Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 Planning Commission Agendas, Memos & Minutes July to DecemberMINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 11, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Ron Todd Scott Hopman Gerry White Pam Garton Roger Tilkemeier STAFF PRESENT: Diana Toughill Jeff Flagg The meeting was brought to order. First item on the agenda, Lionsmane Phase II, Marvin Simon - Request for GRFA Variance For Units 23 and 25, Lot 5, Block A, Lionsrid e Filing No. 1. Gerry White is chairing this segment as Mr. Drager has a conflict of interest. Diana Toughill stated the staff feeling is that on the basis of consistency, the Department of Community Development is in. opposition to this request. Terry Quinn, Attorney, is representing Mr. Marvin Simon who was also present. Mr. Quinn explained the proposed remodeling, and advised the Commission that on two other units, the Town of Vail did issue Building Permits for the same remodeling and renovation that they want to do on units 23 and 25. Mr. Quinn and his client feel that with the proposed remodeling, the units will house fewer tenants, because in the past they were in essence, "flop houses." Mr. Quinn then discussed the court transcript and the judge's feelings on this matter and his judgments as stated in the transcript. Mr. Quinn stated that he feels with the improvement in the units, this will enhance the neighborhood. He added that the "hardship" is the Town of Vail staff opposition to the proposed improvements to the units in question, and that his client didn't know this in advance, he relied on the existing use and will not realize a return on his investment if he cannot do the improvements as proposed. They feel also, that these units will be out of harmony with the adjacent units. Pam Garton asked when units 22 and 24 were remodeled? Mr. Simon answered that these were done 12 months ago (approximately a year). Diana Toughill advised the Commission that the improvements adding the gross residential floor area for these units was completed prior to annexation. She added that these units are somewhat different, and that the Commission should probably look`at the units before making their decision. Terry Quinn advised the Commission that they will not be making units 23 and 25 larger than the rest of the .units, and he agrees that the Commission should come and look at the units as "befores & afters." Page 2 PEC MINUTES 7/11/78 Ron Todd stated that in 1973 when the building was built, the snow load was 40 lbs., and it is now 70 lbs., he wonders if they checked into the structural soundness. Terry Quinn stated that the flooring has always been in the units, but unfinished, that the units were known as "crash pads" in the past and Mr. Simon wants to upgrade them so they cannot be used in this manner. Mr. Simon added that he thought all he needed to do was to obtain the Building Permits to finish off the units and found that this was not so. Pam Garton advised the applicant that the Commission realizes the problems with the changes in densities and zoning changes when the area was annexed, but with investing in real estate there are no guarantees. Gerry White added that he is very concerned with making these non - conforming units more non-conforming. After discussion, it was decided that the Commission along with staff will visit the units. They will go in a group, two weeks from today, July 25th at 2 P.M. They will make their decision on that date. Pam Garton made the Motion to table Lionsmane Phase II, Marvin Simon's request for GRFA Variance for units 23 and 25, 'E • Lot A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 until July 25, 1978 after an opportunity to inspect.said properties. Scott Hopman seconded. the Motion. The Commission voted unanimously to table with Ed Prager abstaining. The second item on the agenda was set back because there was no representative present. Number 3 on the agenda, Learning Tree -- Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a private school in an Agricultural Zone District Mniini-ni-n Bell Site. John Perkins represented the Learning Tree, he showed the Commission drawings of the proposed day care center. He explained that it is very similar to the ABC School, and it will also have a similar lease agreement. He noted that the parking has been re- arranged somewhat and will be located between the buildings. The structure will be one level, and 1,000 sq. ft.,'it will be matched architecturally to the building already there, it will be a rectangular building of simple design. The student capacity will be 20 children maximum daily. They are adding two parking spaces to the original proposal. Diana Toughill stated that it makes sense to put the schools together and that the leases are similar. The lease for the Learning-Tree has been unofficially approved by Council and it will be acted upon on July 18, 1978. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 7 July 1978 REF Stuart Canada - Application for Conditional. Use Permit to allow a real estate office on the first floor of the LionsHead Arcade Building in a Commercial Core 2 Zone. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit in order to continue to use existing Commercial space located on a first floor. Horizontal'zoning requires that office space on first floors be a conditional use. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Upon review of the 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. Canada's of Colorado expanded their second story office to include the first.;floor. This space had had changes in tenants several times during the last few years and had been empty for part of this period. This space just didn't work as retail space, 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. 2.) Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The existing office has not had and should not have any impact upon the above factors. Delivery truck traffic should even be reduced since a real estate office does not normally require deliveries. 4.) Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located . . . in k relation to surrounding uses. Page 2 MEMO -- PEC Stuart Canada - Application for CUP to allow a real estate office on the first floor of the LionsH.ead Arcade Bldg. Commercial Core 2 Zone. The existing use seems to be compatible with surrounding retail uses in other buildings and has had no noticeable impact on the area. 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. U.] J MEMORANDUM FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATE 6 July 1978 REF Marvin Simon, LionsMane Phase II Units 23 & 25 - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance. Units 23 and 25 of LionsMane Phase II have been the subject of a legal dispute since July 1977. Construction on lofts commenced without a Building Permit or Zoning approval and work was officially stopped. When construction then continued, a Summons and Complaint was issued and the issue was heard in Municipal Court. The Court dismissed the charges on a technicality. Our Department then requested permission from the Council to take the matter to District Court for a ruling. The Town requested an injunction to prevent use of the portion of the units in vio- lation of Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance, which preliminary injunction was granted with instructions given to Simon by Judge Jones to apply for the Variance and seek a Building Permit. The part of Lot 5, Block A on which the building is located contains 17,791 sq. ft. and the Medium Density Multiple Family zoning allows a maximum of 6,226.85 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area (GRFA). The existing building contains. 16,801 sq. ft. excluding any of the "questionable" loft.areas. The proposed Variance would increase this non - conforming GRFA by approximately 300 sq. ft. Chapter 18.64, Non - Conforming Sites, uses, structures and Site Improvements, is very specific about enlargement of non - conforming structures. Section 18.64.050 states that: "Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the.total gross residential floor area of the pre - existing non- conforming structure." Larry Rider, in a previous memo to the Planning & Environmental Commission cautioned that we should deviate from these standards only in unusual and extreme circumstances. 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. • • Page 2 Memorandum - PEC Marvin Simon, LionsMane Phase II, Units 23 & 25 Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment.among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance.on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed Variance. When the Lionsridge area was annexed to the Town, our Department, the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Council felt the existing density was fair too high, at an average of 35 units per acre, and zoned the existing buildings Medium Density so that no additional density could be added on the developed sites. The adjoining undeveloped sites were zoned either Residential Cluster or Low Density in an attempt to bring the overall density somewhat closer to the balance of the Town of Vail. The Growth Management Report confirmed that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the .Gore Valley. The requested Variance does not seem great; however, an average sized bedroom is only 120 sq. ft. If a proportionate amount of GRFA were added as bedrooms to each unit in Lionsridge, our peak population in this area could be increased by more than 25% Increases of this size that could be rented short -term could have a disasterous impact on population in the Valley if the total number of multi -- family units is considered. There have been no other GRFA Variances granted in the Lionsridge area. Two Variances of 80 sq. ft. each that added living space and not bedrooms were denied in Sandstone. Due to the extent that this building already exceeds the GRFA allowable, we do feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional square footage would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by almost 300 %. 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. • z. Page 3 Memorandum - PEC Marvin Simon, LioneMane Phase 11, Units 23 & 25 - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance. 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. Granting 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 the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Non - conforming structures should not be allowed to become more non- conforming, particularly density. 3. That the Variance is not warranted for the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same District, The applicant states that the hardship in this case is the number of people who have been using the space and the possible reduction resulting from the expansion. (See attached application:) We feel this is an absurd argument. The Department of Community Development strongly recommends denial of the Gross Residential Floor Area Variance sought for the reasons stated above. We also feel there has been no hardship shown in the request. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a physical hardship be demonstrated in order for a Variance to be granted. F k 0 DISTRICT.. COURT..__ - - ---- IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EAGLE STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No: 3597 THE TO,M OF VAIL, a ) Colorado municipal ) corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) . REPORTER'S PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT vs. ) OF PROCEEDINGS MARVIN B. SIMON, ) Defendant. ) BE IT REMEMBERED that.on Friday, ,Tune 2, 1978, the same being a regular juridical day of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,. County of.Eagle, of the State of Colorado, the above- entitled cause came on for Hearing-on Preliminary Injunction, the HONORABLE WM. L. JONES, District Judge, presiding in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. A P P E A R A N C E S: MR. IA14RENCE ESMglTH, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1294, Vail, Colorado, 81657, appearing in the place of LAWRENCE RIDER, Attorney for the Town of Vail, P.O. Box 100, Vail., Colorado, 81657, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff Town of Vail. MR. TERENCE J.. QUINN, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1110, Eagle; Colorado, 81631, appearing on behalf of the Defendant. WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had and entered. of record: in • 4 1 DIE COURT: All right, gentiemen. The Court will. find, bated on the definition-of the'Code--and whether you like it or not, the Town is stuck with it--that the area in question, Units 23 a.nd.25, was not habitable-spa'ce., With . that .finding. 'in, mind, I think it -then comes about that there is a building permit necessary, and accordingly, I mould enjoin the defendant, his agents, contractors, . servants, employees, and attorney from proceeding any further with actual construction until such permit is obtained. The Court recognizes full well that a variance.may be required. The Court also.fully recognizes that the zoning applied to this structure is an absurdity in itself. To put a place in which already has three-quarter times the allowable density doesn't really solve many problems. I would point out, Mr. Esqwith, in the section that you referred to about non-conforming uses, which I never can find--if you will look at 18.64.040, entitled Uses, and read the entire paragraph, I think you will find it enlightening. Begin about the fifth line down. "No such non-conforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area-or building floor area than is occupied on the effective date of the ordinance." That doesn't say to me residential floor area, it says building floor area, which means to me that we'are concerned with that particular ' section*of the ordinance. Density isnot the numbdr of rooms of a structure or the number of bathrooins or the number of people that are going to live there. What we are concerned with is how much of the site area we are going to be consuming with the structure, and this Court would think it appropriate for the defendant in this case to apply for a variance, and assuming that he Otherwise complies with -2- 'k a� f • • are.aiL_in: ek!ect than - ys; Ctis7r w�"]i 'die <�pprapriatc Eo ratan s a variance under a situation sIuch as this. That precise issue is not in front of me at this time, and I can't rule on it at this time. For what it's worth and in the hopes that I won't be hearing this - problem again, I.will tell you that •that's the way I feel about' it So, Mr. Simon, you will have to.proceed to get a building permit. The Court recognizes that there is.a lot of regu- lations in one's life any more, but.I feel that building and zoning is necessary, and for what it's worth, Mr. Esgwith, in response to your argument, these things are probably necessary in some people's minds so that it doesn't get to be any bigger mess, as opposed to getting to be a mess. I will permit the .withdrawal of the ordinance, the adoptive ordinance, and the building code book, since I'm sure that you would have'more use for that than the.Court has in its file. Exhibit 4, being the zoning map,can be.withdrawn, and Exhibit 5, being the building condominium map, can be with- drawn. Mr. Esqwith, do you wish to pursue further injunctive relief in the nature of a permanent injunction, or did the Court take care of that problem? MR. ESQ141TH: Your Honor, it's taken care of, once Mr..Simon applies for variance and somehow waives the position that it's a valid non - conforming use. Could we just say that if he applies for a variance, we'll see how that goes. _ THE COURT: He can reserve his right to petition again, if he wishes. It's obviously a nonconforming use. KK. QUINN: But a valid pre - existing non-conforming use.. THE. COURT: All right.. (Whereupon, the above 1-natter was concluded.) MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 7 July 1978 REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE Mr. Alfred Uihlein Lots 4 & 6, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing Gordon. Pierce representing Alfred Uihlein has requested a Setback of 8 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 20 feet in order to construct a garage apartment. 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 rises and structures in the vicinity. The plans for the proposed structure would have little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area. The size of the structure, since it is a garage, is small and unobtrusive. 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 through discouraging excessive cuts or fills and preserving existing large trees. The proposed location of the garage is in keeping with this objective. The applicant states that the steep topography and the existing trees make it very difficult to locate the garage /apartment within the required 20 foot Setback. The structure is designed to minimize the steepness and length of the drive- way leading into the garage; while keeping cuts into the bank at a minimum. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. • • U] Page 2 MEMO - PEC 7 -7 -78 Request for Setback Variance Mr. Alfred Uihlein - Lots 4 & 6, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing 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 incon- sistent 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 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 circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other 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 that the location of the garage /apartment accomplishes this. Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Setback Variance. MEMORANDUM . TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 7 July 1978 REF Learning Tree request for Conditional Use Permit to allow Private School in Agricultural Zone - Mountain Bell Site Learning Tree has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Private School consisting of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. on the Mountain Bell site to be located just east of the existing Mountain Bell Microwave Tower Building adjacent to the ABC School. The Town Council has agreed to provide the site for the schools, a non - profit facility. Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed user 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. We foresee no adverse affects 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 -off 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 site is well hidden by large trees and colors are proposed to be compatible with the existing Mountain Bell Microwave Tower and the ABC School located on the same site. 5.) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Page 2 7 -7=-78 MEMO - PEC Learning Tree - CUP to allow Private School in an Agricultural Zone - Mountain Bell Site The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: l.) 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 Agri- cultural 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 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 the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Learning Tree, MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 11 July 1978 REF URIDA,.N.V. REQUEST: .FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE. Application has been made by Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh Scott representing,Urida, N.V., for an 18 car parking variance in order to remove surface parking and substitute landscaping at the request of the Department of Community Development and Design Review Board. The applicant can provide site and the 75% covered parking (79% of parking is underground). indicate that an average of only in LionsHead is being used; this 40 spaces may not be needed to s, the required parking on requirement has been met Parking utilization statistics 60% of the private parking indicates that approximately Brve the proposed building. Based on these statistics we recommend that the i applicant not be required to provide 18 of the 22 surface ispaces, but that the Town reserve the right to require the construction of the 18 spaces in the future if it is determined by the Planning & Environmental Commission they are necessary based on parking surveys conducted by the Town. We feel it would be better to permit landscaping rather than require . unnecessary asphalt. 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. We feel we can justify removal of parking for aesthetic reasons to obtain more.landscaping. There have been no parking variances granted in the LionsHead area except those removed to allow more landscaping, except for LionsHead Plaza which was granted a joint -use parking exception. 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. Page 2 PEC - 7/11/78 URIDA, N.V. REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE • Strict interpretation of the ordinance would not allow the removal of surface parking. A number of parking variances have been granted in LionsHead (Vail International , Sunbird, Montaneros, Lodge at LionsHead, Studio..in the Rockies, Landmark) to allow for more landscaping. In every case, the parking could be provided but landscaping was more desirable in meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The effect of the requested . variance on light and air, distribution of population, transpor- tation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no adverse impacts on these factors. 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. 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. 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 in-- consistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The grading required to provide the surface parking removes a large berm which would expose the parking to view from the Frontage Road. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the • site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. SEE ITEMS 1 AND 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS. • Page 3 PEC - 7/11/78 URIDA, N.V. REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCE The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances with the condition that the 18 parking spaces be provided if parking survey statistics indicate they are necessary at any time in the future and that the applicant contribute a comparable amount to the parking fund, such q�mouat to be determined by the Town Council. • • DATE 11 July 1978. REF ALDER GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 2.3 BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION The applicant, Robert J. Alder has applied for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance of 75 sq. ft., and a Setback Variance to allow a two foot setback in lieu of the required 10 feet on the south side of the property. The proposed addition of 66 sq. ft. consists of a living and dining space. The lot which is zoned Medium Density Multi- Family is 21041 ts sq. ft. allowing 737 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing unit 745 sq. ft., thus requiring a GRFA Variance of 75 sq. ft. The requested Variance is approximately 4% 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 Two other GRFA Variances for Bighorn Terrace Units were granted, one to allow an existing porch to be covered, and the other for an addition. No other GRFA Variances 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 many 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 the 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 of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. a.) GRFA Variance We feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional 66 sq. ft., would result in the GRFA exceeding E 0 Page 2 PEC 7/11/78 ALDER GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 23 BIGHORN TERRACE-SUBDIVISION what is allowed by approximately 4 %. Three variances for less than,100 sq. ft, have been denied for expansion of multi- family units in other areas. b.} Setback Variance The proposed Setback is somewhat closer to the property line than the balance bf 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, transpor- tation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. a.) GRFA Variance The proposed use of the increased space would not be detrimental to the above factors. b.) Setback Variance 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 have been two other GRFA Variances granted in the Bighorn 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 Items 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 Zoining 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 of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same District. Page 3 PEC• - 7/11/78 ALDER GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 23 BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION t • Structures in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision generally are not in compliance with the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. We also feel there has been no hardship shown in the request. If the GRFA variance is denied, then the Setback variance becomes a moot issue. • 19 x: MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 11 July 1978 REF ALDER GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 23 BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION The applicant, Robert J. Alder has applied for a Gross Residential.Floor Area Variance of 75 sq. ft., and a Setback Variance to allow a two foot setback in lieu of the required 10 feet on the south side of the property. The proposed addition of 66 sq. ft; consists of a living and dining space. The lot which is zoned Medium Density Multi - Family is 21,104 sq. ft. allowing 737 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing unit is 745 sq. ft., thus requiring a GRFA Variance of 75 sq. ft. The requested Variance is approximately 4% 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 Two other GRFA Variances for Bighorn Terrace Units were granted, one to allow an existing porch to be covered, and the other for an addition. No other GRFA Variances 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 many 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 the 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 of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. a.) GRFA Variance We feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional 66 sq. ft., would result in the GRFA exceeding Page 2. PEC - 7/11/78 ALDER GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 23 BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION what is allowed by approximately 4 %. Three variances =for less than 100 sq. ft. have been denied for expansion of multi- family units in other areas. 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, transpor- tation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. a.) GRFA Variance The proposed use of the increased space would not be detrimental to the above factors. b.) Setback Variance 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 have been two other GRFA Variances granted in the Bighorn 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 items 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 Zoining Ordinance. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation 'f and enforcement of the specified regulation `` would not.deprive.the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same District. P age 3 PEC -- 7/11/78 ALDER GRFA AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 23 . BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION Structures in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision generally are not in compliance with the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. We also feel there has been no hardship shown in the request. If the GRFA variance is denied, then the Setback variance becomes a moot issue. 0. J MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 7 July 1978 REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE ROGER TILKEMEIER Townhouse Site 1, Portion of Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows Filing 1 The applicant has requested a Setback of approximately 6 feet from the rear property line in lieu of the.required 13 feet in order to construct an addition to an existing Townhouse. The addition of approximately 720 sq. ft. will include a kitchen, dining room and bedroom. 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 adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area. The degree of which relief from the strict or. literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The proposed addition of 720 feet is well within what would be permitted on this site. Due to the configuration of the existing unit, this is the only feasible location for expansion. The alternative would be to place the addition on the east side of the existing building, and this would not work from either a design or a functional standpoint. 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 Page 2 7 -7 -7$ MEMO - PEC Request for Setback Variance R Roger Ti.lkemeier Townhouse Site 1, Portion of Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows Filing l 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 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:i.nconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary ci.r- cumstanees or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. This Variance request, if approved, will enable the owner of this unit to build an addition which he is permitted to have under the density requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Due to the existing position of the building on the site, and the configuration of the structure, it is necessary for the Set- back encroachment before the expansion can take place. Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Setback Variance. 0 • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 25, 1978 NO WORK SESSION - Site Inspection at 2 P.M. Public Hearing 3:00 P.M. 1.) Cold Stream Amendment to SDD4 Postponement to next regular meeting. 2.) Wedel Inn Rezoning Indefinite postponement requested by applicant. 3.) Fallridge Townhouses - Shapiro, Request for Setback on Lot 1, Sunburst Filing 2. 4.) Lionsmane Phase II, Marvin Simon - Request for GRFA variance for Units 23 and 25, Lot 5, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. I. . 5.) Currents of Vail Jewelers, Building Bulk, Parking Variance. Postpone Indefinitely, requested by applicant. 6.) Tim Garton - Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 Preliminary Plans K-1 MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING: July 25, 1978 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF: Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Scott Hopman Ed Drager, Chairman Diana Toughill Jeff Flagg The first item on the agenda - Cold Stream Amendment to SDD4. The applicant requested a postponement to the next regular meeting (August 8, 1978). Gerry White made the Motion to postpone the Cold Stream Amendment to SDD4 until the next regularly scheduled meeting, Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The second item on the agenda is Wedel Inn Rezoning for which indefinite postponement was requested by the applicant. Scott Hopman made the Motion to postpone indefinitely the Wedel Inn Rezoning at the request of the applicant, Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on the agenda - Fallridge Townhouses -- Shapiro, Request for Setback on Lot 1 Sunburst Filing No. 3. Frank Dalton and Abe Shapiro were present to make their presentation to the Commission. Scott Hopman asked whether the variance would result in loss of trees. Mr. Dalton said no, the variance permits greater areas for landscaping. Mr. Shapiro stated the variance would allow for more trees between the road and the units; and they will revegetate. Diana Toughill stated that the variance will permit a more passable road location in terms of grade. Frank Dalton stated that the maximum grade on the straight sections is 8j% and that approval had been given by Kent Rose. Gerry White asked about parking. Frank Dalton stated that there will be 2 -car garages under the units, into the hillsides. Gerry White made the Motion to approve the request for a Setback Variance on Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3, Fallridge Townhouses in accordance with the statements set forth in the Department of Community Development memorandum dated July 25, 1978. Scott Hopman seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The Commission then went to item five on the agenda. Currents of Vail Jewelers - Building Bulk,_ Parking Variance on which the applicant has requested indefinite postponement. A Motion was made by Roger Tilkemeier to postpone indefinitely the matter of Currents of Vail Jewelers, Building Bulk, Parking Variance • as requested by the applicant. Motion seconded by Gerry White and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Pg. 2 MINUTES PEC - July 25, 1978 At this point the Commission adjourned pending the arrival of Tim Garton presenting preliminary plans for Highland Meadows. The Commission reconvened to hear Tim Garton for item 6 on the agenda - Highland Meadows Filing No. 2. -,Preliminary Plans. These plans are brought before the Commission as a courtesy as this project is outside the Town of Vail boundaries.. Comments from the Commission are being sought by Eagle County. This project is going on the former Elmore Subdivision, Vail Village West Filing No. 3, which is proposed to consist of 32 acres with 33 duplex lots. The Planning_ &Environmental Commission commended the developer for the covenants and,the downzoning. A letter will be prepared to present.to Eagle County containing the Commission's comments and thoughts on this project. The 4th item on the agenda, Lionsridge Phase II, Marvin Simon - Request for GRFA Variance for Units 23 and 25 Lot 5, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. Terence Quinn, Attorney was present to represent Mr. Simon. Because of a conflict of interest, Mr. Drager could not vote on this variance request and because of other commitments, several Commission members were absent and there was no quorum for a vote on this item. Because of the time limitations, this variance request will go before the Town Council by default. Diana Toughill stated that she will prepare a memorandum to the Council explaining this situation. Scott Hopman stated that he. wants to go on record as having made no decision on this matter. Those members present did make the site inspection as planned, leaving the meeting at 4:35 P.M. The Lionsridge Phase II request for GRFA Variance for Units 23 and 25 on Lot 5, Block A; Lionsridge Filing No. 1 will go before the Town Council on August 1, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. Meeting adjourned. TO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JIM RUBIN, ACTING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE 30 July 1978 REF STATTER RESIDENCE SETBACK AND SITE COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR LOT 10, VAIL VALLEY 3rd FILING At their meeting on June 28, 1978, the Planning & Environmental Commission heard the variance requests for the Statter Residence. On the Setback variance,.the Planning & Environmental Commission voted 6 to 0 in favor of approving the variance based on the Lot. being located in a Moderate Hazard Avalanche Zone. On the Site Coverage variance, the Planning & Environmental Commission voted unanimously 6 to 0 to deny the variance request because of the technical constraints in the Zoning Ordinance. It is this request that is being appealed to the Town Council. The Site Coverage request is for 26.57o rather than 20% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. In the staff memorandum, Diana Toughill stated that to her knowledge,,Site Coverage variances have never been granted for residential uses and that she did not feel that a physical hardship had been demonstrated by the applicant. At the Public Hearing, Kiyoshi_ Murata, the architect for the structure, presented his reasons for requesting the variance. He mentioned that one member of the family is handicapped and therefore, there is .a need to keep a major portion of the living space of the house on the first floor. The reason had not been.sta.ted to the staff or the Planning & Environmental Commission prior to the meeting. The reason put forth on the application was to prevent a "-boxy structure" which would be out of character with the mountain architecture in Vail. The Planning & Environmental Commission was sympathetic with the fact that the structure is designed for a handicapped person. They, however, felt that they did not have the technical requirements through the Zoning.Ordinance to grant this request. The Planning & Environmental Commission felt that it was a concern that is not presently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, and wants the Town Council to make a final determination. The staff and the Planning & Environmental Commission also felt.that the issue of Site Coverage should be thoroughly studied, s, eparate from the question of design for handicapped persons. The Planning & Environmental Commission denied the variance request due to their feeling that they do not presently have. the legal tools in the Zoning Ordinance to address all the issues: MEMORANDUM TO FROM DATE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 25 July 1978 REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE, SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION.CO. "54" UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Shapiro Construction Company has requested a variance to allow a Setback of zero feet along the rear property line. Using an average building height of 35 feet (the maximum allowed in LDMF) the required rear Setback would be 20 feet. 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 Sexisting or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The plans for the proposed structures for which the Variance is proposed would have little adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area. The land that abuts the rear property line of the project, where the Setback is being requested, is Forest Service land which cannot be developed. No other existing and potential structures in the area will be affected by this Setback request. The degree of which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a. specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The Variance is being requested because of the steepness • of the site and existing road cuts on the site. To minimize the amount of new cuts necessary and to allow more workable road design, Page 2 MEMORANDUM - PEC • Request for Setback Variance Shapiro - 1154" Unit Townhouse Project 7- 25 -78 the applicant desires to .move the southern part of the road further. up the hill. This will also lessen the average grade of the road, making it less hazardous in the winter months. Moving the road further up the hill allows for a better site plan by causing less disturbance to the natural terrain and vegetation. It does not allow for the provision for more units, but permits them to be better located on the site. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. We do not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. c: 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.impro'vements 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 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.. This property has considerably less units on it now than was previously approved as part of the Sunburst Development Plan. -:. The present site plan has been reviewed by Eldon Beck.who has given it conceptual approval. In order to facilitate the general Page 3 MEMORANDUM PEC Request for Setback Variance Shapiro - 1154 "Unit Townhouse Project 7- 25--78 layout of the site, by minimilzi.ng the amount of new cuts, and reducing the average slope of the road, we feel that this request is warranted and would recommend approval. is • i In box 100 department of community development nail, colorado $1657 (303) 476.5613 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 19 June 1978 REF PEC Meeting of June 27, 1978 As you all are aware we will not be able to gather a quorum for the PEC meeting of June 27, 1978 at 3 P.M. because of other commitments for a majority of the members. Roger Tilkemeier has agreed to meet with staff on-June 27, 1978 to adjourn the meeting for lack of quorum and the meeting is rescheduled for Wednesday, June 28, 1978 at 3 P.M. If any of you have problems with attending this meeting rescheduled for Wednesday the 28th please advise our office. Thank you. • Wage 3 MINUTES - PEC 7 -11 -78 After discussion, Ron Todd made the Motion for approval of the Learning Tree request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a private school in an Agricultural.Zone District, Mountain Bell Site. Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Tom Briner., of Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh Scott, then advised the Commission that the second item on the agenda, Alfred Uihlein - Re guest for Setback Variance, Lots 4 and 6, Block 2, Vail Village Third Filing has been withdrawn. Ed Drager had to leave the meeting at this point and Gerry White is now chairing the meeting. The fourth item on the agenda, Spa, Urida, N.V. - Request for Parking Variance, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail LionsHead Third Filing. Diana Toughill explained the reason for the request to the Commission. She stated that it was felt that the surface parking was not needed and that landscaping would be much preferred for aesthetic reasons. After further discussion, Roger Tilkemeier moved that the Parking Variance for Spa, Urida, N.V., Lot 1, Block 2, Vail LionsHead Third Filing be approved for the reasons stated in the • Department of Community Development memorandum, and that there will be a contract between the Town of Vail and Urida in the amount of $1,000 per parking space, payable at the time the Building Permit is issued. The statements concerning Setback within the Department of Community Development memorandum will be struck. Sandy Mills questioned the contract on the parking spaces. Diana Toughill stated that this is consistent with other contracts on parking spaces. Tom Briner questioned the time for payment of the $18,000 and Diana Toughill.-explained the intent of the assessment. Pam Garton then seconded Roger Tilkemeier's Motion, the Commission voted 5 for approval, Ron Todd was absent during the vote. Number 5 on the agenda, Canadas of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow real estate offices on first floor in a Commercial Core 2 Zone. Stuart Canada was present to address the Commission. He explained there is really no "hardship," but that use of this space has improved the area and has improved the appearance of the LionsHead Arcade Building. He explained the former "mess" that this highly visible space was in. Pam Garton stated that they have relaxed on their position on horizontal zoning, and that the marketplace should determine use. SShe feels this is a big improvement for the space and it is very hand- some. Page 4 MINUTES - PEC • 7 -11 -78 Ron Todd made the Motion to approve Canadas of Vail request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a real estate office on the first floor in a Commercial Core 2 Zone. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The sixth item on the agenda, Alder - _Request for Gross Residential Floor Area variance to allow addition to Bighorn Terrace unit. Diana Toughill explained to the Commission that the staff recommendation to oppose the request is based on technicalities as referred to in the Department of Community Development memorandum. Mr. Alder was present to represent his request and explained the proposed addition to the Commission. After further discussion, Ron Todd made the Motion to approve the Alder request for Gross Residential Floor Area variance to allow an addition to a Bighorn Terrace unit, in the amount of 66 sq. ft. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion, and the Commission voted 5 in favor of approval, Sandy Mills opposed. Ron Todd then made the Motion to approve the Alder request for a Setback variance of 8 feet for Lot 23, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion, the Commission voted 5 in favor of approval, Sandy Mills opposed. Number 7 on the agenda, Tilkemeier - Re uest for Setback Variance to allow expansion of residence located on Townhouse Site 1, a Portion of Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows Filing No. 1. Mr. Tilkemeier made his own presentation to the Commission. Diana Toughill explained about a telegram received from a neighbor asking the Commission to table, but she feels that the.. opposition is for all the wrong reasons. Mrs. Huxman is objecting because they are selling their unit, and feels that the sale won't close because of this request. Mr. Tilkemeier advised the Commission that the buyers have seen his plans and have no problem with what he is proposing. Mr. Tilkemeier presented his plans to the Commission and explained the expansion which will make what was used initially for a mountain vacation home into an adequate full -time residence. He stated that the setback will prevent having to remove any of the existing trees. Scott Hopman questioned the impact on the structure., whether it would be significant? Mr. Tilkemeier doesn't feel there will be an adverse impact on the `structure and he explained the configuration of the building. 0 • Page 5 MINUTES - PEC 7 -11 -78 Pam Garton stated that she has looked at the area and feels this will be a very attractive addition. Diana Toughill added that the staff feels it is a great improvement to the site. After discussion, Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the 7 foot .Setback Variance for the Tilkemeier residence located on Townhouse Site 1, a portion of Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows Filing No. 1, according to the criteria within the Department of Community Development memorandum. Scott Hopman seconded the Motion. Four members of the Commission voted approval, Ron Todd and Roger Tilkemeier abstained due to conflict of interest. . A Motion was then made by Scott Hopman to approve the Planning & Environmental Commission Minutes from the meeting of June 13, 1978. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of June 13, 1978. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 P.M. AGENDA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 11, 1978 Work Session - 1:00 p.m. 1. Discussion of environmental goals and long -range planning. 2. Discussion of proposed PUD ordinance. Public Hearing - 3:00 p_.m. 1. Lionsmane Phase 11, Marvin Simon, - Request for GRFA variance for units 23 and 25, Lot 5, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 2. Alfred Uihlein - Request for setback variance, Lots 4 and 6, Block 2, Vail Village Third Filing. 3. Learning Tree - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a private school in an Agricultural Zone District, Mountain Bell Site. 4. Spa, Urida, N.V. -• Request for parking variance, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. S. Canadas of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow real estate office on first floor in a Commercial Core 2 zone district. 6. Alder - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area variance to allow addition to Bighorn Terrace unit. 7. Tilkemeier - Request for setback variance to allow expansion of residence located on Townhouse Site 1, a portion of Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows Filing No. 1. . I. Note to Planning Commission: Balance of memos will be ready Monday afternoon if you want to pick them up. • 10 I* AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 8, 1978 WORK SESSION 2 :00 P.M. 1..) Environmental Education Program- 2.) Restaurant Emission Control PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M. 1.) Turnbull Setback Variance Lot 20 -D, Bighorn Townhouses 2.) Cold Stream (GlenLyon) Amendment.to SDD4- Postponed indefinitely at request of applicant. 3.) Leeward Residence -- Setback, Site Coverage, and Distance between Buildings Variances Lot D, Flock 2, Vail. Village 1st Filing 4.) Sunbird Lodge - Allowable Units per Acre and Parking Variances. Lot 2, Block 1, Vail /LionHead 3rd Filing. 5.) Plat Amendment - Potato Patch 2nd Filing. 7.) Appointment of rotating Planning & Environmental Commission Member to the Design Review Board. 8.) Approval of Minutes • 1-0 too of vale box 100 office of the town manager vaii, co{orado 81657 (303) 476.5613 August 1, 1978 Town Council P. O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lionsmane Phase II -­ Marvin Simon request for GRFA variance for Units 23 &.25, Lot 51. Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 Councilmembers: The granting of this variance by the Planning Commission by default was, of course, due to a lack of a quorum. However, three members of the Planning Commission did visit the site, and as one of those who went on the inspection, the-following are.my reactions: The space to be converted from storage to usable floor area does not have adequate access nor adequate ventilation, neither of,which are zoning concerns, but were discussed. The space is the unfinished ceiling of the kitchen, located in the mid- dle of the apartment, which Mr. Simon would like to convert to bedrooms and bath so that he could increase the sleeping capa- city and, therefore, the rental fee. It-is worth noting that each apartment is divided into two units, one of which is a one - bedroom apartment with a living room, a full kitchen and the above mentioned storage. space.. The other . unit is-a studio, kitchenette room located directly across the hall from the full. -sized unit, and just, inside the main entrance to that numbered, divisible unit. In short, it is my personal opinion that the request for GRFA variance is unwarranted due to the size of the already existing space and its current ability to address the long term housing problem. By virtue of the fact that we are considering a request to make an already non- conforming.use.more non - conforming, and Mr. Simon's request in no way involves a hardship to him or any-.. one else, I strongly recommend denial of this request. SAine re1 y,. Gerry Whi e Vail Planning Commission GW /sjm MINUTES REGULAR MEETING Councilmembers voted to deny passage of the Mayor Slifer. Those voting against denial Steinberg. The Ordinance was refused, by a PAGE TWO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL 1 August, 1978 ordinance: Bill Wilto; Scott Hopman; Bob Ruder; of the ordinance were: John Donovan and Tom 4 to 2 vote. The Council them moved to the consideration of a request for consideration of the Planning and Environental Commission denial of a request for site coverage variance for Lot 10, Vail Village Third Filing - the Statter Residence. The architect for Mr. Statter explained the reasons for original request for the variances being due to the hazard areas located on the property and the existance of a handicapped member of the family. There was a general disucssion between the Council, Mr. Statter and the architect regarding the possible use of. an elevator in the building, and other possible alternatives to design and construction of the building which would be possible without a variance. Councilmember Donovan asked if a two week delay would cause any hardship for Mr. Statter, who responded that they would probably not star constuction until next spring anyway. Mr. Donovan then asked if the current drawings could be left with the Council for further-study. Mr. Statter agreed to do so. Councilmember Donovan then moved to.table the question until the next regular meeting of the Council; Councilmember Ruder seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion passed.. The Council then took up the.matter of a contested request from Stanley A. Black for a setback variance for Lot 30, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. Town Attorney Larry Rider explained the background surrounding the contested variance request regarding the timing of the ordinance requiring notification of surrounding property'owners. Bob and Eve Nott contested the granting of the variance based on -the grounds that they, being neighboring property owners were never notified. Mr. & Mrs. Nott presented their arguments for denial of the.variance and Mr. Black resented his argument for the need of a variance. Mayor Slifer asked.the Town Attorney to clarify the possible courses of action open to the council. Mr. Rider explained that the Council could affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, reverse the decision or affirm the decision with modifications. Councilmember Wilto then moved as follows.. "Mr. Mayor, I'll make a notion. I would move that we affirm the planning commissions decision with the modification, the modification being that, the deck in question be moved to the "South per Mr. Black's comments and that the house be.moved, uh., not 4, feet Easterly, but 4 feet from the property line, or an additional 4zfeet." Mayor Slifer,then repeated the motion by saying, "The motion has been made that the planning commissions actions be affirmed, that the deck at the, I think it's the West end of the house, be moved in accordance with Mr. Black's comments and that the house be moved perpendicularly 43� feet ,.from the.property.line. "' Councilmember Hopman seconded the motion. The following Covnrilmembers vote.d.in favor of the motion: John Donovan; Scott Hopman, Bill Wilto; Rod Slifer. Those voting against the motion were`.'Tom Steinberg and Bob Ruder. The motion carried 4 to 2. Attorney Terry Quinn appeared before the Council to..address the question of the appeal of the planning staff of a Planning and Enviromental Commission grant-by default of GRFA variance for Marvin Simon, Unites 23 and.25, Lot 5, Block A., Lionsridge Filing No. 1., Lionsmane Phase II. Diana Toughill and Larry Rider explained the reason for the staff'appeal. Mr. Quinn explained that the reqson for the variance request was to upgrade the apartments in the building and not to create additional -floor space. Ms. Toughill requested that the Council inspect the premises before making a desicion on the appeal. Councilmember Steinberg then moved to delay the question until the next regular meeting of the Council to allow time for inspection; Council- member Donovan seconded the motion. All present voted in favor and the motion passed. The time and date for inspection was set at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, August 15th, 1978. /Concerning the appeal of Gordie and B.J. Rowe regarding the recreation amenities fee for a single family residence in Tract A, Bighorn Terrace., Diana Toughill explained that the appeal came about because the Rowe house exists in a medium denisty zone and that the Rowes were assessed a recreation fee based on the medium denisty rate. They have asked that the house be taxed on the basis of a single family dwelling. Mayor Slifer asked Larry Rider if it would be possible to ammend the recreation ammenities ordinance, Mr. Rider responded that the Council could possibly amend the ordinance and consider a rebate to the.Rowes. He offered to research the matter and. "report to -tile council a't the next regular ffieeting. Mayor Slifer - stated- -t matter would be discussed following that report. The next item on the agenda was a report to Council and the public from the.Employee Housing Task Force. Staff member Jim Rubin reported on behalf of the task force that two areas of focus and study by the committee were: 1) long term resident housing and 2) housing for seasonal resident housing and stated that the goal was to obtain 100 units of seasonal housing AWy the 79 -80 season and to assist those builders interested in the construction of long term ousing by whatever means available. Mayor Slifer then invited public input and participation in-the committee and its efforts. MEMORANDUM TO FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 4 August 197$ REF REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE - RALPH TURNBULL Lot 20 -D, BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION The applicant has requested a Setback of approximately 6 -feet from the property line in lieu of the required 15 -feet in order to construct an addition to an existing duplex. The addition is approximately 700 sq. ft. 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 adverse impact on existing or proposed structures in the area. The proposed extension would not make the distance between this unit and the one directly behind it any more non - conforming. The distance between these units is 19 --feet at the closest point, which is approximately 6 -feet short of the required 25 -feet. This extension, however, would not make the distance between the units any closer than the existing 19- feet. There is another unit located to the southwest of the proposed extension, located approximately 25 -feet from the proposed expansion. This 25 --feet is in compliance with the required distance between buildings of the.Zoning Ordinance. Pg. 2 MEMORANDUM- PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 4, 1978 - Setback Variance Request - Turnbull The degree of which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The proposed addition of 700 sq. ft. is within what would be permitted on this site. The site is 4,252 sq. ft., which would permit a GRFA of 1,488 sq, ft. The existing unit on the lot is 697 sq. ft. With the 700 sq. ft. proposed addition, the unit would be 91 sq. ft. smaller than what would be permitted on the site. The reason for the variance request is to protect several trees that stand 50 to 60 -ft. high. The addition could be built in another configuration which would not require the variance, but this would mean the removal of the 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 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 .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. Pg. 3 MEMORANDUM - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . August 4, 1978 - Setback Variance Request - Turnbull 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 variance request, if approved, will enable the owner of this unit to build an addition which he is permitted to have under the density requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Due to the existing position of the building on the site and the relationship of the building to the large trees, it is advantageous to allow the Setback encroachment. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Setback variance. • 0 I MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 7 AUGUST 1978 REF LEEWARD RESIDENCE - FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, AND DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS VARIANCE Portion of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing .lames Morter, representing the Leeward Corporation, has requested the variances.as stated above for the Leeward Residence, formerly the Kindel Residence. The location of this house is directly east of the Christiania Lodge. The variances are being requested to allow the construction of a garage addition onto the existing house. This house is in a Public Accommodation Zone District. It was constructed in 1965, prior to the Zoning Ordinance and is presently non - conforming in terms of its use in this district two of its setbacks, and its parking. The proposed addition makes the house more non - conforming -in the three areas listed above, and that is why the variances are being requested. There was afourth variance request published for this residence: Site Coverage; but more exact calculations show, ..there is not a problem in this area. The site coverage allowed in a Public Accommodation Zone is 55 %; this residence with the proposed addition has only a site coverage of 4570. The following is a list of the specifics for the three variances being requested: A.) West Side Setback Average Height 27.ft. Required Setback 10 + 4 14 ft. Actual Setback 11.75 ft. Variance Requested 2.25 ft. • Pg. 2 Memorandum - Planning & Environmental Commission Setbacks and Distance Between Buildings Variances Leeward Residence. B.) Front Setback Required Setback 10.+ 4 = 14 ft. Actual Setback 8 ft. Variance Requested 6 ft. C,) Distance Between Buildings (to the Christiania Lodge) Distance Required 31 ft. Actual Distance 16 ft. Variance Requested 15 ft. 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 areas follows: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The only building that would be affected by this variance request is the Christiania Lodge. The Christiania Lodge is located only 4.3 feet from its east property line. Due to its height of 4 stories, it is considerably in greater violation of its required setback than the Leeward Residence would be, even with its proposed addition. The proposed addition is still 11.75 ft. from the property line, and will not harm two large spruce trees which provide a buffer between the two buildings. The degree of which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to,, gain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. This residence was built in 1.965 without a garage. The new owner desires a garage for privacy and security reasons, but could not build one with the existing configuration of the house on the site. What he is requesting is an ordinary two -car • Pg. 3 Memorandum - Planning & Environmental Commission Setbacks and Distance Between Buildings Variances - Leeward.Residence attached garage designed to blend in with the existing residence. By covering the parking, the owner is actually making this residence less non - conforming in respect to the parking provision of the Public Accommodation Zone District. This provision requires that 75% of the parking on the site be covered. This site presently has no covered parking. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. The proposed addition is only 13 -feet high at the west property line by the Christiania Lodge. It then slopes gradually to connect with the adjoining roof of the existing residence. This addition should not have a significant impact • on the Christiania Lodge, which is still approximately 12 feet away. 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 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. Pg. 4 Memorandum _ Planning & Environmental Commission Setbacks and Distance Between Buildings Variances - Leeward Residence As stated previously, this residence was built well before the Zoning Ordinance was in effect and is presently non- conforming. The proposed garage addition entitles the owner to have enclosed parking which is considered desirable by the Zoning Ordinance, and is generally done even in residential areas where it is not required. The requested variances do have an impact on one property, the Christiania Lodge. We do not feel that this impact is substantial. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variances as requested.. • • � 0 .l I— NO of d1i box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 office of the town manager August 1, 1978 Town Council P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lionsmane phase II­ Marvin Simon request for GRFA variance for Units 23 & 25, Lot 5, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 Councilmembers: The granting of this variance by the Planning Commission by default was, of course, due to a lack of a quorum. However, three members of the Planning Commission did visit the site, and as one of those who went on the inspection, the following are my reactions: The space to be converted from storage to usable floor area does not have adequate access nor adequate ventilation, neither of which are zoning concerns, but were discussed. The space is the unfinished ceiling of the kitchen, located in the mid- dle of the apartment, which Mr. Simon would like to convert to bedrooms and bath so that he-could increase the sleeping capa- city and, therefore, the rental fee. It is worth noting that each apartment is divided intd two units,. one of which is a one -- bedroom apartment with a living room, a full kitchen and the above mentioned storage space. The other unit is a studio, kitchenette room located directly across the hall from the full -sized unit, and just inside the ruin entrance to that numbered, divisible unit. In short, it is my personal.opinion that the request for GRFA variance is unwarranted due to the size of the already existing space and its current ability to address the long term housing problem. 'By virtue of the fact that we are considering a request to make an already non-- conforminq use more non- conformingi and Mr. 5imon's request in no way involves a hardship to him or any- one else, I strongly recommend denial of this request. Sin ere Y, • Gerry Whi e Vail Planning Commission GW /sjm • WARREN & SOMMER OF VAIL INC. SUITE 205, VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 669 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE 303.476.3734 July 31, 1978 The Vail Planning Commission Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Horizontal Zoning Dear Ladies and Gentlemen; There is a continuing trend taking place in Commercial Core 1 which I feel is detrimental to the character of the Core and I wanted to share some of my thoughts with you. When Horizontal Planning was first suggested, those of us who were on the Planning Commission and Council at that time thought it would be a method to maintain the character of the Core by preserving a mix of residential, accomoda- tion, and commercial occupancies. Unfortunately every year it seems that addi- tional second floor residential apartments are turned into commercial occupancies. I think you are all familiar with the variance that was granted in John McBride`s building which will allow the expansion of Gorsuch, Ltd. I am particularly dis- tressed about this decision because it is now my understanding that the Planning Commission was led to believe that this particular apartment could not be kept occupied. The fact is that the present occupants had no intention of leaving nor are they able to find a new place to live. The variance was requested for this same space approximatly two years ago and the same arguement was used. At that time, there was even a waiting list to get an apartment. The statement that such apartments in heavy noise areas in the Core are untenantable is simply not true. There is no question that these apartments would not be appropriate living quar- ters for families, however, they do provide excellent housing for young people who enjoy the "action" of downtown Vail. There is no doubt that similar variances will be requested in the future and ,I sincerely hope they will be denied. Yours truly, E. WiFTITam 4i Ito EWW:jp -ONE OF THE SEVENTY WORLDWIDE OFFICES OF ASSUREX INTERNATIONAL, INSURANCE EIROKERS AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 15 AUGUST 1978 7:30. P.M. 1. U.S. Forest Service - report regarding RARE II. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 2. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1978, first reading, annexing territory owned by Vail City Corp. and Elmore & Associates, Inc. to the Town of Vail. 3. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1978, first reading, adopting by reference the 1977 "Model Traffic Code ". 4. Resolution No. 18, Series of 1978, designating October 24, 1978, United Nations Day. 5. Resolution No. 19, Series of 1978, redeeming Town of Vail Bighorn Street Improvement Bonds. PRESENTATIONS 6. Statter Residence - appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of request for site coverage variance for Lot 10, Vail Valley Third Filing, continued from August 1, 1978 meeting. 7. Planning staff - appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission's grant by default of GRFA variance for Marvin Simon, Units 23 & 25, Lot 5, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, Lionsmane Phase II, continued from August 1, 1978 meeting. 8. The Crest - request for sign variance. 9. potato Patch Second Filing - request for plat amendment. 10. Housing Task Force report. TOWN MANAGER REPORTS TOWN ATTORNEY REPORTS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION • 11 � V F �F MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 15 AUGUST 1978 The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was convened at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 15, 1978, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. Mayor Rod Slifer and the following Councilmembers were present: John Donovan Tom Steinberg Paula Palmateer Scott Hopman Bill Wilto Bob Ruder Also present were: Terry Minger, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney Ernie Nunn of the U.S. Forest Service presented the background and purpose of the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation and distributed copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. He requested input from the Town and its citizens. ORDINANCE NO. 26, Series of 1978, annexing territory owned by Vail City Corp. and Elmore & Associates, Inc. to the Town of Vail, was introduced on first reading. Mayor Slifer stated that the petition for annexation had been received earlier in the day and was signed by 100% of the territory's landowners. Council- man Donovan moved to accept the petition; Councilman Steinberg seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. Town Engineer, Dan Corcoran, stated that the map, prepared by KKBNA, was in compliance with Statutory require- ments. Mr. Rider read the annexation Statute. In response to a question.regarding the status of the pending West Vail annexation if this annexation were approved, Mr. Rider stated that the West Vail annexation election would be stopped as the Elmore annexation would take precedence. Councilman Donovan moved to approve Ordinance No. 26 on first reading; Councilman Steinberg seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. The Town Clerk was instructed to have the ordinance published in full. Mr. Rider then stated that the Council could discuss possible zoning or could refer that matter to the Planning Commission for recommendations. Councilman Steinberg moved to refer the zoning to the Planning Commission; Councilman Wilto seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 27, Series of 1978, adopting by reference the 1977 "Model Traffic Code ", was introduced on first reading. Mr. Rider explained that the Model Traffic Code is revised every three years and that no significant changes were incorporated in this edition. Councilman Ruder moved to approve the ordinance, Councilman Wilto seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. The Town Clerk was instructed to have the ordinance published in full. RESOLUTION NO. 18, Series of 1978, designating October 24, 1978, United Nations Day, was introduced by Mayor Slifer. Councilwoman Palmateer moved to approve the resolution and to- appoint Mayor Slifer U.N. Day Chairman; Councilman Stei-nberg - seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 19, Series of 1978, redeeming Town of Vail Bighorn Street Improve- ment Bonds, was introduced by Mayor Slifer. Stan Bernstein explained thatthe resolution authorizes the Town to call $105,000 in Bighorn Street Bonds, thereby reducing the debt. Councilman Wilto moved to approve the resolution; Councilman 11opman seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. IW, MINUTES /Vail Town Council 15 August 1978 Page 2 With regard to the Statter Residence appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of their request for site coverage variance for Lot 10, Vail Valley Third Filing, Mr. Statter explained his schematic drawings, and Jim Rubin stated that all adjoining property owners have been notified of the request. Councilman Donovan moved to affirm the Planning Commission's denial of the request; Councilman Wilto seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. With regard to the Planning staff's appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's grant by default of a GRFA variance for Marvin Simon, Units 23 and 25, Lot 5, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1, Lionsmane Phase 11, Mayor Slifer stated that the Town Council visited the units in question earlier in the day. Councilman Donovan requested a letter from the condominium association addressing parking and favoring or opposing the project. Diana Toughill stated that a variance of this size required no additional parking.- Councilman Steinberg asked if Mr Simon would be willing to contract with the Town to bring the units up to Building Code standards and to keep the units long term housing forever. Mr. Simon said no. The Council suggested another postponement, but Mr. Simon's attorney, Terry Quinn requested a decision tonight. Councilman Donovan then moved to reverse the Planning Commission grant; Councilman Steinberg seconded the motion. After some discussion Mr. Simon agreed to tabling the matter one more time to try;:to work out the situation. The Council then voted on the motion; the vote was 4 -3 with Councilmembers Palmateer, Ruder and Wilto voting against; and the motion carried. With regard to The Crest's request for a sign variance, Jim Rubin explained that a larger sign would be more appropriate for the large wall of The Crest. He added that the sign review board had voted unanimously to approve 23 square feet. Councilman Wilto moved to approve the variance request; Councilwoman Palmateer seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. With regard to the Potato Patch Second Filing request for a plat amendment, Jim Rubin explained the map and request as no representative of the applicant was present. Councilman Wilto moved to approve the amendment; Councilman Steinberg seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. Housing Task Force Report. Jim Rubin stated that the Task Force had discussed a possible housing authority for Vail and had looked into the various parcels of land still available within the valley. He explained that the Task Force had studied Joe Staufer's proposal which would require the Town to issue industrial revenue bonds, and Vail Associate's proposal to build a joint TOV /VA project at Lionshead for employee housing. The Town Council asked the Town Attorney to draft an ordinance giving it authority to regulate condominium conversions within the Town. Jay Peterson stated that his client, Chuck Anderson, was proceeding with his project for middle income units involving Town of Vail industrial revenue bonds. With regard to the Minutes of the August 1, 1978, regular meeting, Mayor Slifer clarified that the Council's intent was to request Eve Nott's neighbor, Stan Black, to move his proposed residence to 4 1/2 feet perpendicular to the property line. With that correction, Councilman Donovan moved to approve the minutes; Councilman Steinberg seconded the motion; all present voted in favor; and the motion carried. TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Mr. Minger stated that all Sunburst Recreational Amenities Fees have been paid, in answer to the Council's earlier request. C 10WH of v box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 Mr. Marvin Simon department of community development 16 August 1978 Box 733 Vail, Colorado 81657 Ref: LionsMane Phase 11 Units 23 & 25 A Request for additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) Dear Mr. Simon: This letter constitutes notification that the Vail Town Council has denied your request for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) Variance for Units 23 and 25 in LionsMane Phase II. The reason for this denial is that the additional GRFA made a non - conforming structure more non - conforming which would be in contradication to the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.64.050). If you have any other questions, or need further information please contact my office. Sincerely, :�' f ames A. Rubin Acting Zoning Administrator JAR /gew cc: Terence Quinn, Attorney at Law • • MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 8 August 1978 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF: Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Jim Rubin Diana Toughill The meeting was brought to order and Jim Rubin, Acting Zoning Administrator asked that the Commission address Number 4 on the agenda: Sunbird Lodge - Allowable. Units per Acre and Parking Variances on Lot 2, Block 1, V2, LionsHead_3rd Filing. Mr. Rubin stated that the applicant has asked for a postponement until the Commission's September 12th meeting. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the postponement of Sunbird Lodge - Allowable Units per Acre and Parking Variances on Lot 2, Block 1, Vail /LionsHead 3rd Filing until the meeting of September 12, 1978 at the applicant's request. Ed Drager seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The Commission then addressed the second item on the agenda: Cold Stream GlenL,yon) - Amendment to SDD -4. The applicant is asking for an indefinite postponement. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the applicant's request for indefinite postponement of Cold Stream(GlenLyon) - Amendment to SDD -4. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Number one on the agenda: Turnbull Setback Variance - Lot 20 -D Bighorn Terrace. David Peel, Architect represents the owner in this request. They are asking for the variance to build a two - bedroom addition and put in additional parking. They are asking for a 7 -ft. Setback. The unit is not in excess of the GRFA requirement. It was explained that if the addition were placed differently, it would necessitate removing trees which they are trying to avoid. Jim Rubin had the Commission review the site plan as submitted. The Commission discussed the memorandum as prepared by the Department of Community Development and their recommendation for approval of the variance request. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Setback Variance request for the Turnbull Residence on Lot 20 -D, Bighorn Terrace in accordance with the memorandum from the Department of Community Development of August 4, 1978. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted 3 members for approval, Sandy Mills opposed. The Commission advised the applicant of the 10 -day appeal: .period. Pg. 2 - Minutes Planning & Environmental Commission August 8, 1978 The next item on the agenda, number 3: Leeward Residence - Setback, Site Coverage, and Distance between Buildings Variances on Lot D Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. James Morter of the Morter /Todd Partnership is representing the owner in these variance requests; also, in attendance is the applicant's attorney, Mr. Charles Calvin. Mr. Morter reviewed his plans with the Commission. He explained that the applicant wishes to build a garage addition to his residence which will replace an open parking area for two cars, and the existing stairwell. The addition will enclose the exterior stairwell. He feels this addition will improve the appearance of the residence— The materials to be used for construction will match those on the residence. He feels granting these variances will make the residence more in conformance with its present zoning which is Public Accommodation Zone. No additional GRFA is being requested, and he feels this would not be a dangerous precedent because this is the only residence within the Public Accommodation Zone. Jim Rubin explained the variances requested as set down in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development. It was stated that the 40 -ft. distance between buildings would be reduced to 16 -ft. between the residence and the Christiania Lodge. Mr. Calvin then spoke to the Commission and explained that both buildings (the residence and Christiania Lodge) were built before the current. Zoning Ordinance was in effect. He does not feel that this garage addition would be detrimental to the public safety, . welfare., etc., and he repeated Mr. Morter's statement that there would be no precedent set in this case because of the zoning of this area and the unique problem of this single residence. He stated that the applicant wants all weather access to his residence and that the appearance of the residence would be improved by the garage addition. Mr. Calvin feels there is no special privilege being accorded the applicant by granting these variances. Sandy Mills feels the plans.have "eye appeal ", that it would be much better to look at an attached garage than an open parking area, and she doesn't feel that the narrowed corridor between buildings will be offensive. She also feels that the plan is good in that the trees that are a buffer between the buildings will not be disturbed. Paul Johnston, the representative for the Christlania.Lodge was in attendance. He asked the Commission to consider postponement of these variance requests because,the owners at the.Christiania have not had a chance to review the plans and he wants to notify all the owners. Diana Toughill feels that it would be proper for the Commission to grant this postponement so that Mr. Johnston can notify the owners. Mr. Johnston stated that there are two property owners who would very definitely be impacted by this garage addition. He Pg. 3 - Minutes Planning & Environmental Commission August 8, 1978 stated that he had asked Mr. Morter to provide the plans for the owner's review, but had not received them to date. Sandy Mills asked whether by Public Notice, Mr. Johnston had had an adequate amount of time to notify the owners. Mr. Morter stated that he will give the plans to Mr. Johnston so they are available for the owner's review. Sandy Mills still feels that adequate time was allowed for Mr. Johnston to notify and advise the owners, and that it would be unfair to the applicant to grant the postponement. Diana Toughill explained that the time frame remains the same because of an appeal to the Town Council which Mr. Johnston could do, and the Planning & Environmental Commission could re- hear these variance requests at their next meeting. Sandy Mills feels hearing it twice is a waste of the Commission's time. Roger Tilkemeier stated that because the addition does close in on the Christiania, and the units owned by the absentee owners, they should be allowed to review the plans. Mr. Tilkemeier made the Motion to grant the postponement of the hearing as requested by Paul Johnston, representing the Christiania Lodge. Gerry White agrees that the Commission should grant some time for the owners and neighbors to review the plans. Mr. Calvin stated that he has no problem with the continuance but asked whether it would be possible for the Commission to wake a determination today to approve the variance requests with the proviso that there may be an appeal? Mr. Drager feels this is not possible as there are only four members of the Commission to vote today. He feels it is important to have a full member Board to vote. He added that he has a problem with the owner notification process. Diana Toughill stated that there has been a problem with interpretation of the notification process. It was her interpretation that the staff could notify the Condominium Associations,. or agent, on behalf of the property owners, but the interpretation of Larry Rider, Town of Vail legal counsel, is that each owner within the condominium or townhouse complex should be notified if they own interest in the property. Mr. Drager questioned Jim Rubin as to the fact that the staff along with their legal counsel has steadfastly maintained that a structure that is non - conforming should not be made more non- conforming by granting a variance request. Mr. Rubin stated that this is true, however, the largest concern in non - conformity of a building is excessive GRFA and is a much different category than setback variances. • Ed Drager feels the Commission should.look at the site in consideration of the problems. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that the Christiania Lodge is more non - conforming than the residence in question. The Christiania is only 4'2_ feet from their property line. Pg. 4 - Minutes Planning & Environmental Commission August 8, 1978 Roger Tilkemeier asked Paul Johnston for his comments re- garding the variance requests and the impact on the Christiania. Mr. Johnston questions the visual impact on some of the units. in the Christiania. Mr. Tilkemeier asked Mr. Johnston if he doesn't feel that a covered parking area would be more desirable than an open parking area where cars and trash containers would be visible? Paul Johnston feels that an open parking; area with just two cars will be more desirable than the 2 or 3 cars, along with numerous bicycles, that have been in this area in the past. Diana Toughill stated that two of the items requested are more non - conforming, but concerning the covered parking, this would be more conforming in this Zone District. Gerry White thinks this could prove to be a negative impact and addressed the fact that there are two small open parking lots in the area. Roger Tilkemeier stated that these probably won't be open parking lots for much longer. Ed Drager questioned the fact that the 40 -ft. corridor between buildings would be reduced to 16 -feet which would block the corridor visually. Mr. Heywood Davis then asked to be heard by the Commission. He is an owner of a unit in the Chateau Christiania. He is con- cerned that if there should ever be a falling out with Paul Johnston or the Christiania Lodge, their only access to.their units is through the corridor in question. He feels there will be a very definite impact on some of the units facing the proposed addition. Roger Tilkemeier asked Mr. Davis if he didn't think there would be more privacy attained because of the,garage, as cars coming in and parking in an open lot would produce more noise and the lights may be a bother at night, etc. • Ed Drager feels the Commission should.look at the site in consideration of the problems. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that the Christiania Lodge is more non - conforming than the residence in question. The Christiania is only 4'2_ feet from their property line. Pg. 5 - Minutes Planning & Environmental Commission August 8, 1978 The notification process problem was then re-- hashed and it was decided between the statements from Diana Toughill and members of the Commission, that re-notification should be made for these variance requests, Mr. Morter of the Morter /Todd Partnership will prepare the owners list for notification as requested by Diana Toughill. Mr. Drager reminded the Commission there is a Motion on the floor for postponement. The Motion as stated by Mr. Tilkemeier is to grant a postponement of the hearing as requested by Paul Johnston representing the Christiania Lodge, to the first meeting in September of the Planning & Environmental Commission. The Motion seconded by Gerry White. The Commission voted 3 for approval, Sandy Mills opposed. The fifth item on the agenda: Plat Amendment t- Potato Patch 2nd Filing. This request is made because of a change in road design. The maps were reviewed by the Commission and after discussion the Motion was made by Gerry White to approve the plat amendment for Potato Patch 2nd Filing. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion. The Commission voted 3 for approval with Roger Tilkemeier abstaining. Number 7 on the agenda is Appointment of a_Rotating Planni & Environmental Commission Member to the Desian Review Board. The Commission discussed the matter and are in agreement to appoint Pam Garton with her approval at the next meeting. Number 8 on the agenda, Approval of Minutes. The Minutes for approval are those of the meetings of June 28, July 11, and July 25, 1978. Gerry White made the Motion to approve the Minutes for June 28, July 11, and July 25, 1978. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve these Minutes. Sandy Mills abstained on those Minutes of July 25, 1978. Meeting adjourned. • Natural \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Developed y `1�I Jv High .gs Runoff NATURAL CLEANING PP (Channel) Low Runoff (Stream) • No Rccharge • Recharge U1 I M f • � • • Urban The Problem of Urban Runoff Connie Weis O'Mara t has not been all that long ago that industrial pollut- ants and domestic sewage were considered the major enemies in the fight against water pollution. New in- formation, although still inconclusive, points to another source of pollution that is not only robbing waterways of essential oxygen but also is adding bacteria and other substances, some of which may be toxic. That source is rainfall. By itself, it is an essential compo- nent of the hydrologic cycle. But in urban areas, it picks up many liquids and solids in its path, transporting and depositing them in rivers and streams. As a consequence, the quality of the water is degraded and human health is endangered, with the cost of handling runoff mount- ing into millions of dollars. The immensity and complexity of urban runoff as a source of water pollution is understandable considering everything we see lying on streets, curbs, gutters, side- walks, or parking lots. Candy wrappers, empty cigarette packs, and other non- biodegradable litter; grass, leaves, and other vegetative debris; pools of oil, iridescent slicks of gasoline, and other fluids from automobiles; wastes from pets; and salt and sand used to de -ice a winter road. All of these are carried by forces of travelling rain. Things not quite as visible also go into urban runoff. Gas- eous automobile emissions, the byproduct of the internal . combustion engine, are cleansed from the air by falling rain. What polluted the air — sulphur, nitrogen, and lead —now also pollute the water. Lawn fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides —often ill -timed and excessively applied — are washed away and can end up in a body of water that evenutally may serve as a community's source of drinking water. Areas under construction, where the soil has been exposed, can be eroded by the force of rain, carrying valuable topsoil and nutrients to riverbeds. Over time these rivers will fill, causing downstream flooding and 'shoreline erosion. All of this can have enormous consequences. Rivers have become unsafe and unattractive, They lack oxygen, are sometimes covered with algae, and are injurious to many forms of aquatic life. Toxic pollutants, the consequences of which are largely unknown, are added. Heavy amounts of solids accumulate and settle. Streams which can no longer handle the increased water from rainfall flow over their banks, endangering human life and costing thou- sands of dollars in property damage. And with this ac- cumulation of silt and sediment, millions of dollars are spent dredging waterways that have filled. It's a vicious circle, and nature is unforgiving when we are careless. Historically, the primary concern about runoff was to re- move it from city streets as quickly as possible after a storm. Maximum convenience was key, and disposal was typically handled iri one of two ways. Stormwater would Connie Weis O'Mara is coordinator of the Fnvironmerrtaf Qual- ity Department for the League of Women Voters Education Fund. This article reflects her views and nat nect:ssarily these of the League. 4 EC DICEM13F.R 78 be transported from a street through a storm sewer di- rectly to a receiving stream, or from a street through a combined stormwater and sanitary sewer to a wastewater treatment plant, and then to the river. The latter ap- proach assumed some type of treatment at the plant. However, many if not most wastewater treatment facili- ties are not designed to handle the great surge of water during a storm. Consequently, when they fill to capacity, the stormwater plus raw sewage goes directly to the river or stream with no treatment whatsoever. No doubt our. previous patterns of managing urban runoff have con- tributed to past and current problems. The greatest source of local and downstream poll - lution is urban runoff. . It is not surprising then that William K. Reilly, president of The Conservation Foundation, suggested in a recent 'radio interview that runoff "is contributing 50 percent or more of our pollution problem in many pails of the country." Recent studies —many done as part of the Sec- tion 208 water quality planning program authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 —are also testifying that the greatest source of local and down- stream pollution is urban runoff. In the Occoquan water- shed of Northern Virginia, a monitoring program funded with Section 208 money has shown that heavy loads of pollutants come from urban areas and land under con - stru0ion, Specifically, 98 percent of the sediment, 93 percent of the nitrogen, and 85 percent of the phosphor- ous which travel downstream to the Occoquan reservoir are from these sources. Moreover, the draft Section 208 water quality plan for the Washington, D.C., metropoli- tan area points out that much of the oxygen loss and the. increase in turbidity, viruses, toxic substances, and eu- trophication in the Potomac River are the result of runoff from urban and suburban areas. Congress recognized when it prepared the 1972 Water Pollution Control Acts that the 1983 goal of fishable, swimmable water simply could not be achieved unless necessary steps were taken to reduce the runoff from the land. River basin studies done under the Water Resources Plan- ning Act of 1965 and Section 209 of the 1972 Federal Wa- ter Pollution Control Act also attest to the severity of ur- ban runoff. The Maumee River Basin of Indiana, Michi- gan, and Ohio, is chiefly a farming area where agricul- tural runoff is the major source of nonpoint or diffuse - source pollution. A study of this basin noted, however, that erosion at construction sites for highways, housing, and shopping centers is about .10 times greater per acre than on land used for row crops. The report, which cov- ers a basin area of nearly 9,000 square miles further says. "As roads and buildings are constructed, runoff is in- creased because. of the larger amount of impervious sur- face. Sediment yield to Maumee Bay from urban areas .. . t Runoff 'fit f tYp .b' '•.�i.• An overflow drain in a typical reeentign pond is estimated to be 47,000 tons per year." Results from the Occoquan study referred -to earlier, make a similar point, noting that where the ground is denuded of its cover, sediment yields are 25 times greater per acre than yields from stabilized urban areas. In short, the problem of urban runoff is here, it is grow- ing, and while we do not fully understand all of the rami- fications, we are learning every day —or at least we should be. Rather than dealing with runoff by seeing to its immedi- ate removal, current thinking focuses on creating as little runoff as possible. Some have aptly titled it a "preventive approach "; quite simply this requires that the quantity and rate of water leaving a developed area not be signifi- cantly different from that leaving an undeveloped site. This means that to the extent possible, water should be absorbed or retained on site. There are a variety of sound land use, landscaping, and design practices and construc- tion techniques that can be used to prevent the damag- ing effects of runoff from urban areas. Many of these are inexpensive and should be a part of good development practice. Preventive Approaches for Undeveloped Land Where land is being developed, a number of land use and design practices should be incorporated into the development process. For example'. *Use existing natural systems to the maximum ex- tent possible to accommodate runoff. Altering the overland flow of water modifies nature's hydrologic balance, thereby creating erosion and sedimenta- tion problems. *Avoid removing or radically changing the soil's vege- tative cover, Where removal is necessary, plant quick- growing grasses and other plants that absorb water and require little if any fertilization. *Utilize permanent and temporary storage ponds as an integral part of the overall development plan. Parkview Hills, a residential development in Kalamazoo, Michigan, is an example of a development plan that em- phasizes conservation and several good stormwater man- agement techniques. (See ULI's Project Reference file, Vol. 7, No. 3.) During construction, the developer graded as little find as possible. Where topsoil was removed, seeding and straw mulch were used to control erosion. A strain of grass— absorptive and requiring little fertiliza- tion —was used in some areas. Moreover, there are several lakes in the development, and part of the land area is preserved as open space. Major valleys leading to the lakes serve as drainage areas and are part of the open space preserve. Of course, no development is without some stormwater. Yet 70 percent of the stormwater is retained within the Parkview Hills community. Street run- off is conveyed by outfalls to storm sewers. These are fit - ted to the contours of the land and lead to several de- tention basins or man -made lakes. Water from these lakes is then recycled and used for irrigation. While Parkview Hills has incorporated good stormwater management design into its overall plan, it has also prov- en that a good environment is good economics. Not only have the developers used relatively inexpensive, but ef- fective devices to protect land and water quality, they have also had a waiting; list of hopeful future residents before the completion of each phase of development. EC DECEMBER 78 5 Y, S �v An overflow drain in a typical reeentign pond is estimated to be 47,000 tons per year." Results from the Occoquan study referred -to earlier, make a similar point, noting that where the ground is denuded of its cover, sediment yields are 25 times greater per acre than yields from stabilized urban areas. In short, the problem of urban runoff is here, it is grow- ing, and while we do not fully understand all of the rami- fications, we are learning every day —or at least we should be. Rather than dealing with runoff by seeing to its immedi- ate removal, current thinking focuses on creating as little runoff as possible. Some have aptly titled it a "preventive approach "; quite simply this requires that the quantity and rate of water leaving a developed area not be signifi- cantly different from that leaving an undeveloped site. This means that to the extent possible, water should be absorbed or retained on site. There are a variety of sound land use, landscaping, and design practices and construc- tion techniques that can be used to prevent the damag- ing effects of runoff from urban areas. Many of these are inexpensive and should be a part of good development practice. Preventive Approaches for Undeveloped Land Where land is being developed, a number of land use and design practices should be incorporated into the development process. For example'. *Use existing natural systems to the maximum ex- tent possible to accommodate runoff. Altering the overland flow of water modifies nature's hydrologic balance, thereby creating erosion and sedimenta- tion problems. *Avoid removing or radically changing the soil's vege- tative cover, Where removal is necessary, plant quick- growing grasses and other plants that absorb water and require little if any fertilization. *Utilize permanent and temporary storage ponds as an integral part of the overall development plan. Parkview Hills, a residential development in Kalamazoo, Michigan, is an example of a development plan that em- phasizes conservation and several good stormwater man- agement techniques. (See ULI's Project Reference file, Vol. 7, No. 3.) During construction, the developer graded as little find as possible. Where topsoil was removed, seeding and straw mulch were used to control erosion. A strain of grass— absorptive and requiring little fertiliza- tion —was used in some areas. Moreover, there are several lakes in the development, and part of the land area is preserved as open space. Major valleys leading to the lakes serve as drainage areas and are part of the open space preserve. Of course, no development is without some stormwater. Yet 70 percent of the stormwater is retained within the Parkview Hills community. Street run- off is conveyed by outfalls to storm sewers. These are fit - ted to the contours of the land and lead to several de- tention basins or man -made lakes. Water from these lakes is then recycled and used for irrigation. While Parkview Hills has incorporated good stormwater management design into its overall plan, it has also prov- en that a good environment is good economics. Not only have the developers used relatively inexpensive, but ef- fective devices to protect land and water quality, they have also had a waiting; list of hopeful future residents before the completion of each phase of development. EC DECEMBER 78 5 • .7 Urban In order to institute similar stormwater management prac- tices county - wide,. public officials in Leon County, Flori- da, adopted standards requiring new development not to exceed a land area's natural flow. In Michigan, a soil ero- sion control plan must be approved for developments which involve 1 or more acres of land or which are within 500 feet of a lake or stream. County agencies, with the ap- proval of the state Department of Natural Resources, en- force the legislation. The administrative costs to the coun- ty agencies are covered by permit fees. Preventive Approaches for Developed Land A number of preventive measures can be applied to land already developed, including: •Construction of sediment basins to catch and hold eroded soil, thereby reducing sediment accumula- tion and flooding downstream; *lmproved sweeping or vacuuming of streets and catch basins to remove debris, litter, and fine solids before they are washed into sewers; *Limited application of fertilizers and herbicides on public parks, recreation areas, golf courses, and other lands; *Maintenance of stream banks with vegetation, alter- nating strips of grass and soil, or with structures that prevent erosion. Local officials in Chariton, Iowa, constructed several earthen dams to keep eroding soil from polluting Lake Morris, the town's source of drinking water. They anticipate savings of $8,000 annually in reduced water treatment expenses; *Public education on how such practices as over -fer- tilizing lawns or sweeping leaves, grass, and other debris into the streets affect the quality of our en- vironment as well as the economics (with the in- creased costs of cleanups). Controlling Runoff Even using preventive measures, any development will still create runoff and concurrently, the need to control it. One alternative is to store stormwater and discharge it over time to a_ treatment plant. Rooftops, yards, and low places can serve as storage areas. Where land is scarce, or the receiving capacity of natural water storage areas is limited, it may be necessary to build underground storage. An expensive alternative, this need not be de- signed to hold all runoff from a storm, but only the first 10 to 15 minutes since 75 percent of the pollutants are flushed from urban areas in that time. Another alterna- tive, useful when large boides of water cannot absorb the runoff, would be to store and reuse the runoff in wa- tering lawns, golf courses, and other areas that would naturally filter the stormwater and could replenish groundwater supplies. Foresight and logic direct us to incorporate preventive . measures for controlling runoff into our planning pro - cesses. It makes both environmental and economic sense. No single approach will be enough, however. The . use of multiple alternatives and a comprehensive ap- proach are necessary. The problems of deteriorating wa- ter quality, downstream flooding, increasing costs for wa- ter treatment and dredging rivers filled with silt, and groundwater reduction present a challenge as well as an opportunity to be innovative in developing and using precious land and water resources. ❑ 6 EC DFCfMBF.R 78 4 in - WF .I V: y£ S� i lV.c4. pf.i y K'4{�ti {Y`t t ' 4 n 1 it 3 a ! W. `I 4v. ,. .. _, 't i- .. Cad°„ • "4'",r, ?� s'S$ S 'A' �aT." �"E.`�3Srowla ��Y��WL}°S�i�J�.'.{�. i�:.e....•:.- :.+1T._ .. �•L..r.. : _....�C -'. .a m. i—. � ,.......�uIO.Y:wwr..!ih'at'ea„• da1'ablS'i�.« +- � -e "uu. N:..aG�lruVe3:u^t�,l�L ..�'r�_rot�..SI�T+1.� A rcrtcrn[furr rroml at !'arkview fhll ±, Kalarnazoo, Michigan. 6 EC DFCfMBF.R 78 V1 511"le Urban Runoff: A i\leed f ®r Technical Planning John D. Seyffert here are probably two reasons why the urban runoff problem has gained in recognition. During the past decade, there has been a great surge of develop- ment within the urban ring surrounding the central city; secondly, there has been a marked increase in the citizen awareness of environmental problems. While urban areas were being formed and developed, there were great economic pressures to maximize land use and density. Few planners were aware of the future implications of stormwater runoff. The task at that time was to plan, design, and implement an infrastructure sys- tem to service the urban area. Roads; highways, sewer. lines, and storm drain systems were designed to a mim- mum standard servicing the urban area. Unfortunately, little attention was paid to the upland watershed areas, the surrounding suburban and rural areas, and virtually no consideration was given to future stormwater flows. The building boom in the suburban ring during the 1950s and 1960s spurred rapid population growth, increased citizen mobility, and provided generous amounts of con- struction money and mortgage funds. Development in suburban areas reached an incredible pace, but all infrastructure was still designed according to the older established standards. Planning and zoning were lagging behind by being con- cerned only with the placement of subdivisions, shopping centers, and commercial and industrial centers. Few juris- dictions were concerned with the implication or impact of this development upon the natural systems. The philosophy during this period was to encourage rapid growth and minimize problems. As far as stormwater was concerned, the goal was to get it off site as quickly as possible. No efforts were made to detain or control the flow. Paving over areas, paving stream chan- nels, and encasing small tributaries were acceptable prac- tices because they minimized site problems. Drainage systems were designed to serve their areas at a minimum standard. In suburban areas, these practices drastically increased stormwater quantities and velocities although they ex- pedited the removal of water. The downstream areas, typically urban, already had a basic problem. Their drain- age systems had been designed to serve their area at minimum standards, with no allowance for future de- velopment or increased flows and 'velocities. Because these under -sized urban systems were not designed to John D. Seyffert is director of the Dep ;rrtment of Permits and Licenses of Baltimore County and is chairman of irs Flood Con- trol Task force. Runoff transport sudden floods of water, system back -up and street and basement flooding. resulted. Local governments were faced with two problems: 1) solving the immediate problem and 2) preventing flooding in the future by planning ahead for increased urban runoff. The Need for Federal Aid To resolve existing urban runoff problems requires money, analysis, planning, and re- engineering. It might be interesting to note at this point that when a highway becomes overloaded, causing an increase in ac- cidents and deaths, federal programs are available to pro- vide financial assistance for planning, engineering, and implementation to resolve the problem by widening the highway. When a neighborhood deteriorates, threatening the health and safety of urban wsidents, federal assis- tance is available to rebuild the neighborhood. There are no such federal programs to aid local urban areas in resolving runoff problems. While much progress has been made under the Federal Flood Program to con- trol major river systems, the program has not addressed the smaller watersheds in urban areas. Federal legislation needs to define stormwater runoff control in urban areas as flood control; similar to the major drainage definition in the 1944 Flood Control Act. The goal of this new legislation should be to develop a comprehensive urban watershed management policy. Lo- cal governments must be able to provide leadership in planning regional watershed solutions. Approximately 2 years ago, a group of professionals formed the National Association of Urban Flood Manage- ment Agencies for the purpose of getting federai assis- tance in urban stormwater problems. ]'his group, based in Washington, D.C., is currently drafting legislation to submit to Congress for consideration in providing assis- tance to urban areas. Despite the fact that there are no federal programs to i mprove drainage systems, local governments can assure the maximum efficiency of their existing storm drain sys- tems .by. instituting their own programs which would include: •A regularly scheduled storm drain clean -out; -Routine street sweeping; *Stream channel maintenance; °Stream channel debris removal; ®Culvert and bridge opening cleaning; and • Removal of sediment deposits. Another service should also be considered. Local gov- ernment should provide for those urban areas subject to flooding a flash flood warning program. The program should be designed so that of the earliest possible warn- ing from the weather service, units of local governi -neat (such as fire and police departments) are alerted and pre- pared to help. Blocking off roads, evacuating possible danger areas, rerouting bus lines, and pumping out base- EC DECEMBER 78 7 r^ C7 uroan - ments can all be prearranged and organized as necessary. Under this type of program, each unit would have an as- signed area and defined responsibility. Emergency assis- tance, if properly planned and implemented, should help to minimize damage and personal injury. Local Programs Many states have cautiously entered the area of environ- mental management, including runoff control and flood - plain or watershed management. It is important that states assume the general responsibility of encouraging local governments to begin planning regionally for runoff and floodplain management. In 1976, the State of Maryland passed the Flood Control — Watershed Management Bill. This bill encourages the establishment and implementation of watershed manage- ment programs, and further encourages local governmen- tal units to manage flood -prone lands in a comprehensive manner. Within the context of a management program, local governments are encouraged to carefully define acceptable types of land use and their implications within flood -prone areas. Subdivisions facing problems of urban runoff should stop additional development which would increase flows downstream or further degrade the existing en- vironment. To allow projects to be built that will further aggravate an already bad situation raises serious liability questions for the approving authority. The Need for Technical Analysis The time has come for planning and zoning departments to utilize technical analyses of the impacts of develop- ment upon a watershed in order to guide proper land use patterns and develop responsive zoning laws. The philosophy of land use should be adjusted to acknowl- edge the basic needs of an open ecosystem or watershed. Federal legislation, needs to address the problems of drainage in the smaller urban watersheds. Planners can use their professional training coupled with available technical data to assign runoff characteristics to each land use type; to model the watershed; and to plot the incremental increases of water flow by land use and proposed development. The planning process could be broadened to encompass an entire environmental management concept whereby values are assigned to land use riot only for stormwater but also for air quality, noise control, and visual effects. The zoning process should be adjusted to reflect the sophisticated and complex problems being created by spot zoning. To begin changing the character of a neigh- borhood through a series of zoning variances leads to the creation of irreversible problems for local govern- 8 EC DECEMBER 78 ment because these changes are not adequately planned for in the city's master plans. A single - family residential neighborhood that slowly turns to a multifamily neighbor- hood requires increased commercial development to serve the increased population. Backyards might be paved over to handle increased parking requirements. The next step might be to tear down individual dwelling units and replace them with mid -rise apartment houses or groups of townhouses. Each change, in and of itself, would be non- threatening to the neighborhood, yet cumulatively these changes would increase the demands upon com- munity systems. often infrastructure systems such as storm drains are no longer able to handle the increased flows. The costs to local government to up -grade these systems would be immense and would dramatically: af- fect the local tax rates if they were not systematically budgeted. Conceptually, the entire economic burden could be placed on the first zoning variance which changed the single - family residential area to a multi- family. A number of local governments have adopted stormwater management programs in an attempt to control and man- age runoff. Controlling urban runoff was originally en- visioned as a technique to reduce erosion of strearn banks and stream beds. In some jurisdictions, expanded stormwater management programs now require on -site retention of the 100-year storm. This runoff quantity is determined by calculating the runoff before and after development. Under the stormwater management con- cept, the difference or net increase of water should be contained on -site and the d:rcharge controlled or staged. The difficulty which arises is in determining the proper staging or timing for the release of the water. Various conditions within a watershed will require the discharging of water at various intervals so that the peak flow or flood elevation will not increase at any time. To achieve this requires a sophisticated under- standing of the entire watershed and a careful review of the hydrograph in respect to the proposed devel- opment. To demand the retention -of stormwater is not enough. It is'the timing of the release and the quantity of water released which are crucial in achieving true stormwater management. Stormwater management facilities can take all forms and shapes, from rooftop storage to underground cells. Plan- ners and engineers should investigate the use of parking areas, open swales, ponds as landscape features, porous paving, grass median strips in parking areas, and under- ground storage vaults as means of managing runoff. All of these methods are acceptable and need not he out- rageously. expensive. Some projects have actually used stormwater management techniques to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the project, thus returning economic value to the owner. It is impossible to control urban runoff solely through stormwater management. The importance of land use and comprehensive planning must be made evident to all fed- eral, state., and local governments. The final solution must encompass a multi - disciplined . management ap- proach involving zoning, planning, engineering, and — common sense. D N Minimizing Urban Runoff During Development Jay L. i-larmic (though point source pollution of surface waters has been extensively studied and real progress made in controlling it and thus improving water quality in many areas, the effects of nonpoint discharges of surface runoff continue to be neglected, especially during development of subdivisions, highways, and other construction in urban areas. Those agencies or individ- uals responsible for review and appraisal of construction drainage requirements often look only at the results of the completed development. Such final assessment is, of course, both necessary and desirable, It is also important, however, to appraise the project during the building phase, for it is then that surface water degradation fre- quently occurs, causing lasting effects, or conditions which take long periods for the receiving waters to handle. Most pollutants enter the water system by water transport and are thus carried to the pond, marsh, estuary or ocean which is their final destination. In many cases, the loca- tions where these pollutants enter the system are poorly defined, in contrast to point source discharges from pipes or ditches. The nonpoint input may be at so many loca- tions around the receiving waters that in some cases it might be characterized as sheet flow. The precise pick -up point of the pollutants is often difficult to determine. The total impact on the receiving waters will come from a Possibly synergistic combination of the pollutants from all '.sources and points of entry. Some pollutants, especially soil particles driven by the wind, are airborne onto sur- face waters. Large -scale developments, where denuded sites remain exposed for a period of time, are particu- larly responsible for this type of pollution, All of the nonpoint sources taken in aggregate can have a definite detrimental effect on water quality — polluting waters used for recreation, fish and shellfish habitation, and wildlife and dornestic supplies. When heavy metals, toxic materials, pesticides and herbicides, oil, grease, silt, and other pollutants are also present, the negative effects on the environment will be even greater., On -site retention functions adequately even in flat development areas. Prime examples of inadequate surface water manage- ment during development can be found in southwest Florida. Vast areas were either filled with dredge materi- als taken from the estuaries or drained by extensive canal systems to provide. land for housing. Undoubtedly similar conditions can be found throughout the country, but the Florida situations are dramatic and have received national notoriety because of their size, their location in wetlands, Jay L Karmic is the environmental r;onsultant for the Board of County Commissioners in Collier County, i loricf.r. Runoff and the drastic lowering of water tables and decreased fresh water aquifer recharge which resulted. The degrad- ing environmental effects of some of these developments cannot be reversed; correction of others will cost mil- lions of dollars. Because of past mismanagement, atten- tion has now focused on the need for integral land use constraints as well as surface water retention or detention considerations when development plans are reviewed. The Environmental Protection Agency stated in 1976 that there is considerable lack of data on the magnitude of water pollution from pesticides, petroleum products, biological pollutants, soil additives, and other miscellane- ous wastes. Because of this deficiency an accurate predic- tion of the effects of development is impossible to make. Furthermore, it sugg ests that the most likely way to anti- cipate runoff problems is to analyze past effects and use this data to predict future conditions. EPA has concluded that the best way to control runoff should be selected in accordance with specific natural conditions occurring in the vicinity. They include: *Physical characteristics of soils and other geologic materials. • Topography, e Intensity, duration, and frequency of precipitation. EC DECEMBER 78 9 FEE, `i f. a ' �k - r3 e` Q f}f Uncontrofled runoff pollution during highway development near Naples, Florida. and the drastic lowering of water tables and decreased fresh water aquifer recharge which resulted. The degrad- ing environmental effects of some of these developments cannot be reversed; correction of others will cost mil- lions of dollars. Because of past mismanagement, atten- tion has now focused on the need for integral land use constraints as well as surface water retention or detention considerations when development plans are reviewed. The Environmental Protection Agency stated in 1976 that there is considerable lack of data on the magnitude of water pollution from pesticides, petroleum products, biological pollutants, soil additives, and other miscellane- ous wastes. Because of this deficiency an accurate predic- tion of the effects of development is impossible to make. Furthermore, it sugg ests that the most likely way to anti- cipate runoff problems is to analyze past effects and use this data to predict future conditions. EPA has concluded that the best way to control runoff should be selected in accordance with specific natural conditions occurring in the vicinity. They include: *Physical characteristics of soils and other geologic materials. • Topography, e Intensity, duration, and frequency of precipitation. EC DECEMBER 78 9 CI Urban °Prevailing direction and velocity of wind. *Character of ground water, including presence of solutes, slope of land area, and relationship of sur- face drainage to the development site area. *Climatic conditions for vegetative growth.' Whe6 these conditions are ascertained for the area, site specific techniques can be used to minimize the runoff and resulting water deterioration during urban develop- ment. It is extremely important to make these decisions before construction so that the project maybe properly controlled from its initiation through its completion and subsequent operation. On -Site Procedures A number of alternative procedures based on these spe- cific site characteristics can he used to minimize urban runoff during and after construction or site alteration. All of these practices have been tried and tested; however, more rigid compliance standards and more diligent moni- toring need to be applied consistently in the review pro- cedures by those governmental and private entities re- sponsible for monitoring the watershed system or systems involved. On -site retention, or minimum allowable site discharge, functions adequately as a system, even in flat topographic development areas. This detention and retention system can be implemented by providing vegetated Swale sys- tems which collect water from the developing area. Swaies, prop ^rly constructed and vegetated — usually by immediately installing a sod grass cover —will slow down water movements, permit increased percolation, act as a "scrubbing" agent, and permit some excess nutrient up- take. Swales, especially in urban housing development, must be carefully planned. They must be properly graded to prohibit excessive ponding and the attendant breeding of troublesome insects or the creation of other public health hazards. The system must allow discharge at nu- merous points, thus providing more dilution capability of the receiving waters; and it must be designed, con - structed, sodded, or seeded and mulched as soon as prac- ticably feasible when development commences. Excavated pond retention areas act as settling basins and nutrient assimilation waters. If properly monitored and managed they can provide recreational activities and . aesthetically pleasing home sites. There are numerous examples of good retention ponds, but, there are also far too many examples of ponds which have become weed infested, contaminated with bacteria, toxic materi- als, pesticides, or oils and greases which have made them unattractive, unsuitable for recreation, and in some cases unfit for human contact. Some pond retention waters have actually contaminated shallow aquifers which affect the potable water supply. Probably the most efficient sys- tem is a combination of grassed drainage swales flowing over a vegetated buffer before entering the final receiv- ing waters. Allowing water to run off to relatively small cypress ponds or "heads" is a common practice in southwest Florida. in the past, water levels of many of these heads have been Extensive fill area lacking; protection against runoff during; development at Marco Island, Florida. 10 EC DECEMBER 78 lowered by draining so that additional water will help their growth and survival, Such areas can also assimilate rather large amounts of inflow nutrients. Urban development on the coastal plain will undoubtedly continue in Florida, Many hundreds of mites have already been channeled for both drainage and for boat access to open waters. Although other large -scale drainage pro- jects or filling of wetlands are unlikely in the future, those projects already in existence remain a problem. They will require more seawalls installed, more docks and piers constructed, and continual maintenance dredging for boating activities. Some previously dug drainage canals must be plugged or filled; but others, because of the present urban development, will have to be kept open to prevent flooding. For these remaining canals all possible precautions must be taken to prevent damaging silt movement and to minimize further redistribution of other pollutants. Silt detention screens or curtains should enclose future development and dredging operations in the open water; weirs, or possibly temporary earthen plugs, should be installed; and silt settling basins will be necessary in some development projects. No future de- velopment should be permitted unless adequate proce- dures to detain urban runoff are part of a realistic devel- opment plan. Governmental Controls Urban development runoff can be controlled, or elimi- nated, by other government procedures such as compre- hensive planning, zoning, engineering, and stringent wa- ter management ordinances with efficient monitoring and enforcement capabilities. Collier County, in southwest Florida, is an example of a local government which is aware of the real and potential dangers associated with uncontrolled urban runoff. The most aggressive step it has taken has been to preserve environmentally sensitive lands by a special zoning overlay referred to as the "ST" or special treatment overlay district. The purpose of this regulation is stated in the ordinance as follows: Within Collier County there are certain areas, which be- cause of their unique assemblages of flora and/or fauna, their aesthetic appeal, historical or archaeological significance, or their contribution to their own and adjacent ecosystems, make them worthy of special regulations. Such regulations are di- rected toward the conservation, protection, and preservation of ecological, commercial, and recreational values for the greatest benefit to the people of Collier County. Such areas include, but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and fresh water swamps, barrier islands, coastal beaches, estuaries, cy- press cones, natural drair"tage ways, aquifer recharge areas, and lands and structures of historical and archaeological signifi- cance. . The main intent of this overlay district regulation is to as- sure the maintenance of these environmental and cul- tural resources and to encourage the preservation of the Runoff intricate ecological relationships within the systems while permitting development which will hold changes to levels determined acceptable by the Board of County Commis- sioners after public hearing. An efficient system combines grassed drainage swales and a vegetated buffer. The "ST" overlay on 40,000 acres of land in Collier County appears to be a drastic measure. But when coupled with the incentives offered by the transfer of development rights' from an "ST" district to a "TDR" district, the restrictive zoning Becomes, in fact, advantageous to the landowner, the developer, and eventually to the govern- mental body that has been most affected by a reduction in the real estate property tax base. Local governments are in� the best position to regulate the water resources within their jurisdictions, Many of these governing bodies have addressed the urban runoff issues with foresight and have adopted significant con- trols or corrective measures. Others have not. The prob- lems are critical in the fast growing coastal areas where undoubtedly the greatest attention has been focused. However, in any area there continues to be a need for more aggressive action to control the quantity and qual- ity of diffuse surface waters coming from urban develop- ment. Maintaining environmental integrity to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens is clearly within the. police powers of local governments. The legal traditions relative to surface water management in Florida have been confusing and have resulted in somewhat ineffec- tive administration of the resource. Collier County's ST overlay district, however, represents an innovative at- tempt to give local government a strong tool with which to manage water resources — including runoff from devel- opment, p Footnotes 'Allen E. Rimer, James A. Nissen, and David L. Reynolds; Jour- nal of Water Pollution Control federation, February 1978. Robert E. Thornson, Nonpoint Source Control Guidance: Construction Activities. (Washington: U.S.E.P.A„ December 1976). :'Zoning Ordinance of Collier County, Florida Coastal Area Planning District. Ordinance No. 76 -30, Revised December 1977. 'Zoning Ordinance of Collier County, Florida Coastal Area Planning District. Draft of Revision of Ordinance No, 76 -30, Section 22 to add Section 22.111, TDR -1. See also Environmental Comment, August 1978. EC DECEMBER 78 11 Ord. Page 2 ORDINANCE No. %/ Series of 19-7-g - AY ORDINANCE AMENDING TF,E VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 8.28 RELATING TO FIREPLACES; PROVIDING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; REGULATING THE NUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOLID FUEL BURNERS; REQUIRING HEAT EFFICIENT UNITS; PROHIBITING COAL USAGE; SETTING FORTH AIR QUALITY AND POLLUTANT STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR A VOLUNTARY ALERT AND AIR QUALITY REPORTS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vail in a valley between two mountains restricts air movement through the valley; WHEREAS, the movement of air through the Gore Valley is further restricted in cold times of the year; WHEREAS, the pollutants in the air caused by automobiles, fireplaces, and other sources of pollution have become increasingly worse; WHEREAS, the use of fireplaces has - contributed to the air pollution problems within the Gore valley, but if Properly designed and restricted, they can serve a useful function and be less polluting; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that certain regulations should be adopted to control and regulate construction and maintenance of fireplaces within the Town of Vail; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED - -BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TDYN Op VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section I_ The Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 8.28 "Fireplaces" which reads as follows: 8.28.010 Purpose and Applicability- These regulations are enacted for the Purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents and visitors in the.Town of Vail. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes; (1) To protect the air quality in the Town of Vail; (2) To reverse the trend towards increased air degradation in the Town of Vail; (3) To provide heat sources that are efficient but have a reduced polluting effect; (4) And to generally protect the air for the purposes of the public's health, safety and welfare. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all areas of the Town of Vail. 8.28.020 Definitions (1) Air Contaminant: Fumes, smoke, particu- late matter, vapor, gas or any combination thereof, but not including water vapor or steam condensate. (2) Ambient Air: The surrounding or outside air. (3) Atmosnheric Stability: An atmospheric condition where little or no diffusion Of air contaminants occurs. This will be determined by the Pasquill Stability Classification, (4) Solid Fuel Burner: A fixed apparatus that burns fuel to provide heat, including, but not limited to, a masonry fireplace, pre- fabricated zero clearance fireplace, free- standing fireplace, Franklin stove, or air tight stove, whose operation requires it to be a fixture of the living unit, (5) Motor Vehicle: Any self- prOpelled vehicle which is designed primarily for travel oa the public and private roads, highways, and other rights -of -way., which is generally and commonly used to transport persons and property over said roads, highways and rights -of -way. (U) Any word, term or phrase not hereto defined or specified to Title 18 "Zoning" Of the Vail Municipal Code. 8.28,030 Re elation of ,number pad Construction of Solid Fuel IIurners (A) After January 1, 1979, the number of solid fuel burners that may be constructed is hereby limited to the following: (1) One solid fuel burner is permitted in each dwelling unit; (2) Motel, Hotel, Inn, Lodge - One solid fuel burner per building; no fireplaces in accommodation units. (3) In any restaurant or bar that is not located within a motel, Hotel, Inn, or Lodge - One solid fuel burner is per mitted for the premises. (B) Gas Fireplaces: The restrictions of this Chapter shall not apply to a fireplace fueled by natural gas, propane, or any similar liquid fuel so long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used or modified to burn solid fuels. Gas fireplaces shall be permitted in any unit.' In GI b1 A, 'O 04 W I w v N G W N I 1l F. L' "✓ O N Uy1 k 1 M ro I i1N O0 ro15C ro I •N ro .K 7 11 N H a 0 L (s] C Q7 N� 41 A N W 'tl ,� .COS M Itl A N w ?� 3 N N •H N +1 N X ro 11 41 A N O U U 'O A 30 •N y1 xr. •• 'o O C 1J0 N N l •C ro O v7 G .0 H G X N O N y LT.0 U C iT'tl i1 •.1 (. O w b+ '•0H ° 7 ° 0 4J N A O ro ro O 6 !, N H a N H vc: v C 1 •.1 0 O 't1 •H H N 7 .G b N •H ro •H N b tT b H A Od I q1 M -N O 4,141 o, 41 ro .N d C li C T .-1 O N N O N.0 O 11•.1 N > •tl 1 N F' R, 11 fj G U N H .N� b C rtF G .•Ut N.N ++wU Ak Cro0 -'INb+ j OG N H A a •rl A '.� .0 0, iT,-i k H 11 LT•� ,C 4.0 U (R •. ti' F' u N n N O K N .H N L4 w .1 ,I'tl -11 U) 0 5 N C iO 1 7 !tl F + N iJ 4J J Z O 3 A p H RY .G ro O r U 3 •FH �? b, 14 1., G N 0 x 4 N ,N•V 'V .0 N ro O U O N X 44 0) �iw a [� • � . q ° C N 10N1 ; U C .rC 1 Rl O O N H -, N -H 1J 1 1m O U O V1 N H H 4J I C, G O 3 C CN G Aw � perN + 4j •H U N Cl C W C6 RJ H ro •H N -H N N O x O N C R U 0w:j 4, .1 0U N wro w44 11 •H w O O ,� � .� ro b H •N to , N � yl CC W N y L'1 Y CHU.0 M U d L J1 H U 11 N rti N •H C N C —i 1'4 15 � W w I N 1 \ •N ro 0 p M N .1N P. O LGk O M .SN'• • H i1 > C Cn m 1 N In C U H 01 O N "•YH N 6 W "1 'H ro C ro N N O oU r5 .xr H A A u.A w x N G N N ro N 41 W VO 0 CUw ,a X' Y N to 0 A M H b o - N Cro U� a 11 •H -, Y fk 0 C� AJ« 11 '4 11 m ry k Fr w' N p c ' V kr1 •[7 w0 11 M 0 roCJ�ANOw N N ro ro P, •H 0 H '✓ >, +d NNW N\ 11 iJ H ,O 6 H }. a5 N K C ro m H w U tn diV k�.., F ,C �CO3 ro' 1 N C A, r5ou•e w O 1 11 k to w O N C 4 ) a 11 U G +11 Ci •V't° b •H M ro , v4 41 1. u j.i1 V •N N b 1 C N N 1 U ' • A: V r m ,I ri UO - C, l O G11 U f• '� N N N > ro 0 N U 5 N 7 16 'a O m 0 0 •.1H •.d ,G N ++ C U G D U V Y .�N a++ Y tr ? Y .•-� m A 4 N N 11 C y '{7 •a qy Ow VM W H rov ro w C G ANNO J.,N k 3 G C U1 N N S1 16 •ri N of 'U N W 0 n ro W ed ro O Ul PL W 11 >r, ro 11 O ,-+ N F E NHb A A C •H x O C11 N ro 11 11 In �0 N O 11 .. O x O 11 C b+ A' N %+ >+ HH .-1 a N H O W N O 4f 11 •N U V 41 rt >. F~ C S1.M C F 11 W N X V U O N O Ul .L E N O N N -1-I N O •N -.a b' td C. 1, F w c Id •H N 3 [' p ;d ro u IR 7 11 •,1 -H QO Q 0 '•q ro� a U ✓ N W a° .N H U U 'O 11 A w H O -A C M G.0 w '6 N a.. -.H c N 0 Ns, N O G O Y A 1J Ex!d -HWHk ro N v o o q y p o u AN rG 44 W A 44 US A d F O id •H 4 U O A N R5 CO w N W N 7 M ,i c o 0 1J wro 7(a ; N H N 11 P, N X b o N m p 41 04 UNrn a ro O O 4r -1 O O 'UI N U 11 N 4 3 H V N v 0 ID S -•[1 O A£ 1'01 CD n o m o 0 0 � co 0 N N N W pp N co iY In GI b1 A, •H N N V '21 @ H ,••,+ 6 NC H G.N w a .N �. u 3 w r•� 1 a •H•H .`di a5 D .Q NR •a r-I ro S y AC 0 71 ° l ,�° V pO 3 E ° O ro Y p •H b 0 . wM01U HNC 41 9Ni00� yUiklp� 3 kO drw °'rw� rcUY US,N O`O �a.A C'O •H 7tdNG - CNCti +>V kN3 8b ,d ROC td ++ N -N C 57 •H R at b C •H p uvH.0 N .[ a ° E1 t w cd R a 0 0 ro C.--0 o o a a� o n v G .0 C a 41 i1 U H Y ri w 0 NO td d C O "O •\ CS ,tU M Ul C H •.G •f w C ° d Elp p 6 A F NN1 �L3 k V 0 N w'Y 1 pCF W x! a> N k at 7 H H U O •H NN' U U 3 -A yrC, :0:. W lO R .H 03O •°C +°C 1 -r1 HU•rN l .� x•N ,1 H 6p C^ N O O H N w U ofO N d CNtN .{k 7 ? � 11 Y1_ NY N Z U 7 11 O w U,d H� A m C •C N O v C .Y .� a •e; U !0 .., ONC TO UNOO U0B •.UHC FO C G C N h0 a k O : wON A N tl1 -+.U•+ r •iN U a1 U UH I Id w F U3 OF, '7 C C w Nk OU -A 41 Y :3•H O.HW-N V rN) O Ok � > O v -,N i ai .-. N NY Q>SOiN�>+C NYw v .s•-' C s-' C k k •q O F E v1 W w 311 WC A N F+5114 . � v � P� O v O O N 00 'O 04 W I w v N G W N I 1l F. L' "✓ O N Uy1 k I a1 w i1N O0 ro15C ro I •N ro .K 7 11 N H a 0 L (s] C Q7 N� 41 A N W 'tl ,� .COS M Itl A N w ?� 3 N N •H N +1 N X ro 11 41 A N O U U 'O A 30 +1 w O l •C ro O v7 G .0 H G X N O N y LT.0 U C iT'tl i1 •.1 '•0H ° 7 ° 0 4J N A O ° N Sr •N 1A1 N row } (t�,i' N C iA1 b°l N N ro N H N 7 .G b N •H ro •H N b tT b H A p' - W N 4,141 o, 41 ro .N d C li C T .-1 O N N O N.0 O 11•.1 N w >. A roN H .N� b C rtF G .•Ut N.N ++wU Ak Cro0 -'INb+ j OG N H A a •rl A '.� .0 0, iT,-i k H 11 LT•� ,C 4.0 U (R •. N .H N L4 w .1 ,I'tl rI 1 O 1N 11 v 1 •H ro Nj 'G3 H N W w .w W •i C -11 5 N N iJ 4J J Z O 3 A p H RY .G ro O r U 3 •FH �? b, 14 1., , 'A H UN H W ,N•V 'V .0 N ro O U O N X 44 0) �iw a [� • q ° C N 10N1 ; U C .rC 1 Rl O O N H -, N -H 1J 1 1m N H � 3 3 C •0 •H 0 11 A 0,-' N N O 0 "1 N 1a a 1 U CN ro perN + 4j •H U N Cl C W C6 RJ H ro •H N -H N +1 ryy WU 4, .1 r,-.f p l O A G.0 row 11 p G NNY O 11 •H w O O ,� � 3 N ro b H N y CHU.0 M U d L J1 li CC; 1'4 15 � Q U W •IH 4N I 510 uH V N H 0 0 •N ro Q p 11 Q •W N 41 QCI M N V .N U j Jj .SN'• .,I w W H .H m •H �t 3h3 ya q U N1 X N ai 4. ro N V H w •H x N ro N 41 0 to 0 In p N N C� m ry c ' •H N N V '21 @ H ,••,+ 6 NC H G.N w a .N �. u 3 w r•� 1 a •H•H .`di a5 D .Q NR •a r-I ro S y AC 0 71 ° l ,�° V pO 3 E ° O ro Y p •H b 0 . wM01U HNC 41 9Ni00� yUiklp� 3 kO drw °'rw� rcUY US,N O`O �a.A C'O •H 7tdNG - CNCti +>V kN3 8b ,d ROC td ++ N -N C 57 •H R at b C •H p uvH.0 N .[ a ° E1 t w cd R a 0 0 ro C.--0 o o a a� o n v G .0 C a 41 i1 U H Y ri w 0 NO td d C O "O •\ CS ,tU M Ul C H •.G •f w C ° d Elp p 6 A F NN1 �L3 k V 0 N w'Y 1 pCF W x! a> N k at 7 H H U O •H NN' U U 3 -A yrC, :0:. W lO R .H 03O •°C +°C 1 -r1 HU•rN l .� x•N ,1 H 6p C^ N O O H N w U ofO N d CNtN .{k 7 ? � 11 Y1_ NY N Z U 7 11 O w U,d H� A m C •C N O v C .Y .� a •e; U !0 .., ONC TO UNOO U0B •.UHC FO C G C N h0 a k O : wON A N tl1 -+.U•+ r •iN U a1 U UH I Id w F U3 OF, '7 C C w Nk OU -A 41 Y :3•H O.HW-N V rN) O Ok � > O v -,N i ai .-. N NY Q>SOiN�>+C NYw v .s•-' C s-' C k k •q O F E v1 W w 311 WC A N F+5114 . � v � P� O v O O N 00 slw� N 41 y V E � H N C R •H 0 1 0 G[R Q) C 11 14 •H Y 3 N • U -1 N N r1 1 A N y U) yC ro F07 a y W W m C QI I H I•t 11 1� N • 0 N 1Ai Y °r° N - QY . L N O 15 N H •H Y P 41 O y 0 ai -1 ri C 41 0 Ly C .44 w x 'O U Y O b N }1 O N 2 N [ •W H tA : 4FL > 01 100) C- U W O 0 C 0 N d41 _ 0 41 rU 0 C 0) N N C O b W kP H • H 1 •H C >, ,.-1 0 O N a Y 41 ro f°. a m m U V°i •.Y1 •U 4 N '41 � °i rg 11 0 U ra � 414+0 to :3 N 41 C- w C a � ca rl 1i '4 W $4 '1 •ua .D $4 rA O R. @ N W 9 N a o j ao a 0 u I+ ° m 41 R •H •M ro C U • Ir >A O v ° . 0 F o a o O N , 0 11 b W >+ N r Y F O 41 31 14 p4 N 0 A N 0 W 0 m ,41 0 ro N V 4% W 31 0 9 Q7 o O O w N 0 E1 M b N h O LO eo C •A H U1 M W +� 17 •H •N 3 V W C •H b y •H ° W '6 4) 41 N N N E° N Y Y W O •U b> b > 0 N 11 U i1 0 ar U G V a Y H 0 01 -d W 4J Y 0 W J i .0 H a m 41 qw m v O A C ro W O C .ti iL O T '6 rl C sa S1 k Q1 O N w 0 O ..1 m 14 ro 1, ro ti Q4 U IICy C 11 H M ° 0 N k H C p - a 3.4 b 0 b C 14 0 U ❑❑OSt00 N N 3 M N ••U1 N 10H N C b W H '�' rt r-1 •,4 q' O HF .Ni roF 11711 Y O H .1 41 O 14 W . F 4N O O C O -N H F h O Q1 n�1 I $ U 11 N 0 U 10 ' C 41 � �- 0 k .G W E u ro •OC W o m ° N 4I m 0 ro o o w x m v � o v N 1", V En F H O ro It; 41 .0 N H kw O -P �O V N ° ro - N 0 4i A 14 0 Ir v ~ 44) .0 O Q 0 4 41 � C JN m O •O +' N 0 ro Fs- r 10 3 u 0 IOi Ci U •H •� N N W U ro '� u m O m F O 'roi N 41 y V E � H 1-0 • k _ MEMORANDUM TO PLANKING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE 11 November 1978 REF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES The State Air Pollution Control Division has requested that the Planning & Environmental Commission review control measures and determine which strategies should be further investigated. The following is a list of control measures that I have done preliminary work on. Please review this list and we.will discuss which strategies. would be best for controlling our problems. 75 restaurants in town add 14 tons of particulates, 740 tons of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. Only the automobile contributes more carbon monoxide.than do restaurants. Fat and grease from meats during cooking drip down into the flame and are vaporized causing particulates and carbon monoxide to be emitted. The following controls can be used on restaurant grills: After burners: burn off most pollutants with high temperature flame. The advantages: will reduce CO and particulate emissions. The disadvantages: uses.a considerable amount of energy., high cost to purchase and high cost to maintain (approximately $14,000) Electrostatic Precipitators: Removes particulates by' electric charge The advantages: removes approximately 9.0 %.;of all particulates.:.. The disadvantages: Does not remove carbon monoxide,, the most important pollutant from res aurants. High cost (approximately $10,000) and cam be a fire hazard if not maintained properly. Fiber Pad Mist Eliminator: Reduces particulate emissions. The advantages: Particulate removal of approximately 90%. The disadvantages: No carbon monoxide removal, high cost to purchase (approximately $:10,000) and high maintenance: cost. 11 • Pg. 2 Memo - PEC I1 -9 -78 V- shaped Griddle: A grill with a grease catch on every griddle. The advantages: Prevents fats and grease from being introduced into the flame. Extremely effective, reduces.all visible emissions and also reduces carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Lour cost ($300) and no maintenance. The disadvantages.: None known at this time. FUGITIVE DUST Paved /Sanding: Paved roads and'road sanding are the most significant sources of dust in the Town of-Vail. 50% . {Ill tons) of all particulates: in winter come from sanding and 46% (106 tons) of the particulates are from roads during summer. Control of dust origin Determine the minimum amount: of sanding material to be used and still maintain public safety. The advantages: Very low cost and easy.to do. The disadvantages: May receive complaints from people who feel that the material being used is not enough. Add sidewalks and curbs to all streets. The advantages: Reduces by 4 times, the amount of .dust generated by streets and roads. The disadvantages: High cost of doing all streets. Street sweeping . and flushing: The Town has purchased a street sweeper and flusher truck. Summer:. An 8 hour daily schedule plus flushing streets 2 times a week will reduce particulate emissions by 500 or greater. Winter: Daily sweeping when raods are dry will reduce emissions by at least 45 %. "Non- Tracking" from construction sites. The tracking of mud into the streets from.construction sates adds a considerable amount of particulates to the air during the summer months. Enforcement of the current ordinance or charging the contractors; for sweeping the streets near their construction sites should be discussed. . Heavy construction sites. 1 �J 6 reduce emissions from heavy const uct�on' sites. fttevng tt+&e dg;'Ur: The advantages: 50% xeduct,on in particulates, low cost approximately $b per day per acre. The disadvantages: Vehicles leaving the site will track mud onto the streets. Chemical Stabili I* • • Pg. 4 Memo - PEC 11 -9-78 The disadvantages: Underfire air technology is currently in testing stage and not currently available at this time. MOBILE SOURCES The automobile continues to be a major source of pollution within the Town of Vail and will probably - increase as more cars enter our area. The following methods could be used to reduce. missions from the automobile. Continue Town of Vail position on increasing pedestrianization. Improving parking facilities and improving bus service. . Prohibit drive - through type windows. This will prevent emissions: from idling cars. Smoking car ordinance, this ordinance would-prohibit any automobile from having any visible emissions for greater than S seconds. , This is currently a state law. We could pass this, ...as an ordinance . and design it so that if any fine is. collected, it is split'with anyone who reports a violation. POINT SOURCES Sewage sludge incineration This practice will be discontinued once the new sewage treatment plant comes on line next year:.. This will eliminate 16 tons of . particulates annuaiiy. Natural gas, liquid petroleum, the kiln at CMC, the dry cleaning operations and gas.station emissions are all found to be insignificant sources at this time and do not need control measures. I will be prepared to answer any questions about any of these control measures at the meeting. 'shanks for your time and cooperation. MEMORANDUM ` ^ TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dennis Murphy, Environmental Health Officer DATE 7 August 1978 REF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM An Environmental Education Program, sponsored by the Town of Vail, is necessary to bring to public attention the various problems peculiar to Vail. This program needs to take a positive approach in enlisting the help of both visitors and locals. One method would be to select a topic for each month and do a massive campaign on that particular topic. Several topics which may be considered are: * Air Pollution * Water (Water Pollution & Conservation) * Transportation (The "RIDE ") * Recycling * Energy Consumption * Solar Energy Any other suggestions concerning topics would be helpful. To promote these topics we have several medias which can be used: * Posters (Similar to Water Conservation Posters) * Radio * Cable TV * Ads on buses * Newspaper ads ' * Newspaper articles These media can be used t "o:describe the problems being addressed, how it affects the Town, the people, and what can be done, on an individual basis, to help solve the problems. As mentioned above, this will be done in a positive, helpful manner. Also, articles can be written for the newspapers offering tips on how people can help, an example would be; How to keep firewood dry; or, How to recycle paper or aluminum in the area. Any ideas on getting this program off the ground would be appreciated. 1.10 MEMO TO: PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /DENNIS.MURPHY. DATE; 7 JULY 1978 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS Although monitoring of environmental factors has been an on- -going process,,we do not, as yet, have a coordinated environmental policy which can be incorporated into the planning process. Air, water, resources, energy, and transportation, will be considerably impacted as Vail and the 1 -70 corridor expand. Guidelines need to be set up now so that we don't some day turn around and find the things that lured us here, gone. Enclosed are copies of the Environ mental "Goals section of the Towns Goals and Objectives. I think that this would be a good place to start since the goals and policies both comprehensive and fundamental. It will probably be helpful to review these goals, deter- mine if some needs are to be redefined, and set up process to implement the goals and policies. This will form.the basis . to ensure protection of the various ecosystems in the Gore Valley. • ■ ■ 10/29/75 SUMMARY OF GOALS Page) C. E. E . P NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION , EC- OSYSTEMS GOAL-A: TO PRESERVE THE ECOSYSTEMS ESSENTIAL FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF VAIL; PRESERVATION MAY TAKE THE FORM OF A LAND ISLAND OR A GREEN BELT. ECOSYSTEMS-GOAL—a: RETAIN THE UNIQUE PHYSICA1_ AND SOCIAL. CHARACTER OF THE GORE VALLEY RELATIVE TO ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. AESTHETICS GOAD: ESTABLISH THE 'VISUAL LANDSCAPE" AS A BASIC RESOURCE TO BE TREATED AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF AND RECEIVE EQUAL CON- SIDERATION WITH THE OTHER BASIC RESOURCES OF THE LAND. . K Ij DL I FE GOAL: AS CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF WILDLIFE, SPECIFICALLY IN THE GORE VALLEY, WE MUST BE CONCERNED AND ACTIVE IN PREVENTING OUR WILDLIFE HABITAT FROM BEING ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY URBANIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, AIR IRQUALITY, _GOAT,.: TO DETERMINE THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE QUALITY OF AIR IN THE GORE VALLEY, AND TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES NEEDED TO PRESERVE OR IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY IN THE GORE VALLEY. OPEU SPACE GOAL-1 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GORE VALLEY SHOULD REFLECT A PLANNED, CONTROLLED GROWTH POLICY ", WHICH INCLUDES THE ACQUISITION OF AS MANY NATURAL OPEN SPACE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY AS ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY FEASIBLE. RECREATION GOAL: TO PROVIDE A BALANCED RECREATION PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES PHYSICAL CONDITIONING, AS WELL AS INTELLECTUAL -AND SPIRITUAL STIMULATION, STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED SITUATIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR BOTH ACTIVE FIND PASSIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES; THESE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE.AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS AND GUESTS ALIKE. 10/29/ ?5 COALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS Page 2. C'E'E'F NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION ECOSYSTEMS GO A; TO PRESERVE THE ECOSYSTEMS ESSENTIAL FOR HUMAN HEALTH. AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE-NATURAL PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF VAIL; PRESERVATION MAY TAKE THE FORM OF A LAND ISLAND. OR A GREEN BELT EDLICI S; 1.. A professional inventory of ecosystems in the Gore Valley•should be made. Existing partial inventories should be included. 2. A'public education program should be provided about' specific, ecological-issues. 3.• Zoning for the Gore Valley, town and couhty, should include provisions for ecosystem i.slands,or belts; in some instances this should involve rezoning and remedial zoning. u. Guidelines should-be developed from the ecosystems in- ventory for community landscaping; in some cases this should involve restorative landscaping. CQMMENTS; 'Man, whether civilized or savage, is a child of nature he is not the master of nature. He must conform his actions to certain natural laws if he is to maintain his dominance over his environment. When he tries to circumvent the laws of nature, he usually destroys the natural environment that sustains him.. And wiien his environment deteriorates rapidly, his civilization declines,...' Vail exists because of man's desire to enjoy the Rocky Mountains. We, realize that the delicate Mountain ecosystems are one of Vail's greatest assets. As we reflect on Vail's development I over the past 13 years, an appreciation is gained for the problems of maintaining harmony between man and these complex.ecosystems• Future policies must reflect this appreciation, They must help s restore and protect the environment. The tools of these P policies are preservation, controlled.modification and restoration. The work of this committee assumes that our natural environment has a value at least equal to the values expressed in other goal statements. We believe that if we do not begin placing the natural environment at the head of our priority list, -we will. eventually destroy not only our environment,.but our civilization as well. • 10/29/75 GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS Page 3 C.E.E.P. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AIND RE CREATION , if we aye willin` to make a commitment to protect the ecosystems, we must begin by better understanding their complexities. No comprehensive, technical ecological inventory has been made of the Gore Valley, although several components have been completed. Studies by the U.S. Forest Service, the State of Colorado, Wildlife .Agencies, ROMCOE, COSC, and Colorado State University have in- creased our awareness, but have not given us a total picture. We estimate that an-ecological inventory would costa roximatel $12 acol.ogi.cal owning, unless preceded by public education, may be rZ:sistea However,, given the importance of the duality life and the long -range economic benefits of preserving the environ- ment ; we believe that public acceptance of a comprehensive planning and implementation effort is realistic. For complete protection of belts and islands zoned for the protection of the ecosystem, joint administration or development right agreements between various public agencies may be necessary. The-Town should promote such cooperation as is needed to protect the environment. A beginning step in developing this cooperation would le the format -; n� of _.a t and administration. effort between different levels of governm ...__ 0.. .. _...�.._ ECOSYSTEMS-,GOA_L B RETAIN THE UNIQUE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CHARACTER OF THE GORE VALLEY RELATIVE TO ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. C ES; .1. Establish r ies. relative to acceptable physical and social levels. 2. Establish a "sense of community" by establishment of facilities which allow a diversity of peoples to enjoy the area, i.e., young /old, rich /poor. 3. Inventory historical sites and establish appropriate zoning to protect tYzese sites. 4. Encourage the continued development of a unique architectural and landscape design compatible with our mountain environment:. 0 iVI c ar I .i Page 4 C.E.E.P. GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS NATORAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION , Xw The Gore Valley is rapidly losing the amenities that people came here to enjoy, such as clean air and water, silence, solitude, and the pleasant experience of a beautiful.environment.- These amenities are being lost because they have been overshadowed by "economics ". The sign of the dollar has become the most important criteria affecting the Gore Valley's future. Planning and inventorying efforts must begin immediately if we are to affect the future of the Valley. Two important studies which should be undertaken are (1 site pp{,�e $S Q0�0) and ( 2 ) and 'on of e socromm� scast�g.t.- .,5.5� Public in- vo vement is necessary in planning; .although, istorica eserva.tion T2y clash with the resent stand econ©mic success. AESTHETICS GOAL; ESTABLISH THE "VISUAL LANDSCAPE" AS A-BASIC RESOURCE TO BE TREATED AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF AND RECEIVE EQUAL. CONSIDERATION WITH THE OTHER BASIC RESOURCES OF THE LAND, 1. a private and Dub ,. .�;� of the Gore Valley accor Ong to the quidelines established in Volume 2, National Forest Landscape Management, Chapter 1. �. 'n the v" is that a land use a oposal may have on a specific ar a. 3. elineat 'ous land use char es would. affect h v' 4. Recommend guidelines to be used in a review process for maintaining a quality visual, environment, i.e. visual view plans. �5. Es 'C environmental review board wh' L,�✓ recognize the visua. andscape .as a rce. This wo`ui'c�" corporat, do .o ocal and county planning processes, I 10 10 • •10/29/75 Page 5 C.E.E.P GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREAT I O[I COMMENIS Local regulatory agencies have not recognized the visual landscape as a "basic resource." As the visual quality of the Gore Valley is affected by continued development, it is critical -that visual resources be defined and guidelines developed. It is estimated that mapping visual resources would cost only $2,000. Considerable public involvement with establishing standards and guidelines for control of the visual landscape will be necessary; especially as related to economic restraints. Along with public involvement, greater intergovernmental cooperation will be necessary. WILDLIFE GOAL: LDLIFEj • AS CITIZENS CONCERNED ftEOVALLEY,FWEUMUS�FBEICONCERNED SPECIFICALLY IN THE AND ACTIVE IN PREVENTING OUR WILDLIFE HABITAT FROM BEING ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY URBAtJIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATIOy, POLICIES; 1. Preserve the deer underpass in West Vail. '2. Restrict the freedom of pets. 3. Maintain elk herd wintering grounds at Beaver Creek and Dowd Junction. 4. Establish the.Environmental Commission- As a con sideration of the planning process,.the Environmental. Commission should become involved with proposed Water Diversion projects-as it relates to environmental .concerns, i.e. monitor Iron Mountain Project, Home- stake Reservoir, Environmental Commission should also encourage fish and fish habitat preservation, as it relates to water diversion projects. S. Maintain and improve communications with Eagle County Planning Office, State Wildlife Office, and United States Forest Service. 6. Timber in Colorado should be' managed in order to maintain or enhance recreation, wildlife or aesthetics. GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS Page 6 C.E.E.P. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION 7. Encourage more control of small game. An inventory of small game should be initiated. 8. Habitat as well as wildlife should be a consideration.. 9. Grazing should be restricted on National Forest Property. Wildlife should have priority. 10. Transportation routes.should be compatible with wildlife patterns, i.e. Gondola route should consider wildlife habitat patterns, recreation vehicles should be restricted to established roads. 11., Concern should be.given towards ski touring, backpacking, to minimize impact in the back country. 'COMMENTS: Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature, M but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature; forgetting that if he won the battle, he would find himself on the losing side.- LJ We are beginning to "lose the battle ". Our pet dogs are attacking herds of wintering deer and elk; cars are killing deer along the interstate; and sheep horn, eagles.and.grouse are be- coming rarer sights in our area. We need to study and plan for the protection of wildlife. The estimated sum of $12,000 to in- ventory wildlife habitats and species is a small price to pay to .better understand the problems we are facing. But simply planning for the future will not ensure success. Steps must be taken to protect wild animals and their habitats. Legislation may meet resistance from people whose movements in the back country are restricted. Dog control programs, marked ski paths; controlled four- -wheel drive access roads, and the like will not he popular. However, positive steps must be taken lest man "dominate and conquer" nature. • I* 10/29/75 GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS Page 7 C.E.E.P NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION ::U0A �= TO DETERMINE THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE QUALITY OF AIR IN THE GORE VALLEY; AND TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES NEEDED TO PRESERVE OR IMPROVE THE.AIR QUALITY IN THE GORE VALLEY', POLICIES: 1. Identify the major sources of air pollution in the .Gore Valley. A professional study and monitoring system are needed to determine impacts of automobiles, .fire places, and dust generating activities on air. quality. 2, ' If 'the study concludes that 'these are major pollutant sources, the Town of Vail should adopt local legislation that will: a. oissio s (this pro -. gram is now stCLessfully being implemented in other cities, such as Boulder And Denver). b.. Control the construction and use of fireplaces throughout the Gore Valley.- Scientifically designed fireplaces should be encouraged; strictly aesthetic . fireplaces should be discouraged. c. Explore and incorporate techniques that will aid in the controlling of fugitive dust at construction sites and dust generating areas.. 3. All data derived form air quality studies should become an integral part of the planning process. 4. The Environmental Commission,as set forth in Section 8.4,Article VIII of the Town of Vail Charter,should be initiated, and given responsibility for coordinating environmental concerns for the Gore Valley. COMMENTS: Studies conducted in Vail. and Aspen have concluded_ that air quality standards are exceeded at least once- or twice in any given year. These studies do not identify pollutant sources, but cio indicate that the quality of our air is not as safe or clean as the public may believe, The public may.therefore resist control of auto emissions and fireplaces until a public education program is implemenntea. The education program and legislation should be 1 10/29/75 i. Page 8 C.E.E.P. GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION phased. To provide accurate information for both education and legislation, air monitoring equipment and professional services are necessary. It is estimated.that these will cost between $20,000 and $25,000. (Equipment costs of $18,000 and support services ranging between $2,000 to $7,000.) O EN SPACE GOAL: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GORE VALLEY SHOULD !DEFLECT A HPLANNED,-CONTROLLED GROWTH POLICY", WHICH INCLUDES THE ACQUISITION OF AS MANY NATURAL OPEN SPACE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY AS ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY FEASIBLE, POLICIES_► 1, A planning study defining and categorizing the status of natural open spaces in.the Valley should be under- taken. Areas which should be maintained as natural open spaces should be indicated. This study should allow values to be.assigned and priorities to be established for land use and open space acquisition. 2.' Specific information on each of the following should be collected and the critical areas defined: a. View plains b. View corridors c. View angles d. Types and Places of olfactory response e. Auditory areas defined and intensity shown f. Color areas defined. 34 Public open spaces, which may be experienced with all of the senses, should be acquired and-maintained by the Town. To accomplish this, the following programs should be implemented: .a. The tax base should be increased and land use controls established through annexing all lands as far west as Dowd Junction. b. Planning should be done to define the best use of the land and to select sites to be maintained as open space. I• • COOMMENTS ; - GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENTS Page 9 C.E.E.P NATURAL EINVORONMENT, AND RECREATION ; c. The Town should purchase as' much'undeveloped land as economically and'politically'feasible to be maintained as open space d. Open spaces and access to the natural environment should be evenly distributed throughout the Valley; consideration should be given to traffic patterns, population.densitites and location, and the financial status of the users. The need for wand 4'crea ional.v_ icle.:..parkin�should be studied. e. Developing quality open spaces should be more important than the quantity of open spaces. f. of be 'n�estigated if it can occur without reducing the qua of , the open.space. Development and preservation of the envi.ronmerit can occur compatibly. Some changes in life styles, such as reducing our consumptive habits, may be required. The result will be a higher quality of life, both now and in the future. Because the natural environment is dynamic and constantly chaging, today's solution may not solve tomorrow's problems. We must continue to study, to plan, and to be flexible in implementing solutions. In this way, we may live in harmony with nature. RECREATION GOAL TO PROVIDE A BALANCED RECREATION PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES PHYSICAL CONDITIONING, AS WELL AS INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL STIMULATION. STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED SITUATIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR BOTH ACTIVE AND PAS- SIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES; THESE ACTIVITIES-SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS AND GUEST ALIKE* 1. Encourage the establishment of'a broad range of individual and team programs for all age ranges guest and resident alike. 2. Encourage the development of recreational facilities that allow for individual and team.activities. 10 /2�il7b GOALS, POLICIES AND COMMENT'S Page 10 C.E.E.P NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION , 3. Encourage the Formation of athletic clubs and groups with a strong inter- and intra-community competition - orientated programs to ensure maximum participation by spectator. and athlete on.a regional basis. 4. A citizens' advisory committee (representatives of various recreational interests) or a coordinating council (representatives from all groups engaged in recreation) shall be formed to promote and coordinate all activities so as to ensure comprehensive and economical recreati.cnal opportunities. P ENi"5: Recreation is literally that which refreshes, renews, restores. Although it is customarily associated only with physical condi.tionirig, 'the working definition must be made broader, as outlined in the goal statement. In Mail; the com- prehensive recreation programs should be especially related to the mountain environment. In a "recreation resort ", tba to jqmEhasize 1 activit!,to the exclusion of the intellectual ,va ., ,� Sports found. n suburban country c u s an urban athletic clubs dominate. This.may be a positive factor in preserving nearby wilderness areas because people tend to re- main close to the hub of the development, This is seen in the fact that although back country'wi,lderness usage has increased dramatically in the last decade, impact on wilderness areas ad- jacent to Vail has not been proportionate to population and development increases. There are many groups and organizations providing a variety of recreational programs in the community. O.ften'these h arse The coordination of opportunities should be the role of the visor c4wau tL" or the Qn-rd lnaL n ,_ounci.l. Although the balance of the group's-membership would be difficult to achieve and maintain, it is an important first step attempt at cooperation. Staff support from the Town may be necessary. The benefit of such a group would be confrontations and ideological.dialogue between divergent-sectors of the community. From these interactions, a varied and balanced recreation program for Vail may be developed which meets the needs. of everyone, while maximizing environmental assets and minimizing environmental impacts. Page 11 C.E.E.P SUMMARY OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES EDUCATIONAL E NV I RONMEN I ' GOAL: TO PROVIDE, MAINTAIN, AND ENCOURAGE AN INDIVIDUALIZED HIGH QUALITY LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO ALL RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE UPPER EAGLE VALLEY AND THEIR VISITORS .Q JF3 ECTIYES; A. PROMOTE AN AWARENESS OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO ALL SEGMENTS OF OUR AREA B. OFFER GENERAL, VOCATIONAL, SPECIAL, AND ADULT EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES co -PLAN FOR ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN ADVANCE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW PROPER LOCATION AND DISTRUBUTION1 D., PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE EDUCATION PROCESS BY BREAKING DOWN LANGUAGE, RACIAL,. ETHNIC, AND READINESS FOR LEARNING BARRIERS E. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD EXIST BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM. F; ENCOURAGE PRIVATE INVESTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE'FINANCING, OPERATION, AND PROGRAMMING OF ALL TYPES OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. 4 I• r• GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND-POLICIES EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT , OOAI : TO PROVIDE, MAINTAIN, AND ENCOURAGE AN INDIVIDUALIZED HIGH QUALITY LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY OT ALL RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITIES WITHIN.THE UPPER EAGLE VALLEY AND THEIR VISITORS. Q�JECTVCREATIONALOFACILITIESEAND PROGRAMS EAVAILABLELTO ALL .SEGMENTS OF OUR AREA. QBJECJX -'E -B: OFFER- GENERAL, VOCATIONAL SPECIAL, AND ADULT EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, POLICIES: 1. General education to produce intelligent, responsible, well-informed citizens who can taken an active interest in their - society. 2. Vocational education to prepare individuals,for a job or profession. E a. Colorado Mountain College should continue to expand vocational programs. b. A fully accredited college or university extension . should be established to offer professional training. 3.. Special education to provide opportunities for handi- capped and gifted people. 4• Adult continuing education pr'ogramsto permit completion of their formal education or to develop a skill or a hobby. 5. Develop naturalisitic education programs and faeili.ties• PLAN FOR ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN ADISANCE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW PROPER LOCA TRIBUTION. P LICIES; �. Encourage the joint community /school district use of the Vail K--4 school site. v PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE EDUCATION PROCESS BY BREAKING DOWN LANGUAGE, RACIAL., ETUNIC,.AND READINESS FOR LEARNING BARRIERS, in 10/29/75. Page 13 C.E.E.P GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES • EDUCAT I C'NAL ENVIRONMENT ROLICIES 1, Incorporate bilingual programs into educational programs. 2., Incorporate cultural programs into educational programs. 3. Promote "headstart" programs. QBJECTIVE E: EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD EXIST BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOiii. POLICIES: 1. Expand library facilities and programs 2. Create and expand a greater diversity of museum . facilities and programs. ; 3. Nature Center, Mountain Guides, and U.S. Forest Service programs should be expanded. 4. Visitor Information Centers should be spaced throughout the Valley, S. Health and Safety programs should be developed and presented on a regular basis. OBJECTIVE F: ENCOURAGE PRIVATE INVESTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FINANCING, OPERATION, AND PROGRAMMING OF ALL.TYPES OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. J MEMO TO: 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 Distr.;_cts. The proposed ordinance provides for a 3 -step process for review and approval. The first step is the pre - application i conference with the Zoning Administrator to acquaint the applicant with the Town of Vail'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: 1.0 KI 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: 1.) Review and Approval by Zoning Administrator - Any Special Development District application which proposes uses and densities consistent with that allowed by the 7,oning 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-- I* I * 1 0 Page 3 Summary 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 Development District applications referred to it by the Planning Commission and may call up for review any Special Development Distract which has been acted upon by either the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator. A written opinion, which includes conclusions and finding of fact must be faded 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 fn 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 • I * C7 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 Distract within two years. If the project or phase of the project is not begun and substantially completed with the time limits, 10 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 extended the approval revoked, or the SDD modified. 4.) Guarantees: Approving agency may requir.e',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, or character of buildings may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. 6.) Zoning Administrator's Review: This section of the proposed ordinance provides for an annual review of all Special Development Districts by the Zoning Administrator. If 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. 8.) 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 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. 1:0 J. o A. PROPOSED r. U. ORDIMUICE CHAPTER 18.40 'gPrCIAL DrVCLOPIIENT DISTRICTS Section 18.40.010 rURPOSt The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its crest appropriate use; to improve the design, char- acter, and quality of new development.; to facilitate the adequate and economic . al provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Section 18.40.020 SCOPE (a) Applications for Special Development District designa- tjon may be made for land located in any zoning (;Ustrict except �f r • ti (b) The setback requirements of this Title shall not apply to Special Development Districts. Setbacks shall be controlled by the criteria and standards of this Article and as shown on the approved'developmant plan, • Section 18.40.030 PREAPPLICATION CON FERMICE.- All applicants are encouraged to arrange a pre - application conference, to be held wit A the Zoning Administrator in order for "the applicant: (A) to become acquainted wi . th 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 13.40.040; (c) to obtain from the Zoning.Administrator copies Of WV g0delines to tho.interpretation of the provisions of Section 18. 40.060 as rcquirud to be naintaincd by Subsection (a) thereof. Section 18,40.0-10 FORMAL APPLICATION An application for approval of a Sj)ocjztj Dcvc1()pmcnt District may bo Mod by a p0r.,;011 havinu an interest In On ()3:oi)crty to bc% f• 16 1 Pago 2 included in the Special D(-IvclopMCnt District. The application will be made an the form provided by the Town and.must incl.udo a consent'by the owners of all the property to be included in the Special Do I velopment District. The . application must be aCconl anled by a development plan and a vritten statement. P (a) DEYELOPZILwLNT PLIU1. A complete plan showing the major details of the propo sed Special Development Districtf prepared at a scale of not less than 1 inch = 100 feet, shall be submitted in•sufficient detail to evaluatci'the , land planning, building design and other features of the Special Development District; The site plan must contain, insofar as applicable, the following minirium information: (1) The existing topographic character of the land,' (2) proposed land uses, (3) The location and size of all existing.and proposed • buildings, structures, and improvements, (4) The maximum height, of. all buildings, (5) The density-and type of buildings, (6) The internal traffic and circulation systems, offsircet parking areas, service'areas, loading areas, and major points of access to public rights of way, (7) The location, height and size of proposed signs, z4t; lighting and advertising devices, (8) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated, or reser . ved -.as common areas, including public parks a . nd *rCcl;cIational areas, and as sites for public buildings, Areas subject to natural hazards, including flooding, avalanches, geological hazards., or with slopes of 40'., or greater$, (10) A general landscape plan at the time of initial submis5ion, to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan, once the development plan has becii approved, :homing the spacing, sites and sp cific tY PO Of 1, R c, ping n aterials; St, a lltelne"t to be r"IbIittcd Jb) 17RITTI-41 STATENME'NT. The writtell With tllo plz%II.aII(I 011 must contain the rollow- ing information: t. Pago 3. A statement of the prcncnt ownership and a legal description of all the land included in the Special Devulop- ment, District, (2) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the Special Development District, including building descriptions, sketches or elevations as may be requiied to describe the objectives, (3) A development schedulo indicating the approxiMate date when construction of the Special Development District or stages thereof can be expected to begin and be completed, (4) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions, or covenants which will govern the use, main- tenance and continued protection of the Special Development District and any of its cdv.ncn areas, including the pro- visions for a homeowner or landowner organization, and, (5) A list of the owners of abutting properties and p . roperties located within .300 feet of the prop6rty lines of the land included in the Special Developiment . Di strict, and their addresses from available County records;. . (d) The applicant shall also submit. any other information • that may be required by the Zoning Administrator to properly evaluate the appli6ation. The applicant may submit any other information or exhibits he deems pertinent in evaluating his application. I AL Section 40-.050 J�EVJE -�PPROW II AND J After receipt of an application for a Special L)Cvc'OP-- all post the property ment District, the zoning Administrator sh, indicating that a Special Developinclit District application has been filed an . d that more detailed information may be obtained The Zoning Administrator shall from the zoning Administrator. also notify b Lntail the owners of abutti_ pro- _�_ ­7 and. Pertico located with 300 feet of the Property lines of the l included in the SPCcj­tl DcVVlOpIIICnt . District, Mliat an application has bcoi . i filed, and tl.iat they r0vic,'W the IpPlicilt!On dtlr3s)(J the regular office hour". of Lhc Town. Such w2'j-ttCn notice uhall 111r.0 J11(1,1:L .1,LICII owncrs to the fact tha L ZIPVC:IVIII(j nwly bo he Id Pago 4. before the Planning Commission at a later date for which notice must'only be published, and also the possibility of a further public hearing'•before the Town Council, again for which only _! published notice is required. fi,• (b) For all Special Development Districts n•involving a in which =• use other than those allowed by the zone /�--aL the subject property. I is located, a conditional usa,•a ciange.in•density or reduction i in offstrect parking requirements, the zoning Administrator shall review the 'application and either giant the application in whole or in part, with or without modifications and conditions, deny it, .. or refer it to the Planning CoLmission for review. The applicant and the owners of propertie..located within 300 feet of the property t t lines of the land included in the Special Development District may appeal such decision to the Planning Covinission by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within 14 days of his decision. " In addition, the Planning Comimission may call up for review any „ proposed Special Development District which has been acted upon * by the Zoning Administrator, by serving notice on the Zoning i 1. Administrator within 14 days of his decision. Within 30 days after . such call -up, or within 30 days after a referral or appeal has been filed, the Planning Com-mission, after giving. notice, shall t ' hold a public hearing to act upon the application. The Commission shall either grant the application in whole or in part, with or ..without modifications, or deny the application. S (q) For all other Special development District, the Zoning # Administrator shall, review the application and, within 30 days of the filing of a complete application, submit an advisory report c to tbg ;Ltjn� Commission. The applicant shall be furnished a copy of such report. (d) tdithin 33 days after receiving an advisory report, the �. Planning Commi on, aftex giving notice, shall hold a public y� hca�gron the application in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 i through 18.66.070. The Commission zhall, within fits• days. of the i public Ile, or witltin such Linse ns is titutually agreed by the Commission 'Ind tho applicant, •t�it:hrr cfrallt�the_lx' nc,i;rd Sprr.ial L ncvGlni,rnrnt :;l:alc..ns'.in_ part with or wit-hout nsnctif. ( cotiun^ alicl..roncli t ioti dolly_ .� 5•. cx 1t tai__Si1.G:. `lcl5�tl �arrrr. -».•il (c) The Town Council aLQ.1_1 review all .Special Dcvclop ,nt Districts referred to it by the planning Commission, and'may, -up ` in addition, catl for review any proposed Special �Development. ' District which has boon acted upon by the Planning Commission. or Zoning Administrator, by serving written notice on the Commission or Administrator within 14 days of their action on the proposed Special Devclopmt.,nt District. ' • (f) On all Special Development Districts referred to or .� called up by-the Town.Council, the Council, after giving notice, shall hold a oublic hearing on the application in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 throurh 16.66.040. The Council shall, within.. 30 60 days of the oublic 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 Districts, ;inluding modifications or conditions, shall be endorsed y 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. - I (h). When the:ZoninS Administrator, the Planning Commission, or the Town Counci.L- either giants an application in whole or in It part, with or without modifications, or denies an application, its decision shall�thc foraf a ca �tti forth not only conclusio:is, but also fijLgjas_oj..fact relating to the specific application and shall set "forth with specificity why and in what manner the application is or is not consistent with the requirement: and criteria sot forth in Section 18- 40.060 of this Chapter. 3 Section 16.10.OG0 STA%DARI)S } strict: shall implement the purposes A Spacial Development Di ' of this Chapter and Titter, znc3, in afkiition,. sh•zJ.l rucct tile foI- . reg iiromont :: ! ]otin g nt Znr3ard , and r, • • t f - r ri I USES MRMITTED.. The uucs in a Special Devcl6pmcnt District must be uacs "pormittPd. 01 right" or "Permitted by special review",in the zoning district in which the Special Dcvclppment District is 'located. In addition, uses by right in t Z�J /J I ­_J ­ -- _ 9 .,A ( t - .. and ­Vdistricts Ie, LC .shall be uses by special review in residential Special Development Districts, and may be permitted if, in the opinion*of the Planning Commission, such uses are primarily for'the•.service and convenience of the rcsid�nts of the Development and the immediate neighborhood. 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 a,ny, to be allowed in a residential Special Development District shall be established by the Planning Cormission on the basis of these criteria: (b) The Special Development District is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Pla n.of the Town of. Vail; (c) The Special Development District's relationship to its surroundings shall be considered in order to-avoid, adverse affects UO the Development caused by traffic circulation, building height or.bulk, lack of screening or. intrusions on privacy; TD LOT AREA PEQUIREMENTS, (d)- MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACr AN The requirements of this Title regarding minimum %v&abI-_--opcn space and mininum lot area shall apply to Special Development District5 except that the approving agency may reduce such requircm.ents if it finds that the development plan contains areas allocated for open space and a co.-mon areas as authorized in this Section, or that an increase in density is warranted by the desigr)Aand amenities incorporated in the developpicnt plan, and the needs of the residents for open space can be met. -A. reduction in minimum trsablr open space or lot area shall not be permitted if such rCCILICti011 would be detrimental to the character of the pro- posed Special DcvCIop--,,,eat District or the character of the' our- ) VI rounding area. DosigllAalld amOlIiLiCr, that may justify reduction Of njillillLkIIII u!--iblo open space and wiiiiillum lot area i : -eqt1irements include, but are not limited to: 0 •4 (1)' The dcvalopment. plan contains areas allodated for uo,!�Aa open space in a common area designed for use by the proposed occupants, (2) The buildings area oriented to insure privacy for all the units' balconies, and (3) That the needs of the occupants for open • space are unique and are being satisfied by either or a combination of: (31L) public park, mall or recreation features, or a combination thereof, for which the site of the Sf7gial Development District has or will be levied a special assessment; or (ii) develop facilities in the Special Development District such as, but not limited to, common recreational areas or facilities, plazas, balconies, or rooftops improved for recreational use. (e) CMUNION AREA: The approving agency may approve a common area if the area meets the following requirements: (1) it is to be used and is suitable for scenic, land- beaping or recreational purposes, and, (2) it is land which is accessihle and available to all occupants of durelling units, for whose use the common area Is intended. -T G: (f) OrFSTn- E PARKIN KIN The nuirber of offstreet parking spaces required !-or the zoning diEArict in which th6 Special Development Dlstl7ict is located shall not be reduced, except • that, the approving agency may increase or decrease the recui red number of offstreet parking spaces in consideration of the fol- lowing factors: (1) Probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the Special Development District; (2).Parking needs of any non- residential uses; (3) Varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of parking areas is proposed. %jjjcjjOVcr the 1jurnbca: of offstrecL parking spaces is reduced becaune of the naLoru of the occup4illcy, Ole ApPrOvillU 39011cy In"ly ■ , , r «.. •r... raga n require auLukancx::: From the applicant that the na. ure of • thu occupancy will not change. (g} DEVDLOVkIFNT PLAN: The approving agency must be satis, fled that the development plan,for the Special Dovelopment. District has met -each of -the following criteria or can demonstrate that one or more of then is not applicable, and that a practical solu- tion consistent with the public interest, has been achieved for each of these elements: (1) There must be a bgLjer zone in any'Special, Develop went District or multi - family or nan- •residential buildings or structures that are adjacent to a loci- 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, so tha:: adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. The approving agency may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the ' surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate 'light and air, air pollution, signage and .other comparable poten- tially incompatible factors. (2) Circulation in terms of internal street circulation system design for the type of traffic generated, safety, separa- tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used,Iby. police and fire department vehicles. for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided for when the site is to.be used for residential purposes. Proper circulation in parking areas in terms of Safety, convenience, separation and scroening. (3) Functional open space in terms o£: optimum preservation of natural features including trees and drainage areas, recreation, views, density relief, con- 'venience, and function; (4) Variety in terms of: housing type, tlensitics, facilities and open space; (5) Privacy in terms of the novels of: individualst families., alld naighhors, and, [7 Page 9 (6) Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, eonvenicacu, access to poinLu of dCutination•and attracLivcness; (7j'Building type -in terms of: appropriateness to.den- sity; site relationship and bulY.; (8) Buildings design in terms of: orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs and lighting, and (9) Landscaping of the total site in terms of; purposes •� such as screening or ornamental, types used and materials used, if any, maintenance, suitability, and affect on the neighborhood, . Section 18.40.070 ADMINiSTP,ATIVE GUIDELINES AND POLICIES • It is recognized that in order to achieve the flexibility that Special Development Districts are intended to achieve and to avoid the 'rigidity that so frequently has characterized develop- ment under orthodox zoning regulations, some requirdmcnts'or scan -- '� lards of Section 18.40.060 must of 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-course of time begin to acquire more/ precise•ireaning as the zoning AdzAn- -istratgr and the Planning, Commissiom. review . and pass upon appli- cations. To insure a reasonable consistency in the application of these terms and fairness to applicants, the 20 Administrator shall from time to time place on public file in his' office a report setting forth what u' � i es or policies he or the Planning Commission have followed or modified in passing�lu a2�?li„cit;ons . or otherwise caitiff rospcct to the interpretation of the standards and rcquiremcnts of Sccti.on 18.40.060. Section 18.40.080 DEVELOPMENT IN STACES AND TIRE OF APPROVAL. (a) The applicant must begin and substantially. complete the davalopmcnt of the Special Devclopii%ent District within two yc:trs from the time of its final approval. If the Special. Dcvelopmo nt District is to he dcvoloped in r.L:tgo.;; -tar applicant must bc•4jin and : ubstanti.ally compluto tht. ticvc:loiInu0nt Of a.ECh .toga wit:ili.tl 2 year,. of the time providcd fot,• the r1t:tt:.t of cort:sLruction of oncit Ilea a in the d(evolop melt t schodule, POL90 10 ' s I - (b) IIf the applicant d"ua not begin and !;ubatantial,ly complete the Special Dcvelopm6,t District, or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by. the preceding Section, the zoning jAaini3trator shall review the Special -Development District and may recommend that the time for t. completion be extended, that the'-approval of the Special Develop -.. ment District be revoked; or that the Special Development District be amended. The Zoning F.dministrator's recor.;. ondation shall be f.. �s subject to Uc procedures authorized by Section 18.40.050 governing the approval of an initial application for Special Development District. Section 18.40.090 GUAPz%NTEES The approving agency may require that the applicant submit `? to the Town certain assurances that the development plan as approved will be completed, and said assurances may be in the form of a band, letter of credit, or other such guarantees that g r: .•. may be acceptable• to the approving agency. 4. i Section 18.40.100 CIIANGES fi (a) Minor changes in the location, siting, or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the zoning Administrator, if required by engineering or other circumstances (_ not foreseen at the time the final development plan was approved. ' No change authorized by the zoning Administrator under this Section r �- may increase the size of any building or structure by more than a; 10a, nor.cliange the locati on of env building or structure. by ore 7 .; than.-10 feet in any direction; provided, notwithstanding anything , ` in the foregoing, the Zoning ,Administrator may not permit changes beyond the minimum or maximum requirements set forth in this Chaptcr. (b) Although the changes in the Special Development District, including ch:sn,es in the site plan and the.devulopment schedule,. i. y niust be made under the procedures. that. :ire applacabl.c to the initial japproval of the Special Developm nt District. I t 1 Sec Lion 18.40.110 3OUING ADMIJISTRATMOZ; REVIE'll At least once every 12 months, the zoning Administrator . shall review all building permits which have been issued for the Spel '1 Devo-lopment District and shall examine the construction which has taken.place on the site. if he finds a violation of any of the provisions of Chis Chapter, or. of 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 hearing on the report of violations sub^litted by the Zoning '•dndnistrator, having first given notice to the applicant, all owners. of property within the Special Development 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 Development District, or revoke approval of the Special Development District. Section 18.40.120 COtMPLETiON. OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (a) The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate for • the Special Development District c ,ertifying completion thereof, anti shall note the issuance of the certificate on an office: copy of the district zoning map and on the development, plan. After completion, the use of land and the construction, modification, and alteration of any buildings within the planned unit will be governed by the approved development plan, (e) Except as provided in Section 18.40. 100, no changes .. .:,� may be made in the Special Development District after its approval.. Section 18.40.130 SUBDIVISION AND RESALE (a) A Special Dcvclopn;ent District may be subdivided or re:ubdivided for purposes of lease or sale. (b) An application for approval of the subdivision or ;.a s, resubdivision must be made it the subdivision or resubdivivian will create a now plat line. Tale procedures apPlic,1131C to th(' initial . appraval of the } Spacial l)cvaJopniont District are also applicable t.0 :lho aPl�iav,al Of 1:110 rul)clivi. ^.inn of tltic Stg,.cinl Developm.111t DirtVi.ct. 1 (G) The subdivision or rcnubdivi3ion may be approved if it does not increase the dwelling unit density of the Spacial Development District•and if thc'Spccial Development District, } following the subdivision or resubdivision, is in compiiancc �. With' thc. standards for Special Development Districts provided in this Chapter. section 18.90.140 FEE ¢ The Town Council may estabXish a fee schedule for Special � i . Development District applications to cover the cost Of processing' and review. • Section 18.40.150 EXISTING SPECIAL DF,VELdPI -LENT DISTRICTS Nothing herein shall he 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 Development Districts. 1 through 9- shad continue in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants therefor and the Town of Vail. e. Section 18.40.160 APPROVING AGENCY As used in this Article, "app,:oving agency" means the -Planning Corimission, the Town Council, or zoning Administrator, • i v?hichever finally approves an application 'fora Special Develop- ment District. F 1 741 !v A I 11W, 01�1- AGENDA PLANNING .& ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 22,.1978 1.) Shapiro - Recreation Easement Trade, Sunburst Filing 2. 2.) Vail Associates, Inc. - Gondola I Proposal Parking Variance 3.) 1st Bank of Vail Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 4.) Wedel Inn - Rezoning from Public Accommodation to CCl 5.) Cooper - Lots ofdlop lineebetweenttwo)ghorn Subdiv. lfl� 6.) Casolar Vail IT - Request for Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing I. 7.) Bighorn Estates - Avalanche Report 8.) Confirmation of Pam Garton as rotating Planning & Environmental Commission member to Design Review Board 9.) Approval of Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 1978. �1 MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Meeting of August 22, 1978 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Ron Todd Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Jim Rubin The first item on the agenda, Shapiro - Recreation Easement Trade in Sunburst Filing 3._. Frank Dalton of Shapiro Construction Co. made the presentation on this item. He explained to the Commission that the areas involved are identical and stated that Eldon Beck, a Consultant for the Town of Vail has reviewed this plan and has approved it. The area will be treated as a recreational area with.picnic tables etc. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that in accordance with the Special Development District they were required to put in this recreational area that will be used for Fallridge Condo and Townhouse residents. Mr. Dalton also stated that he would like to see the bicycle path connect with.this area and that they would not be unwilling to have the area used by the public. After further discussion Gerry White made the Motion to approve the Recreation Easement Trade in Sunburst Filing 3. requested by Shapiro and in.accordance with the Department of Community Development recommendations. The Motion was seconded by Ron Todd and the Commission voted unanimously to approve. Number 2 on the agenda, Vail Associates Inc. - Gondola I Proposal - Parking Variance. Phil Ordway of Vail Associates, Inc. made the presentation to the Commission. He brought in a model of the proposed structure, and advised the Commission that it.has been reviewd.d by Terry Manger and Eldon Beck and they generally agree with the proposal. Ed Drager advised Vail Associates-on the $1,000 assessment per parking space as set forth by Town Council and Mr. Ordway stated that they will comply with the stipulations on this. Mr. Ordway explained to the Commission that this variance request is contingent upon the Forest Service granting V.A. access across Forest Service land and that to date he does not have the signed permit, however, the Forest Service has given a verbal ok and with some changes in drawings etc, a permit will be issued. Mr. Ordway is asking the Commission to give their Minutes - PEC August 22, 1.978 Pg. 2 approval subject to the Town of Vail withholding the Building Permit until Forest Service approval is given. Mr. Ordway then explained that they are now seeking approval for 6 covered parking spaces rather than the 15 sought in the initial request. They feel there will be no impact on the Village Core as all deliveries etc. will be made at the rear of the proposed building. He explained that the parking spaces were reduced because of changes in their drawings and their need for more storage space and more space for mountain operations. Sandy Mills asked whether there would be room for one car per apartment. Mr. Ordway stated that they may have the Association lease the spaces to owners of the units as needed, they are not yet sure of assignments for the spaces. Sandy I411ills wonders about the excess cars that may have to be absorbed by the public parking areas in Vail and we may be behind in planning for the extra spaces that may be needed. Mr. Ordway then showed the site plan and floor plans to the Commission. He also explained that there is land conveyed to the Town of Vail for a park, and that they moved their structure. in 20 feet and have decided that it would not be a good idea to build underneath this piece that the Town of Vail will use for a park. He went on to say that with the rear access it will be a big safety feature, as injured skiers will be brought directly to their first aid station and then moved on to the clinic without the ambulance having to come through and back through the Core.. There will be separate delivery doors for the few commercial spaces that are allotted for this structure.. There will also be private entry for the condominium owners. He explained that 4 condominiums are planned and one small manager's unit. They feel that a resident manager for the building will. prevent unauthorized parking and parking abuses by tenants. They plan to have 10 -15 minute delivery zone. They are planning a key controlled gateway to the structure and possibly a telephone where a delivery man, shop owner or resident would have to identify themselves to gain entry. Ron Todd asked how wide the roadway will be. Mr. Ordway stated it will be approximately 20 feet wide, will be wider than the standard driveway. Mr. Ordway assured the Commission that the leases will contain strong language to make sure thb. tenants and shop owners do not abuse the 10 -15 minute delivery zone. Jim Rubin told the Commission that staff recommends approval and supports the concept where there will be no additional traffic through the Core and major pedestrian areas with the rear access and covered parking. a • Minutes -.PFC August 22, 1978 Pg. 3 Gerry White made a Motion to approve the Parking Variance for the proposed Gondola I structure requested by Vail Associates, Inc., contingent on the Forest Service approval on access through their land and according to the Department of Community Development memorandum dated August 21, 1978 with the record showing the request for 6 covered parking spaces rather than the 15 spaces initially requested. Ron Todd seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on the agenda,,lst..Bank of Vail uest for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance to permit an addition to the bank buildin Jay Peterson, Attorney made the presentation to the Commission. He explained there is a Joint. Parking Agreement between the 1st Bank of Vail and the Va1::Irterfaith Chapel to use the area behind the chapel for the additional parking area needed by the bank. Mr. Peterson feels the Conditional Use" Permit requested should be granted because this is the best place for the bank and it does not impact the area in its present location. In regard to the variance from Covered Parking he feels covered parking would be inappropriate for the bank, it would be hard to get in and out causing traffic tis ups and would be difficult to keep clean, etc He,stated they had been trying to work with the Villa Cortina on this expansion, but that they had been unwilling to cooperate with these plans. Ken Wentworth, Architect for the project showed the drawings of the proposed addition to the Commission. He explained that the.addition will take one row of existing parking (approx. 11 spaces), which will be picked up by the joint parking area behind the Chapel. He stated there will be landscaping between the proposed addition and the Villa Cortina and screening of the parking proposed behind the Chapel. He explained that the alternative proposal would be to raise the building and put parking in underneathand.he feels this will not work nearly as well, it would have to be a split level and the addition would have to be 5 to 6 feet higher. Sandy Mills asked whether there would be abasement and Mr. Wentworth said no. Chairman Drager asked whether a Setback would be needed? It was felt there would be no Setback required because the bank owns half the land. Jim Rubin stated that he would speak to Larry Rider for a ruling on this. OL- 0 Minutes-PEC: August 22, 1978 Pg. 4 Sandy Mills suggested that the employees using the parking should park in back of the Chapel alleviating some of the movement of traffic to the back of the Chapel. It was explained that the employees have been parking on the north side of the bank in the small lot because of the congestion through traffic makes between the two stop signs on this corner. Gerry White asked about controlling the lot. Mike Loken a bank officer was present and explained that they did have an employee in the lot during the winter season from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. and that under the proposed plan, the back lot behind the chapel would be used by employees of the bank so that they would not have to control this area. Ron Todd asked about the percentage of landscaping required. Ken Wentworth stated that they would be increasing the amount of landscaping, Ron Todd stated that he doesn't think they can meet the 3b% requirement. Jay Peterson stated that he was unsure of this and would check into it. Jim Rubin stated that they would not be taking away any landscaping so that the site though non - conforming would not be made more non - conforming, they are not taking out any green, only asphalt and sidewalk. Ron Todd and the other Commission members feel that there were important points missed on this and'.that they - should be advised by Larry Rider, Town Attorney. Ed Drager stated that with the change in staff from one Zoning Administrator to another, and the;Commissien's feelings that there are points which.Are unclear, he doesn't want to stand on what is being said at this time. Jay Peterson asked that the Department of Community Development memorandum be part of this.record. Terry Quinn, Attorney was present representing owners of units in the Villa Cortina. He stated that none of the alternatives to the proposed bank addition are agreeable to the unit owners, they don't like the idea of the parking lot in back of the Chapel and they don't like the idea of the bank addition., They do not want their views blocked in any way and they.take the position that the Setback Variance should be required, as they feel the building will be too close to the property line due to the one -half ownership. Minutes -PEC E August 22,1978 Pg. 5 He further advised the Commission that the Deed to the Chapel from Vail Associates, Inc. contains the phraseology which would prohibit commercial use of any of the church property and is. restricted to church or religious use only. He stated that there are 5 owners present today and they want to state their opposition to the bank addition. He feels the 1st Bank of Vail is entitled to no more or no less than any other commercial businsses in Vail and he also feels there is special privilege being granted the bank in this case. It is his feeling that the bank should convert the condominiums in the bank into office area if they need the expansion. In reference to the Conditional Use Permit, he feels permission for this addition would crowd the area and would be injurious to the property owners of Villa Cortina- also questions the landscaping requirement as brought up by the Board. Ed Drager stated that he feels they should meet.the 30 7o.landscaping requirement. Terry Quinn went on to say that he feels a self- imposed hardship is not valid for granting a variance and the bank should consider a new site where they can have additional parking. Jim Rubin reminded the Commission that the Town Council will have to make the final decision.on off -site and the ,point parking use, this is not part of the variance that is requested today. Sandy Mills commented that the ,point use of the parking makes alot of sense. There was further discussion on the zoning in the area, Chapel in Agricultural, Bank and Villa Cortina in Public Accommodation and the inherent problems with this. Jay Peterson asked that the matter be tabled until the next Commission meeting. The Villa Cortina owners were then asked to speak to the Commission. Bob Qualls who owns unit. 125 stated he had been driving through this valley for 20 years, he thinks that its beauty is being destroyed with all-the additional parking being put in. He doesn't wantthe Villa Cortina surrounded by paving he stated that he knows the condominiums in the bank are owned by officers and employees and that they should take this space for banking services instead.of adding to the existing building. Henry Gerken who owns unit 220 then spoke in opposition. He does not want his view obliterated and agrees with all the statements made by Mr. Qualls. A woman then spoke in opposition (I couldn't hear, her name). She does not want parking close to the Villa Minutes -PEC August 22, 1978 Pg. 6 Cortina and feels the lot is too close to the creek. Ed Drager then questioned whether there should be a streamside setback. Roger Tilkemeier felt that to answer all the questions brought up today this matter should be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. His Motion is to table the 1st Bank of Vail request for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance..until the Planning &.Environmental Commission meeting scheduled for September 12, 19..78. Gerry. White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to table this matter. The 4th item on the agenda, Wedel Inn - Rezoning from Public Accommodation to CCl has been withdrawn by the applicant. The Commission requested that item number six be discussed at this time. Casolar Vail II - Request for Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing 1. Deane Knox and Harold Engstrom were present to speak to the Commission. They explained their proposal which is basically. a townhouse concept. Their proposal is for 2,400 sq. ft. duplex 60 lots and one 3,200 sq. ft. triplex lot; The units will be 1,400 sq. ft. GRFA and the density meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements. as stated by Jim Rubin. Their access will be from Sandstone Road and Vaal View Drive. The covenants have architectural controls. is 1 Ron Todd made the Motion to approve Casolar Vail II request for Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 as it is in accordance with the cluster housing concept and has been recommended for approval by the Department of Community Development. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Item 5 on the agenda was then discussed. Cooper - Lots 20 -1 and 20 -2 Resub. Lot 20 Bighorn Subdiv, request for vacation of lot line between these two lots. The owner wants to work with this site as a whole. These are two Residential Cluster sites, 9 units are permitted, the owner is putting only 7 units on the site. The Commission asks for the owner's reasoning on this request. It was explained during discussion that it may be more feasible to vacate the lot line making one single site so that they will only have to have one driveway for access to the project. It was noted that the plan is to save trees. on -.the site'by arranging the buildings around the existing trees.,. The Design Review Board had approved this plan. The Commission feels the plan as a single project is a good idea and gives the project more flexibility. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the vacation Minutes -PEC August 22, 1978 Pg. 7 of the lot line between Lots 20 -1 and 20 -2 a Resubdivision of Lot 20, Bighorn Subdivision as requested. Ron Todd.seconded the Motion, the Commission voted 4 for approval and Gerry White voted in opposition. Item 7 on the agenda was Avalanche Report for Bighorn Estates. This will be set aside for a future meeting for Commission review. The 8th item on the agenda was to be confirmation of Pam Garton as rotating Commission member to Design Review Board. Mrs. Garton was not present. The last item on the agenda was approval of Minutes for the meeting of August 8, 1978. Gerry White made the Motion to approve the Minutes of the Commission meeting of August 8, 1978. Roger Tilkemeier s&aonded the Motion, the Commission voted approval with Sandy Mills and Ron Todd abstaining. Ed Drager advised the Commission that the Town Council will be interviewing and appointing the new Planning & Environmental Commission member to replace Scott Hopman. Meeting adjourned - 5:30 P.M. I ser, OP.- C]M MEMORANDUM M FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 21 August 1978 REF Vail Associates, Inc. Request for Parking Variance. Gordon Pierce representing Vail Associates., Inc., has applied for a Variance in order to park fifteen (15) cars within the basement level garage of the proposed Gondola I building. A recent amendment to the CCI Zone District does not allow parking onsite. Vail Associates, Inc., has petitioned the Forest Service for access to this site from the south (across Forest Service land). This request is contingent on that access being granted. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (Section 18.62.060) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. With access from the rear of this property, the only possible negative impact would be on the International Room of the Lodge @ Vail. The building in which this room is located has no dwelling units and should not be adversely affected by the occasional traffic from the 15 cars using the underground parking facility. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. The purpose for the recently passed amendment restricting ftw :W ■ MEMO - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Pg. 2 - 21 August 1978 onsite parking in the CC1 is to reduce the number of cars using the main pedestrian areas of the Village. With access from the south, the main pedestrian areas of the Village will not be impacted at all. The effect of the requested variance on- -light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This proposed variance request will have a positive impact on the movement of cars in this area of Town. Instead of having to drive to and from the site for delivery of people and goods, cars and.delivery trucks will be able to go to the underground garage. It will also-have a positive impact on the public parking.. problem by eliminating the need for these cars to use the pubic parking facilities. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detri- mental to the public health, safety., or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity. We feel the proposal would not be detrimental to any other properties in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or un-- necessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. 1. 1111� W- MEMO -- PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Pg. 3 - 21 August 1978 There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.. This site is unique because it is in a CC1 Zone District and has a proposed accessway that does not infringe on any major pedestrian area. The variance request to allow 15 parking spaces on the site is.providing additional private parking while having only a minor impact on surrounding properties. We recommend approval of this variance requestr. . contingent upon Vail Associates, Inc., being granted access across Forest Service Land.. iew MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 22 August 1978 REF FIRST BANK OF VAIL REQUEST FOR JOINT PARKING, A CONDITIONAL tSE, AND A PARKING VARIANCE. The First Bank of Vail has applied for Joint Parking, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Parking Variance in order to add approximately 2,800 square feet onto their existing building. This building is located on a portion of Lot G, Vail Village Second Filing and is in a Public Accommodation Zone District. JOINT PARKING The First Bank has entered into a Joint Parking agreement with the Vail Interfaith Chapel to allow the parking of 27 cars behind the Chapel. This parking is being included as part of the requirement needed for the proposed expansion. The Zoning Ordinance permits offsite parking as long as it is located within 300 -feet of the user served. In this instance, the furthest parking space is approximately 200 -feet from the nearest corner of the First Bank of Vail building. The Zoning Ordinance also stipulates that joint use or offsite parking cannot include those parking spaces required to be covered. A part of this application is a variance request for covered parking, and this will be discussed.later in the memorandum. The Town Council makes final decision on offsi.te and joint use parking, so this is before you today for a recommendation. Or.- It is, however, an important part of the Variance and Conditional Use request that you are reviewing. Memorandum -1st Bank of Vail Pg. 2. PEC- 8 -22 -78 The Department of Community Development feels this request as part of the whole package being considered, is warranted and should be approved: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.600 - :CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the,following factors: Relationship and impact of use on development objectives of the Town. The Conditional Use Permit is necessary for the proposed expansion. It is a relatively small expansion which allows the bank to have.additional working space that is needed. The expansion as proposed should have no visible impact on any of the surrounding properties. The nearest building affected is the Villa Cortina which is located approximately 100 -feet from the proposed addition. The effect of the use on light and air,. distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation.f acil:ities and other public facilities and public facilities needs. We foresee no adverse impacts on these factors. 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 effect on traffic should not be significant. There should not be additional traffic generated by the expansion. With the new parking area, there should actively be less congestion in the existing lot. Memorandum -1st Bank of Vail Pg. 3 PEC- 8 -22 -78 Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located in relation to the surrounding uses. We do not feel the bank expansion will have an adverse impact on any surrounding properties. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use." No other factors need be- considered. No environmental impact report is required. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health , safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. VARIANCE FROM COVERED PARKING This variance is being requested to allow ll parking spaces to be uncovered instead of covered. In a Public Accommodation Zone District, 75% of the parking is required to be covered. For the proposed expansion, this.would require the covering of 11 of the 14 additional spaces. With the joint use parking arrangement with the Vail Interfaith Chapel, the First Bank is able to satisfy the entire parking requirements needed for the existing building and the addition, M Memorandum -1st Bank of Vail pg. 4 PEC-- 8 -22 -78 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. If this variance is granted, the First Bank will be allowed to provide uncovered parking on the Chapel site. This parking could have an impact on the Villa Cortina, but the parking lot will be screened and should not be in use except during banking hours. This parking lot could be built anyway for use by the Chapel, so the additional pavement is not a consideration in this matter. The building expansion itself is of a very low profile and should not have any imppct on surrounding properties. 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. Except for the Holiday House, no other commercial building in this area has covered parking. Also, there is an alternative which.is to provide the 11 covered parking spaces underneath the proposed addition. This would raise the building and would most likely create more congestion in the existing parking lot. Covered parking is not the most appropriate parking for bank use and would be a less attractive alternative in this situation. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This variance request should not have any effect on the above -- mentioned items. FINDINGS Memorandum --1st Bank of Vail Pg. h PEC- 8 -22 -78 The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. Sae the Consideration of Factors above.: That.the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or ,materially injurious to properties or improvements to the vicinity.. We do not feel this variance would have a negative impact on surrounding properties. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and 1 enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. There is a practical difficulty in making a structure less attractive and not as efficient as an alternative that could alleviate these features. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. See the Consideration of Factors. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. We feel the proposed expansion is well thought out and the solution is a very workable one. AGENDA ` PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 12 1978 WORK SESSION 1:00 P.M. Review. of Condominium Conservation Ordinance 2:00 P.M. Field trips to Elmore parcels, Cold Stream (G1enLyon) and Leeward. • 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING 1.) Coldstream Inc. - Amendment to SDD4 (Special Development District No. 4) Postponed from 7 -25 -78 2.) Leeward Residence - Setback and Distance Between Buildings` Variances (Postponed for 2 weeks at the request of the applicant.) 3.) Sunbird, Lodge - Density and Parking Variances. (Continued from August 8, 1978.) 4.) First Bank of Vail - Conditional Use Permit and Covered Parking Variance '(Continued from August 22, 1978) 5.) Pitkin Creek Park Incorporated - Amendment to SDD3 (Special Development District No. 3) (Postponed until September 26, 1978 at the request of the applicant.) 6.) Bighorn Lodge - Density Variance request. 7.) Westbye Duplex - GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area) Vari.an.ce request. 8.) Elmore Parcels -- Preliminary Review of Zoning for recently annexed land. 9.) Bighorn Estates Avalanche Report. r: t�f MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Meeting of September 12, 1978 Members Present: Staff Present: Ed Drager, Chairman Roger Tilkemeier Ron Todd Jim Morgan Pam Garton Sandy Mills Gerry White - Absent James Rubin Allen Gerstenberger The first item on the agenda is Coldstream Inc. -- Amendment to SDD4 (Special Development District No. 4 which had been postponed from July 25, 1978 Jim Rubin explained this Amendment to the Commission. Jim Morter, architect of Morter /Todd Partnership respresented Cold- stream, Inc. He had a model of the project for the Commission to view and the Development District "B" project was discussed. Within the Zoning Ordinance there would be 65 units allowable, and the total allowable GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area) would be 65,000 sq. ft. Eighty -one parking spaces would be required with half being covered spaces. Mr. Morter advised the Commission that this project proposes 44 units and will provide 84 parking spaces of which 650, will be covered parking. The project contains a wide mix of unit types. The landscape architect from San Francisco, Dick Berridge, also spoke to the Commission and went over the site plan. It was brought out that this project is for full -time residents of Vail. The project proposes a village- approach with a central plaza. The landscaping will be natural and as shown by Mr. Morter, there are no.impacts on surrounding structures. There will be good visibility from the units with creek and mountain views and a predominance of green space. There are no buildings encroaching on Gore Creek. They have developed good access to the project for smooth traffic flow and have screened and bermed between the project and Park Meadows and the Fall Line buildings. Pam Garton asked about the parking space (underground) that is Swithin the 20 -foot setback requirement, and Mr. Morter stated that the parking space could be dropped as they have planned for more than the required parking spaces. He then went on to explain to the Commission about the tower planned for the Plaza area which is proposed to be 60 to 65 feet in height where only 50 feet is allowable: The sq. ft. of each unit type was discussed. It was brought out that the units will probably sell at $95 -$100 per sq. ft. Y Roger Tilkemeier asked about the tennis courts. Mr. Morter stated they will be neither covered nor lit. They are of an east -west configuration, cocked to the north. MINUTES Pg. 2 - 9 -12 -78 PEC The use for the tower was then discussed. Mr. Morter stated that it would not be suited for occupancy, it would be used to take people to the top to see the overview of the project, etc., and there would be no access without the manager or his agent accompanying potential buyers or visitors to the project. Sandy Mills asked about the difference in height between the top of the tower and the roofline. Mx. Morter answered that the roofl.ine is approximately. 35 feet in height and the tower approximately 60 feet in height. Comments and questions were asked for by Mr. Drager. Roger Tilkemeier stated that he feels this is a very good plan and Mr. Drager agreed. ,Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Amendment to SDD4 (Special Development District 4) as requested by Coldstream, Inc., and as recommended by the Department of Community Development in the memorandum of 8 September 1978, noting the type of tower being proposed at a height of approximately 65 feet and the additional parking spaces as described. Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted 5 for approval. Ron Todd abstained because of a conflict of interest. The Amendment was unanimously approved. The second item on the agenda, Leeward Residence - Setback and Distance between Buildings. The applicant has requested a post - ponement to the meeting of September 26, 1978 Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the postponement as requested by the applicant to September 26, 1978. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on the agenda, Sunbird Lodge -- Densit and Parking Variances which was continued from August 8, 1978. Jim Rubin explained the request and outlined his memo recommending denial of this variance request. John Blish, attorney, was present to represent the Sunbird Lodge in their request. He outlined the Sunbird's reasons for requesting this variance and prefaced by saying there is a big difference between the lodge occupant of today and those who came to Vail at its inception. Mr. Ed Wimberly the President of Sunbird Corporation was also present and spoke to the Commission. He advised • that they bought the lodge in 1976 and this request stems from a market analysis that they had done after the poor snow year. They have checked into time - sharing and other plans feeling this would protect their investment and decided to go with the "vacation - plan'; He explained this concept to the Commission. Roger Tilkemeier asked whether the customer can assign their prepaid plan to someone else? Mr. Wimberly said yes, but there is the restriction that they cannot sell at a greater price than the Corporation charges for the unit. The customer can rent out, but the Corporation cannot. Weeks can be exchanged with other resorts under the Sunbird's 10 program. MINUTES Pg. 3 -- 9 -12 -78 PEC The "Refreshment Center" was shown to the Commission. It is just . one unit containing a small sink, refrigerator and two burners. They are proposed to be installed in the units and there is no additional floor space needed for their installation. The rooms will contain a "Murphy bed" (against the wall) and a couch. They feel the guest will use the refreshment center for mainly the morning meal for the convenience of having coffee and cereal in their room rather than having • to dress to go out. They feel this amenity will make the purchase of the vacation -plan much more attractive. Mr. Blish assured the Commission that these rooms would not hold more people because of the addition of this amenity. The rooms now sleep 3 and at most 4 people and this would not change. It would in essence be an invisible change. He stated that they are only asking for the variance on 5 of the units. The Commission was concerned about them coming back again and again for the rest of the units. Pam Garton stated that she really could not see that there would be a hardship here if the variance were not granted. Mr. Blish stated that the hardship is because of the fine line between Accommodation units and Dwelling units. Even though they would house the same number of people, this would increase their density and make the lodge more non - conforming. Roger Tilkemeier stated his concern that the LionsHead area was allowed to develop in the "Condo Craze" era and that if hotel units were allowed to become Dwelling units, there would be a lack of street traffic and the shops and restaurants could suffer. The street traffic is necessary to make the area viable. Sandy Mills agrees with Roger on this. LionsHead still "folds" at night. And, she also voiced her concern that if this variance is granted, how many more of the Lodges . would come in with this type of request? Roger Tilkemeier added that from the guests standpoint'; this kind ` of facility would make the room more convenient and more saleable for the Lodge, but that he feels it should not come to the point that people feel they can "live" in the room and seldom.go out. Allen Gerstenberger cautioned the Commission that this is a very • important decision, that the definitions are clear within the Ordinance. He agrees that there is nothing wrong with Accommodation units having some amenities, but that the granting of this variance would dispose of this part of the Ordinance. He feels they could go ahead with the modification of the Ordinance, but that. this would have to be pursued through a certain process and time period, and then would of course go through Council. He feels this request should be denied and the applicant be asked to come back. A Motion was made by Sandy Mills to deny the Density and Parking Variances requested by the Sunbird Lodge and as set forth in the Depart- ment of Community Development memorandum of 8 September 1978, specifically the third page under "Findings." Pam Garton seconded the Motion. The MINUTES Pg. 4 - .9 -12 -78 PEC Commission voted 5 members for denial and Ron Todd voted against the Motion. The applicants were told they can appeal the Commission's decision to the Town Council within ten days. The staff was asked to prepare facts and findings for the possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to modify this portion becuase of these special problems. The next item, First Bank of Vail - Conditional Use Permit and Covered Parking Variance. Continued from the meeting of August 22, 1978. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that some of the matters discussed at the last meeting have been resolved but he brought them up to date on what had transpired. Jay Peterson, attorney, represents the lst Bank of Vail. Ken Wentworth of Ruoff /Wentworth Architects was also present along with lst Bank officials and Jo Brown and Cissy Dobson from the Vail Inter - faith.Chapel. Larry Rider, attorney for the Town of Vail was called upon to make some interpretations that were in question. Discussion ensued on the parking interpretation and those definitions pertaining to it. Cissy Dobson from the Vail Interfaith Chapel stated that the Chapel does need more parking but that it is not in a financial position to do it themselves;\ it would help them if there were a joint parking agreement executed between the Chapel and the Ist Bank of Vail. Jay Peterson again explained the request for the Conditional Use Permit, stating their reasons for this request and then showing the site plan and architectural drawings for the proposed addition to the bank. Terry Quinn made some statements for the opposition from the Villa Cortina, and then introduced the owners from the Villa Cortina who wish to speak to the Commission. . The first speaker was William Loper from Denver. He is in opposition because he feels this addition.to the bank will lower his .property value. He feels there should be an alternative to the present plan and stated that the Villa Cortina people all feel this way. The Cession asked what these,,�ternatives might be. He stated that he could not speak for all 26 owners;; but that it should be a give and take situation. Ron Todd asked if -there had been any discussion between the lst Bank and the Villa Cortina on this:' Bob Fritch, the manager of the Villa Cortina, then spoke to the Commission. He spoke in reference to previous.plans that the Town had had for making a garden behind the Chapel and that this did not materialize. He feels the Villa Cortina owners were mislead by Vail MINUTES Pg. 5 - 9 -12 -78 PEC Associates, the Town and others. The next speaker introduced himself as Skip Audiss of Denver. He agrees with Bob Fritch and feels the Town Shuttle buses are sufficient to bring customers to the bank and people to church without adding more parking. . Next, Bob Qualls who spoke at the last meeting, reiterated that it would be detrimental to his property value, would affect his view, and he wants the bank officials who own condos in the bank to give them up for the extra space needed. Next, William Obering of Denver who has small children feels it would be an unsafe area for them to play. The next speaker to address the Commission was Mr. Roger Reischer who owns a condominium in the bank and is chairman of the holding company for the 1st Bank of Vail. He stated that the condos could per- haps be turned into office space. However, it is the feeling of the bank officers that the bank activities should take place on the main floor of the bank because this is better for the customer and the bank needs this open type of operation. He also assured the Commission that negotiations between the Bank and Villa Cortina have been going on for two years, and that nothing could be worked out. He is still Mwilling to try to work things out. Roger Tilkemeier asked whether perhaps the grade for the parking area could be lowered and bermed all around to make it less visible and lower the height of the autos parked there. He felt the drawings could be more detailed. Ken Wentworth stated that the grade could be lowered and the berming is planned for the area. Roger Tilkemeier stated that he would still like to see a more detailed site plan for the parking area. Mr. Tilkemeier added that he feels the crux of the matter is that the Villa Cortina really can't have any control over property they do not own, and the Chapel can develop this as additional parking if they wish even though this matter has come before the Commission in perhaps a backward way. He then asked if perhaps there is any way that the Villa Cortina and the Bank can work out the problems on the 20 -foot strip between the buildings.? • Jay Peterson again stated they have tried to work with the Villa Cortina for the past two years and nothing has been accomplished. Terry Quinn asked the Commission to deny these requests because of the adverse affect on the neighborhood. Jay Peterson answered that this is a high density area and the adversity is a fact of life in this type of neighborhood. Terry Quinn stated that the Bank has not given a hardship. Jay Peterson stated that by going through.the criteria, there is no special privilege given by granting the variance for covered parking and that the practical hardship is that they cannot use the center trip of land as described, and that banking is a specialized form of business with MINUTES . Pg. 6 - 9 -12 -78 PEC •inherent special problems involved with it, After further discussion, Ron Todd made a Motion to approve the 1st Bank of Vail request for a Conditional Use Permit for the creation of 2,800 sq. ft. additional space needed for the business within the bank and subject to the conditions within the Department of Community Develop- ment memorandum dated August 22, 1978. Roger Tilkemeier seconded.the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. • After a question from Ron Todd concerning the covered parking, the Motion was made by Sandy Mills to grant the variance for Covered Parking on eleven parking spaces for the 1st Bank of Vail and according to the Department of Community Development memorandum dated August 22, 1978. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Pam Garton thinks the parking area as proposed with granting the variance will be a much better treatment in regard to air and space for the total neighborhood. Terry Quinn was advised of the 10 -day appeal period. Pam Garton also recommended the Villa Cortina and 1st Bank work together to solve some of the problems they now have. Sandy Mills suggested that Villa Cortina may want to help finance a better berming and screening plan for the parking area. A Motion was made by Sandy Mills that the Planning & Environmental Commission recommends that the Town Council grant their approval for the Joint Use Parking Agreement between the 1st Bank of Vail and Vail Interfaith Chapel. Motion seconded by Roger Tilkemeier and unanimously approved by the Commission. The 5th item on the agenda, Pitkin Creek Park Incorporated - Amend- ment to SDD3 (Special Development District 3 , this item is postponed To September 26, 1978 at the request of the applicant. Jim Morgan made the Motion to approve the postponement of this item until the meeting of September 26, 1978 at the request of the applicant, seconded by Ron Todd and unanimously approved by the Commission. Number 6 on the agenda is Bighorn Lodge - Densit Variance Re uest. Rich Tofel spoke to the Commission in regards this variance request. The applicant wishes to add kitchen units so they may be used for employee. housing. There is no additional GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area) requested. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that because of the critical problem with housing employees in Vail, the Department of Community Development supports the granting of this variance. Ron Todd asked about the lease, how they plan to restrict the units to long -term so they will not be used by the night. The Commission was in total agreement and they are asking the applicant to make sure his leases have a restriction against use of the units for short - -term, or on a night to night basis. Rich Tofel agrees that this restriction should be in the lease and he is interested in having the units leased by employers MIN_ UTES Pg. 7 - 9 -12 -78 PEC for employees which could help guarantee that there would be no abuse of the stated use for the units. After further discussion, Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the request for a Density Variance by the Bighorn Lodge to permit the conversion of 16 Accommodation units into long -term resident housing units with kitchens and contingent on the require - ment that the applicant will agree to keep the existing building as rental apartments for residents with 6 -month leases and for a period of three years. This Motion seconded by Jim Morgan and unanimously approved by the Commission. The seventh item on the agends, Westbye Duplex - GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area ) Variance request has been postponed at the request of the applicant to September 25, 1978. Because of the length of this meeting the applicant could not stay to be heard. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the postponement of this item at the request of the applicant to the meeting of September 26, 1978 and Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimous;' approval.' The eighth item on the agenda is the preliminary review of zoning_ for the recently annexed land known as the Elmore Parcels. After some discussion and review of plat maps, etc., the Commission I decided they will review this for two weeks, The staff will make additional recommendations to the Commission and the Commission will make the zoning recommendations to Council at their meeting of October 10, 1978. The next item on the agenda was the Commissions discussion on the Bighorn Estates Avalanche Report. After discussion a Motion was made :. by Sandy Mills to approve and accept the Bighorn Estates Avalanche Report as prepared by Hydro - Triad, Ltd., and dated May 30, 1978. The Motion seconded by Roger Tilkemeier and unanimously approved by the Commission. The 10th and last item on the agenda was discussion of an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding notification. The Amendment would permit the notification of Condominium Associations . or their agents rather than each individula property owner in a condo- minium project. After discussion, the Commission agreed they would recommend the notification of the managing agent and /or the registered agent for the Corporation, or if all else fails, a member of the Board of Directors for the Condominium Association. This Amendment will go before the Town Council to be heard on October 3, 1978. The Commission then voted for a new chairman for the Planning & Environmental Commission. Each Commission member wrote down his /her choice for chairman. Ed Drager received 4 votes and Ron Todd two votes. Ed Drager will remain as Chairman and Ron Todd will be vice chairman. s Meeting Adjourned 8:00 P.M. 1.0 • • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM Allen G. DATE 6 September 1978 RE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE The attached ordinance was passed by the Town Council at their September 5, 1978 meeting as an emergency ordinance. As you are aware, it is response to the Apollo Park conversion from rental to Time - Sharing units. Although it was too late to affect the Apollo sale, it will have an important impact in a number of other ways. Although it was passed as an emergency ordinance, the Council desires the Planning & Environmental Commission's review and comments. They are favorable to amending the ordinance. Please review it and we will discuss it in the work session on Tuesday. .. b, .. 41 , _ _ o rp oMa it w w a o ° $ ' @ pn r y F• P. � 0 � n H C rt � n M W m O• w m 0 n' CL 0 rat a n H {Cp p- M R• m m ry 0 w. w rt N a L4 �, Igo M N 0� 10 a H• n. .. r 0 C rt Fx+• x 'ryU "C a O 0 a �~-+ •0 x a Im-• a M 'C 0 h• H C y y x Ir N G] n •U •'] .L H v n a o s+ OI�ifMirxen 0` • w a N N, a �C C N. M 0 a ['R bn °ozvo�zM�x t,, yyM .`ry' H U1 N N yM b M H m (y. amHO;�(hmr+y O xrHMn 27CCny 7•Cb -3m uDOM T`- -. %v N a 0 H. n • N. F a fn (:j ti W `n nM MyO�RbM MH(iroiC3tR• '•7 D P. O rya 'r7 rC3 0 ft N 7 N w N w rr O O tl [+f ��yy E7 Q. O 0. E M 0 a a ,�• H• [7 n DI 0 a rt rnt N X H• r r• rt G O H O •U r M 3*1 _H �1 O ro y r7 Z z !i "rob d a a G rt H m rt E rt �+• 0 a f-. a• m ul n tv y C H I tH7 r n Y •t O 3 a O a r• pW, N 5' a n tw•• G W a N• 0 O Q n fl f. H m 'C C7 d k a E M n rt a H �}r��7 t' •-r.. faJ H W a O a H M N O. ry 0 O- H• ro ° ?' N I C C. E �p�00 G'1 z m 0 X1 H H z. A, r a n M .Z ,•{ Y 0 W W m H rt H !D .J Y (rt [7 b 47HH W [•]$'(s7 b 4',21 7.H2, AnH 0 w a n H. F. .� m O a hi r H •y - 0 a O m F-• N h a a 'O a Lq 5} G1 M y n [*: Fa to m g ro Dy Z E M H• a (R H H• u rt 0 Y n a wnsiHVCZO c rM �� rmncnn (. V O rwt CL a rrr R O '4 0 p m ro H L I x n •S O !� O fn C [+ _ a H m rD x C r r.. H' C £ O 0, D rOr p x HHHt'H•'� 'om27n � O tt,0, Z i N 'd y F+• 0 0 to w 7 �' N tr rt C M N rt ❑ H ,t�y1 L*f m Gl H C H IH3 -+ � . 0 w K rt� C H O n M O 0 7' a 0 H FH-( mm OZ •{ m� Fiw H(n2C7 f=] r, • nm m b O w Y O W. W� b r3 0 m ' Y 13 m W v o m �5 H O M r• C (D n a i7 'A in M G`D H 7 Hon HomvroMH bK7 w M •. a a s oz v M[* • o o x • rt r H rt rr m 0 a t r tl m N 0 p u>H C H O n 2 z O n l YH t H<roHH , - a (1 D m O H N C G 0 w nxm�u 011 w>.3 OH,7 FH -+ H ZO O MH H 0 i a H r N H `� N rm N Z w z M"�7 m m t'l s< H .7" ❑ 2 H MmMmMazO<p.000tH+ - . 0. w x R F' rt M �• Fw•• M E ro c `3 'C HP9 giro �0000 0 r G Y 0 F k x c��u �aM IV rrDD •0 C P. O M m fryU S F.1ma H� "�7.H O R 0 W H w. N Ib N rr (p O M m rt 0 H H' O x M ri M W C H H NCO '• s -rat - N- - to - a. . n H `C -' a W M - rat' ;,. rt G a M _ ... _ F'r!i• 7.. -- - --' - - n m a w D ] O c Fn w o N w m a H r• m W a n m a R N e m o a w w rt Y W a S P r (D N ct rA v i I - M a I O O w O kJ H m O M O M 0 rt O- P. M H M a ft O 0 O H p ' N Y• F W K tD . m 0 a H.' rt C "tl K 0 ti O a N W. a •-C 0 ru W ^J � ' H M w N• H K- m to H 0 W o � O rD 7 a 0 a H ( o r rt C O H N m 0 N . a K O r• C P. =} X w Ar a C w n rt N N• H. r••0 ?g H• N C w Y Y w •+• JI z rr z O m W a a r 0 a 7 0 H• O m '�.• W O ^..: a uD Y O.a O 7 O 0 w W 0 O 0 a V' N ti v a rt m O a M N x r K (Y. W. f3 K C - O H H •i7 a a a M W 0 C a I n n 0 a C 0 0 n 0 rt N M (D Fh ¢. rt _N F r w a rt RurO a w EOO m 7 w C R n N m rt0a O -0- on .P A o o n m rt Id W - 1 0 0 t3 rt 0 m a K -•- I- O 0 a rta :d 10 E 0 w O C H I rt- N 10 > P. 5 N 7 H on rH-p •u • as P. (D n m rt E• ra H o a a a v x H H rt (n H 0 F Fh c N rt M W G N w Tt W SV]O rt rt - r a a H D7 O O rt ay" G C 0 r H H..G n__.._aa.• O N N a• 0 H• • w H C man_ - -..o O ._... O a H• -rt- I-r r( -- Y i M n (D tr 7 m H• N _ .f✓. rt .A....._ r - -.. -_ _ _.. ._ __� -. n m g ( A H H :r N W R W W M H rt n H. m H a m o- Y• :x •O r m c H• i - rr4 0 N •0 E •C m 0 �O ID 5r H I n a 0 n 0 l m ;J' rf Q r11 E � m H O 0 10 (D M r - rt. n a• G a p' O N m H O rn ( rt M m �' rh 0' M w N• a H• G O K z H• 7 H O W + ;tl a M rt m rt r0 w- O rR rt- Y m m w a H `.% $ vi w w a n rt H O a N rn O n R •C 0 a 'O N 0 9 O ft O - w 3 O C ,a 0 0 a 0 H n _ rt a 0 •a7 a - r•3 0 O aWH a r• P,tr a K 0 a- 1 ul tr K H HO O H wm r0 O 0 O N ;; n M r �ll (D Y H tr3 0 rt E O 0 rt a U7 0 M R 0 0 W rd I E 7 0 Or H• O ID rt 0 m 04 W C H 0- E rt H m a H• a 0 H z O 7 n O m n I M 0 rn G 0 O w t + a O n 0 m 7 ! a 0 10 C n � D rt W C 0 rt a •y 0 m :C rt. Rl • 0 •D P. 11 !3!3{ N G G H U H m C O 7 rt O N Y O a N H rn H n a N m x a H W N y m O a w 0 $ C:HW t^VC r ONK 00 00 n M p K C 0 0 n ft r C H• 0 C C R R H. lC a 0 � ., C1 5 rD n ft C E M a o O O O O rr . M m K W w - jC {D - • • f O O a m m R 't a rt 5 n H M r Ul H N Ut rt H H•' r m It rt • H• tr N m X v rt t+ o a W r rta a z tR rt M n m a' 0 o a b •O - I H a P. fJ rt n 0 10 N H• M P. 1 a'0 -::r w N O M W a rt •O m n 0 E .n G O a C J ti I O• rt '3• O rt a O D Sr K a "`r 10 H. I r 0 a a' 1.0 L9 0 Y•C H•0 H J Or 'G a' H• a 0 0 C H H• (D th m a N H rt H n - a '[7 H a w H 0 Ch m 0- a s :, M rt .P r m a H• 'r r Q7 I P. u . O o O H 10 O m r• 3 r n H, - 0 m O 0 0 FC ; a m Im•r rt H 7 t m rt 4; N P) a 0 a a M P.0 wM N F, C, 0 O n 0 G C S w N 0• O IQ rt P. rt, O (D I w rt a C'w C C. :3, w 7 C a a 0rt rt0 rt :3 ar Yw t=( r4 $ i3' C m tl H 3 K m M 0 H•, (D ft' m a J a H 0 �' •[ 11 w N w H• a' ar a O rt 0 w a H H• H• M C H m a r m m- Or 0 W. C G M 0 w a : H rn 0 O C '� r 0 n Y- •C N •CF rt N a rt k '�' f N a - j i G C 't1 0 E a O rt n n H• N 0 010 r y i ID r W M 3' H• N n t3' (D F-'a7 rt O :r a•: C- rt Y C rt S 7 tJ W a rJ m n *( rat W w O E w .i 0 a w C a rt G N .'( Y• H a 0 YY- m 01 rt m w O O. Or m R a C N p. K a 'U O (D . rt Y 10 a O m a F w ,7 H- 0' n rn . 0 w N N a Y• a l p w a rn E N H• H .n 0 a H• H• N N O (D ID 1"• � H• w a k m n n K E R .H 0 r• 0 a 0 w 0 �a n tr ft 0 0 C H DI a 7 a m a m a O. ., O O m tl' a rt 0 .(D 0 R m '.f H N a - a (6 - T1 r W O a C 0 • 0 a 0 t•. O K m '>J a a' K ti rt w< 0 n rt a '[S m G. Cl a' a m SL • n 4� ((1 F-( a (R a - s ID n. G 2 I n _0 m N N r H. a ."1 N a• n m N . ft H• G 1'• t•7 w m O' •,D a ••f O rt N N m a 'O aNra fJ rt mCa w n 1 Ca .Gm r wr0 H N :3 a O O a O v 0 H• H H H• W nr a 1• a r N '.' rU C 0 M P. ft 1 - w ut a n M K rt rU rt a a Y'{5 G rn 0 K m z Ut a N ( r- F•• -0 - N H• w '�D Df •� H w N - '{ ,y C :1 0 0 rt O a-3 f I rt. as , C I 7 a rtm N• n 1 I rt N m It N tr @ w >7. @ rw w a• M PI 3 0 rt M Pi iv rt ftr rf 0 H r 0 fD rt a N nA _. a@ no- 1-0 fD fD La tr G • ErrtrMa a0-cn i �1 n r 1, 9t a s rwr rNt ] o n n it .Y• dNw Ort @n i`JOCrt ,ro" •7r0 0r• M•OO H.dN. ONn w @ Crta NOwlnln a aM@ r" f.. N @HryN N tD In bcj O rt 40� a H @ N nXdr• artfn a L. rn]NOt� -'•C1 .4 @r•aa ow•on M rr ,XLr� rtG m n o ,•r - @.. � @fn o 5rtN yo" @ r•a @tnN to L @ aH O a rtrtrt rt ti 4. H O N n a w @ X@ b n N rr d � c N O W O rt a, N L S wn00nC O H H O r rosary rr ?D G roro NG G ?NIT riHnrJ0 7 @yL0'O @ w O ' r . C 7 @ 5 w CD rn 01 N C r r jw 7 , ' 0 a.0 @ rw t CwW r w rt'mrt G fD ry @ H N@ yn YN Mo t It , Q• rots b N N Ona ro4 or" aa ro w "0 •0 aOaOw fn @ 7 O ID d 7rt @ 7rf G' f@ . 0@ It ` @ - L M tv 0 'f F ° No N @n r 00 n • nr n'010 g rtrtF psrri O M 6 O • ID tI" rt (rj r@ . 0f YNwanp R t@rtrfn Mmr 0 rrN aO 7n ar@nM n + t o f rH G a 0 GXNrt3 .rryA NH O . r i@ -0 hh M @ H ASi N - ❑ rf P. fD 4, n rt a O r] Y0 O d O ri N Y.y < w 0 C F r•rg L N m r•ry 0 ry r L L a @ Y w N @ 5 O n r'a1nON �rnt Oro NrnSp fl NN90 X zi:1 0C t a y w to@ H. M0rt n�v aY0a ID °awxw tm O @ MOrrysro 9arat d rt n f a d 0 n ID N ''•• H•N 0 r r M <o Snrct , r 0 n r I r1F(] rt N ft C O 0 @ G It rt ISj N a N rt .. n0 --n rrot .1 O a H. m n a w tr O v It a r• r• C G Gni 1 1- n N h" 0, nr° cra aro . 0 4 ID 0 a Iona x n rt 'pr E a @ , 4 N b O @ 0 r•�� n M W a r ¢ G F" w rw�awg o aaa0 a rt£Nw ¢, ' y1 N• w n ro .O 1 a @ ro N y H n 0001 w n H a tr w w W 1 O Q, M "1 11 Sr•O :1, 1­ �1 w O 7 Y•O u a A W 1 • I f" rt Y r• a a; , Y i Y•O Y ht1 w u. F+ o ! n N ID p ° o o wIrteh.a l n 0 n I•ry!, 'C N H •G @ ry r. R a . a u PP Ih 0, IC r•- a O a"O M I1 d rr ry r• r 1. n 0 rt P. @ 0 7 ' rw 7rnr rnN n ra Y 3O Ko O Y N On rK • rrrjV � ra r•G X@ •0,t' O aH0 0 M0 3 Y'9 w f1 00Nrtro .c w _.,. -_ _ rt C rt@ •' _ 'a r• - - _ v- 'lot 11, 01a .11 M � MvN o � ,.- p O . H. Q n t pC , 0r 0 cw0 rt'mrt W.I aMi kC. 41 tA OO ° ft r, @0@ iD�a fwt n n M•Y Q.N ftrt L D • N rt w t1 rt 0 0^C 0 n a - W° SaL r•`CNr>.a rt 5 r' @ O _N F'• aO0 '� '*LN -0 N a❑ E 07 w C• r. i° as o .•NT • y ° O ao @ o. w• a Y•N R1@�4 H+. @ Y w N @ 5 O n aw ry Mg@ o t"om c, @. t a y w to@ mwtwsDO�t'- ^air a< n�v r@rx ° @ tm O @ 9arat d rt n f a d 0 n ID N ''•• n t; M@ M N:j V C E, d H. a .. r 0 n na�rtNO r1F(] OMfto• OD r• P. rt.H HO@ O O Ih G rt0 m Drrwra 7 r/I a w w li •01t I aN N w'NO 3y D rn OH o n N �7nN00 N�Od] p, 0 0 M .rt O O MH• O a BOO a w a rf ,7' rt (D N• H N. aOE rt I N n N 5 'J' ry 'J' @ �rtro a'w a r•wA5 <rt Orro @O ro f-'m r. w•rt•. rt a Nw @ ortr' worn ❑ r. w O •G rt 0 r•AO - rr L r rtO L ' canHwr••Oy CD 0 ❑' ytr '3 O NwO roNn {f@ppNr0 'O•�GID rrS@ a rn N @ n w .mn � nn, artn ) 'O n a 'Y OH H wr❑ wtS • 01rC @ H @•y O N@ 5On rt N a n. GNnrt3 N�rwt W u ,, @ 'UT N 0 - 0 ❑'n o @ O u. rtGra -w N•.. rn @ r. O G Y•n @ X f0 ❑•O H @ P. H @wart art n o • w 1 9 5 . rr W. @ N0 N� :3'C16 s "1'00 0m ( D X.0 m wa y rn a Q as 4 @ rt .`i'rtrtaMn mm Q, rrm N a m G 0 rt P. 4. WO v� airt.a• _- o n� rt @ 11 ft I O - ' Wr 9.rt rS ft .'r •. 7 E ro a aQ& a @rr as 'rate 4: w H wr � r7' r•HhI t N ' a o fD IL w• ft L G Of'8 as w ro @ S Y a f+ arrel II _ oO '81- Nk • Y ria O 'V rt rt :+ n. •n . r wW M p•rr0. mn ? N. O•- H r H : r -Y . O r• a n - - - -- -- @ 0 't, n @ @ 0 Y x M @ 0 I m� N F• �' N N - n rt Y• N a rt . @ n s H w a@ O w 0 IR o b r@to N +rot :0j WxwH . 5 � rt @ Ort K a ft � H ID ❑• na Y. tt Y• H. • G r n @ C fD I ax"a woo 1 rt n@ N L ,a. 01 9 w rtH'rtr r, I H t.. @ 7 r• rt H y y y, rt .4 M rt 40 C; � 50 n a H @ n O N@ n @ O C O Y r•Yaa 1y fL t o @ anro 9a 1nan�, @ tr @ h r• a$ W w a rt N ft C O 0 @ G It rt ISj N a N rt .. n0 --n rrot .1 O a H. m n a w tr O v It a r• r• C G Gni 1 1- n N h" 0, nr° cra aro . 0 4 ID 0 a Iona x n rt 'pr E a @ , 4 N b O @ 0 r•�� n M W a r ¢ G F" w rw�awg o aaa0 a rt£Nw ¢, ' y1 N• w n ro .O 1 a @ ro N y H n 0001 w n H a tr w w W 1 O Q, M "1 11 Sr•O :1, 1­ �1 w O 7 Y•O u a A W 1 • I f" rt Y r• a a; , Y i Y•O Y ht1 w u. F+ I w Y J n i 0 n N ID p ° o o wIrteh.a l n 0 n I•ry!, 'C N H •G @ ry r. R a . a u PP Ih 0, IC r•- a O a"O M I1 d rr ry r• r 1. n 0 rt P. @ 0 7 ' rw 7rnr rnN n ra Y 3O Ko O Y N On rK • rrrjV � ra r•G X@ •0,t' O o NN@ 00Nrtro .c w _.,. -_ _ rt C rt@ •' _ 'a r• a rt0 r@t fD - _ W Y' rt 'lot 11, 01a .11 M � MvN o � ,.- p O . H. Q n t pC , 0r 0 cw0 rt W.I � a 0 0) H ID 4 rn 1 @ ° ft Y H O X h+ W N G a fwt n • N rt Y Y O N 0, '3 0 [ail W - W° SaL rt n N@ '� -0 N a❑ M a a O 5 ❑ Q• I' C O 7 5 @ @ 'J' rf 9 N �' @ w w• a H 0 @ Y w N @ 5 O n Mg@ H Wo @ rH- ro C rn • t a y w to@ a w r@ o • @ ro o < rH • a w �G H ro @ N M M w n 5 • rt •ro r H O Y' a n r 0 n Y It ' ID D rt maMrC aG °Orw<r �rS@r ro O NOa ar• m (D0 @ro a rt 0 ir n N �7nN00 O f@ fryi Oa Tr s S ro •YY•� @ti O a :21 r" f J 'r w Ra 00 '<0 Y n OROO JO's NOMOr K ,Yr a a'w a E N nro @ :v1,'8. r0 a SM9 w n 0 •G rt 0 r•AO - rr L r rtO L ' w CD '3 O C w G@f �f n N. rrS@ a rn @ @ • rrC n n n w r M YC I. I ro a r • 5 • ro� � c0 OBaO nw46@ rH7rra 'Y OH H wr❑ wtS • 01rC @ H @•y O N@ 5On O0 LOC G @ YY . O @ 'UT N G D a mw nN 9 rMt . 11 wY r 0 n • 1 H rt 9 () P. t • w 1 9 5 . rr N @ N0 N� Gt � D @ O ( D Wa I ID w r• HO wa y a Q N a raH* 7r[/ ti @ rt 3 0 0 0 a m G 0 rt P. 4. WO 0 w !n@ " Efry rowd� ^CY7 J rf5 O O nNo rt I O - ' NN • Wr 9.rt rS ft .'r •. 7 E ro a 5 4: w N @ a w t N ' a o ,' Fl. w@ :rt • rouO s rr• w -' O@ w O O n O - O ro HO o O ft �o y rt • Y ria O 'V :+ n. •n . r wW w mn ? N. O•- H r H : r -Y . O r• a n - - - -- -- @ 0 't, n @ @ 0 Y x M @ 0 I Q w . N w 0 a - C N a rt . @ n s H w a@ O w b N H rh 0 v• � Q [0 K a ft � H ID ❑• r y • G r a w @ C O ::r rtrt Hr•rtO Y• 5 w a 5 ry a n r• 1 rt n@ N L ,a. 01 9 w rtH'rtr r, I H t.. @ 7 r• rt H y y y, rt .4 M rt 40 C; � 50 n a H @ n O N@ n @ O C O Y r•Yaa 1y fL t o @ anro 9a 1nan�, @ tr @ h r• a$ W w a ❑' .n Y• O H H O • w ro, ID Y 0 N N F,. if' 1 N rt �• H i i rt N ft C O 0 @ G It rt ISj N a N rt .. n0 --n rrot .1 O a H. m n a w tr O v It a r• r• C G Gni 1 1- n N h" 0, nr° cra aro . 0 4 ID 0 a Iona x n rt 'pr E a @ , 4 N b O @ 0 r•�� n M W a r ¢ G F" w rw�awg o aaa0 a rt£Nw ¢, ' y1 N• w n ro .O 1 a @ ro N y H n 0001 w n H a tr w w W 1 O Q, M "1 11 Sr•O :1, 1­ �1 w O 7 Y•O u a A W f" rt Y r• a a; r @0®nm' a", '0 M I @ @'O +7G .. Y n w• @ h+ n, l Wrnt9�tj �f - I•ry!, 'C N H •G @ ry a:j a10 ro000'aa0 a Ih 0, IC r•- a O a"O M I1 ry r• r 1. n 0 rt P. @ 0 7 ' P. a r� tx w a G yr ra r•G •0,t' O art Ow W H 00Nrtro rr u0. a rt0 r@t fD . W Y' rt 'lot 11, 01a .11 M � 110 rots rnnt o IV W.I •4 a 0 0) H ID 4 rn 1 @ ° ft y G'rt0 N ITC tr'w I'•t) GOOTO @nt7'r!7' �•• K III H w w• r r• rtT @wO @u1@NQ (� N •O n• rt . m .-. 6 0 0 0 O N Qo 0 a Iris O +O1 Dy 0", 0,o r'c HIE r M w•rn ()O @b 011, d� N rmt '0 ro :o I. pj 7 011 H E a a 0 a c K G N 0 Tx'rta rtn � �• N TG CYh a•fD mY 7„ @(D P, (D (h 'I m rr �' N rta'ro rt rt anow.SmHTKw a0 r- :3 ow0x aHa• crr�rtnN 'n rt b TAE lD. rowrrow aR•m4?'H'�w•N,rt01 H. :1 aj pi @ w � M a O fD W rt Mw a F+•Y•b•N N EErtror'grrml•wo wwowro £robK N N rto r:p rO1 "C ((D b m O y a m 4 Y• rt i• I w rP 1- a0' rnn a Fl- a a r N< H G n a rr A O H. G v ha'OrtR w• a K .. r• Oar- rn N•O1 KN rt7 0- fD rtw•iL N d w rms 23 0 K � w•7 r- •mbar• bi @ �I b (� p'•p Y' •• fa4 m �°ry '� @ aNa u. Nw am M w rr C) m r rr 0 w• p `C N a,n m r,wO rI' b ft P. G a a (D r m a rms a oj P- m rt C a h 0 @ i I I I � NID I i E O w b a IW N � G H• o @a m o0 K'3 Mh W t. N rJ O' CO EOm 'A w•A WN @a bwa• U H a 0 0 0 O O N Mri COY aw w s YG vYO. r ro o0am M N tr m W 19 m CN a•G w rt 72 K O�LS w rt b h EQtQQ-• r - w• rD H H• w p w r • rt Q rt r' maw r H N rt n v e @Taw zrn AW n < wK It 0 A Nrsh H X W rt 01 tr W O- a"m _K ..w. _ lb P•5 ro rt m tr @ LID o1z d.. �£. C r !1 b 0W N a w ... •-. 0 h H O a .T Y. :17 n : w• m b R N rtrt O rS G 7m � w N 0c P) Q7 a7m 0 a rt N O1 rtraf V I w G'rt0 N ITC tr'w I'•t) GOOTO @nt7'r!7' �•• K III H w w• r r• rtT @wO @u1@NQ (� N •O n• rt . m .-. 6 0 0 0 O N Qo 0 a Iris O +O1 Dy 0", 0,o r'c HIE r M w•rn ()O @b 011, d� N rmt '0 ro :o I. pj 7 011 H E a a 0 a c K G N 0 Tx'rta rtn � �• N TG CYh a•fD mY 7„ @(D P, (D (h 'I m rr �' N rta'ro rt rt anow.SmHTKw a0 r- :3 ow0x aHa• crr�rtnN 'n rt b TAE lD. rowrrow aR•m4?'H'�w•N,rt01 H. :1 aj pi @ w � M a O fD W rt Mw a F+•Y•b•N N EErtror'grrml•wo wwowro £robK N N rto r:p rO1 "C ((D b m O y a m 4 Y• rt i• I w rP 1- a0' rnn a Fl- a a r N< H G n a rr A O H. G v ha'OrtR w• a K .. r• Oar- rn N•O1 KN rt7 0- fD rtw•iL N d w rms 23 0 K � w•7 r- •mbar• bi @ �I b (� p'•p Y' •• fa4 m �°ry '� @ aNa u. Nw am M w rr C) m r rr 0 w• p `C N a,n m r,wO rI' b ft P. G a a (D r m a rms a oj P- m rt C a h 0 @ i I I Y• 7 n w G a w M r E m t n I ft 7 Q � M rn 0 tc rt PPi (D R D� M a o�.ro mf a b I 4 I { I i E IW ft m o0 K'3 N rJ O' CO EOm 'A w•A WN @a bwa• U �rX �' u a N Mri COY aw w s YG vYO. r h w Oo wK � rt 72 K O�LS r, 0 :H Yr • EQtQQ-• r - It rt Q- N o G rt r' maw r H N rt n v e @Taw zrn •.•, b 7r rt N N wK A Nrsh H rt @rcpmrOrmrt O- a"m _K ..w. _ h�Tao OI"• @rw P•5 ro rt m tr @ LID n K O �£. C r !1 b rt N a w .m7 •-. W •-. 0 h H O a .T Y. :17 w• m b R N rtrt O rS G ;w rsa R � w N 0c P) Q7 a7m 0 a rt nr• v w rtraf V O o w G tea rt ru • 'r •, N N m T O C n y H -r v N � D rm• •CH t? Y -0 0 w N K G , W r} • O . 0 w 7 to O R H a :f' b rar N 'Gad M a [D •my @ W Y w rt FF G m w q E r°i @ T Y• n w rt .O h n :� O ,f ca aw•w- @3 w. ° a !" N f7 M Bm R7 a�mNrwc Mm rr C Lw{M 1 @ r G a� rt A° rt. M 'Hx'wrC m n vw o I.G 'h rx H m O ro 07mE ] :OE rnF D (G 1 ry O 'rQ MQ w n , f°,, ttrtW ° 0 •tIC n •�• . wrN ry ro 0 r, I@ t wa,ORa � H a ::r o• < -n O fD rNH a 0 -. aa<y O P- IA O w 0, r7r w A. 0 0 H. } W • M r w `� a rt a (* @a' UR N ' 0 G �0a �m ON N H - GrEwn Fry`t fmtw vw i wr - w _ w n (D rx,• 11 ID N 0 m m [S - - -+Gn - _- w • rD N m Y N a a m ° Y f+ 0 rt ro •'tO i H. N N d 1-0 N G Y d' r"Yo a Shrt. ; O r Ih ~ L m° o fH 'F o K tr Krt . n G O?N � P n s~ b@ �n N rn f7 w °mKra w'•ror - a 2f K It fN*Nnm n XNO Nrtywmmco w 1r O n N CI ID •Cw w e mrOntrd° �aT w @ 0 Hr rmn @ N ra? R a a la-, ft t rt D rir " •-rt K w D 7 �N to w• carom h O D N (rtD . -H w rt N rtm N a F Q 5• 0 a H v 7-p O N O Y• tr IsT n T w a 0 T - rf�7 n., iS bOr Ora Or O 02 OC - 7m a 0 O O rD i i �• aO �rr . •R ] C A CN n IG W Y• 7 n w G a w M r E m t n I ft 7 Q � M rn 0 tc rt PPi (D R D� M a o�.ro mf a b i 0 ri a .o h a Rf w m m I 4 I { IW m� O1O-n m o0 K'3 - rJ O' CO EOm 'A w•A WN @a bwa• U �rX �' u a K1D WrtwOG • O fa 7 ra rYw•ryO Mri COY aw w s YG vYO. r h w Oo wK � rt 72 K O�LS r, 0 :H Yr • r - It rt Q- N A ,1D -K EOi Ya O O- a"m _K ..w. _ rr : H . G "CE b ft r y Aa o �wa N � W O bO&10 m ON • ft wd m F O rr P. ft I7 w H D O w ft N W ar ' O ^ 0', 0 q rn mn O•• 7 H f0J D R@ O5 ',m S7 tn o a 0 [D r7 rt0 O H. 0 KO G iaM • O • • p m Y`C v N � O H ui Y. - G , W a am • • O . 0 w 7 to O R ry a@ N rt ft w b . n Ct Y•R r a m A O K rt A lot r 0:11 :1 G Y a T a 0 • •D O k p r @ ,o 7 � N W VK Lw{M 1 Fw Y M rt H rt n O M G 11 Y• O m T @ HY N ' N r m W m 7 O ro 07mE W. 0, Y@ m •W r . . Y OOhrt t -Y N a•OwrtX w N crh wa,ORa � H a ::r o• < -n O fD rNH aa<y H vrc . O a tN rO,m mO�, , a� Y i P- 7 -O O 0 O�00 *Q 7 Y£ON .' a O n K M rn •l caw p rYg Rr @ •Oo O W� m+d T raa7 Gn O •1 Y • • C O �'YIm mfD f cY@a a Gart nNY•r m N tr o 1-0 m a Shrt. ; O r a •otrr L m° o X 0 0 7 ID 0 G a rt:rt 't U, � P N• ry fr N rn f7 E T 70 - a ' R Qa , m n • wIr a s It w 1r O n N ID f w e m rO a rt R r tr ro m fH D H O Y rt t rt D rir " •-rt ro 0 p w D 7 • c r.t'- m wA ¢ C, c H a O H . -H w • 0 a r - Q 5• 0 a H v 7-p O N O Y• tr IsT n T w a 0 T - rf�7 n., iS bOr Ora Or O 02 OC - 7m a 0 O O rD r �• aO �rr . •R ] C A CN n IG W w O G r rN � 0 n D 0 O. m w r m a O rr n ° a M ft Hr7 N m b rtE N K _ 0 fY rr ) 0 wv a'O bM rat , w Hw Er rt • ' Y r. O m• %• 0v ovit� a O a H p M6 • wfan K •Gd " ( Y00, ft Orn tw • EY AO IRY ' 0 a 7 mm C H / YN mY t Y m r fa,t ft a O m N P. G O ' T H "n p - n ID ; 7 W D fa ['Ui ➢ d a , P` w @ 1 r r K • C r� + G 7 rr W ft H W 0 7 " G D a • p r a r nN � E o r- � _ n N 5 O O o 11 H fGK 0, @ c, rt .0 CO ` f 0 n °0 r- rt • h M rnf rr'1 N N t D 7 @• ~ ' O ft a K • 0@ N M O rt W A O w M6 D Rr. • -G ' �11 0 .n N CD G d O° � rO ro M 10) t• 1O�7 Dm 1. W-O r( rH K NR � 0 n rf• O W@ w'J O t, w rn R ft a i b @ ft H r T ~ 7W m Pi O •• H @ 'D N r O rs �@ M. H am 7 k O i rr r, rY N O n a It O • f0 w w T rt O @ Or row N KO N a + N a pC , 7 • h w @ w J .W V 9 n ft f } a [* rt @ (D a N D ' FrHl r N h T a rr (D w f+ CL r H N r • " 0 w F. O W 1.4 :j r rt rt 7 n a n T ft A t w; It f rC I £ H n rt 0@ ft I i O ,'. K Y@ m;0r I rO H Q � ; Y s I f ft i 0 ri a .o h a Rf w m m • NKOmO ' -N m s t rtnF'� 3rtN0 MK �� -+ �.RArtrt rtO b • ORO rt rt w OaG Ni C 1 roC ~ 0 CmN*rtCf'in @ 0 t hmO v 3 . t r• H trt •• w•GK0 n10hor3 i is r•ID K a @ w . D C rr@ s m • P, ft r�t r aw• 0 r• mK0 OHOm wro aaa C0 wAM rtN 'GVA.7 •r~ OFn ' (M (H m wWN3OG rt O GC}O rtKKA0G r G ro • @ rt ! H rtm N rt A w NHr+•�+•G } :r W, O @ D d tfa O O M @ = M a Oa } @ K N O - N • n }' tr w w K 7 a r3 H M w w ,tj ,mtl rt N o3 H N A nH S .rrrt �-h tJ C, r • g K -Cy - -w- -rb - •• -- r. ra t a rt rt 0 w N o w 3• H w • :3 o a o m 9 m K K rH 3 C ra • rtnm rJ rt K G fi r a d rtro o r, r. m m a rn • K w•t D O" •K � Lw t' b ' as 0 h Nroro 140 r•m m O Or •m r@ rMroM • e Cw G • lO w w O D Y . N O IHt m rn m A O , N OCY•mH • H •3 C N , N R m 0 R a w • W Ym • W ` [) W :3 n 0 n w } @ n y ra - m ei rt 0 m ID N r w O R R a A O M rt rt Q up a m H. N P. ' w r0 rt . K 7 n M 9 N m G rt OO M P. S p C O • } w i m m 0& rt N N } m W H. H S C ro @ 0 ' O w A rt N •rt • rt :3 Q K 7 aS0 n K N 0 O w a P. [ ro S rt 0 O'wR rt F- rt} P. } N r• m 3 N S a rt P. ro 3 ro 'a fl O M R a rt m OHr• 0 M 10 10 m G c O (t CD O m 0 • 0 ' O rt rt a rt GKK rt m @ w 0 G H w S n rr S K' n 0 N R 10 m 30 rtWa000 O 9. C Ma r• M r -G a O CN a K t rt w N K O G O 0 m rt eh a Y• 4'a G r- < a • n C CD M 3 3 @ J rt r 0 rt S W 3 m r- o r w et M n r 0 • rp@ _ e n a ct eo ti P. Oa50N ro HOG wa Cro O I.- W K 3C 0 n N N O' O vM. -3 O '0 ~ ts w a rM rt K n 0 H 0 a M H G O N rN • @ >A wm.p 0 G ^y • w N0 m mm . r• aawrt O .7' N A K r• C C @@ 7 I rH iA 0 H G w O S n a w N Rw }owm 0'. 10 CA 3 m a rt n w 3K O ra • •9 a on mML< rD 3'+to•0 H G a 3 w•mH ro '< @ } @ •- w K m m rt if1 X G w rt n m M w H rt a 0 0 0 }• S - a m K -^G a ma 9 H 3 r• r•Gm m it 0. n K 0 om 0"10 ro G.'< �} tn] r r• Q. c rmt ' a w O K :r• a ,} < G H w• r• r• rt w tr 3 N 3 N a a trt 9 @'0 a rt r N a a rh 0 r• o w H �I w - �• . m c wH --- ----- w.0 r. a ,w.m. r•N mVarntmmm w 3 w 'O rtHt wCr' Yr-Mn. aArtr m ro & w•Mrtrtrt a?+ cr O G n .• W, N • w rq 0_. o 3 < w rrworo •C w• K a r• o m nactro rt @r @ } ww rom v M rt K rt N' K d } G 9 m a H O w@ a H _ Y- K H. m m .`rJ• ti 0 01 0 0 M O0 w• m a a w•w raro o F-• rt M rtN 0 P. K m a a ct q !+• th K rt N +n m Qr G y( p m K@ 0- K Kp K rtro: @ K o a m n m rG I I a w @� r o 0a w@ W Nww•w� O w ro @Cnrwr a (D En w on MOH m ^ynn N ro aH @rra rt r�• 12. a o d n mm'ttEn r.o to W rt W C "a K @ H }' I . ft N@ 3' rr < m rt S w O M r• 0 4 $ W m N Y• a e m H . in W @ K - }' m .p r• 3 C r• @ rh m P. F~• d rt CY !W-• O G .q rt @ rz 0 � C L • 1'9 0 rt m m 9 G 0 0 rt a O'C I- 0 0 r- M 3• n � H @ C M � m ' a ;n rd 0-- mw• � ' - Imo_ Wro @a rt 3H r• � i<G LNi w- •E ro t• 0 -I- . - - H D N y °' a R C (SJ N i C. I 0 n. ro a n K rt a N m w. i I � f E I r r• ' n w ' M N H. w 0 w 0 R K N K C a O Q a y n n N W w O a ro @ a R m a �rt n ,rA w 3 w m w G O w m r• m K m Y r• t•-• w O H _ ! ro W N E H rr r• r• w 0 Y i a '•C 9 �O - f I. 0 r• m - a M 'C N ' G N O w W m m- G m (n - f 'H a 1 w O @ ''O W rr 0 3 n a a 0 :0 N �' rr rr K n 0 .3 r• M 3 R @ 't7 0 H. r- 3 'C O N H m @ a w N a' rt w• K - H '0 - a rt, rt 0 ,rt P. @ rt 0 r• �@ - r• m to n A w rt w N O n m 0 3' ro E a s, ro '�' S 7 W R N rt m w. n• m 3 a tY a N• '!! m O w -I 0 tit w• M 0 I' r• 3 @ w ro m @ ❑ ro O m 0 n H• n a S - O N 6 M a m 0 rt 3R a H K K a C iT W E A e F K m H rt rrt • m < m . 0 0 m a 6 a } m DI a tl O w H N O K O A N O m O rt 3 _. -it. - -M ti - -ro., - r• O rt. S O r• - -- F-• rt w 3' R a N a' a rt rt I; -.--_ tr•. ___K G. -M .. _ .. _. ; 7 r• O 3' M ro A a K :•- ro 3 rr lA -3' m w r• m M m 0 +P N W H w m m w m m - m N• @ A N O t1' a W n F-• ro a O N a o O w 0 r• A t N W. n N 0 , m K rt w @ < (D K W w 4 a H n •6 O rt O O rt n rt w m '.1' w O rt a. m. w r• a S K @ w 0 � a `< 3 - p o a• x a a w O rt O H m Co 0 O rr ro n rt M G H }' m H M ¢ N W H w r' a K rt w M m rt w m [Y rt w• x G w H H 3• t� rt a 5 3 }' x o '9 It - rGS m m M H 1•C 7 N v `0 N m m m 0 0 @ m 3 f0 O m tl rr m @ 9 w H, W. :r rr rt w @ rr - 0 0 O O @ O 0 r• G o' w- m 'H 9 r m - 9 r•"C c- ,.. a a 0 ? ro ro S M rt a• 7 M a 0 C 3 3 b M • 3 M W m M r• R w rt 7 n w w K O K a m O H. m m 0 m C6 O W w m Y• O rt y m 0 0 m rr r• t7 rt ?. a r a K r• K w O N n 9 H 3 a i W 7 H 9 3 N m S W K G H H w• G ro k• : 1' n r 0 w ro 7 G 0 m w a O r a O . 7 A i 3 @ C a 0 O 3 0 r m a a b rh rt H rt 0 a K rr 0 M Y w rt G w S O n 9 N r• m m 3 r• 3 €. •• O w w @� O 7 m rt H C •G m 9 K a K , N to rt r• w E m rt 0 r• a rt 3 H rt r• C @ 9 ar a @ m r• 0 .q H- X rt C r•- Mro 0 r• K O 9 0 0 ID n rt S < w• m @ V• H 3 a a 9 0 m a tr m S w 3 M H M rt G h tl H rh a w m m N 'tl K a m 0 a r• K W ro - G@ h] . M R O K w• ' S W Y • LYI• ' • r.O � • rrrt C • • w a N E m C CZ 0 rt H 0 W H 'a w w r- G rt ro m a n u. rt rt rt 0 K 3 H 0' 0 m 0 3• w N 3 C w rr m tY ' G 3' m n W N � 3 rt N A @ h O tr m m r O P. ri r- m a rrt 9 o ro N m O a rt O O n 3 rt N m N 9 rt 3 0 0 w N m 0 C @ m mar • n m ro H R rt a s O t P. D O O rt n O K rt O O O @ th - _ a ra a N'C K Wa M (D rt a yx•. }' H 0 P. H v 3 Y .. K w P. w' O F a C H a' m m m 0 9 w ro b w r• r• O n @ rt a rt 3 w K C C K N w W @ 0 rt 3 9 ro rt ro 3 O rt M O w E w H m m n a G r• m M m y rt ro I m m 0 a n `C 0 C O w a 0 3 @ a O W H 17 W a 8 - O w N 0 M H 3 M H A G w m N n r• rt W H 3' w r �' E. 0 m n m m c m o 0 a a' rt m a a a 0 O r M C d r• rt O m rt 1}7 N rwA 0 v m 3' G N rt G, _ *_ • K _ - r� o w K w• O - W n r- + rn Owto • 0 w 0 w m a n, o rt o _.r ry 3 o 0 w 0 a G G ry p S w rR m • w aw - 'W 6 Gw • N; - a.: :. 0Q r~• F~-•. rrN y� } o a r. m o• rt } N a a .E K x re m M }' n rt Y• rt ro R w ro N 3'. rt y pl r. r. F•• 4.• m rt w 1•+ x a r• N A, a cr •"� a C @ .7 {-• n N r' r• N a 'S a r•. @ W it r' SD N O b' b CY 7 m n H r• £ A O a N rt 3 a rt �•G ro rt a CD S 0 M r• r• O a 0 H :'3 S a }'' O rt rt m Ii H. W - P w O i 0 0 3• a m H ro S O 3 3 r • X h N CL UI w w a 3 O ( S U 0 nr m ID N ro H 0 13 I 00 n N n m rt 3 N 0 'O m H w Y• N ft w w G m rt ' m ! o w r• n I N H a 9 I m N ,. h • O I H � � f1M ID Y• O a p a n `� t m rt r c If 4t f N I I n a N d � Z N 0 W ro N f7 C N I M o, rt ro N gr r 7 n a Ft r 1 0 m m I i • I r W N [9 O (D ti a - In !G N D N i O N .rn a n lu m.n ID -- to 1 m rt ro N N N ID !] I h% N O W 1 co ] w 10 i rt w tn m tt -m c 1 ; r I� I I . . . . ... ......... 0 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 September 1978 RE COLDSTREAM INC. in Special Development District No. 4 In a check of the plans for the Coldstream Development, I have found them to be in compliance with the standards set forth in the SDD 4 Zoning District, with one exception. This exception is that one underground parking space is within the 20 -foot setback requirement that pertains to all outside boundaries of the project. I believe that this can be easily resolved. The Coldstream Development plan has 44 dwelling units with a GRFA of 62,700 sq. ft. The maximums set forth in the Zoning Ordinance are 65 dwelling units and 65,000 sq. ft. i-0 • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 5 September 1978 RE DENSITY VARIANCE FOR THE BIGHORN LODGE LOCATED IN LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 7, BIGHORN THIRD ADDITION AMENDED. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Variance has been requested to permit the conversion of 16 Accommodation units into long --term resident housing units with kitchens. The subject property is located in an MDMF Zone District with a total of .67 acres, or 29,374 sq. ft. A maximum of 12 Dwelling units would be permitted on the site, which would allow for the conversion of 8 of the 16 Accommodation units. (Accommodation units are counted as .5 Dwelling units.) The applicant desires to convert all.16 units. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The previous use of Lots 6 and 7, Block 7, Bighorn Third Addition . was as a Lodge. The requested change of use should not have any greater impact on surrounding buildings than that of the Bighorn Lodge. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. F The applicant has agreed to keep the existing building as rental apartments for residents for at .least the next three years. With Pg. 2 Bighorn Lodge - Density Variance 5 September 1978 housing being a critical problem in the Town of Vail, conversions of this type are highly desirable. This is an excellent location for resident housing, right on the Bighorn Bus Route. The density increase from 12 to 16 Dwelling units.is not significant, especially since no new floor area is being added. There is more than adequate parking on the site. 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 on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors that are deemed applicable. Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. This conversion is being allowed for the addition of resident housing units. Other conversions for this purpose will be treated similarly but on an individual basis. 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 Consideration of Factors, the first item. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • Pg. 3 Bighorn Lodge - Density Variance 5 September 1978 There are exceptions 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 supports this variance request. We feel that this will provide good housing for locals which is something that we have a great need for at this time. We strongly recommend, however, that some restrictions be placed on the use of the units and on the amount of time that this building is to remain as long -term resident housing. This variance request is for this building only and would not be applicable to any new building on this site. We would suggest that there be a minimum of 6 -month leases for . the rental of these units and that they stay as rental units for at least three years. There would also be further restrictions on the condominiumizing of this project through the recently passed Condominium Conversion Ordinance. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 September 1978 RE SUNBIRD LODGE ALLOWABLE UNITS PER ACRE AND PARKING VARIANCES ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, VAIL/ LIONSHEAD THIRD FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Sunbird Lodge has requested a Variance to convert five (5) Accommodation units into Dwelling units through the addition of small kitchenettes. The Sunbird Lodge is in a Commercial Core II Zone District which allows the maximum of 25 Dwelling units per acre. The Lot on which the Sunbird Lodge is located contains .608 acres which would allow the maximum of 15 Dwelling units. The Sunbird Lodge currently has 40 Accommodation units (which are counted as .5 Dwelling units) and 13 Dwelling units for a total density of 33 units. The conversion of 5 additional Accommodation units to Dwelling 40 units would change the current mix to 35 Accommodation units and 18 Dwelling units. The resulting density would be 35.5 Dwelling units which is more than 130% in excess of what is allowed on the site. The additional parking requirement for the 5 unit conversion would be 5 /10 of a space, which when rounded to the nearest whole would be one space. I do not feel that the parking variance needs to be discussed separate from the density issue. If the density request is approved, then the parking variance request should also be approved. I do not think the conversion of the units would have any impact on parking. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: 0 Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Pg. 2 Sunbird Lodge; Allowable Units Per Acre 8 September 1978 If this variance request was approved, I feel there would be ' other buildings in the LionsHead area that would request a similar Variance. The Enzian is an example. I also feel that other potential new buildings could be given increased density through the construction of Accommodaton units and then desire a similar conversion. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The Sunbird Lodge is currently 1207o in excess of their allowable density. The Growth Management Zoning Amendments passed by the Town Council in November 1977, put the limitation on the maximum number of Dwelling units in higher density zones. The philosophy behind the Amendments was to limit densities in the Town of Vail. To permit the conversion of units would be a further increase in density which is contrary to this philosophy. I do not believe that any density variances have been granted since the new amendments went into effect. 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 impacts on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors that are deemed applicable. • • Pg. 3 Sunbird Lodge: Allowable Units Per Acre 8. September 1978 Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. 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. That the variance is not warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in- consistent with the objectives of this title. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that apply generally to other properties in the same zone The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of this Variance request. We feel that it is contrary to the Growth Management Amendments and would set a bad precedent for future variance requests for densities greater than those allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 8 September 1978 RE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) VARIANCE FOR HEMME AND IRENE WESTBYE DUPLEX LOCATED ON LOT 22, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY 1st FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The GRFA Variance request is for 140 sq. ft., to allow the construction of a television loft of approximately 175 sq. ft. The duplex which is currently under construction has a GRFA of 4,038 sq. ft. The allowable GRFA on the site is 4,073 sq. ft. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. I am not aware of any GRFA variances that have been granted to other residences in this area. Most of the large houses in this area are on larger lots. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. There has not been an adequate reason given to justify the issuance of this variance without the grant of .special privilege. The reason given, "to correct a design misunderstanding between owner and architect," is insufficient. • s • Pg. 2 Westbye Duplex - GRFA Variance S September 1978 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 on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors that are deemed applicable.. Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. 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. That the variance is not warranted.for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in- consistent with the objectives of this title. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of this variance request. ■ W. 110 HYDRO - TRIAD, LTD. May 30, 1978 Mr. Jim Reinecke P.Q. Box 537 .Vail, CO, 81657 Dear Mr. Reinecke: In accordance with your request, I have made several field reconnaissance trips to evaluate the avalanche considerations that might a4:versely affect the lots 1 thru 4 of the Bighorn Estates development in Vail, Colorado: After walking the site on two different occasions, making various slope measurements and observing the field evidence, it is concluded that the lots 1 thru 4 are not impacted by avalanche hazards. Initially, I had some concerns relative to a potential spring type slide path that would cover a small area, straddling the common lot line, for a distance of approximately 40 feet between lots 2 and 3; but subsequent field inspections revealed that the area was actually a zone of very shallow ground- water or an ephemeral spring area. These four lots are not adversely impacted by avalanches. I would, however, recommend against building or excavating within the south 40 feet of lots 2 or 3 due to probable water or slope problems. Lot 4 should not have as much groundwater. The enclosed Figure I presents the. approximate lot lines and area evaluated. It should be noted that the main avalanche chute ( #7 or Icefall) that runs in the area west of lots 6, 7 & 8 of this subdivision has not been evaluated in this study. If you have any questions on the avalanche appraisal, please contact me. Thank you and best regards. RL.H /jh Encls: Figures I and II 7500 W. M SS)SSIPPI AVE. ' SUITF 10 Sincerely, h'YPRQ- TRIAD, LTD. % Ronald L. Halley, P.F. , President LAKEWOOD, COLORADO­�30226 � k d ! ' - � 1 4AI }M���' c. I}' 1�T J�s r `k c . 1 �Ti �•rs, rt} ''•rsJ i' '�� < iJy y`�`':- i Cjyc`;.. Y ; tam mum EI � ,4 �• 5 k } r 1 �V x Ta z K 1 K k I&.ry1 4' `y. i • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 26, 1978 WORK SESSION: 2:00 P.M. 1.) Discussion of "kitchens." 2.) Condo Conversion Ordinance 3:`) Elmore Property Zoning PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M. 1.) Leeward — Setback and Distance,between Building Variance. (Continued from September 12, 1978) 2.) Pitkin Creek Park -- Amendment to SDD3 (Special Development District #3) (Continued from September 12, 1978) 3.) Westbye Duplex - GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area) Variance. (Continued from September 12, 1978) 4.) Benchmark Investment Inc. -- ConditBDnal Use Permit for Real Estate Office in LionsHead Center Building. 5.) Alan Woods (Vail Run) - Amendment and Addition to SDD5 (Special Development District #5) W_ TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 20 September 1978 RE AMENDMENT TO SDD 3 (SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #3) Pitkin Creek Park has requested the Amendment of SDD3 (Special Development District #3), an 8.29 acre parcel in Bighorn. They intend to use this parcel for a Resident Housing Project, where the sale of units will be restricted to local residents. This Amendment is being sought in conjunction with a request for the Town of Vail to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds which will be used to lower the interest rates and down payments that qualified residents will have to pay. The proposed Amendment to SDD3 changes the two existing districts in the following ways: 1.) It eliminates the division of the site into three Development Areas. (The site was previously divided into 3 sections because of different uses intended for each part of the site. These divisions were done with little regard to natural features of the site.) 2.) It eliminates the review of the Development Plan by the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council, giving this responsibility to the Design Review Board. (The actual Development Plan itself if it meets all zoning requirements, is a design matter, and can be appealed to the Town Council if there are concerns.) 3.) It does not require an architectural model for each proposed building. (This was felt to be unnecessary since it is not requited anywhere else in Town. A volumetric rather than an architectural model is still required for the whole site. 4.) It incorporates the MDMF standards into this Zone District except in the specific areas listed below. 5.) It eliminates the Maximum Total Floor Area. (No other zone district in the Town of Vail has this requirement.) 6.) It increases the allowable number of units from 116 to 148. (The 116 units originally approved was approved with the understanding that 116 additional lock -off units or Accommodation units would be permitted. This proposal is therefore a reduction in density.) • Pg. 2 Memo Amendment to SDD3 20 September 1978 ` 7.) The total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is the same as the existing district and is virtually the same as what would be allowed in a MDMF Zone District. 8.) The allowable number of Commercial sq..ft. has been reduced from 18,000 sq., ft. to 9,000 sq. ft., and all Commercial Uses require a Conditional Use Permit. 9.) It eliminates Covered Parking. (This will allow the developer to reduce the costs. There is no covered parking at any other multi - family project in Bighorn. The Design Review Board will require substantial berming and screening of parking areas.) 10.) It eliminates Building Bulk restrictions. (This increases the flexibility of the developer and will still be. controlled through the Design Review Board process.) The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested changes in SDD3 (Special Development District #3). We feel that the revisions discussed above are appropriate and will facilitate the development process without losing any design controls. • .10 a, k N O O d +a+ W N W W N 64 'O I ro LNd A Y H w _ - Y •- 37 ttl O O- .rl tD U Y p N A ++ O zQ d d ri d tl tl 0. q H E 0 14 LL 0 q Y O •" •N u ls '0 H d O O V d to Y .O A O) w Q! d tl 0 M N N !d N H 0 FS N U - cl '• 0 _ q a 00 is U O is N d F '0 H O - t0 N rd d N w Y U Y Y fs O U d) C d W Y C ro td •ri 6 Y d W Y H O a d $ O N H N 45 d 41 M W F h aI q N O U W d h d o 0 N . a ro is ' 4 > O d 10 d N N tl d 4! ,rl !y a N Y R O v tl - a P; a) k 41 E a N d d W 7Q _ N 4'07 N d fi +O> .•� a d h 'd 4) Y d H co bb d N W U U i'.. q Y •.{ Y Y tl .0 N G U R p, •, O . a CO d N N hG - !•7 97 U td bb Y r U q N O F u hb LO -rl U ,q w " 4) H d S •rl a H 4d � I k d q •Y O es C 0 a N 9 w N L k k G 4) .0 10 x 4J ? A F Y P. V ++ •r E N O O rd q .N Y O rl V d .0 O O d d h O O K 14 t7 p Y i o O H a O k d d W ++ U •.l •.� G tl d R3 d QS U d O G 0 Y h d Eii E V O 7 Y k k k G Y Y U F+ ro F G Y d rR i +d d + V d k O E G h H •tl ri H N A • Y '-1 O C C O > a U d +- di + d Y Y 'd •r7 07 N N W 7 R Q) d d) . W M Y O M 44 QF l ,0c 7 d @ Y Y H " w N R d O V a 'a O Q U Y ro O P ' N H A q 0) U . tl d 8 QfN 1 7 •H ttl rb tl k W k H ro � d{ ) •Y v l r ' ' rO . O Y C U k U d M d O O d YO w H +� 3 •rl d w a k 0 U k > o U ❑ q > (d O N O f .0 N it m 0 i U C +d + O C 6C q 6 R q l i d R 4) 10 A H w N d •r W O tD Y 0 0 O d tl b O N d UL l 4 O O " 4a Y Y O O d bd O O d O 0 tl l N > H O O ••}k A G rE .4 i � ro ro d O CD h fl . w s+Q O + ' •.0 .0 40C i 7 7 '@ d q E O Y q R q N M N •k O q ri O tl ••rrl i N O - 'O L) d - •H U 130 k N A d H O - N tl 04 ro F C d -1 tl O a C ro R d) •R 0 G - H 0 k d Y r 0 M A t0 d O a CL d C N d >k O M R OL O E Y O h O R k U Y Y O k Y •rl O Y b Y > R .q C N -1 w C d 0 O N d N N o d N " 0> •r + O N Y C •r U W .1 N R tl d N H k U tl d •r k V Y A 0) R k N • Y H 4) O O •" R i N •" +1 w k N d h 0 'O 0 d R O O O) P H U • ' tb 6 k PA N 99 N S k +j U 0 6 ' 0 d w d N H H " Y 0) 0) ,UC N 6D k t0 O d d A U d •rl .0 H P° L E •+" E .i ) d,• tl rq l q O N •q " q 4 r•i ri 9 00 N k 490-d d >. W W •ri " U Y k 0 p d ri lk F Y C q d F .0 a N k O. 3 d d O A O V 0 M Y 0 44 C7 rO 4 'S1 U M d V� H N H N m 4� k E H h N k N W •Y r•s R O G� a W H U N fa tl at d - O ' H P Cd L N O b0 d d 93 M Cl Y V > d k O _ • 4 F k v F td 'O - ro N $4 47 d d- d U ro O Q) ro q e0 N O k O O 4) N N ri tl h O k . E N U N g y' a O s U O H •�4 Y A Y "c a R N d d N d N 4•i N k F V n4 (P ro sa m- N O A F g a q Q) G U 4- 3 41 N A •i •i U 4- +� 93 N N .0 R 4) A " 4 H A > } ti d Y ri U cd N C U O 0 3 *4 k h 1-4 41 4�41 Y �N A U h U Id w II k 0> 0 G Y O i •ri 0) Y t w 41 N v v N R O W w d N CW .tma y i E c ro ro r d N o , O R C U o a. w i o o F q P, F° s41 q o FA ° w " m to U 44 •4w h rd O l 4d U k N N � d Q) •i.d i i-+ •rl r"3 Y E •N.•I N U R k m '•Ca 01 c . rW d S A . 0 H N O V O M N O .w FO N . Y d N Y U 4- h 4 a• C > t H i 4 q flA d H o d O N O PN d o W N 3-N M i Y q O O U v 0) 4 d d) C i Y U R d R . N A O •rh N •' U N Y k d) 0 E d V W d O Z N 4� IS S N O 14 d +s d C Q d E M O 4 Y > u U N 4t > E o 0 M OO N Y 0 W N Y U i7 4s A tl k .i F ro O O •" + a > .tlO 7 O N k �m 47 C a •W ri d C s H h W 41 ,P•L N q O d { ,to > 5 d i E CU Ow ° U d d v O U U G N N c y p � h F. P N ; . 0 Cd 0 D � Si W Q dO Cd C d m O) Q U E NH M U i fR m Oa U H A .d y o- rPr i +U •i P 'ro +0 0 o d ° N o O, CY 0. a 0 q 4a Y C Cl N O d � 11rH .fW d tl •3 7 R 1a 0 0 N f$ D iI7 F +tLa ? ro P S M R oWON N N N H = A 0 d � • $ d p�Ftl t Pv • > g N O b r•t 4i 4N N d d q O to d O 400 PLO wF7 i Y : A a)N 4 Y _ bb H Q) 0 ai +' a o d W .0 N o M G F O R N GO 41 N td1 , ro 10 Y d o o m N o a F Fv ; N H >> N x H R to 0 !w 0 47 d r-i Y Y ro Y � td W a`, 04 C2 'd 3 O tl a O v d M tl � q q N d w N N C N 6 0 .~-i p UOWN d Q) M wU N Q 00 U tN o co tb W ro Y +$ U+ U 6 g P. .,0 .r ,q p > dC AO H. p � U O w q C (D =1 0 N OW •ri Y in bA N U . PQ i df a ro ! d0 0 'rHi 'OC A •" HQ) Y .4 W N Q •bNb tad i7 0� A .L a o OD a fl •pA p� U S d O t'') F •.+ Y N ro C% Vi m +-' N .O 1 { N I a ro A ❑ N N0i }a O a - 41 w 0 0 ':� 1 a O a N O U 0 a ❑ a w k LL N a a H > 0 '❑ a r.' a O •+ O N a Ul m N O N '0 •w H a -I a •ri O a - q •.I a V F as . a Y :j d a a - C In •rl - H •rl k b0 Y. •.i Y ❑ sk +> a d w V A a in U Ok •,q � •.{ R •r+ F a + O U a O a a . _ O O _ O .E .I Y a d t� W d O N d k P U 0 a ro d v D O - GS 'tl gg td .N µ N to a co d a a a a F Y ❑ a' U d O '0. ❑ O W a '✓ N Y V '0 F a W ❑ .� �•-/ CC W O) ❑ 94 14 d a d z! —CA 4 d 0 rl 14 N a > H O 'd N A Y a > O H d •ra H H O D •rl a •.i •.+ H F F O O A 00 of d W - k ❑ Y H a N k .❑ 111 > d d N 0 H k a +'-1 - a a O a 'tl 0 •H d U a 3 3 ro 7 .� H a Y O O k 0- -• 4 O k Y A to m '0 H w m a a >+ H N FA Y •• 6 - H F +•� ra '0 Y d ^ 0. a a d q .4 d H- m ❑ N k. - 0 d ro d C .0 m H ro O U •0 O Y H Y 4 k h0 a H a '0 a k d r+ d k N W O a Ia , a ,❑ V a R .3 m ;. N d U P. d ro H a a 4 ❑ O O d C U d •H a a N 0 is +1 Y ❑ Y N P 4, -H .L.^ •rl a a Y H d a . V H EQ W U `.1 k kr 0 +a k .0 O � s a ri - b0 ❑ 4 to a - d U W +� d a 0 m A d 0 •m Y a Q •N H i 41 C- O > Q a •ri >. H d-� •H Cd •.� 0 b0 a •ri tl A: >. d a 't' U O `4 -.❑ H H O 1 - 'O 9: N W k a (0 H N N a d Y ^ro -I a U k O 0 0 . d a - N tl 6 A U ^ •q � •btl rA f A a F 0 m N N aA i U 9 8 O N 9 F H Y d +a d O k O W d H W O H H d •0 a^ '0 • .i Y r•1 d Y d td 60 a 0 A H q d a U N a V m U ., k r4 d R O d 'd •- O Y N H d ro a > ❑ a a k ❑ ry - d A W mw Cw H .0 a •H N .•I a0 V d O +a '•K k O/ a d p a E - F O a 4- d -. a N O a O b0 a H a E N a .> .a d H O ❑ 41 O H V ❑ d rd R d R k a- .A � O d ZA d 6➢ m H N d U d U 0 Y O d m H C V- _ . w k a ro A H d m (U a 0 I q •w CO a 0 a bB b9 m •0 •a H " O U d 00 10 N m +' co m ❑ k •rl IC C O U 0 N k Y H a D m (a N v •r! ro M N d P H .1 O rl 'a .H U U - N -N ++ •rl > d A 10 ro W O C 0 ❑ H O H H d •• Y �r a A ❑ V . R W R .'0 a 3 C -H k k z :l 0 ' 7 k O d N a Cl) 0 R a A H U > O FI A 'A O •rt H ❑ m O W N d d n Y H A [7 U o H a N -O H A CO 91 Y •rl +' ro O •H .w d a m k O H H V d a +a >. a Y .❑ F m O U E H A a '0 ❑ •0 4 :9 v *+ N W b0 A F� W d a Y H O E l hD .❑ O O d ' a •ri a ❑ M a O a H a L4 k o U Q U Q F+ 6 o O O In a ❑ Y U a m a A .0 E. ❑ a A a .R m a W a 5 C - 'C d M U O a R. Y A Y d a Y W d O 4 U O m O d Y O H N 4 1 - - U a O II] o 'R a ❑ d N O b0 ❑ 0 U -A Y cm ry •rt . E w 00 0 a 0 U '. •0 H F a H .. ., H N .tl b •ri d H 0' d m CL - Y +•I ar to - 4 k d' Y T3 ❑ ^ (]e +) - . A O w 00 +a a 00 O w 3 Y U 00 O A cd +1 U O H d H d H N 0 4 Y Y H iA Ej 44 A tl •4- E '1 O Ia U. H +tea +D ,H ar d o w � + A a d m NOW k Y F W 4 m O ❑ m w m d ❑ d O 4 m m a Ck 0 A O W 0. Ld Y , r>bb a m •H 00 •11 L a m H C rt U W .1 O O a H a Ia m m Cd N a Y d D3 H F W A e -0 v + O d R W a •r d ,� p a o C2 ..� W C a E a a N ❑ r-I Y N '0 C •'I N- > w a w S R• •.a m 0 d H w - d d 4 a O '0 w •w a a ❑ E H v H N O + H a o o srd 4 V .r0 - W Yd F 4) W O N Cd cd Ld a be +� q a w m a k 0 m .ar. D 0 ,d a a a, •ri a 'd U a 4+ a . W A O R' d +O q Y H O M � w d O O m d 't7 N M d N •ri V H a •r4 m U 60 W A d . ••I Y ar N R ❑ r. a C U +4 O •rl E Y N ❑ D O A Y o a 41 m +' Ia .0 + � � a A r d 4 W H a U H ❑ D H F . Y O + + d a U d R a •w J4 a O bb •w H O � Y N m bAEY b Y . U N > •rl U 0 k •0 3 H is ❑ •D a F a -H O- d d A fi m Y T1 a a N O a q be a a a x d w , k H a R O 4 d a a .4 a a ❑ +a -H 4•.a A U C hb Y d A O t N N a: 0 27 611 GR A Y d $ d C L +� d . 1 r• ro d W U N m d m tl •ri d vi !; - .A .� - V❑ 1 a a a W C a a U '[7 H d ❑ a .a a C ,k RA . d a H 'Ccl l H Y a, d a 04�a d _d hp 4 > H a ry d fk > a' A > 1 Y F d k 7 r• 4 d .a 4- O Y a 0 d W H O +a I a R a N - N F a a a a >. - a O q d m '[Y m ;4 •rl Y Wa ro C H ry tl •R a k O P O O a O a N ❑, V G. •rUi y 6A tl Y O 't0 q OA Y •G . 4 O 0 0 d O Ia U 1+, k- d N >.. H O D k C d 4 ❑ A 0 4, [1 aa H bb e A as W +a q W a a V tl m H Y 0 Y. O H N S7 a' m ❑ d 0 tl H tG Y 0 tl 0 d o •H Al a 4A Y H a ro H k a Y Y I` •^ +� •N k a d a . d k V • O •0 > H O a a F +r N o m a H N w' ❑ 0 93 41 -H F 0 0 A d ry m ar > A a Y R ro H W 4 a a Y U Y a rl C d _ W a ro m •rI 4i Y N V H d k d a W 4 a H i k 0 d R N ❑ cl w 0 Y •N a d a C • Y 1 0 a W W Y C Y a O W 'O' k m U d C m •r1. w •w ❑ > h0 a. H W a •❑ Q b0 6 k N ar a k d C •CS - a d @ .i d •❑ 4) cd a4' h7 q O a a •0 a ❑ i+ +a a .4 E A O a W w d Y q W H rq i@ C a W G cd w A +0 + A bD >. Py a O Y •0 .'V H 4. a e� C A a a W R H .a m ++ W O 4� PI Y a H H A H a H N .'H N 7 .I > M >. a N ro .4 A d a a E O N k W s N a 41. d A H U •rl 0 ❑ - a m a tl +t ❑ a R ro +i a 4 H d H VV� ' �••I •p rl as W d $ N IA .0 a a .O 41 a •U a .H •01 a a C4 0 •H +4 is U a •+ a .❑ +a w F Y W a a H Y H +; a a D N •..•d LIS 00 4 a I a > ❑ d 4 a a Y k s R rd N +a d d � - d 0 0- d N ro W ro W Y 3 i .b � N ti M � G O Rai w Cdd N a Fi +' V ti i a w m m A M a FL � � N a na � > 0 G � .N w a � z° 60 H Q' a N ao 44 4r v m o N W a0 k N P7G Fyi A W 'd d 00 H N a ro 0 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 21 September 1978 RE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR BENCHMARK INVESTMENTS, INC. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Benchmark Investments, Inc., has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Real Estate office in the LionsHead Center Building The space was previously used as storage space and is located directly west of the present Gondola Ski Shop commercial space. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Develop- ment recommends disapproval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: ko Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Real Estate offices as well as other professional offices require a Conditional Use Permit to be located on the first floor or street level in both CC1 and CC2 Zone Districts. The intent of this section of the Zoning Ordinance was to reserve street level space for primarily retail and restaurant uses. These uses contribute directly to the Sales Tax revenues of the Town and generally need a street level location to be successful. Real Estate offices, on the other hand, do not contribute directly to Sales Tax revenues and do not need a street level location to be successful. There is a very limited amount of street level space in both the Village and in LionsHead Core areas, and we feel that granting this Conditional Use Permit will lead to other similar requests. This could severely reduce the amount of prime retail space in the Town of Vail. Page 2 - PEC CUP - Benchmark Investments, Inc. 21 September 1978 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 impacts on these factors. 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. We foresee no adverse impacts on,these factors. 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. All existing Real Estate offices in LionsHead were there prior to the present Zoning Ordinance. There have been two Conditional Use Permit requests for Real Estate Offices: for Vail Associates, Inc., and Canada's of Colorado. Both of these previous requests were approved, but they were for expansion of existing uses rather than the creation of a new use. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. There are no other factors that we deem applicable. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.66. There is no Environmental Impact Report required. Findings and Recommendations: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be denied based on the following. findings: Page 3 - PEC CUP - Benchmark Investments, Inc. 21 September 1978 That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of this application. We feel that it will set a negative precedent that could lead to the future removal of additional prime retail space. • • MEMO TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 20 September 1978 RE AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 (SDD5) The applicant, Alan Woods, has requested two Amendments to Special Development District 5 (SDD5), Vail Run. The first Amendment is to change the acreage in Develop- ment Area "B" from 8.3 acre to 5.84 acres. This change in acreage is because of tennis courts-in Development Area "A" which infringe on Development Area "B ". Development Area "A" includes the existing Vail Run building with Development Area "B" located on the vacant lots west of the existing building. This change does not affect the Development Plan of either area and will have no effect on the development on the entire site. For these reasons we support this request. The second Amendment is to guarantee to the applicant that Development Area "B" be allowed to develop as a "Time- Sharing" project. Development Area "B" is intended to be purchased by a separate owner but with one managing entity. The previous approval of SDD5 was based on an expansion of the Vail.Run project in concept and form. Even though there would be different owners to the two Development Areas, we do not feel there is any change in the substance of the project. With one managing entity also doing the sales and marketing, Development Area "B" will basically be a continuation of the existing Vail Run. We also support this request. We feel that one further consideration should be discussed with the requested changes. We do not feel that Section 18.48.110, Special Provisions, is adequate in dealing with the Employee Housing issue. Although the first sentence requires the developer to provide 10 employee housing units, the second sentence is to the advantage of the developer, since he /she would only lose six instead of 10 units on the overall density allowed on the site. We do not feel that 10 rooms with one kitchen is equivalent to 10 separate Dwelling units. We also do not feel that requiring the developer to provide 10 out of 135 units is a hardship on the developer. We, therefore, would like the second sentence of Section 18.48.110 removed so that the developer in fact is required to provide ten (10) Employee Units. • 10 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 (SDD5) 18.48.020 Established B. The existing building consisting of 55 Dwelling units, approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of Commercial space, a swimming pool and three tennis courts, shall be known as Development Area "A". The remainder of the property containing approximately 5.84 acres shall be described as Development Area "B" . 18.48.050 Permitted Uses B. In Development Area B the following uses shall be permitted: 1.) Multiple family residential dwellings which, with the exception of the required employee housing units, may be condominiumized for sale as interval ownership fee interests. 18.48.080 Development Standards A. Lot area - Development Area "B" shall consist of approximately 5.84 acres. 18.48.130 Approval of.Subdivision and Interval. Ownership Interval ownership of multiple- family dwelling units, with the exception of the required employee housing units, is. hereby approved. Subdivision of the multiple -- family dwelling units (not designated for employee housing) permitted in Develop- ment Area "B" into interval ownership fee interests shall require no additional approvals from the Town of Vail Planning & Environ- mental. Commission or from the Town Council for the Town of Vail. MEMORANDUM . TO FROM DATE RE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 12 September 1978 ELMORE PARCEL ZONING REVIEW A.) PROPOSED ZONING The following zoning has been requested for the two Elmore parcels recently annexed into the Town of Vail: No. of Acres Proposed Proposed Approx. District No. of Units Parcel A 11.5 MDMF 180 Parcel B 50 ( approx.) R P/S 120 Parcel C .4 acres MDMF 7 Parcel A is located on the north side of the Gore Creek between the creek and the South Frontage Road: It is located just east of the east entrance into Matterhorn Village. There are no hazards on this property, except that Gore Creek flows within the southern boundary of the property. There is only a minimal flood plain along the creek through this property, but the creek itself would be subtracted in Density and GRFA calculations. Parcel B is located on the south side of Gore Creek and is adjacent to the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Approximately 607. of the parcel is located on slope in excess of 40% and would not be calculated in the subdivision of this property into residential lots. Parcel C is located on Lot 3, of the Matterhorn Village II Subdivision. This lot has no hazards on it. Y B.) DENSITIES NEAR ELMORE PARCEL Coldstream 10.44 units per acre Fall Line 35.5 units per acre Park Meadows 32 units per acre Koebel Property 14.98 units per acre Matterhorn Inn Approx. 22 units per acre Dunn (Siverly) Approx. 12 units per acre. C.) RECOMMENDED ZONING ## of Units Parcel A - MDMF (with maximum of 15 units per acre) 150 Parcel B - R P/S 120 Parcel C - R 2 M Memorandum Pg. 2 Planning & Environmental Commission Elmore Parcel Zoning Review 12 September 1978 Parcel A is most similar to the Koebel property which has an overall approved density of 15 dwelling units per acre. We feel that LDMF or 9 D.U. /acre is too few units per acre, but that MDMF or 18 units per acre is too great. We feel that 15 units per acre is a reasonable compromise. Parcel B is located directly next to Glen Lyon and we feel that the Residential Primary /Secondary is the appropriate Zone District for this parcel of land. Parcel C is in the Matterhorn Village Subdivision which is predominantly duplex in nature. We, therefore, recommend that the Zoning on this parcel be Two- Family Residential. • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1978 f WORK SESSION E 1.) Policy for offices in CC1 and CC2 2.) GRFA Modifications 3.) Low /Moderate Price Housing Update 4.) Discussion of Variances PUBLIC HEARING - 3 P.M. 1.) Boyer Minor Subdivision 2.) Vail Athletic Club Parking Variance E 3.) Vail Mountain School Conditional Use Permit 4.) Elmore Property Zoning 5.) Clock Tower Building Improvements - Discussion of Concept ■ i i • MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1978 Members Present: Staff : Ed Drager,.Chairman Jim Morgan Pam Garton Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Allen Gerstenberger James Rubin The meeting was brought to order by Ed Drager, Chairman. Jim Rubin suggested we go Item 3 on the Agenda, The Vail Mountain School Conditional Use Permit. Jay Peterson asked for a postponement for two weeks because he felt that sufficient notice had not been given. Pam Garton made a Motion to postpone the Vail Mountain School Conditional Use Permit hearing for two weeks (October 24, 1978).. Seconded by Gerry White. The motion passed with unanimous approval. The next Item was #2 on the Agenda, Vail Athletic Club Parking Variance. Pepi Gramshammer represented the Vail Athletic Club. A request to convert a parking space into a laundry room was made. The reason for this was that the designated laundry room was inadequate for the large heavy duty washers and dryers. There was some concern from Pam Garton about the traffic pattern in the winter and how it would affect.the parking spaces available if one space was given up to a laundry room. Jim Rubin explained that Fitzhugh Scott had converted 2 accommodation units and 1 dwelling unit into a 3.bedroom apartment, but this had only reduced the existing parking requirement by 4/10 of a space. The variance therefore would still be required. Gerry White made a Motion to approve the Variance with the condition that no further parking variances would be granted and that Pepi be.assessed $1000 for a parking space as stipulated by the Town Council. Seconded by Roger Tilkemeier. The Motion passed by a vote of six in favor of approval, Sandy Mills opposed. n • • Page 2 PEC MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1978 The next Item on the Agenda was #4, Dave Elmore Property Zoning. Pam Garton wanted to know ago. She was informed that for the density be set at 10 units per acre units per acre for long -term rental Environmental Commission, after mucl was too great. what was suggested three weeks 11i acre parcel that a maximum .with the possible addition of 4 units. The Planning & . a discussion, felt that this density Pam Garton then made a Motion that Dave Elmores 11 acres be zoned Residential Cluster (6 units per acre), but that he could build up to an additional 6 units per acre for long - -term . rental housing. The upper portion will be zoned Primary /Secondary and the small parcel on the west side will be included in the large parcel for density but will not be.allowed to have new development placed on it. Seconded by Gerry White. The Motion was passed with unanimous approval. Pam Garton made a Motion to postpone the Boyer Minor Subdivision Item #1 on the Agenda. Ed Drager asked.for a reminder so that the Board knows that they have to act on it next meeting. Gerry White seconded the motion.. Theimotion passed with unanimous approval. The 5th Item on the Agenda, Clock Tower Building Improvements. Allen Gerstenberger presented a plan by Eldon Beck on conceptual building improvements <for the Clock Tower Building. The Board was favorable to the presentation and stated that more buildings should do the same type of improvements. Allen Gerstenberger discussed that he was submitting the names of the Planning & Environmental Commission and Design Review Board members for the Vail Community Service Season Pass Program, through which free ski passes will be issued by Vail Associates. Pam Garton made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Gerry White. The meeting adjourned at 4:27 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1978 RE: MINOR SUBID IVISION FOR MRS. GEORGE BOYER LOT 5 & 6, BLOCK 1, VAIL POTATO PATCH FILING 1 Mrs. George Boyer has applied for a Minor Subdivision to change the lot line between her lots, Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing No. 1. These lots are in the Residential Primary /Secondary Zone District. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS "The minimum lot or site area shall be 15,000, square feet of buildable area, and each site • shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries" (18.13.050) "In general, lot area width, depth, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and the development and use contemplated and shall facilitate the placement of buildings with sufficient access, outdoor space, privacy, and view. (17.20.260) "Insofar as is practical, all lot lines shall be at right angles to straight streets and radial to curved streets. ".(17.20.260) At the time of writing this memorandum, no plat has been submitted by the applicant to verify that any of the above criteria have been met. Lot 5 contains 15,821 square feet (.363 acres) and Lot 6 contains 17,181 square feet (.384 acres.) • • 40. • Page 2 Memorandum - Boyer P.E.C. 10/6/78 Mr. Jeff Spinnell of Richards Engineering, the surveyor of the plat in question was contacted by telephone on October 5, 1978. Mr. Spinnell stated that the re- plat involves an, increase to the lot area of Lot 5-facilitating access from the Potato Patch Drive cul-de-sac. There are no factors negatively effecting the "buildabl.el1 area. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development has no objections to the proposal as we understand it.from verbal communications at this time. We would recommend approval if the application is made in accordance with appropriate provisions in the Vail Municipal Code. MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1978 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRANDESS- CADMUS REAL ESTATE, INC. Brandess- Cadmus Real Estate, Inc., has requested a' Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Real Estate office on a part of Lots B and C, Block 5 -C Vail Village lst. Filing (adjacent to Kentucky Fried Chicken). This is in a CC1 Zone District. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends disapproval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following .factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Real Estate offices as well as other professional offices require a Conditional Use Permit to be located on the first floor or street level in both CCl and CC2 Zone Districts. The intent of this section of the Zoning Ordinance was to reserve street level space for primarily retail and restaurant uses. These uses contribute directly to the Sales Tax revenues of the Town and generally need a street level location to be successful. Real Estate offices, on the other hand, do not contribute directly to Sales Tax revenues and do not need a street level location to be successful. There is a very limited amount of street. level space in both the Village and in Lionshead Core areas, and we feel that granting this Conditional Use Permit will lead to other similar requests. This • Memorandum - Brandess- Cadmus Page 2 P.E.C. 10/4/1978 could Beverly reduce the amount of prime retail space in the Town of Vail. 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 impacts on these factors. 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. We forsee no adverse - impacts on these factors. 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. "Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a; predominately pedestrian environment." (18.24.010). Real Estate office usage of a CC1 street - level location is neither in keeping with the purpose of CC1 zoning nor the character of the Vail Village area to which this zoning applies - pedestrian- accessed over- the - counter retail, eating, and drinking establishments, and lodges. Findings and Recommendations The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the purpose of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of this • • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE October 20, 1978 RE ANTLERS LIONSHEAD DENSITY VARIANCE .LOT 3, LIONSHEAD 3rd FILING DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Bud Benedict representing the Antlers LionsHead has requested a variance to add 430 sq..ft. of GRFA to the existing Antler's building. The use of this space will be as employee housing. The 430 sq. ft, will be an addition of three bedrooms to an existing dwelling unit. The Antlers building is currently in excess of its GRFA, A parking variance is not required since no additional dwelling units are being constructed and the 430 sq. ft. would result in an additional parking requirement of .43 of a space, which when rounded out would result in no additional requirement. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Other buildings in the vicinity of the Antlers are close to or in excess of the present GRFA requirement so they would be required to go through the same process if they wanted to add space for employee housing. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Page 2 MEMO - Antlers Variance 10 -20 -78 With all the remaining units in the Antlers owned by individual condominium owners, these units would not be available for employee housing, We are encouraging the provision of employee housing and are in the process of discussing the issuance of increased densities for its provision. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no adverse effects on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No other factors are found applicable. Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make E'! the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent 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 variance.is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 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. We feel that there is a critical shortage of employee housing and we think that this is a positive approach • Page 3 MEMO- Antlers Variance 10 -20 -78 in helping to alleviate this shortage. It is our understanding that this housing will be committed as long -term rental housing for the life of the building. We recommend approval of this request with some stipulation as to the longevity of the commitment: MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1978 RE: FELKER /SMITH SETBACK VARIANCE LOT 8--B, BLOCK 9, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION 3rd ADDITION EAST SIDE -.4', WEST SIDE - 5' Robert A. Felker and Rodney O. Smith are requesting a Variance from the provisions of Section 18.18.060, Setbacks, of the Vail. Municipal Code in order to allow a two story addition of 628.8 square feet of the rear of the building located on Lot 8 -B, Block 9, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition. This building is in a MDMF zone requiring minimum side setbacks of 10. 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. Projecting toward the I -70 Right -of -Way, the proposed addition is directly behind the existing structure. There is no visual .impact from the South (Spruce Way) Frontage. The proposed addition does not encrgach on setback areas to any significantly greater degree than those in existence. The structure was built prior to annexation by the Town of Vail and hence before the Zoning Ordinance was in effect. 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. —6r a_ Memorandum - Felker /Smith Setback Variance Page 2 P.E.C. 10/4/78 This pre - existing structure, as well as the site on which it sits, is not in conformance with Vail's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance was adopted after the fact. Current regulations in the MDMF Zone District require that "each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries." The site in question is 37.20' wide. Zoning setback requirements now in effect for an MDMF Zone District would reduce the buildable area of this lot to a 17.201-wide strip, approximately 35' in length. Findings and Recommendations A Setback Variance is required for this 'E proposal, only because current zoning regulations € are being applied to a pre - existing nonconforming site and structure. The resident owner wishes to enlarge this structure in a similar, appropriate, though now nonconforming manner. In View of the negligible impact of this proposal and the hardship created by applying the Vail Zoning Ordinance ex Post' facto, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Setback Variance request. � W MEMORANDUM f TO: PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION f FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1978 RE: VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB PARKING VARIANCE, TRACT B, BLOCK 5, VAIL VILLAGE lst FILING Pepi Gramshammer, representing the Vail Athletic Club has requested the Variance as stated above in order to convert a 1 -car space in an underground garage into a laundry room. The reason for this Variance is that the laudry room has to be moved because of noise and is presently in an inadequate space, but, moving it involves removing the availability of one parking space required by the Municipal Code Section fr E 18.52.100 Parking - Requirements Schedule.. 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 and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. No significant impact, see below. The degree to which relief from strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compata.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 Vail Athletic Club Parking Variance September 29, 1978 Fitzhugh Scott has converted 2. accommodation units and 1 dwelling unit inot a 3- bedroom unit for himself and this reduces the parking requirement by 4/10 of a space. (One.of the Accommodation units had been counted for parking as a lock -off from a dwelling unit) The Variance, then., would be for a space equal to 6/10 of a parking space o'`102.6 square feet (91xl9lx6l10 102 square feet). The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,'transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and. utilities. and public safety. The 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 variance is warranted for the following reason: 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. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Variance with the qualification that no further parking - elemination variances for the Vail Athletic Club be permitted. [0 C il MEMO TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1978 RE: LEEWARD RESIDENCE - ADDENDUM TO PLANNING. & ENVIRONMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF 7 August 1978 At the Planning & Environmental Commission meeting of 21 September 1978, the following revised numbers were submitted by the applicant: Previous Request New Submitted. A.) West side Setback 2.25 Feet 0 Feet (No Variance required) B.) Front Setback 6 Feet 4 Feet C.) Distance between Buildings (to the Christiannia Lodge) 15 Feet 11.5 Feet The original memorandum dated 7 August.1978 was in error in stating that two of the Setbacks on this property were presently non - conforming. The Front and the West side Setbacks are not non -- conforming with the existing building being outside the required setback distance on both sides. ,1;, MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 26 September 1975 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF: Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Pam Garton Jim Morgan Allen Gerstenberger Jeff Flagg The meeting was brought to order by Pam Garton. First Item on the Agenda.Leeward Residence - Setback, and Distance between Buildings Variances on Lot D, Block 2,.Vail Village lst Filing. Jim Morter of Morter /Todd Partnership represented the owner; also in attendence was the applicants lawyer, Mr. Charles Calvin. This item is a continuance from August 8,1975 meeting, due to the fact that the owners of Chateau Christianna, and the Christianna Lodge requested more time to review the drawings of the proposed garage addition. Mr. Morter showed the drawings and explained what the applicant desires to do. He pointed that following the first presentation to the Commission, the size of the garage had been reduced. Therefore, they would like to amend the requested variances as follows: withdraw the request for a side yard Setback on the west side; reduce the front Setback from 61 from 4'; and reduce the distance between Buildings Variance from 15' to 112'. Mr. Morter also showed photographs taken from the windows of the Chateau Christianna to illustrate that the view would not be blocked by the proposed addition. Gerry White asked for a statement from the lawyer as to hardship basis for the requested Variances. Mr. Calvin responded that his client wants and needs a garage for privacy,. for the protection of the cars, and to enhance the appearance of house by containing the existing clutter. Gerry White stated that he did not agree that these points represented hardship. Mr. Drager asked for comments or questions from the audience. Mr. Dick Hart, Attorney for Paul Johnson. of the Christianna, presented the Commission with three letters from owner protesting the Variance. Mr. Hart questioned the size and placement of the stairway and stated that by reducing its size or moving if it would be possible to relocate the garage addition. Jim Morter assured him that it was necessary as it served as access to all three levels. Mr. Hart also questioned the scale of the roof and Page 2 PEC Minutes 26 September 1978 pointed out that he believed that it was unsightly and would disturb the views of the Gore Range from the Chateau Christianna. This would result in the reduction of rental revenues to the owners of the Chateau Christianna. It would also result in more clutter between the buildings and a reduction in the sense of space between the buildings. Mr. Paul Johnson, Manager of the Christianna and Chateau Christianna, stated that two of the rental units are hard to rent due to the existing building. The proposed addition will interfere with the views of two other units. Mr. Morter showed the photographs taken from the windows to Mr. Johnson to illustrate that the views were not disturbed. Sandy Mills stated that she believes that the idea of the garage addition to be a good one. She feels it will also enhance the appear nce of the building and actually clean up the existing clutter. Gerry White stated that he does not believe there is valid hardship displayed to enable the Commission to grant a Variance. Sandy Mills moved to request the distance between Buildings Variances of 11j' on Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing, Leeward Residence in accordance with the statement set..forth in the Department of Community Development Memorandum dated 7 August .1978. The Motion was seconded by Roger.Tilkemeier. The Motion passed by a vote of four in favor of approval, Gerry White opposed. The Second Item on the Agenda was an Amendment to SDD3. (Special Development District #3_), Pitkin Creek Park. Jay Peterson represented the Pitkin Creek Park applicant. A request has been made to Amend SDD3. The present District permits 116 residential units and 116 lock -off accommodation units. The applicant is requesting that 148 residential units be permitted, plus 9,000 square feet of Commercial space. All uses in the Commercial facilities would be by Conditional Use. The project Architect, Tom Briner, presented site plans and schematic floor plans and sections. It was pointed out that the proposed site plan was based on the existing site characteristics and location of trees, natural features,..views, and sunlight. Charles Anderson, Developer of the project, summarized his efforts to work with the Town of Vail to produce a project that would be available to moderate income residents for purchase. Dale McCall asked what the estimated costs of the units would be.. Jay Peterson stated that the 2 and 3 bedroom units would range from $65- 85,000. The phasing of the project is from Z to 3 years, depending upon a number of different factors. Page 3 PEC 26 September 1978 Roger Tilkemeier moved to approve the requested Amendment to SDD3. Gerry White seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimously-to approve the Motion. Third Item on the Agenda.is the Area (GRFA) Variance for Hemmie and Irene Block 3 Vail Valle lst Filin . Gross Residential Floor Westbve Duplex, Lot 22, Irene Westbye was present and explained her reasons for desiring a Variance. She requests a Variance of an additional 135.75 feet of GRFA, in order to construct a loft over the kitchen area. This is needed. because the preSeht ceiling height,buve the kitchen is 18 feet. Because of the type of l.ightingshe desires and the unsatisfactory sense of space, she wants to 'construct a loft to lower the ceiling and be used.as a TV loft. The Commission looked at the plans and agreed that the ceiling was exceptionally high. Sandy.Mills pointed out that the ceiling in her kitchen is 12 feet high at points and that adequate lighting has been developed. The Commission did not believe that the ceiling height was legitimate basis for granting a variance. Pam Garton moved to deny the GRFA Variance request for the Westbye Duplex as summarized in the Department of Community Development Memorandum of 8 September 1978. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the GRFA Variance. The Fourth Item on.the Agenda was Conditional Use Request for Benchmark Investments,.Inc. George Rosenberg represent the applicant. He presented plans of the building to show were a proposed Real Estate Office would be located. He stated that the real Estate Office will generate more traffic in the Lionshead Mall. It will also result in increased revenues for the community. The rest of the building will continue to be occupied by the Gondola Ski Shop. The space proposed to be used for the Real Estate Office is presently storage space. The applicants believe that this would be a better use of the space fronting on the Mall. Sandy Mills stated that this type of business is not as much of an asset to the vitality to the Lionshead Malls as another type of business might be. The intent of horizontal zoning is to have retail shops and restaurants on the first floor, with offices on the second floor. This concept should be enforced. Jim Morgan stated that he believs this change of use from . storage to a Real Estate Office would be a definite improvement and benefit the Mall. Although he understands that the granting of other Conditional Uses does not set a precedent that the Commission must follow, he believes that the fact that other Real Estate Offices have Page 4 PEC 26 September 1978 been permitted to occupy the .Lionshead Mall is an important consideration. Gerry White Moved to Deny the Conditional Use Permit for a Real Estate Office. Sandy Mills Seconded the Motion. The Motion failed, two in favor, two opposed. Jim Morgan then Moved to Approve the Conditional Use Permit requested. The vote failed for lack of majority, two in favor, two opposed. The Conditional Use Permit was therefore denied. The Fifth. item on the Agenda was an Amendment to Special Development District 5 (SDD5) for Vail Run. Diana Toughill and Jay Peterson represented the applicant, Mr. Alan Woods. In the request for an Amendment to SDD5. It was explained that the general intent of the request was to clarify the projects desire to Time -Share 129 units in their project. It. Was pointed out throughout the review process and was stated in the environmental impact statement, the intent of the project was to be Time - Sharing. As a result of the recent Ordinance passed by the Town Council to control the Conversion of Condominium units, this request is being made. Sandy Mills, refering to the Memorandum from the Department of Community Development, raised the issue of the number of employee housing units that we were being provided. Jay Peterson pointed out that the exisiting Ordinance is very clear in the type of employee housing that was to be provided -and that the staff memo was actually requesting a change. He stated that the applicant was satisfied with the present Ordinance on this issue and did not wish to amend it. Gerry White stated that he would "feel more comfortable with the project providing 10 regular dwelling units for employees, rather than the living room /kitchen surrounded by 10 bedrooms as included in the Ordinance. Jay Peterson then requested that if the Planning Commission were to increase the number of employee housing units by 4, the applicant would request that the number of total units allowed be increased by 4 so that 129 Time - Share units would still be permitted. It was pointed out that this compromise would allow the client to continue to build as many Time -Share units as he desired, while benefiting the Town by providing additional employee housing units. The Commission responded favorably to this proposal.. • a • • Page 5 PEC 26 September 1978 Gerry White Moved that the requested Amendments to SDD5, Vail Run, be approved as present with the Amendment that 18.48.080, E, Density Control be amended to read that the maximum number of dwelling units in development area B be.139, and that the second sentence in 18.48.110 be eliminated to read that a minimum of 10 employee housing units shall be provided. The Motion was Seconded by Sandy Mills. The Motion passed unanimously (4 -0). The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. v Verfllrn -Tro i�G%'°l MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 26 SEPTEMBER 1978 COMMISSION MEMBERS:. STAFF: Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Ed Drager, Chairman Sandy Mills Pam Garton Jim Morgan Allen Gerstenberger Jeff Flagg The Fourth Item on the Agenda was Conditional Use Reauest for Benchmark Investments, Inc. ED Benchmark Investment Company. A request for a conditional use permit for a real estate office in the Lionshead Center Building. Mr. George Rosenberg is here on behalf of the applicant. GR George Rosenberg, attorney at law, representing is the applicant. GR I think I have a solution for your problem on handling the family definition. The County is contemplating ap.pdinti.ng an inspector to go around and check these things out. ED Do you accept bids for the job? GR Basically, I think you Have all received the memos to the staff on this. Real briefly: we're in Lionshead. This is the Gondola Ski Shop. We've got Alfie Packies Restaurant and Lounge behind it. GR It's an application for a Conditional. Use Permit to take less than 400 square feet out of the Gondola Ski Shop and turn that into a general business office for a real. estate bra -kerage . GR Some comments or observations on the staff analysis. 1. We would contend that a real estate office does in fact contribute to sales tax revenue on a direct basis. I could expand on that. I think we are talking basically what is the basic philosophy of owning retail and restaurant on ground floor. It's mainly generating foot traffic and I'm not sure Page 2 pEC 26 September 1978 sales tax is a specified criteria in the whole zoning scheme. Typically, it is not. But even if we assume that is a factor here, then I would take difference that :a real.estate office is very active in that,you have a:lot of foot traffic Sales tax corning from the fact that these people are going to use the restaurant and bar so we have sales tax revenues there. These people are not just coming into the real estate office and promptly leaving. They are in the area. They going to avail themselves of the other facilities. .Also, I think, the staff was perhaps a little naive when they say that a real estate brokerage operation does not need a street level location. It is usually, in most parts of the country, a requirement that you do have street level to have a successful operation. On the other factors that are to be considered, the staff said they don't see any problems so we can skip on on that point. As far as I think the matter of precedent will be raised, I don't think we're making a precedent. The very nature of the process, that is the conditional use applica- tion, implies that you are asking for something other than is your right as a permitted use. So the process itself means that every time you are going to be deviating from a set standard: that's the whole purpose of having it. If not, you might as well make it a flat prohibition. Say you just can't have it, period. So each one has to go on a case by case basis. The other two examples are indicated. I don't think we have an expansion of an existing use on these other two examples. Let's make a distinction of that difference. They were in fact, separate new locations. This would be more in the sense of an expansion. The other two permits that were granted for this type use were different locations physically. I think we do have a fact difference there. Even if you want to call it an expansion, nonetheless, it is still an increase o f this use. The other thing is, what do we have in this space right now? It's history has been basically storage and in very recent times, for about the last six months, it's basically been dead space. So what the applicant is attempting to do is 40 Page 3 PEC 26 September 1978 to put it back into active, useful space which will, again if we want to use sales tax, it will generate sales tax, it will generate foot traffic. it doesn't have any other problems. There are no other incompatibilities with any other standard. We're not talking about a noxious use.or impacting parking or anything like that. So I think basically that's the essence. We would urge that you recommend favorably.on it. We're open to ques- tions. We have the applicant here. ? Does it have a separate entrance already or will.it? GR No. At..pres.ent you can see the wall. it is still indicated. I'm sorry. The wall is not there. It is indicated where it will go and this would be the entrance. It's an old door you're familiar with. The Gondola Ski Shop. I think it was about two years ago when they revamped the whole entrance for Packers and some other complicated deal. But this is the existing and the only entrance point that the Gondola Ski Shop uses. This is that service corridor if Y-ou go into Packers, depending on which way you want to go. He has that long hall- way. These are the restroom facilities. So that door would be activated, but it would be separate We'd have a wall.herd.. They wouldn't be able to from.the.Gondola Building into this office. We feel basically that it is a very minimal thing. You know, you're dealing in this thing with less than 400 square feet. You're not really diminishing anything. You're taking off a little bit of Gondola.. Gondola is about 3200 square feet. They're still going to have a tremendous amount of traffic in there. One might analogize this to the fact that every retail operation has some office space in it. I grant that that's ancillary or secondary use of the primary use. Obviously you've got to have some office space. But if you would look at it in the sense that Gondola uses this for their office space, you're really not changing anything on the use. ED Any questions from you folks up here? Anybody in the audience want to speak to that one? n Page 4 PEC 26 September 1978 Thank you. JM I think the fact that there has been two permits already given, in the area, ED Which area? GR We're talking about Canada's took over Performance Ski Rental and the Vail Associates Real Estate converted the old ticket windows into a real estate operation. JM It seems that this would'be, that I realize that a precendent doesn't really, .that the application as a pre- cedent. doesn't really apply in a conditional use. It seems unfair. In the immediate. area it has been allowed twice and would be denied in this area because it-is a new...situ<�tion.. Perhaps in areas within town or areas even farther. away from VA, etc. where is has been granted, it would be a different situation, but I can't justify the fact that there has been two conditional use permits directly across the street from this building and turning this one down. SM I guess the situation where I will disagree with you on that is the fact that Vail Associates Real Estate was there, and that that was an expansion. Candda's was upstairs and they came downstairs. This is in effect, granting a totally new, it was a ski shop, which generated that kind of traffic. And I guess the question that I think we're looking at, and in terms of the permitted uses offers for the things that we're trying to encourage, are the heavy foot traffic. And I think that particularly in that situation in Lionshead where we're looking at Lionshead and saying, 'what is wrong with it,' 'why is it dead in the day sometimes;' 'what is the problem ?' And I think one of the things that we have to look to is the shop space.. Do we have enough? Is it close enough to the mall? Can people get to it? What is the character of the shops that are there now? And I think that a real estate more specialized area. In other words, office situation where people are going they would in the Professional Building of a use where if I'm not looking for a D office is really a it is more of an to be using it as or a bank. That kind condominium, I'm never IE • Page 5 PE 26 September 1978 going to walk in there. Yes, it generates traffic,. but it generates a specialized kind of traffic as opposed to some- one who's going to walk up to a sport's shop or a ski shop or a gift shop and stop in. Pind.having a gift shop, for an example, on that corner, might generate,',.would probably generate more traffic than just the specialized kind of person who's going to go into that real estate office. You know, you just don't get the foot traffic on Bridge Street. You know, they're going into Pepi's and into Gorsuch. They're going into all the shops up and down the street, and I think that a problem for Lionshead, and I think this would be detrimental to that particular building and to the mall area to start putting in more of an office type of business as opposed to the shop concept. JM I appreciate the horizontal zoning aspect of it, but I still feel that if there, whatever, whether expansion,- you want to consider it VA took up some first floor location with their real estate office; Canada's did also. And I feel that two permits in that respect, whether, whatever you want to call it, expansion, new whatever, still took up area that was not to be used in that respect and these people are applying for a similar situation.right across the walk And I find it hard to take a consistent stand and turn him - down. Like I say, if it was in the Village, there isn't any what I consider a precedent. Strictly I guess there isn't such a thing as a precedent for a conditional use. SM A conditional use is somewhat different from the variance in that we say that 'variances are precedent setting'. But, and I agree with you, that perhaps we're looking.at Lionshead today and saying 'maybe those were two mistakes,' and are we compounding the mistakes with, this situation? ED I'm not sure whether we're to sit here and determine, what is the best use for a piece of space in .Lionshead.. Maybe it's a popcorn stand, maybe it's something else. SM We're in the boundaries of the horizontal zoning. ED That's not what's confronting us.today. What's confronting us today is a request from by some specific individuals who apparently have a lease or an option on the • Page 6 PEC 26 September 1978 space to put a real estate.office in there. PG We're not replacing storage..... SM Which is not a permitted..... ED We're not replacing storage and I.... GW No, but they are taking space that could be valuable retail space which would be conducive to the type of street life that we are trying to attract into the Lionshead area for no other reason that it is the village. And I would like to just read what is on this. statement from the Department of Community Development because I think it is pretty well said: There is a very limited amount of street level space in bath the Village and in .Lions.head core area and we feel that granting this conditional use permit will lead to other similar requests. This could severely reduce the amount of prime retail space in the Town of Vail. And I would say that that is a very accurate statement. PG......Canada's..... GW They moved their whole office down. ED And I think they also expanded from where they were up to the mall, taking.over sbmething that last winter was an atrocious looking pinball gallery. GW That was an existing office that expanded. ED No. Didn't they come....... pinball machines were? What's in there? ? .......space on the ground floor. And there wasn't a real estate office there before. There was a ski shop there before. r 1 n . Page 7 PEC 26 September 1978 GW That was a mistake. I agree. But there is no reason to compound it. GR So you're also. You're worrying (?) on denialty { ?) of protection and discriminatory zoning. If you want to push it to that. GW I don't agree. SM George, we're trying to look at it, look at this conditional use. GR You're talking abou Correct? This generates foot about a type thing.where to come see me or to go see a SM We're talking about uses in CC 1 or 2. r generating foot'.traffic. traffic. You're not talking somebody makes an appointment doctor. That's different. horizontal zoning and permitted GR I know what you're talking about. ED Go ahead. R. Allred:Could I explain one thing about this? First of all. if this door is not being used and if this space does not, if you don't grant the permit, it's going to be con- tinued to be used by Gondola Ski Shop. And their entrance is going to remain over here. They're going to have another, a.little.less than another 400 square feet added to their whatever, 3000. I don't think it's going to create any traffic in to Gondola Ski Shop because they have another 400 square feet inside. In fact, I think that another type of business is going to create more traffic. More traffic, that's what you're talking about, which you seem to be. But otherwise, you're actually dimishing traffic, because I don't think any more people are going to come to Gondola Ski Shops because they know there's another 400 square feet inside. It's not going to go for another use. ? You may end up....... ? Are you leasing this from the Gondola Ski Shop? RA The landlord, the landlord developer says that KI Page $ PEC 26 September 1978 we can have the space, that we can have 400 square feet or what's left and that he would cut the other lease down. He charges the Gondola Ski Shop once on all the space, and he has the right to do that. We have the first right .......( ?). There is no wall between there now and that door is not used and cannot be used. There's a thing in front of it. GR There's almost always been storage here. In fact it was even uglier when they didn't close it off. It used to be all glass if you recall. And all you ever saw in there were boxes stacked up. So again, we're talking about trying to promote the same goals, I think. I don't think we're really disagreeing on the goals, that is, let's get more people, more warm bodies moving around. And storage does not attract people. And you can't deny, that shop will be using it as storage. SM That's true, George. Within the confines of his shop, he can put his office or storage space wherever he wants and I would grant that every shop has storage whether he puts it on the street or in the back room is another question. But, what we're looking at is the desire - ability and we're looking at it from the point-of view of, I would think, what makes sense and what is good for the community in terms of the viability of Lionshead. GR You're getting into a very large philosophical question which has puzzled everyone. Why doesn'.t Lionshead go? SM That's absolutely right, and what I'm saying.... ell GR And the whole thing revolves around this. Either in general or specifically. First of all, you're talking about such a nominal or insignificant .thing. If you were talking about say 8000 or 9000 square feet, I could appreciate more concern. But for something 400 square feet. .If.this were 0 • • • Page 9 PEC 26 September 1978 something all by itself, you certainly couldn't put a restaurant in there. You have to apply the economics . and the feasibility. And it's questionable what kinds of a small shop you could put in there. And typically there are some optimums. You talk to businessmen, you talk to bankers, and they'll tell you, look, ypu need a certain amount of floor space kicking out a certain amount of revenue. And again, that becomes marginal. If you check the history of shops that have folded in Vail, it's usually the ones that have these 1ittie tiny things. They're so small, they don't have enough room to do anything in. You have to have openers. ? That's immaterial, George. The space is Gondola Ski Shop's. GR That's true. But I'm going to make it.another angle. If you were to isolate it, you would have the same problem. SM But, let's say that the 3000 square feet as it does exist is divided into 400 square feet, anothor 400 square feet, another 1000 square feet, if in fact the Gondola Ski Shop were not too occupy that space for a given period of time. And then we have to look at, again, it would be a continuation of conditional uses down the line. GR .......you don't know. SM And then I think that then it's..... Sure, you don't know. But it's the responsibility, it seems to me, of this commission in terms of granting a conditional use permit to look at the kinds of shops that we are to look at in terms of the horizontal zoning for first floor. And I think horizontal zoning, and I don't'know be- cause I didn't write it, but it seems to me that the motiva- tion behind it must have been viability. What's going to fly. And is it offices on the first floor and shops on the second floor? Or visa versa? C. Page 10 PEC 26 September 1978 It doesn't seem to to be a logical use. AG It is a permitted use providing that you.get the conditional use permit. In other words, it's not asking for something that is not in the conditional use permit.. section. We're not asking for a .........? or something. like that. So, you're not that far apart, really. JM Well, I would suggest, Allen, even what you are saying is that each condiutional use permit is to be judged upon its own separate thing, obviously. This use, I think, does entail that there, I think as they're saying, that there's going to be more foot traffic by this use than what it is being used for now. And I think that that's what we're trying to encourage with the horizontal zoning. Now this admittedly is a conditional use of the horizontal zoning, but as storage it's not doing anything for anybody. I realize that Lionshead is a situation but this circumstance seems to be bettering it rather than necessarily worsening it. AG Let me clarify the staff position by clouding it up. George and I discussed this yesterday and this isn.'t one of our stronger. staff recommendations. We don't want to get our back broken over thi-s. On the issue of the conditional use, I took the law book home and what George just said is exactly right. .and you all remember the world famous case of Archbishop O.'Hara's appeal, remember Jay back in 1957.. And the court noted that the special use, which is a conditional use in our terms, is a permitted use if the tests have been met as they were in that particular case. Now, I talked to Rider about this and what it kind of comes down to is that we list criteria and if we can't show that they are having negative impact on us,.then they're in good shape. They do not necessarily have to prove that they have to prove that they are doing anything super good because basically it's a permitted use. On this situaion, if you look at it in terms of the use, the change of use for that individual space, I agree with Jim, it's definitely an improvement. i think` it will bring in people. The reason I'm lukewarm on it is I think in the overall scope of Lionshead, with four real estate offices already, this would be the fifth, Vail Associates, the whole area is in sad shape because there are no traffic generators. I think the real estate office can benefit.... anyhow, it's, I'll stay out of that discussion, but it's not like having a lot of very good shops as compared to the Village. ED At a certain point, economics will take care of it, probably, I'm sure. AG I think what's happening, a little bit, again: as E an aside; I don't know what you're paying for lease space, but I think that the lease prices are cheaper in Lionshead than.in the Village. The landlord would rather go ahead and lease it out to a real estate office than to storage to get more money and it's becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. The prices go down, more offices move in, and there aren't any people, prices go dawn, offices fill in all the voids and the shoppers go to the Village. This probably isn't the turning point whether Lionshead makes it. In fact, you probably could present the case that if the real-estate office is an improvement in that area, that it brings people in rather than the storage on Gondola Ski being too big, the space becomes a little bit more viable, and they can lease it out to the next, the jewelry salesperson. who really starts generating a lot of revenues per square foot. So you could argue that this might be the saviour to'Lionshead. Boy, I really got carried away with that. ED • Do you want to tell us about Archbishop O'Hara's • • 19 .....There are three lawyers here who are dying to learn,... SM Let's not because we need to get on with it so that we can get out of here ED May we have a motion on this one please? GW Yes. I would move denial of the conditional use request for Benchmark Investments, Inc. in accordance . with the statement by the Department of Community Develop- ment dated September 21, 1978. SM Second. ED We have a motion to deny the Benchmark Investment, Inc.'s conditional use permit for a real estate office in Lionshead Center made by Mr. White, seconded by Mrs. Mills, and is in conformance with the memorandum, I don't know whether or not you said that or not. GW Yes. ED All those in favor of the motion which is to deny the conditional use permit, indicate by raising your hands. All those opposed to the motion. We've two for the motion, Mr. White and Mrs. Mills, and two against the motion, myself and Mr. Mor�3n.' SM In which case, it is denied. Is that correct? ? The motion fails, doesn't it? ED That motion fails. We have nothing. JM I will make a.motion for approval of the conditional use request for the Benchmark Investment, Inc. on September 21, 1978 for the building of Gondola Ski Shop commercial space. ED The Chair will second it. Now, then, well enough. All those in. "favor of the motion to approve. All those opposed. We have the same two to two vote split. Your request for a conditional use permit is denied based on the fact that a tie vote is a negative vote. -end- J • 10- - AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 24, 1978 WORK SESSION: 12 Noon at Vail Athletic Club Restaurant 1.) Discussion on GRFA, Variance., etc. 2.) Site Visit to proposed Vail Mountain School PUBLIC HEARING: 3 P.M. 1.) Antlers LionsHead - GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area) Variance Request to.permit additional space for employee housing. 2.) Boyer - Change in Lot Line, Lots. 5 and 6, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, Filing 1. 3.) Felker /Smith - Setback. Variance for addition on Lot 8--B, Block 9, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd. 4.) Vail Mountain School -- Conditional Use Permit for a Private School on Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, 5.) Brandess /Cadmus - Conditional Use Permit for a Real Estate Office, Part of Lots B and C, Block 5 -C, Vail Village lst Filing. 6.) Elmore - Annexation - Review, E MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF October 24, 1978 3:00 P.M. Commission Members Present: Roger Tilkemeier Ron Todd' Pam Garton Sandy Mills Ed.Drager Jim Morgan Gerry White - Absent Staff Present: Allen Gerstenberger Jim Rubin Town Council John Donovan The first item on the agenda,'Antlers LionsHead - GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area)_- Variance Re guest to permit additional space for employee housing. ,Bud Benedict was present to represent the Antlers in the request for a variance. The Commission reviewed the plans and it was brought out that this space was an addition to a unit that at one time had been employee housing, but then had been put into office space, Now they want to return it to employee housing and add three bedrooms to it. Because.of the severe:shoxtage of employee housing, the Antlers is ready to make an agreement to leave this space as employee housing in perpetuity. The staff recommends approval of this variance request because of the critical shortage of employee housing. After further discussion, the Motion was made by Ed Drager to approve the variance request made by the Antlers LionsHead in order to permit additional'. space for employee housing as set forth in the Department of Community Development memorandum dated 20 October 1978 and subject. to an agreement to be drawn up and reviewed by Larry Rider, Vail Town Attorney that the employee housing will be retained for the life of the building. Pam Garton seconded the Motion, the Commission voted unanimous approval. The second item on the agenda, Boyer - Change in Lot Lines, Lots 5 and 6 Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, Filing 1. This item had,been postponed from the meeting.held two weeks ago, Mrs. Boyer was in attendance to represent her request Jim Rubin explained the situation to the Commission, that her reason for this request is to make better access into the lots by driveway placement, No easement is affected by this proposed change. k A Motion was made by Ron Todd for approval of the minor re- subdivision by change of lot line as set forth in the Department of Community Development memorandum. Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Pg. 2 Minutes - PEC Meeting 10-24 -7$ The third item on the agenda, Felker /Smith - Setback Variance for addition on Lot.8 -B, Block 9 Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition. Mr. Bob Felker was in attendance to represent himself in this request. The Commission questioned whether other property owners might not come in to make similar requests. Jim Rubin stated that these variance requests are handled on an individual basis and once the GRFA is used up, any other requests will be denied. The Commission questioned the notification which would give other property owners the opportunity to oppose this request and it was explained.by Mr. Felker that both of his neighbors had been informed by himself, and neither owner expressed any opposition. Jim Rubin has received no telephone calls or letters from other property owners that would be affected by this request. The Commission reviewed the plans and pictures of the structure in question. A Motion was made by Ron Todd for approval of the Setback Variance request citing the memorandum put together by the Department of Community Development Roger. Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted 4 in favor of approval, and 2, Jim Morgan and Sandy Mills, vote:; in opposition. Number 4 on the agenda, Vail Mountaiin.School - Conditional. Use Permit for a Private School on Lot 12 Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law, was present to represent the Vail Mountain School in their request,. He gave the background on the school, the need for their own facility, and the fact that Vail Associates, Inc., agreed to let them.have a site once certain conditions were satisfied. He added that the people who bought lots in this area were told that a school would probably be built in the area. He explained that this site is 7 acres, and that the proposed school will be 9,000 sq. ft. The land uses were discussed and the thought that a private school would be desirable within the Town. The plat map was reviewed and discussion on.the lots affected was explained. It was.brought out that the additional traffic should not have a great impact on the homeowners as access will be directly off the frontage Road. The building will be designed'to resemble a residence (duplex). It will be two stories, will block no views and will have a :park and open space surrounding it. The maximum number of students planned is 110 and all expansion will be designed into th.p building now. There is a public bus stop at the corner which will'.also reduce the traffic in the area. Mr. Peterson discussed the fact that an Environmental Impact Report will not be needed, which is further discussed in the Dept. . , of Community Development memorandum. He read a letter received from one of the property owners that is directly affected by the school, and the fact that he is in solid support of the school being built. Pg. 3 Minutes - PEC Meeting 10 -24 -78 Gordon Pierce, Architect, then showed the Commission and those in attendance the plans for the building and how it related to the site, He further explained there will be a parking lot for 30 cars, and -this should be more than adequate parking. The landscaping will include berming that will .minimize the visual impact of the school and its surroundings. He also assured those present that the building is residential in character. Roger Tilkemeier absented himself as a member of the Commission to explain Vail Associates' involvement in giving this site to Vail Mountain School. He explained there are stipulations on the gift, such.as, the Katsos Ranch house is to be restored and used on the campus as a historic building. Moving the house would be a last resort, only if it is impossible for it to stay at its present.site. Other conditions include: The site would not be available to them if .a Conditional Use Permit were not granted by the Town of Vail, that they have a firm financing plan (pledges will not be acceptable within the plan) and that they submit an operating proforma. He further explained that these requirements were set forth in a letter dated December 15, 1977. Jay Peterson in answer to these statements, said they had to. start somewhere and the most logical would be to request the C.U.P. Ron Todd also stated his feeling that the building that is being restored should remain in that area and that it is important for Vail to salvage some of the history of the area. Jim Rubin reviewed the memo with the Commission and those in attendance. He emphasized that.the site can legitimately be used for a school site. This is a.permitted use by the Zoning Ordinance with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. He also explained that due to the site location, he did not feel the school' would have negative effects on the neighborhood. :He explained that staff recommends approval of.ths request. Additionally he explained that he had received 12 letters, one telegram and a petition with 30 signatures from those residents of the area,, all of whom. are seeking denial of this variance request and are in opposition . to the school being built on this site. These were residents from Vail Village 12th and 13th Filings, and they felt the open space should be.preserved. Mr. Drager opened the floor for public input asking those in attendance to limit themselves to the amount of .time they speak and to try not to be repetitive. The first speaker, Carl Oppenheim, Co- Chairman of the Vail Mountain School Board. He asked.that he be able to answer Mr Tilkemeier in regards the stipulations from Vail Associates, Inc. He stated the Board has:been working to meet all these requirements and they are in a position to meet all the requirements at this time. Gaynor Miller was the next to speak, he owns Lot 18, in Block 2, V.V. 12th Filing. He referred to the covenants of the 12th and 13th Filings and that nowhere in the covenants for the Pg. 4 Minutes - PEC Meeting 10 =24 -78 • 12th Filing is it stated that there could be a school built. The 13th-Filing covenants state there possibly could be a` school (public or private) built here.. He additionally feels that V.A. broke their promises to the people who bought lots in the area, that all advertisements and brochures were made out to make these people think that the open space would be preserved. He stated that one of the main concerns is whether this is really a proper site for the school since the students. will be coming from all over the Upper Eagle Valley, not just within the Town of Vail, proper. He wonders if there has been enough study done on the location and perhaps the school should be built elsewhere. He continued that this area was .represented as a low density area and the people who own there really don't think a-school represents a low density. .Sue Rychel, a teacher at Vail Mountain School asked Gaynor Miller who he is representing. However, a.woman who didn't identify herself, interrupted and asked whether the Commission didn't feel there were enough people in opposition to the school.to make them feel there should be a denial of.the request. She added that Gaynor Miller is.speaking for those people who signed the petition, Jay Peterson felt the petition was not presented properly or with the right background information to those who were requested to sign it. E Paul White, owns Lot 10, a resubdivision of Lot 7 in VV F 12th Filing. He stated he is very close to the school site, that he is really in favor of the school but that he didn't hear about the school until yesterday. He is really..not sure he wants the school built in the proposed location and he really doesn't want the cabin moved. He feels he has not had sufficient time to consider all the problems and he seeks a denial to the request at this time. Stan Cole then spoke, he is also concerned about the greenbelt being preserved, he bought his lot because of this and is really opposed to the school being built at this site. Dave Sage spoke.on behalf of Dick and Joanna Peterson who t are residents of Booth Creek. They asked to be quoted that they are in 100% support of the school being built,. Joan Carnie, VV 13th Filing, is opposed to the school for the reasons given for the preservation of the greenbelt`. She also told Mr, Paul White that they did try to get in touch with him in relation to the opposition to the school and to ask him to attend the neighborhood meetings on the.school's- request. Bob Buckley, VV 13th Filing stated that he was a salesman for Vail Associates when they were selling these lots. He stated • Pg. 5 Minutes PEC Meeting 10- 24--78 that the salesmen did tell some of those people buying lots that there may be a school constructed in the area, but that ..all ('. purchasers were not told this. He also stated that a brochure led purchasers to believe there would be 120 acres of greenbelt which would not be developed, Carol Falk, VV 13th Filing, said she does feel the school should be built, but that Booth Creek should remain residential. She addressed the fact there are only the Booth Creek and Golf Course areas that have open space. Dan Corcoran, .a property owner in.Booth Creek stated that he worked with the presentation maps at Vail Associates, and he agrees with the statements made by Bob Buckley as to the fact that people were told there would be permanent greenbelt. Joel Fritz stated he bought his lot because of the greenbelt represented by the salesmen and everyone else he talked with about this area. He also feels that very stringent controls should be put on the school if it is approved for this site. Linda White stated she is in favor,of the school if the "sandpile" goes. Mary Ann Mullin agreed that she would like to see the sand moved out, feeling it detracts from the area. Allen Gerstenberger addressed.this,problem by telling those in attendance that the Highway Department will be moving the sand- pile soon. Roger Tilkemeier stated that the Highway Department does own-some of,this property, he.i.s.aw.are that the sand is.to be moved, but wonders if these same people will have more of.a complaint when the icy roads are not sanded ASAP. Renie Gorsuch stated that she is in sympathy with the feelings of the owners. She owns a lot on the Golf Course where once there was a beautiful old cabin which was one of the reasons they chose the lot. Later it was moved out and she feels these are things that can happen.in any neighborhood.. They just -don't stay as they were initially. Diane Lazier spoke on behalf of the school. She feels those in attendance should look at the community as a whole, not just as a "neighborhood ". She.sees great need for this private school, that it fulfills .a great need in the community for those children with special learning problems, or for those who are not emotionally or physically capable of going to a public school. The limited number of students makes this school a desirable addition to Vail. Joy Schoenfeld who lives in Bighorn also feels the school is very important, and really doesn't think the 7 acres taken from the 120 acres.set aside for greenbelt and open space is much. to ask. 'F Jim Rubin explained that the A, B and C tracts in the VV 12th Filing are restricted to open space, but that Lot 12, Block 2 in VV 12th Filing is owned by Vail Associates, Inc., and they can Pg. Minutes - PEC Meeting 10- r24 --78 �. determine the appropriate use for this lot. Pam Garton stated she feels the neighborhood's concerns .are valid, but that complaints on how the land was represented should have been aired outside the Planning & Environmental Commission hearing. This is strictly between-Vail Associates and the property owners. She emphasized that the Planning Commission looks at the zoning as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance and that certain permissable uses are listed for an Agricultural Zone and one of them is a school. She added that the Commission will have to make their judgment strictly on the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance; Nancy Miller then stated that she f eels the Commission has the responsibility of looking at the needs of the neighborhood and that the opposition to the school is so.formidable that they should consider denial of the request. Bob Buckley spoke once again, stating that in regard to the greenbelt area, 907o is behind the hillside and has a 50 to 60% grade. Where the school is proposed is the flatest, most desirable part of the open space. He stated that Andy Norris has considered the possibility of a high school being built in his development. Carol Falk asked why Vail Mountain School couldn't remain •' at Meadow Mountain? Roger Tilkemei.er stated that.Vail Associates is in the process of selling the land to the U.S, Forest Service and for the F.S. to consider letting the school build on.the land would be presumptive. They could not consider this until they acquire the land. Sue Rychel spoke again, she stated that she has the feeling the residents have a very distorted picture of the school building, that they should dismiss the thought. of a big concrete, brick building and look at the plans as submitted, showing the building as being very residential in character. Gaynor Miller spoke again and requests the PEC to obtain.more facts. He feels there are many important- considerations which have been excluded from the discussions, that the Commission should have more statistical information,.i.e., where the students are coming from, how many are actually residents of the Town of Vail which would show whether the school should actually be built within the confines of the TOV boundaries. IJay Peterson reiterated that the school will impact very few property owners, that the school has been moved on the site to appease that opposition. He feels that in every community, people have to sacrifice in the face of community needs. Roger Tilkemeier again excusing himself from Commission participation, read a letter written to Jack Marshall from Bob Nott. This letter states what the prospective buyers in the area were told, ` that.the VV 13th Filing was suggested at that time as an area where . -. Pg. 7 Minutes - PEC Meeting 10- 24-78` where a school might be built and would be allowable under the covenants and that under the covenants of VV 12th Filing,.the school would not be disallowed. Sandy Mills asked -why Vail Associates is giving the.school the entire 7 acres, and could.this area be reduced so that. it would prohibit the building's growth and expansion in the future? Gordon Pierce stated the building has expansion within it,. It contains the optimum, The building itself and the play.ground, parking area, etc,, will occupy no'more than.an acre and one-- half to two acres of the site. Two acres would be adequate . Roger Tilkemeier stated it would have to be resubdivided.if only two acres were given to the Mountain School. The two acre site could be given to the school and the rest dedicated to the Town of Vail. Jay Peterson stated that limiting the size -of the building would be acceptable. Pam Garton asked those in attendance who are in opposition if they could agree to the two acre packet for the school site with the rest of the acreage being left as greenbelt /open space? The silence was deafening. Paul White responded, that even though.he is not in complete opposition to the school, he really would like to see some.more . planning done. The unidentified woman who spoke earlier stated that those in opposition do not want to see the Agricultural Zoning maintained. They want it changed so that it will be greenbelt /open space and zoned so that it.can never be developed in any way. The Commission stated that it could perhaps be zoned PUD with the school being the only building allowed on the site and limiting the school building to 9,000 sq. ft. Jay Peterson stated that this could be agreed to. It was brought out that the building as proposed is 9,657 sq. ft. Dan Corcoran stated that these restrictions would be a good step in appeasing the property owners. Deed restrictions were then discussed by the Commission. Gordon Pierce reminded those present that,the plans as presented are conceptual. It is not a final design, but that he does not feel the building; imagehas a negative impact on the neighborhood. A Motion was started, but interrupted by `a question from those in attendance -who asked whether other restrictions could be put upon the school such as the hours the school will be open, whether the facilities would be rented out to other groups, or whether the public will be allowed to use any of the facilities. The opposition does not feel these questions have been answered satisfactorily. Pg. 8 Minutes -.PEC Meeting 10- 24-78 The Head Master for Vail. Mountain School He stated that historically the school has not for use by the public, nor have they rented or and-it is extremely doubtful if this would be spoke to this.. been made available leased any space done in the future. Jay Peterson again stated they would be willing to accept the restrictions that the building be used only by the Vail Mountain School and it would not be used for any other purpose. The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Vail Mountain School to build a private school on Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing citing the memo prepared by the Department of Community Development and with the stipulations that the building will be used exclusively by the Vail Mountain School and their activities, that -the building.. size be limited to 10,000 sq. ft., that if the present parking should prove-to be inadequate, the Town of Vail can require more parking, that the balance of the site will remain as greenbelt and.that the proposed building will be built within the location on the plans as presented here today. Pam Garton seconded the Motion. After further discussion an Amendment to the Motion was made relative to the cabin that is to be preserved as a historical artifact, that it will remain within the development area. The vote by the Commission on the Motion as made and the Amendment to the Motion was 5 for approval, Roger Tilkemeier. abstaining because of a conflict of interest. The Motion passed.. Gaynor Miller, who spoke on behalf of the opposition was advised of the 10 --day appeal period, that he may make an appeal to the Town Council within this time frame. The 5th item, Brandess /Cadmus - Conditional Use Permit for a Real Estate Office to be located at Part of Lots B &'C Block 5 -C, Vail Village lst Filing in the building known as The Casino Building. Robert Joyce, Attorney at Law is representing this request. He addressed the Commission in regard to the Ordinance which states that this use could be permissable, and.asks them to look only at the negative aspects of a real estate office at this location. He addressed the problem of reconstructing the conversations between Mark Cadmus and Diana Toughill, the former Zoning Administrator. He had asked her advice after she was no;ldnger'a TOV employee. and it was felt there had been a misunderstanding between both Diana and Mark as to -her understanding of his question and his understanding of her answer. It was brought out that a Business License has been issued and signed by all appropriate Departments. Mr, Joyce then reminded the Commission of their past decisions on similar requests. He feels it would be fundamentally unfair` for the Commission to deny this request ..when others have been approved. He felt that Real Estate offices do contribute to traffic in the area, and they do contribute to the amount of sales tax generated, especially from the property management end of the business. He i tF i E t� Pg. 9 Minutes - PEC Meeting 10- -2478 also advised the Commission that an artist will -be placing his work in the office on consignment and this will also generate sales tax, He knows and understands that the Zoning Ordinance could be changed to shut the door on future real estate office, professional offices on the first /ground floors of all buildings in CC1, but this should not shade the Commission's decision at this time, Ed Drager asked how long the principals have been in business in Vail, and Mr, Joyce answered, they both have been in.business in the Vail area for a considerable length of.tme. Mr. Drager felt that both these gentlemen should know the zoning.. Mr: Joyce feels that neither of there have dealt that much with the central core in the past and could not know about this restriction of use on first floor areas for real estate offices., especially since so many real estate.offi,ces do have space on first floors throughout the Town of Vail Allen Gerstenberger stated that the use requested is not an appropriate use in this location and that the staff is recommending denial. Pam Garton explained to Mr. Joyce that this request was not a permitted use in CC1, that the Zoning Ordinance addresses the unique character of the Village core and that the Commission .has always felt that first floor space.in the Core area should be used by retail or restaurants. Mr. Drager is not convinced regarding the sales tax argument: He feels that a real estate office can operate successfully from somewhere other than Bridge Street. It was brought out that the applicants have purchased.the space in question in the Casino Building, which has been condominiumized. Ron Todd questions the Commission.being able to force ,a percentage of retail vs. business offices in the Core areas. He maintained the Commission will have to go to the ordinance and the criteria within it for their decision. After further discussion, Ron Todd made the Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit at.the request of Brandess /Cadmus for a Real Estate Office to be located.on.Parts of Lots B and C, Block 5 -C, Vail Village 1st Filing. The Motion seconded by Ed Drager. The Commission voted 1 vote for approval by Ron'Todd and 5 voted against approval, The Motion is denied. The representative was advised of the 10 -day appeal period. On review of the Elmore Annexation, the Commission was advised 'that a Public Notice has been published, the Public Hearing will be held on November 14, 1978, Pam Garton requested that the Commission meet for further discussion on this before the Public Hearing. C • 1, - U . MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE OCTOBER.20, 1978 RE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE, LOT 12, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 12th FILING DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Jay Peterson representing the Vail Mountain School has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to. allow a Private School of approximately 9,000 sq. ft. for a maximum of 110 students. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors.: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. We feel that a Private School within the Town of Vail is desirable. 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. There are 7 lots that we feel could be directly affected by this proposal. They are Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, and Lots 8, 9, and 10,. Block 1, Vaal Village 12th Filing. All of the above mentioned lots receive their access from streets which run well above the proposed school site. The nearest approximate location of units on these lots is 120 -150 feet away from the closest corner of the school. Pg. 2 MEMO - Vail Mountain School CUP 10 -20 -78 The difference in elevations between the school and proposed building sites on these lots is greater than 35 feet. We feel that these building sites.and other existing buildings in the area will not be negatively impacted by the placement of the school in its proposed location. 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. All traffic flow onto the school site will be off the North Frontage Road. The school will not generate a measureable increase of automobile traffic in the residential area; the Frontage Road location is logical because the road can easily handle the minimal additional traffic resulting from the school 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 school building is two stories high and its size and character does not differ greatly from some of the large duplexes in the area. Berming and extensive landscaping is part of the development plan and will help to make it less noticeable to surrounding uses. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. None The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. The Zoning Administrator does not feel that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary since little disturbance is actually being done to the natural terrain and there are no significant K-1 • Pg. 3 MEMO - Vail Mountain School CUP 10-- 20.78 hazards on the site. As discussed previously in this memo, the Department of Community Development does not believe that a school on this site will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Findings and Recommendations The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved 'based on-the following findings: That the proposed location of.the use is in accord with'the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed locati.on.of the use and the conditiona under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in.the vicinity, That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The purpose statement 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 sates of these uses remain predominantly open." The location of the proposed Vail Mountain School meets the general requirementsof the Purpose Section above. An extremely small amount of this 7.37 acre site is being used for the school, We feel that this is a good location for the school, that the private school is a desirable use in Town; and that the ■ r Pg. 4 MEMO - Vail Mountain School CUP '0 • 10 10 -20 -78 neighborhood would not be significantly impacted by its development. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Conditional. Use Permit application. • VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS BRANDESS /CADMUS Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting of 24 October 1978 Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Town Council: E Roger .Tilkemeier Ron Todd Pam Garton Sandy Mills Ed Drager Jim Morgan Allen Gerstenberger Jim Rubin John Donovan The 5th item, Brandess /Cadmus - Conditional Use Permit for a Real Estate Office to be located at Part of Lots B & C, Block 5 -C, Vail Village lst Filing in the building known as the Casino Building. Drager: Whoever is going to speak for the applicant, we'll let you fire away. Joyce: I'm Bob Joyce. I'm one of those out of town attorneys and have about an 8 hour presentation .....? with some less intensity than what we just. had. For starters, to try and compress this a little bit, we have a copy of the same CD report that you've got, that essentially finds that there are negative effects on two points. That specifically that's with respect to the sales tax genera- tion and the use of a real estate office on the.f irst floor in a second floor area.. And in subsequently, it's in conversations with Jim and Allen,.the guts of what we think is another objection, although I don't think it's clearly stated (in the) report and that refers to I guess something; that we call the general character of the town, the ambience, or the precedent in what this kind of decision moans in the future. We'll try to restrict ourselves to those particular issues that we agreed with Community Development people Brandess /Cadmus 1 24 October 1978 Page 2 that there aren't any effects on the other six points and three findings that you could have made. Before we get into the details; just a little bit about the context that I think that you should pick up. When we're talking about this particulars kind of use, a conditional permit, I think it's important to realize that we're talking about a permitted use. That's where you start off. That the use.is permitted first: and that's subject to conditions subsequently. Now that sounds like some legal mumble jumble, but what that basically means, is that you have to have a reason for not doing it rather than having a reason to do it. So we start off that the Ordinance says that it's bk . to have this kind of use. Now what we've got to do today is we've got to look for those negative effects that would prevent us from wanting to use it. That's consistent with. the general concept right here of zoning in the first place. which is that the property belongs to the individual and that the only time that the State or any government can legitimately interfere with that right to use the property any way they want is when it's related to the health, wel- fare, morals of the community. The reason I bring that up is to emphasize that, is that I think Allen mentioned at the last Town Council meet- ing that he had some discussion about some case law that, Larry Rider mentioned it, too, in the discussion dealing with the respect to the fact of having to show a negative factor with respect to the.propased.use. In other words, the Brandess /Cadmus Corporation doesn't have to show that this is the greatest thing since popcorn. Some- body has to show that there is something wrong with it: that it's bad, it will severely affect the Town. That's the context that I think we'll operate in, The factual, situation in this instance is fairly important. What occurred was that in the middle or late part of August, Bill Brandess and Mark started looking at property to open a real estate office downtown. They looked at this particular piece of property and as you would expect, kept the fact that they were looking at it for themselves since they didn't want to deal, with the costly factor of competi- tion (noise).., was known publicly that they were going to go after this piece of property. • Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 3 The last weekend.in August Leo was at the ? for an afternoon what have you. And during the course of that conversation, while they were there, there was a suggestion made that Allred had gotten some information that there may be a problem. That there's a thing called a Conditional Use permit that's appropriate. So Leo came running back and talked to Mark and said, 'hey, do you have a business liscense yet? Mark says, 'No', and.you may have a problem getting it. You'd better check it out. Well, based on that conversation, Mark then called Diana Toughill, knowing, I'll tell you right out front; that she was not a city employee at that point. But the idea was that it was a Saturday evening on a weekend and that was the quickest way of getting information quickly. Now, at this point there's some confusion as to, that had some confusion, as to what, who said what to whom; and I think we figured out today.what occurred. It's that Mark called up and said, hey, we're going to put a real estate office right next door to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Do we need a Conditional Use permit? Her response was, well, what's it being used as now? Is it commercial? And I think this is where the communications break down very first. She was referring to commercial meaning office space. Mark was referring to commercial meaning retail or any other commercial use. In any.case, apparently what happened is she left that conversation believing that she had told him, 'yes, you need a.Conditional permit'. Mark left that conversation thinking.that.she had told him, 'No, you don't have to because it's already being used as a commercial use.' Well, the next step to that, to confirm it, because the closing on the property was not for several more days, was to come to the Town'Clerk anal find out.what was needed for a business li,__c.ense. They were given a little check list and that check list included a series of steps. They were given an application: took the application home, filled it out, and brought it back to Colleen. She said then, 'take it downstairs and have the guys sign off on it before we take your money, before it's ok.' Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 4 Now at that point, apparently inadvertently, we might not be here today had it been that Jim or Allen was there; but they weren't. And Jim's assistant, Jeff, signed it. Now at that point, thinking everything is copasetic, Mark and Leo come to Denver and we close on the property and they spend about $225,000 on the piece of property. That's the facts of the setting that leads us where we are today. Now the issue and the difficulty that I think you've got to deal with here, is not the text of the legal memorandum that you've got there. I think that's Larry Rider's problem. The Town Council will deal with it in the course of the next meeting. But I think what you've really got to address is that the fact of what has the Town's position been historically on these kinds of uses. And if there was a mistake, who bears the burden of that mistake? Does the private individual bear the burden; or is it that big a deal.? Should the Town not bear the burden on this particular one? In terms of what the Town has done before, and the last couple of years, we've had a couple of similar in- stances. In September 1970 the Acme Barber was given a Conditional Use permit in the Mill Creek Building. And the reason that they were given that is that inadver -- tently the building permit had been issued to them. They moved in, did some repairs, expended some money, and then found out they needed a Conditional Use permit. Also, on March 10th of this year, Vail Associates, same thing. They put in a request for a Conditional Use permit to use a first floor space which was the old ticket window. Now that one was approved because in the minutes it says that there was an assumption.that would increase thr; activity in the area. Now, it's being changed from ticket windows where what, 7,000, 8,000 people a day in the winter go through th(,re. So that's a little strange reasoning, but the re:jj�oning at that time was that a real estate office would generate traffic. And then the third one which was less than two months :ig<, went to Canada's of Colorado. And that occurred at a point where the reasoning behind it was that 'they're C 0 Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 5 already in the space, let's make it ok'. Well, those three uses, now as we go back, you can see the analogies that we've got here. The first one is a building permit is issued and money expended. Here a business permit, or business license was issued..,.....? The second one is Community Development Department rec- ommended positively because a real estate office would generate traffic. Here the Community is recommending negatively because a real estate office won't generate traffic. It's kind of a double bind. And then in the last instance with Canada, they were already in, so it's ok. Well, here we're already in, under possibly a mistake, but in, and expending money on the property. So the situations seem analagous all the way.through and it seems just fundamentally unfair to say at this point to say at this point, ok, we're going to stop and change the rule right now you. Now, with respect to the specific negatives that were brought up in the CD report, the first one has to do with the generation of sales tax. Now on the surface, that seems to make sense, right off the bat, until you sit down and do a little thinking about it with a little research which obviously we've gotten. The real estate practice that will be operating out of this office, generates people coming in from out of town. The average stay has been 3 to 5 days, looking around the town, determining what investments they were going to make. Almost 617o, or over 61 %; of the people that have done business with Brandess /Cadmus since they've opened the shop, have been out of town. Now, that trans- lates, according to your own Town estimates, of how expenditures are in town to about $50 /day: $35 a day in retail expenditures and $15 a day in lodging. And we're talking about the average expenditure for the average individual, on an annual basis. In the winter it's obviously a lot more than that. Now, in addition to that 417o of the people that bought property, (that) were the customers there, had their homes outfitted, decorated with local decorators. It was an additional $50,000 expended; just so far this year. So we're talking about significant sales tax revenues directly from the real estate practice. Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 6 Now, addition to that, there are two other ancillary kinds of uses that this property will be put to that also generate sales tax. There's a-property management that will be going on. That property management activity will generate this year, based upon the properties that are already under - control, $5,000 in sales tax. Projections for next year is that it will generate approximately $15,000 in the second years operation. In addition to that, an agreement has been struck with the artist to sell art on a concession basis, and we're; estimating about $3500 a year in sales tax alo)ie..that will come from that. DRAGER: Are you asking for a Conditional Use permit for that, too? JOYCE: No, there's no permit required for the last part, obviously, In fact, I think that's the point. That.can be used without it. But, what we're talking about is the whole use of the property. The first two aspects, clearly; the real est;a e office with its uses both for the purchase and sale, of property and property management will together gen {:rate significant tax base. That it's at least, and if you look at your records which are not available to us �i.t this point, but in conversations that we've been ably, to get a comparable sized space,which is about 500 square feet, mon(,y that would be generated here is more than the ,-amount of tax . normal amount of tax money that would be generated by a ret;til use. The next point that CD had, a negative point, was that, you did need a first floor use for a real estate office. well, we provided a listing in the attachements to your package that show the 17 offices that are prac- ticltlg real estate in Vail right now. Only two of them that, have been practicing for more than a year are not on Hie first floor. That seems to indicate as a. matter of i,ractical reality, that that's not the case. That a real estate practice, as a practicing trade is, does in I'Itet, take a first floor use. Now it seems to us, after going through all this, those tWO itren't the real problems. That's not what we're here t"11„V about. I think the real issue is., if you allow this usr,', does that encourage further encroachment? Are you 1 -" 1 ig to end up with a town that's just chock full of the 0 Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 7 real estate offices, one right after another? And what will that do to the nature, the character, the feeling of the town? I think that's really the basic issue that you're going to have deal with. Now, with respect to that, I think you had better take a couple of point -in consideration. One is that kind of policy decision should not be made on an indi- vidual basis, You folks know more than any of us that this process of Conditional Use permits is a case by case basis. You're not bound by precedent. That means that no matter what you do here today, you're still going to have deal with the problem again and again and again. What we're really talking about is a change in policy on the part of the Town. If that's what's going to keep happening, then what should happen is to do to the normal Town process. Change the Zoning Ordinance is one alternative. Another alterna- tive would be to issue this particular Conditional Use permit with an' opinion attached to it. You have that capability in your ordinance. And simply say, 'hey, we've had enough. And we're closing the door now. The aggregate number of uses has become too much so that we don't consider this any longer to be a permitted use. But we think that it should not be.... ?'. But to that in a public fashion, design, to dic- tate policy for the Town. Not in this particular in- stance. Now, I won't get into the legal memorandum. Very specific cases and there is whole host of reasoning there that essentially says that the Town can not mislead some- one, have them act in reliance on that being misled, and then come back later on and cut them off. You can't damage them in that fashion. your argument's referred. to as a stop....? We've discussed it at some length with Larry, provided with all cases..........? That's not your particular issue. We've attached it for your information. In summary, what we're basically saying can be tied. up in :four points. first, it that you need a negative Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 8 reason, and you should have a negative reason not to per- mit the use. The two specific reasons for why have been, the first one is the tags issue, the second one is the first floor use of the real estate office. And I think that we can clearly demonstrate that those are not over-. whelming negative issues. They are something that we'll also be discussed about each of them clearly. demonstrate that they do not have a significant amount of weight. Second, is that the whole direction and tax perfor- mance of the Town, on the barber incident, on the Vail Associates permit and on Canada's permit, indicate that; why do this at this point? If we're going to change policy direction, don't stand it up on this individual. One thing I might point out on that is, we're well aware of the Benchmark decision that was appealed and turned down again last week. And lest you get the im pression that that was forewarning, that opinion did not occur until after the factual incident occured that we're talking about today. In other words, that hearing occured subsequent to the time that the property was bought, the line( ?) was expended and moved in. (tape change) And the other thing is, I really don't think that we ought to get hung upon this discussion with respect to what did Diane say to Mark, and what did Mark under- stand, Obviously, if it gets that far, we'll deal with no quesiton about it. I think that in court. There's deal with is, "Was a reasonable what you really need to mistake made ?" And I think that that will. clearly. There's a lot of discussion on both sides, with the conversations took place, the permits were signed off on, the, Mark went through the process. And if there . was a mistake made, it was reasonable. It wasn't an induced ( ?) mistake. And, finally, if the real objective of the Town is what we think it is, which is not to change the base character of the Town, there are other more appropriate, better ways to accomplish that. And basically, that's changes the zoning; ordinance by attaching an opinion to Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 9 this Commissions ? I'll take any more of your time.... if you want to ask questions or we have specifics that you'd like get into, we're certainly delighted to respond. Does that mean no? DRAGER: I have a question. How long has Mr. Brandess, Mr. Cadmus been in the real estate,business in Vail.? JOYCE: For a considerable period of time. And I anti- cipate your next question. DRAGER: There wasn't going to be one. JOYCE: Well, can I add a point then? DRAGER: You may. JOYCE: I think the point that would be brought up is, well, doesn't a real estate know the zoning appropriate this particular use. I think what a real estate agent . knows is that there is thing called zoning and what zoning does. I think':that given the Town that he's working in and the fact that there are real estate uses all over the place on the first floor in Commercial Core I district and that this was being used as a commercial entity in the past, would reasonably lead him to believe that there. is no problem Additionally, he-has never dealt within the central core with anything except that particular piece of property before, where it was conveyed from one retail outlet to another retail outfit.. There was no problem, DRAGER; Who is the 'he' you are speaking of? JOYCE: 'He' is Mark. I am sorry, you asked about Mark. DRAGER: I asked about each of them. JOYCE: OK. Mr. Brandess has not had an extended, he is just brand new to.practicing real estate.in Vail. In fact that's one of. the, in anticipation of this particular office . opening, all four people got their individual. brokers . 11 tenses as a result of Mark getting, Mark and Mary that were the only two actively operating the ( ?) up until that time as agents for a .,..(tape fades), Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 10 DRAGER: --Do we have any questions on the Planning Commission? Any questions about the staff recommendation of the memorandum? GERSTENBERGER: To clarify that point. Even though there are some questions about the process and who said what; we are recommending that those not be a consideration at this point. We are still, recommending denial based on the rationale that we don't feel that this is an appro- priate use, AUDIENCE; Would you speak up a little? GERSTENBERGER; We're still recommending disapproval of the application because we don't feel that a real estate office at this location on the first floor was appropriate. That's on.e issue. A second one will be decided, as I understand it, it will be appealed no matter no matter what the decision is. And the Council at that time will have to into consideration the reliance issue. I think some of the points that were raised regarding conditional uses of real estate offices, the two that were granted were both located in Lionshead, and were, in fact, a different situation. The one was taking over what was already office space: ticket sales were not eliminated from Lionsheaea, they were merely relocated to a more appropriate space away. I think the consideration of a.barber shop and a building permit.being issued is a valid concern but again, that issue we are still, Larry Rider has been appraised of the situation, has met with the attorneys and will be coming in with his legal recommendations. The staff summary is recommending disapproval based on the use and the location and not to ba,is the consideration the Council might have should they chose to deny and appeal and go to court. JOYCE: Just to make it very clear, we don't expect and we're not asking for any opinion from this group, the Commission, with respect to the reliance issue or any legal issues involved. That's clearly not something that you should even both,'getting into. • I think that our real point is that this is a permitted use to begin with, The ordinance anticipates it being used. And in order not to use it, it takes some fairly strong rationale. And what we're saying is that with all the cir-- Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 . Page 11 cumstances together, are those strong rationales for not having it there present? And wouldn't it be fundamentally unfair at this point to tee off on an individual owner with what really is a perspective for the.Town for the future? COMMISSION MEMBER: What does the hardship of you all having the office ( ?). I don't quite understand how that should relate to our recommendation in terms of conditional use. DRAGER: You don't get the hardship position in this issue? COMMISSION MEMBER: (Overlapping talk) the fact that you are in there. JOYCE: The point with respect to fairness and the reason I've specifically stayed away from the hardship issue is what Allen and.-Jim have already.told youis that the reason that Vail, has traditionally not had problems with its zoning and has not had a long history of attack like many other cities have, and has not had to withstand the Constitutional challenges, is because that zoning has been used in a tem- porate, intelligent fair- handed way. Not that it entirely separate and..apart from .-this specific hardship issue. And what we're saying is that in those instances that it would seem, those three parti- cular ones that we looked at, is that the Town and its Planning Commission looked at those things in its entirety and say, 'hey, this is a reasonable activity. It.'s not an undue burden on the Town; it's not going, to change the whole character of the Town; let's look at,in that context.' And that reasonable, even - handed tempered way of approaching this is what we're seeking now. GARTON: Bob, I would just to make sure that we all understand, it is not a regular permitted use in CCI. There is a list of straight permitted uses and then are uses permitted on the first floor.subject to the issuance of the conditional use permit. Which then get,_.s into all the findings and criteria. JOYCE: Yes, that's correct. That's absolutely correct. And I think that the point that we're trying to bring up is the fact that it is a permitted use, subject to a condition, subsequently, is that it's permitted first. When the ordinance was passed the view of it at the time, is that this is not particularly bothersome, r i Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 12 it's not a terrible use. We can live with it in the district. But we want to make sure that certain negatives don't occur. At least, get looked at. We want to make sure that it doesn't generate a lot of traffic; that it doesn't cause problems with pollution and light; etc. etc• And what we're saying, is that when you look at those, it will really reduce the specifics that we got from the Community Development Department ofthe tax base, and while they don't really need a first floor use; then those don't seem to be strong and compelling reasons to say no. And I guess what we're simply putting is that you need a reason'to say no, not a reason to say yes, GARTON: Well, I don't know. I just, as far as saying it is a permitted use, to me and I think the way that we've usually treated these, that a conditional use,.a permitted use conditionally, is that way because we want to reserve the right to review every single one of those instances individually. And just as we're saying; not based on what's been done, because.they are considered individually, but as it is right now today in that parti- cular neighborhood. And I think there to me there is a very sharp dis- tinction there. And that is why it is a separate list, subject to all the findings and criteria for a conditional use permit. JOYCE; Could I perhaps bring your attention to one, I realize this is a thick document; I didn't expect you all to speed read it on the spot, but there's a point in here that I think is relevant to this issue. And I'd just like to read one paragraph, to We initially bring /your attention, the matter that was discussed by Mr, Allen Gerstenberger in your meeting of September 26, 1978. ''Condi.tional uses are not by definition prohibitive uses; rather they are permitted uses subject to refusal. by-the Town on the showing of the negative impact.` Mr. Gerstenberger quite aptly stated his perspective when.he said, I'm quoting now from the minutes, "Now.I talked to Rider about this and what it kind of comes down to, is that we list criteria, and if�can't show that they are showing that they are having a negative impact on us, then they are in good. shape. They do not necessarily have to prove that they are doing anything super good because basically it is a permitted use.' 1 brandess /Cadmus 4 October 1978 rage 13 That's the perspective, We.'re essentially-taking the same perspective that your town attorney and your i1irector of Community Development expressed, and I Should point out as well that that perspective comes on a whole great body of case law as well. So I'm not making a frivolous argument or trying to twist the thing around. But that's where you have to start, and it's a very important ,starting place be- Q.ause then you have to come up with reasons not to do it, rather than with reasons to do it. ORAGER: Sandy, do you have a question? `4ILLS: Well, I disagree with your point. With all the points that you're making. I feel that if we had wanted 17th Street on Bridge Street we would have said that in our original zoning ordinance; and we don't. ..JOYCE; We're not talking about financial institution or a walk in, so it wouldn't be 17th Street. "MILLS: I know, but we're speaking in terms of professional .offices and I think the intent of the ordinance and the ,permitted uses that are listed are definitely retail. I eel that. you ake saying that your real estate offi,ce,,_.yaur property management office, and that art collection are going to generate sales tax. And I would say that the space would also generate sales tax if it was leased to a gift ,,hop, any kind of a shop that would go into that space. 'OYCE; I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that. MILLS; So I don't think that that's a valid point. .'JOYCE: Well, you see the point comes from the reverse, ,'hough. Is, what the Community Development office is •�ayi.ng is that real estate in practice, won't. And what we're saying is that it will. I'm not denying that some - _vne else would, of course. if you're selling products, ,•ou're going to generate sales tax. "OMMISSION MEMBER: How did you get your figure of what `'5,000 .....? real estate .....? management. (Interrupted). ?OYCE: It's based upon the number of units that are ,urrently being managed and sales tax is paid currently -h those units: $1.5,000 per year is based upon a projected )umber of properties. That's another-point I should add, 111 Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 14 is that these properties and, you know I suppose that it should be mentioned, but I assumed that one of the factors that you've got to deal with, is whether or not this creates undue competition with the existing real estate firms in Vail. And that's got to be a sub rosa concern. So I should point out that the properties that we're talking about are properties that have not seen managed before. They're new properties. dh ll�jeSoithatfsrwhere year are for new properties as we that projection comes from. DRAGER; I'm going to make a couple of comments. I don't, we're the least bit concerned that the Colorado Real Estate Licensing Board determines that it's their duty to li cence everyone in the State of Colorado before they go out of existence which they are going to do. And however many come to Vail, that's fine and that's nice and I hope they don't join the real estate business. And if they make, fine, and if they don't make it, that's fine top. I don't think that's a concern, subsrfar,asrtany a. thing else of anyone sitting up here. that you have taken some, what we consider commercial space, and turned it into a real estate office, and then stand there and tell me that all these people bought real estate from his because he was on the first floor only, they wouldn't have come to him on the second floor if he brought them here, bought those houses? And then tell me that they bought all this furniture and stuff here? That came out of some else'-- retail space. It didn't. come out of the real estate shop. I'm not convinced with the sale�tax argument. You could manage those properties and you'll find that it's probably cheaper to manage them from less expensive space, as some other people in this town have found. JOYCE; I first of all, I did not. say, or I hope didn't imply or give the impression, that all of this business is generated directly from the first floor location. DRAGER; No, I know you didn't say it, but the implication was there. JOYCE: I don't want to leave you with that implication. Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 15 I think it's very persuasive that of the total number of real estate firms in Vail, that only two of them, and three totally, and only two that have been practicing for more than a year,.have anything other than a first floor location. I thank that's persuasive that any industry feels that's the case. And as far as the general topic of real estate going in the first place, is that resort communities don't operate; if we were talking about Denver and 17th Street, fine; se- cond floor location for business uses, what would happen is some business man or woman would refer a broker or real estate agent to someone else. And that's how it would be conducted. That's not necessarily the way it's done here or in any other resort community, for that matter. DRAGER; Well, it's not done that way in Vail by design. Whatever number of real estate companies, you've apparently given us a listing of them, when they started and what floor they're on. The fact that they were there before we were doesn't give us the leg up to throw them out. JOYCE: All of those uses I should point out were not there before you were. Were not there, for that matter, before the fact that you specifically point odt. Two of them were in the last six months. So we're not coming from left field. Certainly, a substantial number of these were in effect and operating back when Vail started. This is Jim Mullins, a partner. JIM MULLINS: The sales tax item that you.just responded to, I thank maybe you misunderstood what Bob was saying, or maybe he indicated it wrong. I don't think he was talking about competition with the real estate (faint; not close enought to the make) DRAGER: I wasn't taking it that way at all. MULLINS: What he was talking about. I think.what he was dealing with was the sale-.,tax issue itself in saying; that property management could generate x amount of dollars potentially in sales tax revenues and the fact that.it would not be taking other real estate companies'elients I• Is Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 16 was meaning that it would be additional sales tax dollars not substitutive sales tax dollars. And I think that may have been mis.(7). DRAGER: I was concerned that you taken (cough interrupted speaker) .....and saying that real estate can operate from somewhere other from Bridge Street. That's my basic principle. We can have some other retail shops in there, as we would like to have that part of our community. MULLIN: But the CD negative point, the point that CD office was negative on, and the reason that we're even addressing it at.all, was that real estate offices do not generate sales tax and that's why we wanted to bring it up. DRAGER: We don't necessarily agree with the Department of Community Development in every instance. JOYCE: What we're simply trying to do is to respond to what we know specific critici;mg)to be. And that's all that's been laid on the table. The two that we saw. Plus, what we've picked up in questions, about the question of the overall character kind of thing, so we're kind of grasping for what the problems might be. And that's why we're tied on those two. COMMISSION MEMBER: Well, I think the idea there's a condi- tional use permit is used on a basically on a case by case basis. We had one, the Benchmark, which I was in-favor of, of allowing them to use, of allowing them, to use, the changing of space was, in my mind, advantageous. But you're in the true core, the most prime-retail space in all of Town, and retail space has a very hard time on second floor applications. And you're taking what is extremely prime location away from a possible retail outlet. JOYCE: I think the problem that we've got and in terms of dealing with Benchmark clearly the Town's making a statement in where it choses to go. But the difficulty is that Benchmark applied for that conditional use permit before they got into the whole thing. spent a great deal of money .......'?(drop in voice) Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 17 COMMISSION.MEMBER: can judge on. 1 - But I don't think that's something we DRAGER: Are you saying that they're better advised than your client, then? JOYCE: If you're dealing with the advice of ( ?) counsel we weren't retained at that point so I'll.deal with..... DRAGER: Wherever they got their advice. JOYCE Wherever they didn't get their advice. They were unaware of the problem until the week before the closing. At that point they got their advice from the Town in the form of a business liscense, so maybe I am saying that they did receive poor advice, from Town; they acted on it, and now the Town's saying that 'we're going to penalize you for acting on our advice.' COMMISSION MEMBER: The legal question really isn't ours to judge. Really. We're just on a conditional use, and.as I say, you're in probably the heaviest foot traffic that is available in this town, and contrary, obviously to horizon- tal zoning, there were circumstances that I thought made Benchmark situation workable and actually a better situation. TODD: But there have been prime retail shops in the village that have been six or seven shops in the five years I've lived here, that it might have been here better to have been a real estate office. I don't know. I think we're starting to fool with the market when we start to say, 'well, we're going to have this percentage of shops,_ and this percentage. of real estate offices, and so on', and I think (interrupted) we ought to take it out of the ordinance if we're going to take that stance on that. JOYCE. I think that's our point. Is if'it's not going to be allowed, to do it now, in retrospect on this particular case, is just completely unfair; The . of her Point, made (interrupted) DRAGER: W to be in there. They permit as required by that's retrospect. . along with the point that you just hat retrospect? They have no right didn't come get a conditional use the ordinance. So I don't think W iBrandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 18 JOYCE: We can go round and round on the issue of advice. DRAGER: We can go backwards, if you'd like to. JOYCE: If I could again deal with the point that I've just made, with respect to other retail shops, if this shop were capable; I should point out that the interest alone, on a .loan for this particular shop, we're talking about 500 square feet, just the interest alone to finance that, is something in the order of $1800 a month. And there is a problem that is an economic difficulty that the Town is going to have deal with. The property did not turn over and keep getting sold because it was a viable retail outlet. Now, that's something that you have to take into consideration. If we sit here and we say to the Town this is going to be a retail use but it can't practically be a retail use because not enough income can be generated from it to pay for the space. What's the alternative to that? To have it open up and close down every year? I don't think that that's realistically what you're looking for. I think you're looking for stable traffic and stable organizations that can generate traffic in the course of day to day business downtown. TODD: Just as a matter of interest, was the property purchased or was the lease purchased. JOYCE: The property was purchased. TODD: Is that building condominiumized? GARTON; Yes. JOYCE: The condominium was purchased. The price for that was approximately $165,000. It was an additional $30,000 plus, the figures are in there, that were for inventory that was mandatory in order to..comply with the property settlement. DRAGER; I will entertain a motion. TODD: I move approval of the request for a conditional use permit by the Brandess /Cadmus Real Estate, Incorporated. DRAGER; The motion on this for approval. Is there a second? For the sake of getting out .a vote on it, I will Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 19 it. The motion made and seconded we approve. JOYCE: Just one last point of discussion. I sense that you in particular, and I don't know who .......(faint) and I'd be curious to know .....(faint) DRAGER: Talking to me? JOYCE: Yes. DRAGER: First of all, it's about 6:30. Secondly, I've been'since here since noon. COMMISSION MEMBER: Ed's that ( ? ?) with all the other attorneys. DRAGER: No, maybe I am (interrupted, laughter) I think probably the presentation, not the way it was done, some of the things that were said. JOYCE: I can sense that you (faint) DRAGER: I don't thank. I think the way I.think about the way I things are presented.here are not a matter -of public record. mumbled back and forth. DRAGER: We have a motion, we have a second to approve. MILLS: I would like to make a statement. I feel that the intent of the zoning ordinance is, has been said, and is basically in effect, because of Bridge Street. being the way it is, and the Lodge Promenade, Lionshead I think is having its problems, and we are, have always dealt with breathing new retail space., life, into Lionshead to get it to live. I think that Mark has been here long enough that he, I feel especially because he is in the real estate business, should know the hoops that he has to go through to make any kind of a change. I mean, if he wants to add a dog run at his house; I think, if he is tuned, and I believe that he is, to the Vail scene, knows that he has to go to Design Review. And I am very much against it because it is a real estate office in an area that I feel should be retail space and I don't feel that your case is justified when you speak of not knowing what you had to do. Brandess /Cadmus 24 October 1978 Page 20 JOYCE: I guess the obvious thing I would like to add, to say to that is, I think that we've made the presentation and have set forth to you what-we thought the issues were. We can't obviously make up your minds and we're not in a position to try to put you in a position where we can force you to come (faint and missed)....all I guess we have been saying is that if you are sticking to the criteria within which you are allowed to present yourself upon making a decision on a conditional use permit request, then I think that's all we would ask. GARTON: Just to add to Sandy. There is no doubt that we in considering conditional uses in CCI are very strongly leaning on an early line and that the purpose of the CCI ordinance which says maintain the unique character of Vail. And there's no doubt that that gets objective. And we've hashed it over and over and over. We've talked about redevelopment in CCI, about remodeling, we have tried to come up with the perfect zoning solution for these things as they come up in CCI, and the only thing we've come back to is treating everything. Now we're even, every change in CCI, any remodeling, addition, enlargement, enclosure of a . balcony, is treated as a conditional use, to give the Planning Commission the ability, the opportunity to review everything individually. And it does get sub- jective. That's all there is to it. And it's something in each of our individual heads and all of our collec- tive heads about what that unique character of CCI is and what we think is good about it and what we're trying to perpetrate. DRAGER; The call to question. All those in favor of granting the motion for the Brandess /Cadmus conditional use permit indicate by raising their hands. All those opposed. We have 5 opposed and 1 in.favor. Mr. Todd is in favor. As you well know, you Have 10 days in which to appeal to the Town Council. JOYCE: Thanks for your time. AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 14, 1978 WORK SESSION 1:00 P.M'. Joint Session with Town Council PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M. 1.) Public Discussion of Air Quality Program. 2.) Piper - Request for Setback Variance New Residence Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdiv. 3.) Elmore Parcels - Zoning Recommendations 4.) Pintkowski Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow Operation of Orange Juice business in Crossroads that will make deliverys. 5.) Jay Peterson - Request for Parking Variance Wedel Inn - Coffee Shop 6.) Wheeler - Request for vacation of Lot Lines between Lots 3 and 4, Lots 4 and 5, Lots 6 and 7 Block 1, Bighorn Subdiv. 3rd Addition, Amended Plat. MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF 14 NOVEMBER 1978 Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Ed Drager Gerry White Pam Garton Sandy Mills. Ron Todd Absent: Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Allen Gerstenberger Jim Rubin Dennis Murphy The meeting was brought to order and Mr. Drager advised the Commission that Mrs. Barbara Mooney was present to tell the Commission of a problem in her neighborhood. The street where the Webster House is being built is still impassable. She wants to know how much longer this problem will exist. She was under the impression that an agreement had been made with the Town of Vail that this street would be repaired and in use by now. Allen Gerstenberger told Mrs. Mooney that he understands this street will be repaired by ski season and should be useable in the next week or two. Mr. Gerstenberger will check into this further and advise Mrs. Mooney if there will be a delay in the street repairs for any reason. The first item on the agenda was discussion of the Air Quality Program by Dennis J. Murphy, Environmental Health Officer for the Town of Vail. The first item discussed was restaurant emissions. Dennis and the Commission agreed after discussion that the V- Griddle (a grill with a grease catch on every griddle) would be the best installation to cut down on restaurant emissions. However, the Commission asked. Dennis to make a comparison study between the Afterburner and the V- Griddle. They also discussed the possibility of enacting a retrofit program for restaurants with the install- ations of V- Griddles and that this should probably be done within the next .Year. Fugitive dust was discussed including determining the least amount of sand that can be used and st, °1 "obtain optimum driver safety. The Commission was also in favor of .0,1 ng ire "curbing and sidewalks phasing their construction along with` the work that is being done on the malls. It was also decided that a watering program along with making the contractor responsible for cleaning the street along his building site could eliminate alot of the dust from construction sites. Fireplaces were discussed. Underfire air and a voluntary program where the public will not use their fireplaces during days of high pollution were felt to be two good controls of fireplace emissions. Dennis then discussed the Fireplace Ordinance which places limitations on the number of fireplaces that can be constructed. The Commission felt the section on no fireplaces being built in units of 900 sq. ft. or less should be eliminated and that it just should state " only one fireplace per unit." When Dennis Pg. 2 - Minutes - PEC 11/14/78 • stated that he will be providing an Annual Report on Air Quality in the Gore Valley, Gerry White suggested that he make quarterly reports rather than annually. The Commission also suggested that there be a better definition on limiting fireplaces. within restaurants, bars and restaurant/bar combinations. Gerry White also suggested that flyers be prepared to give out to the lodges to give to their guests, requesting they refrain from using their cars while in Vail and explaining the free public transportation available throughout Vail and LionsHead. In regard to auto emissions, Ron Todd felt the Police Department should be requested to do the checks on "smoking cars." Pam Garton made the Motion directing staff to continue with the air pollution control strategies as discussed and as noted in the memorandum of 9 November 1978, and that staff pursue those items outlined during discussion. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Gerry White made the Motion to recommend approval of the Fireplace Ordinance to the.Town Council as discussed, with the elimination of the section that states "no fireplaces in units of 900 sq. ft. or less," and further delineation of the limitation of fireplaces in restaurants, bars, and restaurant /bar combinations. Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Ed Drager had to leave to attend another meeting, Ron Todd is chairing the meeting. • The second item on the agenda, Piper. - Request for a Setback: Variance for a new residence on Lot B,.Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Duane Piper is representing the owner, Mr. Glen Bond. He explained the site plan to the Commission and stated this request is made because of a steep hillside on the property. After further discussion, Sandy Mills made the Motion to approve the request for a Front Setback Variance for the residence on Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision pursuant to the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated 9 November 1978. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Number 3 on the agenda, Elmore Parcels - Zoning Recommendations. The Commission discussed the staff recommendations and Mr. Elmore then addressed the Commission. He stated that as far as Parcel. "B ", he agrees with the staff recommendation for Residential Primary /Secondary.: On Parcel "A" he stated he would like 12 units per acre with a bonus of 4 units if there are long -term rental units built (employee housing). He also requests that Parcel "C" not be designated as Greenbelt at this time to give him the latitude to work with this parcel before any final decision is made. Pam Garton stated that in discussion with.Council during work session, it was brought out that this land was zoned by the county for 5.5 units per acre. This discussion led them to the conclusion that Residential Cluster would be preferable here with 6 units per acre with the bonus of 3 units . per acre if long -term housing is provided. They felt these were better numbers. Mr. Elmore doesn't think the county zoning is.applicable since he has never asked the county for a rezoning of the property. He feels it ,lust would not be practical to build just 9 units per acre. With the present market this would not be feasible. Pg. 3 - Minutes - PEC 11/14/78 Mr. White stated that he feels there should be a break in the large developments and high density development, that low density is really required here. Mr. Elmore does not agree. Ron Todd 'felt that 9 units per acre is reasonable, that you couldn't really build luxury units right on the Frontage Road and that with the bonus for long -term rentals this would give him 13 units per acre. He supports the 9 units plus bonus for employee housing. He made the Motion to approve the recommended zoning for Parcel "A" at 9 units /RDMF with a 50% bonus for employee housing (long -term housing). Ed Drager seconded the Motion. The Commission voted 1 (Ron Todd) for approval, 4 opposed, the Motion - was defeated. Gerry White made the Motion to recommend Parcel "A" be zoned Residential Cluster with 6 units per acre allowable, plus 3 units per.acre (50% bonus for long -term housing). Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Ron Todd made the Motion to recommend that Parcel "B" be zoned Residential Primary /Secondary. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Ron Todd made the Motion to recommend that Parcel "C" be zoned ' Residential Cluster with 50% bonus for employee (long -term) housing. Ed Drager seconded the Motion. 1 vote (Ron Todd) for approval, 4 opposed, the Motion was.defeated. Gerry White made the Motion to recommend that Parcel "C° be zoned Greenbelt /Open Space. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion. Mr. Elmore interjected that there is already a duplex on Parcel "C ". It was explained that this would remain as a non - conforming structure but if it was destroyed or removed, it could not be rebuilt under this zoning. The Commission voted. 4 in favor, Ron Todd voted in opposition. The Motion passed. It was brought out that the Town Council will hear this at their next meeting. Pam Garton made a Motion to amend the zoning recommendation on Parcel "A" making it an RC designation with an upper limit that would give. Mr. Elmore the additional units denied on Parcel "C" which would be 3 reqular units plus the bonus for employee (long -term) housing. The Motion was seconded. by Ron Todd. The Commission voted uanimous approval for this addendum to the Motion on Parcel "A ". The 4th item on the agenda, Pintkowski - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an orange.juice.business`:in Crossroads That will make deliveries. . Mr. Louis Pintkowski addressed the Commission. He explained his request for the Conditional Use Permit and stated that his location.is on the 4th floor of Crossroads, a very poor location for a retail store. He wishes to occupy a combination of office and storage space. He stated that t his delivery vehicle would be on the streets from. 3 a.m. to 9 a.m., so they Pg. 4 - Minutes - PEC 11/14/78 would not be out during the heavy traffic hours. He answered Pam Garton's question on the number of employees, stating there will be two employees. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that Mr. Pintkowski has checked with the Environmental Health Officer and the Building.Official and they have ok',d his plans. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve Louis Pintkowski's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an orange ,juice business in Crossroads that will make deliveries subject to the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated 9 November 1978. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The Commission then went to item six on the agenda, John Wheeler - Request for vacation of Lot Lines between Lots 3 and 4, Lots 4 and 5, Lots 6 and 7 Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Amended Plat. John Wheeler explained his request for vacation of lot lines because of a difficult access situation to the property. The Commission was shown the site plan delineating the natural split of the property. After further discussion, a Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the vacation of Lot Lines between Lots 3 and 4, Lots 4 and 5. Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Amended Plat subject to the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated 9 November 1978. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The fifth item on the agenda, Jay Peterson - Request for Parking.` Variance for expansion of the coffee shop in the Wedel Inn. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law represents Mary Hay.good in her request for a Parking Variance for the expansion of the New Orleans Coffee Shop in the Wedel Inn. He stressed the fact that the coffee shop is in a Public. Accommodation District,'just steps away from CC1 where the Town has felt that pedestrianization of the area is important and that there should be less' vehicular traffic. He stated there is no conversion problem here as the space has been used as storage space 7 months out of the year. Although at one time these were accommodation units, they are no longer desirable lodge rooms because of their location. After further discussion, Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the Parking Variance for the New Orleans Coffee Shop expansion in the Wedel Inn according to the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated 9 November 1978 and with the stipulation that this variance be treated similarly to those given in CCl with a fee to be paid by the applicant into the Parking Fund. Ron Todd seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Jim Rubin asked that a work session be set to review the Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on Tuesday November 28, 1978 at 8 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 P.M. • MEMORANDUM • TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 NOVEMBER 1978 .RE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW RESIDENCE ON LOT 8, BLOCK 1, GORE CREEK SUBDIVISION. DESCRIPTION_ OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Duane Piper has requested a variance of 15 -feet on the front of his property so that a garage for a new residence can be constructed 5- feet from the front property line. The reason for this variance request is that the developer would like to stay clear of a steep downhill slope in the middle of the property. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community`Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are two houses built on either side of Lot 8 and neither of them would be impacted by this variance request. The pavement on the cui de sac is approximately 35 -feet from the property °line of Lot 8; and since there are only 4 lots served by the cul de sac, it is unlikely the pavement will ever be extended to its originally intended location. This would allow for a distance of about 40 -feet from the edge of the pavement to the proposed garage. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the natural topography of the site, it would be necessary to-disturb a steep hillside in order to place the garage and the house further back on the Pg. 2 Memo - Setback Variance /Piper 11 -9 -78 lot. This would be contrary to the objectives of the Design Review Section of the Zoni..ng Ordinance. 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 on these factors. Such other factors and.criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance: No other factors are deemed applicable. ;Findin s: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the E • 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 variance is warranted for one.or more of the following reasons The strict or literal interpretation, and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty . or unnecessary physical hardship in- E consistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable - to the site of the vari ance that . do 'not' apply'generally to other properties in the same zone. We recommend approval of this variance request. We'feel there is a E hardship and a practical difficulty caused by the.natural terrain on the lot, and brining the. garage forward would mi:nim.ize,the amount of disturbance done to the site. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 November 1978 RE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOUIS PINTOWSKI TO ALLOW OPERATION OF AN ORANGE JUICE DELIVERY BUSINESS IN CROSSROADS EAST. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Louis Pintowski is requesting a Conditional Use to use office and storage space on the 4th floor of the Crossroads East building for a business that will deliver freshly squeezed orange juice to lodges and restaurants in Vail. A Conditional Use is required by Section 18.28.040 I of the Zoning Ordinance since this operation is not entirely being conducted within the Crossroads building. We feel this is a permitted use in this location since in the ,Purpose Section of the Commercial Service Center Districts it is stated . . "the Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities servicing the town." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Develop- . ment recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.based upon the following factors: l Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use.on development objectives of the Town. We feel this is a positive service.that is being supplied to visitors of the Town of Vail. 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. There should be no adverse impacts on these factors. 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. Pg. 2 Memo - CUP - Pintowski 11 -9 -78 f E i Only one cards being used for this operation. A Parking Variance E is not required because most of the space that he is using is for storage and the conversion of Tudisco's into retail space has given this building a surplus of parking spaces. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is.to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. • • This space is in a location of the Crossroads East building that was previously used by a T.V. repair company and is really not suitable for either retail or office space. We feel this would be a good use for. this space. Such other factors and criteria as.the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No other factors are deemed applicable: The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. No Environmental Impact Report is required. Findings and Recommendations: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings; That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditons under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. MEMORANDUM • TO PLANNING.& ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 NOVEMBER 1978 RE PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE NEW ORLEANS COFFEE SHOP IN THE WEDEL INN. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law, representing Mary Haygood, has requested a 2 -car parking variance to allow the addition of 270 sq..ft. of useable floor space for the New Orleans Coffee Shop located in the Wedel Inn. The New Orleans Coffee Shop has been givenZoning approval and a Building Permit for 225 sq. ft. of restaurant space. This space was previously two rooms in the Wedel Inn which would allow for the conversion of 225 sq. ft. .without a parking variance. The parking variance would permit a greenhouse addition of 132 sq. ft. and a redesign of the interior space resulting in an additional 138 sq. ft.: of useable restaurant space. The subject property is located in a Public Accommodation Zone District where a maximum of 20% of the total GRFA can be used for accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments. With the proposed addition, the total square footage occupied by accessory uses would be 15.8 %. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The present Wedel Inn is a pre - existing non - conforming use in that it does not presently have sufficient parking to meet.its present requirement. Although the Wedel Inn is not in Commercial Core 9 a e I, it 7s in an area where we want to restrict rather than encourage additional parking spaces. Most other • Pg. 2 Memo - Coffee Shop Wedel Inn /Parking Variance 11 -9 -78 • projects surrounding the Wedel Inn have been granted Parking Variances. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary-to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The New Orleans Coffee House is located by the Covered Bridge Bus Stop which is primarily a pedestrian area. Similar to other pedestrian areas in Commercial Core I, the desire is to limit both cars and parking spaces. The additional restaurant space being requested is not in a location that is likely to generate an additional parking demand. 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 impacts on these factors. • Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no additional factors that we deem applicable. Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. 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 one or more of the following reasons The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship 'in- consistent with the objectives of this title. Pg. 3 1� Memo - Coffee Shop Wedel Inn /Parking Variance. .11 -9 -78 There are no exceptions 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 strict or literal interpretation. and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. We recommend approval of this.Variance request with the stipulation that money be contributed to the Parking Fund for the 2 -car variance being requested. We feel that this addition is permitted by the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance except for the parking requirement. Additional parking is not desirable in this area, and probably will not.be actually needed for the proposed expansion.. IuJU1L7.1ki[Ilia I� • To FROM E DATE RE • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMl1NIV DEVELOPMENT 9 NOVEMBER 1978 ELMORE ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS The following is our recommendation for the Zoning of the recently annexed Elmore Parcels. This recommendation has been made after speaking to the:applicant and taking the preliminary recommendations from the Planning and Environmental.Commission. No. of Approximate No. Proposed Proposed Approx. Acres of Buildable Acres District No. of Units Parcel A (north of creek) 11.78 9 LDMF 130 units (with 50% increase for employee housing) Parcel B (south of creek) 50 20 R p/s 120 units Parcel C Lot 3 4 .4 GNOS (no new units) On Parcel A, a 50% increase in density would be permitted if the developer agrees to use that number of units for long term rental units for a period of not less than 20 years. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 NOVEMBER 1978 RE WHEELER VACATION OF LOT LINES BETWEEN LOTS 3 and 4, LOTS 4 ,AND 5, AND LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION THIRD ADDITION AMENDED John Wheeler has requested that the above lot lines be vacated in order to facilitate.the placement of buildings on a hilly, treed area just east of the Ridgeview:Condominiums in Bighorn. All of the subject lots are located.in a Residential` Cluster Zone. We recommend approval of this request. We feel that purpose of the Residential Cluster Zone District is to permit better site utilization through.a planned concept for a larger parcel of land rather than individual treatment of seperate lots, We feel that the vacation of the lot lines will accomplish this. • • f� 40 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 28, 1978 WORK SESSION 8:00 A.M. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance - Review and Discussion PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M. 1.) Cornice Building /Mike Palmer Real Estate request for Conditional Use Permit to enlarge office space. 2.) Tyrolean Inn - Request for Distance Between Buildings. Variance .3.) Vail. Associates, Inc.. Request for Conditional Use Permit to put trailer in Maintenance Area. 4.) Sheehan /Thomas - Request for Building'Bulk Variance Bighorn - Unpla.tted 44 Units', 5.) Amendments to Zoning Ordinance 6.) Approval of Minutes - 8/22, 9/12, 9/26, 10 /10,.10 /24. 11/14/78 ■ MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Meeting of Novembe r 28, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Pam Garton Sandy Mills Ron Todd Ed Drager Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Allen Gerstenberger Jim Rubin Number one on the agenda, Request for Conditional Use Permit to ex and Mike Palmer Real Estate Office in the Cornice Buildin,. This matter was postponed at the request of the applicant until the December 12, 1978 meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission. Roger Tilkemeier and Jim Morgan.were not present for this matter. Gerry White made the Motion to postpone the request for Conditional Use Permit by the Mike Palmer Real Estate Office expansion in the Cornice Building at the applicant's request to the Planning & Environmental Commission meeting on December 12, 1978. Seconded by Ron Todd and unanimously approved. The second item, Tyrolean Inn - Re guest for Distance Between Buildings Variance. Jim Morter, Architect, explained the plans for this proposed addition to the Tyrolean Inn. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law, representing the applicant, went through the technical aspects of the Zoning Ordinance with the PEC. If this variance is not approved, the addition would have to be built four floors in height and would not fit into the neighborhood as well as the plans as proposed (Parking below grade and another 3 floors). Gerry White questioned Mr. Peterson on the parking. Mr. Peterson explained that the addition will have 7 condo units, and there will be 19 covered parking spaces provided, 13 of which will be reserved for the condominium owners and the rest will be parking for the restaurant. However, Mr. Peterson feels strongly that people should not be encouraged to drive to the restaurant as the Tyrolean Inn is so close to the pedestrian Village. Pam Garton asked whether any of the condos will be long -term rentals? Jay Peterson said no, but that in the downstairs of the Tyrolean Inn, there will be dormitory rooms to house some of the Inn's employees. After further discussion, Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the request for Distance Between Buildings Variance to permit an addition to the Tyrolean Inn as outlined in the Department of Community Development memorandum dated November 24, 1975. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion. Gerry White added that he would ask that the principals not return in the future for a Parking Variance. Pg. 2 Minutes - Planning $& Environmental Commission 11/28/78 The Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on the agenda, Vail Associates, Inc. — Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow the placing of a trailer on their Maintenance Facility Site. Phil Ordway was present to represent this request from Vail Associates. The purpose of this request is their need to have this additional space for offices to house personnel. There will be 7 employees using the office space during; regular business hours who are part of the construction group that will be re- located to Beaver Creek in the spring. Vail Associates will agree to an expiration date as a condition to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. These employees will be working on Vail projects during this winter, and it makes it advantageous to have them in close proximity to the Village and LionsHead. Mr. Ordway explained that he can't give an exact timetable for putting the trailer at Beaver Creek, but they intend to relocate it sometime next spring. The trailer will be located in a corner of the maintenance facility lot. Sandy Mills asked whether they had tried to obtain office space in Town so they would not have to add to the congestion on this site? Mr. Ordway explained that cost is a big factor. They would only need the space for 4 or 5 months and would have to sign a lease for a year for any space available in Town. He explained that the VA staff has grown to the point where their offices in LionsHead will not hold anymore people. Sandy Mills asked whether it might be possible for Vail Associates to come back again for this type of Conditional Use Permit under similar circumstances? Mr. Ordway stated they would not have asked for this CUP if it had not been a temporary situation. There will be approximately 2500 sq. ft. of office space available in LionsHead when they move personnel to Beaver Creek. Pam Garton asked whether VA will be bringing in a landscape plan for this site to DRB soon. Jim Rubin said that DRB is scheduled to see this plan. Pam added that she feels the fence around the site is not adequate and is in really bad shape. Mr. Ordway assured the Commission that the landscaping and berming will be done as approved by the Design Review Board and as stated in the Heavy Service District requirements. Gerry White felt that perhaps the approval of this CUP should be conditional on their cleaning up the site right away. Mr. Ordway feels the timing is bad for any early landscaping or thorough clean -up on site. However, with the completion of the maintenance building, much of the materials sitting Pg. 3 Minutes - Planning & Environmental Commission 11/29/79 outside will be moved inside, and this will take care of much of the problem. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve Vail Associates, Inc. request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow placing a trailer in the corner of their maintenance facility site with a deadline for relocating the trailer to Beaver Creek of May 15, 1979 and as set forth in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated November 24, 1978. Seconded by Ron Todd. Gerry White asked that an addendum be made to the Motion stating that the site will be cleaned up as soon as the maintenance building is completed and that material which is stored outside will be stored in the building. The Commission voted 4 for approval, Sandy Mills opposing and Roger Tilkemeier abstaining because of conflict of interest. The next item, Sheehan Thomas - Request for Building Bulk Variance for 44 unit project known 'as' " Cburts-ide" 'in Bighorn Unplatted. Craig Snowdon, Architect, is representing the owners of . Courtside. He explained that they own 9.15 acres, 52 acres of which are in Moderate High Hazard Avalanche Zones. They are requesting this variance to allow a building length of 120 feet, and a diagonal dimension of 134 feet. He showed the plans to the Commission. He wants to keep the buildings low and construct them outside the Hazard area. There are to be three building groups which will require this Variance. The project will be phased and the first phase will be for 9 units. Pam Garton advised the Commission that Design Review Board has seen the plans and encouraged the owners to come in for this variance as this will allow them to stay out of the Hazard Zone. There is a proposed land trade considered with Walter Kirsch (Vail restriction for tennis courts to be is not buildable because of the mud but there has been no commitment as will be built. (or land lease) being. Racquet Club), with a deed built on the acreage that slide area (Hazard Zone), to the time when the courts The owners ( Sheehan /Thomas ) stated.that in regard to the drainage situation and water flow, they are planning to drain the water off and construct holding ponds. They are working with Gingery & Associates on this project. Pg. 4 . Minutes -- Planning & Environmental Commission 11/28/78 The Commission members advised the owners that a land lease arrangement would be preferable since they would have to retain ownership of all the land to make sure they can develop the number of units planned for the project. They would have to come back for subdivision if the land is sold outright. Gerry White asked about.their plans for landscaping? The owners stated that the drainage area will be landscaped. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the proposed Amendments to the Zoning. Ordinance and if this request should come under the present Zoning Ordinance or the amended Zoning Ordinance and Ron Todd felt that the Commission must base the decision today on the present Zoning Ordinance. This seemed to be the consensus of opinion. Roger Tilkemeier asked Craig Snowdon.what the consequences would be if this variance request is refused? Craig stated that they could drop 3 units and could change the.site plan, but they want to keep out of the Moderate Hazard area and retain the trees on site. . Ron Todd made the Motion to approve the Building Bulk Variance for the project known as "Courtside" located in an unplatted area of Bighorn and as set forth in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated November 24, 1978. Pam Garton seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimous approval. Number 5 on the Agenda, Amendments to Zoning Ordinance. The Amendments to the Sections of the Zoning. Ordinance that will be heard by Council were discussed by staff and the Commission. Jim Rubin also advised the Commission that there is an error on page 336, HDMF which states that lodges are the only permitted use. This should be changed to add Multiple -- Family Residential Dwellings. Gerry White made the Motion to recommend the Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as discussed and as attached to these Minutes. be forwarded to the Town Council for their approval. Ron Todd seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. By Motion, the Commission approved the Minutes for the meetings of August 22, September 12, September 26, October 10, October 24 and November 14, 1978. Meeting adjourned 5 P.M. LI I r I O '� H F N O N �T G) 41 N 41 O 9 .c rd r, ya H 0 " I, N 7 W H O NH +' N�.w cd u U] k r N Cl 41 G H 3 c..fl a E u} N � y •H r.{ fa F. J-. C` •r! � C3 J wl ,!' J 'n N .Y f. -C N N ""' S7 Fa is � ,•! [n r-{ If. N Q N weF�aNS �,�s -orca q s v v � ai.F O 9 F t w U, r-{ 'n J; $ N y .N .O •rt ... (W v .d N U�U �s U •ri .� Ci .� •ra w In [.; 1'_ N rf •r/ I:i C ..i •r1 t.7 Si ) ,y is '7 •C N y O O M 0p M L H H H H A {s i C N :y N m0 N w HA{ H c 0 I 44 a m N N v •�' mom' No- f ri r3 +a N 3 S? F N N ID a { cd ri N Y Cl N C� 41 o mx k, N ID .stiu ?C T) � q +s .C7 N, o U N N F xi ° H d y N {. . .NC Ij � "o v1E �J •r {V: N tl NwN S` N y rt tp QI -zl U ci 'd .Q .H co u� cm n1 M u^ C r 1 r -.ti � a•• i•- � N 61 F. 0 o ri% CO (nD to O O o N � N CV N w 00 H H rv4 b ' U N 4 N v I ra-0 ^ 1 E rC'i O O O G) d+ N Z In Fa .� N +1,4 Hq r{ H H 00 I-7 07 00 H w N N O [C C F N O •H A N N v 0 +s N 3s .-• 41 U Q>O•ri sr A•z3 rr N ID 4 U V) N U �, ta] H N N N Wi O co Cs, TI PN O v d cc) • +- J-+ J F+ N COl G N F Q r H 1 4.' W O (O fq v O U a te+a.•O O k N . N M H r-I N I[') E. 's SN R •O rG { ID P 00 0 J" t- S ti} .O k 0 C H M N A CC y O {, G Co co M •r, > N g •O - +L C P.b z Cl IV N E m co ° 4 •.i 5 .9 ) v v aa-+ m n NaN Y °1 t >.H c • u > i +O ' v m s w P O N N - A. o u: tr N g ' N a; r H }• N .• , r i w f E O YC oHV O o < N. w oG 14 N N Id4uF N N N A OIn O A t6 U ms's e4 u w r 0ON 00 .O ,E, O 7; ++ N N a D ,-` •-< Y U tL .0 N C C �y Vl M J N H w N R-O N r7 N *s w ID J 23 V +' It - - UNom A 0 N C H N G o ., N O sc i y .{3 O tG iFFN � t r •rf 00 u � N WN Uw�� P N R � J A }O y 1 . A VLN rlf O C : N .1 M rn O H C v N N w P cN 0 'cY .r{ rt V H A { +N H 6 N --Ysa : . 9 •-H 1F 1 .r w A C H ) 0N a (D C Fr , F H W k A t M N • '.SG •C •rH i•-tN + nM .A H 'O y-s a�+w 4 r-1 ) N V) N •Fy :j ^ 'N T O r � 0 H N (N A O R r•1 V N 1 v C V s rV'O X , y . + fU �N ID N e CO O Id k f O N W P. p 'u H { rO e V) ID V y P . ��H w W co II , -Z Lb F, it (O SC I, .1 N �. N M N a O i i N N r•1 .. n N A a N o �..• • i O Pv 2 V] s y H r, O O A 4' 0 O (1 U i M In a N , : ..-i q y .'-c^rA 'Co R n L .{ n0 •w l � O N F v) O r;• W - V + + y N d' ffl k t C 41 V) � ' 'N b c c Cl) N d U O 0 .j •9 U y - ID 00 cl :{ C i l H + >E ? ' •F'~ o R m o R r•, o U ry O r{ 3 aO 4a a U O 0 {O, kH N x 'N: N N ' vr u+ , Cl N If U O 8 C G . 'V7 N N H U + tD d H O bb 0 J N O N O H 7 T0) VN 7 GN i;. I a - :U 4O O ••;¢ w .s , � N [N 3 H .-'Vr°3 I Id H Cf D •C H O •firx , XCa N H < , Cdc.d . O '�1 iS ' _..< • rO il G O 1• (> V O 6 00 S Co •�1 w •C { { W rN O O E .• : N r. t E I If a 0 H O WE+ •N r- O + N .-s 1 : ."b A H u v, O N A .-G z' N . v C N Ltr7 >O ; + +• w S.N H a O a . u; rFN3 R O {q () C n 41 N El N v r7 i U ' . O W �H. w p F, FN1 O E {s _ CA M n 'H" I , , C H U O{s o N u F, l) HF,i U U N F, F 0o Cl {- a C M U m s. r m w n W � j e: � .X C M UO 1 • • b0 Fq m •ri W cd G P, ✓ cV, fW/j n w {.a P (!1 N U) £ vR,i w w U1 r^ c�.�7 fH-7 I• � � 1. H .. to o its-' _ w O 00 M d' 0 "i m O £Na W W N 3 rbr} 1-i V1 Q p 1, o •O o O O 0 -4 ? O N O ..r 0U N ° v (O , m H .1 H d [ d O v F N N m id M H U wO U U N N 07 fi ti M 11 co W W W w w 00 U) 1 Yl H co H ,4 rI 00 C y •r{ r•i N H � •H O N V 0 o b m N y � N . N i{ V O v •,4 I r I O '� H F N O N �T G) 41 N 41 O 9 .c rd r, ya H 0 " I, N 7 W H O NH +' N�.w cd u U] k r N Cl 41 G H 3 c..fl a E u} N � y •H r.{ fa F. J-. C` •r! � C3 J wl ,!' J 'n N .Y f. -C N N ""' S7 Fa is � ,•! [n r-{ If. N Q N weF�aNS �,�s -orca q s v v � ai.F O 9 F t w U, r-{ 'n J; $ N y .N .O •rt ... (W v .d N U�U �s U •ri .� Ci .� •ra w In [.; 1'_ N rf •r/ I:i C ..i •r1 t.7 Si ) ,y is '7 •C N y O O M 0p M L H H H H A {s i C N :y N m0 N w HA{ H c 0 I 44 a m N N v •�' mom' No- f ri r3 +a N 3 S? F N N ID a { cd ri N Y Cl N C� 41 o mx k, N ID .stiu ?C T) � q +s .C7 N, o U N N F xi ° H d y N {. . .NC Ij � "o v1E �J •r {V: N tl NwN S` N y rt tp QI -zl U ci 'd .Q .H co u� cm n1 M u^ C r 1 r -.ti � a•• i•- � N 61 F. 0 o ri% CO (nD to O O o N � N CV N w 00 H H rv4 b U N 4 N M ra-0 E rC'i O O O G) d+ N Z In Fa .� N +1,4 Hq r{ H 00 I-7 07 00 H w N N O [C C F N O N N v 0 +s N 3s .-• 41 O O co PN cc) +- J-+ J F+ H N (O fq {O O O . N M H r-I N I[') Ly {y H a] 00 ti} k 0 H H 00 O W W Co co M N N H N H C) co I cc Izr V L' r, N •.i 5 .9 to A. o u: tr N N M 4 H N N rn ` w co r� oHV b o < N ^ac Id4uF p °n ms's e4 u w w a o 00 O 7; ++ N v U ..4 .ya N O 00 V) C' •rf 00 O - 00 N N .0 rn 'cY rn .; co H 4 r-1 1 to O N M U 'N to CD � .-1 � H H r•1 v O C0 U] (Oi^ (9 O CO M p0 M O N k f O SA CJ p p 'u H H A 0y L) W co V) 00 Lb F, it (O SC I, .1 N �. N M N ri p] O i i N N r•1 H 4K tb OC �..• • i V] .. y H r, O O U A 4' 0 O (1 U r> N H .{ n0 U N 0 (P I- H p ID r;• d' ffl 00 f0 00 cl m fat c� R m r•, 1 -, ry i r{ O {O, I r I O '� H F N O N �T G) 41 N 41 O 9 .c rd r, ya H 0 " I, N 7 W H O NH +' N�.w cd u U] k r N Cl 41 G H 3 c..fl a E u} N � y •H r.{ fa F. J-. C` •r! � C3 J wl ,!' J 'n N .Y f. -C N N ""' S7 Fa is � ,•! [n r-{ If. N Q N weF�aNS �,�s -orca q s v v � ai.F O 9 F t w U, r-{ 'n J; $ N y .N .O •rt ... (W v .d N U�U �s U •ri .� Ci .� •ra w In [.; 1'_ N rf •r/ I:i C ..i •r1 t.7 Si ) ,y is '7 •C N y O O M 0p M L H H H H A {s i C N :y N m0 N w HA{ H c 0 I 44 a m N N v •�' mom' No- f ri r3 +a N 3 S? F N N ID a { cd ri N Y Cl N C� 41 o mx k, N ID .stiu ?C T) � q +s .C7 N, o U N N F xi ° H d y N {. . .NC Ij � "o v1E �J •r {V: N tl NwN S` N y rt tp QI -zl U ci 'd .Q .H co u� cm n1 M u^ C r 1 r -.ti � a•• i•- � N 61 F. 0 o ri% CO (nD to O O o N � N CV N w 00 H H rv4 N N 4) F Y C A Y m.>•HNo E ] N ++ 0 0 0 "I L, (U V d O C > M dU F,•M N 0t7 (I 4J AJ,w N NoomF, C7 aU O d C)oVU 0 d d O U IV FG F 7) C •.i'H 4 a�.Hwd P.:-i •H P. N O Y 0 Q. `VL,H .a H O a c Y �pw w a� j o O k ti .O N W NH > ] 0 4 F, WH w •H E dNfyH N Z� O. 0 U a v c R q CC :d , (1) C C •H E U d fR 09 E waAVHv w i .H V H V U W •Ax a O R F W O C7 U 1 C) V) d V .7 N 1 W H O O F n q ra U 'q. 0 S Id b {N, U W a •H � 1 r•i H m 0 O u H F U w R 0 a A a o; 1 rn D el� 3. N Y 0. ro U N C n .0 m Zn V C N 4• k3 G 1 a N a CO N p 004 •H O q 4> G C, v Y v O V O N Oj O a rn H H .•.+ aw G9 'L7 41 H 0 WF,r Np N OdO W O d rs N F rJ ,.i H W 0 N c] W W a 0f. IOW dc1 NUU7NOA H O •H U7 C O N a£ •O Od O Om .GU e. cc C9 $. C, + a W•iwW F O R', c, H. +� F, G G C •H > •H N 4) U C N iA N N F. •H V ,.+ O 0 CA fn .•, d •., N U to P H 'a C W N 'cam Lk L: cl U A•0 N+> row 0 4 W P r•+Nu b N d O N Y U— E .fl U C '6 t w d E U O N HN O 0 OdN d0,v rl r vv c WWi o rev P� a.0 oH•M W ;,P NO3O U NA 'O >619�vN Nrn F Cl HU G b •8H ++> > [O p dW NNP C V+c+N v 0 C a.c 0 Cl, d 'a O 0 0 d�N CDO -w rd G 4- H 0 i> 4, U VI .+C > A O WHb9 C.H NO am O YW dN O ` cd W E 0> 0E+.+a W fn HNa. Pa .0 •r, Q U •H C O •,4 'p H N N O OH NCO eCWd �1ea W d >+ -iOEW woo o ko0 ci w OD H n .cl hL 1 - LG U W N 1- u•a I m•�+ o ❑ rnvro dl c N V7 A >. r V) d W - a) N r: N V) L• .H u d H r+ 9, O C Ul -H N C Id TY O d N N d -❑ C N :7 V N .H ,G zy 7 ••, d O N i w N n 3 W >" .0 N w Q, V. U W n M e H O N •M d) d N N •H C q 41 w. - d c C) 'S 0 •H A, d : co O d F -U .i H d .N d m W > . N o N U) - r 'n 0 +> d rJ 1, a L. d H w C F, ,> W q O :d ❑ �' dY C7 O N h N d v...voxN N�nWCdnH -.,� ^ W •H W d i� N II O •M 'O C +> O cd d U N C d) ri w •C W N F, 'O w t5.0 O .0 N +1 +> 'O C E V C w C C 0.+9 •H N N d O d) d O d .H o3 V1 O d d) ,O 0 ^ O L+ H U a Y fn N r+ W b 1 N t. 'ty 0 V W •H I! C 6) O^ d C :>, b d N N W N W O F+ > W N Cd N C a N ,C .H P N d d d N .d - Cd .H P v U W W '0 N H ^ C C H 23 U L d ++ O g d V Fr a Vj •H +> O U) O N d V) •H U 7 0 N >+ 6 66 > v 0 +> N •H T7 N B H N -H E N i= O I9 {9 N •H O W N H 0 d ++ •H N a d •N •s7 +� Y .0 r C rd U W N N E k N Q�E~damm'aN �mvoddp,3 A w N C N Cd a ro n o off a c •M N > •..� N'.H i d N 'O + H d •H U C U H Y N O N D N CS N H 7;L 61 rEi,��' •N D Y .M C L a W Y = V) O +> O �: O N N •M k O C •H N i> b R uN.HnHdv 5 d w O U -ice W Vhf "•H U w N C - •H C7 •H 4) o " C7 Y N O U � +>N1•. Pd to H O N i N P C" O q G' N .O d O•H •H d C O C C L C •H O U -H d 0 ro E r+ s E a) •H 4-r •H F, 0 W N H N O P H mvwNO ro N q H r` o 0 U P, dHaw W w a W N •H O U .0 .� C) •H A C O >d 1 b•W 0HT3t7O P•H EH d • W Ch3 .J O N •.i •H U) C •H sd N •• N a ri N N a C 97.0 N Ls d O C O P4 wuu,r. r0000Y ^vW HCA C) N T3 W N Vi b C N •H •M .7 H Ql a; N •-r s: U1 N r. N 'O d N A N a tl �1 •H C M +� W d 41 Ej d: •.•� V -O •H •" O N r: H C) N N W O U O•H W J'rJ +> W N •HH 'v P.N d 04 Nro N rn E C W •H +> tC F4 W G H U P, Id J a O 'rl W W w N H :: •H N V) Z7 LL O U TS C N N E> N- 0 cH V E U N' ] .0 O N H 10 N N^ O •M N •H Ei N O U 'fs q w d VJ d 41 H G7 .0 N W W F, N LL d O C cl 0 O F� . LG •.i N •H N .0 •H d d) d H • p OUP CrdC -ao 0,0 UN.0 00 EN-aH .0 >. CHN a -•H E E •H W N O N d A O u) N W o N O C d C .a i-, i� d H - P CJ +> OH W M •H fj N C. W N F: H rl m +.' W o P N C •N a w 0 w F, •H Id d •H'OOd .0Y A H N >,A dAH d0 C F, F+w N N a) C W W dJ N • O W O rd rH H O F d) d 0 U 4� U C r•, H (0 = Ul d N d 0 d C) 0 N U W H N U P. 7 W •H N •H Q d to d C H F+ H M N U E 0 U) W •H C i+ '� td Y •H ++ M NN V d)EG, N 'G dd0 -V, >C W.. alU RQ dw Q Off.. .s:E N•M CW N ;+ C N [O U V1. O P O E U U d -.0 q w E 0 m 0 0 c c N ➢' N C O O 4E, . O .�o ,i E ad V dU N N A " •N p I9 d d tL d) 'd OV) d d y ad N G> dW N O 'a ,= pW aC4l H H n '•i +-� s) •H U •H d di ) c v O 'a Fr W O C iv •O •M >, C N iJ •H d U 6) W N -P U) is +r N N U H w A w dE ) c d N •P r[ C .. a g A •H H r i, O O H • C O ¢ +- +N + O Q M . 4d 1 •H O v rad - d +) a U o N� 4� A 0 0 •� N U W> N N +•1N I rN 3 A C `H d i-+ O 4H `✓ i a zs d 0) z d) N O en .0 E O iVI) , rU }H i O HN D .H o w N a ✓LA U) C W 'O O Y O + d N .iH v.> O N Ov 'y d ONG Ud n. ir w dFaN ) A ou 0 Y O E J .. O d F, d g v u .H + >c ; H •H W v U 41 A F+ C H U L fFF �" n >O � +C d CL) A v >, V C 0 aO040 L+ W U P hu 0 d Cl) C CN.., 77C ,s' W •H C7 H C .,i NCa A N •^ O N N -v 4 tiUi . d E H.H a H E' W W N O U U W A 'M CW d rd + .H Nl c W rf it w N 0 •U W v R H d d Sd 'u " � U O a o U 0 U Mq V 4N > fO , N N 'q C d 0 Ci C E d) • GW ] N ftE •> N o .FdC O d c N n CG A H .N M iN •r O L O Q H r O O U O O co y ati7 ; U O W $ O w W O P LO +0 NQ oAW NN E v N M •N d H C W N H ✓ .H O O O Cd H r O H CY , q P U rtea + •ON COO 7 N `.% O : G 1 •H 'T :j 0 0 4, L. O V C nO a P .d O U N O W C .G�0 QHa 4 'C N .. •H '0 H .1. •'1 Fr G > Rr O r U a F+ 'a 0 Q4 G1 • .G a' C c c ,� tf O c p N }, N CJ ...s k d r-i CG N M U F, N i; is C r•r > H •ry a O �, a c )" H N r-I q 'o d G ,� o O d N G1 N d c G`-.'O .;y v G i O ti O N - 1 C>i Jy1 N P. R .•< C1 N .s: d dv, R H O E LO d U q f1 O1 - i.r .Id N N O O. - 1 d E •H d Cv N s. X ,-� ..r a Ir V 7 • � .O . N V .0 U ip +�W % � O W > F >w C i- r O 3 D Y OJ' - N ) U d CU co ,> d w 1 na ) > [: fU P (d G C :c a -ty : ,''4H r�1. rd d (P, ] c N W C Q) 0 974 , .W . .H W k4 A + A C CU - - •F. .+H F LO : +-r +O + d N U r+ •O c U cP ) ._ C .v -, H R. O u d W rW , ' ica . cq . C •C-N J E +Fi. + .W H •NO H 7 .r -< OO C d u k .H r' ..) F0: Y •N .+ r •M L7 r �.H . .H C fl � y O : d a .4 'J Y v 7.. Cs .H N O F, W O Id Cd N + •' L+1 . C, H l : Q C L .H N W U)•MO a1'UwV.v Is1 F. YM N O +� C U N, U •; O W Pw iU C'y'VR W .H U'6N Yr C U F N a. o d H d L r W droa� our H N S,w �a'OSN E -C d u •HF R V W'0 O R .,U 3,.0 C 0 NOS: 4, O W 3A 3 +¢ F u) C S .a .+ s a M yr. c' .r• r. U ..s � a d ? ^ F d B a adc)W V O LL La T) tl .V N d .d [/) fa N O •.� ,c; C UJ N Y u NO M O q � � O N tl0 r i • , 1-r �d m v y F, {k O i9 b .I d • F 1 3 Y N M - N a 5y Q ✓. .Q a p � . O w a a •O cJ to CL r: r❑ w O N rn - P'••Y 'k H H �4GH H G '. , ' •ArM U tCH J a 0. FCd y t i R ,f�w CR Pk N A , •Y •YSbM k dH . : r' -C a Ep s. < : N C N a ro R OFU , ro W a H •H ;W C v i +Y U W � p }W . Fr'QH U -1! l A ••-H M ro N M k: •8O N O N UN U ! d n ,U M -, ..rU c7 i U Ci .;F� - zv fC: + r..M -af 1 } •P.ui l . O CH l C7 tU t.+ . G C < +O ^ .N C O 0. NO U OV . +W N� .+r.W G N p •YC H N rR• U O w N O Gw a U M Cl R N 0 41 ry W ".-4 d w ro O tl W s� r-U•h N 4 � i VS ;�Ua 5 V C ' •R rNW VM Ehi l l . ' N V R •H W r•iaO p H O VS N N V} Y 14. M O W O to ul U> l d •U ttltO rCraN Wa o V O U R un : a O W [1 4 R a p CJW N O F N •a W . G C•. N N •r U Z t:LD 4 r4 ro U El A a U l , v p HU U) H H i M W FF4 I 1" P. r 4f W •N 1N - CiOa� 04+ _c: k U O O r+ m 'd * N O UI r + as b H •H i 14 O O a H N D N U) +- a w f v O W O - O C O N cd R S C - N O N 0 .W Y S. M H 4, N N F m R•H.0 O R U W H O 4 W W .O 'N U +> Y A A Fk }' 'o r,, Cd WCOrJN (D G v1 O' C O W ro UG L fi U f Ql AJ i� G ~ p Ki iE N U O V] U :4 E 0 U O E. CL P. U) U V g C �U Q a ++ C .O O O id E O ++ + M H O a -4 :> M W N 0 [ i , N U k r-I C, N [d - H M .H G G .4 P.'O .q M Y ro u 0. ++ G a .n G O R P. h H R W W `" 'C3 W W f-< v] M N h •'4 I� r•i l W [Yl R S15 •� � J :+1 N R M Y> G R O O> > a r-+ +-+ 4k N N 7 .0 p� O E P. R art U] M W �; a d E N Q E [d C 1? Y is sC O }< N a •N O V1 H .0 f� ri _ G W 10 E W •H �i' W U) N W O N CO .a UI S, R a. •H R U k O U O h O W a H E W }! •H VI N Vi W R ti H •M M V C+ A A N r> a 'n 'H N q i, H . H 00 iUw 4F FC W W 1H rw `r� C H -, . I F R ro '% M UN A N Va 7 1 ••+Y H H k U U U C k ! rH U W 0Ml .Y i°G C i> y ed Q N m M •ro H IN hN U � R W w ''CH 7 f--. [ iN 'h W •• ra i +H L.+ L a A [W d 'X U ti R +k � .H d w 1V : .-OI , + R Ul C O N N C�` n � CO j .O U N •H ut h En TY Y V F ,u} 7 1 , ro tG Y G N C •ro RM P W CJ S RN E o rEL � -i ! •+ro .-� y + r4F¢V .7 -' . k •N G W H G •,•W a k H pW q E� 41 •('4rC N hca y N 0 G cr 4- w +f n U G H r 4: V U C O CO O •a+ '0'0 W O 0,• , U H i M h :7H + E G ,� F+ Y W W Y Y U . r r W rl "4R ❑ O a q N '%Y •M NR•+C+ x 7 V1 O U •H 7 60.-i w % 0. N W ) 2, O Cd F i- C N f w N k a s N a N U N P +1 u W a R r M V� Y W uj ¢ a A A U H Pr N U Y rd Y U M O R. i C CO 1 a ,O G •a 4 R +• W U E O .H •N N W E " YW 0 H ❑ Ul O r U [C }i 0) Y M R }t r R R H G i W r^ •V +� 6 r-1 G U O u a H O N W O co ; M 'H Y W O U -0 G E n, H N N .H a Q 1-1 w 64 N N N U; 2 C U In W A a � l •H P W i- U O Ca r F E a W M N H 67 w J V r . U] W ^ H W N Y co F Id 7 M 0 J r Ca W M 0 .. E C N 4H a CY W C F W UI o 0 W Y W w h O U •H 4Y w 0 0 0 iU H [d > H O UA O 4 U W C E -A 4 a O W +1 p, C M rH CU a R W N C v ri Y 41 W 6 41 U7 •H •H W w a) M> H N 7 C • E ai CO Q . L Un p F 4� 4ZI 41 41 0 0) W u y F� UY Y h U ca O M M q N 'DE, rK A U 9 i yy i {O E !� $3. €.7 - O O O U y 61 O ry V.1 O O H 0) O as h C M ° •HA 3 n � 1! +1 � 4- m ao co OD o o 00 0 o q° " w �} r-1 O W ro ei ro n Zd M M 07 W W rl k ,H is V1V 41 H V W d 4 k .d U 4. i>D C U U hO C 1 I C R " ." C 'H C W a R •H C N 7� k cr Y O N • U L: U1 R Y +' k •H W M a W O N C a W U fA O h6 O N ~ 4-e +� i+ N U1 :AG M c> M - �- 3 a O m .. p Y ..4 w •❑ .`) H O R .0 a R cd Vl U Y -k C N O N ro t-L •9 sa [d p,.- -i .-i W C N •M •H r! G7 k U 5. M H .-E h U Y �f Y 'n •H •H Ul a � o Y h C 'I') � •, N O .^+ N U cd U! •r�i '[ .Hj H •� ^ � � � � WO rz ri •H 0 11 [d Y i4 'H •H O rd -O N •ay ro a R N M. P. aS V i� N U •H ,G H R .H +� C Ut k M A etJ '0 •O •H > U W a a 3 > A a3 SI ^ +-! +n }, N [d h H N .0 UJ _ W a st +-� J7 T1 q 4 i•1 U .CL .H •• W ro +� CD N a C C 47 C C Y M H H N O N w y O U Ci R •W icy ,c 'O rn P. W> V) O V a C) •Htl _P O [d 'd 41 H a C Y Ul a N O. CS W h r-1 >~ •H ,'� O r4 W F. W C) •H O [V O Y H [d •H •H ..+ .r❑t .� .,Ci `Fw.:�• -H a +! h H A .0 •H E C ^ ^ N w Un.ro Y W W ,. v y.l N O h ,O 4,P a M Yro a,q m ro �U[°a umc+ •rai +.f ry W`�" _ s ^ �Y ov m+-•.N ++ Vl b0 �9 a we q CA .0 F. f; F. �-, ro s: 4i 4t [d W !S h6 H GOM ❑CNGC? CM MN vin Vi �A.!]>.7 ^ -HH OOMOaW cda U) 010 W -FL w C •H ry ry P. Y N O H '� ro .{:.H h ',"3 W G r-1 O U] +' W U - k i-F Sa C H W [d G NUR -1 •rl O C ri E tl U: N W Y +� [d a k U N to ++ +� i+ N CVJ +-. N W VNJ tR a N O ++ •.k .H 0 O WP. E'.+ae P. CHY Ox:a C r> •cs G cd ;� "I - roOCG•1k O V ro a> P D •r 3 G C E R Z G O H Y U+ ♦ j G W d s> G E H V( N O C rL k k 6p l O U W •a C r0 N- O '0.0 W OFW UMaN °. [n UH P V'1117, akaN HOO GG >Uh4', r, a!Za N.d >~ N NUa R wN,p a UR N A .❑ wl N .0 O rH R o h f!,• .a o ff •N. N U U off p' H •H O Ctrl •M rat ai ra � Q1 5 'b }.1. Y 0 ri +� O •H C: ;.} h h N .k s] W H C W a tO. +> r. •H H Y f3.'U >. ? t:, . C Sy Zn O P U C N .� 4/ C O k Sr U! 3 O A 0 aj Z' dab,roy ° m E ,Q :d rL Y V }. [r'a R s H :r: he 0 u o 'H O A rn ri ,4 ,C W a k 'r1 W :.� - -a E N N •.+ 'd ry •H .--� a. O M a to Y N H •H E r-i N [d CJ .G 0 A W .H O I N OJ •H .. +-. > ro Y k V a N U' H .❑ U: N Jt F+ N ra ,. zi H O W a) M id N a> .0 6 .G k C A A A L. F. O E P O r+ ti F. R •H T) •H W H F. U UJ �! O F: s: M p +-+ k 0 0 +J +! bl} [d P. ,d M .,y 'Cy N N rJ .� ra W Y Y t: '� U ?. +. O Ul 4Z �� is ri 4a k >, 4. •H Y O CJ .. E ,d W U U1 O a 'H 'C w A N Q a 'H J O .O H Y •N N N S: N k •H td C: Y W RU S C -N q 4< !: w s 'H •rl N PI a s is +� •H a W U1 O U) n Ul H LnA > R A C w U; y C Vl 7 J �S f� T: 'U w G h •N +-! G E'L7 Vi D W cd 4 a: F. M a - k [s W F+ o r. y` C Ei s: a N H {� 27 C c7 s CJ d V C to 4L H N a N H N td N W UU RF, d MAW61 10, f q;n cJ [d s: •v4i nro W[d ONmVWiONU ''�.' 'NN CA dO N c4+C a FJ [�G w ❑'n M3' -HM YUI i•1 k .7 d 0. fi A W G 11 O N rJ N C, F'. a N O rl N H ro }i qq al W- M O ",l, a O .H M k U1 E 64 U .N n N ,i) J1 [ N .1 y k O r. [. Fa a W U k C Fs - Ca k G W N U ¢auE 4z Pct caola vY c'a•H ec �.�k•H� a o'r,i ^ w`a �p ao a� mop °QG ymka F v hnQo•H o n aWS.ro HAG• u. k wn 01 O •+C+ M W O �t N W❑ C CC C, s. d A N 7~ k h3 11 rJ ..1 0 a a aS w C > fil rJ f tL Y° .7 ••� Y F H Q' N W a , > O O f« A N a Iv iJ W 'i7 U O �'t•J .-, N .`.0 G UI 0 A N `H CS N <Y Fi N a •rf .d O O +-. >, ro Y E •� 4 Y J H W U U SeH P. C A •-+ f U k C rd r, J •H ul •H ••i N h0 •H Uxo Y ro O C O Vl v C, Jti ¢ W rH ;3 W r-. O 4 a +1 .;} N 4y J a N '? U - [3 >, f: a 'Y3 O> N .,y i'• a, .^-. a k N M A'N W W W F A O G cd C w N fa a N O.. Y -. k •N F. L «-1 >, i!J G .>7 W J W •H k �` i� •H U •H Y td 1: •1Gi GrCi R$ W W k 'rJ c; �. a k' O i� V1 41 OH W .H S] Fr U r- '7 [d .0 .. -. J} N Cl G) y1 W .-i ty .-I U U} 4y O C •H iJ C O, w U r-1 A O 11 ry W a U Y 1A C+.:A •ri rr rn .0 (, �H c.. U is a 27 k O :1 U N W ✓ +f •H N k .H 'C7 W '° •H U! in O N U7 O L U O O b C O N O ;t rJ CJ k ,1 U ,O a [' JI }, y, N N L•n F. U 3 w U Y a a C ❑ L W C F. U i E ro C, Vi .,y P' U} U h O k a 4 A s, N •H C7 •H r; ....H a. W R F. k W ...t .ti A •H .H O k M V C U] E.• O W 4 H k O N M k N N N W a 0 a W W ••) •rl Wry ++ Y .-i Ej Y r-. U f1 C N .-t .r u1 U F+ D O ? E; O +� +! .-a U -5 r. 47 r3 •N a U .n fx. Ss. Y U :+ 41 p, w cZ •lt N :i p p U G W 4 s: W C. •H O 1: O es IJ 4a3. •rt .. R. jy 41. U7 ro ¢k Y W . Vi Un FJ A. N ed 'O 0) W FJ •H ro U ca U A A U) O N O« to h ° � O O p m co ry w • I•a ti G H d p cs O ow oru F .d N d N 0 0) I • 1M♦ .� I u C[C I, NN AN d O V H v b a, H 11 4. •+q S. F •, I Fw N G 0 rd A G• O N H C4 u 0 U N O 41 "1 U - r t4 ci(pF YWr,r 0 n H O 23 F. 'A k E C F• •H 'S/•. O 3 U C W B C d 0 rt r ra q -0 •H Ir. F a, 1 Fc G tit E -4 d G K C7 .-r -y tfj F: G •.+ A bA 5 •H .N E .w C mad ^vg .� 0 j0olba �r•,� o �+ m C 6• FG O C a G4 4a C t1 R, F to Sg •H 0 41 U •M O N 'N i4 v S:, M 5 O N � G � CS A 1- U "A O O N O C •H U a1 •H N N m Ui F 1 d (D4 r Ov Nw O O B OF tl �� Y. O. A C Q 0 r' N 4 uT1a1c0A OwrJNUU H++O O O p O .d 0 E u r O v d a) 0 PC •,� ,-•t •t7 a) F1 Ot -7Ufa N G N C C7 M QI w F •.a O O_ O wa 11 r� m u O P, 'a OW .'4a NU F>« �N SN-, •ui N 11 h A W N U ,O 0— 0 O Q a 0 •H a1 '• N A U ro C tl •N U PI V, N O vi N CI O O u;1 U N k O F •M O 1. AdF VrA Od >d 0 NNC H C: I Cl OM 4)•H 44 In UOO .ctpU u 'p a,'RW C H E N•H U)0'0 E- 4' 0 U v p G N P'J V A %1 m r d 0 O N C O 0 O O •H 1 d W CI U i al •N W ni m S=7 E ;a Q ni ti+ v Z U G d op a t: d ti Ns, O'U G u V 3- C•HO0 a)Y u.aF aU n 0,-0 O0 M N N 1 0 U .f NY N•ME L, N x, O w O C d it n O A J F •H E •N O d 'a v .>w N v U 1r :C N N. 0 6 N > :,A +1 Z w - t4 ^ OJ r 'O O •H cD -H 4+ .� .G +� ;+ O U b +1 GO U [ C +, AO rU,C)'AO • O F d Vl Y•N a r Ulo F U N E a 3 z v W 0 0 0 w C1, to A U F a.4 as C N U1 O u r-t Y •H •rt 41 •H U7 fa •C •a0 C+ a O N •.z N U c1 Oy w u eo d O M .a .. -c m ac •a hp � P � .-• ri al •H i-3 N F a f~ 1 o N W O7Un7 r to wA O•r, Y .N 0 v O C t:" •M •N U O Y W S< •rUtX 47C d 0-0. u .3 C o N r --4 41 itd N O 5041 C i-• •N .H C z7 •H ro O O N M i d44 C1 AN i' X-1 .a w + bA H N N A > cd F to Fi w � U i• c3 ., 14 E U wOVa�c C) 0O ccm�a• -al or O O Os, ^� �•H U �. �` .a CC U 'a O h o, 4. U ❑ s 1~ U k _3 r, F, C7 C •H O 4a Q to +� H� A C S0, E C41 C 3 Cd -N d Y a rw 3 dO27O G1 •H •.i H ri H U > N a 6 0 F7 C v s D o ,at m F v a a k i0 C N 't7 O •H 47 •N N w U > d N .1r• m d M q •,i U O.0 V7 N. v-4 •r! U V! d t N•Nq 53.•H S'i r-t c3 'U A U O cCN++C E• O 47..4 U m F O is .4 aa) ro Y w s�'• i d �� � stn i• V1 F' ❑ Fw •H O 2 cd 4 � aY + c�va ro C➢ O Id 041 NfL c1YX o .N r 1±1 ri N d b C d •H CI U `✓ N W •� a1 as o+ w v ^ A< Sy a•I .'a •� N :/1 N V3 •N � p .N U Q a N W OD 'q CJC�W U U• 0x: Na co U C Y 0> M w.1 CCC a G d H41 U -Cl G: •U W N G) � ^� n. •.a v 'n a7 .r: zt � s .c o ❑ i� •'t N N r) O U 4] in O rI 4 ,a to a1 .sZ .,O -WI N 47 N N CO ra a U1 bD v 1 C C U 47 N> O'a N I N k N +� a., ri moo 0urotx•HO)w c0' .G.Fa caw p O CH A ++ u N :R ^ •rt ,L2O • T3 M E F dFUEA?Ua � A A ro -a o u 4O roSN V. 41 47 QI k � O W (0 q d ,,•-y •Cri n , 'pO F d H WO ,C A d O ••+ r-i N v iF -I O ,c ro ,c d e •ri sa -,H, O , � .� N o 'r3 .� � � z •H N L1 d O zy N - U a] u La -o R C- r) 1 E7 Id Tj w d cd Q W .r FFWI,0g W0 � cud . d Ei O.p 41 F A •❑ a7 u.0 +� � +I .0 ••a +.> Fr - � �' U Sl. O a d •,� W E F •3 F:.O C; •H E a7 d .. U] � C E N f"LE uJ U C9�•Jw Us R' U ❑ O G. v C a 3 ,C .dam bO'O 4� O •H 71 L' N •r-I ,rl 0) -H OUra�as Fp a o •� U.�pd F 27 m Ft ��RSN•MOWn�r -��re 121 a cce 'cl 0 Ilii 10 pH O ',-t C C H U .c N❑ r, a� r•a 0 N d 0 ,H 47 r•f C ru'. Ln 'H .❑ k N ++ O •'I O, O CO Y C to C? d rt � � N •-J O •H d W •,Ci tO � C u •.i Ow E y: G LO S (W3•,' •,`� CO 3 > F: U b0 & O.:) w c1 to - v) W C rd OON M L' •a F w N O (qu J.0 •H (U7 a: N e Le t' 0 •r C O a U E FI O Ar •U i' UI U• F N 41 CD N=4 U d p F{ 'b rmi rf QI C' N N a o U A p O d U I N Q d u) 4 Do a 47. N H Do .H .y. ti+ v Z U G d op a t: d ti Ns, O'U G u V 3- C•HO0 a)Y u.aF aU n 0,-0 O0 M N N 1 0 U .f NY N•ME L, N x, O w O C d it n O A J F •H E •N O d 'a v .>w N v U 1r :C N N. 0 6 N > :,A +1 Z w - t4 ^ OJ r 'O O •H cD -H 4+ .� .G +� ;+ O U b +1 GO U [ C +, AO rU,C)'AO • O F d Vl Y•N a r Ulo F U N E a 3 z v W 0 0 0 w C1, to A U F a.4 as C N U1 O u r-t Y •H •rt 41 •H U7 fa •C •a0 C+ a O N •.z N U c1 Oy w u eo d O M .a .. -c m ac •a hp � P � .-• ri al •H i-3 N F a f~ 1 o N W O7Un7 r to wA O•r, Y .N 0 v O C t:" •M •N U O Y W S< •rUtX 47C d 0-0. u .3 C o N r --4 41 itd N O 5041 C i-• •N .H C z7 •H ro O O N M i d44 C1 AN i' X-1 .a w + bA H N N A > cd F to Fi w � U i• c3 ., 14 E U wOVa�c C) 0O ccm�a• -al or O O Os, ^� �•H U �. �` .a CC U 'a O h o, 4. U ❑ s 1~ U k _3 r, F, C7 C •H O 4a Q to +� H� A C S0, E C41 C 3 Cd -N d Y a rw 3 dO27O G1 •H •.i H ri H U > N a 6 0 F7 C v s D o ,at m F v a a k i0 C N 't7 O •H 47 •N N w U > d N .1r• m d M q •,i U O.0 V7 N. v-4 •r! U V! d t N•Nq 53.•H S'i r-t c3 'U A U O cCN++C E• O 47..4 U m F O is .4 aa) ro Y w s�'• i d �� � stn i• V1 F' ❑ Fw •H O 2 cd 4 � aY + c�va ro C➢ O Id 041 NfL c1YX o .N r 1±1 ri N d b C d •H CI U `✓ N W •� a1 as o+ w v ^ A< Sy a•I .'a •� N :/1 N V3 •N � p .N U Q a N W OD 'q CJC�W U U• 0x: Na co U C Y 0> M w.1 CCC a G d H41 U -Cl G: •U W N G) � ^� n. •.a v 'n a7 .r: zt � s .c o ❑ i� •'t N N r) O U 4] in O rI 4 ,a to G .0 E p A iv1 .,O -WI N 47 N N CO ra a U1 >v u m .Ca ro -u p A 1 C C U 47 N> O'a N N k N +� a., ri r• O d c0' .G.Fa caw p 0144 Yd) arorfaobe A w N N G N d C ,L2O • T3 M E F U N Ge 0) 41 u 4 d ro -a o u 4O M c7 O •M r-t rd � 41 47 cd (0 U Oi3 .fCiq V Ay OX ,C A d O ••+ r-i N v N L1 d O zy N - E C •,i d 47 d d .0 a c ++ Uf •,-1 +� +•c O .r FFWI,0g W0 � cud . GL Y W �' U Sl. O a d •,� W E F •3 r' C n7 N 'I G- U E> 'H d O fti Fa O .d O •.•� :7 as .c O R' U ❑ O G. v C F ,C .dam bO'O 4� O •H 71 L' N •r-I ,rl 0) -H ��RSN•MOWn�r -��re pH 4` tC 0 00 O �M m m rI i I N v a r UP N ti VF G •.l a iNNC•ri' Ur ri CF r. +1 iv 1'S fJ O 'U .� N W V 'ri V U Ul M •rl rs •ri Ul M Ur ! ;j :j 0i Vw -1 i.0 ut N Ti tD O I F F. r p N U H S: M -H ••i o [;•W ••eD� c.• -ten r:a 0 W O•^, ['rdN U1 Vi 0 Q., N n ... UJ G I N •r+ M :d b '6 U Y. w H f, U 11 J Vl •r! •H u w O W ;7 C1 tD ^ W 0 V vcm c,•i 'am• �.•W W M•NW ! 0 C N•W M1�O ^YH O +Y !3 d U Ul •rd '+ Vi W 0 N O W U bf H Y S. .< 6 Y N Y O U •rt d C 10 N N L R N r J a W O p p k Y +> 'C N W H N N JD Y 0 Wr, -W MN N Ul LdU Ql rd x •H UJ U O p •W U M N H •W W o v C +� O w to H W M U W •W C U VJ k ,'ter f1•H W ul •O O '6 € O cS a -H •H ri m •W M '0 ?a •c W H •W 1-+ •W d C, O to Yf W N b H r-I U 't1 JH A 0. lwe tpd � 'rW tC'd r-Nt N � w •rCi w z+ rn V ry w. O V'fU C,w U N r,1 JJ 'U H C W H i V7 W T•: .0 W 1 � .n •H w a '✓y •H 'r. M W P. ,4 N r1 O r-r E N J (u 5 rl q w S. t. E N a �4rv� v4! °• GC r�UCCJ� t0 a N O € • t6.gc boo w •W q •., v H .� d+ c w•r+r -+ELO 4 O W w >NA W 0) N-D p F OVi� N.R ri � W � H C. 0 U In M a H 41 W H n 0bD+1 F,NUC - >CdWO N- w� t; "1 O M rn M M W Ell Et Fa tdw OOOw•W Ur+O vw,O++ H O w w w >r4w Ul 'D, ;j •H cl NO Ur CSN X NW y Y N O O N -r4 vi W H w 0 N W•W t Nw F 0 ari Jr O AUI+�UO E3 .Cr- EMNNwE U a F cq 4 A E M .N O •W M E U ^ rl Nut {-, y i 3 v H W N r-1 N M W Cy p td O +• +• N 1. M w N OE_ UWNr: >NA Aw UF, O 'no H •M A .c7 W Orr 'D F N d O 'O U N we W F. JI W W w M N W 'H O L t~d aCi O N G SOi •^ ,d � O tFd O j a e O N C W W U M U Ul J U H H N Cl •W W e ,n E; TJ •H F, W •W FCC v' O Ei p N rl E>a4 M MF.Q H,a GC W W r'1 N# f +> kl U) W ri A H F Y N M A A A Cd •ri Q O V, W p TJ 'W P, Y bo Ei R C U1 W 4! :.,w •H W ill CJ w C Ul O, N ,O +' O .Fa H C 07 a W r-1 N C W .J W rJ 3 E W N a Fr u. U1 O N O W O N W Ul r 0 H a H H v �� to v H bD ra O +l ^ W .H N v a c1 c O w N r 'tl H •r`�s � ,a '4 H a W cd N .q '13 E H a O C w .c .� • W 3 ri O O O C N C A ✓1 p M O ri E W o Y +> H t& W H ri U G c id td E. C a ri , N ,s2 bD rC N ,.O •,i C A r•, in M (; ".la Y C .W a ,--r E~ N C .F, £ ,^ + -.+'r� O ry Y o r-, C N •,i u: -H •ri .! >•-I U O U r-! H O •rJ O W p •ri N O u id bD U A V1 [ c C ,c N F, M O c zWi O U Y V! .f 4i . •~ U A U7 G to M Ql it •p •H 033 S.O ��r> OrtNUw '- ,M>tiNNErw F1 A •� F, N U O C N 't7 F •r R. W ci �; W C 7 G bA J O r-I E ,3 W 'O W 3 :J W O A J, O tH •r! " U t,U' !:� O � 1 E rWI F , ' . .W W F r3 =: w H Y w - U U p �r« S H >, F N Fr O N W ri O iJ ,SJ H. ^S C ,n W N ••i Y z O O W j •r, C O Ri O :J O) O 4i •ri .0 W �. C cS .O O•. bD H C f. r-• u ^ w M r+ s:. U .• •rt C sµ W W ,c W NW U O z: Y C .d d W QI •rl A U ...:+ N W H N Vi E; c• GJ ;1 +� U S c•d .0 .sw r. U U w C:t C '� .c p a f Cd Cl Q/ ^- '� C .H Si U H Sr {. C G V :P. H •r1 Y V M F: i C' • Y A F :� •H s •,-, U O m 'U •N N ,� c: e.C.c ^ N J c O > O Ul •O n GJ C ;� c: i-> a f- <'ry W f. U >. F 3 �-• c 0 >. N a C .G ^J E W c';.: W A rJ •.1 O C c W rd i=d ri ,t; ,r; k 4s 1 N 'za O n' +� 'U s. U i~i •L' t, •.! G C> :� G �. u ;n N :� G+ •� [`.., N •.1 ro s N •n S1 a N M C H O a s w es:•W v a ,..., 1 -: n c+ r.. r r e sr.w M u H "5 O ..: Fa U W' ,d F< :J ^a '0 O N O !] Gl O F.r � N C! U V :J f i31 ' L• C '-, U :j �: •rr tJ E k" U '+ :l N O f. ` J £i >_: w •ri •ri U! 6C W '>' U N 0 cl w •H r.. v' ^ N N W W G .a O .d i= -7 W L -Jl p •r! L'1 Id y E: Y U M =,.; :J G ++ G` v `'� Vl ei :� :7 W c •r+w G t3 r: M r O - •C ci ? Fr Ei t: w •H ro •rt M .,i r, .••a z. U .• i1 (: G i - i4 U eJ •M .W 1� .4" W -C .:. O r i i.v W 'y C% •L O c, -r+ 4r :J r-1 W N J° G: V •„ re +� O U N :� KE CJ F A N •W Y .O N TJ ✓! ry U ro O W Av Ncd 'UO0.AN 41 W C CM. f4 Y Q V w 4Di • ,-wi 3 >» W O A0.. N �1 C 00w 0 t p C'i7 w F+ •ri •H W +J N •rl �� H 3 w U Q' FNrH+•+ O N M •rt rS O .O w W W N U H> +.I 57L VIA,GWf1W oocl w YmMRM cd R Cl A O N M .•. G TJ U3 N rpi S .0 N 1 E t� 'o •d w C4 ' N O m M 1 B W •N N A b c p W W F. 3 0 M W -N O F; a �',' x7 `J R rS F ;,., c 'y •ri O ++ W .0 u -C ,d •W W 1 d O,O ❑�.w c WS: . r w H A N d Ul 00 N dl i-' W C U rWrr~t cJ 7 N D.O Uul .c. w77,dt O DO'cl ^U MW F< O w H £ J: .r fl,E, A NON Y ++ td UW: li N 0 Ts 'd N W 0 , m I R p R, •>•, E TS ^CI O tD H M ri W O A W N W •W W p+-, cy •W N U O W V: r N Qt U •r] W td -C U ^ rR 0.N W O i-1 C 4- W Ul W 1 ED +� t. A •rl R ?, U •rl C -WNW N w W •rl A b W cd U A C 0 bD M C 'U D M cd •LO •ri rJ O- C C N N N N 4 W C UJ O • i CP'U U U N i. -�: O G •r, W C 14 N O z. i' O U Y w to .. ,O d J• q zr H W 1 W p Y c M N ir7 �(, Vi y O TJ U t4 L, O M O U7 ] N •� ,d O U O i-1 U1 W a 0 0 tCd d J N .•p _N M ,O R r. C• UI W •U c W (: d 8 U s�-7 ra •� W O JI W W J; M E W ON'rUt N•zj 4�s GWi Ai W � w U� ?.W R• }'n E W O cd N ++ U cOd W O q 17 rJ H b +1 va - v N tpJtf sc U1 N a ;.•, 7 •R�, ••C+ .0 SO+ td tc Id k _ w ,d Fr O W U ❑ •H O O Y W c E� F• M W VI Y M r, ^ kc ,D •W W r, W rl H S 61 •rl N H l 0 •W rd r« '✓+ O W Cd 0 H O m O W 'd a :+. fn 0•UW c p U . co OtnH WW % ^tDp ND W r-J ;V •rrW HTJ @ N r-! •H U N O CO N -0 U7. td H .4 ,0 c1 .0 O [p Y F1 la M H �. S} O c9 C d Y A N v off. •W N W W Ul 'V Ci 7 •'+fp W N .>U M fW W C7 O M w U D J7 I N A W fi O H r b N + H H 0 U 9 . +" N d 0 ri W 'A TJ •V W W . ^Y. • .. n H , = U % td N 1-4 1)", •d i W ULr W ro .W w Ja W ,n""' i7W A � 0 a W CD W H W o TJ = Q W .0 •.� O) « U 4a ro W •r'. M 27 •W W G] 1! Y VI Ql .0 H H H U W W N Cr O . ri p ^ P fp U1 r1 N 4' U � r+ A N Vl J O'r{ N LO •N In a1 N Ul c Fr a O 0 U H U W a N x N V Ur W O `•. jro ^c •Y C C •N c0 rl w d:+�*.w uW •W d rj� O % ri W WWW uW -W fY O Y, rl avaNN M 0 N ;a ',7 U N N CN -A = H Y U• f� O N O M - tq W '.7 C'3 N A Vi .-. C7 a A A N t3 U• A Cl p W 7 rn F E •W d co td r. O•" W d C O .. ++ vi tfi W m o T7 O x W N F to W ra U Ul W ++ •d W M W +� '0 F •ri H 'W H H W H W 6.r H •N Y W v n; 'b :NO V) p U rl " ro [d TJ Cl a,0, •H ^ O w C •ri gvniNor -! W w C -W �W OO,nel •W 1 O O p 0. ^ TJ O 0. U F :+ O N (7 N M 7 'd • r-, H W O N O d Ql H W O co O rO N J, 0MH0 V O N. M - NrsNH.0 14 OYtdwr-+,o l H J, ri NWw zdW M s' +J 6: O TS p w d7 - M Se U O r-1 'd U O r O r . d' O W v M td td w W o O A O —,H M td N 41 .0 O d .z O -W H U H •.� -.0 C id N C O W W O +-+ a: o 19 CO (O + Ccd+ W O �3 N td • H 'U a > O V Ul 0-4- M W H7 W O U 0) O H ul N W -.a N N 7 O W O N F W C4 p TJ ... Y Y 'O l0 00 N .4 44'11 a H [s' p w >, F, Cd p C S•I H bA 00 a +-• w c0 W i, C: to r-t +-> =. I O W V H C 041 U H N N D C H M w t, W 'U '.y W ri N Y U 1 O N C C1 00 CO U Cd " %, >aH O .H C O +> fd I M Z L' H q •H N O W It -- Vi Z F 'C w 'W O Y •W • H U! td N . e E-• C, 3= i' H r C U C •W W 7-. . U 'Y H R A W 0 O .a WC W Up YW w +W ?.G w WWV1 OU a WN Oe I E W .+ W , N c ti W W •' C U U R "r• 'WC M G U d 4 H F+ ' -O W N 1. W U U M - A W ✓ H W U M H 1 w id 2J Ql C W Id H i C W UF O N T Y V T H O W W ••Y w N C ,W � N 'W tl N w E N -a O q Fes�U • H td w rH l U•O J rn 0 a •rC C F1 W .d U - 0 rn C N W M A w O O G UY F'a 0 0 O O C Z W O W m W O M V-H co U N N •O W ; ! d dO 00 Fz kw P. U R N W W [0 b O F td V a-7 H U W Iri ^-I Cn N O H , N 0 0 O Z W 04 O 7 'D 0 •W 0 •W 14 V CS) 0 •r, C 4 N l0 0? 0 W . Fq Ca •W N V rl W Y p 1 •W U U D U h U O N, w- vM W W k oo W W c0 co N O H m H ca r-t H H vJ '"+ ZCO p N (� 0 •r3 ci N H w •W U N w tai U H W H A p N co H ca 3 O O U W A q Ul r 0 H a H H v �� to v H bD ra O +l ^ W .H N v a c1 c O w N r 'tl H •r`�s � ,a '4 H a W cd N .q '13 E H a O C w .c .� • W 3 ri O O O C N C A ✓1 p M O ri E W o Y +> H t& W H ri U G c id td E. C a ri , N ,s2 bD rC N ,.O •,i C A r•, in M (; ".la Y C .W a ,--r E~ N C .F, £ ,^ + -.+'r� O ry Y o r-, C N •,i u: -H •ri .! >•-I U O U r-! H O •rJ O W p •ri N O u id bD U A V1 [ c C ,c N F, M O c zWi O U Y V! .f 4i . •~ U A U7 G to M Ql it •p •H 033 S.O ��r> OrtNUw '- ,M>tiNNErw F1 A •� F, N U O C N 't7 F •r R. W ci �; W C 7 G bA J O r-I E ,3 W 'O W 3 :J W O A J, O tH •r! " U t,U' !:� O � 1 E rWI F , ' . .W W F r3 =: w H Y w - U U p �r« S H >, F N Fr O N W ri O iJ ,SJ H. ^S C ,n W N ••i Y z O O W j •r, C O Ri O :J O) O 4i •ri .0 W �. C cS .O O•. bD H C f. r-• u ^ w M r+ s:. U .• •rt C sµ W W ,c W NW U O z: Y C .d d W QI •rl A U ...:+ N W H N Vi E; c• GJ ;1 +� U S c•d .0 .sw r. U U w C:t C '� .c p a f Cd Cl Q/ ^- '� C .H Si U H Sr {. C G V :P. H •r1 Y V M F: i C' • Y A F :� •H s •,-, U O m 'U •N N ,� c: e.C.c ^ N J c O > O Ul •O n GJ C ;� c: i-> a f- <'ry W f. U >. F 3 �-• c 0 >. N a C .G ^J E W c';.: W A rJ •.1 O C c W rd i=d ri ,t; ,r; k 4s 1 N 'za O n' +� 'U s. U i~i •L' t, •.! G C> :� G �. u ;n N :� G+ •� [`.., N •.1 ro s N •n S1 a N M C H O a s w es:•W v a ,..., 1 -: n c+ r.. r r e sr.w M u H "5 O ..: Fa U W' ,d F< :J ^a '0 O N O !] Gl O F.r � N C! U V :J f i31 ' L• C '-, U :j �: •rr tJ E k" U '+ :l N O f. ` J £i >_: w •ri •ri U! 6C W '>' U N 0 cl w •H r.. v' ^ N N W W G .a O .d i= -7 W L -Jl p •r! L'1 Id y E: Y U M =,.; :J G ++ G` v `'� Vl ei :� :7 W c •r+w G t3 r: M r O - •C ci ? Fr Ei t: w •H ro •rt M .,i r, .••a z. U .• i1 (: G i - i4 U eJ •M .W 1� .4" W -C .:. O r i i.v W 'y C% •L O c, -r+ 4r :J r-1 W N J° G: V •„ re +� O U N :� KE CJ F A N •W Y .O N TJ ✓! ry U ro O W Av Ncd 'UO0.AN 41 W C CM. f4 Y Q V w 4Di • ,-wi 3 >» W O A0.. N �1 C 00w 0 t p C'i7 w F+ •ri •H W +J N •rl �� H 3 w U Q' FNrH+•+ O N M •rt rS O .O w W W N U H> +.I 57L VIA,GWf1W oocl w YmMRM cd R Cl A O N M .•. G TJ U3 N rpi S .0 N 1 E t� 'o •d w C4 ' N O m M 1 B W •N N A b c p W W F. 3 0 M W -N O F; a �',' x7 `J R rS F ;,., c 'y •ri O ++ W .0 u -C ,d •W W 1 d O,O ❑�.w c WS: . r w H A N d Ul 00 N dl i-' W C U rWrr~t cJ 7 N D.O Uul .c. w77,dt O DO'cl ^U MW F< O w H £ J: .r fl,E, A NON Y ++ td UW: li N 0 Ts 'd N W 0 , m I R p R, •>•, E TS ^CI O tD H M ri W O A W N W •W W p+-, cy •W N U O W V: r N Qt U •r] W td -C U ^ rR 0.N W O i-1 C 4- W Ul W 1 ED +� t. A •rl R ?, U •rl C -WNW N w W •rl A b W cd U A C 0 bD M C 'U D M cd •LO •ri rJ O- C C N N N N 4 W C UJ O • i CP'U U U N i. -�: O G •r, W C 14 N O z. i' O U Y w to .. ,O d J• q zr H W 1 W p Y c M N ir7 �(, Vi y O TJ U t4 L, O M O U7 ] N •� ,d O U O i-1 U1 W a 0 0 tCd d J N .•p _N M ,O R r. C• UI W •U c W (: d 8 U s�-7 ra •� W O JI W W J; M E W ON'rUt N•zj 4�s GWi Ai W � w U� ?.W R• }'n E W O cd N ++ U cOd W �N � a Ni ) g o U] U1 C O U W m 11 .r P V N c•, Q V cd 3N tl LO V Vj N 5 +� O N •N •H Y N W w N q O Cl q5 f� H 3 r O O h: H tk f+ o m a N 1: r1 N � UW} ❑ �b by P, W a ❑ O Q L1 I A •14 -H UN •rs + ii7 L N " N d I Nw Ql U H iJ �J +1 co r H RS C •.< W Gi O O N H O R r-I O N O 0 44 r, O U C Y V] v H M H U wt O 41 MEMORANDUM 0.01 FROM DATE REF Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: • Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: li PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 27 NOVEMBER 1975 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Eliminates Building Bulk and Open Space Sections from all zone districts. Changes Setbacks in all zone districts to remove Height as a part of the Setback calculations. Changes Distance Between Buildings in all zone districts to remove Height as a part of Distance Between Buildings calculations. Adds a Height limit in Single- Family and Duplex zones. Changes Conditional Uses on first floor or street levels removing Professional Offices and Repair Shops. Renumber CCI Expansion Section so that it directly follows the Conditional Use Section. Renames the Permitted Use Section in CCII to include both Permitted and Conditional Uses (since this Section includes both). Renames Conditional Use Section in CCII to correspond with similar Section in.CCI Adds an Expansion Section in CCII requiring a Conditional Use for all Expansions (similar to CCI). Section 10: Adds a new Section in CCII; explaining the review procedures for Conditional Use Permit in CCII. Section 11: Removes SDD1 and establishes a chapter authorizing Special Development Districts and setting forth the procedures for submitting and reviewing them. Section 12: Changes the Parking and Loadiiig Sections to raise fractions to next whole number.. Section 13: Requires all people receiving Parking Variances to contribute to the Town of Vail Parking Fund. Section 14: Changes the Design Review Board Section giving administrative powers.to the Zoning Administrator. Pg. 2- Memo -PEC 11 -27 -78 • Section 15: Establishes administrative policies for Design Review Board review by Zoning Administrator. Section 16: Changes Design Review Board Section eliminating the Sign Review Board. Section 17: Permits Performance Bonding of landscaping. Section 18: Requires that Public Notices be sent Certified. Return Receipt Required. Section 19: Eliminates the sending of Public Notices to adjacent property owners on Planning &.Environmental Commission decisions appealed to.tbe Town.;Council. Section 20: Changes the Amendment procedure so there does not have to be a fifteen (15) day Public. Notice between the Planning & Environmental Commission hearing and the Town Council hearing. Section 21: Amends the Density Control Sections in RC, LDMF, and MDMF to require that only Buildable Area be used in calculating number of units per acre.. Section 22: Clarifies the Density Control Section in HDMF, Density PA, CCI, CCII, and CSC so that the is figured on the Buildable Site area. Section 23: Allows Density increases for Employee Housing in RC - CSC zone distracts. Section 24: Adds a new Chapter, "Employee Housing" to require new projects generating more than ten (10) employees to'Qonstruct or provide new housing for their employees. Section 25: Redefine Dwelling Unit, eliminating lock-off units. Section. 26: Allows for the graveling of driveways in Single -- Family and Duplex zones on driveways with slopes less than 8 %. OTHER POSSLBLE CHANGES .1.) Removal of Rafting Booths as a permitted use in CCI and CCII. 2.) Decrease in percentage of Commercial square feet allowable in HDMF and PA. e� • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING &;.ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 24 NOVEMBER 197$ REF DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDING REQUEST FOR THE TYROLEAN INN DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Jay Peterson, Attorney-at Law, representing the Tyrolean Inn, has requested a Distance Between Buildings Variance of 16.5 feet in order to allow the construction of nine (9) condominium units on the property presently occupied by the Tyrolean Inn. A letter from Jay Peterson to Diana Toughill, dated 27 July 1978, outlines the conditions which would allow this expansion to take place. (see enclosed letter) The plan as presented has complied with these conditions. The variance reauest is for the distance between the proposed addition to the Tyrolean.Inn and the existing Apollo Park Building "D ". Both Apollo Park and the present Tyrolean Inn building are in violation of the present setbacks. The Apollo Park building "D" is 72 feet from the west property line with the Tyrolean Inn building located aPproximately.one (1) foot from its east property line. This variance request involves just the new addition being proposed. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS. Upon review of Criteria and Findings, .Section 18.62-.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition to the Tyrolean Inn is 26.5;feet away from the Apollo Park building '!D ". The present Tyrolean Inn building is only 8.5 feet from this building. The addition should', therefore, not increase any existing impact caused by the closeness of the two buildings. Pg. 2 - Memo - PFC 11124/78 • The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a > specified reg- . ulation 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. C. Due to the configuration of the site, the location of the existing Tyrolean Inn building, and the existing Apollo Park building "D ". the placement of a building with the allowable number of units. and GRFA would be extremely difficult. The existing requirements for Distance Between Buildings would require 43 feet between the two buildings as proposed. Findings: The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, trans - portation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no adverse impacts on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the 'commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors that are deemed applicable. The Planning &..Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. That the granting of;the-variance will not be detrimental to thepublic health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties.or improvements :.: in, the,v cinity That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or, unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ob- jectives of this .title. It 1.0 Pg. 3 Memo - PEC 11 /24178 There are exceptions..or extra - ordinary circumstances or con - ditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal inter- pretation and enforcement .of the specified regulation would deprive the'..applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request. We feel that there is a hardship due to pre - existing conditions not caused by the applicant that make the site an extremely difficult one for the construction of the proposed addition. MEMORANDUM TO.. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 24 NOVEMBER 1978 REF VAIL ASSOCIATES' REQUEST FOR A.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE TWO TEMPORARY TRAILERS IN THEIR MAINTENANCE YARD SITE. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Vail Associates has requested a Conditional Use Permit for the placement of two trailers in their maintenance yard for period of time not to extend'beyond May 15, 1979. These trailers Are to be used only for Vail Associates construction manaLrement personnel. f - CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600 the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Con.dsideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Vail Associates has a wooden fence around the perimeter of their warehouse site that will block these trailers from view of the public. We do not feel that the impact from these trailers will be noticeable. 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. There should be no adverse impacts on these factors. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to. congestion, automotive pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There should be no adverse impacts on these factors. • Pg. 2 - Memorandum PEC 11/24/78 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. Due to the temporary nature of the trailers, we-do not foresee any impact of these trailers on the surrounding area. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission. deems applicable to the proposed use. There are no other factors deemed applicable. The environmental impact report concerning the, . proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. An Environmental Impact Report is not required. Findings and Recommendations: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the�­'district in which the site is located. That the proposed location . of the use and the conditions.under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties.or.improve-- ments in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this.ordinance. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Conditional Use request with the stipulation that the trailers be removed by May 15, 1979. • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 24 NOVEMBER 1978 REF BUILDING BULK VARIANCE FOR COURTSIDE TOWNHOMES DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED John Thomas has requested a Building Bulk Variance in order to permit three (3) five - plexes as part of a proposed development plan for the Courtside Townhomes. The Courtside Townhomes is a proposed 44 unit development located on a 9 acre unplatted parcel in Bighorn just east of Timberfalls. It is located in a Residential Cluster Zone District. In a Residential Cluster Zone District, the maximum permitted wall length is 100 feet, and the maximum permitted.length of the diagonal is 125 feet. The proposed five- plexes have a wall length of 120 feet and a diagonal of 130 feet. The subject property is influenced by Avalanche Zones with -3.23 acres being in a High Hazard area and 2. 21 acres being in a Moderate Hazard area. The intent of the architect is to stay clear from all hazard areas. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Ubon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in-the vicinity. The proposed design of the Courtside Townhomes is a 3 -story townhouse concept. The scale of the project is a great deal less than either the Racquet Club, Timberfalls or the Sunwood Condominiums. The increase in the wall length probably would not be noticeable. Pg. 2 - Memo - PEC 11/24/78 • The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified reg- ulation 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. The Building Bulk section of the Zoning Ordinance is being considered for removal due to the number of Building Bulk variances granted and the questionable intent of the regulation. In this particular case, due to the avalanche zones and the low scale nature of the project`, we feel it is warranted. The effect of the requested. variance on light and air, distribution of population, trans- poration and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no adverse impacts on these.factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. k No other factors are deemed applicable. Findings: E The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: • 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. 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 one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal inter- pretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physi- cal hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • • 10 I Pg. 3 -- Memo - PEC 11/24/78 There are exceptions or extra- ordinary circumstances of con - ditions applicable to the site of the variance thn.t do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal inter - pretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Variance request. We feel that the Building Bulk Section- of the Zoning Ordinance should be removed, and that this request should be approved due to the natural constraints created by the Avalanche Zones. ' PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 3:00 P.M. December 12, 1978 1.) Mike Palmer Real Estate Office -- Request for Conditional Use Permit to expand office space (POSTPONED at applicant's request to January 9, 1979) 2.) Vail Mountain School - Discussion re Town Council Hearing. 3.) Fire Chief Gordon Swanson - Discussion of sale of Station I Lot 1 - Vail Village 2nd. WORdI SESSION to follow: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance s> aw MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 5 DECEMBER 1978 k REF SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS (PART II) I l.) Eliminates Distance Between Buildings in all Zone Districts. I 2.) Adds on Expansion Section in CCII requiring Conditional. Use for all expansions (similar to CCI). 3.) Adds a new Section in CCII explaining the eview procedures for Conditional Use Permit in CCII. %VV 4.) Requires Performance Bonding of Landscaping. 5.) Allows Density increases for Employee Housing in RC - CSC Zone Districts. 6.) Adds a new Chapter, "Employee Housing ", to-require new projects generating more than ten (10) employees to construct or provide new housing for their employees, 7.) Decreases the percentage of Commercial square feet allowed in PA to 10%. 8.) Redefines Dwelling Unit, eliminating lock -off units. i F 1 MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF: December 12, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager Pam Garton Ron Todd Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Sandy Mills Jim Morgan - Absent i STAFF PRESENT: Jim Rubin The first item on the agenda, Mike Palmer Real Estate E. Office Request for Conditional Use Permit to expand office space. Beth Riggert, an associate of George Rosenberg, Attorney, was present to represent the building owner, Dr. Renner. He has asked that the application be withdrawn. A letter was presented to the Commission for their review from Dr. Renner outlining his request for withdrawal of the application. No formal. Motion was needed. The second item, Vail Mountain School, discussion of Town Council hearing on this matter. Jim Rubin explained that the Council upheld the Planning & Environmental Commission decision on the Vail Mountain"'School, with the condition that the building -be moved as shown on the revised site plan. The cabin on site will remain in its existing location. The school building will be moved further from the closest residences, the White residence and others which are located at the top of the hill. The Planning & Environmental Commission reviewed the revised site plan. The Motion was made by Pam Garton to approve the revised site plan for the Vail Mountain School as reviewed by the Commission. Seconded by Gerry White, the Motion was unanimously approved by the Commission, Roger Tilkemeier abstained because of a conflict of interest. The third item on the agenda, Discussion of sale of Station I (Vail Fire Protection District). Fire Chief Gordon Swanson was to address the Commission but he was not present. NOTE FROM JIM RUBIN: This matter was discussed on an informal basis later on during a work session and the Planning & Environmental Commission did not object to the proposed sale. The Motion was made to adjourn the Public Hearing by Gerry White, seconded by Roger Tilkemeier and unanimously approved by the Commission. E° Meeting adjourned at 3:25 P.M. .1 MEMORANDUM TO TOWN.COUNCIL FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATE 12 DECEMBER 1978 REF SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS Section 1: Eliminates Building Bulk and Open Space Sections from all zone districts. Section 2: Changes Setbacks in all zone districts to remove Height as a part of the Setback calculations. Section 3: Adds a Height limit in Single- Family and Duplex zones. Section 4 & 5: Changes Conditional Uses on first floor or street levels removing Professional Offices. and Repair Shops. Includes Travel and Ticket Agencies and Luggage stores as Permitted Uses. Section 6: Renumber CCI Expansion Section so that it directly follows the Conditional Use Section. Section 7: Renames the Permitted Use Section in CCII to include both Permitted and Conditional Uses (since this Section includes both). Section 8: Renames Conditional Use Section in CCII to correspond with similar Section in CCI: Section 9: Removes SDDI and establishes a chapter authorizing Special Development Districts and setting forth the procedures for submitting and reviewing them. Section 10: Changes the Parking and Loading Sections to raise fractions to next whole number. Section 11: Requires all people receiving Parking Variances to contribute to the Town of Vail Parking Fund. Section 12: Changes the Design Review Board Section giving administrative powers to the Zoning Administrator. Section 13: Establishes administrative policies for Design Review Board review by Zoning Administrator. Section 14: Changes Design Review Board Section eliminating the Sign Review Board. Pg. 2 - Memo -Town Council 12 -12 -78 Section 15: Requires that Public Notices be sent Certified Return Receipt Required. Section 16: Eliminates the sending of Public Notices to adjacent property owners on Planning & Environmental Commission decisions appealed to the Town Council. Section 17: Changes the Amendment procedure so there does not have to be a fifteen (15) day Public Notice between the Planning & Environmental Commission hearing and the Town Council hearing. Section 18: Amends the Density Control Sections in RC, LDMF and I!;IDMF to require that only Buildable Area be used in calculating number of units per acre, with an exemption for those projects that have presently received Final Design Review Board approval. Section 19: Clarifies the Density Control Section in HDMF, PA, CCI, CCII, and CSC so that the Density is figured on the Buildable Site area. Section 20: Corrects an error in the Permitted Use Section of HDMF by adding as a "Permitted Use" - Multi - Family Residential Dwellings. Section 21: Clarifies the "Permitted Use" Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 22: Stipulate the penalties for violators of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance. I S�Y ■ � 49- 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Section 1. Sections 18.14.090, 18.16.090, 18.18.090, 18.20 :.090, 18.22.090, 18.24.130, 18.26.100, and 18.28=.100 "DENSITY CONTROL" are amended by the addition of the following as a Subsection B: 18.14.090.DENSITY CONTROL (Residential Cluster) (B)'A density increase of thirty (30 7o)percent will be permitted for the provision o.f long-term rental units. 18.16.090 DENSITY CONTROL (Low Density Multiple- Family) (B) A density increase of twenty five (25 %) percent will be permitted for the provision of long -term rental units. 18.18.090 DENSITY CONTROL (Tedium Density Multiple - Family) (B) A density increase of twenty (20 %) percent will be permitted for the provision of long --term rental units. 18.20.090 DENSITY CONTROL (High Density Multiple - - Family) (B) A density increase of fifteen (15 %) percent will be permitted for the provision of Long -term rental units. 18.22.090 DENSITY CONTROL (Public Accommodation) (B) A density increase of fifteen (15 %) percent will be permitted for the provision of long -term rental units. 18.24.130 DENSITY CONTROL (Commercial Core I) (B) A density increase of fifteen (15 %) percent will be permitted for the provision of long -'term rental units. 18.26.100 DENSITY CONTROL (Commercial Core II) (B) A density increase of fifteen (15 %) percent will be permitted for the provision of long -term rental units. 18.28.100 DENSITY CONTROL (Commercial Service Center) (B) A density increase of twenty (207o) percent will be permitted for the provision of long -term rental units. Section 2. Chapter 18.04 of the.Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new section Section 18.04.215 to read as follows: 18.04.215 LONG -TERM RENTAL UNITS -A--long-term-rent-a-1 un- f-+ -is a un- t-pearm tted by Sections 18.14.090 (B), 18.16.090 (B), 18.13.090 (B), 18.20.090 (B), 18.22.090 (B), 18.24.130 (B), 18.26.1.00 (B), and 18.28.100 (B). A long -term rental unit -must be rented out on a minimum six month lease basis and will require the signing and yearly review of documents to that effect. A long -term rental unit must remain in such use for .the life of the project and must have a recorded deed re- striction to that effect. An increase in GRI<A of yip to, but not more than 1000 ° ,, .i �� rw¢n�iaha*� rental. unit constructedOwzl.1 e permi ed. �i�! o -he zoning restrictions as required in this Title 18 shall k I` Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Page 2 E r be complied with. Section 3. A new chapter, Chapter 18.70 "EMPLOYEE HOUSING" is hereby adopted to read as follows: 18.70.010 PURPOSE The Employee Housing Section is intended to require projects constructed in the Town of Vail which generate employees, to provide housing for these employees. This Section would only. affect those projects which employe ten (10)•or more full -time j employees or their equivalents. j 18.70.020 DEFINITIONS !I i (A) Employee. A person who is employed within or by E the new project including, but not limited to E managers, maintenance people, maids, restaurant E help, store clerks, etc. Equivalent (B) Employee - Full -Time/ A person who works more than thirty (30) hours a week, or a group of people whose combined hours exceed thirty (30) hours per week. The number of full -time employees or their equivalents would be based on the antici- pated requirement for the winter season. 18.70.030 CONSTRUCTION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING Any project which generates more than ten (10) full - time employees or their equivalents will be required to construct new long -term housing on the basis of one bed room for each. three full -time employees or their equivalents. This construction can take place on or off the site on which the project is being proposed, but must be restricted to and maintained as employee housing as required by this Section. If developed on- sate, the employee housing units shall not be counted as dwelling units. for determining the permissable density of the project. If, developed off -site, the employee housing units shall be counted as dwelling units as defined in this Title. 18.70.040 EMPLOYEE HOUSING PLAN An Employee Housing Plan will be required if the Zoning Administrator determines that the project will generate employees. The Employee Housing Pan l will include the following: (1) Estimates the square footage and use of all proposed commercial space. (2) The number, size, and.a:nticipated use of all dwelling and accommodation units. . .(3) The number of weekly employee hours required to maintain and operate all commercial space and dwelling units during the winter season. s Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Page .3 (4) The number and type of employee housing to be provided to satisfy the requirement of this Chapter. 18,70.050 APPROVAL REQUIRED An Employee Housing Plan will require the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator based on the following criteria: (1) Accuracy of the estimate of full -time employees. (2) Adequacy of the housing proposed to meet the demand created by the project. 18.70.060 RIGHT OF APPEAL Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to deny an interested person his right to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Section 18.66.030. An interested party may also seek a variance from the requirements of this Chapter. Said variance shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.62, of this Title 18. Section 4. Sections 18.10.070, 18.12.070, 18.13.070, 18.14.070, 18.16.070, 18.18.070, 18.20.070, 18.22.070, 18.24.110, 18.26,110, 18.28.080, 18.30.070, 18.32.070, 18.36.050 (C), 18.42.100, 18.44.130, 18.46.110, 18.48.080 (C), 18.50.110, and 18.53.080 (C) "DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS" are hereby repealed. Section 5. Section 18.54.040 PERFORMANCE BONDING OF RECREATIONAL AMENITIES is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.54.040 PERFORMANCE BONDING OF RECREATIONAL. AMENITIES AND LANDSCAPING. Prior to issuing a Building. Permit for any building or any other construction on the premises, permittee will be required to submit a letter of credit- or surety bond, guaranteeing to the town the construction of the recreational amenities or land- scaping as presented in the site plan and/or prospectus. In the event the recreational amenities or landscaping are not complete within one (1) year after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the town shall take the necessary steps to collect the funds required from the bonding company, guarantor or other institution guarante- eing construction of the recreational amenities or landscaping and complete the construction from the proceeds of the fund so derived. 2. i i I* I--* Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Page 4 Section 6. Section 18.04.070 "DEFINITION DWELLING UNIT" is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.04.070 DWELLING UNIT - "Dwelling Unit means any room or group of rooms in a two - family or multiple - family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. Section 7. Section 18.22. 020 "PERMITTED USES" Sub- section A..is amended to change the allowable percentage of total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) occupied by accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principal use from twenty (207o) percent to ten (107o) percent. i F