments relating to consideration of compatibility with the Town Playa and Gondola I redevelopment. We feel that Eldon Beck should review and comment on the proposal. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict ox literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty ox unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The proposed amendment would make the parking variance unnecessary. The Department of Community Development recommends approval. of the requested parking variance with the condition that the applicant meet the conditions of the proposed amendment to CCI. I~ L MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 21 April 1978 REF George R. Webster Application for GRFA Variance and Setback Variance _ Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing Bill Ruoff, representing the applicant, has applied for a GRFA Variance and Setback Variance to allow a new Primary/Secondary residence of approximately 8,142 sq. ft. The lot area is 23,478 sq. ft. plus a parcel containing 6,960 sq. ft. proposed for purchase from Vaal Associates; or a total of 30,438 sq. ft. of site area. Allowable GRFA for Lot 35 is 4,598 sq. ft. plus 674 sq. ft. of GRFA far the V.A. parcel, or a total of 5,271 sq. ft, allowable GRFA. Since the 6,960 sq. ft. parcel has not been purchased because of legal problems, the application will be considered using only the square footage of Lot 35. The applicant has also asked for a interpretation on GRFA. It is his feeling that the underground workshop, of approximately 600 sq. ft., should not be counted, and we are inclined to agree, But the Ordinance is not clear on this. For purposes of considering the GRFA Variance, it will be excluded, (the underground workshop of 600 sq. ft.)leaving a total of 7,542 sq. ft, of GRFA. Thus, the requested Variance is for 2,944 sq. ft. of additional floor area in excess of what is allowed. The primary house is 6,857 sq, ft., and the secondary unit is 685 sq. ft. The second request is far a rear Setback Variance; required Setback is 25' and proposed Setback is 6'. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided far in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code and our conclusions are as follows: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (section 18.62.060) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures iz~ the vicinity. i A. GRFA Variance. To my knowledge, there are no other residences of this size in the area. The requested Variance is to allow a residence that is approximately 3,000 sq. ft. larger than those in the neighborhood. Page 2. . Memorandum - Geo. Webster Application 4/21/78 B. Setback Variance. The plans for the proposed structure would have little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area as the nearest structure is across Forest Raad and set back from the front of the property. 2, The degree to which relief from the stx'ict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a.specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites .in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this Ordinance without grant of special privilege. LJ A. GRFA Variance. Due to the extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA requirement, we do feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional 2,944 sq. ft., would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by approximately 64~. No other GRFA variances have been granted in the area. Dick Elias was denied a GRFA Variance for the addition of 300 sq. ft., and two variances for less than 100 sq. ft. have also been denied. B. Setback Variance. One of the objectives, of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the environment, discourage excessive cuts or fills and preserve existing large trees. The proposed location of the residence is in keeping with this objective. The applicant states that the topography and the existing trees dictate the area available for building on the site and the structure has been, designed and sighted to minimize the site disturbance. The structure is designed to step up the hill and this adds to the height of the structure which increases the required setback. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. A. The proposed use of the house would not be detrimental to the above factors; however, other residences of this size that might be rented short-term could have a disasteraus impact on population in the Valley. B. Setback Variance. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. FINDINGS A. GRFA Variance . 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. Page 3. iViemorandum - Geo. Webster Application 4j21/'78 • 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 detri- mental to the public health, safety, or welfare ar materially injurious to properties ar improve-~ meets in the vicinity. See Item 1 under Consideration 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. 3. That the variance is waranted for the following reasons; The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant or 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. The house as proposed is over this requirement by approximately 640. We therefore feel that a 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 Grass Residential Floor Area Variance sought for the reasons stated above. We also feel there has been no hardship shown in the request. B, Setback Variance 1. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special. privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same District. 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. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: The strict ar literal interpretation and enforcement of the . specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, There are exceptional or extraordinary circtamstances or Page 4. Memorandum - Geo. Webster Application 4/21/78 conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do nat apply generally to ether properties in the same zone. We feel that it is important to preserve the existing large trees and minimize cuts required on steep sites and encourage the best siting possible. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Setback Variance. • 7801 Zoning Check Webster Residence ~ot 35, o-Black 7, gist Filing William J , Ruoff, AiA by Ken Wentworth Notes: 1. Includes 6960 sq. ft. parcel to the west to be purchased from V,A, 2, Building height calculated at 44 feet, all averaged from highest ridge. 3. Lot size: 30,438 sq. ft. Zone: Two family, Primary/Secondary (RP/5) Residential District. 13.020 Permitted Use: Two family residential dwellings. 13.030 Conditional Use: N/A 13,040 Accessory Use: Swimming pools, garages, patios, etc. 13.050 Lot Area and Site Dimensions: Required: 15,000 sq. ft, min. 30' frontage enclose $0' square Actual: 30,4?S -+ 350' easily 13,060 Setbacks: Front Rear Side Required: 20' 25' 45' Actua I: 17' 6' 8T 13.070 Distance Between Buildings Required: 35' Actual: 1b0', adjacent lot, 55' across Forest Road 13.0$0 Density Control: Maximum GRFA Allowed: 5,272 sq. ft. Actual GRFA: Living: b,215 sq. ft. Pool Area: (Minus ~~~ater) 1, 327 scl : ft. Underground workshop: ? ~,~,~, ,,~, ~ , r..•; ~* * Need variance on GRFA. '`~ ~ `~~'~ One unit shall not exceed 1/3 of allawed GRFA Allowed: 1756 sq. ft. Guest Apt .: 685 sq , ft . 13.090 Site Coverage: Maximum Allowed: b080 sq. ft. Actual : 3941 sq . ft , '~ Does not include portions of garage and workshop that are underground with landscape above. U • 13.100 Useable Open S Minimum Actual: Landscaping and Minimum Actual: Parking: Required: Actual: jtt' pace: Required: 700 sq . ft . , exclusive of front setback 20,440 sq, ft. Site Development: . Required: 18, 238 sq , ft . 25, 560 sq . ft . 4 spaces 7 spaces ~ 2 enclosed; 5 in driveway maintaining drive. thru.) a _~ ~ AGENDA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAY 23, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING - 1:30 p.m. 1. Casolar, Lots A-8 and A-9, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 - Proposed resubdivision and variance from minimum lot size to allow cluster development. 2. Vail Associates - Request For Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary building on existing shop site for storage. 3. Reinecke Construction - Application for setback variance to allow addition to existing garage located on lot ll, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Bighorn Estates. 4. Rob~!rt Voliter - Request far Gonditianal.Use Permit to allow nursery and landscape operation in Heavy Service zone Disirict. Subject property located just west of Texaco station on South Frontage Road. 5. Shapiro Construction - Request for variance to allow two buildings in excess of permitted wall length. Subject buildings to be located on Lat 26, Block 2 Vail Village 13th Filing. 6. Vai`E o ~ c ~ Re t ', iv ~~~~ se permit to allow private $~ i .. ~ic taro' one ' e 't 12, Block, 2, Vail V111age 12th Filing. R 7. Systems, Inc. -- Request for binding bulk variance to allow buildings in excess of permitted wall length. Subject buildings proposed to be located on Tract A, Bighorn Subdivision. &. Gordon Rowe - Request for Gross Residential F1oar Area and Distance Between ' buii1dings variance to allow addition to nonconforming building located on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. 9. Cyrano's - Request for parking variance to a11ow addition to existing patio. 10. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to require screening (fencing or landscaping) in a Heavy Service District. I44EMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 22 May 1978 REF Proposed Resubdivision of Lots S and 9, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 and Requested Variance from the Minimum Lot Size Requirement. Deane L. Knox representing Casolar del Norte, has requested a resubdivision of the subject lots which are non-conforming with the minimum lot size (10,000 sq. ft. required by Residential Cluster} in order to market 10 Townhouse sites of approximately 2,400 sq. ft. each with the balance of 2.73 acres to be held in common. The protective covenants define the general common elements and allot an undivided % interest to each site owner. We would recommend that the covenants be drafted and filed in such a manner that the general common elements remain so in perpetuity. The project, consisting of 18 units in duplex structures and one single-family, maximum, has received preliminary zoning approval; however, the units were to be condominiums or townhouses which would not require resubdivision. The applicant states that the request is due to problems with and recommendations from the lending institution, title company and legal counsel {see appli- cation). We feel the proposal. meets the intent of both the Sub- division Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, in that no additional units would be permitted and the project remains identical.to the approved plan. Article VII of -the Subdivision Regulations allows the Planning & Environmental Commission to vary design standards provided the granting of the variance, modification or waiver does not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the Regulations or the Land Use Master Plan. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance and resubdivision on the condition that the general common elements be so defined as to remain so in perpetuity. MEMORANDUM ~J TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 19, 1978 RE: VAIL ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMTT TO ERECT A TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE ANJ7 OFFICE FACILITY IN A HEAVY SERVICE ZONE DISTRICT. Vail Associates has applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to locate a temporary warehouse and office at the Vail Associates Maintenance Yard, which is located just west of Lionshead. The proposed facility is 70'x 120`, consisting of 6,S3C square feet of warehouse space and 1,564 square feet of office space. The length of the building without an offset will require a building bulk control variance for which application has been made. The purpose of the facility is to provide storage area for materials now being stored in a variety of "shacks" and • storage trailers scattered. about the site (see pictures) Four trailers and one "building" would be eliminated by the new facility. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS Upon review of "Criteria and Findings," the Department of Commun~.ty Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. At the time the Planning Commission granted the last conditional use permit for a "temporary" building, Vail Associates was requested to generally clean up this area. The new building goes a long way toward achieving this goal. • Page 2 Vail Associates request for Conditional Use Permit for temporary warehouse and office May 19, 197$ 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed site plan closes one existing entry into the yard thus making traffic somewhat safer on a dangerous corner. The proposed use has little or no impact on the development objectives or the other factors. ~. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located... in relation to surrounding uses. S The proposed building is compatible with surrounding structures and uses and we hope will improve aesthetics in the area by cleaning up the junk. We do recommend additional screening to hide the gas pumps, outside storage, etc., from the Frontage Road. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 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, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Page 3 Vail Associates request for Conditional • Use Permit for temporary warehouse and office May 19, 1978 3. That the proposed use wixl comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance except as noted that a building bulk control variance is necessary due to lack of one off-set in the 120` length. U MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTII~IENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 19, 1978 RE: BOB VOLITER REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RETAIL NURSERY IN A HEAVY SERVICE ZONE DISTRICT AND DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE. Bob Voliter has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail nursery to be located on an unplatted parcel just west of the Gore Valley Texaco. The proposal consists of a new 10'x 15' building to be used as storage, with the balance of the site to be used as storage area for nursery stack and packing. The Heavy Service Zane District does not specifically list • retail nurseries as conditional uses; however, Section 18.30.030 RS allows for determining (in accord with 18.66.040) that additional commercial services are similar to those allowed and may therefore be permitted without amending the ordinance. Two retail uses are listed - building materials supply stores and tire sales and service. Tn terms of similarity, a retail nursery would attract predominantly the same clientel as a building materials supply store and traffic characteristics would be similar. The proposed use has far less impact, both environmentally and aesthetically than almost every other use listed. We, therefore, feel that this can be determined as a similar use. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS Upon review of "Criteria and Findings`,'" the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2, Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and ather public facilities and public facilities needs. Page 2 Bob Voliter Use Permit request for Conditional for Retail Nursery ~~ay l9, 1975 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed use has little or no impact on the development objectives or the other factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located... in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed use is far more desirable than all of its neighbors, and'a~sthetically more pleasing to look at than all of the construction storage, trailer houses, etc., surrounding it. CRITERIA AND ~INDTNGS 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 wi11 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 based upon the determination of similar use. • T~IEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 19 May 1978 REQUEST FOR A BUTLDTNG BULK CONTROL VARIANCE REF SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION C0~1'IPANY (Bald Mountain Townhouse) Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing The applicant proposes to construct 16 townhouse units on 2.891 acres zoned Low Density Multiple-Family. The units are arranged in three structures, two in modules of ~ units each and one with four units. A wall length variance is necessary for the six-plex configuration. LDMF allows a maximum wall length of 1251. The applicant proposes a maximum wall length of 144'. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code 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 subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by greenbelt and on the fourth side by Interstate-70; one residential lot is adjacent to one corner of the lot. The plans for the proposed structure would have little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area as the longer walls face north and south out of the view corridor of the existing duplex on Lot 25, ti'Ualls are offset to minimize visual impact. 2. The degree to which the 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. As the Planning and Environmental Commission is probably aware, we have had technical problems with the building bulk regulations from their inception. To date, only one major project has been built in total conformance with these regulations . (Vail Professional Building) and every other multi-family or commercial building has required at least one bulk variance. Page 2 MEMO- Shapiro Construction Co. 5/19/78 . The applicant states that use of the site as proposed was recommended by both the geological and structural engineers and that original building size and placement was based upon a survey which proved to be incorrect; also cul de sac is not located as platted. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities arzd public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. FINDINGS 1. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See Item 2 above, also see applicant`s statement. 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. It is our feeling that a better site plan results from clustering the units as proposed as there is more useable open space and less visual impact from fewer resulting buildings and less asphalt. The proposal also requires Less substantial cuts and far less site disturbance. 3. That the variance is warranted for the fallowing reasons: a.) The strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b.) There axe 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 topography of the site together with consideration of views, sun and vegetation, dictate placement and orientation of buildings. Page 3 • MEMO Shapiro Construction Co. 5/19/78 The Department of Community Development recor~unends approval of the requested variance. MEMORANDUM L J TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 19, 1978 RE: C-K DEVELOPMENT, INC. (SYSTEMS, INC.) REQUEST FOR BUILDING SULK CONTROL VARIANCE PARCEL A, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION AND BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIRST ADDITION. The applicant proposes to construct 26 townhouse units on 4.~ acres zoned Residential Cluster. The units are arranged in modules of 4 units, each with a 2-car garage. A wall length and diagonal variance is necessary for the four-plex configuration. RC allows a maximum wall length of 1Q0' and a maximum diagonal (distance between any two corners) of 125'. The applicant proposes a maximum wall length of 116' and a maximum. diagonal of 127' The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code 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 subject parcel is bordered by Gore Creek an the south, U.S. Highway 6 on the north, and residential lots to the east and west. The plans for the proposed structure would have little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area as the longer walls face north and south and are offset to minimize visual impact. 2. The degree to which the relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatability and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. • Page 2 C-K Development, Inc. (Systems, Inc.) • Request for Building Bulk Control Variance May 19, 1978 As the Planning Commission is probably aware, we have had technical problems with the building bulk regulations from their inception. To date, only one major project has been built in total conformance with these regulations (Vail Professional Building) and every other multifamily or commercial building has required at least one bulk variance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do nat foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. FINDINGS 1. The Department of Community Develppme~t finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other . properties classified in the same district. ~~ See Item 2 above, also see applicants statement regarding size and configuration of units. 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, It is our feeling that a better site plan results from clustering the units in four-plea structures as there is more useable open space and less visual impact from fewer resulting buildings. 3. That the variances are warranted for the following reasons; a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unneccessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable • to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • Page 3 C-K Development, Inc. {Systems, Inc.) Request fox Building Bulk Control Variance May 19, 1978 The linear shape of the parcel and required setback from Gore Creek, together with consideration of views and sun dictate placement and orientation of buildings. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances. • • • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTr~iENT OF COMPJiUNITY DEVELOPIl~IENT DATE 19 May 1978 REF Cyrano's request for Parking Variance Cyrano's application has been made by Ross Davis, dr., representing the applicant for a 2-car Parking Variance in ordex to permit 330 sq. ft. addition to the existing Cyrano's patio, proposed for additional seating and waiting area. Building Code would allow a maximum of 22 occupants, on which the parking requirement is based. The proposed addition does not make the structure more non-conforming in any other way. Based upon the proposed amendments far Commercial Core 1, the parking variance would not be required, but a Conditional Use Permit would be necessary for the addition. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (Section 18.62.x60) • 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are several restaurants with open patios that could request similar permission to enclose existing patio area. A number of Parking Variances have been granted in CC1 because of the desire of the Town to pedestrianize the area and implement the Mall Act. The Hong Kong Cafe was recently granted a 3-car Parking Variance to allow covering of a patio. 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 toaatan the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Strict interpretation of the ordinance would not allow the proposed building addition on the site. A number of parking variances have been granted in CCl (Red Lion's, Pension Isabel, Cover Bridge Store, Slier Bldg., Sheika's and Hang Kong Cafe). ~~ Page 2. Memorandum Cyrano's 5/19/78 The proposed amendment to CCl would not allow on-site parking but would require that parking be provided off-site or that money be contributed prior to issuance of a Building Permit to provide the public parking spaces necessary to serve the demand generated by the expansion. 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 impacts with the exception of the possible additional demand for public parking. FINDINGS The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. i Granting the Parking Variance request is consistent with treatment of other sites in the area. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity. 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 proposed amendment would make the Parking Variance unnecessary. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested parking variance with the condition that the applicant meet the conditions of the proposed amendment to CCl. MEMORANDUM J TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 19, 1978 RE: ROWE GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR BIGHORN TERRACE UNIT LOCATED ON TRACT A, BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION. The applicants., Gordon and B.J. Rowe, have applied for a gross residential floor area variance of 473 square feet and a setback variance to allow 2'6" setback in lieu of the required 10 feet on the north side of the property. The proposed addition of 643 square feet consists of a new kitchen to replace existing kitchen which becomes a dining room, a family room, and an additional bedroom and bath. The lot which is zoned Medium Density Multi-family is 2,774 square feet allowing 970 square feet of GRFA. The existing unit is 800 square feet thus requiring a GRFA variance of 473 square feet, The requested variance is approximately 33% in excess of the permitted GRFA. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS {SECTION 19.600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. a. GRFA Variance One other GRFA variance far a Bighorn Terrace unit of 130 square feet was granted in 1977 to allow an exisiting porch to be covered. No other GRFA variance have been requested or granted in the Bighorn area. There are a number of the Bighorn Terrace units that added floor area prior to the annexation and as mane more that could request a similar variance. b. Setback Variance The proposed addition does not encroach on any other existing structures and there is sufficient separation between the addition and adjacent unit. • 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 Page 2 Rowe GRFA and Setback Variance for Bighorn Terrace unit ~~ay 19, 1978 of treatment among sites xn the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. a. GRFA Variance Due to the extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA requirement, we do feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional 643 square feet, would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by approximately 83%. No other GRFA variances of this magnitude have been granted in the area. Three variances for less than i00 square fett have been denied for expansion o~ multi-family units. b. Setback Variance The proposed setback is somewhat closer to the property line than the balance of the Bighorn Terrace units; however most are much closer together than the proposed addition is to its neighbor. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. a. GRFA Variance The proposed use of the increased not be detrimental to the above fact+ increases of this size that could be term could have a disasterous impact in the Valley if the total number of units is considered. b. Setback Variance space would ors; however, rented short- on population multi-family We foresee no adverse impacts on these factors. FINDINGS 1. That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified • in the same District. See Item 1 and 2 under Consideration of Factors. There has been one other GRFA variance granted in the Bighorn area. Page 3 Rowe GRFA and Setback Variance for Bighorn Texxace May 19, 1978 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 Ttem 1 and 2 under Consideration of Factors. Granting of this variance could set a negative precedent by allowing excessively large multi-family units to be built or allowing additions on units which already exceed or are very close to the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant or privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same District. Structures in the Bighorn Terrace subdivision generally are not in compliance with the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The unit as proposed, however, is over this requirement by approximately 33% while most of the other units • are very close. We therefore feel that a variance is not warranted and would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the area. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the Gross Residential Floor Area Variance sought for the reasons stated above. tide also feel there has been no hardship shown in the request. Sf the GRFA variance is denied, then the setback variance becomes a moot issue. • MEMORANDUhli TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 17, 1978 RE: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE dIM AND NANCY REINECKE LOT l~T, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, BIGHORN ESTATES The applicant has requested a setback of approximately $ feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 20 feet in order to construct a single-family residential unit, to be attached to an existing garage. The proposed residence fronts Nugget Lane and the corner is approximately 20 feet from the edge of the pavement. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The puns for the proposed structure would have little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area. The degree of which the relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatability and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. • Page 2 Request for Setback Variance Jim and Nancy Reinecke May 17, 1978 One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to U protect the environment, discourage excessive cuts or fills and preserve existing large trees. The praposed location of the residence is in keeping with this objective. The applicant states that the location of the existing garage which does not conform to the setback requirement and the existing large evergreen trees greatly restrict the area available for building on the site and the structure has been designed and sighted to eliminate the necessity to cut large trees. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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. That the variances warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incansistent with the objectives of this title. r 1 LJ Page 3 Request for Setback Variance Jim and Nancy Reinecke May 17, 1978 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 gone. The applicant states that moving the house bac~~ so that the corner does not proaect into the required front setback would result in the loss of very large evergreen trees. We feel that it is important to preserve the existing large trees. Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance. r~ • MTNUTES . PLANNING & ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSTON April 25, 197$ COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Gerry White Pam Garton Ron Todd Scott Hopman STAFF PRESENT: Da.ana Toughill Allen Gerstenberger The Minutes as recorded began with number 3 on the agenda, Hong Kong Cafe - Application for Parking Variance and Conditional Use Permit to allow greenhouse to cover existing patio. Tom Gilbertson was represe~ to the Commission the plans for patio. Diana Toughill told the is for a parking variance only, Permit as Council has not acted date. ~.tative for Hong Kong Cale, explaining a greenhouse cover over the existing Commission that this application rather than for a Conditional Use on the CCl amendments as of this Mr. Gilbertson advised the Commission that the neighborhood businesses do find favor with the plans for the cafe. Tt was further explained that the Town has an option on the land. The restaurant has a 15-year lease. Scott Hopman wondered about the other open patios that could make application for enclosure, Diana Toughill stated that they could all make application for this. Scott Hopman made the Motion to approve the application for Parking Variance to allow a greenhouse to cover the existing patio at the Hong Kong Cafe conditional upon the amendments to CCl when passed. Pam Garton seconded the Motion. The Commission voted 5 for approval, Sandy Mills opposing, the Motion is approved. This application will go to Council on May 2, 1978. The next item on the agenda, George R. Webster -- Application far Gross Residential Floor Area Variance and Setback Variance in order to construct a two-family, primary/seconday residence, Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. r ~ L~ MINUTES PEC - 4/25/78 Page 2 i Bill Ruoff was representative. The Commission discussed the memorandum by Diana Toughill, along with discussion on the land that Mr. Webster wants to purchase from Vail Associates to accommodate the larger residence that is planned, so far purchase of this Land has been held up by legal problems. Mr. Ruoff explained the, reasons for Mr. Webster's application, he also stressed that rebuilding the residence would alleviate the parking and access problems on Forest Road, the entrance will not be on Forest Road, but will face in a different direction. Mr. Ruoff then explained the interior space of the house. The Commission is very concerned with the additional GRFA and also that even with the purchase of the additional land from Vail Associates, the residence will far exceed the allowable GRFA. Motion was made by Gerry White for denial. of the application for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance in order to construct a two-family, primary/secondary residence on Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing based on the memorandum from the Department of Community Development of 21 April 1.978. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commissian voted unanimously to deny this application. A vote was called for the Setback Variance application, Diana Toughill feels these are separate issues and that even though the Commission has denied the application for additional GRFA, a vote should • be taken on the Setback Variance application. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve a rear Setback Variance in order to construct a two-family, primary/secondary residence on Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, in accordance with the plans as presented and filed with the Department of Community Development, this Motion seconded by Gerry White and unanimously approved by the Commission. This will go to Council on May 2, 1978. The Commission then decided to go to item number 7 on the agenda. Vacation of easement and rededication -- LionsHead 4th Filing Resub- division Tract C and Lot 8, Block 1, Vail/LionsHead 3rd Filing. It was explained to the Commission that this vacation of existing easement at the LionsHead Plaza Building will be 15 feet in width and will, convey new easement to agree with the new building plans as approved. The Motion was made by Pam Garton for approval of vacation and abandonment of easement and rededication -- LionsHead 4th Filing, Resubdivision of a portion of Tract C and a portion of Lot S, Block 1, Vail/LionsHead 3rd Filing. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously for approval., with Ran Todd abstaining due to a conflict of interest. The Commission went back to item number 5 on the agenda. Zoning Amendments to give Planning & Environmental Commission final authority to approve Variances, Conditional Use Permits and various --- other planning matters. MINUTES PEC - 4/25/78 Page 3 Scott Hopman moved to approve the Zon~.ng Amendments to give Planning & Environmental Comm~.ssx.an final authority to approve Variances, Conditional Use Permits and various other planning matters, Pam Garton seconded and the Commission voted unanimously for approval. Number 6 an the agenda, Zoning Amendments - Changes in Hazard Ordinance requested by the Tawn Council. The Commission has reviewed these changes and the Motion to approve was made by Gerry White, Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Zoning Amendment Chnages in the Hazard Ordinance as requested by the Town Council. Meeting adjourned. n U • • MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 23, 1978 1:30 P.M. Commission Members present: Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Pam Garton Gerry White Staff present: Diana Toughill A11en Gerstenberger The meeting was called to order with the first item on the agenda: Casolar, Lots A-S and A-9, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 -- Proposed resubdivision and variance from minimum lot size to allow cluster development. Hal Engstrom was present representing the developer. He explained the problem to the Commission and reassured them that the buildings will conform to the zoning. Diana Toughill further explained that the lending institutions and title company are requiring that the buyers have a specific interest in the land. She has requested that Article IX of the covenants be amended to contain a clause prohibiting increasing the number of units or reducing the common property. Sandy Mills asked whether there would be a continued compatibility of the buildings in the 5-year plan. Ed Drager feels the Commission will have to rely on the Design Review Board and their approvals. Diana Toughill stated that the covenants are very strong, with approval needed from an architecture control committee created in the covenants. The Commission feels that it should be required that the covenants not be changed without Town of Vail permission. Sandy Mills then asked about an individual asking for a variance. Diana Toughill answered that this is a possibility, but that they would still have to have permission from the other owners, developer and the Town of Vail. After further discussion, Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion for approval. of the variance from ~n~.~nimum lot size to allow cluster development for Casolar, Lots A-S and A-9, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, subject to the comments by the Department of Community Development and conditional on the amendment to the covenants prohibiting .increasing the number of units, or reducing the common property, and that Town of Vail be a co-enforcer of these provisions. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIQN Minutes - 5/23/78 Pg. 2 The second item on the agenda, Vail Associates - Request for Conditional Use Permit-to allo~r temporary building on existing shop site for storage. Phil Ordway of Vail Associates, Inc. was present to represent this request. He explained to the Commission that the building is a metal frame building with wood siding and will be used as a warehouse with some office space. He advised that this building will eliminate other shacks and trailers on the property and will enhance the appearance of the site. Mr. Ordway also explained that they will be coming to the June l3, 1978 meeting to request a variance for offset. He explained further that they will be closing off one of the entrances to the property which will achieve better safety on exit and entry to the property. Gerry White asked about their plans for screening the property. They answered that there will be no major earthwork done, but that the existing fence will be left in place and there will be additional landscaping and berming done. Mr. Ordway showed the Commission the drawings of the elevations and floor plans for the building. He asl~ed the Commission for their comments on the building bulk regarding the variance requested for offset, explaining • that the wall length will be 120 feet with no offset which is required for walls over 90 ft. in length. After discussion, Pam Garton made the Motion to approve Vail Associates, Inc. request for the Conditional Use Permit to allow a building on existing shop site for storage, leaving out the word "temporary" as requested by the Commission on discussion and according to the memorandum from the Department of Community Development. Gerry White seconded the Motion, the Commission voted unanimously for approval with Roger Tilkemeier abstaining because of conflict of interest. The next item on the agenda, Reinecke Construction application for setback variance to allow addition to existing garage located on Lot 7, Resubdivision Lots 10-11, Bighorn Estates. Mr. Jim Reinecke addressed the Commission, he showed the location of the building on the map and explained that he is selling his home, and the addition to the garage will provide him with his new home. The matter was discussed, and the Commission felt that the addition to the garage would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. Gerry White made the Motion for approval for a setback variance to allow addition to the existing garage located on Lot 7, Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates re- quested by Reinecke Construction, conditional upon the memorandum from the Department of Community Development. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously for approval. • C PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Minutes ~- 5/23/78 Pg. 3 Item number 4. Robert Voliter - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow nursery and landscape operation in Heavy Service Zone District. Subject property located just west of the Texaco station on South Frontage Road. Bob Voliter represented his request and explained his plans for this business.. The Commission felt that this type of business fits in very well in this zone district plus enhancing the appearance of the area. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve this request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a nursery and landscape operation in Heavy Service Zone District as outlined in the Department of Community Development memorandum, and adding that there will be storage of snow removal equipment. Aam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously for approval. Ttem number 5 on the agenda. Shapiro Construction - Request for variance to allow twa buildings~in excess of permitted wall length. Subject buildings to be located on Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Ken Shapiro addressed the Commission as representative for Shapiro Construction. Diana Toughill explained the reason for the request and the Commission had read the memorandum in regard to the variance. Roger Tilkemeier made a Motion for approval for variance to allow two buildings in excess of permitted wall length as referenced in the Department of Community Development letter of 19 May 1978. Gerry ~'~hite seconded the ~12otion and the Commission voted 4 for approval and Sandy Mills opposing. This will go before Counc'~il on June 6, 1978. It was also noted that Gerry White will represent the Planning & Environmental Commission at the Town Council meeting of June 6, 1978., The Commission then went to number 8 on the Agenda. Gordon Rowe - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area and distance between buildings variance to allow addition to non--conforming building ~.ocated on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace, Subdivision. Mr. and Mrs. Rowe were in attendance to explain their request to the Commission. Diana Toughill advised the Commission that the building is conforming now but with the addition, would be non-conforming. The Rowes advised the Commission that their neighbors have no problem with their addition if approved. It was explained that this addition is needed for additional living space to make this structure better for their family needs. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion for approval of the request for gross residential. floor area and distance between buildings variance to allow addition to building located on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. The Department of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • Minutes - 5/3/78 Pg. 4 Community Development memorandum of 19 May 1978 recommended denial. The Motion was seconded by Pam Garton who also stated that she is in favor of increasing the general living space in small units to make them more attractive for a family group. The Commission voted four members in favor, Sandy Mi11s opposed. This will go before the Council on dune 6, 1978. Number 9 on the agenda. Cyrano's - Request for parking variance to allow addition to existing patio. Ross Davis, Jr., was in attendance representing the owners in this request. The Commission discussed their concern on the enclosing of outside patios, they feel that open space dining should be retained as much as passible. Mr. Davis explained the reason for this request for this request. It was noted that the extended roofline will take care of part of the enclosure proposed. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the request for a parking variance to allow addition to existing patio at Cyrano's in accordance with the Department of Community Development memorandum and in line with the similar actions taken on these requests. Gerry White seconded the Motion, the Commission vote was d members voting approval, Sandy Mills opposed this request. • A Motion was then made by Gerry White to postpone number 6 on the agenda, Vail Mountain School ~ Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a private school in an Agricultural Zone to be located on Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. This postponement was requested by the representative of the Vail Mountain School. A Motion was made to postpone number 7 on the agenda, Systems Inc. - Request for a building bulk variance to allow buildings in excess of permitted wall length. Subject buildings proposed to be located on Tract A, Big horn Subdivision, this Motion made by Sandy Mills and seconded by Pam Garton. This postponement requested by the staff and this request will be acted upon in the next meeting of the PEC on June 13, 1978. These Motions passed by unanimous vote. The next item on the agenda, number 10: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require screening (fencing or landscaping) in a Heavy Service District. Allen Gerstenberger suggested to the Commission that plans be submitted by December 31, 1978 and require that it be approved and completed within six months. The Commission agreed with this suggestion. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSION Minutes - 5/23/78 Pg. 5 The Motion to approve the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require screening (fencing or landscaping) in a Heavy Service District with modifications was made by Pam Garton and seconded by Roger Tilkemeier, the Commission approved by unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned. It should be noted that the Minutes for the meetings of April 11, April 25 and May 23, 1975 should be approved at the next meeting on June 13, 1978. • AGENDA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 13, 1978 WORK SESSION 2 P.M. 1. Preliminary discussion of Townhouse Project, Sunburst Subdivision 2. Air Quality Emission Inventory PUBLIC HEARING 3 P.M. I. Brubaker, Lot C Resubdivision of Lots 8-10, Vail Village 7th. Filing - Request for Setback Variance. 2. Vaal Associates ~ Request for Building Bulk Control Variance to a11ow new warehouse facility. 3. John McBride - Request fox Conditional Use Permit to allow con- version of apartment unit to office or retail space on a second floor. 4. Tsamasfyros, Lot 1, Vail Village 10th Filing - Request for Setback Variance. 5. Syste nc. ; `rd el ~ ~ r ~ b~ isron and Bighorn Sub- divisi Fist A d' -u~fbr"ding Bulk Control ~~ Variance. 6. Vail Associates, Inc. - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary public parking lot in LionsHead area. 7. Sky Lion {Dana Rickli) - Request to rezone Lot 3, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Agricultural to Residential Cluster with a maximum of two dwelling units. 8. Vii M a' t ,2, B oc V '- Village 12th ~' ' " ~ ~1~ q t .for ~: ~ i n er ' t o allow a pri to .'sc i an ri u 9. Stat e //~~ t 0, ~ ~x]~Thi.xd Filing - Request for Set- ba Va~'"a.~~ 10. Black - Lot 30, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1 - Request for Set- back variance. 11. LionsHead Plaza Building - Request for change in canopy design for mall. 12. Proposed Ordinance for hearing and approval of Special Develop- ment Districts. 13. Gordon Rowe - Request for Grass Residential Floor Area and Dis~- tance between buildings variance to allow addition to building located on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. 14. Approve Minutes of meetings of April 11, 25 and May 23, 1978. L~ MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 13, 1978 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Gerry White Pam Garton Scott Hopman Ron Todd STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Diana S. Taughill Allen Gerstenberger The meeting was brought to order at S P.P~~. on June 13, 1978. Before the first item an the agenda was discussed, Scott Hopman made the Motion asking for reconsideration by the Town Council~.or that legal action be taken by the Planning & EnvironT mental Commission against the Town Council to ask for reversal of the decision concerning the Tawn Council approval of a Gross Residential Floor Area Variance for the Webster Residence. This Motion seconded by Ron Todd and the Commission vote was unanimously in favor of this Mat ion. Roger Tilkemeier was absent. The first item on the agenda, Brubaker, Lot C, Resubdivisian of Lots 8-10, Vail Village 7th Filing - Request for Setback Variance. Bill Pierce of Morten/Todd Partnership was present as representative for Earl and Letha Brubaker. Their request for a Setback Variance is because of the existing trees and topography of the site, and they want to remove as few of the trees as possible. Mr. Pierce explained the layout of the site and the residence configuration, he advised the Commission that the building will be in excess of the approved distance between buildings requirement. approval of this variance. Gerry White asked whether the neighbors approved of the location of the residence on the lot and Diana Toughill stated that the adjoining property owners have been notified by legal notice. Tt was noted that the Department of Community Development recommends Pam Garton made the Motion for approval of a Setback Variance far the Brubaker Residence located on Lot C, Resubdivisian of Lots 8-10, Vail Village 7th Filing, according to the criteria and findings as set forth in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated 8 June 1978. Seconded by Scott Hopman and unanimously approved by vote. Ron Todd abstaining due to conflict of interest. The second item on the agenda was Vail Associates - Request for Building Bulk Control Variance to allow new warehouse facility. Phil Ordway addressed the Commission with this request. He explained the proposal as replacing the shacks and trailers :7 • MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION pg, 2 6/13/78 and added that V.A. is remodeling the other buildings far Lift maintenance and one for winter equipment storage and maintenance. The Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council. He also explained that if the request for Building Sulk Control Variance were not approved it would be very costly to design a warehouse to meet this zoning requirement. The Department of Community Development memorandum recommends approval of this request. Gerry White asked that there be a condition made that the use would remain as proposed, and that any change would require they came before the PEC again. Diana Toughill feels this is taken care of with the approval for any change of use which requires a Conditional Use Permit. Gerry White then made the Motion to approve the request for Building Bulk Control Variance to allow a new warehouse facility at Vail Associates, Inc., shop site pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Department of Community Development memorandum dated 9 June 1978. Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Number 3 on the agenda, John McBride - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of apartment unit to office or, retail space on a second floor. John McBride addressed the Commission with his request. He explained that Gorsuch Ltd., was interested in expanding the retail space for their store or perhaps office space. They were concerned that perhaps this would exceed the limits for the maximum space for the store, but wanted to find out about this, he was advised that the ordinance was amended so that individual shops are not limited in area. Mr. McBride does not care whether the space stays as housing, but he feels that housing units are getting squeezed out in the Village Core because of increased taxes and high rents. The Dep artment of Community Development has recommended approval. Scott Hopman stated that he knows of a number of apartments in the Core, but feels concern about going completely commercial. Pam Garton reminded the Commission that these requests have been taken on one at a time each an their own individual merits. Sandy Mills then asked about whethex there may be a change in the use of the Nu Gnu space? Mr. McBride stated that he had hoped for a change but there is a long-term lease involved here. After further discussion Pam Garton stated that to her recollection no tenants or renters have appeared before the Commission to complain about any of the changeovers in CCl. Ron Todd then made the Motion to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an apartment unit MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRON Pg. 3 to office or retail space on ment be made for two offs~.te the same provisions made for MENTAL COMMISSION 6/13/78 the second floor and that the require- parking~spaces and paid for with Cyr.ano~s and the Hong Kong Cafe. Gerry White seconded the Motion, the Commission voted 5 members in favor and Sandy Mills opposed. This will now go to the Town Council for the offsite parking assessment to be set by the Council, probably at $1,000 per space. They wzll hear this at their meeting next Tuesday (6-20-75). Item number 4 on the agenda, Tsamasfyros, Lot 1, Vail Village 10th Filing - Request for Setback Variance. Dr. Tsamasfyros addressed the Commission and gave them same of the background of the lot. He explained that he has been given approval by the Metropolitan Recreation District and is requesting the setback of 40 feet because of their request that the residence be set back from the golf course for safety reasons. It was noted that the Department of Community Development has recommended approval of this variance. Ron Todd made the Motion to approve the request for Setback Variance for the Tsamasfyros Residence, Lot 1, Vail Village 10th Filing according to the Department of Community Development memo- randum dated S June 1978. Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously for approval. The fifth item on the agenda, Systems Inc., Parcel A, Bighorn Subdivision and Bighorn Subdivision First Addition - Request for Building Bulk Control Variance has been with drawn by the applicant. Gerry White made an official lt+iotion that the request for a Building Bulk Control variance for Systems Inc., Parcel A, Big- horn Subdivision and Bighorn Subdivision First Addition be withdrawn as requested by the applicant. Motinn seconded by Ron Todd and approved unanimously by the Commission. Number 6 on the agenda, Vail Associates, Inc. - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary public parking lot in LionsHead area. Jim Clark represented Vail Associates with this request. He explained the proposal for this lot to be located at the west end of LionsHead. This temporary lot would be for the day skier and employees. It was further explained that the Mark expansion will take 26 parking spaces and another 35 leased spaces on the LionsHead Plaza site that had been used by V.A. employees will be lost. He explained to the Commission that the visual impact will be minimal with snow berming proposed to be done around the lot and that it is a great distance from the residential units in the area. MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL C~MMISSTQN pg, 4 6/13/78 . Sandy Mills asked whether the fact that it is a temporary lot, will these spaces be replaced in a permanent lot? Mr. C1 ark explained that Kaiser Morcus will provide a 200 space parking lot to replace those that are lost from his expansion but won't be able to construct this lot at this time due to interW Terence from the construction activity. lIe stated that the temporary lot will be used for approximately one year and these spaces are needed to meet the parking demand for the coming ski season. He Turther explained that the area for the temporary lot after one year will be developed by the Mark as additional tennis courts. Photos were given to the Commission for their review. Ron Todd asked Mr. Clark i£ Vail Associates would accept a limit of one year on the Conditional Use Permit? Mr. Clark answered yes. Pam Garton asked if this would provide enough parking? Mr. Clark answered yes, that this temporary lot will benefit by giving 40 spaces in addition to those lost, Ron Todd asked whether this lot would be attended, or on a first come, first served basis? Jim Clark stated that the lot would be used for day skiers and employees and would be attended, that is, partial control, as it is felt that the general public will not be the primary user, will most likely be used by employees. Ed Drager then read the letters received by the Commission from Working and Parsons, property owners in the 6th Filing, who are in opposition to the parking lot. It was pointed out that the objections had facts in error. Mr. Tom Jacobson, a concerned citizen and property owner in the audience addressed the Commission and stated that he is against the temporary parking lot because of the noise and number of vehicles. A woman in the audience addressed the Commission and agreed with Mr. Jacobson and stated that the residents of that neighborhood pay property taxes that are equal to those property owners on the golf course, but that residents in her area are put upon by the parking lots, utility areas, et al, that are in that neighborhood. Sandy Mills asked Mr. Clark whether restrictions could be put onthe lot as to day time use only? Diana Toughill added that the ordinance prohibits parking on public streets and private property, and campers are prohibited except in the west day lot. Sandy Mills then asked whether screening and berming could be done to help to hide the vehicles from those residents living in the area? Gerry White agreed that there should only be day time parking and that the visual impact should be addressed. • Pam Garton advised that during all of the meetings on SDD and the Mark development, no concerned citizens bothered to attend these many meetings, and that they were public meetings and all were announced in the newspapers. MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION pg. 5 G/13/78 Sandy Mills wondered whether they could restrict by allowing no campers to park xn the lat. Tom Jacobson was very adamant about his feelings that the lot should not be allowed, he asked that this request be tabled. Tom Harnid of Vail Associates, stated that V.A, will close the lot for the summer, and that in winter there will be snow berms to reduce the visual impact, and also feels that they would restrict overnight parking. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve Vail Associates, Inc. request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary public parking lot in the LionsHead area, this Conditional Use Permit to be effective for one year from this date, with conditions that the lot be open only during winter season operations and that it be snow bermed as discussed and that the hours of operations be limited, the lot to be closed from 2 A.M. to 7 A.M., and signed appropriately, and that no buses be allowed in the parking lot. Gerry White seconded the Motion. The Commission voted 5 members for approval and Ron Todd apposed. Gerry White is now chairing the meeting as Mr. Drager was called away. • Number 7 on the agenda, Sky Lion ~ Request to rezone Lot 3, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Agricultural to Residential Cluster with a maximum of two dwelling units. Dana Rickli addressed the Commission with this request. He explained the site configuration and the fact there will be land dedicated to the Town of Vail through this rezoning. Diana Toughill also gave the background for this request. After some discussion Scott Hopman made the Motion to approve the request to rezone Lot 3, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, from Agricultural to Residential Cluster with a maximum of two dwelling units by Sky Lion, contingent upon the memorandum from the Department of Community Development, and that approximately 8.6 acres are to be dedicated to the Town of Vail prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Pam Garton seconded the Motion, the Commission voted approval by four members and Sandy Mills opposed. Item number $ has been postponed. The Motion was made by Sandy Mills that there be an indefinite postponement for the Vail Mountain School, Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a private school in an agricultural zone, this postponement requested by the applicant. . Another Public Notice will be published and the Board of Directors of the Vail Mountain School have been requested to hold a meeting with interested citizens prior to their being put on the Planning & Environmental Commission agenda, this to address opposition from the neighborhood. MYNUTES - PLANNING & ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION Pg. 6 6/13/78 • The Motion for postponement was seconded by Ron Todd and the Commission voted unan~mausly in favor. Number 9 on the agenda has been postponed. The Motion was made by Sandy Mills that the request for Setback Variance for the Statter Residence an Lot 10, Vail Village 3rd Filing be postponed as per the applicants request. Ron Todd seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously in favor. The 10th item an the agenda, Black - Lot 30, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1 T Request far Setback Variance. Stan Black addressed the Commission. He is asking for this setback variance so that the existing trees may be retained on the site and that the residence can be located outside the moderate hazard avalanche zone. He added that he has been given conceptual approval by the Design Review Board and that his neighbors are not materially affected by the setback. It was noted that the Department of Community Development has recommended approval In their memorandum. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the request for Setback Variance for the Black Residence on Lot 30, Vail Meadows Filing Na. 1 according to the Department of Community Development memorandum of 8 dune 1978. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimously in favor. . Number 11 on the agenda, LionsHead Plaza Building ~ Request for change in canopy design for mall. NIr. Selby brought this to the Commission as a courtesy. However, formal Motion was made by Pam Garton to approve the change in the canopy design fax the mall at the LionsHead Plaza Building. Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted uanimous approval. Ron Todd abstained because of conflict of interest. The 12th item on the agenda, Proposed Ordinance far hearing and approval of Special Development Districts is postponed until the next regular meeting. The Motion was made by Pam Garton to postpone the proposed ordinance for hearing and approval of Special Development Districts until the next regular meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. Seconded by Scott Hopman and unanimously approved. The 13th item on the agenda, Reconsideration of Gordon Rowe's ~ Request for Grass Residential Floor Area and Distance between buildings Variance to allow addition to building located on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision.. It was noted that the distance between buildings variance is incorrect and should be corrected to read Setback Variance. • The X38 sq. ft. additional GRFA as requested was denied by Council, but as Diana Toughill advised the Commission, she has spoken with several of the Council members and they will not appeal if approved by the PFC. The request for additional GRFA is 233 sq. ft. MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION pg, 7 6/13/78 Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the request for Gross Residenta,al Floor Area for the Gordon Rowe Residence located on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision with the current information as there is to date. Ron Todd seconded the Motion, four Commission members voted in favor and Sandy Mi11s opposed. Scott Hopman made the Pdotion to approve the request for the Setback Variance for the Gordon Rowe Residence located on Tract A, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision, Ron Todd seconded the Motion. The Commission members voted 4 for approval, and Sandy Mills opposed. The next item on the agenda was approval of Minutes for past meetings. The Motion was made by Scott Hopman to approve the Minutes of the April 11, 1978 meeting, Sandy Mills seconded and the Commission voted unanimously in favor. After discussion the Motion was made by Sandy Mills to approve the Minutes of the April 25, 1978 meeting, Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously in favor. Pam Garton made the Nlotion to approve the Minutes of the May 23, 1978 meeting with the correction to item number 8 on that agenda, changing the distance between buildings variance to read Setback Variance for the Residence of Gordan Rawe. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and three members of the Commission voted approval, Scott Hopman and Ron Todd abstained as they were absent from this meeting. Allen Gerstenberger then addressed the Commission. He told them there will. be a joint session of the Town Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 1978 at 2 P.M. At that time, clarification will be made on the Council decision regarding the tiYebster Residence, Larry Rider, Town of Vail Attorney also will be in attendance. He also told the Commission that due to a misunderstanding on location, the request under the public/private venture for the Sooth Creek Townhouse mini-park had been denied. Now that it has been straightened out he would like to go ahead and give them $750 from the funds available for this purpose. The Commission agrees that this is fair and that the money should be made available to them. Ron Todd then stated that his term is drawing to a close as the Planning & Environmental Commission member appointed to the Design Review Board. Because the Planning & Environmental Commission meeting for June 27, 1978 will have to be cancelled and reset, he asked the Commission to make the appointment for his replace- ment. Ron Todd made the Motion to appoint Scott Hopman as the Planning & Environmental. Commission member for Design Review Board this term to run for six months. Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unan~,mous approval. Meeting adjourned 5:45 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT FROM DEPARTMENT OF CO~f~MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 June 1978 REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR BRUBAKER RESIDENCE, LOT C, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 8-10, VAIL VILLAGE 7th FILING. Moxter/Todd Partnership, representing the owner has requested a variance of 4 ft. from the required fifteen ft. side setback on the eastern side of the lot in order to construct an extension to an already approved single-family residence. The residence has already received a Building Permit for pans without the extension. The variance has been requested to preserve the maximum number of trees on the site. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided fox in Section 18.2.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: CONSIDERATION Or FACTORS 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The only residence affected by this variance request is located to the east of the Brubaker's lot. This residence is 80 ft. from the nearest point of the proposed extension. This is 5 ft. in excess of what the Zoning Ordinance requires as the minimum distance between these two buildings. The extension would only be 12 feet in height and would not black the views of any neighboring residences. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of speci- fied regulation is necessary to achieve compati- bility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Due to the existing topography of the site, we feel that the variance request is warranted. The structure has been carefully located on the lot to remove as few trees as possible, and this has created the setback difficulty. The applicant is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance to have the additional space in the proposed extension. Pg. 2 Brubaker - Request for Setback Variance 8 June 1978 • 3. The affect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. CRITERTA AND FTNDINGS The Department of Community Development finds that 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege incan- sistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. In oxder to save fully matured tress, we feel that this side setback variance of 4 ft. is warranted and is not a grant of special privilege. There are very few properties in avalanche zones facing the difficulty presented by this lot. Because of • the development limitations in these zones, efforts should be made to allow reasonable development if possible. The proposal of the applicant requests only a setback variance of 4 ft. to allow construction totally outside the hazard area. This should not be considered a special privilege. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detriment a]. to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (See number 3 under CRITERIA AND FINDINGS) 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the varianc e that do not apply in the same zone. The purpose of this variance is to permit better site utilization. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request. • • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COIVTMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 June 1978 REF VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUEST FOR BUILDING BUILK CONTROL VARIANCE. WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING, UNPLATTED PARCEL WEST OF LIONSHEAD. The applicant proposes to construct a 70° by 120' warehouse and office facility on the present shop site zones Heavy Service. The proposed building is designed with 120' wall length with no offset; a 10' offset is required for each 90' of wall length. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code 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 subject parcel is bordered by the Frontage Road and Interstate-70 on the north, The plans for the proposed structure would have little adverse impact an existing or proposed structures in the area. The building is one story in height and the site is bermed to minimize visual. impact. 2. The degree to which the relief from the strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve carnpatability and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. As the Planning & Environmental Commission is.faware, we have had technical. problems with the building bulk reg- ulations from their inception. To date, only one major project has been built in total conformance with these regulations (Vail Professional Building) and every other major building has required at least one bulk variance. It is difficult to design an efficient warehouse facility . with an offset. • Page 2 Vail Associates Inc. Request for Building Bulk Control Variance 9 June 1978 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors . FINDINGS 1. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. See Ttem 2 above. CJ 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. It is our feeling that a lfl' offset has little affect upon the design and the neighborhood. The new building eliminates a number of portable trailers and "temporary" structures and is a vast improvement to the existing condition. 3. That the variances are warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. The Department of Community Development reconunends approval of the requested variance. • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 13 June 1975 REF JOHN McBRIDE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND OFFSITE PARKING - ~11cI3RIDE BUILDING John PJIcBride has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing dwelling unit located on the second floor of approximately 110 sq. ft. to be converted to more commercial space for Gorsuch, Ltd. At this time they have not decided whether to use the space as office space or additional retail space. The conversion to either commercial use would require payment for two offsite parking spaces for which Council must set the fee. We have wrestled with the employee housing in the Vail Village Core for many years. The debate has been long, and at times heated, but with the Horizontal Zoning Ordinance we believe that the Town has found at least one measure to control commercial expansion. I don't think that anyone felt that with the passage of the ordinance the problem would be solved. The Department of Community Development feels . there is a significant social and economic or safety benefit to the area by having full-time residents occupying dwelling units in the Care. If a problem developed it could be dealt with more efficiently. Our dilemma has been and continues to be how to substantiate the need for this type of living unit. All of us involved in the initial horizontal zoning felt intuitively that existing long-term dwelling units should remain. But, we have no means to make a non-intuitive decision, only experience to date. Again, we suffer from a lack of the facts or a more objective method of evaluating individual applications. The following is offered at least as a step to provide a level of information on which we can base a decision. We believe the issue of permanent housing in Commercial Core 1 to be fundamental to our planning effort. It is evident from the discussion to date that we lack definitive criteria far judging the merits of certain types of proposed changes in use. Now that the parking issue has finally been resolved in CC1, each application must be carefully considered on its own merit. The basic motivating force behind the horizontal zoning ordinance ~n~as a recognition that long-term housixig in the' area is beneficial MEMORANDUM Pg. 2 McBride Request fox Conditional Use Permit & Offsite Parking - McBride Bldg. 13 June 1978 to the health, safety and welfare of the community. We do not believe that this philosophy has been altered since the ordinance was adapted. If we do not have agreement as to these underlying philosophies, then the ordinance should be seriously reconsidered and amended. We have spent con- siderable time in trying to isolate this request from other similar applications in the area, some of which have been approved and some that have been denied. We cannot rely on experience from other communities, because there is no other comparable. Should this request be granted, it must be proven that any mitigation effort would not substantially improve the living quality of the area and that the unit is not essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighbor- hood. The potential impact of further reducing the dwelling units in the area must be carefully considered. The staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request according to Section 18.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments: FACTORS 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The applicable development objective under the Horizontal Zoning Ordinance that is of concern in the request is the continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core 1 so as to maintain the existing character of said area. Our principal concern with the conversion of this type of unit (GRFA over 1000 sq. ft.) is that it is a relatively rare housing type. Of the total estimated GRFA allocated to dwelling or accommodation units (263,796 sq. ft. ox 6.62°~0 of total estimated sq. ft. in CC1}. This housing type accounts for approximately 25 units ox less than 10% of the total estimated sq. ft. in CCl. Due to the limited availability of this housing type, we believe it would have significant impact on the desirable mix that is currently existing in CC1. 2. Affect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Our principal concern under this factor would be the distribution of population. We believe that the size of this unit would be conducive to encouragement of permanent residents to use the unit, which we feel is desirable. MEMORANDUM Pg. 3 McBride Request for Conditional Use Permit & Offsite Parking - McBride Bldg, 13 ~7une 1978 3. Affect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and conveniezace, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. We foresee no major conflict with these considerations; however, the use could involve additional delivery traffic if the space is used to expand Gorsuch Ltd. retail space. 4. Affect 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 see no conflict with this provision except as out- lined above. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Previous applicants have complained of the noise problem . eminating from the Nu Gnu which is located below the dwelling unit in question. It is of concern to the staff that several changes have occurred within the McBride Building and in the A & D Building within the last several years. In 1974, an additional 750 sq. ft. was allocated for the Country Flair shop which had been a dwelling unit. In 1975, a request was made to convert an additional 1764 sq. ft. This proposa~tl was later withdrawn,. A dwelling unit was converted to storage just prior to the adoption of the Horizontal Zoning amendment. Conditional Use Permits in CCl also require that we review the following development factors in accord with Section 18.24.070. 1. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core 1 district. 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core l district. 3. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking. 4. Control of delivery pick-up, and service vehicles. MEMORANDUM Pg. 4 McBride Request for Conditional Use Permit & Offsite Parking - McBride Bldg. 13 June 1978 5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. 6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design and landscape design in Commercial Core 1 district, so as to maintain the existing character of the area. S. Affects of noise, odor, dust, smoke and other factors an the environment of Commercial Core 1 district. The following is a summary of those items we feel are extremely important to consider as they apply to the above factors. 1. Noise is one of the major problems facing residents in the core area which contribute to a negative residential environment in the Core. a. Delivery vehicles; b. Restaurant and bar noise; . c. Service vehicles; d. Pedestrian traffic; e. Late night drunks. The two major sources of noise irritation to residents in the area are restaurant and bar noises due to live or amplified music which eminates from open doors and windows or inadequate sound proofing, as.well as late night drunks. A fairly comprehensive study was conducted in 19~& which indicated that sound levels on a 24-hour basis in the area were: Decibels % of time period* 30--40 50% 41-50 45% 51-60 4% O1-70 0.9% 71-80 0.1% % of time period 1-7 P.M. 7 P.M. - S A.M. 3-9 A.M. 30-40 50% 50% 50% 41-50 4g% 49% 40% • 51-60 1% 0.~% S% 61-70 0.9% 0.1% 1.9% 71-80 0.1% 0 0 lworst case day * .measured from 2nd floor of A & D Bldg. MEMORANDUM Pg. 5 McBride Request for Conditional Use Permit & Offsite Parking - McBride Bldg. 13 June 1978 Noise Levels for• a 2~-hour Period dB Maximum SO dB Medium 45 dB Minimum 32 2. Traffic. a. Parking: The permanent residents of the area currently have the problem of finding adequate parking for their units. The lack of adequate parking for the full-time residents discourages prospective tenants from living in the area. b. Deliveries: We feel that more traffic is probably created by permanent residents in this instance since the proposed commercial space is an expansion of an existing business and would not require new types of delivery vehicles in the Core. After careful consideration of the impact of the conversion of this unit, and all factors, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and further recommends that offsite parking be assessed for 2 spaces in the same manner as Hong Kong Cafe and Cyrano's. MEMORANDUM . TO PLANNING ~ ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 June 1978 REF SKY LION PROPOSED REZONING OF LOT 3, BLOCK A, LIONSRIDGE FILING N0. 1. The applicant proposes to rezone to Residential Cluster with a maximum of 2 dwellings on .944 acres of land currently zoned Agricultural. A comparison of current zoning and proposed rezoning is as follows: CURRENT ZONING ZONE LOT AREA DISTRICT ALLOWABLE UNITS A-1 62,988 Residential 1.446 acres Cluster 15 A-2 50,094 Residential 1.150 acres Cluster A~-3 41, 121 .944 acres Agricultural 1 • Road & Unplatted 8.3'73 acres Agricultural 4 20 PP~OPOSED REZONING A-3 2 units Net reduction in number of units (3} units The proposal decreases density from one unit per 1.86 acres to one unit per 4.66 acres. After a careful review by the Department of Community Development, the staff has the following comments relating to the proposed project. The Department of Community Development report con- cerning Lionsridge at the time of annexation and zoning indicated that potential population in the Lionsridge area should be minimized. Recent surveys completed as part of the Growth Management planning effort further enforces the need to reduce population in this neighborhood,as well as the entire Gore Valley. The proposed density decrease is in line with the proposed growth management program and comprehensive plan. • Pg. 2 Sky Lion Proposed Rezoning 8 June 1978 The geologic report was subm~.tted for Site A-3 which indicates that the site is buildable. On this steep site, a complete soils report and foundation design must be submitted which evaluates the residence and site improvements as proposed. Design will be very important as the site is extremely visible. At the time Lot A-3 was annexed and zoned, the Council expressed their willingness to consider a workable plan and passible rezoning. The rezoning and dedication would actually reduce the possible maximum density by 3 units and would therefore be in keeping with the growth management plan. r~ ~~ MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 June 197$ REF VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC PARKING LOT, LQTS B AND D MORCUS SUBDIVISION. Vail Associates, Inc., has made application far a temporary 102 car parking lot to be west of the Mark in the LionsHead area. The proposed public parking lot is for use during the 1978-79 ski season. The proposed parcel is zoned High Density Multiple-Family and Special Development District. 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 use on development objectives of the Town. The temporary lot is necessary to replace parking spaces which will be lost while the Mark is under construction and also for employee spaces lost due to construction on the Montaneros site. 2. The affect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. As everyone is aware, there is a great deal of demand for public parking which could pose a problem if the temporary lot is not constructed. We foresee no adverse impacts on the other factors. 3. Affect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The affect on traffic should be positive, A shortage of public parking in the LionsHead area could create traffic problems with cars hunting for parking places. 4. Affect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located in relation to surrounding uses. Pg. 2 Vaia. Associates, Inc. Request for Temporary 8 dune 1978 Conditional Use Permit We do not feel the parking lot will have an adverse impact as it is well bermed from the north and by Gore Creek on the south. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No other factors need 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. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE S June 1978 REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE - DR. TSAMASFYROS LOT 1, VAIL VILLAGE 10th FILING James Sheahan, representing Dr. Tsamasfyros, has requested a 12 ft. variance from the required 20 ft. front setback an order to construct a duplex. The variance has been requested because of a very steep slope on the front side of the Iot. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 15.62.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The subject lot is the most westerly lot on the north side of Fairway Drive. The proposed duplex has 4 covered parking spaces, so the amp act on surrounding residences should be minimal. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of 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. This lot has been subject to a 40 ft. rear setback at the request of the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. The reason for this was to keep a considerable distance from any structure on this lot and the Fifth Fairway. The d0 ft. rear setback significantly reduces the useable part of the site. This combined with the steep slope on the front of the lot necessitated this variance request. 3. The affect of the requested ~rarianc~; on 1?ght and azr, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utili- ties, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Pg. 2 Request far Setback Variance - Dr. Tsamasfyros 8 Juzae 1978 The Department of Community Development finds that: ~. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other prop- erties classified in the same district. (See Number 2 under Criteria and Findings} 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially in,~urious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (See Number 3 under Criteria and Findings) 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. 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. Due to the extended rear setback and the steep topography on the front of the site, we feel that the variance roquest i.s warranted and should be approved. U _~;. • Vail Associates, Inc. May 31, 1978 Ms. Diana Toughill Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 Uail, Colorado 81657 pear Diana: I am submitting the plans for the proposed 100 car space, temporary parking lot as applied far May 16, 1978 on Lots Band D of the Morcus Subdivision. Attached you will find: 1} Plat of Morcus Subdivision as approved and accepted May 10, 1977 by the Town of Vail. • 2) Topography of Lots B and D. 3} Proposed 102 spaces on Lots B and D. I would like to relate to same details to familiarize you and others con- cerned relative to this project. a) This is a temporary lot to be graded, compacted and graveled. b) Drainage to exist to the south and southwest {no swales). c) Maximum three to four percent grade. d) Snaw berming south edge in the winter. Plowing by Vail Associates. e) Lot is open to the public and employees alike. f) A stairway to be established on the north side of the lot for access to the bus (one minute) or to Gondola and chairlift (ten minutes). The eastern end of this proposed lot is presently used for parking by tennis players on the Mark courts. We find it will only be necessary to do minimal grad- ing here to prepare this area for the replacement of 60 lost spaces this summer • Continued.,,.. ../ Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81657, 303/A76-5601 Ms. Diana 7oughill May 37. , 1978 . Page 2 (25 spaces due to the Mark expansion, and 35 spaces at the Montaneros-Landmark lot). Twill be happy to spend time in the field showing this project if anyone desires. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. ...:~~ ~l ~ames P. Clarke /1`Vai1 Mountain Planner JPC/s1 Enclosures cc: Harry Bass Robert Parker Phil Ordway Tom Harned Jack Barr Ernie Nunn n U MEMORANDUM • TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 June 1978 REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE - STANLEY BLACK LOT 30, VAIL MEADOWS FILING NO. 1. The applicant has requested a nine ft. side setback instead of the required 175 feet on the side of the lot. The variance has been requested so that a duplex can be built on the lot outside of an avalanche zone. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclusions are as follows: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The lot located to the west of the subject lot, • lot 31, is the only lot that would be affected by this variance. This lot has been determined to be free from any avalanche zone so that the location of a structure on this lot should not be impacted by granting this variance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of speci- fied regulation is necessary to achieve compati- bility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privi- lege. More than one-half of lot 30 is located in a Moderate Hazard Avalanche Zone. This and existing stands of aspen trees, severely limit the buildable area of the site. The proposed location of the structure is probably the best location due to the natural constraints of the site. We feel that these constraints present a physical hardship to justify the granting of the requested variance. 3. The affect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transpor- tation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. Pg. 2 Request for Setback Variance - Stanley Black S June 1978 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Department of Community Development finds that: 1. That the granting of the variance will not const i- tute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. There are very few properties in avalanche zones facing the difficulty presented by this lot. Because of the development limitations in these zones, efforts should be made to allow reasonable development if possible. The proposal of the applicant requests only a setback variance of 8.5 feet to allow construction totally outside the hazard area. This should not be considered a special privilege. 2. That the grantinb 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 number 3 under CRITERIA AND FINDINGS) • 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 hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The avalanche zone on this property causes diffi- culties and extraordinary circumstances not commonly experienced by property owners. For this reason, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance. • AGENDA PLANNING AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON June 28, 197$ 1. Statter - Request for setback and site coverage variances Lot l0, Vail Valley Third Filing. 2. Potato Patch Club ~ Request for setback variance for units 1, 2, and 3. 3. Wagner - Request for setback variance, Lot 16, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. 4. Joseph Peplinski - Request for Conditional Use Permit for real estate office on first floor of Village Centre Building D in a Commercial Core 2 Zone District. 5. Vail Associates ~ Preliminary review and discussion on Gondola l u . MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 28, 1978 RE: Staffer Request for Setback and site coverage variances, Lot 10, Vail Va11ey Third Filing The applicant, Seracuse Lawler & Partners, Inc., repre- senting the owner, has applied for a setback variance of 5 feet for both the east and west side property lines; proposed setback is 10 feet and the requirement is 15 feet. They have also applied for a site coverage variance to allow 26.5% site coverage rather than 20% maximum allowable. The proposed single-family residence is 3,750 sq. ft. of GRFA, the maximum allowed by Covenant. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Cade and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We have not received plans for residences for the lots east and west of Lot 10; however, the proposed setback variance could adversely affect future development on the adjoining lots and create a hardship in meeting the minimum separation between buildings requirement. The Town of Vail has never granted a site coverage variance. The intent of the zaning ordinance is to preserve open space and prevent the "suburban syndrome" of houses one on top of • The degree literal in regulation uniformity another. to which the relief from the strict or ~erpretation and enforcement of a specified is necessary to achieve compatibility and of treatment among sites in the vicinity or Page 2 Request for Setback and Site Coverage Variance Staffer • to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The applicant states that the variances are necessary in order to prevent a "boxy" structure. They state that..."the resulting structure would appear more massive and out of character of the "mountain Architecture" of Vail. This residence with the second story area in the center of the mass and roofs stepping down to a single story height on the perimeter of the building does nat create a large ground coverage, but will offer a more compatible building in the mountain, Less massive structure especially viewed from the golf course, and would be a better neighbor for the adjacent lots." To my knowledge, the Tawn has never granted a site coverage variance, nor has there ever been an application for a site coverage variance on a residential lot. • It seems that "mountain architecture" is possible without covering more than 26% of the site. The average site coverage for houses of this size is between 10% and 15%. The applicant also states that the setback variance was necessary due to the additional height of the house required to meet the avalanche constraints on the lot. We do not feel that the applicant has shown an actual physical hardship as there are designs that would satisfy the avalanche constraints and still meet the setback and site coverage requirements. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Page 3 Request for Setback and site coverage variance Scatter • That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Planning Commission must find the following in order to grant a variance: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result xn practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 Department of Community Development recommends disapproval of the requested variance as we feel the applicant has not demonstrated a physical hardship or that the site is • exceptional in any way. • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNTNG AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Request for Setback Variance Potato Patch Club Units 1, 2, and 3 DATE: June 28, 1978 The applicant has requested a setback of 9 feet for Building 1, 5 feet on building 2 and 16 feet for building 3; required setback is 20 feet from the front property line. Closest structure is Aspen Tree Condominiums on the west side of Sandstone Road. As project was being designed, it was assumed that the applicant would acquire an adjoining parcel of land and vacate the property line. The adjoining parcel is an unbuildable strip of approximately .7 acres that the Town and the applicant have • negotiated for in order to straighten Red Sandstone Road. Due to difficulty in acquiring the parcel, the setback variance has become necessary so that construction can proceed. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code and our conclusions are as follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed structures have little adverse impact on existing structures in the area as the closest structure is on the west side of Sandstone Road. The degree to which the relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati- bility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance Without grant of special privilege. Page 2 Request for Setback variance Potato Patch Club The zoning ordinance defines the front of a site as the side from which the parcel. gains access from a street. Therefore, all of the west boundary line of the parcel is defined as the front of the site. The proposed site plan and building locations result in a far better site plan than would be possible if the structures were moved to meet the setback require- ment. The locations a11ow for more landscaping buffers from the street and better offstreet parking locations. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. The Department of Community Development finds that . the granting of the variance will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distract. 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. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation would result an practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hard- ship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The applicant states that placing the building within. the required setback would reduce the amount of space for Ian d-- soaping and recreational facilities. • The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance. • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 28 June 1978 REF REQi7EST ~'OR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE MICHAEL & CATHY WAGNER Lat 16, Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1 The applicant has requested a setback of 15.5 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 20 feet in order to construct a Single Family residential unit. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the • criteria and findings provided for in Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code 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 little ad- verse impact on proposed structures in the area as the size of the structure is relatively small and is located an the end of a cul-de--sac. The degree to which the 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 by discouraging excessive cuts or fills. The proposed location of the residence is in keeping with this objective . Page 2 Request for Front Setback Variance Michael & Cathy Wagner, Lot 16, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1 PEC-6/28/78 The applicant states that the steep topography greatly restricts the area available for building on the site and the structure has been designed and sighted to minimize the site disturbance. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse affects upon these factors. The Department of Community Development finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ether properties classified in the same district. Tl~at the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to prapoerties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. This variance request is for ~z feet for just the garage area. The rest of the proposed structure conforms with the zoning regulations. The house proposed for the site is small and tries to minimize disturbance to the existing terrain. We feel that due to the steepness of the site and the applicant`s proposed treatment of it, that the variance is warranted. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested front setback variance. MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 2$, 197$ RE: Joseph Peplinski - Application for~Canditional Use Permit to allow a real estate management office on the first floor of Village Centre D, in a Commercial Care 2 Zone The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to convert existing retail space located on a first floor to a real estate management office. Horizontal zoning requires that office space on first floors be a conditional use. The pro- posed office is 360 sq. ft. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Upon review of the Criteria and findings, the Department • of Community recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town The horizontal zoning ordinance was adopted to encourage retail shops along pedestrian ways. The proposed location of the real estate sales office is in an area where retail shops have not been successful due to lack of visibility from the pedestrian area. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. . The proposed office should have little or no impact upon any of the above factors. There is a possibility of additional Page 2 Joseph Peplinski Application for Conditional Use Permit • traffic being generated by the real estate office. The proposed use has little or no impact on the development objectives of the Town. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located...in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding retail uses in the building and should have no adverse impact on the residential uses in this building and adjoining buildings. 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. • town'(rail box 100 department of community development vail, coiorado 81 B57 (303} 47fi-5B13 J{~ne 16, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 16 June 1978 REF Process of Notification on decisions made by the Planning & Environmental Commission. As you are probably aware, under Ordinance Number 15, Series 1978, we are now required to give three day notification to the applicants who are heard by the Planning & Environmental Commission on Variances and Conditional Use Permits. Along with this, we send copies of the Minutes of the meeting to the Town Council for their review. The CommissionTs decisions become final ten (10) days from the day after the date of the meeting unless appealed to the Tawn Council. Tine Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 197$ have been sent to the Town Council and your copy is enclosed. If you have a problem with this process please advise the Department of Community Development. r~ i~ • PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MEETING OF: June 28, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Ed Drager, Chairman Scott Hopman Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Sandy Milis Pam Garton Diana Taughill The meeting was brought to order at 3:00 P.M. E Number one on the agenda is the Statter Residence - Rec~uest for Setback and Site Coverage Variances on Lot l0, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Mr. Murata of Seracuse, Lawler & Partners represented Mr. Ed Statter. He presented his drawings to the Commission along with the reasons that these requests for variances are made. Tt was brought out that a family member is handicapped and in a wheel chair, and so the house is designed with the major portion of the living space on the first floor. This is the reason for the request for site coverage variance. Gerry White asked whether they could design the house without the site coverage variance. Mr. Murata stated that they ara within the GRFA, but in order to decrease the site coverage, they would have to add more to the second level which he doesn't feel is desirable. Pam Garton asked about the avalanche hazard zone the lot is located within. Mr. Murata stated that the lot is in a lanche Zone. He also advised the Commission Review Board has reviewed his plans and have conceptually, and the Board was impressed by perimeter and feels it is a good design, one overwhelm the neighboring structures. Moderate Ava- that the Design approved them the one-story that will not Roger Tilkemeier asked what the square footage of the ground floor area would be? Mr. Murata stated that it~is 2,979 sq. ft. of. GRFA, plus 660 sq. ft. for the garage. Pam Garton wondered whether there would not be many of the owners of lots in the Moderate Avalanche Zone coming before the PEC with variance requests. A discussion ensued on "exceptions" and site coverage variances for this neighbor- hood. Pg. 2 k'EC - MINUTES 6/28/78 1]iana Toughill stated that she feels the ordinance should reflect for handicapped residents. Scott Hopman is concerned with the impact an the total piece of land, and that this is so significant on granting this type of variance. Sandy Mills was also concerned with the number of variance requests due to the Moderate Hazard Avalanche area, that may come from these lot owners. Diana Toughill stated that they will all be -different and that we can't generalise, The site coverage variance is related to the need for living space to accommodate the handicapped person in the household and is not related to the avalanche; and, the Setback Variance is needed because of the lot location in the Moderate Avalanche Zone. Roger Tilkemeier asked whether the garage could be put underneath the residence? It was stated that this isn`t possible because of the lot topography. Pam Gartan is concerned that the Commission really has no tools for granting the site coverage variance under the existing regulations. Scott ~i~N~«an agreed, that based on the ordinance this variance request far site coverage could not be granted. However., he is sympathetic to this special problem and their time constraints. He added that he is concerned about the precedent in granting this variance. Mr. Murata feels this would not be a bad precedent in putting forth concern far those handicapped residents of the area. Gerry White feels the variance procedure should be rewritten to cover and improve an this problem. Parn Garton added that she wauld like to have the Commission look very hard at amending by an "exception clause." Scott Hopman addressed the concern that the house could be sold in the future and then the physical hardship would na longer exist. Mr. Statter stated that a two-story house could be built with na site coverage variance, however, the design would be "boxy" and aesthetically less pleasing than the residence as designed. Roger Tilkemeier explained that the Commission is strapped by the technical requirements of the ordinance. He likes the design of the residence and feels it will be more attractive than designing with more space an the second Pg. 3 PEC - MINUTES . 6/28/78 floor; however, the Commission needs much more latitude within the ordinance to act affirmatively on this request, He feels that Council has much more latitude i.n interpretation and granting of variances, and he certainly would not feel badly if on appeal, of the Commission decision, if it is denial, the Council grants this variance. The time constraints were discussed. Pam Garton stated that the Commission will not meet until July 11, but would it be possible to have a joint work session to address these problems with the technical language of the ordinance? And then, would it be possible for them to go before Council that evening? (This will be checked with Larry Rider, Town Attorney, as this is a Special Meeting.) Mr. Murata feels strongly that this body wi11 have to address legislation within the ordinance to allow for the special problems of the handicapped residents. Mr. Draper explained that because of the uniqueness of the area, and the fact that construction goes on within this fragile valley; expanding site coverage can be very touchy. It was then noted that Council can hear their appeal during the Special Meeting, but the Commission decision has to be made today so that adequate notice can be given of the special Council meeting. Roger Tilkemeier stated that he feels the additional site coverage is insignificant, but that the Commission is hamstrung by the ordinance and he feels that the elected body (Council) should hear and make this "exception." He added that the Commission should make recommendations to Council to grant this exception or variance as they see fit. He asked whether there would be a chance that the coverage could be decreased by 400 sq. ft.? Mr. Murata doesn't feel this reduction can be made as it would cut into the living space requited for the first floor. Gerry White asked for a Motion to postpone and after further discussion withdrew the Motion. Pam Garton made the Motion for approval of the Setback Variance request for the Statter Residence on Lot 10, Vail Valley Third Filing based on the .discussion on avalanche mitigation requirements. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission mooted unanimous approval. Pam Garton then made the Motion to deny the Site Cover- age Variance far the Statter Residence located on Lot 10, Vail Valley Third Filing, according to the comments and criteria in the memorandum submitted by the Department of Community Development dated June 28, 1978, and because of Pg. 4 PEC - MINUTES 6/28/78 the Commission's reservations about technicalities in the ordinance. Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the C.,,~~«ission voted unanimous denial. The appeal will go before Council on July ll, 197$. Mr. Murata requested that the Commission make a statement on their reasons far denial of the site coverage variance. Mr, Drager asked staff to compile information on site coverage and the C~~«-«ission wi11 then attempt to make rec~~~u«endations to Council on this. A letter wi11 be written to Council outlining the discussion today on the site coverage problems and the special problems with this particular request. Pam Garton and Diana Toughill will draft this letter. The Commission also would like a work session with Council far discussion of this on 11 July. The second item on the agenda, Potato Patch Club - Request far Setback Variance for Units 1, 2, and 3. Mx. Gordon Pierce represented Vail Resort Associates on this request far Setback Variance. He explained the strip of land on which they and the Town of Vail have been negotiating purchase. This land cannot be built on, but they haven't been able to acquire it. The Town is in on this because of the necessity to widen Red Sandstone Road at this juncture. Mr. Pierce showed the Commission drawings of the units, with tennis courts designed sa that there will be green space between them. After further discussion, a Motion was made by Roger Tilkemeier to approve the Setback Variance for Potato Patch Club Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with the memorandum from the Department of Community Development dated 28 June 1978. Gerry White seconded the Motion, the Commission voted unanimous approval. {Before final vote, there was further discussion of the road realignment.) Item number 3, Wagner Residence - Request for Setback Variance, Lot 16, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. Mr. Robert Lee was present to represent the owners. He explained the site plan to the Commission and the reasons for this request. If this request is granted, it will eliminate the concrete foundation exposure as much as possible and will also eliminate extra structure because of topography. Gerry White agrees with the recommendations of staff and made the Motion for approval of the Setback Variance request for the Wagner Residence located on Lot 16, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. ~~• Item number 4 on the agenda, Joseph Peplinski - Request for Conditional Use Permit for a real estate office on the first floor of Village Centre Building "D" in Commercial Pg. 5 PEC -- MINUTES 6/28,78 Core 2 Zone District. Mr. Peplinski addressed the Commission explaining that he is subletting space from "Classic Designs" in the Village Centre Building "D". This office space would grant him same visual access and pedestrian access necessary for his type of business which will be real estate and property management. Scott Hopman asked whether there had been any comments from the neighbor, ~ for or against? Diana Toughill stated there had been no comment at all from the neighbors and that publication had been made for both PEC and DRB. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 36~ sq. ft. real. estate office on the first floor of Village Centre Building "D" in a Commercial Core 2 Zone Distxict in accordance with the memorandum from. the Department of Community Development dated 28 June 1978. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The 5th item on the agenda, Vail Associates, Inc. Preliminary review and discussion on Gondola I. Phil Ordway was present representing Vail Associates, Inc., along with the architect, Mr. Gordan Pierce. There was discussion on the access through Forest Serva.ce land, and he will present documentation on this to the Commission in the near future. The. conceptual site was shown by Gordon Pierce, they are looking for future approval for a variance to allow 15 (maximum number) parking spaces under the proposed structure, to be made available to residents of the condominium units, and for mountain operations vehicles. No action by the Commission was necessary. The Motion was made by Gerry White to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Roger Tilkemeier and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M. s