The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979 Planning & Environmental Commission Agendas, Memos & MinutesPEC AGENDAS :~ 1979 JanuanY 9,~ h979 VAIL VALLEY 3rd, rezone from SDl to LKMF PULIS minor sub SDD4 amendment LEMORE zone on tracts A & C LOTS Cl-C5, LIONSRIDGE FILING #1 rezone January 23.1979 GONDOLA I, redevelopment LOTS Cl~;CS, LIONSRIDGE FILING #1 rezone Febru~r~ 3a 1979 GOLD PEAK redevelopment SCHOBER BLDG proposed addition ZONING amendments February X71979 ~_.~• MOUNTAIN MEADOWS condo plats LOT 9,-Block 3, BIGHORN 3rd, HBM condo plats NORTHWOODS BUILDING B condo plats MANSFIELD VILLAGE, preliminary discussion Marc~kr 13k;•~1979 SCHOBER BLDG,.-conditional use in CCI CREEKSTDE BLDG,- " " HILL BLDG, " LOT 1, VAI VILLAGE 2nd {old firehouse site) rezone LOT 3,-POTATO PATCH, Mueller variance GONDOLA I re sub SITE 8, CASOLAR DEL NORTE SUB amendment NEaroh ~27k: ~] 979 LOT 8,-BLK 1, VAI VILLAGE 1st, Slaughter,~setback variance • VAIL RACQUET CLUB,,.density variance PITKIN CREEK PARK,-deve1opment plan LOTS 2 & 3, BLK $,BIGHORN SUB 3rd, minor resub SCHOBER BLDG, conditional use ~. A~pr~.l 1 a~.~19~79 PUBLIC/PRIVATE JOINT VENTURE RESUB of LOTS 10 & 11 ;~BLK 1,;'VAIL VILLAGE 1 st, resub BIGHORN UNPLATTED;,•townhouse pro3ect {Ron McCaughan) SCHOBER BUTLDING, re~app1ication for conditonal use CREEKSTDE BLDG conditonal use LIONSRIDGE Ci-C5, development plan MANOR VAIL outside deck Apri l 2~4; .1979 LOT 9, BIGHORN ESTATES, setback variance LOT 12 `BLK 1,-VATL VILLAGE 13th setback variance RESUB OF PARCEL A~~rBIGHORN SUB, AND PARCEL A, BIGHORN 1st addition CI-C5 LIONSRTDGE development plan CLOCK TOWER PORCH MANSFIELD VILLAGE,-preliminary discussion PARCELS B,C,D •~AND E, LIONSRIDGE EYEING NO. 2, annexation May 22, 1~~79 C1 C5 LIONSRTDGE #1 Phase TI • PARCEL A, BTGHORN SUB, PARCEL A, BIGHORN 1st Add (postponed to June 12) - MANSFIELD VILLAGE development plan VAL D'GORE zone change ZONE ORD;. r•MIN LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEXES June ~1'2; 1979 PARCEL A, BIGHORN 5UB, PARCEL A, BIGHORN 1st Add resub June 26, 1979 GORE CREEK PARK sub and rezone WOODRIDGE TOWNHOUSES plat GORE VALLEY OPEN SPACE PLAN STREET VENDING OPERATTOANS IN CCI AND CCII SIGN CODE REVISIONS Jule `~ 0,.•1979 LOT lq~, Blk 3, VAIL VALLEY IST,%rear setback variance CYRANO'S conditional use enclosure of patios GETTY OIL SITE, rezone to MDMF • TYROLEAN INN condo plat lot line vacation August ~,~ ~~979 AMENDMENT TO AG AND OPEN SPACE REZONE OF SDD TO PUD CURRENTS JEWELRY;.•parking variance MATTERHORN zoning PARCELS B,-C, D, E LIONSRIDGE #2 August 28,,-~19~79 SITZMARK LODGE, conditional use to allow additional storage space VAIL ROW HOUSES,. Unit 2-B, GRFA variance ZONE CHANGES TO AG & OPEN SPACE THE VALLEY,,-~•prem1iminary disc on potential annexation September^~ 10, -1979 VAIL ROW HOUSES,.2~6 GRFA variance MOUNTAIN MEADOWS,-setback variance CORNICE BUILDING setback variance and parking variance WATER TREATMENT PLANT,~~expansion TIME SHARE zoning • September 24, TS~9 VAIL VILLAGE INN, PHASE III development plan SCHOBER BLDG.~~landscape LOT 24,~VAIL MEADOWS FIRST FILING, setback variance SDD 10,.•VALLI HI amendment to a11ow manager's apartment in rec building GETTY OIL SITEy~BIGHORN,:~contitional use to allow office bldg TIME SHARE zoning October 8, 1979 AG AND OPEN SPACE changes GOLD PEAK TENNIS COURTS,-SMALL WORLD,.-•conditional use LOTS 1 and 2.,~RESUB OF LOTS 10 and 11, BIGHORN ESTATES,-setback variance TIME SHARE zoning VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE III development plan KIATIPES PARCEL, minor sub request GETTY OIL SITE, office bldg r~ U • October ~2~.:~1999 AG AND OPEN SPACE amendment BIGHORN FIRE STATION, conditonal use expansion GONDOLA II BLDG parking variance KATIPES PARCEL,-minor sub final plat Nov~embe r`-12-i~l 9 79 AG AND OPEN SPACE amendment November 2~6, 1979 AMENDMENT TO SECTIN 18,66.110 and 18,66 130 and 18866,080 VATL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL,~~conditiona7 use to allow use of basement December' 1~Q; 1979 VAIL RACQUET CLUB CONDO, BDLGS l5 and 14 density variance to building employee units ZONING CHANGES INVOLVING NOTIFICATION AND INITIATION U C] AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~7anuary 9 , 19'79 WORK SESSTON: 1:00 P.M. 1.) Urban Run-Off Study/Department of Community Development Environmental Health Officer 2.) Employee Housing PUBLIC HEARING 3:00 P.M. l.} Vail Valley Inc. - Rezoning of 5 acre parcel adjacent to Vail Valley 3rd from SDI {Special Development District l) to LD11~F {Low Density PJiultiple-Family) with RC Density. 2.) tiYarren Pulis - Minor Subdivision of a I acre unplatted parcel by the Golf Course, into two parcels. 3.) Andrew Norris -- Amendment to SD4 {Special Development District 4). d.) Dave Elmore - Zoning on Tracts A & C of the recently • annexed parcels . 5,} Jay Peterson - Rezoning on Lots C1-C5, Lionsridge Filing No. I from Residential Cluster to Special Development District 10 (SD10) with a Maximum allowable density of 200 long-term rental units on 10.08 acres. 6.} Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. ~' C~ MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL CQMMISSION 9 JANUARY 1979 Members Present: Pam Garton Sandy Mills Ron Todd Roger Tilkemeier. Gerry White Jim Morgan Ed Drager - Absent Staff Present: A11en Gerstenberger Jim Rubin The meeting was brought to order at 3:Od P.M. The first item on the agenda, Vail Valley,~Inc..- Rezoning o.f 5 acre parcel adjacent to Vail Valley 3rd Pram SDl (Special Development District 1) to LDMF (Low Density ~dultiple-Family) with RC (Residential Cluster) density. Mr. Warren Pu1is was present to address the Commission. Jim Rubin advised the Commission of the correction to be made on the Memo of 1-b-79, to read that "there are 3.9 buildable acres rather than the 1.4, and an allowable density of 23 units, rather than 8." Mr. Pulls explained to the Commission that there had been a land trade with the Town of Vail, the Town receiving the piece of land where the golf course pond is located, and Mr. Pulls received a 2-unit credit as approved by the Town Council. Jim Rubin mentioned that an avalanche study will have to be completed before construction can commence. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Vail Valley Inc,, request for rezoning of a 5 acre parcel adjacent to Vail Valley 3rd from .Special Development District 1 to-Low Density Multiple-Family with a Residential Cluster Density which will allow 6 units per buildable acre and including the twa additional units from the land trade with the Town of Vail, and the percentage increase of Gross Residential Floor Area for the two additional units in accordance with the Department of Community Development memorandum, with the corrections a~-;,.stated. The Motion seconded by Pam Garton. The Commission vo~ed~unanimous approval. The second .item on the agenda, Warren Pulls - Minor Sub- division of a 1 acre unplatted parcel by the Golf Course; into two parcels. Mr. Pulls again addressed the Commission. The Com~ission discussed the memo with Jim Rubin. Mr. Pulls assured the Commission that he is in complete agreement with Jim Robin's reeamrnendation that there be just one access point to the lots. Ken Shapiro was present to speak to the Commission, he was concerned about notification in respect to contract purchasers, stating that there was one man he could not contact. The PEC members felt that the owner notification was properly done by .~~i Page 2 ` Minutes - Planning & Environmental Commission 1-9-79 by notifying the owners of record and that a~:1 requirements hacl been met. After further discussion, the Motion was-made by Roger Tilkemeier to approve the request far a".Minor Subdivision of a 1 acre unplatted parcel by the Golf Course into two parcels that includes the 1ega1 description of the access as discussed in an agreement between Warren Pulis .and Vail. Golf Course Townhomes regarding access onto the lots and in.accordance with the, recommendations made by the Department of Community Development memorandum dated 9 January 1979 and noting Mr. Shapiro's appearance on behalf of the contract purchasers: Gerry White seconded the Plfotion. The Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on the agenda, An;dxew Norris - Amendment to SD4 {Special Development District 4). Jim Rubin discussed the memo with the Commission. Mr. Norris was present to explain his request. He asks for the following changes to the Amendment: In Paragraph E of Section" 18.46.040, delete the word "sections" and "interior circulation" and change l/8 inch equals one foot, to 1 inch equals 20 feet, and delete "location of uses within the buildings." He explained that their plan is to provide "building use envelopes." Jim Rubin asked that it be changed to "general use within buildings" and Mr. Norris agreed to this. After further .discussion, the Motion was made by Pam Garton to approve the Amendment to Special Development District 4 as requested by Andrew Norris, and as outlined in the Department of Community Development memo dated January 5, 1979 and with the changes as noted in the new Amendment by Mr. Norris. The Motion was seconded by Sandy Mi11s. The Commission voted unanimous approval. The 4th item on the agenda, Dave Elmore - Zoning on Tracts A & C of the recently annexed parcels. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that A4r. Elmore is not present today, but that the recommendation as stated in the memo was the recommendation from the Town Council. He stated that if the Commission feels comfortable with the information they have on this they can make their recommendations today. There was discussion on an "escape clause" for the long-term rental units. Jim Rubin stated that Larry Rider, Town Attorney, is working on the wording for this. Ron Todd was concerned that people could sublet the long-term units, and Jim Rubin agreed that the language needs to be strengthened on this. After further discussion, Roger. Tilkemeier made the Motion to postpone the recommendations for zoning on Tracts A & C of the recently annexed Elmore parcels. Jim Morgan seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Page 3 . Minutes - Planning & Environmental Commission 1-9-79 The 5th item on the agenda,. Jay Peterson - Re2oning on Lots Cl-C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from P,esidential Cluster to Special Development District 10 (SD10) with a maximum allowable density of 200 long-term rental units on 10.08 acres.. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law w.as present to address the Commission on behalf of the prospective owner. He introduced Ken Cochran, the architect, and advised the Commission that the sellers of the property were also in attendance. On a question from Gerry White regarding the possibility of rent control, Mr. Cochran stated that rend control would not be acceptable. He feels the `figure they have given ($350 pe,r. 2-bedroom unit per month) is realistic, but could change r,elatiUe to actual building costs and maintenance expense, Pam Garton asked about parking, she felt perhaps there may not be enough for a project this size. 'Jay Peterson stated there are currently spaces being .provided in excess of those required by the Zoning Ordinance and they wish to keep asphalt areas to a minimum. He feels that the parking situation may not be so severe because of the project's proxima~ty to the Town and the availability of bus service to the area. Jim Rubin also commented that because the project will be phased, this will help to solve the problern.in that the first phase can test the actual parking need. Ron Todd asked for comments from the. Commission. Pam Garton doesn't think the density is out of line far this area and. that the location is very good for employee housing. She would like to see it go on to the Town Council. Sandy Mills was concerned that too many employee housing units could be constructed at one time and that this project could at some time come back to ask that part of the project be turned into condominium-type housing. Jay Peterson interjected that this could be the case if the buildings were not rented, but that he feels this would be pretty far-fetched because of the present high demand. Allen Gerstenberger asked whether they would be willing to receive approval for only 100 units, having to come back through another review process for the second 100 units. Jay Peterson answered that he would have to talk with the owners about this, but he felt he would have a hard time selling this with the possibility of density limits being put on the second half of the project. AI1en felt that the site is good .for this housing and can handle the 20 units per acre, but he is not comfortable with the site plan. He also stated that this project would increase the f~~ density in the Lionsridge neighbq~ihood by 37%. Ron Todd felt the two and three story building concept is good for this type of housing, esp~;cially since it wi11 keep building costs within reason. Page .4 Minutes - Planning & Environmental Commission 1-9 -79 Gerry White feels this is a necessary increase in density for this type of housing and will meet a great community need. Allen Gerstenberger commented that he agrees with this, but he .feels that a mini-impact analysis should be done for this project and they should look at the projects that are how being considered that include employee housing. Jay Peterson stated that he doesn't feel they are adding to anything, but that these units would only be replacing the Joss of employee housing through the past few years. to build employee consider projects employee Jim Morgan thinks will show whether housing that is n that this project have a portion of housing. the speed with which they are planning the project will produce all the ceded, and that it is importazat to is 100% employee housing where„other luxury condominiums with only some Roger Tilkemeier is concerned that they realize that the Vail area has a very short building season and there might not be enough time to complete the project as they plan (the developers hope to have 104 units completed for the 1979-$0 ski season). The architect answered that it was his feeling that it would be enough time, he has had experience in building in other areas of the country that have long and severe winters. Roger added that he doesn't feel they could finish all the units by fall, but he also stated that he has no problem. with the density or the location, but would like to see the site. plan developed very carefully. The Commission asked whether the developer would be agreeable if at the end of twenty years, they would give the Town of Vail the right of first refusal. Jay Peterson and Mr. Cochran stated there was no problem with this. It was also brought out that the project would be subject to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance so that there is adequate protection for keeping this project as long-term housing. Pam Garton made the Motion to recommend approval for the re-zoning on Lots C1 through C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster to Special Development District 10 with a maximum allowable density of approximately 200 long-term rental units on 10.0$ acres. She stated that the Commission looks favorably on employee housing on these lots because of their location within the Town, and are in agreement with the approximately 20 units per acre. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Mot-ion. The Commission voted unanimous approval of this recommendation. • Jim Rubin asked the Commission for a list of their concerns on this project, things they feel need to be addressed before~a final approval can be given for the Special Development District. ~~ These concerns focused on the final definitions that will regulate• the use of these units as long-term housing. Sandy Mi11s also brought up the concern of increased municipal services that will be needed because of the project. Pam Garton reiterated the need to ` Page 5 - Minutes - Planning & Environmental Commission 1-9-79 study the parking demand for the project. Gerry White felt that rent controls shou~.d be discussed by the Council. Ron Todd asked the Commission to nominate a member of the Commission to the Design Review Board for a three-month term. Sandy Mills was nominated by Gerry White, Roger Tilkemeier seconded her nomination and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The Commission was asked to nominate an alternate, Ed Drager was nominated by Ron Todd, the nomination seconded by Pam Garton and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Sandy Mills will serve an the Design Review Board from 1 February 1979 until the end of Aprzl 1979. Meeting adjourned 5:15 P.M. • ,` _. u.. ~. .: .. , _ _ - E,_ . MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 19 January 1979 RE EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL ON LOTS C1 -- C5, LIONSR~~lGE FILING NO. 1 On Tuesday night, the Town Council reviewed the Lionsridge Housing Proposal and reacted faVOrably to the density and the concept presented by the applicant. Also on Tuesday night, the Town Council passed on 2nd reading a series of Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, one of which simplified the Special Development District procedure so that Special Development Districts are now treated as rezonings rather than Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The process that is now followed in reviewing and approving Special Development Districts is for the Planning & Environmental Commission to determine what conditions or restrictions are to be placed on the property to be included in the Special Development District. The Town Attorney then takes these conditions and draws ` • up an agreement between the Town and the applicant. The recommendations from the Planning & Environmental Commission along with the proposed agreement are then forwarded to the Town Council for final approval. Along these lines, the following are conditions that we recommend be placed on the Lionsridge Housing Proposal: 1.) Density A maximum number of 198 units with a maximum GRF.A. of 148,500 sq. ft., will be p:errnitted on the parcel more particularly described as Lots C1 through C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 2.) Parking A minimum of 297 parking spaces will be provided for this project. 3. Use The use of the 198 units will be restricted as follows: a.} The units shall be .used for long-term rentals only with a minimum lease term of thirty (30) days. b.) All renters shall be employed in the Gore Valley or in functions servicing the Gore Valley. A list shall be given to the Town of Vail on December 1 and June 1 including the names and place~of employment of all occupants. c.} A11 occupants who are not employed in the Gore Valley or in related function for a period of time in excess of thirty (30) days _, € .. (except during the offseason) will be required to terminate their occupancy. d.) All signators of Leases must be the occupants of the units. 4. )' Length of Commitment a.) The applicant agrees that the 198 units will only be used according to the terms described above for a twenty (20) year period. b.) Exceptions will only be made by the Tawn Council when and if it can be demonstrated that there is not a sufficient demand of employees to continue a reasonable level of occupancy. 5.) Approvals Required a.) The Planning and Environmental Comrrtissioz~ shall review and recommend to the Town Council a Development Plan in accordance with Section 18.40.040 and 18.40.050. b.) The Town Council.. shall give final approval to the Development Plan. 6.} Development Standards.- The following Min:irimum Development Standards shall be follows: a.} The required Setbacks sha11 be a minimum of twenty {20) feet from any site line. b.) The maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty-five (35) feet. c.) Not more than forty-five percent of the total site area sha11 be covered by buildings. d.) A minimum of thirty percent of the total site area shall be landscaped. e.} Recreational facilities sha11 be provided, sufficient to meet the needs of the residents of the project. Day care facilities shall. be included in the project. • ~. . , MEMO RANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVI RONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF C OMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 JANUARY 1979 RE Lots C1 to C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 A.) SPECIFTCATTONS OF PROJECT 1. Density a.) Number of Units 198 2-bedroom units b.) Number of Units per Acre 19.64 2. GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area} a.) Total GRFA 148,500 sq. ft. b.) GRFA per Unit 750 sq. ft. c.) GRFA Factor .34 3. Parking a.) No. of Parking Spaces 263 b.) No. of Parking Spaces per Unit 1.328 ..~ - c.) No. of Parking ' Spaces required by honing Regs. 247 d.) No. of Excees Parking Spaces 16 4. Height a.} No. of two-story buildings 10 b.) No. of three-story buildings 5 5. Site Coverage a. } Permitted in MD3t4F 45% b.) Proposed 16% 6. Landscaped Area a.) Minimum in MDMF 30% b.) Proposed 62% 7. Anticipated Rent a.) Pex Furnished Unit $350 pear month 8. Length of Commitment 20 years '~ I~ !., B.) ANALYSTS OF PROJECT Pg, 2 - Memorandum to PEC 1-9-79 B.) Analysis of Project (continued) 1. Density in Lionsridge DEVELOPED SITE AREA # OF UNITS STIES PROJECT ACRES UNITS PER ACRE E A-5 Lions Mane T .355 18 47 Lions Mane II .662 19 29 A-6 Homestake A & B 1.360 66 49 B-1 Telemark .,895 18 20 B-2 Snaw Lion 1.360 26 19 B-3 Breakaway T .353 12 34 Breakaway II A & B 1.136 27 24 Breakaway II C .390 15 38 B-6 Brooktree 1.233 48 39 unplatted Aspen Tree .450 15 33 ',~ ~ Vail Run S.S4 193 22 B4-B5 Sandstone Creek 6.017 S4 14 TOTALS 23.081 541 23 We feel that the approximately 20 units per acre is not out of line with existing densities in the Lionsxidge area. 2. Positive Features of Proposed Project a.} 104 long-term rental. units will be built this summer and will, be ready ,for occupancy in the fall. e b.) The location of the project is excellent from the standpoint of its proximity to t he Town, to bus service, and to a major arte rial street. c.) The impact that this proposal would have on the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. , d.) The low scale nature of the project with relatively low profile buildings will min imize the visual impact of this project. ' e.) The floor plan and size of the units will allow far high standard living conditions for ~~ the occupants. . '. • Pg. S'- Memorandum to PEC 1-9-79 ~- f.) Recreational and laundry facilities will be provided on site. 3. Negative Features of Proposed Project . a.) The density' is high relative to other remaining undeveloped parcels of land within the Town of Vail. b.) There could be too many long-term.aresident units coming on line at the same time. c.) There would be additional demands on municipal services including bus, police; dire, water and sewer. d.} There would be additional traffic generated along the North Frontage Road and at the 4-way stop into Town. C.) RECOMMENDATIONS The proposal that you have in front of you is being presented for a zoning determination. As with all Special Development Districts, the PEC and the Town Council will see a complete development plan and environmental impact repoxt. before any construction can commence. We do not have a specific recommendation at this-time. We feel that the twenty units per acre could work on this site but that more information an various alternatives is necessary. Specifically, we would like comparisons of rent levels at different densities and estimation of haw the different densities would impact the municipal. service. We feel this site is a very suitable one fox employee housing. We also feel that this project could help solve a very serious shortage of units for lozag-term residents. Our concerns specifically focus on the impacts of the density of this pxopasal. We do recommend that additional studies be conducted to determine the impacts and feasibility of densities ranging from 12 to 20 units per acre. 1~EMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENTJ' ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE DATE 5 JANUARY 1979 RE GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY In 1977 the Regional Environmental Protection Agency hired a consultant to review local water quality, anal how it is Impacted by all sources other than the sewage treatment plant. The data collection and analysis phase has been completed, and it appears that some urban run-off pollutants have a greater impact on Gore Creek than does the sewage treatment plant. We are no entering a planning phase of this study. Impacts from disturbing soil cover, poor vegetation replacement, pollutants from roads and parking areas all have adverse effects on the creek during spring run-off and rainfall during summer. Enclosed is a brief list of recommendations which Engineering--Science has developed. We should go over these this week and at future meetings we can start going over the whole study in more detail. I will be able to answer any questions you may have at the meeting. Thank you. • ~.. ~ WATER QUALITY: The surface and ground waters of the regian shall be..pra-- ' tected to maintain the current uses of thane waters. The physical, chemical and biological conditions shall be maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of residents of North-western Colorado. Polluted waders of the regio~a ~. shah. be restored as soon as is financially and technically feasible. . 2, WATER USR AND DEVELOPMENT: The surface and ground waters of the region . shall be used according to established legal water rights with the understaxxding that each use of water shall render the quality of the water suitable for all existing desired uses of water. 3. ENCROACHMENT: The surface anal ground waters of the regian shall not be encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which could cause deteri- oration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands. ~. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The surface and ground waters of the region s~:all be protected by public investments in roads, water supplies, sewage treat- ment systems, and other public facilities and services which would encourage land usa and development activities in locations where water quality impacts will. be minimized. Conversely, such investments shall be ruade to discourage land usa and development activities in locations where severe water quality impacts may be caused. Such public investment policies shah. also recognize the protection of floodplains, geologic hazards, wildlife habitats, wetlands, shorelines and prime agricultural land. 5. VEGETATION DISTURBANCE: The surface and ground waters of the region shall ~be protected by maintaining permanent vegetative cover and by controlling distur-~ • banees to vegetation. 6. S07L DISTURBANCE AND EARTH MOVEMENT: The surface and ground waters of the region shall be protected from all Land use and development activities involving soil disturbance and earth movement which would cause significant degradation of water quality or would impair the current or designated uses of the region's~~ waters. 7, IMPERVIOUS COVER: The surface and ground waters of the regian shall be protected from land use activities creating impervious cover conditions which taould cause a long--term reduction of the quality and quantity of natural. ground water recharge from precipitation. 8. STORM iv'ATER: T}xe surface and ground waters of the regian shall be pro- tected f'rort land use activities which would alter the drainage patterns, veloc-- iti.es, volumes, and physical, chemical and biological characteristics of storm water runoff which would cause significant degradation of water quality or would impair-the current or designated uses of the region`s waters. 9. pOMESTIC, MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL WASTES: The surface and ground waters of the regian slxall not be used for dilution and disposal of domestic, municipal or industrial r,rastes unless it can be demonstrated that such wastes caill not cause a significant deterioration in water quality conditions or impair the current or designated uses of those waters. 10. PESTICIDES, FERTILIZERS AND OTHER CiiEriTC61LS: The surface and ground water resources of the region st~a11 be protected from the uses of pesticides, fertilizers, algacides, road salts, and other. chemicals which would temporarily ar permanently alter natural water quality conditions. THE FOUR BASIC STEPS TO CONTROLLING NO~IPOINT 50URCE POLLUTION s A. Limit the Generation of Pol~.utants 1. Contx'al I?eve7.apment of Publ.ic* and Private Facilities 2. Plan Construction 3. Plan Operations and Maintenance` . $. Limit Entry of Pollutants into Rutlaff or Leachate 3.. Waste Disposal . ' 2. Litter Control's 3. ~iou5etceeping'~ ~+. Gonstruction Site Cantral C. L~.mit Entry of Polluted Runoff into Streams ' ].. drainage and Sedimentation. Control 2. Streamside Buffers 3. Gont,rol Leachate D. Preserve Streams ' ],. Pzohibit Strewn Pumping 2. Preserve Stream Channels 3. Maintain .and Enhance Rigarian Habitats Public Agency Short Terzu Options s • { CO1~1TR0~ OP't10NS Plan Revieca and Assesstnent -~ Plans for tha development of public and private facilities shall he reviewed and water quality impacts assessed in a written report. Conformance with specific water quality maintenance and enhancement policies will be specifically addressed. Erosion Control Plans - Development activities requiring vegetation removal or soil disturbance or both will require an erosion control plan which shall insure that. the sediment yield the first year after construction is complete shah. be no tuore than a factor o£ 1QD times the normal sediment: y~.eld. The total sediment yield attributable to construction activities conducted in any one yeax shall nat exceed 12D times the normal annual sediment yield, Runaff Control -- The hydrologic and watex quality characteristics of sur- face runoff discharged off--siL•e or into a stream during development oiler-- ations snail be within 2(3 percent of predevelopment characteristics. On-Site Waste Disposal - On-site disposal of solid wastes sha11 be prohibited, . and each on-site liquid waste disposal system sha11 be annually inspected for proper maintenance and operation. ]'aitter Control - Fach commercial and industrial establishment shah. be re- sponsible for insuring its premises sh~11 be free of litter at all tunes. A>7ency Housekeeping - Public agencies will increase their efforts to properly maintain all public facilities frees of litter, insure that polluting ma- terials are stored and handled in a~proper manner, and plan and ex.acute a ~= Spxing and Fall intensive clean-up campaign of street sweeping, catch basin maintenance and litter pickup. De--icinf; Chemicals -- Agencies will cease using chemical salts and develop a lsst of acceptable alternative ~zan~-polluting de-acing chemicals far use in the study area. Use of sand, volcanic ash and other granular materials by public agencies will be redzxced by 50 percent. Solid kraste l~ianagement -- All pxivata and public sola.d waste disposal sites will be located and operated in a manner to insure runoff and leachate will not enter usable surface and ground waters. Stream Preservation ~- Dumping of waste materials into streams, including Snow and ice removed from walkways, roadc~ays and parking areas, sha1Z be prohibited. Property owners caill be required to remove waste materials deposited on stream banks or w~.thin streams. Alteration of strewn chin-- nels and riparian ha~it.ats will not be permitted unless a net habitat and water quality benefit can be demonstrated. SL-ream-Side Buffers - Public agencies, through set-back xequirements, ease- ments, dedications, land trades or land purchase, shall insure that stream channels are buffered from polluting activities. y~,~ . .. .. ~.~: .,...: . ... .. _ _ ,... ..,. E-_.. ~_~._ . _.., _ ._ .... .. ~ ., ~ ~ ..... MEMORANDUM '. . TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 5 January 1.979 RE DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING & ENVIRONIt~ENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA - ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 1.) Vail Va11e.y Inc. - Rezoning of 5.acre parcel adjacent to Vail Va11ey 3rd from SD1 (Special Development District 1) to LDMF {Law Density 114ultipie-Family) with RC Density. There are ~~~ buildable acres in this parcel which would result in an allowable density of ~ 3 units. This is consistent with the density on the adjacent parcel., Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, and is the general density that was discussed for this parcel when SD1 was dissolved. ~"i' 01 U h'~ `~~ for ~a h ~ ~" Y`o~ d~ e } Department Recommendation: Approval. `~i 2.) Warren Pulis - Minor Subdivision of a 1 acre unplatted parcel by the Golf Course, into two parcels. Each lot is in excess of 17,h04 sq. ft., which is the minimum in a duplex zone. The lot on which Mr. Pubs' house presently stands is within all required setbacks. The only potential problem is access. We would suggest that access be off the secondary road going to the upper Golf Course Townhomes and that just one access point be provided for the two lots. Department Recommendation: Approval 3.} Andrew Norris - Amendment to SD4 (Special Development District ~). The proposed Amendment to Special Development District d (SD4 ) woixl~.d accomplish the following l.) No requirement for the 20,000 sq. ft. office building ', . to go through the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council. 2.} No requirement for an additional Environmental Impact Pg. 2 MEMORANDUM Agenda Items & Recommendations 1-5-79 Report for the Mansfield Property {it is already covered in the ETR far the Glen Lyon Subdivision). 3.) No requirement for architectural models of each building {a volumetric model of Development Area A, the Mansfield Property is still required). ~.) No requirement for an ordinance to be passed for the approval of each Development Plan (the PEC and Town Council would still review each Development Plan and the Town Council would pass a Resolution adapting this plan. This change shortens the review procedure and simplifies the administrative process by not requiring a specific ordinance. This is similar to the new procedures in the Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that the Tawn Council has passed on 1st reading). Department Recommendation: Approval 4.) Dave Elmore - Zoning on Tracts A.& C of the recently annexed parcels. Tract A is the parcel on the west side of Matterhorn Circle. We are recommending that one two-family residence be permitted on this site. {There is currently a two-family residence on the site.) Tract C is the parcel on the east side of Matterhorn Circle and North of Gore Creek. We are recommending six (6) units per buildable acre with Residential Cluster GRFA, and with the possible addition of six (6) units per buildable acre with an additional 1,000 sq. ft. of GRFA per unit maximum for long-term rental units. (This was the recommendation from the Town Council.) Department Recommendation: Approval 5.) Jay Peterson - Rezoning on Lots C1-C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster to Special Development District 10 (SD10} with a maximum allowable density of 200 long-term rental units on 10.08 acres. Drawings and a model for this project are being delivered to us on Monday (January 8, 1979). A copy of the proposed SD10 is enclosed. Our initial reaction is that this is an excellent Pg. 3 MEMORANDUM Agenda Items & Recommendations 1--5-79 ;~ location for employee housing, of line with other projects in concerns will not be directly and drawings on Monday. There proposal prior to Tuesday, and Work Session. and that the density is not out the Lionsridge area. Our expressed until we see the site plan will be more comments on this it will be discussed at Tuesday Department Recommendation: Withheld until, Tuesday meeting. 6.} Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. {Please see memo enclosed.) • ~ ~ ~, ~, ~rno r~ k.n r O ~ i ~ o y rr rnrtn N r rt K C ~ p 7• O ` P O ri o k a y O 3 ~ I l H~ N N~ N Fz n N A '~ k 1 N f1 t] n p ? ~. • ' ,' . r, «7 f: W !•r =j W ~ BS n n •' + 'i R ,n ~f n • 7 m N• ~ w ',1 (~ y.-, rr r. n ~ N ~~ P - ~ y r :7 n :n N . ,. W tr i,. ~ M n O 5' ,.. r. r ,.. U .T •[ n ~ r•. ~. fl ' r•. LT :1 n 5 ~sf w tL ;n F•. O r w (: .1 O .h j d a ~ . n R7 67 .. r~ '7 0 ; w ~ O i r,. . {' ' -N [: r.. .s :s n P W .y N [I •i n 7 } : •• y i y.. J j n N N A rl U h r• f. ... p r.. } O 1s ~r r U: .) r•~ :s s (j « N W :s s: r-• N O w F. ry L } ~ ~ d ~. p N M' 01 F O r .~ n r,. a ] h ^_ d n r n r . JI :~ !:, s C+ .t N Yom ° ;.. G : , s~ f] ;'+ .. ' ~ a . fP a t w O H C7 ~i . • fi3 I J ' 1 y 7 . . , F :F 1 s' ~ O ~ ~.. n N M fj ~ :s• Fen r+ W ri J p .Y to O '~ t` N 7 :.r :] :h a C 7'3 Q ,] : < P W 7 I~~ O } 1 Ltf (U (J fJ G C w ` ] .. L`~ O I] Np~ O rn y' 1 r r-. fa Yi if 'V rr . L. r '[} 0 fJ ; 7 + t] r] 'O f• O n « O L":~ nw. C: rn.n .. I " 1I ~ w }• ~ D O 3 Vt 0 .7 07 f z r: P; d d 41 'y ' r~• si ~ tii r-r . a a o •e n J U U'O ',s •s f: r. n C.• y : n c O :` O c7 N r%.. p, .a W rr n re O J '"~ f:. !7 w S.+ •~~ ~ ' W rP ~ ;i'a Clw r+ ~ J t5 O x O N K tro d =r } (a m .7 s? f C:. ~ 43 1 ry 3 F+ y,. Er ro rK :3 1 W N 4 F,. r ?. t n L. F'',~ O (~ ~..` ~ H t:j ~ ,4 ``J 'y r:... n N. r-. r ., +n •i n r* r+ O n t77 W 0. (J O W n d p, ... y ~ r. r~ h •~i C: O s/. .n :r Y' r-• C ,7 ra O .: ~ ~ 1 <F w ~ ~ W II , . C~ IA I'v Cl.:s s+. f ': C= :5 w rt r `r. c: .r ,. ..~ ,5 :~ `r ;s N 3 + M H O ~ ^ n M } t'' "f O '. i W d' r " F Yl R. rr ry m r, C p. ~j J C, N V + ' : V J O"•; rr ?; n f7 C r+~ i~ 'S c_ . :~ n F~ ' ~ , r~ N C Y. Sn C ~ W n rr ~ U ! / .~ ` 3 ,] y r+r ;/: CZ J O `' , a W W W r. T 7 ~'J ~ rr t . f ~., ~, ~ Q N%' W .+,. b rY y : + O e+ : r - ~ F-+ ~ y ~ ' y ~. ~ N !' ~ ? b b " fD LL Q',-y Tt - r. r . ~_ K ro 'O Y 'Y r- :S N w w P. 0 1 . r n ;: :•~ s. O ..3 h n F :n •s :n a r- f~ t] C.'C ~ r* ~ r, .. ~ :7 r f~ W s 4 r., O } n ~. O O O G N w tr W . N C r'>' C7 >/ M n r f; : r. +a . . . «oo p ~ • - r Y G r f1 F ~ F.. F.. ~.. ,9 `+' W ': ~] :s 'O •,y (? N :1 ~: a ~ ~ n n •,.• a'U r+ C 7 7 ~ O ~ CJ y } ~D Y m Y r~ r rn yo ;sn.tq ;Y'ro rr W rr .. 'i''G W rt G r wvnn rCa,b:y'or .._^G=+:'w:naer-.,a;~r• • , ' Jy ^ N ' t; rn ( ooc•~-.~ `" NMq . r-~ to .•'3 •i M~ rr~ '. 1 Ci N ~. ro . . ~ r ti n W R re ,. r w r.. •-,.. fJ ai V ro ~a y M N t] y V R..i _' i W C7 6 ~ Cz • O n K fi W r• < :7 rt C F3 • ~ roe d R7 O trT F6 ' f• Vr O w ~ ~ LL H ~ :i' C b d•C n :v :-s p p . . rlY fe C ~ j ', rCV` )2 N r-+ f.+ r I N O : .^. (: r-+ .i } Gr R) r n rl . 'a O K ,5, rr 7 ~Y f m a' n H O ._. [,; fn b, b 7i ro O pp . rs ri M. W TZ. h rt O M 7 r 1 F [: r, r . C rq W O rt y 5 r y l1 ~ .+. Fy •O O W W a W -s ' O 4J rJ C)i n Fh a N .... ' ro J" } n VJ t•s N 3 rr Oi f O W s-• re fJ y O O• ... i n :a a r, :p "! U C a I-+:3.f~.'N. yr f~ C ., ~ C :3 ~' , ~ « [:I :7 ~ l y N Lr n f3 r-. .7 rr rt n F+ N cr .D O n N 0 rf :l 'YL C' f01 ri ~ n' N. ~ S . r t . O 71 -3 W F:u•.. ~ w nnronnW ~ r-. ~ ~'R Y .'n az N ^ r H O b na o~• r+ O *1 3 + J ~ N w G j„ C W C rr 10 rFTO N. iN hK:y i ' W fJ O U n n l H '~~[rt n7'[<!S .+a v.' ~ r+ F'n < ++ O C]. C CJ :s lr n6 wG ~ ~' ~ t<1 O R i* p t O ~ S} ;i (7 fJ r n. 77 'a :] W fJ C • V .e . O y r+- Fr X :i n .-, 'i : N• G. N w. ]' US W y N 'J U: G 'J' r-+'R !+. ~ . O " [7 w t" 'i :7 A's-~••p R U'~ f3 :n H n r+ CV n N - a . ~ ~ ~~ s H , .1 N (] O. d .-. U rt R n ro fi J ` ':S N. fg }+ !n 'J - T ? V~ O N [. Fa .. N O ~ y ~ N• ~ C N 3 N : 'S a a r;TTT W ~ . . N- y er F ~ U: w O 7 '7 +,, F3 n n f+ v: rr+~a-ra}a ~ V '~, :., sT :sr+•'3 r~'O m'.. r•.n OO F ro~ O rt to H r r -+ w +t C ,-r L. N~ O .: s~ ~ ^ ~ a X w _ F.. n h s D O (. a O • O r 7 O O t : t-r Ji W C~ } U+. A. ,n saOn C :Y p, .~ IG O ~ t7 n Tt v c ~ O y O n a N J •-' P. F... ro r+ F, r! ;J O r-. 7; 'G a ri H R } R r•urF JiW j [] r r/..-7 ^J r* G ~ H ro f + Y•.W C~ 6) • } b itWy - W}N y ra,~ v es % W : rr < (~ m y ro .. r rr N N Y ~ i; ;h ct '] r-N r ^ w O E ~ . :3 U! O O F+- ~ ` 4 OO H r•r rorn :J } O ~ O O r -. rs w. ~ s a • N A. Grt `; v o ro wr i Or•i~ }Oy + -+ i ~ 0' a :l• H~ o t . r: U; i+o q Fro< C + N g P N t' O rr NJlw a rG O ~ U O ri n M~ c~ ~A ., t7' 6 H a b + F OW , r+N. rep } rt n G i n :i w ~ O ' ~ .•~ rr C y i W 'i E sD cs OPaQ ~ - 63 •K WaG ~] 3W U7 d M n 13 ) (7 ( _ U.~w ^•~ NO ~ y•S Mr- U Wr1 C.^ ID y ' 'tl W 3Gnerro () F+. < l7 . Y + ?+b }r-+k rt ' : ] } F .7 R M F-r H rt Y• } sz rt Di .7 N M' W () q « r-J - y N `i . ~ G W r'< ^ N y 4 O rr rr d. fR fJ ' 'T' w W N C] d - >J rr } N~ O O ~ R :~ ~ O ~ O tYi C w O }'re y n r•,y w *p R. V' c+ } fJ O rx ~ C ru sa '3 O [J } . Ca tD r , •r N n +n CP P n O ~ •1, N ~ W J: J ~'c7 a m, r Y,. rr 7' p+ -- ' ~ k O O r r ©r+wn s cFsv«;n ~:O ~ . :n .. O C r ` F is. ~~ r y'}N;~ ,- cnr+- 'r~rt ~ H •3 ~ dre w(~n L7 C O rF m c •+ O ' tp O ~-+ C 3O `~ Ny:3 N O ONaM•y8i t=NC rO Oy C «fuynK aF ~•Wa Y,~y ¢, fJON7 } r ~% ' WrtObCY } N aVi rtr+ M O r ~Q ~ LL RY , W rt V} O F: n fs W r•, y} iwtnOW !/`wNOn (~ ~, 3 rr p -j ~ U ~ O ' N bi aq wy O O Fr [ Rf 7 7-^' W O r• O O rn N O W } O 'rl f 1+• y d - W M D O •+7 « •C r-6 rt- } N 'O O ~ ~ `~, w s; rR W taaN Ki7 } ~ • w m cr 2 w w o ~ 0 •-3 m r} ~ K }•ra y i r i P~ ~o ro ' µ `* ` / ~ } C'1 5' 3• A • .. - . . ' ... ! ~ ., ....-.._ .. ..., .-f r - f !/i trl. ?,~ ~ •w H t,Y b hi [[O[+1 V, ~~C70 t=t n v Cy ) ~ ;.j ro~ H ,Ci A ~ '~C3~ ri5 W cy a HR[J gg ~ rt Cq t' p b rr F~ ^' W-'Li W 47 r•"G M rr 'O 9 F': 'G3 'y [:s N C rtCLq F+U W ft h~:Ty 3C7' C i H ;7 W O O r•'O ro G'C i•. rt p~ C n N t1 y O C H .'s W H C' O YO P N' N N Ye'R ~rWr~ r* V. 'ti ~iZ C N O c. fi ro} n c rh H Ut F/rG O O I-'•- O O' (L N O. O O :~ O 7-' fJ V {p Vi 11 tl'mr+ Tr'tzGO~N• yR• ~i~ p N w W- r+'[s ~ a n•O d H N O ~ ro K r+7'rt O•w fTW M[^.Hro N~f "' Y• d fj N• ~ ~ P~ •O O rh +' ~rnnSL ti err}"w OP'a HCO mnns:r`yw'aa. w :s a• m ro H r• W~ ~ c) ~ rJ N O fJ c.,. row } r H o m n nw aas r ~- ~ F. a ti K n O y R• O `J '~ r+ ro W W r•• r+ rr O $ r+ A sy ~ ~ r* rr as tJ M~ 3 •~ r" ro (a r x~+o m ~~•fr'•ro ~ F (il rJ :i f10 HW } +O r• wad H F. LL ~ r- r+ ;Y W n n M:n ra (a rr (J a.w N.D O O' C O fr C p.:Y' n r+ W i si<+C ~ y N rt ~ t7 O ro O N p- r+ r, 'd O O n f O a W 't tY G O W J F ' N rt MH O ,, n. f., 'p f H O tror'oco~ rn~~rn' mo n~, y~M•o•vm n _ n•s O F, O O 'CS l'inrn MW. O'•iy0 WH ~ r, N•q n a ra rt n r: r ;3~ *' SY H A N q W ti M• O G N m a G wd y r(7 it '1. ^e 0 r~ CL Y.r.~ ~. n1 tF n ~ a• a-. P.°S~trHwonn.or•;M ' .°7 u {`NN n•-lnrnn Cct~ OtTy TN wO O+•.7 :rM~ rocr tC µ1•'J M O ?:Y ~..VO ro ' J ' i n G~ i O w ~ ~ i J :, n W rJ ;l r~ ro ~ o~. W r.:r t{ ~ b .r J;rn~ r: n ro ..... n r:. a`, 1•.b ^' ~' . '~ r '~ urvoo y y w ' IYV Nb:, ' . w nr+ waN D w;"~.t y t•.rt't nC, E O i7 Q W y t W F«n Sd n :{ U` 'Wf n t 'S C ' n 7' PTnr.,p r ~ w oo°v, .~ oW W a r.n U n M i YI ~ ' -,• :,, it :3 '.7 x D' i:' m " D W l =7 j Cn n ' ' "s n ;a• t~ ~ ~ "~ a dw v w a:,;l n ~ • ro m r' n o Y N rJ t 00 N•w] G [i •n ~ :. a :~ W a n ' wm nn F+ 0 -n eo n~1 n"~a ~ G a :s-. O W tr C G rJ 'rro O~SN 0.µ.r P r. ,~ . -'wn V n J J v W r0 ~'C ,V ~'` , h n r-r r. . O - t n F p q 1 . t ~" w Yf w ii r N, a. ] b r7 O L: N.y fr 7 ry ? ~n Ot +n Kro r W r * z t O V O n cOnv rJn a •i RU: F a O r+ :s .yn. ~ O ro a ms R r b f , I iJ CJ r :T W rt W .c0} ~ ' ~ N b. F f J•r O :t ` ' L -. r ~Y7 ~ 7 nE wn~ QOnC D ( D '6 m ry m ro 7' D ~ µ W tp hr rJ CJ 1n ~ - ~ •Q :1 Iw + ! 1+ r ~ CJ 5' K ~' r {7 - 'tf ;3 CrN 3 3' O H @:s H Nr N vC d :! ~ nr+Y r4 i tj C '3 ~ 'i 3 CJ b rJ n m w. a~ F" .y rr N N ~ YS :O O ~ 0.'O, `J G m i J :7 O -1 O F~ 'Y O ~+ ., w f-' Y~ rJ O y 0 'c7 O f.. C # tmp W ~ C s CF7 7-s r. iyr'O 1 ~ n W ~ t G~ o tG !bs n C ' ' J ~ R. 'S G m- n rJ to W W O C C r> ea, W ; ' H ~' C1 Y tr7'YIA 'ft ro W H :3 r n7 ~H. I... y H- rt~ n n ~ i7 :/.' N :t, b O O H- O n' ~ pKnro~ N70LL'Yp O ~~Oy O ap w l m~ m O ~ r' n tJG la r- y b ry W c7 q. b 4 ~ ~D. Q< crO rCVF>~ + r+4 rl~r ~ C bD mO'«, t,' D ODapro Or+t~r K rr H' µ µ w D m Fb 5 LL N Ss Oi d m rr+~ d 7F` ~, A . a' W µ Oi ro~ p tl Y m©Er~k H O rr+ F~'•Q ~ O K W w~' e+ rr :s rs ONO;fL y ~ O p m w O y M ~ Lwl ~ Ct. W ~ q ro Y m '.t M a'r N N h O Mµ:7 y M lnp N ~ m Cf7 `J' 107.00 ~~rry*m w m- -µ-'~ y K N µ h ~ :r O rr norm R • Pi r,Ow i7yO H r? r•.' d ~ 1`f W C: OKr7a+ ?- 1-. 0 a 1J H f= rr ={ W "7 H a N N„ r) y n O w p, [n y m m f1 i ~i :' '~ rx O '} G S W r{ . f M , J fJ :7 ' r r N wO [ ' O Ce :} r, G .: { .- . V u ,>J n d '~ R q i . timR~ '~N:JOw:sµp y:,nnnn .~ w z ;~ O n ~ c, ;s, m m Q ;,1 O .; ro F~ Uf H. ~ ~; ~ ^~ r r N n Us O iN-. r .Y F.. 1.. . F.,. n w f:. ry ri W ..rt• ;, i^ 'J.' (~ W U p. C () D (n K O Pa ~ ro M G f ti n ,,, W . P O ro r. . ~ s~ ° ril O O ~ J: N .t ~ r/1507br 7~ ~pM.~rOr.N 537 rv - o n y ~ n ° , r . c H a 0. :3 rt 0• W F+. n ' .- ~ Pa 3 .~., r . p n is r J: T? n :, r N b; n . W (v O y n ''' r N. ~ W ~J n r" c1•.W ~.. = Y ry i' v m rt ~" ' n O d n ' . ~ n ~' om : ;n T2 ( i ~+ rr O W rt '3 W N. ~„ y 1-+ y rr N R. y t , n ..-~ :t W r+ R r i" :; :a . N n n~ r N ~+ L N. W r1 d T. R O . - JJ n C O m fn9 O ' ~ • m' `~ . Ci ~ r j .7 • I '~ 7 5 ~ N. R O H~ ro e 2 ~ ~ O 1 h O m ° m H c: N N p wr 't w;n o rv ~ O• Jb ~ O y N t r ars 1+. no ~ r y G N~ r„ rr• N 'C O 7 i m a ' W h N- rt w s C s W H O 3 `C µ ,•{ ~~ ~ ~ C ~• µ O Pi t) r (jf w• n Ul w n_ o. r• c y ~• J n :~ rr o W r+ F•. r+ m r_ o s n y r+ C M rr O r+ rt s, . :s r m ~ ~ ry t rJ ~O W H .7' fD N r4 ~ h W ... ~ ti. N Cr O y m r o N ;,• 1., y .'1' N n, Cr N O c+ O ~.,. r F W r. ,,. ~n:spm ' a r ~'bom '~ «rl.dn~m ' n ~ ~ ~ N w ~ m rn ~ rFra ~o U.nn rayro Nti Wa ° ~ as }a O ro r. .. r. . F ~ n' ~ rt m O W K > R n p ~ O G rF ~ N /, OSWe ' ~ ~ Onh ' o r•cM,• ,• ~ C C :t U.~ L7 :, d O m D•C7'OO t 0a nmm ra.r•b drrmro rY-~ ~~t5 0~ a n ~ ry o a r -i~ N F'' D' b O F+. F, . ~ ro I w w m y YW O n rr ~. WWWr S.w F•. wL..NwF~i-r l-~ N N O W O7 C0 Gn b~ I70M D~00 OO OO OO OO 4: W Ul 1'' NI-' N W 1~ -+F'NHf~ rl~i. rNrrw«-. ftgpPOO~OOO alcl;,wm„cva1..{~v~ :~wn+,~ Op00 U C] 1100 O.O~000i O ~~:mroroma,~nomr,r5mr .T n t y tJ r•, rt O p y v r+ ry nyx•nma:c'NmNM;~m Wv rys~aorr~roo~mn,Tt,o o D,~r°n n rt a: w 'e • x ;~ o ,..- M •~ 'ct .Y, ,~ '~O b,' yr3yOro~3m• 'S ~ r*C NC c]r ryr p, ~~ a mmr~mny'o• rrmmjnYN rt ~. w 1 w. W w :] IJ m ~ p ~ ~ w p. ro 1 1 I ro r, ~~a or~J to N R. r q :1 .n W ~ Di b w (~ N. :S C O 17 rp+ N m ~~ asa N O I b c~F •~ ~ k7 m ~ ~ c '~ w w r y O n N G D r (l b6 ~ wan r r L7 h ] " bi ti C] DJ ~* 00 h C ~ ~ 7 h7 'd 'd O ~ ~1 a N cl' to R. 9 U. w s1 Y•'O b 2 [r w'd w c, :~ a K1 n rt W r :v W r- rt ~ m ni F6 O ~ ~ n r+ y r C G C y O H r Y O' ~ O rJ n rt n~ N •t W µ PJ ry m 7 y m c " W C 0 7 0 Y~ Y. W G m c :r d 7 rxD'o• nn ~• r~ r. < < W'-'-m :, m r. n w o W wq, r~Q.n'r', nr•~s n r*m rrµn c+ffl p WHW WrrNO O hyOO ~O Y~m :s h-.mN ci 'D n; y. U rr{ y r H m IDm NN. rtO^'rV tr1 ~1 I+-µ Y~ a ~ iP roJmwr vDCG~ ynCOC OfJ .R~ O °.n 0?' y.m ct.-+>; T1Nb'W o n n n n rr hS p o O w 0 0 r: U+ C- M- 3 ++ ,: J1 y r r s cr W r- •t3 6~ C 1'. rv Q µ L+.:1 ri: m m m C ro D O y O N v ^- w a M N~ .-, n r O '~ I~~ C y m 7~ O O w rt .^, il~ rt f1 S 7 y N• h? s• n n• G •- n a a ro- a n a o r+ Y• W^ q ~i c m r~ ~~ F"- n I! m N ro W~ 7a ~ ro N y :f f-, W 4 r'+ >: r• r O tt 2rF O n it ro r• n rr W W b- a r~ 'J: W N W :s n 11 UI 7 ro Cd !: N W O O roA wr~r, r-COI ~ v:i5 y SJµ Kr.P F.rn'w- :1WV mtoGw µ rW U t=.'t7 V,Cd ra A-Nr r+ra µo wz 5 r, o r*r•W'• Nil W C G r+u: a o :rW a 7 r.o D o m h,c ~. crm w r~:~ row n r• G d ~-. rya .s . n 3 u: :s y --~ ~ ~ ry W b ~ n D r ^.~ +a r- b a ': ~ n cn ~ ~ ON W N-cr r2y.a >~ wH e* m-e r+:l.•6mm~R. O' IIk W~-+U. `s L:. H~rJ N!:3 ryW rJ O(r7 W r O W :s 'C c+ ;~ n .-1 O H any W~ !, y r n c m- a m m A. W (: FJ U rR r+ W O [~ tJ T3 n^ rt r 71 t` Y7 '~ !: O - b5 W` w rt D W O n W N-- n Li N N W r m n 0 0 O h! ^~ Q w C W O r, T V ro O O ~ L-' C U: . 'C Q `s O m .-• r n W W y a W O W '- r~ O rr re M'G ~+ cr O O W. d n r c y y o O e* J C ••WOw-~~K r*O ryW ry mb rJ a>, /!n .o- b O V b w c; m n 'r1 O D C^ ~ ~' C r~ N Y rr W r. D W ~~ n .-•, c. ~ G J r r+ 3 K ~ :J' O O~ R. w h•L ~ (n n T• y ro a .T1 O U1 O o 07 N n p' 1W N~ ~ ^• C r• o= W n ;f1 1? ry W m W " o n W (R :% ro y W~ 'Pt e1 K y 'O O • q 1 ^7 M b O O O H• H r O T (: ;; r• ;7 f U: ~ '• r- .-~ >' :.t O y tp M C m D (~ µ'D to ro D C µ:s rt N r7 h to ~T h 4s a-. ~ O C to ~ ~I r p. y ~ .+ O fJ ~7 O 1-•. R. W rJ n Lit ~W r+ w r_ IY r• 1'1 n o r. m -• F D w r+ ~ ~, r+- a w r- 'a y r n ~ W m M r, ~ < s y rt n n cr a r m n o w ry ~. -: ~ i~ O r+ ,., c• O m M ~• o :~ u. n r. F r+ L» c N~ r+ ,.. r. r+r1 n W w m K rr n~ n ti- r~ O W ~ h-. ro rr 7' C 3 t (; 'O O n M r r V% b G ~ M :s O b t•• M W W tJ O t0 O O :: W •~ O tf. ~ ro N r~ F^ Q :; { .q rj y o ~ L' r* w ...0. w ni ? w µ f`. ~ r•'fp r+ 4 '; J 7 V. 7 :Snwl ty ~ 'tl rtn b ^'~D N'-•W a `-'>t G w Y N~+ c F"O n a O. rv• O p N. d WN mµ ~ Iv~ yOwrrN to arv rt.~r.ro ~:: ~W^}sw ar+L:w w -WO C O y"Y O w hr :+ ro .+c: v, n a o w rn n r, .- rev: ~~ •1 r••:, sJ :+ r.:n n ro rt ro r+ rv G W c s O yP wRK O1~fC w ~ h7.-O U,rro OyyyD ~nrr Qr ~. .; ~;. r. 1..~;~L% tJ N::Oy m•C ~W V•y rG n 'C h„ O N n+ 1--. O :r :i O y 7: H• '3 a :1 w ^i la =7 's{ F' ti ht rr ;1; >/ 7'0 ~ m Cv G U7 N :.t c, µ ha ,~ :s tf,p µ ~ mfJ isW Ou.c r~.»a~~••rt,n0 W µ- r rv u W R^t H OM is r W f1 n F• a m O 7 r ;~ -- H 7 :' O 4, W :~ . Cu c+ G FJ O ..- W W y T'C} W m m F.. n ro ^ .r 1h ' ffi N R V; 0.r 3 O n :+ - :s r Y. Sf :>a r n U •n a V N O c h+• .., (L w O .^ ro a•r F+- w ~ O G :f1 rJ !) .'t W Jl ILL fJ i1 h•~ W rJ N~ O :. y G r+ o y fS O rf 'D W O W Yr µMG '- c. W t~ N 6 rt w y O :1 r m' ro O A•- 7: W •v ~ fl.D r y~+ y r« ro K n W O w tR 1.. U. N 'J. W D 7 C D m r {~- ;:;, y •~ r n r '1 n (, a r :, :J % w c :~ O 'S v' y w N. W rr D O O N µ W r •.:: n O '-- rt W 1? '!! is .~., n O. •;. ~ N (n w- ;n M t.. T, h b +: O C_ ,7r 1-m y r w rW m : m n•r r_ o a. L- ~ . u•:, :t r~ nro r. :{ :~ r. m r, r Gn o m c W fY W ro -• ^.. ~ 71 N G.:s r• s, r. :_- .~ ry C W J ri (:.7, .~ r r0 'J 't F~ s> ~• m :r :' w Y: F+ ^h :1 A r N r tJ N r• a .•. O b •; r+ W •.,. ^ Ur ,., n rJ 0 .~ :{ r: n r ;v r, N N W D O Fn n~ H •• Ooy CS' :t O y .'~ ~ W :] ff, W U h W^ w :) n e w :7 n M N a. n'n H• h' m q•q s, ffT N~7 r o ter. r~ -t ~ C n r. :r W 's r ~ n :1 c n N~D c :! n s= Cr C1nro mYm :>•]O n :11.. r„O:1C r., µc+~wyi.?'n :1 `:: 0:' 'Jm r. F!CY ,4 G r, .y .O .. C ':::s :, W W a s-~ ~ a. r, ;~ -s 1~ -s O a ., r rs c7 C: :s ro r•. 9 Za ro C ~•"~J. ~ (• II ~ Y. i N' U: ?7 N' Y• M;~ n M ~/ O L1' h ~ rt N. '{7 •~ M h+ y m 'i7 (! r '-' •{ (}. F rt :7 n m .'] r, :) 'J• w 'Y' J ;,Y C: O i7 w h• r, :Y ri O Lr e•r ~ EJ rt ;r f+.:s W 7i h-. W s•. O 7 ~ 1•' 3 w :~ w. ;a - .+ F~ D m w '+, O :s .• >2 rr K h+• ry O r, r G ^! ,w w n, •~ J W "1 r• N~ a '1 .-try n r• rt ro ro N W•rY n0•.w ~:w:{ awn ~ f%C:O n +D ty, r n r• r 1 vl D o :; .~ r W 1 cry :t n ~' ,+ 10 .~ ODD W a r0 y n ra In :t { r* a. a n ,y M w m m rr a >~+ r i W N A W 'tl M w ~• n Lr W wnr•n o 'uona' •'~ rl K y [7 Po A• :i y F> w ~ r G C '3 V W w m r1 r~ n ~ ;n 3•ntn ~moro ~:3r< w~co rt r [+i ~ O T o a z rr .b m cr H rs rtr'c~ ro ro ~ ~ O W 9 ' 3 ro reJ ,r a :.G b C7, r O I W' m O r~(R n r-JI 'r7 O F ~ W Ua ~J r .-3 c a =s :1 1 SD 'i ~ c ~ v C :Y W n y ... W rtGr~ O ~';N w a .'r h ..taro mc'K - ~. o m b or~~ GO mn". r, 'rJ w D d V• (~ r m M U m rJ C1 CT. m• O w r rn n M C s rl ro .~ hl y [•) H p, yr ~ V :J 4+ ht H O d O ro.o ca a' •w ro N r+ ro y v r w 4 ~• w N P• W w w pJ K W :: K C'• :: • Co W H Do m 0 P+ O O w K x •K' ^ x O w H 8 P ^~ [~ G' Y ~f w ~! K >N-r N E3 S+ N i-• * v: , -•- K O n w• ro r onta• n q q ~+ a •. r mo m w .•~ O wr m s> - :a 9r t~+ ~] • P1 ! •3 c , $ w G 'S 1 r+ m w .•. t-• :T M w ~ - ~ a rt t-• O a r- O a Ol r• OC p~ ~w] m U Y• h W N '• W V a W w N K n .] N~ ;],'J w- ! C p~ C K rt m K h .+ o o r• o • r ~.] o r w•.r: n :: r, r t; :s i~ a tt p 10 b• K Ci p.: 3 r-~ C n !7 ! ca J i m w• ~3 :.1 r• o M P• w rJ b q J: G ~" ~ K f•} ' rr C. rt n r* K h m •r! rt p E t7 N ~• F+•C7 M M y i n _? a tJ '1. C7 m O m ~ r•~ g m r, U; :r O 7 O •x •1 .•. •s 01 K Y ~ V1 : ~h ~ i nn ad n ~a po~a.r:3m ~ w ; ta'• s s n wx r' % 'y 0.w n - n O F> :- h Kt ~ •t :s N A Y•w ry C7 r+ h Y C :t Gr O tJm O G r c rt m p077; >v r~"~ m M OO W :•:Y !R 1n dl N KI r~ :a :1 :s w- r•, ; r•• rt rt ._ , re ;~ w o x cn a v O N 0 [~ K C) i~ G O•'C w w a' W C'~ • ~ O 7 ~ ~ G ri ti pmi w C w Y tl T~K NS n y a••< Kr. •tnr•~N, A' -'• 0. 7 w ~ K O t7 +•b a-e t•- < U7 .•. K y K ."I Tc rt r• t r K tr w- .•, P+ M ~• m r+ a P~ m wrti p O M G< m a m Vi 07 b'H H 'J. 5 n Y•m n 0.~ k d~ w~ w ms=wncr~ n~ y ~ W • rp w r~ W m m n [ r. ~'r1 w 9 N O U i N i~ • wpm t•~m Gh•or-rt:sO aca r*'n ° r r `~ - r• K • r , h rsa n K a a• m cv p>=tJO h C Om OOwm 3 P•7 is Ur C ~• n R 7 a n' 3 n a O r! [' ~ ~ h"J d h Fj O C w--3 m K K vlmm 'r ro O maip c:s cr3 r rq K a i~ h r ro a w~ rr ~ N a a• urn • o t~ r, w rt s-~ m m K o nN- Ga a wr+~ ~ W ~3 h ^• nulrp. m K Ca - O N U o Nrh ' S + -+ ID romrtKO fi r d O - H p.r w K nCOOC: F'•w O O w• O n O N rr O n a r+ r--' w rt n7rtn CW O K~•+G w W m J m rh rt 0. a• w~ O n G w m h>• SaN w mGF~KCa:i - n' C. s--~ w- - 0. ul rr 0 m~ ~ ~ rt w m ' m m rt G a n w t••- ro ro w ^' n w• W w rt m O ro [0 r• u7 F• m L1 H ~ ~ • r+ ?~ G t~ • :S Os ro w w 7f 6 r•• m W ri F'• w t+, :7 4a- .~ K ~ w O n 'U O K O A W () W w~ ~ ro ~ wr-o-•~onm nrr ~~ m •a n -z ~rrwwr,i~mOa .: roMgoGr~ f,1 U! t a w • .~ t•+ ' t-] w ' tr'C O f.+ t-, tD ~] . C b w O O r. F4 n ~ a ~ >•ba ~ha m o n o 3 Mm K .l' n i rn V7 o r K :1• r n m w m n ry O O a r.~ O C w• re 'ci m il+ K ~n p C w cs n ~.r M •s o n w Ry m rj) G {p rt n •i m •ci P+ w to o n~ a ;l 'i n v w~1 r! in w ~, a w o v tt n P+ o t. w rW w m n'U m •r' :i. ~. P+ ~~ n m G h rt n r-+ O tJ X A. P' .a Cn w, K U7 W fP r* CS. rt N ~ C9 N~ N w~ r• n i3 D L•i w• M J t: t•c w 0 U, K w a ~] M n Ohm O O G mnK~ C' D i/i. ~ L' n •cr r3 K 47 e mw•vK Mro.~; m ~3 ;7 H+ R :3 P+ U ~1+1 vrrm:~ av r0 m U1 w mhWr. d rnm syO i3rwmmwrtf+ ^i t].n Jrt. ~'~ K '-3 H Y• sz h i }•- m :s O h i m .; a• n x a m ~a m w n m ks rr o~ m K p •c ].w m mmtn m r•K•a-:part'- t+Krr• n N n w m < K~ w m w ,,. ~+ w, i=r o o u+ ~ m ro tP G as • w M • ro m c- rt K r~ :7 u r :s n y 'm ~+ •. w m .a r,r D h M~ o : w w In ~ ~. cr r+ N w• L:. •~ or+ ,~. Kma! O S~ rtaKww.m a w n n •o y n o K crn m K w :7Rw.w a c • r+ w m n ~ "by m t••m~ a n w.wo a• l o wom - Krr+C w~. +~ art ru rtrtw•~ a ~ r~ µ rrn m u' W ur h w• r :~• K ;7 a d o o F,.:r n n >•! G M 'Y < O m rt K w G y ~ H a IY K 0 rt 0 ;'• Y w 't7 N':7 O UON:d Wno ry ~' r~ w y.., :~ p• 'i C K rt d w w• G u, rt wp. C w Wmmmm'Om cn o. uaWO O ~ G w• [T a M a< w n [a w•er• w rtN n'7 rtm s= m :r a Urd nsi - ry N w m ¢ C3 1-' :s' w G• Ul m rt N m m R a' [~. m 0 r+~'G srs 1n w m m Oi F« w H• W rt '~ n, m n G W A G w ~ :s a w ~ n K w- n~ ry rt O V tr a. 5 ~ ~' :r a ~ Os Y- w w w oo r+ a i R m w• N p. :~ m t-••m tow a n n•n O a W F~ rt t-• a r- r4 pr R. M m W r~ ~ N r• N w K- O rr rt 0.h ro et d • I' Cr 3 K C,-'0 R7 O O m m n W p ,7' O w• N~ w C w N N N, 7 `c K P• m n 'm W U a•~ ~ ~ p. mrYpw nn O H~ W V)~ ... rt rt m fS 47 r-+ :s K m tY o w !cf ~ a~ r+ ro n N• O rrnn.w op Ur U7 K mm o:r ••o m roo or=P;c:ah wo co ro h A. K to K `U a n• K •i t•• 3 h x, •au m'dnmm •c 'c mm P. 7 m O'O W w K r•a w• ~ p ~" K w t-7 U w P.'c3 O H r F w w w ct 'C h r h [d a /p ¢+ N R p 1 O {z ~• ~ ~ ~'l i~- U1 O n. h UJ rt "C N rF O m ' W- m R• :~ !!i M m F-' 'C7 tc rV O t7 ~ t+ b O tow :S 'c7 r• O 'r5 fn 'c1 Go m c m wa m m nir.n *nN.'~'OW rt.JfAnw-~n ~ n l H-'U w a' w ro w• K K .H C• r+ t+• as ., w y w t•. Z r N (1 •C$ A N W a w ~ M m ~'Ta Y•' n~ w m w Y n N w- ;] M a h •'3 rt ct 'CS W R s+ ti GS K U R w n O 0.a ~' •C O' tY ~ 07 U7 q• w K C. F~ U 0. (P O mwa>rOs,.m mr~ fpm- m'e~~„~ 7 eKx+ C rT a C :i 0} C O0. m67 hr!A t~ F'•~rFmh nw~ mm1=1 OC ~~O OQ'+~~7'C7 Crtm O~rtOnt7 Off."+- R1 n rn C '~ LS ro 'U w m ~ '<3 F: ril-'J w 'C w- t-1 $ w h U ;] m t~ t~• w• pa ~ K ~ 'a .7 a 0 ~ m O K n rJ ~ t-+ O O n vt a '3 O 0. rt r, rt Y7 m a tH-r p •Lx r- w• a < w• ro rr :.+ rt KJ a w~ :s ,O a h ~ 0 w et w• ~ w~ ~ V f~ r' r+ t+ 7 r+ :7 C er w O rv h K F'• h O re 7! r~ w~ 'a' r3 G ~' ~ x p,G rr n,0 rt5'n msa n p. fu p.N'0 i7.N W rt w .~, r' L.t m m P. •- ;~ F,. p ,. M C~ r• ~ ~ N O is m :] 0 0 ~+ a N O !v Vi m w• ;- e-t 0. rr H O r• N H. rJ m e* rt O r+ Cr t'1 r+ r. ^.~ N m K9Y~~^'D% Kw~f N• m m m r• r3i~ ~ rr ~ q r•~ ct ..~~ ~3 w ro n M w~ n w o n x U _ s: n w m n r• to ~ m r3 1•tK fJ t ri NN Y. fJ O wH~rtMH O rt M w.iir rw wn rt~r. r-n 0.wN r• V+c'gD:i on O:w~. ~ Ort~K 006n~ R• vT aw a ••3 p-W¢N 5': TJ n7Z ,7 Pa w~ Yam mY n. ni t;N N (G w~ U a •bw r+ K w N .. H- rt ~ J' i. w O ct'~•t O 'ri r•. a N O T.3 a R•mW iir ~V ~? n• Owma cm0 ~ fV .~ r+ o :r U: n a ~ ^. .e r. ~ w ~ n la o Pr a` n r• r. tt G, K w T o m w ;tax lOrtmma%~ m n. w. w n ram rr u, w .,mKOn Oa ~. n r~ m ovomm~ iii:' noon a:r w K .u V. C r, m ~ ,.r, c; !6 G . , W sv;7r•mn C'! T30C+. aw M, r~ mnMr• w•.. ..r,~ o W W !•~ :' w n 0 r• p M w w n. d r• J. G ~ n p N • w v wh m •i tJ ep N w ron ~~ . ~, ro ~rt m H r y 3-' W n 0 ..r~i.. .~. s-~ v ...-. - ....-. .. MEMORANDUM ~~ i TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 5 JANUARY 1979 REF SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS l.) Allows Density increases for Employee Housing in RC - CSC Zone Districts. 2.) Eliminates Distance Between Buildings in all Zone Districts. 3.) Requires Performance Bonding of Landscaping. 4.) Decreases the percentage of Commercial square feet allowed in PA to 10%. 5.) Redefines Dwelling Unit, eliminating lock-off units. I~+ ' is h~ • t7 E H W w ha ry Q Y N O w r+ In ..+ . ~ ' r fJ .L O li ID h•• 1• G S 00 !: Cr] M ,. .:JS D? ~! II ~ w tb tr w r ~ h-1 /~ + ~ M 4) h~~L1 (i p ,> r (:. A • /: b' f 3 ~ , ~ t)o ql rp W ~ 1• W 7 µ _ }~ W '~ r r ZV- C1 C a.• 6 CJ .~ p ' ` !n [] W! W Q1 v ~ 0. ~ ~ !b O V W W H w. L i7 *i !Z :s w O .-. b r•. y'. IC .., yx K CY Y ~ ' ~ N ti7 P Y N y w ~ ~ ~ ~ «C;i s W• 0 tID~• n ~ D , iD? mm t NN ~~.~' N '~Y d hf IY ,1. W HCY S+ 6) Utt H 1 ; b:, N / ~I r.: .3s ~ ~ a R n l a ' ro mro m m~a ,p OUi ° r ' W N i:, to O «+ •MO ;~ Cn u ,^ ', ^ ~ q rr •O N . w p ~ ~ `~ W R o ~ `y m (O r,. n. o •. a R ct ^Y ' O a R i O F" '-7 O :1 ID •r 7 ii ) L N 1' . W f1 :] O W 37 :a 1"' ' :n " A` fil ~ O W .;, O O [fs rt U m U r. J m Vi m ri ° U rr tin O p .<P r.; O 'x C 1 ~J 'i i3 9x .., ~ ~-• [o I a r, x r s J 7 1-. ~ }•. f~ ti N •.7 t~ . 1 r A J O F' N :J li {A t-' K y O Sv "f6 :l CO u'3 O W . , tr :a ' 3 n ~ O : ~ :. ~ r• t7 r w, [y : !i U1 C7 N • • h., ,.1 ~i O n - ; a o 7 c+ ... b ., W p, 1, r F J : v a n c ~ ~ ~ ~ h7 ~ s r t ~ r: r•. I l~ 'G ~ re ~ ~ r. ~ M G .,. R O t7 :) r t. . e s .3 .a "f I N N W H ••1 a ~ ^ .y ") r n L7 r rr r % .R t.. r+ n r+ % ~ r. ~: '1. Cs rr •C ~ O n v :: N. rl t l C7 N .• ~ R ~ :i I {>7 M 0 ra a H i n rt •a ..r q .+. r . ~ ~ rt :~? r i-.1 1 . rr (7 f _ r+ Vl w• r* W r=. sy ~ , r ~ H !1 ti ! 0) fn •. (a] w ~ H H - N S W •+; L :T Ul r a . 3 Id R ~ 7 to R~ y m w iti to F n 1:' H• tt {N w• K m s-. rt m r+ ~ ~ ~ (7 v OU U 7 [*t [J W G H W ~ R ,~ ;D A 'G n F n .~ ,.~ z), .s yy G) R 7 j UI R ~ .] U N n ] IJ n -. ;.? ^, ;u S] tY b 7 •7 rt s ' ~Y `h •i K IW •i n ~C 1 ' n ,C C ~< n . . U W C N ,•. - F tJ .9 G O r-~ C w. t i' " 2e N'. p C .y a ~ q O A C} O i. f7 -n 3 O cJ . M ti hb M "i r-7 C • r~ •C • a '- 7 .. t+• < r! h A (7 5 .~ s J f= ~ •s i] 'f W b M W 6 t7 y 0. O O C1 O [J f] O O ~ c~ o a C q O m . -• saW ~ Kc~ .,a.•~ z O.. w m 9 b r m .. .-, r.. `R; ~ H ~ f (n '1, ~) ~ tD O 47 ' !, s W o to % y N '1 ~ b rl W w cny ~ C) m 'f CS (n O H• rr r. c w U. r- LL F O O p ` • , O C? ]• y "i ~ r+ m 3 n m 3 rr ro ~ Ul d O m n G t :J 0 0 f= ~ r• .a I: O Q ~ O ~ tp O f ' r7 -. r ~ ' ,i f ° ro J O O CJ O O ils O O ( a O O m D W yv O i as .r w T• ; p 1-' r, >3 rr N N r o ^ ~ Z3 ro ~ > r t' r6 t` ~ C' ro : • 7 W 1 ti7 O rr W O ' ~ ry t-6 ' 't- fi ~ O ~ _ rt .. r r : M G' G .-! ^ C) - O O O E n ' O w, h i ' ' O d ` t M 'f eR r. ~ 1 ~ G7 Ca tr µ © ~ tJ hY i~ h .R .. b} C Li CI-a !~~ U ~ Cn ~ ` mo OF• N D '• U [U ( O 0~ . » ..0 4 ~v ' ~ 3 ev m ~ N. (1 ~ < ( b G ~' :a a d < Cl. t~ C:D ~ W J q H W m ~ n ' D: ~ W Zn rJ l r`C CJ w~ m m l i• m tom r •1 r rn ~ ~' Vi rr w• fR r• ~ E ~'• H C C J W O r C . p rr W TJ •t 4 H I K R y a t :. C O K ~ D LS n y O a K w~ C N• o a r'' m +- `' : C W 4i ty r rl F„ •e {~ Lr O ,,. . o >= h" it w a t9 9} ~ O r% :v ~ .~ n W a .. o p n n ~ n 7 o~ o o '~ O I m O ~ .. R , . ,~ N N• b r'b f) ~ H ~ 1-. N r ,~ ~ 7-'' N~ .ti :s O d .. n :3 M ra G n h- m N N Oo a -~ rh r (L -J a U . ~ .° ~ w +,.6 Cn r r l W ~ O O N 6 C N• ~ iR r W ID p ~ m tJ mAO , , , a~ t [f I -• ~ (n O M U w• w, ~a a ro m r+ R O r6 H na c o ~ w P r n O r w" (] 1-+.. f ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ aJ rn~ r • T ~ W r .-. m 07 • R O . ~ ~ p •0 o ) w. . '. w~ }, r, w.. IJ ~ m F R S :z .. W h i C C) 9 - +.. t.. ~ fJ H a 't3 +3 ;~ 'O ri ~ Y7 ' ~ P. • d 1 L . • ~ • F3 I7 1]. 77t N ~ r ~ p 7a /D 0~ P C fJ u0 i] ni p 0 ; :U L 7 : * w rJ 'C '.3 N C ~ O C] N r .. N w~ a x• v a x- r+ rr >_ - w rt h +• l i y f 1 ~1 W P7 [] r= 07 'i ff1 T~ I 1-' ~ ti P O r r+ o- u w a. ~ ,-r a v) s~ r* m a c ~~ ,_., rl n v rr n rr s w ,; 1 ~ H o rr n + rh I n er w- 1..wn ~'u h+am row c `+ ~ m`' 1-• e t a m m w- m~ ., m YO W w ~L~' r ~ ~ a~ s~ + 3 ~ ~ mro 3 ~ ~ Jt r+ rt tt m 2i w r~ + rr nfu W n ~ a a n vr+~• nah ° a' ' a 5 ~ r r v r '~ ~ f r+ ~ m d . sr t N a D ~ r y O H • w .. . ~ m ~ v n ~ ~ ~ oaw ~ :. G f Orr +y m N r O a. i, ch N, Y, H E I w• w m +] w• re W ' y J .~ Cl h! 'a' O W 4 C p O w m N +'"` w• w m }.. .,i w m p Zv +-~ h- r . w.-. O •s al .+ ti ,.•. "s cl. ~NH A ' ~ H r-' w ~ p F•+ W rl rw 3 w f r+ 1'1 g W w c dl P C• • m . ~ roy:J 4 mNo 4 7 ~ rr m Lo v ~ ~ ~ ~' W R9Q ¢'.~ o O 9 rtl 999 • m• ' ;3 p~. N m .r r~ ro ~ r m rr cr o r r• va >-~, a v. H rr •e ~a rn >i ~ a o w +i ;n cn W w w I-, w v, n ' dI7F Krn rD 'CC H W Nm HAW mOO3w-~J S~m 1-1 W' mi=1m rf W~~Wm .U) tp rr 0 n w• fJ O n m ,O w W n rr n ~ W C] n m U s'r P ++~ N ~+ r-1 O w 97 O H rr :! ^ H G G h C m H •f K p N iz. 77 rr CJ, W I.x w ch er [p ri ~ N ~ H• :3 0."1 .? m N• H• H• N• H• m :) m _. '.7 .P i'S M rY O G) H:. ~ r^• O . '.~ rJ 9Z m O r H~ O 23 O H r+ rt y Uf ps H'a ?• :: ,O '< K F> y O N O p.^ ".b A :i Q C d flt ~ G• N• G O 'y •,, w- ~ r. r•. w~ q m t-3 p •i W O r+ p ~ {~ _ m n. r+. as b ^t r, n m r* R W r+ m ;~ w. r, H• O 6 a m r ul. r= ~ O • r, ~ Sa.:N. fS 6) b l-, Ut N I+~ h-• m ~) 3 O O Ir rt H P >y O A LY O O o U W G O,-Y•+S Y• >~ • ~ `c O m 'G O >~ I-• y :7 w~ r,. ~ O 'I'. • 'C . - y w. ~ µ r'• R t7 w. w. to! d A• " O ~ H O W W `• C. m H S• b w A _ W - v ..+ ~ m rr m w H - O "' U r+ n 1; ~ w 7. K O ~ 'L.','rl r= r" Vi r; W n r r 9q • 1~-7:~On •C ~ n :^ ~+rJx Cl :7 ~ Fl R cr 'J- ~ O m m p.~WWW 79 ~ +••~ ,~+ H o --° :s :~ n N c x n w. W r+ a n w• ^i ~ ` n ;'~ R, m O fl :sY~n w~ W."O y Rn [.pia rrm PO:3O C U~ :"O N rt m NHn H ~Jf rt 93 F'] .'r. O N r- .3 r+ R ' H :3' C7 ~ K m N P /' Y i • • j r+. F•) 1~ 1-+ ~ G) rt R ' ~ '.T~ ,-' W i] ~A .G H {!1 % GO O ~i N. Jl 1 W r rt t7 !>. G r+ r= ry C mO U; :, 3''i Ul~w~,: .:nw~ '/, :-. 'v :~ ! O r:, N ~ W N. m BOO H'• C .r1 +' =j 5j w 7 :,' w~ m .', O n r+ ~ (p rr n K N a ~ K _ CJl ! H ¢ r3, :> ~Y ^I ~ W .•173 D Y m W - :l c; ;s ., ? O U w• Fi O r. r~~ : 5a (] t7 r l~ N N O O O 7 L++! U rt N ^ ~ f) ~ SS w 3'J G 7 r~~ N m rt n n m ~1 r- H. 0. f5 w~ H~'t7 U O r. ~ '.5 'y h7 VS Ul • . .- _ O N w p m `u' z4 y ~' N n. rs 'i n ~ :1 w~ n n G m r ?l ~-+ CS Vn pl O r-~ 1-+ CA cx ;o ro n cJ n rl o to 7; i '., m W 7a n 0 :% O t: % O .•~ ,n P o vi a w• rt :~ o '73 x-• °t W N ~ n =~ I r la o R :• ~:t rn r+ rr •s w :s c /h n n rn m s t c • C) i ~ N . o _ r• N r• ° yn6n r4 a.1I - p F r ~ w HO c •:O n W w'J, 1+::'riow • .-+ +i :- C7wGl Ul• F~:a isW Rw'ri t7 O+) ~'n.u O'i O m W fi rr it R % n O vW O . A' O n n :J F, O F. J '3 'C M W r5 .• L) 'U O P -1 ~ t~ ~• ~ b .3 r. Y m ry n .• 'O p f). n K rr G [> - - "7 !b -7 O ' An .C7 rJ [r: r+ fJ 1-, : I; ~ m O K :a N Q O r-i Ut O :'77 O W 13 b ~• O O- ®O a ~ :y w c) • W l'i o 3a c: a rr n n Js n a o r. •,f r• r7 h, . • ' +) '~1 r :., a' •<; r a. C7 -3 n •! n n a ;r, .e ~~ m :U in ~» W ,- ril .a b ~ o a -s a n. >~ .- . 'a - n .+ ,, r+ ~ n al R "d ~ w w ., m , w +- 3 r ~ r~ T r. r R is y U K W .. r~ r•-- m 'a b "' w• •s n •; K r N '! ' ' • ' r•) O Y P ao m • 7 J x« D m RI r r,. w r~ , t rt t) ? t 4 a W J 4: ', i :t3 >,.< w- fJ d G ' :] 'c7 O7 () 2 ': ~ n ;b s] rl ;, .: :4 - r f'] CJ lJ [J tJ ~ C 7 ~ ;l O •< 1-+' rr i:. L..+ i M p. L^• t•i r U q . ~ r '~ n l r 7 C O , r 1 O t m Sa r~ ,~~ U, :u C6 • O ~ r ~ ? M r-+ Q R :s t~ tan H. r+ ry (n C rr /~, H K n G'1 • o n N U) - V [i rl „''L. f.] :] O A t9 J :S Yi O O [+1 [•! '••I ~, q '.11 x.~ Y~ rl i'I ~'~ Y' O r+ rl W ^'7 O - K rt b m 1-1 C) R P - ' rr I!! rl W UI ~ ..~'] ;1 •i C •'1 s3 1 n .'+' O 1~. N• >; % ~ CL' `'C rl R 7i 7'1 C .• ro h O n K C V r• rr m M :3 A3 '' W' O M w 1-~ k• N r1 f' W .. C3 y n /I A 'J W r ~ :3 C•' Y• C7 ~ +~ UO , ' .-. IS" LY VI -•'< U is [J G I ~, a C •-n N ,3 U7 Y o cl [. 7 rS m • 'E `/ ' : "1 ~ L7 -% C) hl m , ~; ,- rx [Y •1 w I rl r~ ry m r. Cs : f ;3 [' .t n rt R :, ri r+ r~ r5 ..•. C R. '-' ry {L •% tiJ w is w L~ :A F1 N '.1 fa ~ r; 'S C -• in r r: ~ h~! G7 r. w C.) 1.? . ..• a' r, r r9 r: :a w n r „ m o n n. ' '/ r+ ., rn ' q f f~ ° n ' ' i! ~ f ,Y fs 7' H ~ IS ~ ~ 4 O r • G7 4x ..1 .1 a4 :t In F ~ R '1 O r•~ rt r ..n 7 [J m H• U' r~ C. O 1+• .i m W „s C• >,. r` •-~1 ' . '•1 Li•3.. ^l-! iJ h~, u G) V •• w I ra > >r, o - , :~ ~ o n ~ it , w tl. rl r 1 .7y A• W v O 'l' t•+ In ~ n In ill I N ~ ~ Y W r f7 In ,. F+ ~ ~n~'N fl OP J l ~ ~ H ~ Cry ~~~ rD ~ n;Mb~ pW [J tD Ri]F)wG~. W 5 w i n• w2 0 0 ~ N r"' ! ry y `' '1 rJ C W. n C O• ~~ q C ~ n ID y . D y r"D5~ s • n n ~ 0 µ J ry . + 1 C ~ :S ~ C r t G! = Pa 7l O N r n:rc n g n n ia.+yn '~ w ..7 w J~ r.._, m n A. O W M • t ~ . G tJ n. M ,j ~ f"P id 7 ~ y rr .7 h1 O r• O r; ~' '7 C:. ;j ~ ; C ) . . ~ o ~ r Gr .:~ w ,~ •'tl ' m C ~ O ~ W ~ h • ~ J n •~cui "3 O» y m a 5 n.a l ' i ::.O -'r J 6 n C • c . f) n F'a•ewtn n. ~, `O w.a W ~ mt'PYa'r •. Omr V h O Yn W w f f""i O n] -r~f 0+-+r" ~ O w N.~ N Us ~ O3 ~ y w O ~ ~ n `~ F' :l U; •Y G7 O S• n C7 > r 3 r' ~ 0. G W ~.I ' V' .i l r. - --'O '„'O n~ ~~Wb~r ~ •Oa -. N•, tY :3 t . S r `~ r • W r y • 7. s+vr~;n x ~ a y n a 0 Glwn fyp.n '~gaU~4 NYO.w'.7-gN Q O C pu. e 1~ yhw+hy+N G•- ~(COMr D O it c I :7 es `a 'j n~ m O' C q ~ {) d O •rtf S O pan ~H.z: oorp a7nF.o r in .S,~,-F,'4~ y M ~'H' 'w'rTu y in f Jnw~OW T6O Nrf ] L' Nof r f fll REfi e7 T3 ~ ~ ~ mpO' ~ n AO ~'~ y g O a n ~. a 3> ~a ~~ -+• 3 K j N o. f ir p 9 :1 ~ iR !e 't N ~ ~ A O " i O t~7 ~ r. n Vl 7 r- rf O rr ry n to A N P~ q r' .° ` ~ `O ~ a w .. w fws . Uw,h n ~ r.' :~ n .r i r f W l .. CF w e s ~ u i q O~ ~ M w. !) w. FL Y ~ rf ~ O 7 ~ '.7 'C 7r O^~ q p F .-( . ~ r'C' M C In :r' F'' ~ . L7 0. ~ O .y rWi O H M uh v ro ^ n o m O r. µ " ~ ~ u. rn w `.y s ~ ~ r i n. .y'O~ ro ~ NpCfOj +~y -fn C7~ f -'ncOt~o.. ~ C J a t y u tnj -J D S n r r+- w' N m w j f N q O H• rr re b fi ~ C f • .7 m O . ~ y >-+ w% ~ r n p E~tr a'W Aq .y E 4".'J C J ' i ^ i OS: Cgpq w-{ G R fJ q C] O y rf F,. C7 yw ~ "s` C. '3 n rr ~ ~ µ Y• L7 'C1 Y• rf Y• 1~ r•! Y! fw1. r -. ~ y M f/ q w f`f., a m q '•C W N 7 Lr Cf ~ p M. ~ N O F~ Ul P~ r cf ip e} •r V. r g L1 n Ca G? x s. N ~: y .j V ~ :•'.~ o •ws w m'T yet: ,u f ca ~ o wr.o ~'~o)..r,tl L3 < fC N w. ~ D. n ~r ~n a ~~a~ F, O ~ ° J: rv U.:~ 7 °, W r, ^ ~ w :~ ir. ~ ;: ~ ~ ~, n w a 1 n (: s O , Ic a rf ~';'lU rqF lD rnF 7'0. ~~7 ',~~ w ^- si O P tW-. C N f>.n rr ~ < ~ r r• p .1 r O yi. -NS rJn-- o-u.mm~ K M ~ :i r+ fJ -~ Cw7 W ~t ° ~ C n G < rf p-~ f..0 - OO.r C3 «c•p N !n C lu w n~ F. y: 3 fu P c n ~j y ~r~ n~ ro .M'-~'Vi y r~U~ H win 0~ 2 noY. mom n M•p-- '1 P, w 'O G w- r+ ~ F, f W CJ wrfrfwar~ano~° ¢' 'i W a p ~ ~ a n~ O :f ~ rh C ~ ~ {fl M ri ^ ~ O f7. w y•-~ M uanc7 n-~A-na~0y m 3 a y ~ .7~F.°~ f'• < C Y~m ~ µr3 ~ rtm 23a mrrraon.,:y ~ f-' I c~rf m W m ~ fDO c' p ~'' r! r ~ ri ~. ~• Y N q n W !••+ N w H. is f-~ w w w !u M !•~ M M 0ooooomamwmw l ~ H n o oamrnmmc o ooona ~ ooooaooorypa Q> PF tit (.] iV .-. F~ D O O U D O O O O onooooacinooaaooo ~Jmnomr. r ~; n. ti r ra a• ,~ m a ~ ~ .m w ti n ". /, y ~ ". ;7- W r~ to r. ni C] -. r. w .-+ cr p y «'] n W M rt n o u rf rr0 G M ro ~ ik G ~ ~ ~ 0 p p. R r. ~ ,. ~~ r ." J 7 a C7 W Pa fyJ S+ rFG ML: rutrt~. td ~ + ~ry ~ U1roCq'ty 27 nN ~ + NZ7rw rWf r, °' win • w W O U. f ~ ~ CN a :7 + 1 _ - w. p ~ C7 C7 b ~ ~ K q q pro ' h7 3 fw C W ,a O• viom rfc b ~ ;~ ~ o a y' N q YS f q ~~ N o "m W ! ~ ~ y rf ro ,n3 wy o P-' O C m aG ~, in a ~ ti 0. D +. ..a n N O • m a H+ G~ M n b n oa a M . ~ ~ W N N w Y-' !-1 ~ n ~ n ~ ~' W ~ ^. Vi 'tt 'O W cf Vi !•• fa h ^w ~ 'cY 41 c+ N N• Y 7:1 n •7 .+. 0. '3 C n 9 r= n Y ~i . n• no :rmyo ^rr.nGw.i aryc cra- 1J ns~a-a~ y'--nrnxc `-•soo:r:s a murldetiroan:: r.P.WO awa+~`c.^-.r.oanv ~s~~t~[ ~'.yru O D ~ h-7 In p. O G O .y 't el O fJ U, r+ ro u r r• 5' C N y r~. m O' y ~' *i ' • p O Q c; ;n C. O U, '=' H ~ E M. [A ;~ O (n 'd !~ r+ r•. f+- 41 w. O f~ U: tw q ~ :n W 0. fl e+ i--..+ r: R'.7 4~ N p• •tO.+ N O a C a C 0 fi c• ~~ C O F p n 3 rf IR p n K F+ N n W w~ It ~ fJ c-! o n o r~ :] :D O C O N A 17a q r O O la W ~ h] w• w f+- -~ f7 W fJ r. r y i1: ~ ~ O K G r• [;~'~ :: ~ ~ a w- O H• M r 3~ cf rr 'd 'O .+ ,~ r. q W a ~ ~ ;r. r~ ~ a r- - m c ;r. ~ :: c W H* >y M ro GJ Ev p rJ o ~ o ~ o rfr+ r.rf~`.f,~ n p y~rs o r• ^ M•G:.% ~ ° on r+"o"n o ~ ~n ^ o a ~•ca i-• ~ i 'O O 'G ~ N C' 7 W ry w ~- M r+ +i ~ .^. « rl n ~ ~ s= « V: !W ~ ~ ry •- ~ •. •, J Oa a i-• r <; CL fJ r .+, :1 I ~ t'J O q f•. O « O :~ `: (J P. r. 7; O :":: ° ~ ~ w r- .' r e^ r. ~ W iq p ~ !-~ ;] [~4 $ l M P q .-. f! P• U! n O O. r n f). -t .-a ^.i F G O r' to 7 O -~ ~J L' [ n W f] O r tD W'C 9 it p u 3 U::9 n '3 C y n rt O'ry m O p C 1 'c ~r r u f: .~. .,i n, rl ~ W 3~ N P•U E +!I O N ~ w• n' 'p' rr H C f . n W ,S i C rt n C - r' C ~ f.) 1 :] n L, T. t! rh N .:: " '., w~ n r+ W ~' •~ 3-• - y)-' w- 1 Tt , .W-• F+ O 3 N. W W « M• q y y O. [.~ !-• ~ \ 7 w O .-, :ls r N y ~ :f « N~ P Y Y -. r H• p `C W N p Ly M• O rJ il'J M y h'• '.+ w+ a r •t O Y ri '. .y M D - CJ - .v ~ C P :J W ~ :] F-' D•a r' t7 '3 r to y `C t w n n o c m w ;J C r W •] ~ n « •i J. n fa f :] ~,^, a ~ C' ^1 d M• w 7 Pi `G r *! q G C." G. W ~ Y rn r~ p r- rR O n '• n .y G O G. v ~ 7 cf O r. P, ~- :J p f-1 m W, n W y Y cn ,.. ;t a o n a - .+ ~ ~ n ~ ~ n x rJ « ~ w c n s ,~ r< y rt ~ P. ~-3 nom q ni a i:.a naa.ra o o~v 2:y a.~~m r, rf~ W M Hi . -:...'c n n r r, ':~ n~ ro N' m a v. W N .'+ to 57 fY f-A V? w. rr h- n, J. ~ rr C= D. 'S r f-• .•. _ 7 fit O c C C. n W p w n r W N n R. w• V w~ L1 C_- a G O w :~ n O_ _. " C O a = r` w H rl C .. M :.~ ¢ r. r n r+ O. rf w y ~ A !~ r n rn N N rl ~ P. O L+ u .-~ D':y 'r r. r- n _ r n .; C rJ O f+ G '>. 6 C iW-+r+ Q« O G fa }~ C' q D y n iJ C N O n O ~ 7: ,~,, ;l: .-5 ~ rc. - C O tic, p f] ?• t W r• r- fJ .• •: c ~ •f n :r1 O n D C3 w, n (rl W Y H a- r y " W ~ 2 '1 G F+ ~ W f. ': '! r C rt w .+- (C Q Li n C- p .a q fy rf rf c; U: C O Y .• rr W w « a s .• .^_ ;7 W C ,-. C _• O :i 'O '1. 0.r ~O O 'i h•. •i r:; rx y ~fJ r• 'i r ~ ry r ~ v fJ L; ~ v. < ~ .-••C O ^ `] O C' H aWfi w N W o r+~-- ~ o o. r~aa- ~-n..~:= -) .n ~..^~ .. w nfs r. ri E} I-+ w :1. ~-' ~ w r a rf n n .j n fJ .~ •y rl ~ 7y W 1: •i r• ;; -: w y C 7: n s ._ a r n rf rr 1 w 3•+< O D F,. /. ;r a r• r+ N s W g p te a- !J C t;~ w p L~ p. r w E '< W w nTy y M a'- • W r. fJ n n. w 's ? is 'i C %; W ~ ~ 'p p fR r Vi W ~ .7 H V• 7J Y~ a .] O n i-+ a 2 fJ Y. 'A r O. iJ C G ~ r .., -p C1 a+ i :Y N I: fJ 77 r ~ ~ 'O P. .3 C C :7 N 5: .J ^ i)- r• '. .-~ rJ - x tt ~ !x r. C r- •- r+ w . p. p I p Y u] f^ P: % rl r O w 0 m s r ~ Ur O ~: 6 ~ G- .- O L3 :] - G O :s W h~ a Y.. is ~' D n M :: 't r n W r. r! Y -: ,f ;' n w r O m •i ., -:t a N O H ~ r a3 r. is ro fe r• 7' w r . r. . r ., a w- n ~ ,- p s-• / :s o ^ .- m n n s' h M N U .1 ro r w. w W M• •Ul n .^. ~ ~? n r _^, n n '!: ~ C T. n .• G tb t7 A D% ••fi fJ MNn Oy O U'D R7~MC , ;;ry.^,7 C. Cr+>•h •i :]M N M -+ W N N O :r a'v (r, a r7 G a :3 n r .y [ v := ••. rl .a s r~'U r•+- i q ., n_ W rn s r, rr .~ n o r n e .~ o y n, Ic s-. h.. m ~ ry +~• m w ~ nd w ~. vrS~w~W~n3r-o = -.m c~-non r«:~ r~o p r w' L1 b :7 M f-• ~ r.- r O a :: y rt n L: r: r~ .~ .. :r G• r+'O 7i i7 W W w y Cy p f.• O 07 .a tJ t1 f: % :]. r. y . •S L: y r' G ~- ~ ix r r+ ~~ 7 N O 4. O r r :1 O O N r. •s O ~ *c ._. ;; W .- .t ;~ ... 7. 7 (~ w R N • N N H i>-'a N W W O O fl .. f. 7 n U. W n .. C fR r •-. n •, ^ O W r l V n '7 ei f0 ~ O.aR ~r tr M.-,JTI `•~t ar.p- OY ~~ y;s M.G Wn nP. (?• O' O' i7 N fJ 0. f•~ O - ~a O n '~ i. rJ n -3 Y :a G •-• '? n- r~ r. H 'c: ~P O r• as ID ~ F' rJ CJ R ° W - ~ n . U [: is L: :] r T V! O nix. .n, L1 N O. Tf ~ W ~ y w. 'O n ±, ry •i `+ C+. R U: n n If • 3 c3 y n W, ~! P7 'ci b N v N ro :) O t: Y r' O q y- fJ q .-. n .1 t7 :: v. n O f,. ~ rS ,r fn •] ry r• A 3 y •'- O Erz O O i, f Q ru O N N W t K O rJ 'q w rJ O r• R 'r, O • ry. ;3 ru t: IJ M N y EI fe < 0 0 w fa 1 N tr N r+ N q q r O N r n N j ~I ,li Pq. 3 A f rf m a. a Rii a !+1 h1 d [5 efw it tuo ab H*ionn:s~ ro¢sn<wroM-mrn aNo >y .> rte- a :s :s O to N :] :] W !~-+~ W ~ r•~ R ti µY r! wPa }+~ u•, q rr r+wo O O d Vl q C Ow[n rrC P. r rm rr wNheNG O Y• WWwa q rr n to yr fJ O 1~ P. M• Hy Y7 '- O rf ~ < ~ N 10 H P~m~'.WFroOr+ DCn) fJ a ~' csnar-nuryo c~o's a ro rr-fJ N mRS J Oy :1 O N JZ C N ~ p 9 P- r a O U tS 'c; q Q O c O ~ i3 c' ~. n t3 m 5' n to O N•.~ C6 < w ~' F CJ O fJ gr+ p qr0 n:s'c3 ~i- C7 to 2 N ~ th ~ ~ N u' H 0.w G N ~~ O W ro u 0 f-.a.ro v'rf rrJ my tirzd ~ W L' ~ 'CS .h' C N r~ Cs ,p y w n r r+ .-~ sw- m C n •i ny ^•maa npM•n'p 'i fn W O..'3 T1 ? h p 'ci n• W r. a W ~• !~ ;s c~ rn r n r Om Pr•• w:.]n Nw q L3 O n 7 ~{ tD• a O •; N~ N ti' < 'C7 O d !« O Oi O ~ lA ry CI C3' a' h LI O O O `J~ v 0 'J C1 6ry Lr . w V N ct q H O t7 „~,. ~. ' K ~6 C' tr ~~L' H ~ w n,a- ryi 4Y n , c ~Y rf r. V ~' 3 r R 7 • TJ r• W I !'I W r• r-' S3 ~o i ~ tiEi ~N~~ •c F3 w r- e H a, ~ r ty b i• :~ G+• O G: 0 p e C0 0• 07 r+ N 4 ~ K N M H H fA ~ ~- b , 0 o a N w~ 0 o y~ h O N P p vt ~ N d O td b N ut m ~ O O w ro '.r3 tC3 G1 0 W r• •+ cr m YI Oo p rt d OJ rT d A C W N W M Y+ p P1 ro 0o H Vl r• r-i V r+ ri ~} 3 r-i V ~Nti•° ~~ xo w N W F• W d W Q m (J H r~0 Y ~'e b H a .w ~~c cn l 0 :, 1 ~ M rt >r. ni N q~'~ ~L7 ~~ ~ •-+ R Y } w y ~~ +r, r . C ~tnx n O ~ro*e ~ ~. `* p p Rw n ro h .. ~ r. m D• py N s: r ,ti- o w 'j w H R d h+ }'` -- r C d µ~ r ro . u~, w }` w a J' 0. ~ [n $ µ O a m a W r' ~ m G: in Cr ~~ «~ 8 µD a y r 0 W O m ro .. sy rt ~r ~ µ D ~ Y ~ +~ rr ~' ~ a K N 07 K W ~ WK~•rR-a tW+•H per" +A-h CEO rR•~7•r~••iRS W ~nm<~wf~ rimD~< iH9n~K ifi~~fJn a ~a-nnm"~o SO-H rON O A w•OOn~' 0o na o~ n nn~Mro_ a-+ x u• ~r rr 9 r" w :s a' n o r.~ ~ ~ .~ ci 0_ r O 3 r' N a ~i t7 [WJ G-F N'~a7 J R' i5 W rar p ~' rOr W ~ r+ cr [n •+ r .-3 r W ~ w w V: CJ W'CJ W ri tia u. oia2s WfJ oro mccno•aRn H :r n 'o r• r• µ r p s trt •1 0 n 0 Cf N O (~ O D O V r+ rr ~ ti' 7 G ti g 'e n rfi F 7 O r-. r-" V ] 3 r+. a :5 CS ~p 3w-+N r+.rtW nrt O r rtw!n~ r P3 'a'N SW.. rs0 S~R1~ 'tl t5 ~wwO RN 6 W roN'69~:+1 P O 0: ~ H C`•S th CJ w t':• 'Y C Y O :1 r C'JH roipn nWOpr'•`= W V ND[<1 n Wow `".'YOir..+c`r.3 NYnn OOr•O rt q ~}(A r 0 N [1 ^J W n ro (n til n f~ r RO W-a r+raW CrtRrrpan ~ n a7an.r o~W ra m m c>, p -s rt a z; Gap n m W'L7 fJ R t'J N C r Ui r-y ~ ~~ H O ry < [ Q R CJ p E Zn 'a _ ~n C rtHn N N Wn A r!= P~ r W P en r+ N O V rr ;~ n- M^ n 7D W O c r n'O W Mai ~ p +'I_ ~pr-~,rt oH:l r az n o>~~ •r flits •r.. roam~ci..'Oi np,n Dom- qaR _ ;+ n rrt r. ro n 4.r NtJ zM7R7i JiD Go-M-~.. q MR W O `... W HOr•a +~ r+U: ~ ~ K of l0 i O V :1 r~ r G't1 ~ ~ ~, :r i7An«G C a rtr} r+n 3 N r•~rWq' S 6R OpIL C,hb .u+.iaO,s ~: W~ y 3 .i O a.- E1 HdJ 'Yam 7 ~ !3 S•`;ir Ph fyn m ] ~ a~ Rr. „ rn s n. H 'r `+ n `~ K m a. is R H'~•r ~~'r~ ~ ~`~p p dp rif;.i n~~~a r_ >+• a ~i ~ N 7 ~~t J~ N p ~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ i r~ ~ .9 ar n Gi O •1 W ~ n a ~: tndtoo :r~ oor..NUtr.6r°n r H =~ .n I~ :r m P~ i~ m a d sr o r•.r a ITI W r r-. p~.U fJGO'wAN"J 'oro+•~ oro~whi r+ V o m r. ~ 't, Ro F ~ rra+'v H•i to t>' O h 0 b y b a..-3 ' fi b U• • i j' ~ O V N ~- rt0 tJ .; D ~~ M~ d a'y P: ~ m s sno c mw5 rtR OiV-.~CYH ~'C7 rG m o • ~ n ~e N. cn ~ a~r-,~ a.f r+o'. ar•wv,s,,.•rrrr, n~Ybr~`,Nntn O rt - V O rya d a' w K D U: ~^ D 'd iD r+ S r• r. n b!3 F'-aa~+ r' W W r D !) cl~ W~`GO N n*i W oG~omR +iG ti v r, rr OaO;s~Cr..* a W r~ i a o 0 N fp Y O (} r~ p GNOrr r e+ Ut~roh. wY n. ~r~ (T P .7 m C O a~ sn'..-3 's N K rt n ,T H Wmwr:nmw o hiprrr,n~ ~ N ro O O O a NN9 2i ~5 p N N• :3 Pi ei F! p q [,. r. p P° O I rt W 9~ ~ H H O •-1 O `-3 (C5 Y N N O m a .. O w O A n a W H O h r+hrtar.. romW ~YNe`J~ oKo crb CJ CS'`Cpro ~ W ro W n rt~ '.".1 so*io a n ry N ~ ^' r: r• O ~ m V ~ R J .+ i'7 • ~ca~-a.rt .'y m w c• fi m H V ~3 WCJwa~=nLo rf H µ tr a .'~-. rM17^O r' NOW}+:i onr to O L :3 *'• := rt .'"7. ~ ^ H ip Ct n - an~:L p .k r, n rt ~ <t a' f W H w r-i ~~cJ .. atsX Nrt~ ~ a.a v. o r+ t: :~ p ro N M n a N7S D ran ~u ,,nd CrJ a:. ~•~ni Ga'6Wt;fJ`: rt W V ~ V n Y• f ri N co o'n c N W p o w ro rti •{ r N K ffl w fr D f. ~ C.• 0. 7v ru O ~ r% iZ ra ya O Nq- 7.0 p ~~ •y fn ...q ,n:rf, m O r~ •a •v •. J '•y ~ F 7 r i+ ..' rr .-' W m ~ ,D n .• ~ .. .. ~ CIS 'y ~ 0 0 r+ro ;>~ n is a• v Hrr U'NOGOn d nr~i~~mr°~W o O 'i r q N n V ~-a'`tnDw' S ° ~~ s r• n H n G: d if 'a ., r.a c r•n ro N C) r'• r M :] W p J: t7 C'1 ~n Uin Ah'CH N'D rr t+7 h r [n ja C .fin Q r. w• +A '7 w CA .. (n OOp ~;~ iO r. ~ r. c ;aatn wo s <~ ~ .E /~ ~~ OV RG cyN O~'-•n mHarr [ tnH nmarrHD.,.vF r~ NCrey Cry r. rr w , n .. w ui ~~ ~ ~ ~,. N W a [ 5 H, m ro n R ry .tin ~`nr°,~^,~ ac O N. rr ck'q D ; rr ~ (J m ~ O D U: ur ... O TG fv b N .J N. ~ r N. H "j +R r~ D b [~1 F'w TiNAHH O ~; `C ~ C W tO P C F~ ri .'wJ N n ¢ 7 rVV ?~', O G H- CJ H O N r~ CY H O mH ;i ::+ w .~ D m as ao ca c+ n Jl Iq N' H M sn Nn oa+atOic tea' 'OO UC rtD ~' m ~; F+ O a. CJ H `C n ro W r :n O Cy w rt H c+-rl r• p G 5 y ~ 1 s~• D o n m O'O UlGNwN tn~ N ro-. n ~ m ~~ ~~ N~ Ina f0 W 1-w W ~{ ~ H h C1t O rt r• 'J N O N N p r• P W ra M Cl. W [ron ~ H'Cf W ~ O b~mv W a, rovv'c+ y G G G C o VdU':7' rsW Ww p r.. r. >a. r.. ~ nnnn p ti o [rr. nG try n V H O rr s NN m O ~ r.. r,. e+ m w Y Yy 1~ W, •D 7J r+ q i G7..•. rV TS m >v w F,. r.. ,. m n. H w p c [i v 'G ri ~ h :, nrw+~ P~ WN.n~ O H ro• 7 !b W rf ~ ro ~. n rn as CF r•p, t7r Hn H'U O~• c+~; m:rDG•• W DG G P>Nm[~rt ~+Op[~ nc ~ W W Q µ n O' r+, I nmtnn Oc~.0 b ~ "' H O r [+F r~ N sti n w ~; ra w ~. O n w U ~, wn rooa r• n ro ~ r.°~ ni 1-'' Y C rt N O •-3 W riN .7'G ~ m r.N wca ~ ~ m m ~ y .. ~o~Cy i ~a w o W I V• ~. to n t~rr r• O N ~ ~ N ~ N Y•7i C r+ 'J fp O Ww r' ~ ~ W'+ N o~ . N Wv N i y 0 b [n a'ttno~ 'u~x-a wz-a rronw~a>~rmwNwrtrrcr-+ V U :~'.+.o Mw o Nho O tiff ry ~ W N•~ C Nn pR;~ ~ ry+. :y r~ ~; V ry • W a 3 ' a r J I W ~Y1. s'•W O' W e+N~ D rr 07 w O U'~~ ~N ni f•- cr U: '..~ t(S ~ W fP 8 N [s O r+ ~ }~. 4 rt +-3 f-0 ni Fr p. (.i C _>a~sK w~ nH ~+•<;r,•wx I om aooop'~m r. NtJ' '6eE~ O NC] CaH rt H*~ as cw r/ .-.~,-.~ ro y y C O O ss c r~~ O d? c1 s'•v~ w H~~ 0 n.omrt~ a ~ nrr~ ~-sv'COHO Na l .-'od 'o ~,i ur~x Ob K~p7 r,r ~' a~ ~rt rt [71D 0'~' w ra d O :r 17 n h rt C O R O W as H m ~ ~3 G• [J h ~ ~ rn / ¢' ~ O <-r ? 7 C 5' N m ~ C 3 P ct O a7 rt O [J x w O';S Cf c+Ch CL r•r'•Wa RW r OtJ MH _ nHry •c~ cFCJwrt ~~ Wr.o i Nw ~ N r ~: d O '~. v i CS H L 3 ~ U7 N'C [-, ~ r,. Vj ~ a rr CJ a ac+.oH Wrow Yy K G } NNOrorHr O C:t9rtH .J. wN C' aL^'Y t+.•4 rt G3 Nrt ~aH rtN c*tJ „O„ G U ~, J ~ n C7 ~ r A H O N rt r• ni W n• J a :..r+N~-+ N m m a< <mnsv a wro ~-'o w u 7ni ~ cr [i ~ rar H rp m o u } C.G a '' n A C~J C m p -~ .%1 ro W ti '~ Pi r• CJ w N t'1 N W N N a U+ • m rt0 m ana~ruto w~"r~.odc o a-'n'w c r-n a H ~ r• rn d o as ° ~' °r s', `r3r hw,ao «r rr ~e°, ~ na >:mroG Nor,. N WtJ Y- ~ 'J N• N m C' N' H N O W H rt ro w 4~ H iS rr H p. G r-' m a' H ~-'~N %J N n U1 7 H• O G Zj D ~ Q, :: ,7 'i ei r; ' ~ ~~ O R W ~ ";~ rt n,r. w ~~.w ~ D D rL Y• H V z O ~, G r. p r .-? N~ O W~ O w n a Of w .3 N r CS N r• 4 r~ :X r rr b O n f'~" p. n+iG V Nm WH 0777 Cr lj tP ~^ n D• .^ • r:, . h [0 h n M '~ W D' h ~ rt tnn n r, o ~ a~~+o°G moron a+n O ~ 7 0 9 N hw-' r•a U.- i h N•7 R ~wrima~ Y R.W 09 n. r+.W e3 d .... ;i Ww N M r, ei 'rH y ~ ~ 'OV' rY-. ~ W ce ^ try r. k; N w'7 a [] ~ a ~i n. Gi ro I• [~ ~~ a a • i . + b Et n w, w~ w r} Y a~ ~ o .;. >~ ~~ w p c: I p I ~ 0 0 n fJ n n ~ E3 Ii as CJ h N :r w ~ C] Na p' W b >Q h ro H a b a p -r~ + . 3 ......... .. ... .. . AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, 23 JANUARY 1979 3:00 P. M', PUBLIC HEARING l.} Presentation of Proposed Redevelopment of Gondola T. 2.) Jay Peterson - Rezoning of Lots Cl through C5 from Residential Cluster to Special Development District 3.) Suggestions for Renaming of Frontage Road through Bighorn. L • MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF 23 January 1979 ~~ COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Sandy Mills Ron Todd Gerry White Jim Morgan Pam Garton Roger T~,lkemeier Ed Drager Jim Rubin Absent Absent The meeting was brought to order by Ron.Todd, the first item on the agenda, Presentation of Proposed Redevelopment of Gondola I. Gordon Pierce, Architect was pxesent to address the Commission. He had a mode], of the proposed development of Gondola I building. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that this is not an official presen- tation, but an update. Jim also discussed George Girvin's work on the plaza design which will work in with the Gondola I construction. Mr. Girvin had presented a preliminary design to the Town Council, with the Council requesting changes in the design. The Planning & Environmental Commission will be advised of further developments. Gordon Pierce explained the .concept of the new Gondola I building. Th public toilets seem to be a critical point between the Town and VA. Jim Rubin stated that VA has agreed to build the toilets with the Town maintaining them during the summer months. The location has not been decided upon as yet. The Commission thanked Mr. Pierce for his presentation. Jim Rubin then introduced Mike,MeGee, Vail Fire Protection District, who needed to speak to them about the necessity to legalize fire lanes. Mr. McGee explained that there are no legal fire lanes.in Vail at this time, and thus there can be no enforcement and removal of vehicles that are blocking the lanes. They have adopted the 1976 Fire Code allowing the Fire Department to get within 150 feet of the first floor of each building with no parking permitted in these fire lanes. He explained that it will be the building owner's responsi- bility to keep these fire lanes free of snow and all obstacles once the fine lanes are legalized. Pam Garton made the Motion to recommend approval to the Town Council to legalize the fire lanes as submitted by the Vail Fire Protection District with the addition of Gore Creek Road as requested by Commission member Gerxy White. The Motion seconded by Gerxy White. The Commission voted unanimous approval. Pg. 2 Minutes PEC 1-23-79 The second item on the agenda, Jay Peterson, Attorney -- Rezoning of Lots C1 through C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 from Residential Cluster to Special Development District. Larry Rider, Town Attorney was also present to explain to the Commission that there will be a contract agreement which will be drafted by Mr. Rider which will be filed of record containing the legal format to provide for the 198 Employee Housing Units and the Development Plan to be submitted for approval. Ran Todd questioned the 30-day lease minimum as stated in the memo. Jay Peterson answered that he felt it would be easier to enforce the plan to make this housing available only to local employees. The 30-day lease, however, is just a minimum with longer leases permissable. It was felt that it was better to give the developer flexibility on this matter. The problem of getting a job before housing, or housing before a job was brought up. The PEC felt that giving the employee a 30-day grace period would be the best way to accomplish this. Once the tenants move in they would have to have pxoof of employment within 30 days. Larry Rider stated that there needs to.be regulations imposed for the increased density and that the.incxease in density was a major concession being given to the developer and that he would like to see a loosely structured rent control which he feels could be drafted in such a way that could be acceptable to the developer. Rent control was discussed and Jay Peterson reiterated that his client will not accept a rent control regulation. The areas where employees can be employed and still be eligible for the housing was discussed, it was determined that it should encompass the Upper Eagle Va~.ley including Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle/Vail and the Gore Valley. Under Development Standards in the memo,.Jay Peterson asked that the Day Care Center requirements be waived, unless it is proven that i.t is actually needed. it was his feeling that there may be none, or very few children in the project. Because recreational amenities are very expensive and would add substantially to the cost of the project, Mr. Peterson also suggested, that volley ball courts, a recreational room with ping gong tablesr etc., would be more desirable and still meet the recreational amenities for this project. Tt was also suggested that the Building Permit be purchased by a cextain date, or the project will have to come back in again for approval. The Commission discussed this, and decided that a July 1 deadline should be imposed. The Commission also asked that during the 20-year period, no condominiumization can occur and that the maximum number of people per unit be set at 4. Pg. 3 Minutes FEC 1-23-79 Gerry White made the Motion that a regulation should be instituted to require that rental fees not be increased more than the National Cost of Living Increase without a variance from the Town Council. Pam Garton seconded the Motion. The Commission voted 4 to 1 against this Motion with only Gerry White voting in favor. Pam Garton made the Motion to approve the overall recommendations as discussed by the Commission and as stated in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated 19 January 1979 with the additions that members of the family of an employee would be allowed to live in the project, that the areas where ernpioyees can be employed and still eligible for the housing would be contained in what is referred to as the Upper Eagle Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle/Nail and the Gore Valley, that the day care facility be .omitted from the requirements, that the recreational amenities include volley ball courts, a recreation room, etc., that no condominiumization can occur within the 20-year time period, that the maximum number of people per unit be set at 4, and that the Building Permit must be purchased by July 1, 1979, or the project must come back for re approval. Sandy Mi11s seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval.. The third item on the agenda was asking the Commission to suggest a name for the Frontage Road through Bighorn (a portion of old Highway #6}. The two suggestions were for l.) East Vail Drive, or, 2.) Bighorn Road. The Motion was made by Gerry White to approve the name.Bighorn Road, Pam Garton seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Jim Morgan was not present for this vote. Ron Todd then asked the Commission to hear his short presentation of a conceptual proposal for Lionsridge Filing #2. The buyer who is purchasing the land is interested in being annexed to the Town of Vail and he would like this area to be treated as a Special Development District, he would like the maximum density to reflect the zoning in an RC. He would also like to discuss the possibility of density transf ex. The Commission reviewed the site plans, etc., as presented by Mr. Todd, ` Allen Gerstenberger then briefly presented two matters, The first one was a short discussion of the transit alternatives for the Town of Vail, eg., the bus system versus a light rail transit system. The reaction was that they would like to see a more detailed cost analysis done of the two alternatives, but that the light rail system should be given additional consideration. The second matter-was the Employee Housing/Parking Ramp .proposal for LionsHead. Commission members Pam Garton and Sandy Mills expressed their concern that a land acquisition program should possibly be given a higher pxiority than the proposed- Park~.ng Garage/Employee Housing project. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M. a . i/ - y ' . ML"MOR ANI)tIM ., ' TO TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPAIt.TML'NT OP COMMUNITY DEVI:LOPMPNTI.IIM RUBIN DATE 22 JANUARY 1.979 RE SUGGES'.i'ED R3?VI~STONS TO ZONING 01.~.DINANCE RI<;GAI~DING EMPLO~.'EE IIOUS7NG. A. } revisions Considered 1.) Ailowing Density Xncroases I'or I.ot~~--term r.ozata7_ units in r.C, LDMI', MDA'!I', I~I.llMI~, PA, CCZ, CCII, and CSC Zone Districts. 2.} Requires new projects generating mono than 1.0 emptoyees to construct or pro~ride now hau.si.ng for th.ear emplc:yees. 3. } Requires a17. now cotadominium pro,~ects to construct a certain percen~Lage oi' ~t.nl.ts for en~pl.oyce housing. B.) re:visians Recommei.~ded • Nttmvex I above wa~th the iotl.owing percentage increases: . _ ZOA7E DxSTRICT .. ' PERCEArT UNI'3RS t~Eti. ACME RC 25% 1 • ~ ' LD1~IT' 20 a i . 8 1~4Dh3F 1.0 f 1...8 IIDMF 8% 2.0 PA 8% 2.0 CCI 8% 2.0 CCII S% 2.0 CSC ~ ~ I0% ~..8 Accompanying the inczcase in number. oaf units r~v:~11 bra an increase in Gt~FA o~C up to, but not more than, 1.,000 sq. it. :for each long-tc~rr~r zetttal tin:.i.t constrtacted in aeeorc3a.nce with the above: provisions. k3c~stricti.ons tvoul.d be p~.aced on the use of these uni~~r~~~.~;~a~t~•~~l~;y. they could only lac used Uy emp].oyces in ~~-.".~~~~ the xe~€i:~~•.~Z. `I'hc;ae ~vou:!_d :i].uo be ~. 20~yca.x• time 1.in~:i.tation p1.ac.ed on this use. ` ~ AhiJ'sNUfl[LNFS 1'p TIfE 70N1NG dR1}TNANCI; ' "~ + ~ Section 1. Sections 18.14.090, 18,1G,090, 18.18.090, -~ ~.8.20.OJ0, 15,22.090, 35.24.130, 18.26.100, and 15.25',1Q0 "1)I;NSITY CONTROL" <~re amended by the addition of the ta7.lowing as a Subsection B: , (Residential Cluster) T)I:NSTTY CONTR OL • 1.8.14.090 , ~ ~ ' l ^1 "" ~~~~' ~o) percent wi11 (B} A density incre:lse of be permitted far the provision oi' long--term rental units. ' 18.16.090 D],AiSITY CONTROL {I,ow Density 64u1tiple-Family) • a. ~ ®/~ (B) A density increase of twentys (~~ao-) percent will be permitted for the provision of long-term rental units. 1$.18.090 DLNSTTY CONTROL {Aiedium Density Alultiple-Family) a ~ °fea (B) A density increase of ~ (T~) percent will be permitted i'or the pralrision of long--term rental units. 1$.20.090 DFATSITY CONTROL (Hig•11 Density ~b~ult~iple-Family) ~ ~~g ~ (~) percent wi11 ' (B) A density increase o# -`-- ~ be permitted fcr the provision of long-term ]rental units. ].8.22,090 DI:\'SITY CONTROL (Public Accomrraodation} ~-~' ~~ r9'pla • (B} !t density increase of ml?~ C~~) percent will - • be permitted for the provision of long-term rental units. 15.24,130 7}ENSITY Cd;ITROL (Commercial Core I) - - • • (B) A density increase of {~} percent will • be permitted for the provision of long-team rental units. 1.8.26.100 DENSITY CONTR07 (Commercia ~ Core II) ~`3",~ c~\ ~ ~ ~' ~py (B)= A densa-ty increase of (-~~} percent will be permitted #or the provision of long--term rental units. • 18.25.100 UENSI.TY Cp~TTI?OL ( = IDC'rc~ aQ ~5ervice~ Center} , _ ~ ~ ' (B) A density increase of fir: {~~3~6} percent will be permitted for the provision of long--7.erm _ rental units. Section 2. Chapter 18.04 of the Vail hlunici.pal Code is amended ay the addition oi' a new section • Section 18.D4.218 to reed as follows; 18.'04.215 Ld,~TG--TERk:I E~2rNTAL I1NIT5 • A 7onE;---term rent;tl tutit is :t unit permitted by Sections 15.14.D90 (13}, 18.16.000 (13), 15.7-5.090 (B), 18.2.O.OcJO (B}, 18.22.090 {E3), 15,24.130 (I3), 18•?.G.7.(f0 (i~), and 18.28.n0.Q ~~;}•a3F~ ~.~ n~;-ter~~~~•pnr 1~~tir4~Mi~r«lnnst be rented ~i ' ° ` n i t ]U.1....,~^~ ~ a t~ ld will require ~~rs h;Lll,~•: ~~'~.~,;;~~~. a attt cus the ::it;nini; altd ycariy review of doaumcuts to that effect. , A land,--term rental unit must remain in sucl! use ~~~-t,~#~ ~'c,v Et fie` • 14~Ea`a~CA~.1Y~1.,.~,.z+.,'S~`I~'Fa'1:~..^''t~ ~ ~>~t~e`2'~i~~~~':~`,i~'t'dN.GC~~;T'~E(2f~i°~lK~- ~ Q N i d Cf ~ ~ ~ st1w•:.i~.....,.Wti~~i:_~::.;~i:, An i.ncr~a:e in Gft1~A o£ up to, ,!'{{,, fn)~ c•tc~yy ~c~n Welt tnot•a Lh:tn 1000 ~•lI i bui =-t rn ~ . ~ - ~ ~„ j '•n ~.. rzct ...,er1 ,rk {~a+ en nn hi iahs* q.~ oV1e, h~ ~ ~ ]rentci7 tutu r.onsi.rttcLr.(l tYl.ll. (, lrc:rtnr.t~:ed. A ~, a :he~• ' lOlli.ll~~ rE?S I: 3.1 (;tiOlt~ :lS 1'4'(IilirC?d 111 thi-S 'l~iL.IC 18 shall - ,t !M • • ~ Amendments to 1:hc 7,oni.ng Ordinance Page 2 be complied with. ~., Section 3. A nett' chapter, Chapter 18.70 "Eh4PL0Y1;E ~+. }!O[JSINC;" is hereby adopter! to read as follows: 18 , 70.010 PU1tP05E The Employee housing Section is intended to require ' ~ projects constructed in the ToGVn of Vail which generate employees, to pxovide housing for these employees. This Section would only. Affect those projects whicl3 employe ten (10) or more full-time employees or their equivalents. .1.8.70.020 DEFINITIONS (A) Employee. A person who is employed within or by the new project including, but not limited to managers, ma5ntenance people, maids, restaurant help, store clerks, etc. Equivalent {B) Tmplayee -- Ftt1I-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 fttl.l--time employees • ar their equivalents would be based on the antici- paced requirement foi• the winter season. 1$.70.030 CONSTitUCTION O1~ EMPLOYEE HOUSING' ' ~ ~ Any project which generates moxe than ten (10) full- . tithe employees or their equivalents will be required to construct • ne~v long-term housing on the basis of one bed room for each. three fu11-time employees or their equivalents. This construction can take place an or off the site on which the project is being proposed, but must be restricted to and maintained as employee housing as xequired by this Section. If develape.d on-site, the employee housing units shall not be counted as dwelling units for determining the permissahle density of the project. If r developed off-site, the employee housing units shall be taunted l as dwelling units as defined in this 'Title. • 18.70.040 EMPLOYEE ]iOiJSING PLAN An Employee TTousing Plan vviil be required if the honing 1ldntinistrator detexmines that the project will generate employees. The Employee !lousing Plan will include the following: (1) 1'ssti.mates the Sgtlarc fOOta~C and use of all proposed commercial space. .• (2) The number, size, and xntieipated use of a.l.l . dwcl.li.ttt; attd arcomznodation u~3its. • (3) The number of wreltly employee hours z•cquircd to maintain and opet•:tt~~ tt].1 t:o~nnu>rci.tl, space and • d-vcllinl; units during; tho tvintcr season. ,, i ~ E ,- i T'r'7 r •. i , Y ., f • • Amendments'to tlae 7,onin~; Ordinance Pago 3 (~) The numUer and type of employee ]rousing to be provi.dud to satisfy the reyuixemeRrt of . this Chapter. • 18.7D.050 APPROVAL R1;(~[IIn1:11 • An Employee Ilousing Plan will. require the review and approval of the Zoning Administratox based on the fallowing criteria: {i) Accuracy of the estimate of full-time employees. (2) Adequacy of the housing proposed to meet t}ie demand created by the project. 18,70.060 RTGTi'I' 01" APPEAL, Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to deny an interested person his right .to appeal the decision of the 7.,oning Administrator in accordance with Secta,on 18.66.030. An interested party may also seek a variance from the requirements of this Chapter. Said variance shall be govexned by the provisions of Chapter 18.62. of this Title I8. Sac'l:a.on ~. Sections 18.10.070, 18.12.-070, 1$.3.3.0'70, . 3.8.14.070, 18.16.070, 18.18.070, 18.20.070, 18.22.070, 3.8.24.110, 15.26.110, 18.28.08p, 18.30.070, 18.32.070, I8. 36.050 (C), 15.42.100, 18.44.130, 18.46.110, 18.48.080 (C), • 18.50.110, and 18.51.080 {C) "AISI'ANC1; ]3T:T}YTa1'N BU17I3INGS" are hereby repealed. • Section 5. Section 18.54.040 PERI'OR2:4ANCF BONDING O1' Rls'CI2LATTONAI, A1IENTTIES is repealed and. xeenacted to xead as follows: I8.54.040 )='1'sR~'OR1~iANCE T3ONDING 01' RECRT:ATTONAI, A3i1;N1T1FS AN}3 l,AN05GAPING. I~rior to issuing a BuilcTing Iyermit for any building or any at}ter construction on the premises, permittee will be required to submit a letter~of credit or Surety bond, guaranteeing C~. to the town the construction of the recreational amenities ox land- scaping as presented in the site plan and/or prospectus. In the ~ "' ' event the recreation a3: amenities oi• landscaping are .not complete within one (1) year afiter the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the tatvn shall take i:he necessary steps to collect the funds required from the bonding company, guarantor or other institution guarante~ e.ing construction of the recreational amenities or landscapinE; and complete the constructian from the proceeds of t}x: fund so derived. ~r i i r.•^ • ~tron d~a~~~ ~cr ta~na of nail bOX 1 DO s V&1~, Co~(3P8d0 81 fi57 • 303 47&-56Y3 F7re Lane Descriptions ~n the Town of Vail Page 1 Pursuant to ~lunicip7e.Ordiance 8.Q8.030 Fire Lanes~Map-Identification" the following Fire Lanes are described: 1) Childress Fcuntian; The Fire Lane shall extend a length of 75 feet in a North/South direction, alclg the East end of the Schober Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, from Gore Creek Drive, Nt~rth to the stairway, and 50 fees; in an East/West direction from the same stairway,-East along the South side o-P the Creekside Building at 223 Gore Creek Drive, to the East side of the Creekside Guilding. 2) Christy Sports; The Fire Lane shall extend in a North/South directio for..a length of 90 feet, along the East side of the ~. plaza Building ai: 293 Bridge Street, South to the open area adjacent to the Gondola T Building. 3) Hanson Ranch Road; The Fire Lane shall extend in a curve for a length of 200 feet, in a Northerry direction, on the East side of Hanson Ranch Road, from the Southwest come of the Ski Connection at 298 Hansen Ranch Road, to r~ u the ~'Vorthwest corner of the Christiana at 35G Hannan Ranch Road. 6 ~CatactlOq U/a~ ~ J ~~~ ~ ~~~V SOX 100 • Y~1~, GO~pCeC~p 83857 a 303.476-.5613 Fire Lane Descriptions in the Town of Vail Page 2 • 4) Vail Athletic Club; The Firs Lane shall extend for a length of 7.10 • feet along the l~Jest side of the Athletic Giub, in a North/South direction from East Meadow Dr., South to the South side of tF~ Athletic Club at 352 East Meadow Drive. 5) Northwoods; The Fire Lane shall extend along the East side of the drive from Vail. Valley Drive, to the garage door of building "D", at 600 Vail Va71ey Drive, constituting a length of 550 feet. 6) Crossroads; The Fire Lane shall extend along the forth side oi' East Meadow Drive, from the Fire hydrant at Crossroads, t~lest to the main driveway into the parking lot,. constituting a length of 300 feet, and~from the-corner of the old Crossroads Building adjacent to the main driveway (at the Baskins--Robins store ), North to and around the curve, along the South side of the Village Market to the Southeast corner of the building, for a length of 310 feet. • • ~to~ectPop aka k~~~~~ ~~'cN 1a6~~a ai rail E]OX 1aa . vaiE, coEorado 81657 0 3D3 476•.5613 Fire Lane Descriptions in the Town of Vail Page 3 7} 5itzmark; The Fire Lane sha11 extend from the North side of the Sitzmark Lodge at. 183 Gore CreeiK Drive, far a length of 40 feet along the East side of Wi]low Bridge Road, to the Sr•uth side of the bridge across Gore Creek. 8} The Crest; The Fire Lane sha11 extend from the South Front-- age Road, West along the South side of the drive into the Crest parking lot, for a length of 200 feet, to the East end pf the parking in front of the East wing of the building, and,Nori:h from the front door of the Crest, along the East side of th . building, for a length of 100 feet to the entrance of the loading area. 9} East Lionshead Circle; TY~e Fire Lane shall extend across the Pedestrian - Walk into the Lionshead I~a11 for a length of 20 feet, between tY~e Bus Shelter and the Vail 21 Building. • ~otectton ~~ w~ta~~.h s~Af~r [7 ~~al ~ ~~~V t70X 100 • V~I~, cotarado 81857 • 3Q347b-.5613 Fire Lane Descriptions in the 1`own of Vail Page ~ 10) L. Lionshead Commercial Parking and Loading Area; The Fire Lane shall extend along the South side of the drive between the Vail 21 Building, the Lazier ComEi~ercia7 Building, and the elevated parking lot on the South side of the Vantage Point Complex for a lengt of 60 feet across the North side of the Vail _ 21 Building, and 75 feet across the North sid of the Lazier Commercial Building.. 11) Landmark; The Fire Lane sha11 extend along the South side of the Landmark Building and the North side of the Studio in the Roc~Cies Building, on the South side of the access to the Lions- head Mall, from Lionshead Circle, Last for a length of 250 feet. 12) Sunbird; The Fire Lane shall extend South from the Lionshead Mall, along the West side of the Sunbird Building for a length of 200 feet, to the curb South of the Lionsquare North Building. a~ar~~ ~~~ taro of rail 13} Gondola IZ; b O X 7 0 0 ~ Y a l(, c o f o r a d o B f 6 5 7 0 3 0 3 4 7 6. 5 6 1 3 Fire Lane Descriptions in the Town of Vail Page 5 The Fire Lane shall extend fror~ the Fast end of the Bus Turn-Around, in an Easterly direction, on the North side of the Lions- squre Lodge parking 7ot,across the parking islands, and the driveways, to the Gondola II parking lot (service area ), and around to the pedestrian walkway between tje Gondola IT Building and the Lionsquare Condos Building, constituting a length of 200 feet. 14) Slifer Building; The Fire Lane shall extend along the Fast side of the Slifer Building at 263 Bridge Street, from Gore Creek Drive, North to the . parking lot behind Gorsuch, the Ore ~~oose, the City Limits, and other businesses in the adjacent buildings, for a length of. 50 feat. 15) A1phorn; The Fire Lane shall extend along the West side of the A1phorn Building at 121 West Meadow Drive, from West Meadow Drive, North to the Scorpio/Vai1 National dank parking lot, far a length of 8D feet. • Co{ectlan dj ~uwo of uail bax goo o uail, Colorado eis57 0 303.476.5s~s Fire lane Descriptions in the Town of Vail Page 6 16) Aspen Tree; The Fire Lane shall extend along the South side of the Aspen Tree Candor complex from Red Sand- stone Road, West to the drive for the Cottonwood Condos cotnpl ex, for a T ength . cif ~0 feet. 17') Red Sandstone School; The Fire Lane shall extend from the North Front- age Road West, at 551 North Frohtage Road West, up and around the ;drive to the front doors of the Red Sandstone School, on the Eastern side of the drive and on the South side of the school, for a total length of 800 feet. • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVxRONMENTAL COMMISSTON FEBRUARY 13, 1979 PUBLIC HEARIN G 3:00 P.M. 1.) Preliminary Discussion of the Redevelopment of Gold Peak. 3:30 P.M. 2.} preliminary Discussion of Proposed Addition to the Schober Building. 4:00 P.M. 3.) Amendments to Zoning.Oxdinance including Elimination of Distance Between Building Requirements, Requiring Performance Bonding fox Landscaping, Requiring Employee Housing for Commercial Projects Generating more than Ten Employees, and Allowing Density Tncreases for the Provisions of Lon g-Term Rent a1 Units. • • MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF: February 13, 1979 3:00 P.M. Commission Members Present; Ed Drager Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Ron Todd Gerry White Jim Morgan Pam Garton Staff Present: Jim Rubin The first item on the agenda was Preliminary Discussion of the Redevelopment of Gold Peak. Tom Haxned of Vail Associates, Inc. was present to address the Commission. He described the Master Plan for Gold Peak and explained the reasons for improving and enlarging the facility. These included:. lack'. of room. in the Bratskeller, the need for a Small World Nursery, improving and enlarging the public restrooms and cafeteria, adding ticket windows, replacing the metal stairs and incre-acing the area for ski instructors. He showed the Commission a rough site plan and explained that with the enlargement of the facility, some • parking places may be lost, but that this was contingent upon Forest Service approval. Other proposed changes included relocation of a tennis court, add~:tion of another volley ball court, and a pedestrian way for better access to the facility. He explained that George Gervin deveJ.oped the site plan and Gordon Pierce, the preliininaxy building plan. He further explained that there would be three ~;venuesof flow into the building from buses and drop-off areas. The plan is to use the shell of the existing cafeteria building within the new building. He then advised the Commission that they want to incorporate- four luxury condominiums within the new building. He further explained that in speaking to the surrounding neighbors, at Mill Creek Circle and Manor Vail, etc., they had received very positive reaction to their plans. He stated the view from M-ill Creek should not be impacted at all with the proposed building being only 30 inches higher than the existing building.' Because of imprpvements in design, these neighbors will have an even better view corridor. Roger Tilkemeier stated that it is felt that more parking is needed at Gold Peak and that it would not be a.good idea to reduce the parking there beca%tse of the special events, racing programs and the l~.fts that draws so many skiers into that axea. Ron Todd asked why the condominiums are being included in the plans? Mr. Horned explained that the project won't work without the condominiums because of the amount of rrioney VA will need to expend on other projects, The sale of the condominiums is necessary to help pay for the expansion. Page 2 MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 2-13-79 After further discussion the Commission members expressed their opinions on the addition of the condominiums that would necessitate a change in the zoning of the area which is now Agricultural and Open Space. The Planning ~ Environmental Commission with the exception of Gerxy White and Roger Tilkemeier who abstained from commenting, stated they would be opposed to the re2oning that would be required to allow the condominiums. Mr. Horned expressed his surprise that the Commission would be in opposition to these plans, The second item on the agenda was a Preliminary Discussion: of the Proposed Addition to the Schober Building. Craig Snowdon, Architect, was present to represent the building's owner. He explained to the Commission that the building is under new ownership and the new owner would like to make some changes to the building. There would be additional square footage added to the building. Mr. Snowdon explained to the Commission that the building sits on .138 acres in Commercial Core I. ~e explained that the Lancelot patio would be extended and enclosed, adding about 800 sq. ft. There would be some retail space added and some additional office space. In the top floor, the owner wishes to remodel the condominium located there. Existing, is a condominium with two lack-off units. The owner would like to remodel the largest portion as living quarters for himself and redo the rest of the space as two small condominiums. The owner would also like to install an elevator and perhaps a be11 tower. Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for this project, and that they would be required to pay into the Parking Eund, as is the case for additions within CCT. It was explained that the site coverage would be at 60% with the additional sq. ft., which is ZO% below the maximum allowable in CCI. Mr. Snowdon stated that his reason for coming before the Commission is to get their direction and recommendations concerning the proposal.. In answer to a question from the Commission, Mr. Snowdon stated that the addition as proposed. would be an additional 3,500 to 4,500 sq. ft. Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that this building will be setting a precedent and the project will have to be looked at very carefully. He stated that the Council is somewhat concerned about the additional commercial space, but that no zoning regulations would be violated by the proposed expansion. Mr. Snowdon told the Commission that the owner is interested in having the construction done this year. Pam Garton questioned whether this would be a valid improvement to the building, but added that this really isn't a Page 3 MTNUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 2-13-79 judgment that can be made until a more formal plan is available. Sandy Mills agrees with Pam, and in addition would really like to check out the view corridor to make sure there will be no negative impact from the Fountain Plaza. She is also questioning the fact that patios seem to be of great value, especially during the summer months. The fact that this patio is on the north side of the building where there is limited sun time may be a valid reason for enclosing it. Roger Tilkemeier doesn't have any negative feelings about this project. He feels that the patio at its present location may be detrimental and that enclosing it would make it more attractive. Adding the Condominiums is a concern. He feels that with all the time and effort that went into Growth Management, further densa.ty is counter productive. In reference to the proposal for the bell tower for the elevator, he. doesn't feel this will fly. Mr. Tilkemeier also stated that the addition of fireplaces is a dead issue. Gerry White questions whether the proposal is really a betterment of the community and is concerned about the visual corridor. Jim Morgan was concerned about the Core Village being torn up through- out the summer months, noting that the Gondola I building renovation will be done this summer. Ron Todd spoke favorably on the proposal., • feeling that it would help the appearance of the building. Mr. Snowdon has his office in the building, and he is interested in the proposal especially since he feels it would clean up the lines of the building, break up the boxiness that exists now and make it a much more attractive structure. The third item on the agenda was Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which included the following: i• Elmination of Distance Between Building Requirements. After discussion, it was decided that the Setbacks will be enough protection, along with the Design Review Board procedures that will more closely review site plans and the location of the structures on the site. A Motion was made by Roger Tilkemeier to recommend approval of the Elimination of Distance Between Building Requirements from the Town of Vail. Zoning Ordinance. The Motion was seconded by Ron Todd and the Commission voted 6 for the recommendation and Gerry White voted in opposition. Require Performance Bonding far Landscaping. Jim Rubin explained that this would be based on the landscaping plan submitted to the Design Review Board. The staff would set the guide- lines for Commission approval in regard to the amount of the bond that will be set. It was discussed that an estimate from the landscaper should be submitted along with the landscaping plan to help in deciding the amount of the bond that will be required for each landscaping plan submitted. It was also decided that the paving or driveway Page 4 MINUTES - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 2-16-79 installation should be added to this. Ed Drager felt that the band should be 150% of the estimated cost. Gerry White made the Motion to recommend approval of requiring performance bonding for landscaping and driveway paving improvements. The Motion seconded by Roger Tilkemeier. The Commission voted 6 for approval with Jim Morgan voting in opposition. Density lncreases for the Prov~.sion of Long-Term Rental Units. Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that the Council would like to see a policy where the numbers that are added through this provision be subtracted by acquiring. land or future down-zoning. Pam Garton had to leave the meeting at 5:10 P.M. Jim further explained that this is similar to a transfer of density, with the community having more determination over the use of the units. After discussion, Ed Drager asked whether it would be better to make any density increase under this provision a Conditional Use and look at it project by~project. He feels there would be . a better control of it if handled in this manner. The Commission agreed this was an excellent idea and that it should be added to the Conditional Use Sections of the Ordinance. Gerry White had to leave the meeting at 5:30 P.M. A Motion was made by Ron Todd to recommend allowing density increases for the provisian of long-term rental units through the Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance and according to the memorandum submitted by the Department of Community Development. The Motion was seconded by Roger Tilkemeier and the Commission voted unanimous approval of the recommendation. Requiring Employee Housing for Commercial Projects Generating More than Ten (10) Employees. After discussion, the Commission fe~.t this item should be tabled. They felt there were too many variables, such as projects starting with a certain number of employees and then changing to another type of use which could require a higher or lower number of employees. Ron Todd made the Motion to table any recommendation for requiring employee housing for commercial projects generating more than ten employees. The Motion was seconded by Jim Morgan and the Commission voted unanimously to table this item. Meeting adjourned 5:45 P.M. AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 27 I'EBRUARY 19'9 ~.} Resub. of Part of Lot C, Black S--C, Vail Village let Filing (Gondola I Plaza) To be Postponed far 2 weeks. 2.} Submission of Condomina.um Plats for Mountain Meadows located on an unp]:atted parcel in Bighorn; HBM Townhouses located on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd; and Northwoods Building ~'B" . APPROVED 3.) Preliminary Discussion Mansfield Village 4.) Discussion of Public/Private Joint Venture Program for Spring 1979. DONE IN WORK SESSION I~ MINUTES . P~.ANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL GO~{MI55ION 27 FEBRUARY 1979 Commission Members Present: £d Drager Sandy Mills Jck Goehl Gerry White Absent: Staff Present: Ron Todd Jim Morgan Roger Ti l kemei er Jim Rubin The first item on the a enda, Resubdivision of Part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing Gondola T Plaza?. Vail Associates, Inc., and the Town of Vail have requested that this item be postponed for two weeks, The Motion was made by Sandy Mills to postpone the resubdivision of a part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing (Gondola I Plaza) at the request of Vail Associates, Inc., and the Town of Vail with this item to be heard in two weeks. The Motion was seconded by Gerry White and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The second item, Submission ofi Condominium Plats for Mountain Meadows, HBM Townhouses and Northwoods Building "B". Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that with the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, the Planning & Environmental Commission must review and approve all Condominium Plats. Jim advised that he checks to make sure the plans for the buildings are the same as those which are shown on the plat and that the Condominium Declarations agree with the plats. He advised the Commission that HBM Townhouses submitted Townhouse plats with a Condominium Declaration which needs to be corrected. The Motion was made by Gerry White to approve the Condominium Plats as submitted far Mountain Meadows, located on an unplatted parcel in Bighorn; Northwoods Building "B"; and HBM Townhouses located on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing subject to the corrections of the HBM Townhouses as stated by Jim Rubin, Zoning Administrator. The Motion seconded by Sandy Mills and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on the agenda, Preliminary Discussion of Mansfield Village. Andy Norris was present to address the Commission. He .gave out maps to the Commission for their review. He explained that the proposed "Village" is 17 acres with two one-acre parcels that are not within SD4. These two parcels are presently zoned at 5 and 7 units per acre. Mr. Norris told the Commission he wanted to discuss this with them preliminarily because of the visual impact from I-70 and advise them of the different plans they have in mind for the "Village." He also told the Commission that they were very conscious of this land at the time that Coldstream and Glen Lyon were planned, so that their preliminary planning for Mansfield Village will compliment that which is already planned for Glen Lyon. Pg. 2 Mfnutes - PAC 2-27-79 He went on to say that their plans for Mansfield Village include a "Learning Center" and a library. CMC, the University of Colorado, Univ. of Chicago and Stanford have been contacted and have given them alot of insight into. the plans for this. He advised the Commission that Allen Gerstenberger, the former director of DCD is working with them on the plans for the "Learning Center." The library, which is envisioned could possibly be a reference library for international business and finance, and could also include the Vail Public Library. A hotel is planned containing 125 units in a rustic, law profile design. There would be a "Village Square" with some retail shops and restaurants, and they are proposing Employee Housing guaranteed rentals). The balance of the project would consist of condominiums to primarily supplement the hotel. They are looking into having a portion of the condos restricted in sales to local people only. An indoor tennis facility and proposed structured parking area would act as a barrier to the freeway. They propose 350 underground parking spaces and 70 to 80 surface parking spaces. The "Village" will be self-contained. The hub will be the square, with the "Learning Center" radiating out one way, with the hotel and parking structure radiating out another way. They envision no buildings over 22 stories with less than 35% of the ground to be covered by buildings. 7 acres will be landscaped with the "Village" entirely pedestrianized. Mr, Norris then discussed the possibility of the Town providing bus service from LionsHead to the project. He further stated that there will be an extension of the bike path into the "Village." He discussed the possibility of Industrial Revenue Bonds for the planned rental housing for employees and also mentioned the idea that perhaps a broad-based entity such as the Town of Vail could have a role in the management of the "Learning Center." The Commission discussed some of the plans with Mr. Norris. Mr. Draper asked what the time-table would be for the project? Mr. Norris answered that they would like to be ready to start on the learning facility this fall along with the owner-occupied condos. He stated it will be a three-year project at an estimated cost of $45 million dollars. Gerry White then asked when the employee housing might come on line, and Mr. Norris answered that they plan it for the second year of construction, but earlier if possible-. Mr. Norris stated that they are interested in the long-range view of the project based on good planning. The Commission thanked Mr. Norris for his presentation. Mr. Draper commended the plan. The Commission asked whether an environmental Impact Statement had been prepared for this site, and Jim Rubin answered that Bohn Ryan has done the EIS for SD-4 and he will provide copies for the Commission's review. A Motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Gerry White and seconded by Sandy Mills, the Commission voted uanimously in favor. Adjourned ~:OO P.M. Work Session followed. • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 27 FEBRUARY 1979 1.) Resub. of Part of Lot C, Black 5-C, Vail Village lst Filing (Gondola T Plaza? To be Postponed 2.) Submission of Condominium Plats for Mountain Meadows located on an uriplatted parcel in Bighorn; HBM Townhouses located on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd; and Northwoods Building "B". 3.} Preliminary Discussion Mansfield Village 4.) Discussion of Public/Private Joint Venture Program far Spring 1979. L~ • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1979 2:00 WORK SESSION Preliminary Presentation on Employee Housing Proposal on Lots C1-C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 3:40 PUBLIC HEARING ~.) Schober Building Request for Gonditional Use Permit in CCI ~.) Creekside.Bujlding Request for Conditional Use Permit in CCT 3.) Hill Building Request for Conditional Use Permit and Variance in CCI . 4.) Rezoning - Lot I, Vail Village 2nd Filing (Old Firehouse Site) 5.) Mueller Residence Request for Uariance Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch 6.) ReSUbd'IV1Si0n of Gondola T Parcel Lot C, Block 5-C, Uai1 Village 1st Filing 7.) Amendment to Site $, Casolar Del Norte Subdivision • MINEITES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF: March 13, 1979 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager Sandy Miils Jack Goehl Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Absent: Gerry White Ron Todd STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dick Ryan Jim Rubin The meeting was brought to order by Chairman Ed Drager and was followed by an introduction by Dick Ryan, Director of Community Development. He spoke in regard to the first three items on the agenda. He recommends that a Workshop be established regarding the growth in Commercial Core I involving the staff, CCI merchants, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Council. He would like to see a direction in policy result from this Workshop. Dick also commented that he feels more detail is needed from the applicants on their proposals, especially in view of those that are being heard today on buildings in C6rmnercial Core I. • The first item on the agenda is a reguest fora Conditional Use Permit for the Schober Building in Commercial Core I. Craig Snowdon, Architect is representing the owner in this request. He introduced the owner of the building, Mr. Clark Willingham. He explained his proposal to the Commission with floorplans, site plan ,and model of the building. He further explained that they propose to add 2,900 sq. ft. onto five levels which will include expanding the restaurant, ski shop, office space and living area. On the second level they also plan to open up the display area by pulling the building back about five feet, creating a covered walkway/arcade and putting in an elevator from this level to the offices and living quarters. He then explained the site changes they are proposing which include enlarging the planters on Gore Creek br., and along the creek side, they would like to apply for the Public/Private Joint Venture so that the Town and the owner can work together on the landscaping and the stairway replacement on that corner of the building. He feels that the building does not affect the view corridor, since it will be stepped back on the creek side corner. A deck will be added to the 4th floor, and the elevator tower is located on the street side. Jim Rubin then gave the summary of the staff recommendations. He stated there were changes in the square footage that is listed in the staff memo, those changes are: on the first floor the additional square footage is 700 sq. ft., 2nd floor, 266 sq. ft., 3rd floor, 992 sq. ft., and the 5th floor, 937 sq. ft., which totals 2,895 sq. ft. He then went through the factors that • are listed in the memo and stated that the staff recommendation is for conceptual approval. Pg. 2 MINUTES - PEC 3-13-79 . Ed Prager then asked for questions from the Commission. Jim Morgan asked about the parking requirement. Jim Rubin stated that before the building permit can be issued, money has to be paid into the Parking Fund. The parking requirement has been-figured at 10 spaces. Mr. Ryan told the Commission that Council has not stipulated the fees, and that recommendations will be made to Council for any increase in the amount per space that needs to be made. Mr. Snowdon added that a loading zone now exists outside the building which will not be changed and the alley way will be cleaned up along with the construction on the building. Mr. Morgan continued that he opposes the increased density. Mr. Snowdon stated that the only change of use will be in the living units, that there will be no new shops. They will only add space to the existing offices and restaurant. Mr. Tilkemeier feels that the proposal improves the north side of the building, especially the patio area. Questions were then taken from the public in attendance. Pepi Cramshammer questioned whether the building will infringe upon public property? Mr. Snowdon stated that they will not be building on any public property. Pepi continued that he is against enlarging the building and enclosing everything. There were Town Council members at the meeting. Councilman Donovan asked whether . the elevator shaft/tower is within their property lines? Mr. Snowdon answered that it is within the property lines. Further discussion of the building being non-conforming and the addition making it more non-conforming ensued. The Council members and the Commission then discussed the consideration of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and that a l.5/i FAR had been talked about but not adopted. Mr. Drager added that the Planning & Environmental Commission have the Conditional Use Permit for control purposes, but that perhaps the factors they are concerned with here are not a proper handle on the problem where every nook and cranny can be closed up. He continued that if this application is approved, it can be assured that there will be many others coming in with similar requests. Mr. Snowdon stated that there are many buildings in the Gare that could be improved, and he feels their design is a vast improvement to the present building. Councilman Steinberg is concerned that the added square footage wi11 constitute the need far more employees. Gounciiman Hopman is concerned about the view corridor, and that with expansion throughout the Core, they could lose all the views throughout the Village. Jim Morgan stated that he is concerned about the entire Core being torn up with all the construction this summer. Councilman Wilto stated that the Floor Area Ratio .was turned down because they wanted to give people the opportunity to come through the Commission with plans for their buildings and that there shouldn't be a problem with setting precedent because the Commission has to look at these plans on a case by case basis. • Councilman Ruder feels the building design is goad, but is concerned about more kitchens and bedrooms, that this will have an undesirable impact. Mr. Snowdon stated that the building profile was designed so that the addition doesn'.t look "tacked on." Mr. Willingham, the new owner of the building, then addressed the Pg . 3 • MI~IUl'~S-PEC 3-13-79 Commission. It is his feeling that he has purchased a good building and that his proposal makes the building much more attractive. Mr. Tilkemeier asked whether the owner has the right to make condominiums out of the accommodation units and does the Commission have control over this .proposed change? Jim Rubin answered that this is their right, they are permitted three units by the size of the Lot. Mr. Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Schober Building in accordance with the recommendations from the Department of Community Development and with the comment that the north side of the building will not impact the view corridor. For lack'of a second, the Chairman, Mr. Drager seconded the Motion. The Commission voted one in favor of the Motion, Mr. Tilkemeier, and four votes in opposition, Mr. Drager, Sandy Mi11s, Jim Morgan and Jack Goehl. The Conditional Use Permit request is denied. Mr. Drager informed the applicant that he can appeal the decision to the Town Council. Mr. Snowdon asked the Commission the reasons for denial? He felt that there had been no negative feeling on his preliminary presentation. Sandy Mills answered that perhaps initially there was a positive . reaction from the Commission, but that at least for her, she has been thinking about the additional square footage that would require additional employees. That this is the first building to come through with a proposal of this type in the Village, and they need time to look at the Village as a whole; and that looking at the project as a community benefit, she doesn't feel that this proposal would be a benefit to the community. Mr. Paul Johnston of the Christiania Lodge then spoke to the Commission. Ne stated that in the case of his lodge, there are rooms only and no services. He feels that the Village does need an increase in services, especially restaurants. F!e would be unhappy to see the Town zone for day skiers only, and that some expansion is a good idea. The second item on the agenda, Creekside Building request for a. Conditional Use Permit in Commercial Core T. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law is representing the owner in this request. They propose to enclose the patio deck of the Watch Hi17 Oyster Club restaurant. They propose a greenhouse effect, and contend this would in no way shut off the view and that it would make the patio more viable. It could be used in inclement weather and at night. There is also the problem of the retail space below the deck that are having leakage problems, and they have been told that only enclosing the deck will eliminate these problems. Mr. Tilkemeier asked about the pitch of the roof. Mr. Peterson stated . that there is not a great angle to the roof, but that engineers have been consulted on this. Mr. Tilkemeier feels the biggest problem is with snow coming off the roof of the main building onto the plexiglass and that this could be a dangerous Situation. Pg. 4 MINUTES-PEC 3-13-79 • Mr. Morgan is also concerned about this problem. Mr. Tilkemeier added that they may have to go with large skylights rather than entire plexiglass roof. The Commission would like to see the engineer's report relative to the design of the "greenhouse" addition. The Commission suggested that this matter be tabled. Mr. Drager feels there will be an impact on the Children's Fountain pedestrian area and Mr. Goehl is concerned about the added seating capacity and its potential year round use. Mr. Morgan again stated that he does not approve of the design. He doesn't feel that it ties in with the roofline of the building. Jay Peterson asked that the Conditional Use Permit request be tabled until the Planning & Environmental Commission meeting on March 27, 1979. The third item on the agenda, Hi1~1 Building request fora Conditional Use Permit in Commercial Core T. Mr. Jack Curtin was present to represent the owner. Mr. Curtin advised the Commission that Mrs. Hill has withdrawn her plans for the tower as first proposed. She is asking to trade the garage space for the commercial space and to gain 367 sq. ft. She also proposes to enclose her deck to add space to the kitchen. He explained to the Commission that this is a one-family dwelling. He had a model of the building and drawings to present to the Commission. The Commission asked whether surrounding building owners had any problems with the proposed addition. Mr. Curtin produced letters from the owner • of the Red Lion Inn and the Mill Creek Court Building, and stated that no one was in opposition to the proposed changes. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that the Hill Building is still under its allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) with the addition. Sandy Mills expressed the concern that the garage is located in a high traffic area. Mr. Curtin feels that changing the location of the garage takes it out of a higher traffic area. Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for expansion of commercial and residential space in the Hill Building in accord with the recommendations in the memo from the Department of Community Development dated March 2, 1979, including the changes made by the applicant and noting the withdrawal of the variance request far the tower. Jim Morgan seconded the Motion. The Commission voted 3 members in favor, Jack Goehl opposed and Jim Morgan abstaining because of a conflict of interest. The fourth item on the agenda, request for the rezoning of Lot I, Vail Village 2nd Filing (old firehouse site). Mr. Drager gave the background on the sale of the property and its present density which is High Density Multi-Family (HOME). The Town Council has asked the Planning & Environmental Commission for this rezoning of the property. Two Councilmen were present, Mr. Hopman and Mr. Ruder. Mr. Ruder explained that the Council. voted to send this rezoning request to the Planning & Environmental Commission. Tt is his feeling that the Vail Fire Protection District (VFPD) cannot say that this parcel will not be needed by the District for ever more, and that it is not correct fora public body to give up their land. They are particularly . concerned about the density zoned for this parcel. They want it to go through-all the proper channels. Pg. 5 f~INL1TES~PEC • 3-13-79 The Planning & Environmental Commission felt that they are not a proper forum to tell the VFPD what to do. Jay Peterson spoke for the person who is contracting to buy the land. Ne stated that Mr. Prado submitted his bid for $620,000. On January 16, 1979, the Town Council met with the Fire District and discussed the sale and the Town of Vail decided not to do anything about the land. He feels that down- zoning this parcel now would be ridiculous. He has been present through several down zonings through the years, and nothing was done on this parcel. . Roger Tilkemeier stated that the Planning & Environmental Commission had heard the plans for the sale, and he was not in favor of it. Bob Warner a board member for the VFPD was present and explained that the District was very up front with their plans for the sale and have gone through all required procedures, Sandy Mills stated that she did not feel that the Planning & Environmental Commission should take action to change the zoning. She doesn't think it makes sense to rezone just this one site without looking at all Town of Vail and District owned land, Mr. Drager stated that it was not brought to the Planning & Environmental Commission's attention that this parcel (which is publieally owned} was zoned HDMF • during the last downzoning done, and it should have been dawnzoned at that time. A woman (who did not identify herself), but lives in the Villa Cortina is very concerned about the increased density in this area. She brought up the problem the Vi17a Cortina had when the 1st Bank came through with their proposed addition, and she is against additional buildings in this area. Mr. Gordon Britton spoke to the Commission. He would like to see this meeting held up until the legal counsel for the Town of Vail can be heard with his explanation of the situation. Sandy Mills made the Motion that the recommendation from the Planning & Environmental Commission to the Town Council is to leave the zoning of Lot I, Vail Village 2nd Filing as Nigh Density Multi-Family (HDMF} based on the fact that it would be unfair to single out this parcel for rezoning as the Vail Fire Protection District had came in good faith, and the sale of the land should stand. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion. Four members voted in favor. of the Motion, Jim Morgan opposed. The staff will be working on an inventory of publically owned land and will present this to Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission on April 10, 1979. The fifth item an the agenda, Variance request for the Mueller Residence located on Lat 3, Vail/Potato Patch 2nd Filing. Tom Briner, Architect is representing this request. Ne explained that they would like to add an additional 40 sq. ft., to the secondary unit of the duplex in a Primary/Secondary zone district. The Commission asked whether he can prove a hardship? He stated that the hardship would be economics, The developer feels that it would be a much more marketable product with the additional square feet. Pg . b Ml~ures-~~c 3-13-79 Sandy Mills explained that the Commission is required to follow the parameters of the Primary/Secondary zoning, and that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege which they cannot do. After further discussion Jim Morgan made the Motion to deny the variance request far the Mueller Residence located on Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch 2nd Filing. Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to deny the variance request. Mr. Briner was given notice that he can appeal to the Town Council. Item 6 on the agenda, Resubdivision of Gondola I Parcel, Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Jim Rubin~:~explained this to the Commission by showing the site plan with the Plaxa area, easements and location of firelanes. After further discussion, Sandy Mills made the Motion to approve the resubdivision of Gondola Parcel, Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. The Motion seconded by Jim Morgan, the Commission voted approval with one abstention, Roger Tilkemeier because of a conflict of interest. The 7th item on the agenda, Amendment to Site 8, Casalar Del Narte Subdivision. Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that this is merely a change in angle of the building evelope, it will not affect distance between buildings or setbacks in any way. After some discussion a Motian was made by Jim Morgan to approve the amendment to Site 8, Casolar Del Narte Subdivision, seconded by Sandy Mills and unanimously approved by the Commission. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M. MEMQRAlVDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM DEPARTMENT QF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/JIM RUBIN DATE 16 MARCH 1979 REF COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR THE SCHOBER BUILDING AND THE HILL BUILDING IN COMMERCIAL CORE I. The fo11owing are a compilation of comments that were requested from the Planning & Environmental Commission members on their reasons far their votes on the two Planning &.Environmental agenda items mentioned above. I hope that these comments begin to define what types of expansions and improvements are desired, and what criteria should be used in reviewing these expansion and improvement proposals. MEMORRNDUM • TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM ~ DICK RYAN, pIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY pEVELOPMENT SUBJECT EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA WITHIN COMMERCIAL CORE I REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.. In June 7978, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 13, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of floor area or Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA} of any building or structure within Commercial Core I. Provision of this ordinance did go through a great deal of discussion at the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council study sessions and public meetings. There are three requests for a Conditional Use Permit.in Commercial Core I that are on the March 13, 1979 agenda. From my initial review of the proposals, I consider it important to review the Conditional Use Permit criteria in CCI and the requirements of Ordinance No, 13. In addition, there are some policy questions that need resolution. I will start my overall view with raising some policy questions and providing my analysis of these policies. 1.) Should there be expansion of floor area or GRFA in Commercial Core I? The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance recommended by the Planning & Environmental Commission, and approved by the Town Council in 1978, anticipated • that there would be the possibility of expansion of floor area or GRFA in Commercial Core I, and the Town should review them on a case by case basis. Through the Conditional Use Permit process, the Planning & Environmental Commission reviews and approves or denies requests for expansion of floor area in Commercial' Core I, Criteria in the Zoning Ordinance has been established to review these proposals appealed to Town Council. Before this process was approved there were some expansions of floor area and redevelopment in Commercial Core I. Recent examples of both are the Gondola I proposal, and the patio expansions at Cyrano's and the Hong Kong Cafe. My observation is that after these proposals, the Town Council and Planning & Environmental Commission were concerned with the effects the expansion of floor area, and redevelopment of sites would have on the Village. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit process was approved for Gommercial Core I. I consider that to retain the vitality of the Village, there should be the ability to renovate, redevelop and expand floor area in Commercial Core T, If this change is positive the Village will continue to be a desirable place to visit, live, and work. 2.) What are the factors to consider in reviewing a request for expansion of floor area within Commercial Core I. The Planning & Environmental Commission must consider the following factors: Pg. 2 DCD-MEMORANDiJM EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA TN CCI 3-9-79 "Conditional uses-Factors applicable. Tn considering, in accordance with Chapter 18.60 , an application for a conditional use permit within commercial core 1 district, the following develop- ment factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on commercial core 1 district; B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core l; C. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking; D, Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; E. Development of public spaces far use by pedestrians; F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in commercial core i district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of commercial core 1 district." I consider that almost all the factors must be positive for a Conditional Use to be approved. The first four factors deal with the motor . vehicle and its impact in Commercial Core T. The further reduction of automobiles. and trucks in this area must continue. This part of the Village should be predominantly a pedestrian area. The next three factors, E through G deal with the present and future quality of the space, buildings, streets, pedestrian ways, landscaping and economic vitality of Commercial Core I. I consider that any proposal far expansion of floor area of an existing building or redevelopment of an entire site be concerned with the following: Type of use proposed. Where it ~s located? How well is it done? How does it benefit the Village and community? The final factor deals with the environmental concerns generated by uses and vehicles in Commercial Core I. Every attempt must be made to reduce or eliminate as many of the negative environmeetal factors to insure that Commercial Core T is a pleasant experience for the visitor and Town resident, as well as the employer and employee. PAR~C ING Another aspect of Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1978) was the required parking. Town Council stated that on-site parking in Commercial Core I should be discouraged. In this zone, no parking would be provided on Site, and that property owners or applicants be required to contribute to the Town of Vail Parking Fund. The purpose of the Parking Fund is to receive and disburse funds for conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or Pg. 3 DCD-MEMORANDUM EXpANSTON OF FLOOR A€tEA IN CCI 3-9-79 other indebtedness for parking facilities and administrative service relating to parking. The Town Council on June 20, 1978, established the parking fee per space for Commercial Core I. The fee per space was set at $1,000 per space with the understanding that this would mast likely not cover the cost of a parking space. If a special or general improvement district was formed, the payor would be credited against any assessment with the amount previously paid. From listening to the tapes of that meeting, some members of the Council did not want to burden the small businessman at the start. Some would not have the funds to do the expansion of floor area. It was also noted that probably the banks would not finance a flat fee. The Town Council has requested a review of the parking fee for 1979. The Department of Community Development is now reviewing the parking fee and will have a recommendation to the Town Council in April for Commercial Core I. The Department recommends if the Planning & Environmental Commission approves any of the Conditional Use Permits, that the exact parking fee be subject to the Town Council's 1979 charge. The parking fee per space is proposed to be established in April 1979. • SUMMARIZATION OF STATEMENTS FROM THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Telephone Conversations with the members on March 15, 1979. • The secretary was asked to call each member and ask for their reasons for either denying or approving the requests for Conditional Use Permits on the Schober Building and the Mill Building in Commercial Core I. Sandy Mills: Her main reason for denial of the CUP for the Schober Building was the size of the addition. She is also concerned about the additional condow minium units being proposed. She feels that the building is not stepped back far enough and will impact the view corridor. She has looked into the density of this particular building and finds that the Schober Building is one with the most dense Floor Area Ratio in the.C~re. She is in agreement with the Director of Community Development, that policy statements must come out~of more study of the Zoning Ordinance, the Conditional Use Permit critQria and the work done in Growth Management. She feels there should be some incentive for people to clean-up their buildings, improve them and so on, but there must be regulations set forth to prevent more and more density in the Core. Her reasons for approving the plans for the Hill Building, is that along with her studies of other buildings in the Core, she knows they are under their allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), the addition is very small and will not impact a view corridor and the proposed changes will improve the looks of the building. . Ed Drager: His main reason for denial of the Conditional Use Permit application for the Schober Building is the increased density of the building. He feels that construction will be detrimental to the traffic flow, and the increase in density will produce more traffic, additional parking requirements and he could not see where they were improving the delivery and loading zones to take care of this increase. He feels it is detrimental to the character of the Core (Dail Village}. He feels there will be an environmental (light & air) impact during and after construction. It was his feeling that there would be a minimal impact on the view corridor. The increase in commercial space will produce more employees, mare employee traffic and the necessity for more delivery vehicles into the area. In conclusion he stated that these additional impacts are severe enough to warrant denial of the application. On the Hill Building, he feels the impacts are very minimal. They are asking for a small amount of additional square footage and that with this addition they are still under their allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The addition will not impact the view corridor or change the character of the surrounding area. • Jack Goehl: On the Schober Building Conditional Use Permit request, he feels it will increase the amount of vehicular traffic in the area. The increase in Page 2 Summarization of statements from the Planning & Environmental Com~ission • March 15, 1979 shop and restaurant space will not reduce or maintain the present level of vehicular traffic. Development of .public space: There is no public space on that property. Quality Control of Construction: The design is very good and he was impressed with the presentation and feels the modifications do produce a better looking building. However, he feels there is no need fora larger building on this site due to all the impacts that will occur. The elevator tower would be a slight obstruction to the view corridor on the street side. On the Hi11 Building, his vote for denial was because he did not approve of the construction design on the north side of the building especially. He feels the increased space on the north side would reduce the view corridor slightly and would impact the traffic pattern in an already congested area. Roger Tilkemeier: His reasons for voting approval on the Conditional- Use Permit for the Schober Building is that it improves the appearance of the building and the areas around it that are very unattractive. It was his judgment that it does not notably obstruct the view corridor. They are within their legal rights to have the three condominium units in the building. And, he approved of their increasing the pedestrian area around the building by putting in the arcade/walkway in the front of the building. In regard to the Hill Building, he felt the improvement of the building will give a continuation of the shopping experience at this end of the street by moving the garage, it will draw people through and around to the shopping available to them at the top of the street. The building is under its allowable Gross Residential Floor Area tGRFA) even with the addition. The design is consistent with the existing building, The neighbors did not object, and it does not obstruct the view corridor at this end of the street. Jim Morgan: On the Schober Building, Mr. Morgan was most concerned with the addition of residential space and the conversion of :the two accommodation units, into dwelling units. He also felt that there was too much commercial and office space being added, but did think that the general design was appropriate and that some of the proposed changes were worthwhile. On the Hill Building, Mr. Morgan abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest, but had favorable comments about the proposed addition. He felt that the changes would enhance the upper Bridge Street area, and would be an improvement to the existing building. • .~ ., i; • MEMORANbUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM ~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 1 MARCH 1979 RE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE SCHOBER BUILDING LOCATED ON A PART OF LOT A, BLOCK 5-B, VAIL VILLAGE 1st FILING INTRODUCTION This is the first application that has come before you under the new procedures for the expansion of buildings in CCI as established by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1978. This Ordinance (which is enclosed) requires a Conditional Use for any enlargement or expansion of floor area, either commercial or residential, in Commercial Core I. The other change enacted by this Ordinance prohibits on-site parking in Commercial Core I and establishes a parking fund in which the applicant must contribute an amount of money per space which is determined by the Town Council. There is in Commercial Core I, a specified list of factors which must be considered in reviewing Conditional Use Applications. These factors, listed below, are what will be considered in reviewing all applications_of this type. These factors are: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District; B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core i District; C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking; D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Care I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of Commercial Core I District. • On the general review of this application and other expansion requests in Commercial Care I, the Department of Community Development believes that the Zoning Ordinance presently permits the expansion of buildings in CCI, as long as the expansion does not have a discernable negative impact on the specific factors listed above. If expansions are not desired, we believe that a further modification of the Zoning Ordinance is required, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Schober Building is the building located on the west side of the Children's Fountain containing the Lance]ot Restaurant, the Ski Ske1ler Ski Shop, office space, one condominium unit and two accommodation units. r DCD-MEMORANDUM Pg. 3 - Schober Building CUP 3-1-79 could cause a slight increase in the number of deliveries, but not to a significant effect. F. Development of public spaces far use by pedestrians; This proposal does not remove any public space used by pedestrians. The applicants have stated that they are willing to work with the Town in the redesign of the area adjacent to the stairs which connect the Fountain Plaza to the lower level walkway. The Town, through its Capital Improvements Program is planning to replace these stairs this summer, and a coordiriated design effort could have a positive impact on this well traveled area. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core T District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; Tn closely observing the view corridors affected by the proposed expansion, we do not foresee any blockage of views or any encroachment on existing public spaces. The patio area of the Lancelot is a north-facing area that does not receive a great deal of sunshine. It is also a relatively small patio and is hidden from the major critical viewpoints in the downtown Village area. The addition to the east side of the patio area is probably an improvement over the dead space that exists there now. The exterior stairs that now occupy this area are definitely not a positive feature of the building. These stairs will be removed as part of the redevelopment. In looking at the existing character of the area, we do not believe that this addition wil negatively change this character: It actually brings this building more into the sight lines of the other buildings along the lower walkway. . G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core T District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; The visual appearance of the north side of this building is • DCD-MEMORANDUM Pg. 2 - Schaber Bui'Iding CUP 3-1-79 The following is a floor by floor breakdown of the existing building: 1st Floor {Lancelot) 3,020 sq. ft. 2nd Floor (Ski Ske1ler) 3,218 sq. ft. 3rd Floor {Offices) 2,500 sq. ft. 4th Floor {Condominium) 2,500 sq. ft. TOTAL 11,23$ sq. ft. The proposed expansion is primarily on the north side of the building in a northerly direction (toward the Creek). There is also a small addition on the east side of the Lancelot, and the addition of a loft and storage area above the condominium unit (within the building). Another proposed change to the building is the conversion of =ih~ two accommodation units by the addition of kit+ehens into two dwelling units. (Since this does .not involve an increase in square footage and is permitted by the Density Section of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not part of the application being considered today.) Three other additions are an elevator tower on the south side of the building, new exterior stairs on the north side of the building, and the additions of decks on the west and north elevations. These three additions also da not add useable floor area so are not part of the application. They are, however, part of the general redevelopment of the building being considered. The total additional floor area being proposed is: n ~J 1st Floor {Lancelot) 67i sq. ft. 2nd Floor (Ski Skeller) 538 sq. ft. 3rd Floor (Offices) 938 sq. ft. Loft & Storage Space 697 sq. f't. TOTAL 2,849 sq. ft. The proposed addition of the Lancelot space was part of the original application, but might not happen at this time. If it does not happen, it wi11 become a covered but open patio area. Tt is, however, the intent of the applicant to have the enclosure of the patio (with a greenhouse effect) considered at this time instead of a potential separate application in the future. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core T District; We do not believe that vehicular traffic in CCI will be affected by this application. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in_Commercial Core I District; C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking; D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles;. We also do not feel that the proposed addition will have a noticeable impact on these factors. The addition of the commercial and restaurant space DCD-MEMORANDUM Pg. 4 - Schober Bail ding CUP 3-~ -79 presently not one of the better ones within Commercial Core T area. We feel that this redesign enhances the overall appearance of the building. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of Commercial Core T District. We da not foresee any negative effects that this expansion will have on these factors. RECOMMENDATIONS Tn conclusion, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Conditional Use Request in concept. We do not feel that this proposal has a negative effect on any of the factors considered. Our primary concern is that more time needs to be spent on integrating the pro3ect with the Creekside Stairs, and the space that would remain between the stairs and the building. The Department should a1sa receive information on the . materials to be used on the building and make sure snow removal and drainage will work. r~ LJ MEMO RAN DUM • TO PLANNING & ENVTRONMENTI~L COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 2 MARCH 1979 RE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR THE CREElC5TDE BUILDING LOCATED ON A PART OF 1.OT A, BLOCK 5-B VAIL VILLAGE 1st FILING. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Creekside Building is located on the north side of the Children's Fountain, and presently contains the Watch Hill Oyster Club, the Creekside Cafe, Alain's, the Golden Bear and four condominium units. The existing building contains approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of useable floor area. The proposed expansion consists of the enclosing of the deck in front of the Watch Hill Oyster Club with a greenhouse design. The amount of area to be enclosed is approximately 1,900 sq. ft. The existing size of the Watch Hill Oyster Club is 2,763 sq. ft. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS R. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District; • We do not believe that vehicular traffic in CCI will be adversely affected by this application. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core T District; (See Factor "A") C. Reducation of non-essential off -street parking; (See Factor "A") D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; There is a possibility that the increase in the seating capacity of the Watch Hill Oyster Club will increase the number of deliveries. We do not feel that this number is quantifiable and that it is not necessarily a given that this will happen. The delivery vehicles can increase the amount of their delivery without increasing the number of trips. • E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; The proposed expansion is an enclosure of an existing deck Pg. 2 DCD-MEMORRNQUM • CRFEKSTDF BUILDING CUP 3~2-79 in front of the Watch Mill Oyster Club which should not have a negative impact on public spaces used by pedestrians. Because of the large open area to the west of this proposal, along Gore Creek, enclosing-the deck will not reduce the physical or spatial area for pedestrians to use. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; We do not foresee any impact that this proposed expansion will have on the character of the surrounding area. The location of this deck is different from the prominent decks located an Bridge Street and on Main Gore Drive in that it is not directly on a major pedestrian walkway. ,The entrance to the deck does come from the Fountain Plaza, but most of the deck extends away from this plaza. The deck enclosure is similar to the semi enclosed portion of Pepi's . porch, with the exception that the roof and all sides will be enclosed in glass. The applicant has stated that the west facing windows will be removable in the summer to give a basically outdoor feeling to the enclosed deck. One advantage of an enclosure of this type, is that it does provide protection from inclement weather and cooler night-time temperatures during the summer, while still providing a bascially outdoor dining experience. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core T District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; The proposed design of this building seems to fit in with the existing building, and does not seem to be incongruous with other buildings in the area. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of Commercial Care I District. . We do not foresee any negative effects that this expansion will have on these factors. 8y enclosing the deck of the Watch Hill Oyster Club, Pg. 3 • DCD-MEMORANDUM CREEKSIDE BUILDING CUP 3-2-79 there would be no change in the use as an area far dining. The deck is located in an area where there is sufficient public space to the west along Gore Creek so that the pedestrian has a comfortable and not a closed-in space to walk. Erom the drawings submitted, the Department considers the concept and sketch to be a goad addition to Commercial Core I. The type of materials need to be defined to guarantee the finished product will be an asset to Uail Village. RECQMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Conditional Use request in concept. Due to the location of the proposed expansion and the open conceptual design presented, the Department does not consider that this type of expansion will adversely affect the general character of Commercial Core T. The Department does consider that more information is needed concerning the types of materials to be used and has a concern with snow falling from the upper roof onto-the glass raaf below. -~ MEMORAND~lM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 2 MARCH 1979 RE A VARIANCE FROM THE HEIGHT LTMTT, AND A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR THE EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SPACE FOR THE HILL BUILDING LOCATED ON A PART OF LOT C, BLOCK 5-C, VAIL VILLAGE 1st EYEING. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Hill Building is located on the west side of Seibert Circle, and contains the Vail Ski Rentals, Vail- Sports, Vail- Ski & Boot Repair and a residence on the second floor. This proposed request has two parts to it. The first is a Variance f ram the Height Limit in Commercial Gore I, to allow a tower approximately 60 feet high. The maximum height limit in the Commercial Core i5 35 feet, with a 25~ increase allowed for architectural projections. This would require the maximum height of the tower to be no more than 41 feet. The dimensions of the tower is proposed to be 12 feet by 12 feet, with its approximate location being where the existing garage stands. The second part of this application is a Conditional Use request for the proposed expansion of both commercial and residential space. On the first floor, the proposed changes are the conversion of the existing garage into commercial space, as an extension of Vail Sports, and the relocation of the garage to where the existing eastern entrance to Vail Sports is presently located. There would be a net increase in commercial space of approximately 200 sq. ft., which would occur to the south of the existing garage along the easterly face of the building. This space is presently being used for storage of trash. On the second floor, the applicant wishes to extend the kitchen to the west, which would enclose about 2/3 of the existing deck along the north side of this building. This proposed addition consists of approximately 160 s~q, ft. Above the second floor, would depend an the approval or disapproval of the tower. Tf the tower is approved, there would be two additional floors of approximately 144 sq. ft. each for a total of 288 sq. ft. If the tower is not approved, the applicant would like to extend the area above the commercial space to two stories with a sloping roof similar to the one on the major part of the building. (The existing garage currently has a bedroom on tap of it.) This second alternative would extend over the new commercial area {by the existing trash enclosure} and add approximately 550 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to the existing building, The allowable GRFA on this site is 6,400 sq. ft. The total with this proposed addition is 4,710 sq. ft. Pg. 2 DCD~MEMORANDUN! HTLL BUTLDTNG - CUP & VARIANCE 3-2-79 DESCRTPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The variance request is for the 60-foot tower as described above. 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. We feel that the 60-foot tower is not desirable in this location. This tower would extend well beyond the height of any existing building in the area. It would block the current open views which people have of the mountain as they walk toward the mountain on Bridge Street. The tower also~~does not seem to blend in well with the existing buildings. We feel that it is too massive a structure to fit in properly at this location. 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. We are not aware of any variances to the height limitations given to buildings in this area. Most of the buildings in this area are below the present height limit of 35 feet, the maximum average height allowed in Commercial Core I. 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 only potential effect that the tower could have on these factors is to block the light and the sense of openess that currently exists on Bridge Street. We feel that this would be detrimental. Pg. 3 DCD-MEM4RANDllM HILL BUILDING - CUP & VARIANCE 3-2-79 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors that are deemed applicable to this application. 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 could 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 inconsistent with the objectives of ihis title. There is no hardship that has been demonstrated in .this application. The Department of Community Development appreciates the desire of Mrs. Mill to add an imaginative replica of European heritage to the end of Bridge Street. Unfortunately the Department does not consider that a 60-foot tower belongs in this location and would not be a part of. the character of Uai1 Village. There is the opportunity for the applicant to be an important part of upgrading the street and pedestrian ways in this area. This opportunity is presented at the end of the Conditional Use discussion on page 5. r~ L Pg. ~ DCD-ME'i~ORANDU~I • HILL BUILDING - CUP & VARIANCE 3-2-79 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST For the purpose of this application, the Department of Community Development wi11 review this request with the presumption that the Variance request for the Tower will be denied. The Conditional Use request would therefore be for the 200 sq. ft. of commercial space added in the relocation of the garage and the 710 sq. ft., of GRFA added in the expansion of the kitchen and the bedroom located above the commercial space. Consideration of Factors A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District; As part of this application, two exterior parking spaces along the east side of the building are proposed to be removed. The existing one car garage would remain as such. This proposal should therefore, have a positive effect in reducing vehicular traffic in this area. B. Reduction of vehicular. traffic in Commercial Core I District; • {See Factor "A") C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking; (See Factor "A") D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; This proposal should provide a better drop-off zone for delivery vehicles through the removal of the two parking spaces along the east side of the building. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; We feel that the proposed relocation of the garage will have a positive impact an the pedestrian space in this area. An attractive store front will offer a great deal more vitality to the area than the present garage wall. The garage will be located away from the major entrance into the new Gondola I building and the Gondola I Plaza. We feel that this is a positive change. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core T District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; The Blanche Hill Building has one of the smallest floor area ratio Pg. 5 DCD-MEMORAfVDUM HILL BUTLDTNG -CUP & VARIANCE 3-2-79 (FAR) when compared with other buildings in Commercial Core I. The proposed changes, without the tower, will not greatly increase the size or mass of the existing building. We feel that the changes will actually have a positive effect on the general appearance of this prominent site. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core T District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; We feel that the architectural design is appropriate and does conform with the existing character of the area. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of Commercial Core T District. These factors are not applicable in the consideration of this application. The Department considers that the redevelopment of this site proposed in the Conditional Use request, along with the Gondola I proposal and the Gondola I Plaza offers a unique opportunity to come up with a coordinated street, pedestrian and plaza design for this area. Vail Associates, Inc., has not designed the pedestrian space or landscaping for the Gondola I building. They want to coordinate their design with the plaza plan. With the amount of redevelopment and pedestrian and plaza design taking place in this area, the upgrading of Seibert Circle should be considered. The Department of Community Development would like to explore these opportunities with the applicant. There could be a design solution dealing with the entire space that would further enhance the aesthetic character of this part of Vail Village. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends conceptual approval of the Conditional Use part of this application, Pg. ~ DCD-MEMORANDUM HILL BUILDING -CUP & VARIANC E 3-2-79 More informat:ian is needed concerning the architecture and types of materials to be used on the structure. The proposed use should have a positive affect on the vitality of this key corner of the Village. The Department does not support the 60-foot tower as it is not compatible with the existing character of Vail Village. • • MEMORANDUM • TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIOi~7 FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 9 MARCH 1979 RE .REZONING OF LOT I, VAIL VILLAGE 2nd FILING (OLD FIRE HOUSE SITE) This rezoning is part of an overall request by the Town Council to zone all lands currently owned by Special Districts within the Town of Vail to the Public Use District {PUD). The Tawas staff is presently compiling this list which will be forthcoming for your review. The site presently owned by the Vail Fire Protection District is under contract to Mr. Pardo. There is approximately 24,502 sq. ft., of land in this site which is presently zoned High Density Multi--Family (HOME). Under this zoning, i~ units could be constructed with a Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA} of 14,701 sq. ft. The Town Council requested that the Flanning & Environmental Commiss~ian review and recommend the possible rezoning of this property. The Minutes of the Vail Town Council Regular Meeting of February 20, 1979 made the Motion that reads as follows: "Council- member Steinberg made a Motion to turn this matter aver to the Planning & Environmental Commission to. follow the proper procedure and return to the Council with their recommendations; Council- member Hopman seconded the Motion. All present voted in favor and the Motion was passed." In reviewing the Zone Districts which surround this property, there is a range from Two-Family Residential to Public Accommodation, and High Density Multi-Family. To the west and south of the site are found Two-Family Residential Zones. Directly to the north is the Holiday Inn, which is in a Public Accommodation Zone. Ta the west of the Holiday Inn are the Alphorn, Scorpio and Skalhaus, all of which are located in a High Density Multi-Family Zone District. On the eastern side of Lot I, is the new Firehouse and Villa Cortina, both are in a Public Accommodation Zone District. The First Bank is also in a Public Accommodation District and is located to the east of the Firehouse and Vi11a Cortina. In reviewing the appropriate zone for Lot I, Vail Village 2nd Filing, we feel that the Public Use District is not appropriate far this property since it is currently under contract to be sold. Looking at the other Zone Districts which surround this property, there is no one district of the three in immediate location of this property which seems to be mare appropriate than the other. Due to the circumstances involved with the sale of the property, the only recommendation the Department of Community Develop- ment has is to perhaps consider a zone change to Medium Density Multi- Family {MDMF). This would permit 10 units and 8,576 sq. ft. of GRFA. MEMORANDUM i TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 6. MARCH 1979 RE MUELLER RESIDENCE REQUEST FOR DENSITY VARIANCE TO ALLOW FORTY{40) SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA IN THE SECONDARY UNIT OF A PROPOSED DUPLEX TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, VAIL/POTATO PATCH SECOND FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Thomas Briner, Architect, representing John Mueller has requested a variance from the provisions of 18.13.080 Density of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail in order to allow 40 additional square feet of Gross Residential Floor Rrea (GRFA) in the Secandary unit of a proposed. duplex to be located on Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing that is zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential. CRTTERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.b2.060 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." Granting this Variance would admit a flexibility and a variability in Primary/Secondary Gross Residential Floor Area determinations that have no precedent in zoning for this district. "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." No "relief from the strict~or literal interpretation and enforcement" . of the Residential Primary/Secondary requirements is either recommended or deemed necessary since all similar development conforms to R P/S requirements. To allow otherwise in this case would be to grant a special privilege not merited Pg. Z DCD-MEMO Mueller Res. Variance by any hardship. 3-6-79 "The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety." There is no significant impact. 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 inconsistent with the ob- jectives of this title, There are exceptional 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 interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district." RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Qevelopment recommends denial of this variance for the following reasons: • • Pg. 3 DCD-MEMO Mueller Res. Variance imental to the intent of set {this "District" is in which one unit is a `caretaker apartment' . and use between the two 7.) That granting the variance will canstitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the equitable application of requirements for development elsewhere in the same district; 2.) A precedent detr PrimaryJSecondary zoning will be sites for". . residential uses and the second unit is a smaller whereby the distinctions of size distinguishable; and inaCCUrdte: 3-fi-79 the Two Family intended to provide larger primary residence . {18.13.010} units become-less 3.) The fallowing data render computations used in the application Lot 3 Vail/Potato Patch 2nd Filing Lot Area: 17,019 sq. ft. Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA} Total: 3,952 sq. ft. Primary Unit - 2.,fi3~ Secondary Unit -~ 1 ,318 Proposed GRFA (Staff Calculation) Primary Unit - 2,352 sq. ft. Secondary Unit - 1,382 sq. ft. Total GRFA Proposed: 3,734 sq. ft. Thus, the Secondary Unit GRFR Variance is for 1,382 -~ 1,318 or 64 sq. ft., not 40 sq. ft., as stated on the application. L~ AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 27, 1979 2:00 P.M. WORK SESSION General Zoning Matters. 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1.) Slaughter Residence - Setback Variance Request Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing 2.) Vail Racquet Club - Density Variance Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn 3.) Pit kin Creek Park Development Plan 4.) Minor Resubdivision - Lots 2 & 3, Block S, Bighorn Sub. Third Addition. 5.) Preliminary Discussion - Schober Building Conditional Use Permit Request in CCI. • MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1979 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Jim Margan Ron Todd Jack Goehl STAFF PRESENT: Jim Rubin The first item on the agenda, Slaughter Residence - Setback Variance Request, Lot $, BTock`l, Vail Village First Filing. Tom Briner, Architect was present to represent the owner of a house on 392 Mill Creek Circle who wants to add a one-car garage~to his residence. As it wi11 encroach into the side setback requirement, they are asking for a 7z foot variance. The owner has proposed a deck on top of the addition. He stated there is concern from one of the neighbors about the height of the • addition, so a redesign removed the raising and pitched the roof. He showed the Commission pictures and drawings of the proposed addition. Jim Rubin advised the Commission that the staff recommendation is for approval of this request, but added that the approval for the setback variance will somewhat impact the view from.the Caulkin's house which is behind the Slaughter residence. However, the staff feels that it would probably be more unsightly to have parked cars outside and that the addition fits well with the existing house. .Sandy Mi11s stated that she had visited the site and feels that the view corridor is down further f rom_the proposed addition and that the Caulkins would not lose their view of the Gores. She also felt that the garage would clean-up the area with trash storage and putting the car inside. Roger Tilkemeier asked about the view impact from the second floor of the house behind the proposed addition? Mrs. E11ie Caulkins owner of the house behind the proposed garage addition asked to be heard. She identified herself as the owner of the house at 304 Mill Creek Circle and that she is completely opposed to the construction of the garage as proposed. She stated that it will def finitely impact their view and questions the validity of a one car garage, as she feels there will always be more than one car parked there when someone is in residence. i A gentleman in the audience who resides in the Bass house on Mi11 Creek Circle also feels that everyone in the area may want to add garages and then all the views in the area will be impacted. Page 2 - MYNUTES Planning & Environmental Commzssi.on Meot~ng of 3-27-79 Ron Todd asked whether they could pick an al.t~rnative side of the house for construction? Mr. Briner stated that if they build on the east, it would block their own view. There could be the possibility of building it into the hillside of the front yard, but this really hasn't been looked into because it would be expensive and it would take the garage away from the main entry to the house. He also stated there are large spruce trees in the yard and some of them would have to be removed. if this was done. After further discussion., Gerry White made the Motion for denial of the variance request for a side setback since the applicant cannot show a hardship, and there are no grounds to grant this variance. request. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted 5 for denial and 2 opposed to denial. The variance request is denied and the applicant was advised of the 10 day period for: appeal, The second item on the agenda, Vaal. Racquet Club application for a Density Variance to Construct Employee Housing on an Uriplatted Parcel in Bighorn. Walter Kirch was present as applicant for this variance request. He asks that the garden level units that were given up. voluntarily during the 1977 down mooning be returned so that he can construct 16 one-bedroom units for employee housing. • He also advised the Commission that he may come back with another application when the last two buildings are built to add another i6 units for employees which will bring the total to 32 units. Roger Tilkemeier asked Mr. Kirch how many employees of the Racquet Club will use the units? Mr. Kirch feels that somewhere between 10 and 16 of these units will be used by Racquet Club employees, and that any surplus could be used for other employees in Vail. Mr. Drager asked how long these would be used for employees and if there wau~ld be restrictions imposed on them? Mr. Kirch stated they would restrict the use of these units for twenty (20) years as long-term rental units for employees in Vail. Jim Rubin stated that the staff recommendation supports this application for a density variance and went through the reasons as stated in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development. John Dunn, Attorney at Law, addressed the Commission as representative for the Condominium Owner's Association. He introduced himself as President of their Executive Committee. The Condominium Page 3 - MINUTES Pl.ann~.ng & Environmental Commission Meeting o~ 3-27-79 Association represents 170 units and 500 to 600 residents of the Racquet Club. He stated that he is directed to inform the Commission that the Condominium Association is opposed to Walter's application. He stated that he agrees with the need, but that owners are in disagreement with Mr. Kirch as to where these units are being proposed. They would like to see the employee housing placed all together in one building rather than in Building "13." Building "13" is in the center of the complex, adjacent to the "bubble" and the recreational facilities. This is the most congested part of the project, and it is a building that nobody wants. They want this building as small as possible and not a dormitory for help. Mr. Dunn continued that the Condominium Association has discussed Building "15" as a better location since it is at the edge of the project and they feel this building would be the logical place for employee housing. Mr. Dunn added that he is aware of the voluntary downzoning, but that Mr. Kirch has to satisfy the ordinance and the variance procedures. He feels there are two concerns here: the first is a legal concern whether there is justification for this application just because of the addition of employee housing. It is laudible, but not a concern of the Zoning Ordinance. He cited a case to the Commission that reflected this concern. He also stated that the Town of Vail has not made employee housing a requiretne,nt as they have with parking xequirements, etc. . The second concern is that in regard to the Zoning Ordinance, he feels that the increase of density is_undesirable and will have an unfavorable impact on the neighborhood. He feels that employees would be more dense, as they would be furl-time residents. He also does not feel that the parking is adequate for employee housing. It is his feeling that there would be two vehicles per unit in the employee housing. He also feels that the employees would be noisy. The owners want,to:~see this variance request denied, but they don't want to close the door to a compromise, and would consider having the employee housing all in one building, their preference is Building "15". Fred Distelhorst addressed the Commission as a neighbor of the Racquet Club. He asked to see where these building are to be located and looked at the site plan. He stated that he is against the increased density, and would like to see only S units added. Roger Tilkemeier asked Mr. Kirch whether he was at an impasse with the owners? Mr. Kirch stated that it is his. feeling that everybody is fax employee housing, but nobody wants it near them. He went an to say that the twenty year limitation will enable him to expense out his construction.costs, but that it would be financially unfeasible to put all the employee housing in one building. Gerry White asked whether there would be noise restxictions put on the long-term renters? Mr. Kirch stated that he would insist on controlling the mode of behavior at the Racquet Club. He stated Page 4 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting of 3-27y79 that he does have a few employees living in the project now, but that most of the employees have to drive from Avon or Edwards. Chuck Anderson, who was present to address the Commission on Pitkin Creek Park Development, stated that he feels Walter should be applauded for including the employee housing on site. He also agrees with Mr. Kirch that financially a separate building would not work and that it is important that the community be integrated. He added that the employees of Vail are .hzghly educated, responsible people, and that with available and attractive housing, this will make for happy employees, and happy employees are good employees. Ed Drager also feels. that it is a plus that there is no tax money involved in these employee units, and that a private development is interested in putting in employee units. Gerry White agreed, and stated that this should be considered as good density and positive growth. Sandy Mills made the Motion to grant the variance request for the 16 employee housing units at the Vail Racquet Club Condominiums in Bighorn and as presented in the Department of Community Development memorandum of March 23, 1979. Gerry.White seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimous approval. Mr. Dunn was advised • of the 10 day period for appeal by Mr. Drager. The third item on the agenda, Pitkin Creek Park Development Plan. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law started the discussion by advising the Commission that staff has problems with the parking provided for the project. Dick Ryan, Director of Community Development stated that the staff concern is that this employee housing project have as few problems as possible and that the function is very important. It is felt that there are major deficiencies in the parking as far as location and distribution. He stated that one and one-half spaces per unit is a good base for employee housing and this would give additional parking for guests.. It was.the.feeling that the two and three bedroom units may have to have even more than one and one-half spaces. In regard to the Commercial area of the project, there will be 9,000 sq. ft, of commercial area, the restaurant has a seating capacity of 110 seats, but only 11 parking spaces are planned for the restaurant and Mr. Ryan fears that these would be used up by the employees for the restaurant. He advised the Commission that a common rule for parking for restaurants is 3 seats per space. He also questions the locations of the trash enclosures and that the asphalt is not broken up sufficiently. He also stated that the commercial space should not look like a typical "shopping center" and should be designed to fit into this area. He recommended that the application be continued to let the staff and the applicant address some of the concerns. Page 5 - MTNUTES Plann~.n~ & Environmental Commiss~.on Meeting . Jay Peterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a specific number of parking spaces, and these are the guidelines that are followed in setting out the parking in this project. Tt is his feeling that the project will need less parking than the numbers proposed for the project. Steve Kirby, Architect with Briner, Perkin & Scott stated that they have calculated the parking required by the Zoning Ordinance. They have planned for 232 parking spaces. He stated that he knows about the concerns of parking spaces per unit, and the turning ratio at the end of the lots. He went on to explain the site plan with the open spaces, trees and landscaping and the arrangement of the parking. Tae further explained that an alternative to additional parking (29 spaces) would be to use the highway r~.ght -of-way along old Highway ~6, but that it would be very expensive because of the necessity to construct retaining walls and changing the access point into the project. _He showed the location of the dumpster shelters. They will be by paved-areas where trucks can have access and will not be right in front of the units. He also explained that there would be snow stockpiling areas where it would not interfere with the parking spaces. Jay Peterson stated that they could look at increasing the parking during the phases of construction. Dick Ryan stated that the Town approved 198 housing units at the parking ratio of l.5 spaces per unit, so they are not just requiring it on this particular project. The Zoning Ordinance deals with minimum requirements, and it is his feeling that more parking is required for the Pitkin Creek Project. Jay Peterson feels that the Zoning Ordinance is the only tool the developers and architects have to work with and they have gone by these guidelines. He added that if the Zoning Ordinance is in error, that it should be changed. He stated they are willing to look at this problem.and if the Town Council wants it done,. they will work it out. However, he feels strongly that this plan will work as is and that the Condominium Association can also put restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed per unit. Sandy Mills stated that she feels they should look into adding parking with each phase of construction if it looks like it will be necessary. Chuck Anderson feels that any more parking will turn the project into an urban apartment complex. He.feels that the restrictions as to one car per one-bedroom unit will. alleviate the parking some- what. He is very concerned about aesthetics and would rather have people walk 50 feet to their parking space than have a sea of.asphalt. He feels that most of the people who live here and want to live here are young, healthy people and are capable of walking this distance. . He also explained to the Commission that the commercial space plans are not finalized and what they will be constructing will fit into the area. He feels that to put the project off to a later date would be an incredible hardship. They are on a strict timetable with the Page 6 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting ~-2'7-79 financing and construction. Jim Morgan feels that the parking is not adequate and the ratio should be 1.5. Jay Peterson stated that they will be assigning parking spaces and they don't want to encourage people to have cars, especially more than one. Sandy Mills cited Sandstone as an example, that locals are living there and the parking is adequate.for their needs. Craig Snowdon asked whether they had looked into covering a poxtion of the parking? Jay answered that this had been considered but that it would add to the cast of construction substantially and they are trying to keep the price of the units low for local people to be able to purchase them. Roger Tilkemeier stated that he likes the idea of restricting the number of cars. He feels that with the cost of gas and the expense of having a second car, that people would be amenable to restricting the number of cars they own. He feels this is an excellent experiment to try to reduce the number of vehicles, and they should be allowed to go with the parking guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. A good selling point could be made of the fact that the project is on a bus . route and try to loosen people's attachment to the automobile. He feels that this will be attractive to employees and could reduce their cost of living. He would like to see the plans approved, and if the parking situation becomes intolerable, they would have a relief valve in the highway right-of-way. The Town of Vail is in the process of acquiring old Highway #6, and would not need the 100 foot right-of -way that presently exists. Chuck Anderson added that the commercial space is not being developed to pull people off the highway, but as a convenience to the project and those people who live in the neighborhood. The.commercial space will hopefully reduce the need far people to drive. The Commission was told t-hat the developer will provide a bus pull-off at the front of the project. Mr. Drager stated that additional pull-offs for this area should be looked into and also areas for people who want to "share a ride." Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Development Plan for Pitkin Creek Park with the provision for a bus stop in cooperation with the Town of Vail and the provision for relief valve parking on the old Highway #6 right-of-way as discussed. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted uanimous approval. The fourth item on the agenda, a Minor Resubdivision of Lots 2 and 3, Block $, Bi~hoarn Subdivision Thixd Addition. dim Rubin explained this to the Commission. They are Page 7 -- MYNUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Mocting - 3-~27-79 proposing removal of the lot line and creating one lot and are proposing the construction of 5 units. He stated that the staff recommends approval of the replatting and removal of the lot line. After further discussion, Sandy Mills made the Motion to approve the minor re subdivision of Lots 2 and 3, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision. Third Addition with the stipulation that the eastern. section of the lot be left as open space. The Motion was seconded by Gerry White and the Commissian voted unanimous approval. The fifth item on the agenda is a Preliminary Discussion. of the Conditional Use Permit Request for the Schpber Building in Commercial Core I. Craig Snowdon was present representing the owner of the Schober Building and advised the Commission that he has reapplied for the Conditional Use Permit and will be coming in for a formal presentation on April 10, 1979. He explained his second proposal in.relation to the first proposal. that the Commission turned down. He showed them drawings of the second proposal and explained that on the first level, they are revising the entry and on the stream side there will be an addition of underground • storage with landscaping on top. This will give them more green space around the building. The enclosed restaurant. patio is still planned as a greenhouse effect, but they have pulled. it back 10 feet so that it meets all requirements. It will curve around the building corner and makes this space much more attractive by removing the dirt catching area that is there now. On the ski, chap level, they have pulled the front back 5 feet and developed the arcade along the front of the building. On the third level, they plan to build over the deck. The first proposal asked for an additional 992 sq. ft., and this proposal is adding only 715 sq. ft. On the 4th level, with the existing large condominium and the two accommodation units, the owner is now requesting two large condominiums rather than the first proposal for three units. The units would share the back deck where there wauld.be saunas and a Hot Tub. On the fifth level, there would be a storage area (which would not count as GRFA) and they would be adding a bedroom (loft). He showed the Commission the site plan with the improvements proposed and stated that the owner is interested in a joint effort with the Town of Vaal on the landscaped areas, etc., around the Creekside steps. He stated that as far as the Commission's concerns with the location of the loading zone, the relocation of the elevator would prevent parking of vehicles here. He advised the Commission that in regard to the additional sq. ft., the first proposal was for a total • of 2,900 sq. ft., the second proposal is for 1,793_sq. ft. Page 8 - MTNUTES Planning & Environmental Comm~.sszon Meoting - 3-27-79 Pepi Gramshammer was present to speak,to the Commission. He is concerned about the parking and delivery vehicles. He has had alot of trouble with this around his building and feels the congestion will worsen if the Schober Building is enlarged. He advised the Commission that he could add more footage to his own building, but he thinks this is the wrong way to ga, that open areas have to be retained in the Core and that buildings should not be built to their maximum. Craig Snowdon feels that. this proposal eliminates the problem with delivery vehicles, that with the official loading zone as established on Gore Creek Dr., there will not be a problem. He also advised the Commission that owners of units in the Village Centre have talked with him and are very interested in seeing these improvements done because this will definitely improve their view across the creek. Larry Rider, Town of Vail Attorney, addressed same of the concerns that the Commission has had with proposed additions to buildings in Commercial Core I, specifically the applications for Conditional Use. Permits in the Care. He stated that this ~.s a problem that plagues Conditional Use Permits and that courts have said they do not create a precedent, • but there is the problem of being consistently inconsistent and the court may look at this and say it is unf air. He stated that a Conditional Use.Permit is given for a permitted use, but because of potential adverse impacts, they have to be reviewed. If these adverse impacts can be alleviat~:d, the Conditional Use Permit should be approved. Tf they cannot be alleviated, it should be denied. He.went on to explain that the criteria attempts to specify the adverse impacts, such as, if the increase wi11 cut off light and air, or if there will be more traffic congestion. If there is no alleviation of problems created by the expansion, the Conditional Use Permit should then be denied. But, if they can be alleviated.by design alternative or other conditions, it should be approved. He also feels that if the Planning & Environmental Commission does not want to see any expansions that they should look to amending the Zoning Ordinance. Craig Snowdon feels that. the owner is very positive about making his building a better building and that he is not forcing the maximum for this building at a1I. Gerry White thinks that this decision may impact the entire community with future build outs. Sandy Mills asked whether the decision should be to keep Commercial Core I the same forever by eliminating expansions through • the Zoning Ordinance. Craig Snowdon asked the Commission whether they can comment if it is worth it for the owner to come through with his Page 9 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting - 3T27w79 formal presentation. Pam Hopkins, Mr. Snowdon's associate., feels that the Planning & Environmental CvuuulSSion has to have guidelines for incentives to clean up and improve the buildings in the Core, Craig Snowdon feels that the Planning & Environmental Commission has to look at the proposal in regard to its pluses and minuses, if the pluses outweigh the minuses, they should consider it a good proposal. Sandy Mills and Ron Todd .spoke positively about the revised proposal. Gerry White said that he thought the proposal did make some positive changes to the building. Ed Drager and Jack Goehl had no further comments. (Jim Morgan and Roger Tilkemeier had left the meeting before this time.} With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 P.M. r 1 LJ • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE MARCH 23, 1979 RE PITKIN CREEK PARK - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The staff is reviewing the Development Plan for Pitkin Creek Park and has identified same problems with the location and design of the parking areas. We will present these and other concerns to you at the meeting and would recommend that no official action be taken on this matter until some of these concerns are resolved. n u n u MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT DATE 23 MARCH 1979 RE DENSITY VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW 16 EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS AT THE VAIL RACQUET CLUB C~iv.uOMINIUMS IN BIGHORN DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This variance request from. Walter Kirch is to add a garden level in the two new buildings that he plans to construct this summer. This garden level would be added to two buildings that are a combination of 2 and 3 stories in height. The addition of the garden level would add 4~ feet to the overall height of these buildings. The Racquet Club is a difficult project on which to calculate allowable density due to the original plan approval by the County and the different regulations under which different stages of the deve~.opment were built. As part cif the downzoning process in November 1977, Walter Kirch provided an analysis which allocated land between those buildings already constructed and those comtemplated. At this time, the developer was willing to commit to a voluntary downzoning from an allowable remaining density of 97 units to 74 units. The 97 units were based on the new MDMF Density provisions and were based on the amount of land that had not been allocated to the existing buildings. (See enclosed analysis from the Vail Racquet Club.) What is.being requested then, is an increase in density from the voluntary downzoning to still less than what would be permitted in the current Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF) zone, The units, which are 432 sq. ft. one-bedroom units, would be committed for a period of twenty years with a proposed rent level of under $300 per month. There would be an additional 18 parking spaces added for these units which complies with the Town of Vail Parking Requirement. The intent is to rent these units td employees of the Vail Racquet Club and the Vail.Racquet Club condominiums, with any remaining units to be available to ot~er employees of the Vaal community. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Crateraa 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: Pg. 2 MEMO. D:ensit~y Variance~~for Racquet Club 3-23-79 Consideration of Factoxs The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Buildings 4 and l3, the buildings in which the additional units are being contemplated, are a combination of 2 and 3 stories, with the garden 1eve1 adding an additional 4~ feet in height. These new buildings wi11 still be smaller than most of the existing buildings at the Racquet Club, which are 4 stories in height. The proposed addition in height should not impact any 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 ob,~ectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the voluntary downzoning which was proposed by the developer, and with the overall density still under what is permitted in Medium Density Multi-Family (NOME), we do not feel that approval of this variance request wi11 constitute a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, trans- portation and traffic facilities, public facilities, p~ablic facilities and utilities, and public safety. We do not foresee any noticeable impacts that the additional 16 units will have on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. One other factor that we feel deserves being mentioned, is that the Planning & Environmental Commission did Pg. 3 • MEMO-Derisi.ty Variance £or Racquet Club 3-2`3-79 recommend to the Town Council; an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would permit an increase in density for resident housing in specific pones through a Conditional Use Permit process. The Town Council. decided against this amendment, with the reason that by putting this increase in density directly into the Zoning Ordinance, there could be numerous requests which might take advantage of this increase and this could be detrimental to the overall growth of the community. The Town Council, however, did say that this should not prevent individual requests from being considered on a case by case basis. Fin dings • 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 privi- lege 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 inteic- pretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by o~vnb:rs of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance request. We encourage the provision of resident housing in situations like this, and believe that the community will benefit by the approval of this request.. Pg. 4 MEMO-Density Variance for Raequ2st Club 3-23-79 We also feel that the dawnzaning was voluntary {there was nat a zone change, or a maximum number of u~.~its stipulated by the Tawn Council in Ordinance No. 30, Series.of 197'l) and that this variance xeque.st.is basically from a verbal commit- ment between the developer and the Town. We do not find any specific zoning reg~z].ations that are ]acing violated by this request. • • MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE 23 MARCH 1979 RE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SLAUGHTER RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT 8, BLOCK 1., VAIL VILLAGE I.ST FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Tom ~3riner , Architect, representing the owner, Mr. L. Slaughter, has requested a Setback variance of 7~ feet in order to construct a garage addition on the northwest corner of an existing single-family residence on the lot referenced above. The proposed garage addition is one story with a deck and railing on top of it. CRITERIA AND FZNDiNGS: Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 1$.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 house to the north, which is on Lot ?, is the only house impacted by the Setback variance. This closest point between the house and the proposed garage addition is 20 feet. In looking at the general orientation and the placement of windows on this house, we do not feel that the proposed garage addition will have any negative impact.- The degree to which relies' from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a speci- fied regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility . and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicin~.ty, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. ~~- Due to existing landscaping on the property, the placement Pg. 2 • MEMO-Slaughter Res Setback Variance 3-23-79 of the house on the site, and the configuration of the building, the applicant desires to locate the garage as indicated on the drawings. This house was built in the late 196D's without a garage, and we feel that the garage is an appropriate addition. We also agree with the applicant that the proposed location is better than disturbing other parts of the site in an attempt to comply with the Setback requirements, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and util- it ies , 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. One additional positive feature of this application is that this addition will provide an area for trash storage and will remove an unattractive shed presently loca-~ed at the rear of the structure. Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following f 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 Pg. 3 MEMO-Slaughter Res Setback Variance regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hard- ship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the. specified reg~txlation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATIONS 3-23-79 The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance request. We feel that the garage will enhance the appearance of the site and that the existing design of the building warrants-the location of the garage as presented in the application. We also do not feel that the adjoining property owner will be adversely impacted by the granting of this variance. • • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1979 1 P.M. to 3 P.M. Open Discussion with Applicants of the Public/Private Joint Venture Program. 3:00 P.M. Regular Public Hearing 1.) Ast/Kleimer Duplex Variance Request (WITHDRAWN) Lot 14, Vail Meadows lst Filing. 2.) Fitzhugh Scott - Resubdivision of Lots 10 & 11, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing. {to correct the location of a lot line . ) 3,} Ran McCaughan - First Phase o£ a Townhouse Pro;~ect on an 5.6 acre unplatted parcel in Bighorn. 4.) Re-Application for a Conditional Use Permit - Schober Building in Commercial Core I. 5.) Creekside Building - Conditional Use Permit in • Commercial Core I. (Postponed to 4-24-74) 6.) Lionsridge C1-C5 Development Plan {postponed to 4-24-79} 7.) Manor Vail - Discussion of a proposed outside deck which encroaches on Town of Vail Stream Tract Land. 8.) Public/Private Joint Venture Funding Recommendations (to be sent to the Town Council.) • MINUTL~S PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING 4F April 10, 3.979 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager Jack Goehl Ron Todd Gerry White Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan STAFF MEMBER: Jim Rub in The first item on the agenda: Ast/Kleimer Duplex Request for Variance, Lot 14, Vail Meadows lst Filing, was withdrawn by the applicant. The second item on the agenda: Fitzhugh Scott - Resub- division of Lots 10 & 11, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing to correct a lot line. • Jim Rubin presented this to the Commission, and after some discussion, the Motion was made by Ran Tadd to approve the resubdivision of Lots 10 & 11, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing to correct the location of a lot line. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The third item on. the agenda: Prelminary review of the First Phase of a Townhouse Project on 5.6 acre unplatted parcel in Bighorn. Mr. Steven Hannon, President of Landmark Properties was present to address the Commission along with Ron McCaughan and their architect. Jim Rubin explained the First Phase is far 5 duplex parcels as part of a 30 unit Townhouse project which will be called Sundial. Mr. Rubin explained that the parcels will be sold separately as duplex home sites. Jim explained that he had discussed this concept with Larry Rider, Town Attorney and that the staff feels this is an advantage+AUS way of handling the proj.ecfi as it will allow flexibility on the location of buildings. Townhouse declarations for this project were then discussed. These declarations provide legal access to the 5 parcels, as well as size restrictions. Jim Rubin requested that more sgecifie restrictions in regard to Setbacks, Height, Site Coverage, Landscaping and Parking be included in these declarations. The site plan was presented to the Commission. After further discussion, the Motion was made by Gerry White to approve the first phase of the Sundial. Townhouse project with the condition that the development restrictions of the Two_Family Residential Zone District in regard to Setbacks, Height, Site Coverage, Landscaping, and Parking Page 2. MINUTES-PEC 4-10-79 be included in the Townhouse declarations for this First Phase. Ron Todd seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The fourth item on the agenda: Re-Application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Schober $uildin~ in Commercial Core I. Craig Snowdon made his presentation to the Commission. This second proposal cuts out alot of the square footage that was presented with the first proposal. They now propose to add 1,859 sq. ft., which is 2,100 sq. ft. less than the first proposal. He again told the Commission that they will be adding to all five levels of the building but will be reducing the northern extension considerably. He also discussed the Public/Private Joint Venture application with the Commission. This application is for benches and planters along Gore Creek Dr .., and the Fountain Plaza with additional plantings on Town property by the Creekside stairs. The 4th level has been changed fram what was proposed at the preliminary discussion. The owner now proposes to put in kitchenettes and loft bedrooms in the accommodation units and use these two units for employee housing. The shop owner and the owner of the restaurant have already expressed interest in leasing these units for their employees. Ron Todd asked whether the owner will commit these units under the same criteria as other employee housing units which wi1Z remain as long-term rentals fnr a 20-year period? It was the Commission members feeling that these units should meet this criteria. The owner discussed this with the Commission and stated he had no problems with this commitment as long as he can come back and change the use of the units if the. situation requires it. The owner was told that Larry Rider, Town Attorney, will draft the conditions for the employee housing, as a deed restriction, or something in this order. Ed Drager stated that Pepi Gramshammer had sent a letter to the Commission in opposition to the additions to buildings in the Core. Mr. Gramshammer was present and spoke to his concerns for building out in the Village. Mr. Drager explained to Mr. Gramshammer that the Planning & Environmental Commission in dealing with the Conditional Use Permit process, needs to review all the criteria set down in the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance and that each project mu-st stand on its own. He stated that the Schaber Euilding had been turned down the first time it was presented. He assured Mr. Gramshammer that not ail expansions will be approved and each would have to be reviewed on its own merit. Any of the proposals that will be brought to the Planning Commission will have to show'beneficial effects throughout, and the Commission will adhere to strict standards for any additional construction in the Village. However, he added, there has to be changes from time to time. Roger Tilkemeier stated that the Commission had been told by Larry Rider, that the Conditional Use Permits do not set precedent, and so they are not bound to approve all proposals for additions to the buildings in the Cora. Page 3 . MINUTES-PEC 4-10-79 Mr. Gramshammer was sti11 very concerned about the effects of increased traffic, mare delivery trucks and the trash problems. He stated these problems are very severe now. Ron Todd assured Mr. Gramshammer that the Planning & Environmental Commission has these very same concerns. The owner of the restaurant in the Schober Building, Herman Staufer, then spoke to the Commission. He also has the same concerns as Mr. Gramshammer, but he believes that the owner of the Schober Building has a very good attitude about his building, and is willing to enhance the appearance of his building. This can't help but to improve the appearance of the Village as a whole. Gerry White then made the Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Schober Building in Commercial Core I as presented. Ron Todd seconded the Motion. Sandy Mi11s then made the comment that with the reduction in square footage, where it does not affect the view corridors, and fits in welt with the existing structure; she feels this second proposal does meet the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and that the PEC has examined it thoroughly. The Commission voted unanimous approval. The fifth item on the agenda: Creekside Building Request for a Conditional Use Permit in Commercial Core I. The applicant has requested that this be postponed until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission on April 24, 1979 The sixth item on the agenda: Lionsridge C1-C5 Development Plan. The applicant has requested that this be postponed until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning & Environmental Commission on April 24, 1979. The seventh item on the agenda: Discussion of a proposed deck for Manor Vail which would encroach on Town of Vail Stream Tract Land. Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that they need to discuss this and make their recommendations to the Town Council. A representative from Manor Vail was present to explain this proposal to the Commission. Jim Rubin explained to the Commission that the staff is concerned with any encroachment on public ways. Sandy Mi11s stated she feels this encroachment should not be allowed. Ron Todd made the Motion to recommend to the Town Council disapproval of the proposed outside deck on Manor Vail that would • encroach on Town of Vail Stream Tract land. The Motion seconded by Jack Goeh1 and the Commission-voted unanimously to ~~commend disapproval of this proposal. Page 4 MINITTES-PEC . 4-14-79 The eighth item on the agenda: Pn.blic/Private Joint Venture Fund~:n~ Recommendations. These were discussed in full.. These recommendations are in a separate report. Meeting adjourned b:IS P.M. ~J M E M 0 . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission Members FROM: Jim Rubin DATE: April 6, 197.9 RE: MEETINGS ON PUBLIC/PRIVATE JOYNT VENTURE PROJECTS Monday, April 9,1979 12:00 noon-Luncheon Meeting has been changed to the Mark. This meeting will be for a.generax discussion of the projects and the evaluation procedures. i:00-3:00 P.M.-Tour of the Public/Private Projects Tuesday, April 10, 1979 1:00-3:00 P.M.-Open discussion with applicants of the projects. 3:00 P.M.-Final Recommendations on Public/Private Projects (to be sent to the Town Council) • • M E M 0 • T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSTON FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 6, 1979 RE: STAFF RECOMh1ENDATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 10, 1979 l.) Ast/Kleimer Duplex-Application has been withdrawn. Z.) Fitzhugh Scott Resubdiv~sion This resubdivision is to legally record a change in the lot line between Lats l0-and 11 that happened about five years ago. This change xn the lot line makes Lot 11 more conforming than it presently is. Staff Recommendation: Approval 3.) McCaughan Townhouse Project This is the First Phase of the proposed 33 unit Sundial Project on a 5.6 unplatted parcel in Bighorn. The First Phase is the creation of four building envelopes similar to the Casolar- del-Norte Subd~vis~on. The ,building envelopes are for duplex sites, and are different from the Casolar Subdivision in that they include both land fox the buildings and areas around the buildings. We feel that this is a better concept than the smaller, more defined building envelopes in that there is more f~_exibility for the placement of buildings. It is, however, a Townhouse concept, with these four sites a part of the overall townhouse development. This has been discussed with the Town Attorney, who has no difficulty with the concept. Staff Recommendation: Approval ~.) Schober Building-Conditional Use Permit This is a resubmittal of a Conditional Use Request that was denied by the PEC on March 13, 1979. This application has been revised considerably, with the square footage addition of usable space reduced from 2,906 square feet to 1,859 square feet. The major change, as shown to you' on March 27, 1979, was a Memo to PEC 4-6-79 Page Two decrease in the extension of the building on the North side. Another change has been added to this application since you saw it two weeks ago, This is the conversion of the two rooms ~ntb two-er-mployee housing units by the addition of small kitchenettes. The proposal that you saw on a preliminary basis two weeks ago-had these twa rooms converted into a Condominium Unit, With a commitment of the owner to keep these units as employee housing for a 20 year period, we feel that this latest proposal is superior, Staff Recommendation: Approval 5.) Creekside-Condit~:onal Use Permit Postponed until April 24, 1979 ~.} Lionsridge Employee Housing Project Postponed until April 24, 1979 7.} Manor Vail Deck Request This matter was forwarded to-you by the Town Council, The request is for a redwood deck behind the Manor Vail. Buildings that would extend into the Town of Vail Stream Tract Land. This deck would be placed on the hillside overlooking the stream and would be used as a meeting area for business groups staying at the Manar Vail Lodge. The deck would be constructed in such a way that little grading work would have to be done on `i;he bank. Staff Recommendation: Disapproval We feel that this would set a negative precedent an the use of streamside land, This streamside land should be open for use by the general public, and should not became restricted private space for anq one entity. S.) Public/Private Recommendations There will be specific recommendations on all the projects available Monday at noon. • -r - -- MEMORANDUM TO FROM DATE SUB.T PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL GOMMISSTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APRIL 20, 1979 STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED HILL TS DUPLEX TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 9, BIGHORN ESTATES. DESCRTPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This variance request is from the 5O-foot stream setback. from the middle of Gore Creek. The proposed duplex encroaches on this setback by 25 feet. This leaves approximately 25 feet from the middle of the creek to the nearest point of the structure. On this lot, the rear lot line is in approximately the same location as the middle of Gore Creek. With the rear setback, therefore, becoming 50 feet and a front setback. of 20 feet, there is only 50 feet remaining for the proposed duplex and garage. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.Ob0 of the Municipal Cade, 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, This Stream Setback Variance should not have any impact on other existing, or potential structures in this area. The duplex as designed, sti11 complies with the 15-foot rear setback requirement. 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 object- ives of this title without grant of special privilege. • We feel that there is a hardship in this situation. Due to the configuration of the lot and the location of Gore Pg, 2 MEMO-PEC 4-20-79 Creek, the applicant would be severely limited in his ability to build a reasonable size structure on this lat. The structure is totally located outside the 100-year flaodplain. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transpor- tation and traffic facilities, public facil- ities and utilities, and public safety. Findings 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 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 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 interpre- tation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unneces- sary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Ibis title. There are exceptions or extra- ordinary 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 Pg. 3 MEMO-PEC 4-20-79 and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The staff recommends approval of this variance request. This proposal represents a major redesign of a previous submittal, and has addressed many of our initial concerns. The 50 foot stream setback is meant to preserve stream tract land, and is an important development restriction. In this case, however, this lot was created in such a way (while this area was still in Eagle County) that our present regulations would severely restrict the size and type of • structure that could be placed on it. The design, as presented, seems to be appropriate for the lot and does not seem to impact the actual bank of the stream. We, therefore, feel that this variance is warranted. MEMORANDUM . TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE APRIL 20, 1979 SUB. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR STANLEY MEDSKER, FOR A GREENHOUSE ADDITION TO BE LOCATED IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 12, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE 13th FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Variance Request is for a 10-foot side setback along the South property line in lieu of the xequired l5 feet. The greenhouse addition will be 72 feet in height, at its highest point, and will be 15 feet long. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 15.62.060 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. The Katz Residence on Lot 13 is the only residence in the immediate area to this requested variance. The Katz Residence is over 30 feet from its northern property line:, and has its main orientation to the east and west. We do not feel that the greenhouse, being only 7a feet in height, will. have any impact on this residence. 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 tc attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. We feel that this would be a grant of speca.al privilege in that there has been no demonstration of hardship. This is a Page 2 . MEMO-PEC ~+-20-79 change of policy from the past Variance request recommendations, where setback. variances have been recommended far approval as long as no adjacent property owners are adversely impacted. We feel that after the Slaughter Variance Request, that a harder look has to be given to all Variance requests, with only approval given to those that are able to show a real hardshig. 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. • Findings 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 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. We feel that the approval of this variance request will constitute a grant of special privilege. Although the adjacent property owner should not be adversely impacted by this request, we still feel that there has to be a more concrete reason given for approval of this request. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, • or welfare, or materially ~.njurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is not warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: Page 3 MRMO-PEC 4-20-'79 The strict or literal-interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There axe no exceptions or extra- ordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, The strict ar 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 xecommends denial. of this Setback Variance Request. We feel that a closer look has to be given at variances, with only those that ~, show a real hardship being approved. We, however, also feel that the application in its present form does not explain the hardship ~actar adequately and needs to be rewritten. The Medsker's will be informed of this recommendation prior to the meeting, and might be able to better address the hardship issue at that time. • • r ~ Pg, 4 MEMO-FEC 4-20-79 7.} Adding windows to the west blank wall of the three story structures with views to the west, 8.) Increasing the distance between buildings to allow more natural Light into the courC- yard on the three story structure. 9.) Re-design landscape plan to include additional landscaping and continue the Landscaping to the street surface. 10.) Schedule of when the recreational amenity package will be constructed. r~ ~J M>t:~Mo T0: DICK RYAN FRCM : I{IIV'I' RASE DATE: April. L6, 1979 RE; Landscape Proposal, McBride Building Jim Rubin asked me to review a number of Public/private joint venture projects from a public works standpoint, the McBra~de Building being one that concerns me most. The west side of the building along Bridge Street: New steps in front of restaurant entrance and closing off of each patio end creates a nice atmosphere. Planter boxes on building face are too large forcing pat~.o too far out into public night of way. Planters on each side of proposed stair protrude too far out into Bridge Street for adequate snow plow operation. Design should respect property line or at least not be allowed to encroach any further than ex~.sting improv~.~~~;~~ts . With the numbers of pedestrians and snow plow activity, the street is too narrow now. ~. The north side of Gorsuch along Main Gore Drive: Listing stairtivell, building front and skylight are built very close to property line. Encroachment onto public property could be allowed to provide for necessary cosmetic .mpro~,~~;~:~,t to building. Improvements in encr~~~hment area should be held c]_ose to building and an relatively straight lines so that snow can be removed efficiently. Protusions create snow r~~«,~a1 problems and, possa_bly, unsightly areas of stored snow making them unusable by pedestrians. Westernmost canopy extends into public right of way eight feet. Easterrurbst canopy extends into puUli_c right off' way 14 feet. Glass displap windoGVS extend into public right of way six feet. With Loading ~~ones existing in front of the la.quor store on the other side of the street, the proposal narrows the street too much and restricts vehicular traffic. • I think i,~~~,,.ovements are necessary on tlz is corner. but considering; the volurr~ of pedestrian and veh~.cular traffic ~~.nd the limited use of the imx.~ovei~x~~nts by the general ptklaLi.r.., I would rec.,~«,~nd reducing the scale of the propasaL and not alloru~rrg as great an encroachment as is bea.ng; requested. MEM4RANbUM TO FROM DATE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APRIL 20, 1979 SUBd PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE HORSING LOCATED ON LOTS C1 THROUGH C5 OF LIONSRTDGE, FILING N0. 1, LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD. STATISTICS APPLICANT day Peterson AREA 10.05 Acres ZONING Special Development District EXISTTNG LAND USE Vacant PROPOSED USE 198 two-bedroom rental units far employees REQUEST The Applicant is requesting approval of • Phase I of the Lionsridge Employee Housing Development containing 102 units, the recreation building and 187 parking spaces. Phase II which will be under consideration in the future is proposed to contain 96 units and 110 parking spaces. BACKGROUND On February 20, 1979, the Town Council ~~ ~J approved an ordinance rezoning of Lots C1 through C5 of Lionsridge Filing No. 1 for a maximum number of 198 dwelling units. The apartment units are restricted to long-term rentals for full-time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The ordinance also specified that the development provide at least 1.5 parking spaces per unit, or a minimum of 297 parking spaces. Since all the units are two bedrooms at least, this amount of parking is needed. The development schedule is to construct Phase I containing 104 dwelling units for occupancy by December 1979. The remaining 96 .units would be available for occupancy in December 1980. SITE PLAN In Phase I are 102 dwelling units, the recreation building and 187 parking spaces. This part of the site is vacant with very little topographic change except along the northern boundary to the site and the south-west corner of the site. Pg. 2 MEMO-PEC 4-20-79 • Lionsridge Loop, the northern boundary of the site is several feet higher than the ma,~ority of the property. Special consideration must be given in developing the landscape plan to insure there will be no erosion of the 'bank. Tn Phase TT there is the same bank along I,ionsridge Loop with even a more severe slope. Tn addition, there is a hill at the south-west corner of the site. Tn developin.g this-part of the site, it may be difficult to plan and develop the remaining number {94) of units, The ordinance far this development stated that the approval was for up to 198 dwelling units. The applicant should be put on notice that he may not be able to develop the maximum number of dwelling units for the site under the site plan presented for staff review. The site plan shows two paints of ingress and egress to the site. A11 of the proposed parking would be on an internal circulation system. Parking spaces will not be covered and should not be visible from the Frontage Road. Because of the layout of parking, there may be problems with snow storage. Tn addition, the location of trash storage areas should be shown on the plan. An enclosure should be provided to screen each trash bin. . An internal circulation system should be proviaea for the residents and their children. The staff is recommending a 4-foot walkway in front of the south row of buildings, and walks leading to the Frontage Road. Along the Frontage Road, the staff is recommending a 6-foot off-set s~.dewalk. This should be constructed by the developer when installing the landscaping. Bicycle racks should also be shown on the site plan. Along the Frontage Road, the staff is recommending a bus pull-off area and shelter to b e constructed by the developer. The retaining walls shown along the northern part of the site should be more than exposed concrete. The staff recommends the concrete have dye glaced in it, probably an earth tone color. The concrete should be a texturized surface after the forms have been removed. Automobiles that use Lionsridge Loop in the winter could slide off the road into the development. As part of the landscape plan, some type of retaining wall should be constructed as part of this development. The staff recommends that this retaining wall be a requirement of this development. Xn reviewing the location of the buildings, the Department is recommending the change in location of "B'p building, containing Z8 units. At the location of "B" building, two present "C" structures, containing 6 units each would be located. This would break up the mass of buildings along the Frontage Road Pg. 3 MEMa-PEC 4-20-79 and locate units next to an area meeting the 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Architecture and mass of the buildings for Phase I has been done in an adequate arrangement and style. There are two and three story structures containing b, 12 and 18 dwelling units. The staff's major concern was with the three story structure containing 18 dwelling units. First, the major view is to the west for these units. No windows are currently shown along the west wall of these buildings. The Department recommends that windows he placed along these blank wa11s. Second, the amount of light entering the courtyard of these buildings is restricted by the covered staircases. fihe Department recommends opening up the space by increasing the distance between the two end structures. The preliminary landscape plan submitted, is only a minimum plan and should include landscaping not just to the property line, but to the street pavement. By only landscaping to the property line, there becomes a potentially unsightly area along the street. Almost all communities require landscaping to the street. In the Environmental Impact Statement for this development, the report stated that "recreational Facilities will include basketball courts, volleyball courts, playfields and an indoor game room". The outside recreation areas must be shown on, the site plan and the developer should submit when these facilities would be available. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of ~'hase I of the Lionsridge Employee Housing Development subject to the following conditions: l.) Department approval of the location and design of trash containers. 2.) Construction of an internal sidewalk and an off-set sidewalk along the Frontage Road. 3.) Construction of a bus pull--off area and shelter. Applicant should work with Jon Eberle concerning location and specification. 4.) Special treatment of the concrete retaining walls. 5.) Construction of protective wall along Lionsridge Loop. 6.) Change in Zocation of structures as recommended in the memorandum. MEMORANDUM TO TOWN COUNCIL RICHARD CAPLAN, TOWN MANAGER FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/JIM RUBIN DATE 13 APRIL 1979 RE 1979 PUBLIC/PRIVATE JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM Enclosed is a copy of the Planning & Envi.ranmental Commission's recommendations for the 1979 Public/Private Joint Venture Program. As part of this program, these recam~endations are to be adopted, with or without changes, by the Town Council at the Public Hearing on April 17, 1979. The staff and the Planning Commission spent numerous hours visiting and reviewing the submittals from the 53 applicants. The staff was also assisted by Jeff Winston from the firm of Gage Davis & Assaciates:.in Boulder, who had many suggestions as to those projects worthy of funding and possible redesigns of some of the proposals. What has been recommended by the Planning Commission is the funding of 40 projects with a total allocation from the Town of X58,932.00. In almost all cases, the Town's funding represents 50% of the total project costs. This program would, therefore, result in landscaping improvements within the Town of Vail totaling almost $120,000.04. We feel that the projects being recommended to you today were selected through a careful review and analysis. Some of these projects will need some redesign, but are worthy of the financial support requested. These projects wi11 all be submitted to the Design Review Board before any of the work commences. The projects that were not recommended for funding were felt either not to have a direct public benefit; to be a duplicate project; or that it had been required as part of an already approved development plan. A suggestion from the planning Commission for the approximately ~~15,000 not allocated, was to return this money to the 1979 Capital Improvements Budget, and to earmark it for Town improvements that are felt by the Planning Commission and the Town Council to be most critical. • AGENDA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. April 24, 1979 1.) I~i11is Akin Residence - Setback Variance Request Lot 9, Bighorn Estates 2.) Stan Medsker Residence - Setbs.ck Variance Request Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th 3.) Lovejoy - Request for Resubdivision of Parcel A, Bighorn Subdivision and Parcel A, Bighorn First Addition (Postponed until May 22, 1979) 4.) Creekside Building Request for Conditional Use Permit in CCI. (WITHDRAWN) 5.} Liansridge C1-CS - Approval for Development Plan. Postponed from April 10, 1979. 6.) Discussion with John McBride on proposed expansion of Clock Tower Porch. 7.) Andy Norris -- Preliminary Discussion of Mansfield Village 8.) Jay Peterson - Preliminary Discussion of .Annexation of Parcels B,C, D, and E, Lionsridge Filing No. 2. Meeting starting at 3:00 F.M. ~~ Minutes Planning & Environmental Carimi_ss~.on • Meeting of April 2~, 1979 Not yet approved by the Planning C~.a~~~ussion C~«„mission Members Present Ed Onager Sandy MiJ.l.s Ron Todd Jim Morgan Jack Goehl Roger Tilkemeier wa$ out-of--town Gerry White was on vacation Staff Members Present Jinn Rubin (entire meeting) Dick Ryan (4;20 until completion) 1.) Hillis Akin Residence-Setback Variance Request Lot 9, Bighorn Estates Jim Ruin explained the setbacks. There was a discussion. The revised and redesigned plans were presented by the architect. • Walter Kirch who owns the property on the north side of the creek stated his two objections: a. The driveway will destroy a nice stand of trees on the southeast cornier of the lot. b. The house is too bulky to be located so close to the stream with 35 feet elevations. He thinks the house could better fit the lot. Sandy Mills suggested he redesign and came back. She feels there really isn't a hardship as the owner knew the lot when he bought it. Jim Rubin explained that this is not an ordinary lot, with the buildable area within the setbacks being insufficient for a reasonably sized duplex. Sandy Mills made a motion t;o deny the Setback Variance Request for the Hillis Akin residence proposed for Lot 9, Bighorn Estates. Jack Goehl seconded the motion. Goehl, Todd, and Mills voted far the motion. Morgan and Onager voted against the motion. The motion passed. Ed Onager infoxmed the architect that he has l0 days to appeal to the Council. Sandy Mills suggested that the architect meet with staff to work on a front setback as an alternative to the stream setback. Minutes (4-24-79} Page Two i 2.) Stan Medsker Residence-Setback Variance Request Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Jim Rubin explained the location of the house, the history of the lot, and also that the neighbors had been notified. with no one objecting. Kati is the nearest neighbor. Jim said he feels that the question is, "Ts there a real hardship?" Mrs. Medsker presented her memo and plans. Ed Drager said that if the Town pond were not on their lot, the Medskers could have had ~.~~ ~ of a choice where to place their house. Sandy Mills asked if the encroachment of the pond will be a hardship forever. Ron Todd read a stat~a,~~Ft from the Town Attorney's Memo. Jim Morgan moved that the Setback Variance Request for the Stan Medskex Residence for Lot l2, Block 1, Vail Village 13th be a~~,~~~ed. Ron Todd seconded the motion. Todd, Goehl, Drag~r and Morgan voted for the motion. Mills voted against the motion. The moti~ passed. • Ed Drager told Mrs. ll+~dsker she-can make her presentation to the DRB after the 10 day appeal pexiod. 3.) Lovejoy-Request for Resubdivision of Parcel A, Bighorn Subdivision and Parcel A, Bighorn First Addition Postponed until May 22, 1979 4.) Creekside Building Request for Conditional Use Permit ixz CCI Withdrawn 6.) Discussion with John McBride on ProUosed expansion, of Clock Tower Porch The Canrnission met at the Clock Tower at 2:30. Mr. Drager said he felt that they should meet with Mr. Ryan as he feels before they make decisions on anything like the Clock Tower Porch, they need to decide on a Master Plan for the CCI Mall Area. Jim Morgan said he, too, feels a Ma11 Plan is necessary. Sandy Mills said the Bridge Street side of the plan is good, but snow removal t~uld definitely be a probl~n. Jack Goehl said he feels an o~c~all plan is needed. Ron Todd did not attend the 2:30 meeting. No motion was made. Minutes (4-24-79) . Page Three 7.) Andy Norris Preliminary of Mansfield Village Andy N~~~is said he mainly wanted to fully acquaint the staff and cor~mission with the main points of their project. He explained the Learxzing Center part of their project, a. There will be a Continuing Education Center mainly to accommodate CMC. b. There will be a 250--300 seat auditorium for filrr~s, lecturers, etc. c. There will be a library. (Perhaps the Town Library) d. There will also be offices for scholars, etc. It would be 28,004-32,000 square feet. It would be non-profit owned. CMC could have a lease--purchase arrang~s~~t. Library could be owned by a foundation. 95% of the Parking would be co~,C~cd. • There would be a 150 roan hotel, 34 Condominiums (owner occupied} and 34 rental units. It would be a lowrise village. There would be 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of c.u~.~~rcial space mainly far the use of the owners and users. It would not be guest oriented. There would be four indoor Tennis Courts, two racquet ball courts, two squash courts and anindoor-outdoor swimming pool. The tennis courts and pool would be scheduled for use by the public. Also there would be about 1000 private manbers. There would be an eating facility and locker rooms. This is a 16.8 acre parcel in Special Development District Four. They have purchased the Robbins Tract. There is another tract approximately 1.4 acres which they are trying to buy. It is in the way of the bike path so he would like the Town to think about conderning this tract if necessary. He would like to make his formal presentation on May 22. He would like everyone to see the report done by Allen Gerstenberger. Jim Rubin will make copies for C,a.~~fission ,~~~~bers. Minutes {4-24-79) Page Four 8.) Jay Peterson-Preliminary Discussion of Annexation of Parcels B, C, D, and E, Liorzsrid~e Filing No.2 Jay Peterson and Ron Todd made the presentation. It is a 77.7 acre parcel which is currently in the County. Jay would like to contract the zoning with the Town of Vail now for possible annexation into the Town.. It is 167 units. He would like the PEC to make a preliminary recommendation to the Town Council to consider this for annexation. The Staff feels the site plan can work but that the upper area might not be developable. They would need proof that it can be developed. Hopefully, if this is annexed, the Town could buy the upper part for open space. The staff does agree with the revised site plan except in the upper area. Jay would like to ga to Council on May 1 to begin annexation. There is approximately 30 acres developable. Ed Drager made a motion that the Commission urge the Council to annex and contract zoning for Parcels B, C, D, and E, Li~sridge.Filing No.2 as presented today. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with Ron Todd abstaining. Ed Drager made a motion that the PEC urge the Town Council to acquire Tract E, ~,ionsridge Filing No. 2 hopefully by purchasing it at cost (what the new owner paid for it) and making the purchase paw of the Annexation procedure. Jim M~.~~an seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with Ron Todd abstaining. S.) Lionsridge Cl-C5 Approval for Devel~u„~~~ta1 Plan. Jay Peterson and Allen Gerstenberger made the presentation. Phase X would be a recreational building and 102 units. Revised plans were explained. There was a discussion. Dick Ryan read the points from the Staff Memo and Jay made his c.~~~,~nts. l.) Department approval of the location and design of containers. Jay agreed to this. 2.) Construction of an internal. sidewalk and an off-set sidewalk along Frontage Road. Jay dial not agree with this. 3.) Construction of a bus pull-off area and shelter. Applicant should work with Jon Eberle concerning location and speci- fication. Jay agreed to this. Minutes,(4-24-79) Page Five 4.) Special Treatment of the concrete retai.na.ng walls. Jay agreed to this. 5.) Construction of protective wall along Lionsxidge Loop. Jay did not agree to this. 6. ) Change in location of structures as rec~a~~.~.sded in m~aN~andum. Jay agreed to this. 7.) Adding windows to the West Blank wall. of the three story structures with views to the west. Jay agreed to this . 8.) Increasing the distance between buildings to allow more natural. light into the courtyard on the three story structure. Jay agreed to this. 9.) Redesign landscape plan to include additional landscaping to the street surface. Jay agreed to this. 10.) Schedule of when the recreational amenity package will be constructed. Jay agreed to this. Dick Ryan added an eleventh item. ll.) Redesign the grades on the dxi~~ways entering into the project so that they do not exceed 8%. Jay agreed to this. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the preliminary site plan for Lionsaridge C1-C5 conditional on the before-mentioned items 1-11 with the exception of #2 and #5. Jack Goehl seconded the motion, The vote was unanimous . The meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M. C] ~~ ~. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA I May 22, 1979 I:30 Work Session Site Inspections (meet at Town Hall to visit Mans- field Village and Lionsridge Employee Housing S~.tes). 3:00 Public Hearing l.) Parcel A, Bighorn Subdivision, Parcel A, Bighorn 1st Addita.on. Linda Lovejoy requesting resubdivis-ion. Postponed until June 12, 1979. 2.} Mansfield Village Andy Nox°ris to present Devel.opment.Plan for Area A of SD4. ' ~ 3.) Cl-C5 Lionsridge Filing No.l Jay Peterson to present Phase II of Development Plan. 4.} Val d'Gore honing Change from RC to MDMF'. 5.) Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Specifying a minimum lot size for duplexes. i Minutes Planning and Environmental Commission Meet~ung of 5-~2-79 Not yet aN~,~ moved by Planning C.~«~,ussion Members Present Sandy Malls Jack Goehl Jim Morgan Ron Todd Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Ed Drager-Absent Ron Todd chaired meeting in Ed Drager's absence. Staff Members Present Jam Rubin Dick Ryan Council Members in Audience Paula Palmateer Tom Steinberg Bill Wilto 1.) Parcel A, Bighorn Subdivision, Parcel A, Bighorn 1st Addition. Linda Lo~ire:~oy requesting' resixbdivision. Postponed until June 12, 1979. Gerry White made a motion to postpone this item until June i2, 1979. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2.} Mansfield Village Andy Norris requesting approval of the Site Plan for Parcel A of Special Devel~~;,~~~t District 4 (SD4) anci t$e Addition of one acre of land to this District. Dick Ryan explained the project and the Staff's recommendations. (See attached «~«~) Andy Norris made his presentation. He explained that their main objectives are to provide a much needed learning center, to provide a first class indoor tennis facility, to provide much needed employee housing, to avoid having another LionsHead by restricting housing to owner occupancy, to provide c......~~xcial space to serve the people who live there making it in no way competitive to LionsHead, to reduce the automobile impact, to keep buildings in scale with Vail Village instead of LaonsHead, to provide activities not dependent an ski, industry or ski season, to provide a pedestxxan oxiented village and well constructed bus stop, and to create a subvillage with interests for guests and residents avoiding all pxoblems occurred by LionsHead. PEC meeting minutes 5-22-79 Page Two He explained that there are several, possible participants in the Loax~ing Center. However, no one will make a final C.~.~.,u.tL~~~~t until it is more of a reality. CMC is very serious. .'T'here is a possibility of having an extension of one of the major universities here also. He stated that their square footage is not in excess of what is allowed and that they are provai.ding more parking than required. Larry Rider explained the Special District Ordinance-~ and answered questions of the Board. He said the lodge is to be tied to the education institution. The Board asked questions of.Mr. Norris. They asked him to explain the c.h,..~~ cial space. He said even though the 7.ibrary might not be the 7.Y~vn of Vail Library, they still plan to have some sort of library and perhaps a bookstore in conjunction with it. They.wcxa.ld also like to have a place for exhibits and perhaps a photo store.. They plan to N~~ aide a small market about the size of the Village Market and a mall wine and liquor shop. They also plan so~ne~very small lobby shops in-the hotel Bach as a barber shop, cleaner pick up, etc. in addition to the restaurants. Mr. Norris feels the recreation facility will be used by both the residents and the hotel guests. They do not plan to create another Core or Lionshead area. Mr. Norris emphasized that CMC is very interested zn the Learning Center and would expand their program to include such courses as restaurant and hotel mana~~.~nt and perhaps use the hotel for an internship ~,~.~~. am. The Board then discussed the eleven. items on page eight of the ,~~,~ from the Departztent of CLe~~,~nity Develv~,~~~t dated 5~-1$--79.' No. i Revised Plans showing the reduced arr~aunt of c~~~~cial square footage. The Board did not feel a reducti~ in square footage was necessary. They found the present c.~„~~.~~cial square footage (21,700) to be acceptable. No.2 More specific information on the proposed ~asers~ of the Learning Center. Mr. Norris agreed to provide as much inf~~,~~tion as possible. He reiterated that no one wants to make fina]. cotnnittrnents until the Learning Center is ~,~.,le of a reality. However, he feels Cf~1~C is ~c~y serious about its intentions to use the space. No.3 Amore detailed description of the relationship~of tlie'hotel to~the Learning Center. Mr. Norris said once again that he wi~.l not have any firth c.,a~.,u.t~L«~~~ts until the Learning Center is more of a reality. He said he will not begin construction on the hotel until the Learning Center is c~,.,,c~~ced. PEC Meeting Minutes-5-22-79 Page Three No. 4 A Developaiient Schedule Mr. Norris said he will do this. No.S Dedication of Stream Tract and Easement for Bicycle Path Mr. Norris agreed to this. No.6 ~ points of access, left hand turning lane, and an acceleration an,cl decelle~a.taon lade along- the Frontage Road. Mr. N~3~is did not agree with having two points of access because of the steep grade, The Board agreed with him and deleted this reCVlllll~.lldation. He agreed to work-with the Hi~1lwuy Department to provide a left hand turning lane and accelerati~ and decelleration lane . No.7 An offset sidewalk along the k`rozitage Road Mr. Norris is in favor of this and agreed to cooperate with the Town and the Highway Depa~ ~11Cllt on this. No, 8 An outside Recreation Area The Board felt this was not necessary and deleted it from the rec.~l 1.1 l~ l dot ion s . • No. 9 A Driveway Permit from the State Hi~lway L1~par~~ll~llt Mr. Norris agreed to this. No.10 A Bus Shelter and Turnaround with Design to be approved by the Staff . Mr, Norris agreed to this. Noll Satisfactory access to the excluded lat. Mr. Norris agreed to this. He said he has an agreement between the current owner and himself. Ron Todd asked Mr. Norris to supply a copy of that agreement. Mr. Norris said he would supply it. He said he is also taring to purchase the land. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the site plan for Mansfield Village, Parcel A of Special Devel~~l,iCllt District Four (SD4) , and addition of one acre of land to this District based. upon the conditions set forth on page eight of the mean dated 5-18-79 farm the Department of Comrn~nity development with the exceptions and amendments to numbers. 1, 6-, 7, and 8 as mentioned above. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. PEC Meeting Minutes 5-22-79 Page Fcnar 3.) Public. Hearing and Consideration fbr the Second Phase of a Devel~~~,~~lt Plan for' Employee H~tsing located bat' Paots Cl throiz~h' C5 0~' Lionsrid~, Filing No. ].; Located alori~ the North Fionta,~e R6ad. Jim Rubin explained Staff feelings and rec.~~,~,~~~dations. Jay Peterson. was not present. Cris Dittm~.r was in audience representing the developer. The Board discussed the Staff Rec.b.~.sandations. No. 1 Depar~L,;,~.~t approval of the location and d~c~ ~i of trash' containers. Jam said the developer had agreed to this. No. 2 Construction of an internal sidewalk and an offs-set sidewalk along the Frontage Road. The Board felt this was necessary and deve~.oper should work with the Town, Highway Department, or whoever has authority to provide the off-set sidewalk along the Frontage Road. Tt was brought to the Board's attention that Vail Run will be constructing an off-set sidewalk from the Lionsridge Employee Housing Project to the East end of their property (at Lionsridge Loop). They also felt the internal sidewalk was necessary. No.3 Construction of a bus pull-0ff area and shelter. Applicant should work~with'Dori~E'berle'coz~cerning location'and~specification. The Board felt this was necessary. No. 4 Special treal~~~~~t of concrete zeta,~i:niti~ w~,11s. Cris Dittmax has been working with the staff on ,the retaining walls. He would like to change the walls to gabion walls instead of concrete. The Board agreed, the gabion wall would look nice but would lake to require that the developer hire a structural er.g~neer registered with the State of Colorado to design the walls. No. 5 Construction of protective wall aloY~g Lionsrid~e~LOo~p The Board felt this is not the responsibility of the developer. They recce.,-,~sded that the County, Town or whatever public authority is responsible be contacted and asked to put up a protective wa11 if determined to be necessary. No. 6 Adding windows to the south blank wall of the three story stritetures with views tb the'south. Jim Rubin sand they had already agreed to do this. No. 7 Increasing the distance between buildings . to allow s~,~,~ e natul^al light'i_nto'the'cot~a~rd ori~the three story structure. Jim Rubin said they had already agreed to do this. PF7C Meeting Minutes 5-22-?9 Page Five Na. 8 Re-design landscape plan to include a rribre c~,,~~~hensive landscape program. Jim Rubin said the developer is in the pxocess of having this done. No. 9' Driveway slopes not to exceed'8%. Jim Rubin said they agreed to this. No. l0 The minor changes in the locatiaai of buildings ~ in both Phase I and Phase II as will be indicated on the revised site plan. Jim Rubin said they had agreed to this. In addition to the above the Staff also rec~.ested that the general contractor submit engineering drawings for all retaining walls on the site signed by a licensed structural engineer. They also requested that ixtmediate attention be given to the obtaining of a Street Cut P~~,,,lt from the Colorado State Highway Department. Jim Rubin said they had agreed to the above additions. GG.~sy White made a motion to approve the Second Phase of a Devela~,„~~,t Plan for ~nployee Housing Located on Lots C1 through C5 of Lionsridge, Filing No. 1, . Located along the North Frontage Road subject to the conditions set forth in the Department of C.A,..,~xnity Develu~,,,,~~~t msno dated 5-].5-79. Roger Tilkerneier seconded the rr~tion. (This excludes and changes numbers 5 and 6 as mentioned above.) The vote was unanimous. 4.) Rezoning of the Val d'Gore PropG,. f,y Laxry Rider exp~a~ned the rezoning and the reasons for it as also discussed in the department memorandum. There was a discussion. Roger Tilkc-~rieier made a motion to a~.~.~~~e the rezoning .~.~~,,,~ .Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multi Family (M€.~') with the stipulation that once the mortgage is paid for, the zoning be changed to PUD. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was five for the approval and one against. Ron Todd voted against the rezoning. 5.) Amendment to Zoning Ordinance concerning a`tninimum lot size for duplexes in ~ Family'Residential and Two~Farnily Prinrary7Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Jim Rubin explained that they would like to change this zoning so that it is more in confo.nce with the County's and with the new duplex lots created in the To+~m of Vail. He further explained that it had been initiated i.n discussing potential zoning for the Matterhorn Area. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance as rec~,a,~L~ded in the Department of C~,,.,tanity Develo~nent ,t,~„~ dated May 17, 1979. PEC Meeting Minutes-5-22-79 Page Six G~~.~~ White seconded the motion. The vote was four in favor of the motion and two opposed. Ron Todd and Jim Morgan voted against the motion, stating their opinions that this was another do~cm zoning and was unfair to those people who have undeveloped lots of less than 15,QOO squaxe feet in either of the two duplex zones. Rogex Tilkemeier made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Jim Morgan seconded. The vote was unanztnous. The meeting tiva.s adjourned at 6:10 P.M. • MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 15, 1979 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE SECOND PRASE OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING LOCATED ON LOTS C1 THROUGH C5 OF LIONSRIDGE, FILING N0. 1, LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD. STATISTICS APPLICANT: Jay Peterson AREA: 10.05 Acres ZONING: Special Development District EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant PROPOSED USE: 198 two-bedroom rental units for employees REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting approval of Phase II of the Lionsridge . Employee Housing Development containing 96 units, and 110 parking spaces. BACKGROUND: On May 1, 1979, the Town Council gave approval for the developer to begin site work and to pour foundations far Phase I, but not to proceed beyond that stage. The Council withheld final approval for Phase I until a joint meeting could be scheduled with the Design Review Baard. A tentative time of 2 P.M. on Wednesday, May 23 has been set for this meeting. SITE PLAN: In Phase II, there are 96 two bedroom dwelling units and 110 parking spaces. This results in a total of 198 units and 297 parking spaces for the entire project or 1.5 parking spaces per unit ratio as required by ordinance. Phase TT consists of three "A" Buildings, three "B" Buildings, and one "C" Building. These seven buildings are located on the Western end of the site. About half of Phase IT is located behind the knoll which runs along the Frontage Road at the Western end of the property. This end of the property has numerous aspen trees, and the general contractor has stated that he will take every precaution to save as many as possible. Memo to PEC 5-15-79 • Page Two-Gl-G5 In looking at the layout of the buildings in Phase II, it is our recommendation that the site plan with some minor modifi- cations be approved. The slope on this part of the site is not as severe as that in some sections of Phase T. The m:.nor modifications that have been discussed and have met with the approval of the general contractor will reduce the severity of the cuts into the hillside and the resulting retaining walls. Many of the comments for Phase I also apply to Phase II. These include the provision of trash enclosures, the provision of an internal circulation system and a sidewalk along the Frontage Road, the provision of a retaining wall along Lionsride Loop, the treatment of the the retaining walls, the addition of windows on the South side of Building 8, a more extensive landscaping plan, and all driveway slopes not to exceed S~. There have also been some minor changes to Phase I, which again result in the decrease in the size of the cuts and the retaining walls along the ~Jorthern hillside. These changes were made in walking the site with the general contractor once the buildings had been staked. There will probably be other minor modification as site work progresses, which we . feel will result in a better project. We appreci-ate the cooper- ation that we have received from the general contractor in his willingness to work with us on the site plan. RECaMME1~DATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of Phase II of the Lionsridge Employee Ffousing Development with the following conditions: 1.) Department approval of the location and design of trash containers. 2.) Construction of an internal sidewalk-and an off-set sidewalk along the Frontage Road. 3.) Construction of a bus pull-off area and shelter. Applicant should work with Jon Eberle concerning location and specification. 4.7 Special treatment of the concrete retaining walls. 5.) Construction of protective wall along Lionsridge Loop. • Memo to PEC • 5-i5-T9 Page Three-Cl-C5 6.) Adding windows to the west blank wall of the three story structures with views to the west. 7.) Increasing the distance between buildings to allow more natural light into the courtyard on the three story structure. 8.) Re-design landscape plan to include a more comprehensive landscape program. 9.} Driveway slopes not to exceed 8%. 10.} The minor changes in the location of buildings in both Phases T and II as will be indicated on the revised site plan. In addition to these general conditions, we would request that the general contractor submit engineering drawings for ail retaining walls on the site signed by a licensed structural engineer. We would also request that immediate attention be given to the obtaining of a Street Cut Permit from the Colorado State Highway Department. • • ME MORAN DU M T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Dept. of Community Development/Jim Rubin DATE: May 17, 1979 SUBJECT: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance concerning a minimum lot size for duplexes in Two Family Residential and Two Family Primary/ Secondary Residential Zone Districts. At the present time, any lot in a Two Family Residential or Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, regard]ess of its. size is permitted two dwelling units. This is contrary to zoning in Eagle County, where 8,000 square feet of site area is needed per unit and to any new lots in the Town of Vail where 17,500 square feet is required in a Two Family Residential zone district and 75,000 square feet, in a Two Family Primary/Secondary Zone District. The objective of this Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to allow only one single family residential unit on lots in either of the two duplex zone districts on Tots of less than 15,000 square feet. This would prevent people from trying to squeeze two units on smaller lots which can and does happen at the present time. • In the existing Town, there are approximately 110 lots that would be impacted by this Amendment. About 50% of these lots are under 12,000 square feet with 57% of them currently developed. Of the ones that are developed, 60% of them are single family units with the remaining 40% being duplexes. In the Matterhorn area that has petitioned for annexation, 14 of the 24 lots or 58% are under 15,000 square feet. The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance are as follows: Section 7: Section 18.12.090 Density Control is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.12.090 DENSITY CONTROL (Two Family Residential District) Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than 15,000 square feetland not more than 25 square feet of gross residen- tial floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet for the first 15,000 square feet of site area, plus not more than l0 square feet of gross residen- tial floor area shall be permitted for each • 100 square feet of site area over 15,000 square feet not to exceed 30,000 Square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each 100 square feet of site area in • Memo to PEC 5-17-79 Page Two --Amendment to Zoning Ordinance excess of 30,000 square feet. No two family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalance zone, or the flood. plain, or those ofless than 15,000 square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family dwelling. Section 2: Section 18.13,080 Density Control (Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential District) • 18.13.080 DENSITY CONTROL(Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential District} -Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site, with only ane dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than 15,000 square feet' and not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA} shall be permitted for each 100 square feet for the first 15,000 square feet of site area, plus. not more than 10 square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area over 15,000 square feet not to exceed 30,000 square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross res- idential floor area for-each 100 square feet of site area in excess of 30,000 square feet. No two family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the flood plain, or those of less than 15,000 square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family Primary/. Secondary Residential Dwelling. • MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE : MAY 18, 1979 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF' APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR PARCEL A OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOUR (SD4), AND THE ADDITION OF ONE ACRE OF LAND TO THIS DISTRICT. STATISTICS APPLICANT: Andrew Norris II, Mansfield Corporation NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: Mansfield Village AREA: 17.82 Acres ZONING: 16.82 Acres-Special Development District Faur (SD4) One Acre-Residential Cluster (RC) REQUEST The Applicant is requesting approval of the addition of one acre to the Special Development District Four (SD4) and approval of site plan that contains the following uses: A. Wote1 63,700 square feet-125 rooms Restaurant 3,500 square feet-88 seats Coffee Shop $00 square feet-20 seats Lobby Shops 2,400 square feet Conference Facility 8,000 square feet-banquet facilities for 250 people Service Area 9,800 square feet B. Learning-.Center Complex Retail Space-11,800 square feet Colorado Mtn. College-10,200 square feet Colorado Mtn. College/Free Enterprise-6,800 square feet Library-7,700 square feet Sports Dimension-1,500 square feet Auditorium-3,800 square feet Meeting Rooms-3,800 square feet Condominiums (4)-6,400 square feet . C. Village Square Condominiums Retai 1-4,200 square feet Condominiums {11}-17,600 square feet Memo to PEC 5-18-79 • Page Two-Mansfield Village D. Stream Side Condominiums Condominiums (18)-30,600 square feet E. Owner-Occupied Condominiums Condominiums (34)-34,000 square feet F. Rental Units Apartments (32)-27,200 square feet G. Large Managed Condominiums Condominiums (28)-47,600 square feet H. Athletic Club Four Indoor Tennis Courts - Four Handball Courts indoor Swimming Pool I. Parking Structure 350 Spaces a. 100 Far Public Use b. 250 assigned for Hotel Complex J. Total Gross Area of Entire Project 1. Hotel & Service Area 123,000 2. Learning Center Complex 75,600 3. Village Square Condominiums 38,500 4. Stream Side Condominiums 74,000 5. Owner-Occupied Condominiums 54,400 6. Large Managed Condominiums 61,100 7. Athletic Club 47,400 8. Rental Units 27,200 9. Parking Structure 110,000 611,200 square feet K. Farkinc~ 1. Parking structure 350 spaces 2. Parking structure @ Large Condominiums 48 3. Under Hotel Service 8 4. Owner-Occupied Condos 50 5. Large Condominiums 6 6. Surface Guest Parking on entire site i0 7. Parallel parking-Temporary 16 488 spaces BACKGROUND . Town Council approved the Special De velopment District ordinance No. 5 in T976. The plan contained f our development areas: Coldstream with 45 units, Glen Lyon containing 52 primary/secondary du p1 ex lots, Glen Lyon Office Buildi ng Site, and the parcel under consideration in this request. Part of the purpose of the requirement Memo to PEC 5-18-79 Page Three-Mansfield Village of the Special Development District was to insure the quality of development and a1 so a111ow for some flexibility in the development of this parcel of land. In reviewing Special Development District Four (SD4}, the Community Development Department considers that the major provision which effects the site plan under consideration by the Planning Commission is the institutional or educational center. As defined in Special Develop- ment District Four (SD4}, the .Ordinance states: "Institutional or Education Center provided that if the center is constructed then the following shall be conditional uses in conjunction therewith; lodges including accessory eating and drinking or recreational establishments not occupying more than 20% of the gross floor area of the lodge to which it is an accessory." The other important section under conditional use is "B" which provides the definition of an institution or educational center and discussion of the efficiency dwelling units. The wording of "B" is as follows: "The term 'institutional or educational center' means a public or private institution for learning, instruction or continuing education. Such facilities may be utilized for seminars or educational programs and may include con- ference and meeting rooms, audio-visual facilities and necessary accessory useage such as dining rooms and efficiency dwelling units. The phrase 'efficiency dwelling units' means any room or group of rooms with- out full kitchen facilities, but which may include a refrigerator, sink, and cook top of no more than two heating units, designed for or adapted to occupancy by individuals attending th.e institutional or educational center. The efficiency dwelling units shall be access- ible from common corridors, walks or balconies without passing through another efficiency dwelling unit, accomodation unit or dwelling unit and each said unit shall not exceed four hundred square feet, and shall be considered in determining the total GRFA allowed. for each development area." Other aspects of the Ordinance that should be considered are density and dwelling units. Density Units-Development Area A-Shall not exceed 252 units Density Floor Area-the Gross Residential Floor Area of the development in Development Area A shall not exceed351 of the land area or 2fi9,480 square feet. This includes an allocation for the one acre parcel to be included in SD4 District based on the current zoning. Under the additional amenities section the developer shall provide adequate private transportation service to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the development to the Village Core Area and i.ionsyead area as outlined in the improved Memo to PFC 5-18-79 Page Fat;r -Mansfield Village development plan in the event Development Area A ar B are devel©ped • as an institutional or educational center. POLICY QUESTIONS Does the development of the property as proposed have an adverse impact on the Town of Vai 1 and/or LionsHead area? Does the Tawn support the development of a third village for Vail? Is the proposed learning center in conformance with the approved Special Development District Four (SD4}? The Community Development Department considers that the need for the amount of commercial space requested has not been ,justified. Proposed is 21,000 square feet of commercial type uses. For a development of this size, the amount of commercial space is not needed. In order to have commercial space as a viable economic enterprise, residents and tourist from other parts of the community will be a necessity. Additional automobiles will come to the site and impact the street system. The Department considers that there should only be sufficient commercial for the residents and tourists located in this overall Special Development District Four (SD4) development. By having the hotel, commercial space, learning center, auditorium, and recreation facilities at this location the Community Development Department considers that a third village will be formed. This will have an impact an the bus system, road system and other services within the community. The current link between Vail Village and LionsHead has not been well established. With the development of this Mansfield Village Area the ability to provide a good link between Vail Village, LionsHead and Mansfield Village will even be more difficult to establish. The Department is concerned with the impact that this development could have an LionsHead, as the Town is currently working with the merchants and residents of LionsHead to improve the economic viability of this area. Special Development District Four (SD4} clearly deals with the institutional ar educational center. The applicant is proposing several uses far this center which the Community Development Department considers does not have a direct relationship with the hotel. The conditional use section of the Special .Development District Four (SD4) c7 early states that if the center i.s con- structed then the fallowing shall be conditional uses in conjunction Memo to PEC 5-18-7'9 S Page Five-Mansfield Village therewith; lodges including accessory eating and drinking or recreation establishments, not occupying more than 20~ of the gross floor area of the lodge to w-hick it is an accessory. First, it is the opinion of the Community Develop- ment Department that the institution or educational center must be constructed before the lodge could be considered for construction at the site. Second, the Department considers that there must be a direct link between the lodge and learning center. From the information provided by the applicant at this time, the staff is concerned that this link might not be there. The uses that are proposed at the learning center are: Vail Public Library The original proposal had the Vail Public Library. Since that time the applicant has been notified that the Town of Vail is considering Site 24 as the location of the library, and will probably not consider the Vail Public Library at this site. Colorado Mountain College The Staff feels this is mostly for the local community • and the staff also questions whether people staying at the lodge would be using the Colorado Mountain College. Center for Study of Free Enterprise This has been defined as a proposal at this time and the staff is not clear as to what this center is and its relationship to the hotel. Sports Dimension This center would be a facility that would most likely not use the hotel to any great extent. Community Auditorium and Meeting Roams The auditorium and meeting room is a definite community need and is supported by the Department. The staff, however, questions why 8,000 square feet of conference facilities are being proposed at the hotel. The staff considers that the link between the hotel use and the learning center conference facility use has not been clearly established in the pooposal that has been presented at this time. Memo to PEC '~ 5-1$-79 Page Six_Mansfield Village SITE PLAN REVIEW The Site Plan as presented has many excellent features. These include the waterways going through the project, the creation of many exciting plazas and public open spaces, and the place- ment of buildings and the mixture of uses on the site. The overall plan, as presented, is obviously the result of a great deal of thought and experimentation, There are, however, a couple of areas that we feel still need further study. The first and most important one is the general circulation of automobiles onto and through the site. The present design indicates only one access point for both this project, Coldstream, and the Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary duplex lots. This one access point will serve almost 400 units at total bui1dout with all the traffic from Glen Lyon home sites and Cold- stream being circulated through the Mansfield Village Project. We would suggest that ~-. - a second access. point for the Coldstream and Glen Lyon Developments be considered. We also feel that there could be real problems at the inter- section of the access road with the South Frontage Road. The South Frontage Road will experience a mgjor increase in traffic from the developments. We believe that a high percentage of people coming onto the site will be driving from the Vail Village area which will necessitate a left turn across the Frontage Road. To minimize possible traffic build up associated with this turning movement, we would suggest a left turn lane and also the possibility of an accelleration/decelleration lane on the South side of the Frontage Road. A third concern is the access onto the excluded one acre parcel. There were two approximately one acre parcels that were not Included in the original Special Development District. One parcel has been successfully acquired, but the other one remains owned by separate ownership. This parcel is in a Residential Cluster zone, with the possibility for six units. There is no designated access far this parcel and we believe that the proposed access is through an underground service garage. We do not believe this access to be satisfactory. Fourthly, we question. the overall size structure and the Hotel in realtionship other buildings on the site, anal to the street. Amassing model is being preps on Tuesday. This will hopefully assist and responding to these relationships. and mass of the parking to the Frontage Road, to duplex lots across the red and will be presented us in better reviewing Memo to PEC 5-18-7'9 Page Seven-Mansfield Village Lastly, there does not seem to be an area provided on the site for outdoor recreational use and activity. We feel on a site that is this densely developed that there should be a designed outdoor recreational area. The pathways and bicycle path connecting the various parts of the site and the health club present some excellent recreational amenities. We suggest that an outdoor recreational site should also be included and would be a real attribute to the site. Our overall impression is that the site is we11 planned. With some refinement as discussed through our comments, we feel that it could be even better. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposal subject to the conditions noted below. The concerns and pal icy questions raised in this memorandum need to be addressed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. R major concern of the Department is the amount and .types of development on this site. The square feet of commercial space proposed has not been justified. There seems to be substantially more commerical space proposed than needed for a 150 room hotel, condominiums, sales units, and rental units along with a learning center and recereation facility. In addition the types of commercial .uses within Mansfield Village should only be complimentary to Mansfield Village. The Department recommends no more than 10,000 square feet of commercial type uses. Another concern is with the types of uses proposed at the learning center, and the re altionship between the center and hotel. It is clear to the Departm3nt that the ordinance states that the learning center must be constructed in conjunction with and for the primary use of the learning center. From the uses proposed to date for the fearing center, only the Free Enterprise Center seems to have a direct relationship to the hotel. The Department considers that this tie must be stronger to have this area function as proposed under the ordinance. The Department also recommends that the 8,000 square feet conference facility of the hotel not be constructed. Multi- use of the learning center area would be a positive aspect in reinforcing the center. s • Memo to PEC ' 5-18-79 Page Eight-Mansfield Village Specifically, we would request the following information and revisionsas a condition of this recommended approval: 1.} Revised plans showing the reduced amount of Commercial Square Footage. 2.) More specific information on the proposed users of the Learning Center Space. 3.} A mare detailed description of the relationship of the hotel to the learning center. 4.} A Development Schedule 5.) Dedication of Stream Tract and Easement for Bicycle Path 6.) Two points of access, left hand turning lane, and an acceleration and decelleration lane along Frontage Road 7.} An offset sidewalk along Frontage Road 8.) An outside Recreational Area 9.) A driveway permit from the State Highway Department 10.} A Bus Shelter and Turnaround, with the ,design to be approved by the staff. 11.) Satisfactory access to the excluded lot. • MEMORANDUM . T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: STATISTICS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/JIM RUSTN May 17, 1979 Rezoning of the Val d'Gore Property Applicant: Town of Vail Area: Two Acres Toning Existing: Residential Cluster Zoning Proposed: Medium Density, Multi-Family Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Greenbelt REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting the rezoning of two acres of the 7.786 acre parcel commonly known as the Val d'Gore property. These two acres are proposed to be placed in a Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMf) lone District with a maximum allowable density of 25 units. This rezoning request is for the sole purpose of providing security for the financial institution that is financing the purchase of this property. BACY.GROUND The Town of Vail has purchased the 7.786 acre Val d'Gore parcel just East of Katsos, Due to time commitments involved in the purchase, the Town has entered into an agreement with E.F. Hutton to provide the financing for the purchase of the property. To comply with the terms of this agreement, a two acre parcel has been designated on which 25 units could be placed if and only if the Town of Vail defaults on its pay- ments on this property. Another part of this agreement is that the zoning on the property will become Public Use District (PUD) when the mortgage has been completely paid off. If the payments are in default, the a11ow- able density will be based only on that part of the land that remains unpaid at that time. • PEC Memo 5-i7-79 Val d'Gore Page Two RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this rezoning request with the conditions that the zoning become PUD (Public Use District} when the property is completely paid off and that if default occurs, that the .density will be based only on the unpaid part of the property. n MEMORANDUM TQ: THE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RICHARD CAPLAN, TOWN MANAGER ~•~~ DATE: 1`7 MAY 1979 RE: CONSIDERATION OF TIME--SHARING ORDINANCES The purpose of this memorandum is to provide some background information regarding the adoption of Ordinances regulating time-sharing. Larry Rider and myself have had several discussions regarding the best approach to address these issues. In fact, there are three separate issues which need to be addressed, (1) time sharing; (2} interval ownership; (S) fractionalization. A wore basic issue relates to the possibility of prohibiting the types of uses versus strictly regulating such uses. Because of the lack of legal ,jurisdiction which municipalities or counties have in this area, it is recommended that we approach the issue in a strong regulatory fashion rather than prohibition. This has been the approach taken in the Aspen and Pitkin County areas. As these are three separate legal issues, it also maybe best to approach them with separate ordinances. We are now finalizing some draft ordinances and/or regulatory provisions which will address each of these issues. It is hoped that this memorandum will clarify that issue. Also, attached for your information is a copy of a previous memo from Larry Rider to reiterate some of the issues associated with each of these concerns. It is anticipated that we will bring these matters to you for further discussion and consideration in the next few weeks. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGERDA 6-12-79 • • 1.} Parcel A, Bighorn Subdivision, Parcel A Bighorn 1st Addition Linda Lovejoy requesting resubdivision. To be published in Vail Trail June 8, 1979 Gave to Joe at Vail Trail over the phone MEMORANDUM • ~1 ~.J TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JIM ROBIN/DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~~~ ~~ DATE: 6~8-79 RE: June 12 Planning Commission Meeting We have no official agenda for Tuesday. However, we would like you to meet here at 2:30 as we are going to have a joint meeting with the Eagle County Planning Commission, We hope you will all be able to attend. caj s" PI.ANNTNG AND ~NUFRONMENTA~ COMMISSION AGFf~DR June 26, 1979 • 1.) Dave Gorsuch-Variance Reguest for the Height of a Stucco Wall on the Front of his Property 2.} Gore Creek Park-Subdivision and Rezoning 3.} Woodridge Townhouses-P1at Approval 4.) Gore Va11ey Open Space Plan 5.} Discussion of Street Vending Operations in CCI and CCII 6.} Discussion of Revisions to Sign Cade :7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA June 2fi , 1979 1.} Gore Creek Park-Subdivision and Rezoning 2,} Woodridge Townhouses-Plat Approval 3,) Gore Valley Open Space Plan 4.) Discussion of Street Pending Operations in CCI and CCII ~.) Discussion of Revisions to Sign Code r~ To be published in Pail Trail 6-22-69 • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting 6 -26 79 Not yet approved by Planning and Environmental Commission Members Present Gerry White Jack Goehl Jim Morgan Ron Todd Roger Tilkemeier Ed Drager Staff Present Jim Rubin Dick Ryan Members Absent Sandy Mills 1.} Dave Gorsuch-Variance Request for the Height of Stucco Wall on Front of his property. Jim Rubin explained the staff memo, staff recommendations, and history of this matter. Dave Gorsuch added his comments. He said he is not happy with the handling of this by the staff. He said the wall was approved by the Design Review Board last September and he went ahead with the plans this winter arranging fora contractor etc. He did not know there was any problem until they began construction this Spring. He said he had not applied fora variance but it had been a staff recommendation to clear up the matter once and for all. He said Gordon Pierce's office drew the plans and presented it for him without any problems. Jim Rubin said he was on vacation at the time and Julia Takihashi, a staff member at the time, did tell the Board that there were no zoning problems. George Morgan, a neighbor, gave .his comments. He said they objected when they first learned of the wall but feel since the six foot wall on the side is legal, they would rather see a six foot wall all the way around instead of six foot on the sides and 3Z foot in the front. Gerry White said the Planning and Environmental Commission is not the Design Review Board and should not get involved in the Design of the wall. He also felt that if the wall is approved, a precedent would be set. Ron Todd said the wall was approved by DRB and he felt that was a goad enough reason to make an exception in this case. . Mr. Gorsuch said he did not know ahead of time that staff was going to recommend denial of this variance request and had he known, he would have obtained ]egal council. He also said he can a1 ways just build the wa11 without approval. PEC minutes-6-26-79-Page Two . Jim Morgan said he feels Mr. Gorsuch should prove the hardship involved. Jim Rubin explained that he requested the variance on behalf of Mr. Gorsuch and that the Town Attorney advised him it could be done on a short notice. Mr. Gorsuch said that staff advised him that the variance had been requested for approval and he did not learn of the denial recommendation until ten minutes before the meeting. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the variance fora six foot wall on the Dave Gorsuch property on Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley 1st Filing with the stipulation that this does not set a precedent but is merely to accommodate a series of errors by the staff. Ran Todd seconded the motion. The vote was five for approval and Jim Morgan abstained. 2.) Gore Creek Park-Subdivision and Rezoning of Parcel A Bighorn Subdivision and Parcel A Bighorn First Addition. Jim Rubin explained that this is a.down zoning from 26 units. to l4 units. He said there were access problems but that the access problems as well as the water and sewer problems were taken care of already. Jay Peterson, representing the developers, explained the project to the Board and answered their questions regarding the sewer, high water levels, • etc. He said that one piece of the development will be dedicated to the Town. A 6Q foot section of that piece will be held back temporarily to see if it is needed by the gas company. Gerry White made a motion for approval of the rezoning of Parcel A Bighorn Subdivision and Parcel A Bighorn First. Jack Goeh1 seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. Gerry White made a motion for approval of the resubdivision of Parcel A Bighorn Subdivision and Parcel A Bighorn lst subject to the comments of Jay Peterson regarding the retention of the 60 foot piece of land temporarily in case it is needed by the gas company. lack Goeh1 seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3.} Woodridge Townhouses-Plat Approval Jim Rubin and Duane Piper explained this project. xt was brought to the Planning and Environmental Commission for the elimination of lot lines and-was approved. This .was done so they could place the buildings in the open spaces and not cut down trees. The plans were then approved by the Design Review Board. Jim Rubin explained that this is again coming to Planning and Environmental Commission for approval of the plat. . There was a short discussion. Ed Draper asked what control there is to insure the buildings wi17 be constructed as planned. Jim Rubin said they will have to do as they presented to the Design Review Board. • • PEC minutes--6-26-79-Page Three Cd Drager said he feels in the future more stringent criteria should be set to have controls other than Design Reveiw Board. Ron Todd made a motion to approve the Woodridge Townhouse Plat as presented at this meeting. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Items four through ,seven were discussion (non-voting) items, and, therefore, no minutes were taken. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTRL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 6W22-79 RE: REZONING AND SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A BIGHORN SUBDIVISION AND PARCEL A BIGHORN 1ST ADDITION Linda Lovejoy, President of Concepts International, has requested a rezoning and Subdivision of the above mentioned Property. The rezoning is from Residential Cluster (RC) to Two Family Residential (R) with the creation of seven duplex lots on this 4.4 acre parcel. This would result in a maximum of 14 units, instead of the 26 units previously permitted under Residential Cluster. The Subdivision has been .reviewed by the Department of Community Development and the Town Engineer and meets with their approval. This is a voluntary reduction of 12 units which also meets with our approval. fie, therefore, recommend approval of bath the subdivision and rezoning requests. • MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 6-22-79 RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FROM DAVE GORSUCH TO ALLOW A STUCCO WALL IN EXCESS OF THREE FEET ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF HIS RESIDENCE, LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 2, VA IL VALLEY 15t FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Variance Request is fora Stucco Wall six feet in height with two gates approximately seven feet in height. This matter did go to the Design Review Board in September of 1978 and was unanimously approved by them as presented. It was presented to them by Julia Takahashi who was then on the Town Staff and was not aware of the Toning Restriction which limits the height of this wall. In May of 1979, at about the time when construction was to start, Mrs. Morgan, the next door neighbor, was informed about the wall and called the Building Department. It was then that T became aware that it had been erroneously approved by the Design Review Board. Appeal was then filed by the Morgans protesting the height of the Wall on the side which faces their house. On the side, however the wall is allowed to be six feet in height, which it was designed to be, The Council therefore, did not officially hear the appeal. The Variance before you at the present time is to allow the wall to be built as it was originally designed and originally approved by the Design Review Board. 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.. The intent of the Height restriction on walls is to prevent people from building high solid walls along the street frontage. In this area of Town, there are open vistas i•rom the street onto and through the various homesites. There are very few walls, if any, which extend mare than three feet high within a front setback area. PEC NlEMD-Gorsuch Mall 6-22-79 Page Two n 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. To ~ knowledge, a wall along the front setback line in excess of three feet in height has never been brought before the Planning Commission. There also does not seem to be any specific reason for approving this wall, especially with there being a regulation which directly prohibits it. Approval of this application would seta precedent for other walls of this type. 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 forsee 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. 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 not 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: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 8. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • PEC DEMO-Gorsuch Wall 6-22-19 Page Three RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development recommends denial of this application. There was a mistake made by this department when the application was originally presented to the Design Review Board. We, however, believe that there are not sufficient grounds to approve this application. There was a compromise (that is enclosed) that I made when this mistake had been brought to my attention. We believe that the wall should be redesigned to meet these specifications. MEMORANDUM T0: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR/JIM RUBIN DATE: June 5, 1979 RE: APPEAL FROM MR. AND MRS. GEORGE MDRGAN ON A STAFF APPROVAL OF A STUCCO WALL ON THE GORSUCH PRDPFRTY BACKGROUND On September 2l, 1978, the Design Review Board gave approval to the Gorsuchs for a Stucco Wa11 to go .across the front of their property and extending a little way around the two sides. The wa71 as it was approved at this time was to be six feet in height with pillars and gates slightly in excess of six feet at the driveway and walking access points. On May 23, 1979, I was informed that Mrs. Morgan had call the Building Department wanting to know if Dave Gorsuch was permitted to construct this six feet wall. It was at this time that I first saw the plans, and realized that an error had been made. The Zoning Ordinance clearly states in Section 1$,58.020C that no wall shall exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area. This section also states that the wall can be no greater than six feet in height in any required side or rear setback. I then informed Dave Gorsuch that the wall could not exceed three feet along his front property line. After further discussion, we reached a compromise that would allow the wall along the front property line to be no greater than 3~ feet. I felt that the 3~ feet was acceptable due to the error that had been made when it was presented to the Design Review Board in September. On May 24, 1979, I gave Dave Gorsuch Staff approval to proceed with his wall according to the amended plan. On June 1, 1979, a letter [which is enclosed} was received from the Morgans which appealed my administrative decision. What was appealed was only the six foot wall on the side which faces their front entry way. In meeting with the Morgans yesterday at their house on Cabin Circle, it was shown to me that the view from their front entryway would be considerably blocked by this six foot wa17. Part of the problem, according to the Morgans, is the closeness of the Gorsuch garage to their property line. (A previous variance permitted the garage to be within 5~ feet of the property line}, RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development believes that a compromise solution is recommended. We feel that the wall at 6 feet high would be detrimental to the Morgans views from their front entryway. We, however, also feel that a privacy wa71 is a permissable use. Our recommendation is for a L' Memo to Town Council 6-5-79~Gorsuch Wall Page Two wall along the ~[orth-West side of 3~ feet in height. This will also goes along the front. This- wall a garage and really does not provide Dave ~or.such's lot which is not to exceed fit in better with the 3~ foot wa17 which t this location just runs adjacent to the privacy from the house itself. • f 1 ti June 1, 1979 Mr. & Mrs. Gearge A. Morgan 1183 Cabin Circle P. ~. Box 9b8 Vail, Colo. 8165? 476-4427 Honorable Mayor Rod Slifer Vail Town Council Gentlemen & Madam: We wish to offically protest the desire of Mr. & Mrs. David Gorsuch whose home is located at 1193 Cabin Circle to erect a six-foot concrete wall (in height) facing our Front Entry of our new home located at 1183 Cabin Circle. ire feel that ,this wall will be an unsightly deter~aent to our property. The height is overbearing and the appearance from our properly would be "prison-like". This type of wall is used frequently as a Privacy Wa l1 against a busy thorn-fare, its appearance inside is a benefit to the owner and a disaster to all on the other side. Thanking you in advance for your immedia to attention to the above matter, we remain, Sincerely Mr. & Mrs. George A. Morgan cc: Jay Peterson George A. Morgan v< ~~ ~ -- Mary Jane Morgan ~,i'l~i „~~~..~ U . State of Colorado, County of Eayle The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1st of June 1979, by George A. Morgan and Mary Jane Morgan. 6ditness my hand and official seal, My commission expires,,, ~,~;~~,~uSSiflt~ e~jle5 fleCemb@~ 8s 1982 ~. ~ ~ /j . y Notary Publa.c PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 7-l 0-74 1.) Rezoning request for the one acre unplatted "Getty Oil Site'.' in Bighorn from Heavy Service (HS) to Medium Density Multi- Family (MDMF) through the Special Development District Process. 2.) Request from Gordan Pierce for a Rear Setback Variance on Lot l4, Bloc~C 3, Vail Valley First Filing. 3.) Conditional Use Permit Request for Cyranno's Restaurant located in the Gondola Ski Shop Building on Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. 4,) Tyrolean Inn Condominium Plat Lot Line Vacation planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of the Meeting of July 1D, 1979 Not. Yet Approved by the Commission Members Present Jim Morgan Ed Drager Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Ron Todd Members Not Present Sandy Mi11s lack Goehl Staff Members Present Jim Rubin Dick Ryan (part of the meeting) Since there was no one present to represent the first item on the agenda, it was agreed to postpone it until later in the meeting. 2.) Request from Gordon. Pierce for a Rear Setback Variance on Lot 14, Block 3; Vail Valley First~Filinq Jim Rubin explained the staff feelings on this item. The request is far a variance to add a sun room to the Pierce residence which would be in a setback area. Jim Rubin said that to approve a variance., a hardship must be shown and that staff has- recommended denial in this case as they feel there is no hardship. Gordon Pierce made his presentation, shaving the site plan, etc. There is no visual impact. He is well within the allowable GRFA. Mr. Pierce mentioned that when they built the house, they situated it to save the trees. If they had placed it in the best place and cut down trees, they would not have a setback problem now. Gerry White said he feels there is less visual impact adding the sun room where Mr. Pierce is suggesting than any other part of the house. Roger Tilkemeier said he feels that technically the staff is correct that there is no hardship but that one of the purposes of the Planning and Environmental Commission is to override the decisions of the staff and he made a motion to approve the request from Gordon Pierce for a Rear Setback Variance on Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Ron Todd seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. • PEC Minutes 7-10-79-Page Two 3.) Conditional Use Permit Request for C.yranno's Restaurant located in the Gondola Ski Shop Bldg: on Lot C; Block~2; Vail Village First~Filinq. Mark Donaldson and Jerry Grevin made the presentation. The granting of past variances was discussed by the Soard. Jerry Grevin said that even if this Conditional Use Permit is passed, Cyranno's wi71 have to go before the Town Council concerning the parking requirements and land lease that the that they currently have with the Town. Jerry Grevin mentioned that this past winter Cyranna's had two hour waiting times for dinner. They turned away as .many people as they fed. Gerry White asked if they allow this enclosure of patios, where does it all stop? Pepi's, the Red Lion, and everyone else will want to do the same thing. Jim Rubin said at the time of the Schober Addition, he felt that . the Planning and Environmental- Commiss-ion had decided to look at each case individually for impact etc. Roger Tilkemeier said he felt there is a need for more restaurant space in Vail and that this will help meet those needs. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Perm it ,Request for Cyranno's Restaurant located in the Gondola Ski Shop Building on Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Ron Todd seconded the motion. There was more discussion. Gerry White said that he thinks by allowing Cyranno's to double the floor area of their restaurant, the Board is setting a very poor precedent. They won't be able to refuse other restaurants such as Pepi's and the Red Lion. Ed Draper said he thinks we should try to maintain the existing character of the core area and by enclosing the balconies we will be doing away with the existing character. Jim Morgan agreed that the character would be changed and he suggested only enclosing the front balcony and_part of the back. Jerry Grevin did not make any comments on that. PEC Minutes . 7-10-79 Page Three Jim Rubin reiterated that at the time of the Schober Building Addition, it was his feeling that the Planning and Environmental Commission decided not to freeze expansion. Conditional Uses do not set precedents. Jim also said that niether of the Cyranno`s balconies are on street level and because of that the enclosures would have less impact. Jerry Grevin said he doesn't think that. the issue is whether to enclose the balconies but how they p1 an to do it. They will all be glass and try to maintain the outdoor atmosphere as much as possible. Dick Ryan said that at the Improve Vail Workshops the Participants felt that some expansion is acceptable but that a preservation zone should be established for areas such as Bridge Street. Dick said a study is being done on this but it will not be completed until October or November. Ed Drager urged the Board to deny this and called fora vote on the motl on , Roger Tilkemeier and Ron Todd voted for approval of the Conditional • Use Permit. Jim Morgan, Ed Drager, and Gerry White voted against the motion. The request was denied. Ed Drager told Mr. Grevin that he has the right to appeal this decision to the Town Council. The Board Members who voted for denial of the request gave their reasons. Ed Drager said he feels the expansion has too much impact an the existing character of the Village. This area need to be preserved and a moritorium should be placed on expansion until the Planning Study is completed. Jim Morgan said he feels that improvement should be done on Cyranno's but doesn't feel enclosing both balconies is the .answer. Gerry White said he feels that because more-people are coming into the Community and the Village cannot support them is not a good enough reason to double the size o.f. Cyranno's. He feels it would just create more problems in terms of air po71ution, traffic etc. l.) Rezoning request for the one acre unplatted~"Getty 0i1 Site" in Bighorn from Heavy Service tHS~ to Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF) through the Special Developr~ent District Process. Jim Rubin explained the .Staff Comments on this item. Heavy Service does not allow residential use. Pitkin Creek Park is next to this parcel. It has 9000 square feet of commercial- space so the staff felt no more commercial space was needed. Town Council did not feel there was a need fora gas station when Pitkin Creek Park was ''~~ planned. Therefore, the Staff recommended that this combination of PEC Minutes 7-10-79 Page Four office and residential use. The staff did not see the revised site plan presented at the meeting. Jim Rubin pointed out that if the rezoning is approved.the developers would have to come back to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval of the development plan. Jim Morgan said he feels just office space would be a much better use. Roger Tilkemeier said he does not recommend going from a nan- residentiai to a residential zone district. He would like to see office space or even a gas station. Jim Rubin said the .staff felt all office space or commercial space would have too much of an impact. Jay Peterson representing Pitkin Greek Park said he feels the residential units being requested. .are too large and are not in conformance with Pitkin Greek Park. Jay said they do not object to residential use if in the right amount but do abject • to office space. Ed Drager said if residential usage were allowed he doesn't think they should be liven the maximum allowable. Roger Ti1kemeier said he felt that allowing residential here is not in keeping with the downzoining the Town is doing. Ron Todd said he agrees that allowing residential use is not in character with the down zoning the Town is trying to do. Jim Morgan said he is in favor of all office space and. no residential. Ed Drager siad he feels the residential use is not in character with the area. Any housing that is allowed should be long term rental or employee housing. The Board asked Fritz Glade., the applicant, if he would like to postpone this request and he agreed. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve postponement of this request until the next meeting. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote- was unanimous. Bill Wilto was in the audience and said he would like it to be on record that he is not in favor of a gas station or any othe r commercial space there. • pEC Minutes 7-10-79 Page Five 4.) Tyrolean Inn Condominium Plat Lot Line Vacation. Jim Rubin presented the site plan. Roger Til~emeier made a motion to approve the Tyrolean Inn Condominium Plat Lot Line Vacation as presented. Ron Todd seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Ed Drager made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00. • • r „_ .~~ ~~ Ta FROM: DATE: 5UBJECT: M~MaRA~DUM Town Council Dick Ryan, Jim Rubin, Dept. of Community Development June 15, 1979 Proposed Open Space Pi an for the Gore Valley The Town of Vail over the past few years has been extremely farsighted in having made important open space acquisitions. Even with this effort several key open space parcels identified in 1977 are developed or under- development. Under Town control at the present time are approximately 288.97 acres of park and open space land. The first major acquisition was Ford Park back in 1973. Since that time, the Town has acquired several key parcels of land such as the Katsas property along Gore Creek. As development continues to occur in the Gore Valley, it is extremely important to acquire additional open space and park land. Preserving the natural beauty and amenities in the Gore Valley, and providing park land must be an important priority of the Town. Without the adequate open space and park land the experience of Vail will be deminished for the tourist and resident. In the "Citizens Goals Committee Report: proposed goals and objectives for Vail under Natural Environment had the following goal and objectives that relate to open space. "Goal: To Enhance and maintain our natural environment to optimal aesthetic and health standards, minimize adverse impacts resulting from urbanization and eliminate deteriorating environmental situations or processes in order to achieve a community supportive of psychological, physiological, and sociological growth. Open Spaces Objective: ..A. Growth and development of the Gore Valley should include the acquisition of as many natural open space areas throughout the valley as economically and politically feasible. Ecosystems Objective: ..A. Inventory and preserve the natural environment and ecological communities that comprise the ecosystems of the Gore and Upper Eagle Valleys and develop strategies for environmental management that set an example of compatible coexistence between man and nature. • ~I~mo to Town Council ", 6-15-79 - Open Space Page Two • Aesthetics ..A. Establish the 'visual landscape' both natural and urban, as a basic resource to receive equal consideration with the other basic resources of of the land. ~lildl ife Objective: ..A. Take positive steps and develop policies to prevent the wildlife habitat in and around the Gore and Upper Eagle Valleys from being adversely affected by urbanization and industrialization." Over the past two months, the Community Development Department has been reviewing land that could be designated open space and park land. The Department considered the following purposes in updating the open space plan for the Gore Valley. 1. Preserve visual and scenic areas within the Gore Valley. 2. Provide areas of active recreation for the residents within the neighborhoods and total community. 3. Preserve environmentally sensitive areas that have steep slopes, potential hazard areas, for example, flood plains and avalanche areas, unusual flora and/or fauna, wildlife habitat or fragile ecosystems. 4. Uti1ixe open meadows for special definition with developed areas. Using the above purposes, the Community Development Department has identified 26 parcels of land, containing approximately 560 acres within the Gore Valley. A map showing the location of these properties will be presented at the work session on June 19, 1979 for your review and comment. A similar list of land to consider for open space acquisition was presented to Town Council in 1977. Development plans have been approved on 13 of the 24 parcels that were on the original list. Of the 260 acres that were to be acquired, only 85 acres remain undeveloped at this time. Immediate attention is needed to acquire key parcels of land for open space, before the opportunity is lost as development takes place. The Community Development Department is reviewing methods of obtaining open space. A combinatin of the following will be necessary to have open space under Town control. ~~ ,e Memo to Town Council 6-15-79 -Open Space page Three * Continued rise of sales tax * Real Estate Transfer Tax * Transfer development rights * Purchase development rights * Gifts * Dedications • • • TI ~ C70 TIC -i 'i'i ~ Cn (/7 7C N ~ ~ 7C C O ~ J -+• fy 'S r. tL C7.. 7C Q+ O A~ O ¢ j a ~- n ~. J ~ r.-~ o ~ -~ ~ tQ. m o ~- ~ ' ~ ~ o '.., ~ o -+, ~' t~ • to C td ~ : N N ~ C ~ O ~ ~ ~~ V r. l ~ ~ ^S ~ d J N fD_ -,...."~ C ~-1~ O .~ G7 i- Q to O W cN ~' cG W r. ~' [D ~ 'Y e+ N ~D N CD cn t7 A+ Ul iv N •.~. 1"" 1'x'1 J J ~ 5'L ~ V f'F O C7 C" ~ p O ...~ ~ n . c O l• r !` a ~ m ~w to -r1 N tom C7J G7 b N ICJ z t7 ~--~ ~ m 7C I'r1 I- -~ Q+ n r. -+- o w a ~ o -~, o <.~• ru ~~ o w sv a O (D V1 N t'1• SD C7 ~ V? -~ ~ ~ X C'P' 'S V1 ~-F N C7 ~ f'1' fD '~ C~ !~. C1' _ "f7 C7 C'1' Ti"'' C'1• G? fA S"I• C'1 V1 c"1' ~ ~ Q. m u: o n -5 ~ o -s ~ o -a O -+• N "5 c+ O --~' O PD C+ J in C i/1 O ~ ro ~ ra ~ m o ~ ~ ~ h i--~ N V ~ fD O ~~ O b C7 ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ Ca O ci' "S c'h ~C ~ C ~ ~ n ~ ~ Z • J ~ ~ J N ~ N V ~ .. O U'I ~ O N J N 'Q 'p J J V J V r-.-1 (p V ~ C7 ~o co J lp J ~ V ---~ -+ G m ' V V ~ ~ ~ W ~ dl V t~l cO C7 "0 -P u'1 n V ~ ~ ~ O O ~ In m z f • ~ V V O A~ ~ W N .A ~ V SL C') OO W J W ~ W Q7 O ~ m s~+ n ~ ~-+ su w r~ -n m cn -5 ~ O n n ~ -~ ~' ~ O gy n m n i n v i m. a ~ - s i v In ~ ~ c cn ur N ~ (p r. to !Tt ~ J ~ ... a. sv v v- c r~ n to m Q W ~--. W ~ ~ W W ~ .P C O Q O U'I c-t C3~ C7'I O O CJ'1 O C") Q V V `S V V V V V V ~ O O O [~ O O O O O O to Q o O O --~ O O o O O o m O CA. ~~ ~~ n m ~ ~ ~° •-• ~ ~ --] -~ ~ r ~ ~ ti -~ v v cn c a v . Nv m ~ ~o t~ n co N ~ ~ ~' 3 ~ ~ p ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ' rl - jry T J O 1'1 -~• l1 ~ 1 >7 C •) ~ C PD ~ ~C ~ O ..,. ~+ .~. n m w { ~ ~ r• fA f~'I c `~ ~ J O x tiI m m 1 --I O '~'I n ~ .~ -~ qo -v ~ -v -I ¢ ~ -i cn -I -v ~G i- s7 ~ m -~ ~ -+ O VI j SL iv w -5 w V 1 -S ct 'S w sy O O O -~. -5 A y j w -h ~ ~ ti'[ ~-+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o S+ C~ -Iy ~ v "I) r, ...h CJZ r. ,-a S J L7 -'F1 ..a. >~ ..+. O C) 'i'1 O ro «J. V O I ~ .J. v .J. u ...a ...a ` cQ ¢ --s v> -~ w cc~ c ~ ¢ -s w ~ ro qo o ~ A -t -n sv w ~- w co w w w c0 ro ~ s~. ~ -5 LU ..+. C7 fD C1 ro r. r. (~ ro •.--~ "t7 "r C'1 w -s --~ .-t w ~-I~ ~ -+ ~ --~ w -~ O rn n F Q' v r-' -r r .~ v o~ ~ ~ w o ~ N o w.l. J u (* J. r. y • . W rT (n ~1 ~~ ~ ~ { 1 ~/) w -' ~ `I'1 --~ ~ ..,. ro ro ~ w -.~. w w rr a.. cca fi --~ cn co ro ro -~. -~. ro ro ~.,. ~ I,n • ~ ~ w A ~ ~ ~ ~ --i oo r a cn ~ ~ -~ ro ~ o o •~• ~ ~ `+~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o K ~ ~ ~ ' + c - A ~ ~ r ~-'~ C O --'' fti O H O Q ~--~ (n cC ~ ~. -i1 ~ ~ fi ~ O C ~ © ~ -+. ~ c-I• O c+ --h in Z A ~ ~_ ~ ro ro ro n w -s s - ro ~ - s .~ m ~ `~ ~ c ro n n v , ~ . c ~' c+ ro to ~ • r~o ~ ro co x- ro ~ ~. H Q G~ ¢ O O O O O A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O cf' tI' t f C'h C'k~ C`[- ~C ~C ~C iT -.-{ I ro . . . • . ~ v ~ ~ j J ~ J J J ~ ~ u v N © ~. -~ N N N N N N N W 'TI tD ...a ._.a J ~ . ~ ..e ~ ~ ~ ~ ...~ ~ ~ V y "-'~ H ~ cD lD l0 ~ t0 l~ cfl Ol 01 dl lO -rt ~ Q J .! .1 J ~ ~ ~ .~ M-1 r N N N --~ ~ W N N 00 W ~[ Ol 00 Cri C7 ~ W lO Ol W -P C77 ^' O Ul ~ O W 07 q d1 ---~ ---~ N -1a V O n ty Sy w w w w w ~ m n n n ~ n n n su fl, n ~ ~ "s -s -s -~ ~ n n -5 A v: m rp r~ ro ro ro -~ ~ ro c~ LA V1 1T1 N r-i C 1"E'f 2 C7 N O ~ ~ ~ ~ F--i ~ ~ ~ ~ a A A A cn A A ~ A ~ A A vv ~ ~ 3 M r'1 1TI ~'1 O ~ ~ ^ -i rr 'I G7 ~'I ---f C/i Cfl O~ V Ol Cn .A W N ~ ~ rn -n r -'o cn t-" sz~ m c --I C s~ • ~ ~ O ~ n J • {~ r-1. Q W .~ C) ~ C . .J ~ -~ ~ ~ ro ~- r~ w ~ ~ a ~ a ro cq ~ -J ro o ~ ~" ro ~ o -h ~ J. o o ro ~ r o sv ~ ~ o. m cn o. ~ -s -v ro ~+ -~ -v ~ ~ tv ro ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ -v - ~ n ~ -•. Ev n r o c~ --+ rp ~ ~ ~ c'~ m sv sir ~ ra ^a ~ ~ ro n ~,~t ~ a~ 3 b o z ~ p H m cn .J. ao o C7 noon m (!1 -v G0 iT1 5'7 ..,~. ~ ro m CT ~ O fD --~ ~ ~C O ~ ~C ~ -+• -+• -h O ~ ct r-r- O o su ro ~ Q. ~ Qs O ~ to o c-t ~ -S -S 'S C1 "5 t-h O ur ~ -+. g R C ~ 1n c'f ~ (D Do c-i- m 7C c~ m c7 3 cD ~ m s~+ st' c~' m ~ .~ ro o ru -+. r~ cca -s r-° ~- sz D ~ ° ~ ~ o ~ ~ tG i~+ i ° ~ ~ c~ -~ n B c o ~ v i -cr -+ +~ ~ o o ~ -~ rr -s c-h c7 -h -a p, ~ .J. C 'v -h 'i7 ~ ~C ro ro ~- ---~ -v -s -n -Y ~-+• ~a r.~ ~ a .~ a ~ ro ~ ~ ro ¢ r ¢ sv 7r ca. o cq ~ -5 c~ Q+ -s rn m ~- x" to ~v ~ ro a+ o X11 -~ ro ~ fD w C] Q w. 7C" 'S Al O u .J. rs (7 ~ -+• C] ..J ~ ~ ~i ro ~ ~ ~'M ~ ~ ~ ~ r-1• ro w-1. Q • w7. ~ ~ ~ C'E' "~7 ~~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ..J ~ Q ~ ~Q c..~ v cn 1~ to n s sz~ o { -v ~ r'- ~ w ro ~ J•o c ~ ~ c a A ~ _ ro C7' N C -h r+ ~ ro -+ --~~ ro v ~ ~ `t ro ~ ~ m c D s X ~ ~ ~ o n m ro i, - ~ ~ ~ c F ~' fn ~ 5 ~ ~ C C .C] "5 O ~ ro rf ~ ~ O Q w a ~ C ro ro N t-f -.I. ~p .r. .__a ~ V C/1 ~ ro ~ ro i ~ V ~ + c p " 5 ~ ~ ~ sar ~ ro cn cta r+ C ~ ~ ~ V ~ . .J C 7 O C D N • r l--1 N ~ N ~ ~ W S]7 61 .A -P O ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q+ 'K W 0 0 ~P N CD n ro f A ° n m ~ ~ ~ - s o i s~ n~ i ro ~' m ~ rn ~ ro s c i v 5 sv v, vs ro n to ro ~ ~ ~ ro t"" ~ n n r ~ to ~ ~ ! "v ~ ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ -c~ c I r o "r7 J. .R1 n A ro .J• x .J. fa ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ tom. Cris Vii b 3 ~ Q CA .~-. ~ ~i S J. J. .J. J. ~S. ~I. N ro ~-F O ro C7 J. ~' J. n S ~ o _~ C'I' • J J J J ~1 J ....R ....~ ...J r...l ..Q r"' td OD V ~1 CT7 ~ W N -' CJ q~ ~ ~ ~.s'. ~r err rvn -nCr' cn -nrF-' rx~r NI"•' -r'IC-I N ~ cn to ~ . -~ to d ~. ~ cn -h --~• -~ (~ O O ~ w -g .,,a . ~ N -rr ~ ~., rn ~ tv s ~ ri ~ c7 w • ~ z ~ ~ ~ b C ca N C/} O fa.. N O O U7 ~ ~ C77 ~ w O '~ C-F 'Y C'F w N ~ ~ • O ~ fD N fD v tC~ •~.~• • V7 C1 ~. C7 w .~. ~ C3" ~ (D fD W ~' C] fD O fp J. ~ ~ v N N {V 7~ Ol ~--~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ -~. U`I V1 ~ C O ~ ~ ~ --~ ~ o ~ C+ r~ ~ 0 ~.. o rrF o to n ~ an w ~ n ~ ~ c`~ ~ cp b m ~ ~+• -1 U ~ r-F~ ~ sv -n o v- r~ ro .~. o -s ~ o ~- m r~ ~ w rn ~ rr, -~. o a. in ~ ~ vs -~ to -5 m ~ w cn ~ p in cn X -s ~ ~ C/f C+ H C'F -•~ C+' b ~ ei' fa ~ c+ --~ C'F'O b C'F- tt' ~ L11 fD fD Q O ~' N E O ~ 7C' cn ~ fD ~ t,C] [p n C? -S ~. O o a i cn c+ A o o cn q ~ ~ v, -t - t h m w i - -h w v o -h o to -+? w z ~ ~, ~ ~ sn ~ °h -5 00 -h ~ o tntC rrt ~ rr e+ o. n 4 --~ ~ e. ~ t7o p e ~ o -r1 x o ~ -s ~--~ ~ w N s rr -~ w ~ -sx cn rum v ~ n w mc} ~w a. ^;~~ ~ O O b 0 O (D V ~ 7r ^h O ~ ~ ~ ~-~• -s m ~ o m ru m -n ca. -'n o -~• cr ~ • ~ ..e• fD lL] ~' ~ C'F'O w cQ .`~" O to '~ ~]. O + cQ r ~ -5 m tD ~C ~~ 'S 'C N ro b cn a b ro F::, -'s m m -5 ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ ~ ~. ' a fl ~ ~ s m :e, . o.. ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ w ~ a m o ° o r o ~ n .~. ~ ~ o -5 s ~ ~ -s ca -n m cR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X N Ct N N ~ VF `S C'F' c "F' ~ v O ..3. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ n .}7, .~ .s W G7 ....s N ....~ ~ ~ W C~ -P t7 v C] V ~ d1 O O N -5 J ~ N W G37 ~ ~ W W lk+ w ~ o ~ ~ w c'~ -s 'S n n o C'~ w n -•, N Cb -5 ~ 'S ~ n -s ro ~ ~ v re m ro ~5 rc cn v~ ~n v~ ~ ra ~ n n n ~ p C7 ~ [~ ~ c-s -o ~ C C Q ~ ~ C ~ P `C7 D 0 ~ ~ _ 0 ~ N + c ~C + c ~C + r ~C V i -F e ~C Ci- ~C -f• C ~C O c+ 3 ~ 3 3 3 3 (D a. C+ "5 ~ ., . n Ci- a. a. Cs. A.. R t0 ~ tG tQ co ..,. O (b (b (A tt) ~ ~' ~' ~' ~ Q ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ u s . C'F' C+ i-h ('+ C'F' ci' CD (~ fD fD iD • • th -P W N iv J O r ~ av m ~ a i ~ w ~ ¢ O- --~• v ca O -5 ~ ---~ -s J ~ ~ n © Sv ~ o ¢ ~-C w Q J J "'Y J J ¢ Q p o x-a w ~ ~ --I to m r -n cn ~r ~ o- ~ ...~. w ~ o -J. o a ~ ¢ a ~ = ~ ~ n ~ z ~ n ~ any -~ ~ ~ . m o rn o in rn w .-a• ~- m s rb ~- s ~ ~ .~. ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~c -F av- -~ o hr D , nm cp ~" co ~' m o -+~ ~+ ~ w J cn cn cn o ~ `5 -~ c-r 7c o c+ ~ X c+ x -+. ~ ~ ~ i-, -~ say N ~ ...,. ..,. ~ -C3 i cn d ~+ ...s... O C~ CJ ~ ~ W O A~ O a (D ~ r. (~y ..t. (/~ r. '~ C'F cn CT ~ Q.. CL ~' ~' CD C ch f© i'D Q lD ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O !L A 7 C7 ~ O N ~ ..,. ~ ~ ..~. ~--~ C 7 V1 ~ ~ ..~. cn ..~. -h ~ '-h u ~ ~ j +ti H ~} -~ QO S]J n ~ ~ ~ .J. a n a. J ~ n ~ 0 0 ..~. -s m -~ in ~ .p v, ~ bo -o w W A~ 'O O V ~ Q n `5 Q~ O 00 Ol 'S Q .P P+ C3~ CD X A~ f7 to LU Cf 'S ~ f'1 "S CO C) 'S fD U1 "S fD N fD f/! N C7 C7 ~ ~ A 3 ~ ~ ~ N 3 ~ ~ -r7 ~ ~ S1+ 3 7C3 :t7 O. N N ~ ~ ~ C o o ~ o (D fD fp fp fD fD Pu CU p7 ~ ¢~i ~ PD [D fD N fD ~D L ['~ 7C' C"~ ~ ~ r sy ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ rD (D c3 o -~ ~ ,.{~ O" .~ w~. p1 {Q .wl~ ~ N h .-~. fD c~F' r ~. c~ o a co a m ~ ~ a a. r n As c*b ~. O fD -h m --~ a n ~ ~ O ~ ~ n ~ fD {D C7 '~ N fD c+ N O Q f4 C] ...r. C+ ..~. n c^+ Q ~ fp a~ pKi .~.~. fD ~ a MEMORANDUM • T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 7-6-79 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR CYRANNO'S RESTAURANT LOCATED IN THE GONDOLA SKI SNOP BUILDING ON LOCI C, BLOCK 2, VAIL UILLAGE 1ST FILING. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Request is for the enclosure of the front and rear deck areas using a greenhouse concept. The enclosures would result in an addition of 1,350 square feet. Of this 1,350 square feet, approximately 1,050 square feet would be used for additional seating area, with the remaining 300 square feet used to enlarge the kitchen and preparation areas. The Gondola Ski Shop Bldg. presently contains a ski shop on the lower floor and Gyranno's on the Upper Floor. The Gondola Ski Shop according to the Floor Area Ratio. List (enclosed? which put together in 1977 by Diana Toughil1, has a present FAR of .96J1. There has been only one small addition since then, of approximately 150 square feet. With the previous additions and the present proposal, the total floor area would become 5.,944 with a resulting new F.A.R. of 1 .27/1. . CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS A. Effects of vehiclular traffic on Commercial Core I District; We do not believe that vehicular traffic in CCI will be affected by this application. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District; C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking; D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; We also do not feel that the propsed addition will have a noticeable impact on these factors. The addition of restaurant space could cause a slight increase in the number of deliveries, but not to a significant effect. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; This proposal does not remove any public space used by pedestrians, due to its being located on a second level. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Care I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; We do not feel that this application will have a negative impact on PEC Memo-7-5-79 Cyranno`s-Page Two r~ the types of uses (since there are no uses being changed} or on the general public's uses of this space. We understand that the Greenhouse will have windows that can be removed in the summertime, so that the basically outdoor eating experience can still be maintained. We also do not see the proposed additions blocking any view corridors or having any noticeable impact on the surrounding area. G. Control quality of construction, architectural .design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; Architecturally, we feel that the plans as submitted will enhance the appearance of the building. Both porches will become full season rather than just summertime use, which will add some color and activity to this end of the Village Core, H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of Commercial Core I District. We do not foresee any negative effects that this expansion will have on these factors. RECOMMENDATIO~lS The Department of Community Development recoimrnends approval of this Conditional Use Request. We feel that these enclosures will have a positive impact on this area of Town . The Applicant has been informed that if this application is approved, that there will have to be a payment made into the Parking Fund of $35,000. This is based on the seven new spaces that would be required for the useable restaurant space added, at $5,000 per space. The applicant also has been informed that the lease with Bud and Magretta Parks for the part of the front proch which is on Town of Vail Land will have to be reviewed by the Town Council before the addition on the (rant can proceed. The present lease was consummated with the useage of that part of Cyranno's porch that is on Town Property as an outdoor dining area. The proposed enclosure changes this use in making it part of the restaurant itself, which in our opinion P£C Memo-7-6-79 Cyranno's-Page three necessitates the review of the lease by the Council. We also want you to know that the Drban Design Plan for Vail Village, which was studied at the improve Vail Workshops, is still being formulated and will address the issue of expansion and the development of a preservation ordinance. We are hoping to have this Plan completed by the middle of October. This, however, does not effect our reactions to this proposal, which is positive. • • ' ] 977 • ~ FLOOR AREA RATIOS IN CC1 #~OSSIBLE. E 1,.07 BLDG 1970 CWRR~N1' EXPANSIQN AREA ~A~F'Oy F.A.R. A€~DiTICZf~,S ~.A.-R 1,~5 F.A.R ~• i.TILDING A & I BUILDING 6,113 8,572 1.4/1. - 1.4f1 597 CASINO 7,692 11,965 1.6/1 972 1.7/I - COVERED BRIDGE ST 4,674 11,354 2.4/1 2,364 2.9/1 -- GALLERY 3,186 5,600 1.8/1 - 1.8/1 a ;..- GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE 6,92e 19,098 2.8/1 - 2..8/1 - GONDOLA SKI SHOP 4,653 4,444 .96/1 iNCf...tJiaBS •96/1 2,535 ADDN. 1150 LAZIER ARCADE 7,x59 20,600 2.9/1 116 3.1/1 - LODGE AT VAIL 132,521 42,863 .32/1 165,302 1.5/t ~- MCBRIDE BLDG. 8,881 15,500 1.75/1 - 1.8/1 - MILL CREEK COURT 9,955 2i.104 2.12/1 -- 2.1/i - PLAZA BLDG. 12,837 22,639 1.9/f 1.5.09 1.9/i - ED LION 13,14T 7,200 .54/1 3,015 .77/i 9,b55 GORE CREEK PLAZA 7,5x5 ia,aa0 2.4/i 1,220 2.5/1 - CREEKSIDE BLDG. 10,194 14,980 1.5/1 a00 1.5/1 - RUCKSACK 4,202 5,351 1.3/1 820 1.5/1 ~- SCHO..BER BLDG . ~,(1~C? `~` ~' 11, 238 3.5 9/ 1 .._ .. 7 .86/] SITZMARK 20,000 33,800 1.7/1 - 1.7/1 -- SLIFER & CO. 3,016 1,250 .4/i l,soo 1.0/i 1,474 VAIL BLANCHE 13,232 4,180 .32 153 .74/i 10,115 GASTHOFF ~ 1.4,259 37,609 2.63/1 - 2.6/1 - GRAMMSHAMMER ~' ~. .1 AVERAGE F.A.R. 1.9/1 24,376 °~ ~ MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FRDM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 7-6-79 RE: REQUEST FROM GORDON PIERCE FORA REAR SETBACK VARIANCE DN LOT 14, BLOCK 3, VA IL VALLEY FIRST FILING. DESCRIPTIDN OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Variance Request is for an ll foot setback Variance in order to allow the construction of a sun room. The rear setback requirement is 15 feet, with the proposed setback to be only four feet. One wall of the existing house is presently 10 feet from the rear property line. The addition is of approximately 200 square feet. Although we do not have an exact Gross Residential Floor Area Calculation, this house is well under its maximum, with or without the proposed expansion. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon reveiw 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. The Rear Property line of this residence faces onto National Forest Land. There are also no other nearby residences or any view corridors that would be adversely effected by this proposal. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretatioh 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 stated reason for hardship in this application was that existing trees along the North, West, and East sides of the house make expansions in any of these directions undesirable. ~. PEC Memo-7-6-79 Gordon Pierce Res.-page Two In a careful review of this stated reason, we do not feel that there is a legitimate hardship. We appreciate the applicant's desire to have a sun room and also appreciate that no other property will be impacted by this addition. We, however, do nat find mitigating circumstances which should permit this addition to not conform with setback regulations. 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. 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 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: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. B. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance i;hat do apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • y PEG Memo-7-6-79 . Gordon Pierce-Page Three C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforEement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATIONS Our recommendation is far denial. On advice to both the Staff and the Planning Commission farm Larry Rider,. we feel that a real hardship must be demonstrated before a variance can be granted. We do not find any real hardship in this matter. • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEUELOPMENT DATE: 7-6-79 RE: REZONING REQUEST FOR THE ONE ACRE UNPLATTED "GETTY OIL SITE" IN BIGHORN FROM HEAVY SERVICE (H$) TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY (NOME) THROUGH THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROCESS. STATISTICS APPLICANT: Woodbridge Group Tnc. AREA: 1 Acre ZONING: Medium Density Multi-•Family with Special Development District Provisions (NOME) EXISTING LANG USE: Vacant PROPOSED USE: Eight Condominium Units and 5,000 Square feet of Net Rentable Office Space. REQUEST: The request is to change the use of the Property located directly to the west of Pitkin Creek Park Inc. The previous intended use was as a gas station. The proposed use is fora combination of office space and condominiums. BACKGROUND: The staff has worked with the appli-cant in trying to determine a suitable use for this parcel. The staff discouraged against any commercial uses on the site, but did suggest that a combination of professional office space with some residential use would seem to be appropriate. The intent was to try to find uses that stepped down from the Pitkin Creek Park Project to the East Vail Interchange. The density of Pitkin Greek Park is approximately 18 units per acre. The proposed change of use is a downzoning from a high intensity zone district to a lower intensity one. The Heavy Service Zone District was generally felt to be an inappropriate district for this parcel. Another request of the Staff was to use the newly created Special Development District Process. This process can approve specific uses and a specific site plan as part of the rezoning request. The reason that Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF} was chosen as the proposed zone district was primarily to allow the mixture of residential and office uses. In any zone district lower than MDMF, no office space would be permitted (even through the Special Development District Process). • PEC Memo, 7-6-79 "Getty Oil Site"-Page Two • Even though MDMF would permit 18 Condominiums Units on this site, the proposal is for only eight units of average size of 1,700 square feet. The types of uses that have been mentioned for the 5,000 square feet of Profession Office Space include an Architects Office, a General Contractor's Office abut not for the storage of equipment or materials}, a bank, or a real estate office. These uses can and need to be further specified during the process. Although the Special Development District Process is being followed, the necessary informationfor complete approval of the Development Plan is not available at this time. The applicant desires to have the zone changed before more detailed submittals are prepared. SITE PLAN: The Site Plan that has been submitted units along the Eastern Property line with ten foot offsets between each un is on the Western End of the Property Interchange). The intent is to use a building. shows the eight condominium in one continuous building it. The Office Building (by the East Vail I-70 solar system in the office The Site Plan does indicate" setbacks along the North and East Property lines of five feet. The required setbacks in MDMF are 20 feet on all sides, but setback variations are permitted as part of the Special Development District Process. These variations cannot be discussed in great detail at this time due to the lack of detailed information. They, however, will be very closely reviewed at the time of the submittal and approval of the development plan. The Site Plan does indicate sufficient parking-for the .pro posed uses, with 50I of this parking enclosed (which is a MDMF Development Standard). We, however, want it clearly understood that this underground parking area is to be used solely far parking and not. for storage. One other general requirement is that the office 6ui1ding be residential in character. This also will be closely reviewed at the time when the development plan is submitted. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development .recommends"approval of the Zone Change Request from HS to MDMF. This approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1.) The number of Dwelling Units is not to exceed eight. 2.) The amount of Net Rentable Commercial Space is not to exceed.5,000 square feet. 3.} A Development Plan through the Special Development District Process will have to be presented and approved by the Planning Commission, Town Council, and Design Review Board before any construction commences. PLANNING AND CON~SSION . AC~1DA 7-24-79 l.) Discussion with Fritz Glade on Zoning and Use of Skelly Oil Site. (Ccntinuatio~ fznrn 7-10-79 ineet9rig. } 2.) Prelirn7nary Plat for Parcels B,C,D, and E, Lionsridge Filing No. 2 3.) Final Plat for Parcel A Bighorn St*r~~va.sica~ and Pat~~el A Bi.gho~n 1st Addition. 4.) Proposed Zoning and Preliminary Plat ANN~uaal for Vail Valley 4th Filing, a 28 acre parcel along the Golf Course presently being Annexed. 4~ FLAMING RND E~IVIRON~'~fATAL COMKISSION Air.~vuA 7-24-79 Public Hearing at 3:00 P.M. • 1.) Discussion with Fritz Glade, Archite~t on honing and Use of Skelly Oil Site 2.) Preliminary Plat for Parcels B,C,D, and E, Lionsridge Filing No.2 3.) Proposed Zoning and Preliminary plat ANN~~~al for Vail Valley 4th Filing, a 28 acre Parcel along the Golf ~~~rse presently being Annexed. 4.) Update on "It~rove Vail "Workshop and Discussion of Other Comity Development Projects 5.) Appointm~t of a new rotating member to the Design Review Board. L~ • • Planning and ~vi~u~u~-rntal Commission Minutes of 7-~24-79 Meeting . Not yet a~.~LUvad by the Board M~.c:.~.~.5 Present Jack Goehl Sandy Mills Ed Drager Gam.,. ~,~ White Members not Present Ron Todd Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Staff Members Present Jim Rubin Dick Ryan 1.) Discussion with Fritz Glade on Zoning and Use of Skelly Oil Site. (Continuatioun fn~m 7-10-79 Planning C..~~n~ission Meeting) Fd Drager asked G~Ly White to chair the ,«ting for this item • as he now has a conflict of interest. Dick Ryan gave z~esults of the Zt7wn Council, discussion of this item. He said Council suggested that they would like to see a park there. This would entail the Town purr~~Cing the land. If the land were not purchased for a park, they suggested a mixed use with low density hopefully for employee type housing. Gary Andrews, the Devel~,~, made his presentation. This parcel is caned (HS) Heavy Service at present tame. The original intended use was a gas' station. Gary explained what is acceptable in MON1E' (t~+A7 r Nkv~.sed new zoning? and Hcyw the~r~: have changed their plans to mere than meet the NIDMF requirements. He said they have reduced the sqe footage in the units to about 1200 square feet. They have changed the setbacks to be an conformance with their neighbor. The parking i.s riow in excess of.what is required. They have changed the access. They are only covering 24~ of the lot site. They plan to create an activity area. 'T`hey have 51~ of Site land~~~ped instead of 30~ that is required. Gary said this parcel could be purchased for a parka The price is arOUnd $200, 000 F.i.uau Getty Oil. He said they have also changed the naxre of the project from Pitkin Landing to Woodbridge Meadows. Minutes of 7-24-79 P~ N~eting Page Two • He said the office building will be professionals such as doctors, dentists, architects, etc. Thexe wi11 be no c~,~~~~G~4ial space and it will have covered parking. The Board asked questions. Sandy .Mills said she rec~~u~~.ds continuation. of ~~~ --. Space and would like to see the Town. purchase the land for a park if possible. Jim Rubin clarified that this is a request for a rezoning from Heavy Service (HS) to NIDME. Any use under HS must ~ before the Board as a Conditional Use P~~~~.t. Jay Peterson rC~,L~senting the Pitkin Creek Park Devel~~E~~t next to this parcel. He said they still object to the office space on the SitE' . He said even though the units have bin reduced in size, they still are not soariething the local employee wi1.1 be able to buy. They still feel the site will be too dense and there is not enough parking. nary Arxirews said they can ~,L~~ride ~~..~,.~ parking. He said this is a privately financed project not being financed by bonds. He does . not feel deed restrictions would be appropriate here. They are not trying to create another Pitkin Creek Parka Sandy Mills said she does not want any,~„~~ density in the valley. She said these units wi11 not be for local esr~loyees but on the ~~.~.~ market far anyone. Jack Goehl said he is concerned for the c~~«t,anity in that the creation of mire units will just add ~r~are traffic out there. G~-iry Andrews asked for the Hoard's explanation of employee housing. He said he would be willing to have deed restrictions to limit s~~A of units to local ~~E~an~t residents only. ~~, ~~ rlaYif,ied that long-ter~t housing is what is needed in this valley. He also said that the Board's main responsibility at this meeting is to decide whether this parcel should be'rezoned frown HS to NIDME' . G~.yy White said he feels he would only aN~..~~ve this if the density mere xttuch less. The Developer, Gazy Andrews, called for action. • Minutes of 7--24-79 PEC Meeting . Page '1~ree Jack Goehl m-rde a nnnti.on to deny the request to changing the zoning on the Getty Oil Site from Heavy Service (HS) to Medium Density Multiple Family-(NOME). Sarsdy Mi11s seconded the motion and there were three votes for denim. of the ~~~st and Ed Drager abstained. Sandy Mills wted for der~~T as she still feels it is still too dense. She rec.~,~~~~ds the Town try to purchase this site for a park, Jack Goehl voted against this .~~aest as he is against mere housing in this area and more traffic. Gerry White voted for denial of this item as he feels it is still too dense. He might approve a rezoning if it were to Residential or Re~~~~tial Cluster. Jack Goehl advised the applicant that he has the right to appeal this action to the Council and he said he would. 2.) Preliminary Plat for Parcels B, C, D, And E, Lionsridcre Filing No.2 Rich Tofel, Jay Peterson and DanCoxcor~an present the prel;m;narv . Subdivision Plat for Parcels B, C, D, and E, Lionsradge Ealing No.2 Jay explained the plat. Final Plat will be presented on August 14, 1979. Sandy Mills said she wouldn't like to see any units on the ridge. No vote was necessary. 3 .} Final Plat for Parcel A Bighorn Subdivision and Parcel A, Bighorn 1st Addition. Jay Peterson presented the final Sut~division Plat for Gore Creek Park. Gerry White made a rmtioa~ to ar.~.u~e the final Plat for Gore Creek Park, Parcel A Bighorn Subdivision and.Parcel A Bighorn 1st Addition. Sandy Mills seconded the moticrl. The ate was vnariaxmus. ?~.} P~~~sed Zoning and Preliminary P~,at.A~proval for Vail Valley 4th Filing, a 28 acre parcel aldnq t'he' Golf CoU~'~e pr~seritly beir~g Annexed. Jim Rubin explained this item to Board. Several yews ago Vail Associates donated this parcel to the Town. V+fhen Warren and Jay Pulis developed Vail Valhi 3rd Filing, the Town asked them to do away with some lots in exchange for a lot to be ~-~3~~1y acceptable to both parties. In order to complete this exchange, a new lot has been. created in Uail Vall~r 4th Filing. Minutes of 7-24-79 PFC Meeting Page Four . There was a discussion. Sandy Mi11s made a m~ticn to a~.~,~~,re the purposed zoning and preliminary plat as resided by the 'T'own Staff in theax a«~.., dated 7-19-79. Gerry White seconded the ,~.1'aca~. 'T'he vote was ~.manumus. 2'here was a discussion with the Staff on the "Ii~~.~.~ae Dail" i++lferkshop. Jim Rubin stated that it is necessary at this time to select a y~~.~AY of the Planning C~,P~LLs51.~1 to be on the Design Review Board. There was a discussi~. The Board Lmanimously appointed Jir~i Morgan. Jim wi11 be appointed for August, September, and Qctober. His duties wi11 begin this Thursday, July 26, 19°79. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. • NIEM7RANDL~'f TO: Planning and Ercviranmental Conmissiari rta.lf~I: Depar~L~~~L of C~~.,.anity Deve1~~«.t DATE: 7-20-79 RE: Resubmittal on Skelly Oil Site Rezoning Request • Backy~~and: This item was heard by the P~]C at their ~~~~'~,i.ng on July 10, 1979. At this meeting, it was the general consensus of the Board that no new condominium units be permitted on the site, with an office bL~~~~~ng ar.even. a gas station being the rec.~~.~~nded use. On July 17, 1979, this matter was discussed with the Town Council at their tvtark session. The Council's first preference was to purchase the site and use it as a parka The Council's secox~ preference was a mixed use concept with less density than the N~.~Jious sub~.ittal and with a park like feel to it. Site Plan . Anew site plan has been su~ni.tted. This site plan still. has eight units but has an overall ~tr•H of x.0,200 square feet rather than 13,600 square feet. The revised plan also shows a reduction in the fo,_,L~~.int of the office building. The net result is that a mkxch greater percentage of the site remains uncovered by buildings and open as landscaped areas. In ].coking at the Specific Medium Density Multi-Family (MDM~') zone district requirements, the landscaped area ir~~1.i.Y'ed is 30~ with the N~~~osed site plan having a landscaped area of 51~. Site coverage in MERE' is not to exiceed 45~, with the ~~~~osa1 having a coverage of 24~. Rec~~.«-~dations The revised site plan: has a much reduced impact on the site. It still has eight condaanx.nium units, but the developer has a}mYpssed a willingness to restrict the use of some or all of the units as employee hous~g. We feel that the P~7C should first decide whether or not they feel this site should bB • used as a park. Tf that is decided not to be an appropriate use, the still feel that a mixed use concept is a~,~,~opriate and that restrictions of the use of the eight units as resident housing would be high7.y desirable. • Nl ~iO~RANDEJ~'i T0: Planning and Envim~u«~tal Com~ission FFmM: Depa~l~«~t of C~~«,~ity Devel.~.,~~t DATE: July 19, 1979 RS: Preliminary Plat for Parcels B,C,D, and E, Lionsridge Filing No. 2 • The prel;m-ina~rv plat is far a resubdivision of the above referenced parcels according to the guidelines established by the Planning Commissiari and Town Council in the approval of the Annexation and Zoning of these parcels, Letters have been received frrom the Water and Sewer Districts stating that they will service the property with specific plans forthcoming. A letter has also been received from Holy Cross stating that they will serve the N.~~~rty but ranuld like utility eas~a~,Ls for their existing undersL~and lines. Kent Rose has reviewed the application and has some suggested revisions on the location of two of the side roads. 'use will be discussed in ~«.L~ detail at the meeting. Rec..~~..~.dations Approval of the Preliminary Plat with the suggested additions of a utility eas~~~~,t for Holy Cross and the change is~ location of two of the side roads. 3"h.is approval should be m~.de with the L~~~.«itL~~~~t for the dedication of land as stated in the Annexation Ordinance. r~ LJ ~ f L'.IGL•i./itt'L.V L ~.J1~'~t T0: Planning ar~1 Er~viranmen~a.l Cornnission FROM: Depa~. L~«~t of C~a~u~.anity Development DATE: ,Tiny 19, 1979 RE: P~~~sed zoning and Preliminary Plat approval for Vail Valley Fourth Filing, a 28 acre parcel along the GolfCOUrse presently • being annexed. Location: The location of the 28 acre parcel is directly East. of Dail Va]_ley Third Filing {along the Golfcourse). Rec~est The request is to separate out arse 17,2{)0 square foot lot which is to be zoned Two Family Primaxy/Secondary Residential, while placing the remainder of the site into a Public Use District {ppD) zone. The entire 28 acre parcel is presently owned by the 2 of Vail. The creation of the one lot is to Mete an agre~t~.t made with Wa.~.~~~ and. Jay Puli.s at the time when Vii].. Valley Third Filing was platted. At that time, the Pulis's ay~.~3 to .~caivJe two lots by the pond with t~ understanding with the Council that they mould be given another lot of a similar size and loation by the To~nm at ~~~ future date. The new tat to be created is adjacent to Lot 16 of Uail Valley Thad Filing and is of a similar size and use to the lots in. this Filing. The plat has been reviewed by Kent Rose and meets with this approval. Reco¢t~rendation ; A~,k,~~val of the P~~,~,sed Zoning and ~el.imixxaxy Plat subject t~ Final approval of the annexation by the 7.bwn Cour^~ ~ . ('I'ho Annexation Ordinance was passed on First Reading on July 17, 1979 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, COMMISSION AGENDA 8-7-79 2:00 Work Session Discussion of Comprehensive Plan and Preservation Ordinance and Expansion in CCI 3:00 Regular Meeting l.) Amendment to Agricultural and Open Space District 2.) Rezoning of Special District Properties to Public i~se District 3.) Parking Variance Request for Currents Jewelry 4.) Proposed Zoning for Matterhorn Area Recently Annexed into the Town 5.) Discussion of a Change in Meeting Time 6.) Executive Session on Open Space Priorities 7.) Final Plat for Parcels B,C,D, and E, Lionsridge Filing No, 2 To be published in Vail Trail 8-10-79. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 8-i?~-79 2:00 Work Session Discussion of Comprehensive Plan and Preservation Ordinance and Expansion in CCI 3:00 Regular Meeting l.} Amendment to Agricultural and Open Space District 2.) Rezoning of Special District Properties to Public Use District 3.) Parking Variance Request for Currents Jewelry 4.} Proposed Zoning for Matterhorn Area Recently Annexed into the Town 5.) Enclosure of Cyranno's Front Deck 6.) Final Plat for Parcels B, C, D, And E, Lionsridge Filing No. 2 7.) Executive Session on Open Space Priorities 8.} Discussion of a Change in Meeting Time Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of 8-14-79 Meeting Board Members Present Gerry White Ed Drager Jack Goehl Ron Todd Sandy Mi11 s Board Members Absent Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Staff Members Present Jim Rubin Dick Ryan 1.) Amendment to Agriculture and Open Space District Dick Ryan explained this amendment. He explained that current zoning allows one unit for two acres and the proposed zoning would allow one unit for 35 acres. This will be in conformance with the County zoning. There was a discussion. Mr. Mueller and Mr. Siverly from the audience asked questions. Jim Rubin explained the history of the Agricu1tura7 and Open Space District. He also stated that most of these pieces of property are too steep for building. Gerry White made a motion to approve the Amendment to Section 18,32.050, Lat Area and Site Dimensions of the Rgricultura1 and Open Space (A) District to Change the Minimum Lot Area from one detached Dwelling Unit on Two (2) acres, to the Minimum Lot Area of thirty-five (35) acres of site area as per the Department of Community Development memo of August l0, 1979. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Gerry White, Sandy Mills, and Jack Goehl voted for approval. Ron Todd and Ed Drager voted against approval as Ron felt quite a few of the properties are on the Town's priority list for acquisition of Open Space land and they are changing the zoning in this district for their own benefit and Ed voted against approval because he felt the rezoning proposal was not properly documented. He had asked how many acres were involved, how many units etc, and couldn't get a definite answer. ~{e didn't feel enough planning had gone into this. He felt it was being done to penalize Vail Associates far some reason. It was just not properly planned. 2.) Rezoning of Special District Properties to Public Use District Jim Rubin explained where the different parcels are located. Ed Drager mentioned that another parcel is -being deeded to the Town adjacent to the parcel already owned by the Lionsridge Water District. PEC Minutes 8-14-79 Page Two • Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the Special District properties rezoning to Public Use District as per the Staff Memo dated 8-10-79 with the addition of the Parcel being deeded to the Tawn by the Lionsridge Water District. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3.) Parking Variance Request for Current's Jewelry. Jim Rubin explained this item. Current's Jewelry is next to the Vail Cookie Company and is not very visible. They are asking to be allowed to bring out the front of their store to the same level as the Vail Cookie Company. Jeff Selby explained that Current's Jewelry seems to lose even more visibility in the winter time. He feels by expanding in the way they have proposed will make Current`s more conforming with the other businesses. He said than es such as this were recommended by the Improve Vail Workshops. Ne said the 5000 parking fee will be paid. Gerry White made a motion to approve the request from Jeff Selby for a Parking and Loading Variance on Current's Jewelry Store in Lionshead Center Building on Tract D Vail Lionshead Filing No. 1 as per the Staff memo dated 8-10-79. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. There were four notes for the approval. Ron Todd abstained due to conflict of interest. 4.) Proposed Zoning for Matterhorn Area Recently Annexed into the Town. Dick Ryan explained this item. There were questions from the audience from Mr. Mueller, Mrs. Charles, Mr. Siverljr and Mr. Tarter. Dick Ryan explained that if their present units were to burn down, and their lot is under 15,000 square feet, they would only be able to build a Primary/Secondary type duplex. They wouldn't be able to replace what they now have. The restrictions in the proposed Ordinance No. 22 would apply to the new unit. Mr. Mueller said he feels the purposed Ordinance No.22 restricts the "small guy" and not the "big guy". Gerry White said he disagrees as the person with a lot less than 15,000 square feet is allowed to build a primary/secondary type duplex. Under County zoning, he can only have a single family residence. Alice Parsons from the audience said she thinks that by allowing the "secondary" unit on lots less than 15,000 square feet, the Town intends to give the "small guy" a chance to find a place to live. She thinks the zoning plan both for the Town and for Matterhorn is an excellent plan. Gerry White made a motion to approve the initial zoning of Approximately 8.231 acres of land in an area known commonly as the Matterhorn Area as per the Staff Memo of 8-10-79. This Zoning will be changed to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential for the Recently Annexed property. Ran Todd seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. PEC Minutes 5-14-79 Page Three • 5.) Enclosure of C.yrano's Front Deck Jim Rubin explained this item. Jerry Grevan made flis presentation. He said an Environmental Impact Report was done but did not arrive in time far the meeting. The report said that the only negative impacts would be during the Construction Period. The windows would be set back so they would not be on Town property. The expansion sould provide seating for 24 people. They do not htink they will use glass in the roof. Ron Todd made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Cyrano's Restaurant to enclose the front deck area located in the Gondola Ski Shop Building on Lat c, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing as per the conditions in the Staff memo of 8-10-79. Gerry White seconded the motion. Three people voted in favor of the approval. Ed Draper and Sandy Mills voted against the approval. They both felt that the expansion changes the character of the Vilage which needs to be preserved. 6.) Final Plat for Lionsridge Filing Na.3 Jay Peterson made the presentation. Gerry White made a motion to approve the Final Plat Lionsridge Filing No. 3 with the conditions that Lot 28 be dedicated to the Tawn before any building permits be issued on Lots 1-27, 81ock 2, and that Tract R be dedicated to the Town before any building permits be issued on Lots 1-6, Block 4. In addition, the name of Gore View Drive was revised to Lionsridge Lane. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion, except for Ron Todd who abstained. 7.) The Board had a discussion about changing the time of the Planning and Environmental Commission meetings. In order to avoid conflicts with the Town Council workshops and meetings, it was decided that beginning in September, the Planning and Environmental Commission Meetings will be at 3:00 P.M. on the second and fourth Mondays. The Board then went into Executive Session to discuss Open Space Priorities. • 1LJW1V MfiLVA(at5li, : tS„ll:Y1L~lYti.1 t,[-1~'L,~SiV U~ARTM~NT DIREvlvn: DICK RYAN, COIt~rIUNITY DEVEIAPMIlV'T TO: TOWN COUNCIL ~ti~v: 8--17--79 SU&TI7LT: Amendment to the Lot Area and Density Sections of the Agricultural and Open Space District STATISTICS: There are approximately 50 parcels with an overall acreage of in excess of 500 acres that are in an Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. (See Enclosed List) A Very high percentage of the parcels are either Tract Land in areas designed to be left open or on steep hillsides where development probably could not happen. R~?UFSr; The Proposed Amendment would change the. minimum .lot size to 35 acres, the minimum buildable lot size to ane acre, and the maximum density . to one dwelling unit per thirty-five acres. i ~ ~ _ PLANNING & ENVIRONME{~3`!'AL CONMISSI~T ACTIQN: Approval by a 3 2 vote. Mills, White, . and Goehl voted for and Todd and Drager voted against. irr~ARTNlaVT R1~DONIlUIL'NDATION: Approval as Submitted. I`~ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August l0, 1979 RE: '. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERRTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18.32.050 LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE (A} DISTRICT TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM ONE DETACHED DWELLING UNIT ON TWO (2} ACRES, TO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA OF THIRTY-FIVE (35} ACARES. SECOND, TO AMEND SECTION 18.32.090 DENSITY OF THE AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE (A) DISTRICT TO ALLOW NOT MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT FOR EACH THIRTY-FIVE (35} ACRES OF SITE AREA. BACKGROUND: Under the current Agriculture and Open Space (A) District a permitted use is single family residential dwellings, with a minimum site area of two acres, and 17,500 square feet of buildable area per dwelling unit. The purpose of the Agriculture and Open Space (A) District in the Zoning Ordinance states: "The agricultural and open space district is intended to preserve agricultural, Undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agri- cultural and open space objectives. 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 predominately open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district." Considering that the purpose of this zoning district is to retain the agriculture and open space characteristics the two acre lot per dwelling unit is not an appropriate restriction. The Community Development Department is-recommending that an amendment should be approved. that would restrict one dwelling unit far each 35 acres of property. Several communities and counties in Colorado consider that one unit for each two acres of land is urban development. Urban facilities and services are required to serve this density of development. The one dwelling unit per 35 acres of land is definitely more in character with the purpose of the agriculture and open space (A) District. This zoning change precludes intensive urban development and maintains the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the change in the Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to permit one dwelling unit for each 35 acres of land. ~~~1 ~! i i AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE PARCELS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL BIGHORN NAME OF PARCEL NAME OF OWNER LOCATION ACREAGE Recreation Area (1} Vail Meadows, Inc. East End of 2.996 Bighorn Recreation Area (2) Vail Meadows, Inc. East End of 4.325 Bighorn Vail Meadows Calkins/Kramer/ East of Heather 6.712 2nd filing Grimshaw/Harring Vail Meadows, Inc. Richard Hal stern Lot 19, Bighorn Bighorn Mutual and Pond area by Subdivision Sanitation Rec. Co. Golumbine Dr. 2.338 Timberfalls Parcels Jim Reinecke South East of Timberfalls 53.000 BOOTH CREEK Tracts A,B, G, F, Vail Associates Along Gore-Creek 4.73 Vail Village 11th Tracts A, B, C, Vail Associates Katsos Ranch Rd, 32.041 Vail Village 12th Tracts A, B, C, Vail Village 13th Vail Associates Bald Mtn Road 1 42.354 GOLFCOURSE Tracts B & D Vail Associates By Northwoods and 29.155 Ptarmigan Circle Including East Gold Peak Tract A & B Pulis Golfcourse 18.036 Vail Village 8th Lots 9, 10, 11 Town of Vaii Fairway Drive 3.164 Tract A, Vail Village 10th VAIL VILLAGE/LIONSHEAD Tracts T and J Vail Associates Along Gore Creek, 11.020 Vail Village 1st Vail Religious Mill Creek Court, Foundation Mill Creek, West Gold Peak Tract A Vail Village 6th Vail Associates Lionshead Tennis 1.688 Courts Vail Lionshead Vail Associates Gore Creek South 3.932 Filing No. 1 of Lionshead Park- Tracts A, B, I, ing Lot and J Between Lodge at Lionshead Phase II and Phase IiI Agricultural and Open Space Parcels in the Town of Vail (Revised} Page Two NAME OF PARCEL Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing Tracts A, B, C, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing Tract B Vail Potato Patch Filing No. 1, Tract A; B, C, and D Lionsridge Filing No. 1, Lots A4, Excepted Parcel Block D NAME OF OWNER LOCATION ACREAGE Vail Associates Gore Creek 10.998 South of West Meadow Drive Middle Creek Vail Associates Gore Creek 7.109 South of Lions- head POTATO PATCH, LIONSRIDGE Vail Associates Potato Patch 36.65 LRB, Mtn. Properties Sandstone Creek, 2.313 Town of Vail North of Lionsridge Loop OT~IER UNPLATTED PARCELS Golfcourse Pu1i s Golfcourse Vail Associates North of I-70 Vail Associates North of I-70 West of Public West of Public Works Facility Works Facility 2 Unplatted Parcels Vail Associates Ski Run into in Lionshead Lionshead, West of Vail Village 6th Filinq Unplatted parcel Vail Associates Ski Run into b,y Gold Peak Gold Peak TOTAL 93.25 70 Approximately) 13.27 (Ski Run} 5 (Test of VV 6th) 35.6 595 n u Developable Type of No. of Units No. of Units Other Name of Parcel Acreage Acreage Hazard Old Zoning New Zoning Comments l Recreation Area {1} 2.996 .5 Steep 1 l Slope Avalanche _ 2.) Recreation Area (2) 4.325 0 Steep Slope 1 1 3.} Vail Meadows 6.712 1 Steep 12 2nd filing Slope 1 1 Platted Lots 4.} Lot 19, Bighorn 2.338 1.5 Pond 1 1 Subdivision _ 5.} Tamberfalls 53.0 5 (more or Unknown Parcels less) Steep Avalanche Slope Impact Avalanche 2 1 6,) Tracts A,B,C,F, Covenant Vail Village 11th 4.73 1 Flood Plain 1 1 Restrict. _ 7.) Tracts A,B,C, Covenant Vail Village 12th Steep Restrict. Lot 12, Block 2 32.041 1 Slope 1 1 Vail Mtn. School _ 8.} Tracts A,B,C, 142.354 13 Steep Covenant Vail V111age 13th Slope 6 l Restrict. 9.) Tract B 2I 20 Steep Slope 10 1 Gold Peak Vail Village 7th Base Fac. Tract D 6.248 6.248 none 3 1 Golf Vail Vi11a~e 7th Course 1~Tract A&B Golf Vail Vi1la~e 8th 18.036 5 Flood Plain 2 1 Course 11.) Lots 9,10,11 3.164 0 Avalanche 0 0 Town Tract A, Vail Owned Village 10th 12.) Tract I&J Vail Village 1st 5.2 2.5 Flood Plain 1 l Church Tract E,F, Vail Village 5th 7.6 7.6 None 3 1 13.) Tract A Vail Vi11aQe 6th 1.688 1.688 None 1 1 14.) Vaal Lionshead 1.688 .3 Flood Plain 0 0 Town Filing No. 1 Owned Tracts A,B,I and J 15.) Vail Lionshead 10.998 1 Flood Plain 2nd Filing 1 Z Tracts A,B,C, 16.) Vail Lionshead 7.109 1 Flood Plain 3rd Filing Steep Slope 1 1 Tract B 17.) Vail Potato Patch 36.65 12 Steep Slope 6 1 Covenant Filing No. 1, Restrict. Tract A,B,C,D, • Name of Parcel Acreage 1~~ionsridge Filing 2.313 No. 1, Lots A4 Excepted Paxcel Block D ~19.)Golfcourse 93.25 20.)North of I-70 70 West of Public Works Facility 21.)2 Unplatted Parcels in Lionshead 13.27 5 ~22.)Unplatted parcel by Gold Peak 35.b ~23.)Lot 1b, 3.020 Bighorn Unplatted • Developable Type of No. of Units Na. of Units Other Acreage Hazard Old Zoning New Zoning Comments Bess than .5 Steep Slope 1 1 Less than 20 Flood Plain 10 1 15 Steep Slope 7 1 12.5 Steep Slope b 1 Gondola II Ski Run 0 Gold Peak 15 Steep Slope 7 1 Ski Lifts & Run 0 Avalanche High Hazard Steep Slope 0 0 Avalanche L~ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE': 8-10-79 RE: PUBLIC HEARING RND CONSIDERATION ~~ THE FOLLOWING REZONINGS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VA IL: 1.} Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing from Two Family Residential (R) to Public Use District (PUD). 2.) Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision from Two Family Residential {R} to Public Use District (PUD}. 3.) Part of Lot H, Vail Village 2nd Filing (Fire Station) from Public Accommodation (PA) to Public Use District (PUD). 4.) Tract A and C and Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Heavy Service (HS) to Public Use District (PUD). 5.) An Unplatted parcel in Lionsridge {just north of the Sandstone park Project} from Agricultural and Open Space (A) to Public Use District (PUD}. 6.) Two Unplatted parcels in Bighorn where the Water Tank and Treatment Plant are located from Agricultural and Open Space {A} to Public Use District {PUD). BACKGROUND Town Council requested the Community Development Department to rezone to a Public Use District (PUD} property that is currently owned by the Special Districts and the Town. The above properties have been identified as re- quiring this zoning change. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends rezoning of the above property to a Public Use District (PUD) Zoning District. U MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Department of Community Development DATE: August lO, 1979 RE: REQUEST FROM JEFF SELBY FOR A PARKING AND LOADING VARIANCE ON CURRENTS JEWELRY STORE IN LIONSHEAD CENTER BUILDING ON TRACT D VAIL LTONSHEAD FILINING I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is for a variance allowing one parking space as required for construction of an additional l70 square feet of floor space. The store front will be extended to make it flush with the store front of the Vail Cookie Company (Currents next door neighbor}, 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 expansion will align the storefront of Currents Jewelry with the existing storefronts in LionsHead Center. The LionsHead Plan from the Improve Vail Workshops recommends that storefronts along the mall be extended to improve the atmosphere of intimacy, interest of the area, and the visibility of the businesses. The proposed Currents storefront wi17 not black any views of businesses in the area. 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. As presently located, Currents Jewelers is hidden from view from many locations on the mall. By allowing the storefront to be flush with the existing facades, this problem may be solved. Future expansions of this nature may occur for this and other businesses in accordance with the LionsHead Mall plan. PEC Memo Currents Jewelers Page Two The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities; public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Since the storefront will not extend beyond the existing building facade, it should not adversely affect the current conditions in the mall. The addition of 170 square feet to the existing i90 square feet will require an additional parking space. Since an-site parking is not feasible, a space will need to be purchased far $5000. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. -- There are none. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission sha11 make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance viii 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 the following reason: There are no exceptions or extraordinary circimstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance of the parking ordinance. We feel that the project will have a positive impact an this area of the Town. The applicant has been informed that if this application is approved, that there wi11 have to be a payment made into the Parking Fund of $5000. • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 10, 1979 RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 8.231 ACRES OF LAND IN AN AREA KNOWN COMMONLY AS THE MATTERHORN AREA. THIS ZONING WILL BE CHANGED TD TWO FAMILY PRIMARY SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE RECENTLY ANNEXED PROPERTY. STATISTICS Area: Approximately 8.231 acres. Proposed Zoning: Two Family Primary Secondary Residential Current Zoning: County RSM BACKGROUND Twelve petitioners requested annexation of land that is contained within the Matterhorn Subdivision. Town Council approved this annexation in July and now the property is before the Planning Commission for initial zoning. The area to be annexed contains approximately 8.231 acres of land and 24 lots. Existing land use is noted below: 2 Vacant i5 Single-Family 4 Duplex 3 Multi-Family (3 to 7 units} 24 The Community Development Department is recommending Two Family/Secondary Residential Zoning for this area. This initial zoning would be consistent with current County Zoning of which requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. For lots less than 15,000 square feet that are in this area Town Council just approved on first reading the ability to have a second dwelling unit with specific restrictions. Below are the restrictions that would be placed on lots of less than 15,000 square feet that are vacant or currently have only one home on the lot. "That the applicant shall agree in writing to: (a) That the Secondary dwelling unit shall not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from the primary . unit. (b) That the secondary dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than 3O consecutive days; and that it shall be rented only to tenants who are residents of the tipper Eagle Valley or who are full-time PEC Memo Matterhorn Zoning Page Twa • employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The "Upper: Eagle Valley" shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Rvan and their surrounding areas. A °F'ull-time employee" is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. (c) That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney far the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land; and • (d} That the secondary ~PUu~~ unit shall form of time-shares, interval ownership RECOMMENDATION not be divided into any or fractional fee;" The Community Development Department recommends the Two Family Primary/ Secondary Residential zoning for this property. • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 10, 1979 RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CYRANNO'S RESTAURANT TO ENCLOSE THE FRONT DECK AREA LOCATED IN TH£ GONDOLA SKI SHOP BUILDING ON LOT C, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The request to enclose the front deck at Cyranno's Restaurant is a proposal that has been modified by the applicant. The original proposal was to enclose both the front and rear deck at the restaurant. Enclosing the front deck would add approximately 425 square feet to Cyranno's restaurant. Part of the deck is over Town of Vail right- of-way. The proposal would not have any of the area proposed to be enclosed over this area. BACKGROUND: The Tawn Council at their meeting on August 8, 1979, voted to send the amended proposal back to the Planning and Environmental Commission August 14, . 1979 meeting for review and approval or denial. At the Council meeting there was a great deal of discussion concerning the request, Some Council members were in favor of the modified request and same were opposed to the request. The final action by Council was to have the Commission deal with the request. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District; We do not believe that vehicular traffic in CCI will be affected by this application. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District; C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking; D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; The addition of restaurant space could cause a slight increase in the number of deliveries. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; This proposal does not remove any public space used by pedestrians, due to its being located on a second level. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and pu61ic uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing. character of the area; We do not feel that this application will have a negative impact on the types of uses since there are not uses being changed) ar on the PEC Memo Cyranna's Page 1'wo • general pub1ic's uses of this space. We understand that the Greenhouse will have windows that can be removed in the summertime,. sa that the basically outdoor eating experience r.an still be maintained. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core T District so us to maintain the existing character of the area: Architecturally, we feel that the plans as submitted wi11 enhance the appearance of the building. The front porch will become a full season rather than just summertime use, which will add some color and activity to this end of the Village Core. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on environment of Commercial Core T District. We do not foresee any negative effects that this expansion will have on these factors. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department can see two options on this proposal. 1.) Not approve the expansion of this request since there is a change in the charactoer of the area. Sy enclosing the porch Chere is a definite change from the open front deck. As the Planning and Environmental Commission is well aware that the Staff is working on amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, developing a preservation zone and a urban design plan far Vail Village. Until the criteria are defined as to what decks, patios or other spaces should be enclosed and which ones should not be enclosed it is difficult to determine haw to treat the front porch on Cyranno's. 2.} To approve the enclosure of the front porch with the following conditions: a.) That the applicant construct the enclosure so that the windows are removed on the sides during the summer. This would provide the same summer space and appearance that is there today. b.) That the awning along the front and side remain to retain the color, and movement when the wind comes up and the awning flutters. c.) That the applicant pay for the required parking for this proposal. Payment of $5,000 per parking space must be made to the Parking Fund before a building permit is issued. PLANNTNG AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMTSSION • • AGENDA August 28, 1979 3:00--Public Hearing 1.) Conditional Use Request for the Sitzmark Lodge to allow the Addition of 400 square feet of Storage Space in the Garage Area. 2.) GRFA Variance Request for knit 2-B, Vail Row Houses 3.) Rediscussion of Aroposed Changes to the Agricultural and Open Space District 4.} Preliminary Discussion on Potential Annexation of The Valley. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA FOR $-2$-79 1.) Conditional Use Permit for the Sitzmark Building 2.) Variance for Vail Townhouse Unit 2-B 3.) Pxeliminary Discussion of the Annexation of The Valley • To',be published in the Vail Trail August 24, 1979. n U Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Meeting of 8-28-79 • Not yet approved by Board Members Present Jack Goehl Sandy Mi11s Gerry White Ron Todd Ed Drager Roger Tilkemeier Members not Present Jim Morgan Staff Members Present Jim Rubin Dick Ryan 1. Conditional Use Request for the Sitzmark Lodge to allow the addition of 400 square feet of storage'space in'the Garage Area. Jim Rubin explained this item. The Board asked questions. Ed Drager pointed out that they (the Sitzmark) are adding more parking spaces than they are taking away. Mr. Fritch explained that the storage space they are creating by enclosing the parking spaces will be used by the shops and there will be a connecting door. Jim Rubin explained that this item is only coming before the Board because of the enclosure of the parking spaces. Mr. Fritch explained that the parking spaces they are eliminating are under used during the winter. Roger Tilkemeier said the space is they to be used and they do not need the parking and he feels they should be allowed to da this. Gerry White asked Mr. Fritch if he feels they have enough parking. Mr. Fritch said all of the surface parking is used in the summer. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Request for the Sitzmark. Ron Todd seconded the motion. There was more discussion. There was a questions about the difference between the Sitzmark enclosing parking spaces and the Village Center's illegal enclosures. Jim Rubin explained that by enclosing parking spaces, the Village Center is not meeting their parking requirement. They did not have permission. There is also a difference in that the Village Center is not in Gommercial Core I~. PEC Minutes 8-28-79--Page Two S Sandy Mills said she feels the Sitzmark can came back at a later date and ask for more enclosures. Jim Rubin said they could. A questions was raised about the easement that is necessary. Mr. Fritch said it is in process. Gerry White said this request is based on economics and that is a poor reason to grant it. The vote was taken. Jaek Goehl, Ed Drager, Roger Tilkemeier, and Ron Todd voted in favor of the approval. Sandy Mills and Gerry White voted against approval. Sandy Mills feels the basic reason for doing this is economic. The parking spaces they are enclosing will bring in additional revenue. She realizes he is saying there will be less cars going through Checkpoint Charlie but she does not feel this is a justified trade-off. Gerry White feels there was no reason for him to vote for it. The request was based an economics only. 2. GRFA Variance Request for Unit 2-B Vail Row Houses Jim Rubin explained that he did nat receive enough information on this prior to the meeting. Ed Drager said the Board feels this should be tabled or presented. • Mr. Butler representing the applicant asked that Mr. Todd (the applicant} be allowed to present his plans since he is here and then have the item tabled until the next meeting. The Board refused to hear anything from the app1 icant. Sandy Mills made a motion to table the item until the next meeting. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3. Rediscussion of Proposed Chanq~s to the Agricultureal and--Open- Space District. Jim Rubin explained that this item was being sent back by the Council for further discussion, He presented: all the up-to-date figures etc. He also explained that the main reason for this rezoning is to correct an inaccuracy in the Agricultural and Open Space District Zoning. Ed Drager said the figures are still inadequate. He would like to know how many possible units are involved. Jim Rubin explained the difficulties in figuring the number of units. He explained that the numbers are all effected by covenants, leases, slopes etc. Rich Caplan suggested that the maximum number of units would be the • 595 acres divided by two or 2.98 units. Roger Tilkemeier said the only buildable sites are Vail Associate's Gold Peak and the Golfcaurse. PEC Minutes 8-28-79--Page Three A question was raised as to when this rezoning process started. it was explained that when the Open Space Acquisition Map was, discussed, it came to the Council`s attention that the Town's Agricultural zone was a great deal different than the County's and that one unit for 35 acres would be much more desirable than the present zoning. Ron Todd said he feels that the timing was very bad and, that the reasons are not consistent with good legislation. Jay Peterson, representing the Pulis Ranch, said he feels most parcels should have zero units, however, Vail Associates and the Pulises do have valid complaints. The rezoning would be greatly detrimental to future appraisals etc. We feels the Town needs to sit down with the Pulises and Vail Associates and work out the problems involved before they are in a legal battle over nothing. Gerry White said he feels the statements against the Staff are totally unfounded. The intent is to bring the wording of the Zoning Ordinance to what was the original intention of it. It is not aimed at the Pulises or Vail Associates. • Rich Caplan said the Town could never take zoning .action to effect the value of the sand. Ron Todd reiterated that several of these parcels are on the Land Requisition list. He also said that we should table this item for a few months until Vail Associates and the Pulises have~a chance to work with the Town. Jay Peterson said no one is going to come in and present plans to develop these parcels. They merely want the time to work with the Town to protect themselves for the future. Sandy Mills said all~the Board Members ha.d been contacted by Charlie Langhoff of Vaii Associates and that he had expressed that Vail Associates wants time to get the Land appraised under current zoning. Tom Harnett from Vail Associates said that Real Estate values are involved here and that there are '105 acres that Vail Associates owns which are developable whether or not they intend to develop them. We suggested they look at each lot one time. Ron Todd agreed that each parcel should be considered one at a time. Rich Caplan said we must look at the entire district not at individual parcels. ~_, PFC Minutes 8-28-79--Page Four Gerry White said he feels the purpose of the Planning and Environmental Commission is to control growth and keep the zoning as intended by the Zoning Ordinance. Jay Peterson said he still feels this can be resolved in a month or two. Ron Todd made a motion to table this until the October 22 meeting. John Donovan said that the Council wanted to look at this item again in October and perhaps it should not be tabled quite so long. Ron Todd made a motion to table this item until the October 8 meeting. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Sandy Mills asked the Staff to set up a work session on this. for the September 24 meeting. Gerry White asked that all the property owners be notified of this proposed changed. Jim Rubin said they already had been notified. 4. Discussion of Annexation of The Va71e~r There was a general discussion of the possibility of annexation of The Valley. Jim Cunningham, one of the developers of. The Valley explained the history and the future of the Valley. Part of the land may be purchased by John Thomas, Jim Sheehan and others. They explained what they would like to do with the land. they have under contract. Soth groups of people are going to. bring .back more definite plans and discuss this again with the Planning and Environmental Commission. MEMORANDUM . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 23, 1979 RE: Conditional Use Request for the Sitzmark lodge to allow the Addition of 400 square feet of storage space in the Garage Area. Description of Request Bob Fritch for the Sitzmark lodge has requested the addition of 400 square feet of storage space. The space to be converted is presently being used for parking, but is not eliminating parking due to their being six new parking spaces created by the approved closure of the Gore Creek Drive entreway into the present garage. In May of this year, plans for the new entreway were submitted and and approved by the Design Review Board with the condition that the ane additional parking space that was to be located next to the trash enclosure area be removed and replaced with landscaping. At that time, the plans were not submitted to the Planning and Environ- mental Commission because no "Floor Area" was being added. According • to Section 18.24.065 Conditional Ilse Fxpans-ion, a Conditional Use Permit would only have been necessary if either Floor Area of Grass Residential Floor Area were being added. Harking areas are specifically excluded from the definition of both of these terms. The Conditional Use Permit is being required now because storage areas do fall under the definition of "Floor Area". There were six parking spaces which were being created by this addition. These spaces are not contrary to 18.24.180, which prohibits that parking requirements for new additons cannot be provided on site. In this situation, there is not a new parking requirement either with or without the addition of storage space. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District; The new entreway would reduce automobile traffic in the Gore Creek Drive mail area by permitting access into the Garages of both the Sitzmark and the Gore Creek Plaza Building only from the Western side of the building. These cars wi71 be allowed to enter and exist in this garage without having to drive through the downtown Core Area. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District; • See response to Factor A. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking; See response to Factor A. PCC Memo on Sitzmark 8-24-79--Page Two D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; The proposed addition has a flat platform an which trash enclosures is to be built. This will be a much improved situation from a trash removal standpoint. The new additivn will not increase the number of delivery, pickup, or service vehicles. E. Development of public spaces for-use by pedestrians; This proposal does not remove any public spaces used by pedestrians. The filling in of the present garage will probably enhance the pedestrian experience along Gore Creek Drive both visually and in the reduced amount of automobile traffic. F. Continuance of the various commercial,. residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing-character of the area ; There are no new uses being created by this application. The storage space should create no detrimental impacts. G. Control ~ulaity of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Care I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area; As we have stated previously we feel that the proposed plan to change the entreway will have a beneficial impact on this important corner of Town. It will vastly improve a presently unattractive very steep drive- way. H. Bffects of noise, odor, dust, smoke and other factors vn the environment of Commercial Core I District. We do not foresee any negative effects that this proposal will have on these factors. RECOMMDNDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this Conditional Use Permit. We realize that the specific request is for the addition of the storage area, but do not feel that the storage area can be considered separately from the overall changes being considered. The storage area in itself does not have any negative impacts associated with it. It actually removes two of the six additional parking spaces that are being created 6y the approved plan. We, however, request that as a Condition of this approval, that the applicant agree with the conditions from the Design Review Bvard. The first condition was that the parking space proposed to be located by the trash enclosure be • removed and replaced with landscaping per the Design Review Board Approval of May l7, 1979. The Second Condition was that an agreement be received giving the tennants of the Gare Creek Plaza building access through the Sitzmark garage. 4~e have not received information on either of these conditions at this time. `~'' ,~ Project Application • Project Name: v ~- ~ o >~~ 4 Project Description: :~~ , f ~s ~. J~~~ _ Owner Address and Phone: ~-~ 4 ~ '~Y~ ~~~~- Date ~'~ ~~ ~~, Architect Address and Phone: ~A _ tie ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ -~ Legal Description: Lot~r~ ~ ,Block -~~ ,Filing ~~ ~~~i' Zone: Zoning Approved: - - ~ .~i~ f , ~ ~~ E ~ Motion by: - Seconded by: ~~ ~~ ~! ~~ Date ~! 1~ !~~ ` ~; PPROVAL ~ DISAPPROVAL ~iG ~ ~ ~ ~„tom p~ ~h~- C=~.~- Summary: Cam`" '~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ v~''~yfig Administrator ~ Chief Building Official Date: ~ ~_ ~~~ Date: l -~ - ~ - the Printery:.vail Design Review Boaird '~ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/Jim Rubin DATE: August 24, 1979 RE: Unit 2-B, vaii Row House At the present time, I have not received any specific information on existing GRFA and the existing lot size. Without this information, i cannot properly review this application. I have tried to contact the owner of the unit, Jim Todd, and the local attorney who submitted the application, Fred Butler, but have been unable to reach either of them. I will continue to try and if I have sufficient information by Tuesday, it will be~presented on Tuesday. The application is fora 250 square foot addition, which is primarily intended to coreect a current snow build-up problem. The 250 square ~freet would be an addition to the living room. • C7 PEANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA September 10, 1979 3:00 P.M. • 1.) GRFA Variance Request for Unit 2-B, Vail Row Houses, located on Lots l-5, Block. 5, Vail Village 1st Filing 2.) Setback Variance Request for Mountain Meadows, located on an Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn 3.) Setback Variance Request for the Cornice Building located on a portion of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing. 4.) Conditional Use Request for expansion of the Gore Creek dater Treatment Plant, located on Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. 5.) Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and Toning Ordinance concerning Interval Ownership, Time Shares, and Fractional Fees. To be published in the Vail Trail 9-7-79 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA t ~ ~~~ I ~ 7 Q r 3:00 P.M. l.) Selection of New Chairman 2.) GRFA Variance Request for Unit 2-B, Vail Row Houses, Located on Lots 1-b, Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing 3.) Setback Variance Request for Mountain Meadows, located on an Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn 4.) Setback Variance Request for the Cornice Building located on a portion of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village l.st Filing 5.) Conditional Use Permit Request for expansion of the Gore Creek Water Treatment Plant, located on Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. 6.) Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance concerning Interval Ownership, Time: Shares, and Fractional Fees. U Planning and Environmental Commission . Minutes of the Meeting 9-10-79 Not yet approved by the Board Commission Members Present Ed Drager until 5:00 Jim Morgan until 5:30 Jack Goehl Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Ron Todd Staff Members Present Dick Ryan Jim Rubin l.) Selection of a new Chairman Ed Drager asked if anyone would like to be the new Chairman. Ron Todd said he would. Sandy Mills nominated Ron Todd. Gerry White seconded the motion. Ron Todd was selected as • Chairman by a unanimous vote and took over the Chairman's duties . 2.) GRFA Variance Request for Unit 2-B., Vail Row Houses, located on Lots 1-6, Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing. Jim Rubin explained the Staff's position on this. The staff recommends approval. All the effects are goad. The expansion would eliminate snow and ice problems. Jim Todd, the applicant, answered questions of the Board. Ed Drager said he feels there is an alternate solution and no need to add more GRFA. Jim Morgan suggested putting in an air lock instead. Garry White suggested a heated sidewalk. Sandy Mills said she had gone to look at the site and saw the problem. She feels there is no justification to add 250 square feet. Ron Todd said they are not solving the problem but raising it up one floor. Jim Todd said he feels it is an adequate solution and is an improvement to the building. Gerry White made a motion to deny the GRFA Variance Request for Unit 2-B, Vail Raw Houses, located on Lots 1-6, Block 5 Vail Village lst Filing. Planning C~.~LL«ission Minutes . 9-].Ow79~--Page Two Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Gerry White said he voted against this request because there was no argument adequate for approval, Ecl Drager said he felt other people in the Vail Row Houses would come in and apply for expansions also. All the other members said they felt there were other solutions that would be mare adequate. Ron Todd advised the applicant he has ten days to appeal to the Town Council and that he will be advised in writing of the denial of his request. 3.) Setback Variance Request for Mountain Meadows, located on an Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn. Jim Rubin gave the history of this request. He said the developer had moved this building because of some under- ground springs and after completion of foundations and framing discovered an error had been made and it was located on the lot line. Jim pointed out that the. error had been . brought to the Town's attention by the applicant. Jim said the only alternative to this variance is to tear the building down. Roger Tilkemeier said he would like to emphasize to everyone that the applicant came forward and pointed out this error. Bob Warner, the applicant, explained that they had had some ground water problems and solved them by moving the building. They took a minor problem and created a mayor problem. The surveyors made a mistake originally. He sled they asked the Town for permission to continue on this and received a con- tinuance. Bob Ruder asked if there is an avalanche problem. Bob Warner said there is no avalanche problem, Jim Morgan asked about impact studies. Bob Warner said they were done at the beginning of the project. Ed Drager asked about the difference between this request and the Pierce Addition. Jim Rubin said this building was built by mistake and is existing in the setback. The Pierce Addition was proposed to be built in the setback. Gerry White said the only reason to grant this is economic. Planning Commission Minutes . 9-10-79--Page Three Ed Drager asked about how the inspections are done to enforce setbacks. Jim Rubin said the building inspector does not have survey equipment with him. Bob Warner said they know the :variance might not be granted. They could have rectified the problem much easier than this if they had only known about the problem earlier. They have spent more in time with the Forest Service, Town Staff, etc. than it would have cost to change the drain the system. He said they have advanced to the framing stage, have impacted no one and have worked out their problems with the Forest Service. Roger Tilkemeier said to comply with the zoning, four units would have to be moved. Jim Rubin pointed out that if this request had come before the Board before it was built, it probably would have been turned down but this was an honest mistake. Jim said the inspector inspects 500 units during a season and cannot possibly check all the lot lines. Bob Warner showed what they could have done had they known about the problem and mistake. Gerry White said he agrees that this was an honest mistake but every variance must be justified and he doesn't think it is justified. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the Setback Variance Request for Mountain Meadows located on an unplatted parcel, in Bighorn. Jack Goehl seconded the motion. There were four votes for approval and three against; Jim Morgan, Jack Goehl, Ron Todd, and Roger Tilkemeier voted for approval. Ed Drager, Sandy Mills, and Gerry White voted against. Ron Todd said it can be appealed to Council within ten days. All the Board Members who voted against said they just did not feel the granting of this setback was justified. 4.) Setback Variance Request for the Cornice Building located on a portion of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Jim Rubin explained this request. The new owner of the Cornice Building is Dr. Huttner. They would like to convert the upper floor (~ units) into one init. Planning Commission Minutes 9-10-79--Page Faur S Jirn Morten, architect for the applicant, introduced Dr. Rattner who has been hired by the Vail Medical Center as a consultant and recently purchased the Cornice Building. Jim explained that the complete lower floor would be turned into long-term employee housing as soon as current leases run out. Jim Morten said the Huttners also plan to stop an illegal laundry that has been operating in the basement. Jim saa.d the .plans will architecturally improve and upgrade the building. There is no adverse impact. Jim said the doctor needs the parking space to get to the hospital in an emergency. There will be no trees disturbed. Gerry White said there will be no control on the employee housing if the building were sold again or if the new owner would want to go back to four units. Jim Rubin said they could not go back to four units on the top floor. Dr. Huttner said he would guarantee that it would stay employee housing while he owned it. Ed Drager asked if he would be'' ~rai~.3~in~g to have deed restrictions and he said he would. Dick Ryan brought up some questions on the parking space. Sandy Mills said it was a very dangerous spot for anyone to be turning in to a parking space. • Gerry White said he feels it is an unappro.priate place for a parking space. He said the doctor knew when he bought the property that there was no parking. zt was suggested to make a garage-out of the Real Estate office. Ron Todd asked the applicant if he would consider having the two issues (parking and setback variances) voted on separately and he agreed. Dr. Huttner said when he bought the building he did not necessarily think he would be given permission to park there but did think he would be guaranteed parking in the transportation center. Rogan Tilkemeier asked about the possibility of having a space assigned. Bob Ruder said he didn't think that was possible. Ron Todd suggested the possibility of approving the parking space far a twelve month trial basis. Bob Ruder said that is a very dangerous place. He is opposed to parking. Sandy Mi11s said she feels his profession does not justify the granting of this parking space. U Planning Commission Minutes 9-10-79 -- Page Five Jim Morter said they would be willing to have a vote on the two issues separately. Jim Morgan made a motion to aNN~U~re the Setback Variances for the Cornice Building located on a portion of Tract B, Black 5, Vail Village 1st Filing with the exception of the parking and with the requirement of a cormiittment for employee housing to be arranged with the Town of Vail attorney. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. There was further discussion. Sandy Mills asked about fireplaces. There is one allowable. Roger Tilkemeier asked if they could convert the Real Estate Office to a garage. Jim Rubin said they would have to come back to Planning Commission to convert it. 'Ihe vote was taken on Jim Morgan's motion. The vote was unanimous. Gerry White made a motion for denial of the parking space. Sandy Mills seconded. The vote was six for denial and one for approval. Jack Goehl voted for the approval. 5. Conditional Use Permit Request for expansion of the Gore Creek Water Treatment Permit located on Tract C Vail Village 7th Filing. Kent Rose explained this request. They will go to Design Review Board if approved today. Jim Morgan made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit Request for the expansion of the Gone Creek Water Treatment Plant located on Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. (Fd Drager had already left.) 6. Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance concerning Tnterval O~vnership, Time Shares and fractional fees . Larry Rider, Town Attorney, explained each of the above and there was a discussion. Jim Morgan left at 5:30. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to continue this until 9-24-79. Gerry White Seconded. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P.M. MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: JIM ROBIN DATE: September 7, 1979 RE: Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance concerning Interval Ownership, Time Shares, and Fractional Fees Enclosed are drafts of Ordinances amending the Subdivision Regulations and.Zoning Ordinances and a licensing procedure for those people involved in Time Sharing and Interval Ownership Projects. Larry Rider will be at the meeting Monday afternoon to go through these with you and to answer any questions. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING ,AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9-7-79 RE: GRFA.Variance Request for Unit 2-~B, Vail Row Houses, located on Lots 1-6, B7.ock 5, Vail Village lst Filing DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is for a variance to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to the existing stair-well area on the west end of the townhouse to alleviate existing'problems of excessive snow build-up around the entrance and an accumulation of ice near the entrance due to water dripping from an overhead stairway. The Vail Townhouse Condominiums (12 units)ha-ve a.Iot a~~a of 16,222 square feet. with an allowable GRFA of 9733 square feet under current zoning law. The existing square feet of the 12 units is 15,539 square feet. However, it should be Hated that these units were constructed in the mid-1960's under less stringent zoning regula- tions. The color and style of the addition would be consistent and harmonious with the existing building and would represent an additional 250 square . feet of livng raom~space (it would not increase the density of persons that could be housed). CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section. 18.20..09..0 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 exist.inq or potential uses and structures in the vicinitr~. The proposed addition has been considered and endorsed by 100 of the Condominium owners-of the Vail Townhouses Condominium Association and by the Association Board of Managers. The owner of the unit which currently receives access via the stairway to be replaced will have new access provided by the deck bn top of the addition. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uziiformity of treatment amonct sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. It should be considered that these townhouses were built under mid- ~ 1960's zoning law and were not subject to the more strict GRFA regulations now exista.ng. The applicant does have snow removal ~~ problems in that the entrance is small and snow easily builds up 1 PEC Memo on Vail Row Houses 9-7-79--Page Two r~ due to the surrounding conditions. All property owners have the right to.adequate and safe access to their units. The creation of extra living space is not the primary objective o£ the applicant. 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 request should not adversely affect the current conditions. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed. variance. There are none. Findings: The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a vaa~iance: That the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • The granting of the variance .will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in teh vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would ~ result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed addition as it will not significantly increase the GRFA so that additional people would be. housed and because it represents both an aesthetic and safety improvement to the existing conditions. L~ MEMORANDUM TO: FLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9-7-79 RE: Rear Setback Variance for Mountain Meadows, located on an Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is to a11ow the completion of Building F of Mountain Meadows, a project being constructed by Warner Properties on an Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn across from the Vail Racquet Club. Due to a surveying error and the location of underground springs an the site, Building F was started with one corner .of the building located almost exactly on the Rear Property Line (which abuts National Forest land). The ~`ariance request is for 15 feet, which would allow the completion of this building. CRITERIA AND FINDYNGS 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 rear property line abuts National Forest Land with no apparent use of the National Forest land at this time. With a major Avalanche Path and drainage area located directly to the West of the Mountain Meadows Development, it is uxililcely that the National Forest Land would ever be actively used. The degree to which relief fxom-the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified.requlation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of~treatment ar[ionq sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this-title without grant of special. privile~. We believe that the surveying error was inadvertent and that to require removal of the existing structure at this time would be a major hardship on the applicant. The building presently has had the foundation poured and framing started. The further exis-- tance of underground springs on the site in the area of Building F wouuld be an appropriate reason for desiring the change in location . of the building. PEC Memo--Mountain Meadows 9-7-79--Page Two r~ u The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population., transportatitin-arid traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no detrimental impacts on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors 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. That the granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public helath, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: A. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the spec if ied regulation would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives Of thl5 title. B. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable to. the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Co~munity Development recommends approval of this setback Variance request. We would feel differently if either this request would detrimentally impact other properties ar if we felt that this error had been intentionally made. We also feel that if the applicant had presented a setback. variance request to avoid under- ground springs before the building had been commenced with similar circumstances to these, that we would hlso have recommended approval of the request. MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9-7-79 RE: Front, Side and Rear Setback Variance Request far the Cornice Building located on a Portion of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is to allow a major remodel of the Cornice Building which is now under new ownership., what the new owner desires to do is to convert the top four apartments into one dwelling unit which is to be used by the owner himself. In doing this conversion, the request is to enclose the existing decks on the North, East and part of the South side of the existing building. The present use of these decks is to provide access into the upper apartments which would no longer be necessary with the elimination of the three apartment units. The present building is non-conforming on all four sides with respect to the cuxrent setback regulations which are 20 feet around the perimeter of the property in a High Density Multi-family (HDMF) Zone District]. The proposed deck enclosures reduce the setbacks from 16.5 to 13.5 feet on the West Elevation, from 12 feet to 9 feet on the North Elevation, and from 10 to 8.5 feet on the East Elevation. As far as allowable GRFA, the addition, which is 166 square feet, results in a total GRFA for the building of.1,791 sgare feet. The total allowable on the site is 2,205 square feet. One further part of the application is to a11ow one parking space on the site, which, however, falls within the front setback (where parking cannot be located). 'The present site has no parking on it. 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 enclosures and parking space have no adverse impacts on existing and potential uses in the vicinity. The enclosure will . actually considerable improve the visual appearance. of the building. Having one parking space on site will also helpefully reduce congestion in the area by reducing the number of cars stopping on Vail Valley Drive in front of the building. PEC MEMO--Cornice Bldg. 9-7-79----page Two The degree to which re.xie£ '~r~m-'tie strict 'or 'literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation-is xiecessary to achieve compatibility and uriifor~iitv.of-'treatment among. Sites in the vicinity, or to atta~.n tYie objectives of this title without q~ant of special privilege. The proposed conversion brings the property more into conformance in terms of number ~~.~ units by ~~educing the number of living units from seven {four on :t.he trop and three on the bottom) to four (one on the tap and three on the bottom). The provision of one parking space also brings the property mare into conformance by allowing the parking of at least one car on the site. The size and shape of this site far the most part precludes any improvements and parking from being provided without going through the variance procedure. 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. FINDINGS: The Planning & Environmental C..,.uwissiOn Shall make the following findings before granting a. variance: That granting of the variance will not consititute a grant of specie]. 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 mare of the following reasons: B.. 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. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the setback variance requests .and allowing one parking space to be provided within the front setback-area. We feel that the proposed remodel wi11 vastly improve the appearance and function of the present building and that the variance is justified due to the size and configuration of the lot on which it is situated. MEMORANDUM • T0: PLANNING AND ENVTRONMENTAT~ COMMTSSTON FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9-~7^79 RE: Conditional. Use Request for expansion of the Gore Creek Water Treatment Plan located on Txact C, Vail. Village 7th Filing. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The request is to construct an addition to the existing water treatment plant. The proposed addition has several functions including a holding facility for backwash water from the filters, office space, chemical and general storage. The holding facility would eliminate current discharges into the creek and allow flows to be regulated into the sewage system. The parcel has been recently rezoned from R(Residential) to PUD (Public Use District).- T.he proposed addition represents approximately $36 square feet constructed on the north side of the existing facility. The reason this request appears before the PEC is that any construction in a PUD requires a Conditional Use Permit. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.36.030 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 . The proposed water treatment plant will improve the water quality of Gore Creek and, thus, have a positive impact upon the Town's objectives. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of poAulation, transportation facilities,~utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The addition would improve Vail's public utilities. • PEC Memo--Gore Creek Water Treatment Plant 9-7-79-wPage Two 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 parking facility will accommodate any ,demand far parking which may arise as a result of the addition. Thus, no negative impacts in terms of parking or traffic will be created. 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. Because the addition will be similar to the existing structure in terms of scale, bulk and materials, no negative effects upon the character of the area will occur. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable, to the proposed use. There are none. 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 welf are or materially injur z~us to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the praposed 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. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION r~ U WORK SESSION AGENDA 9-10-79 • 12:00 (noon) Lunch at Gol£ Clubhouse Restaurant Meet at Police Parking Lot and we wi11 all go over in a Lift Vehicle. 1:30 F.M. Field Trip to the Valley 3:00 P.M. Regular Meeting • SUBDIVISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. 17.08.150 of the Vail Municipal Code is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 17.08.150 SUBDIVISION A subdivision or subdivided land is defined as: ~~ • (1) a tract of land which is divided into two or mare lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests (including leasehold interests), interests in common, or other division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, or transfer of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference to such subdivision or recorded plat thereof; or (2) a tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, apartments or any multiple-dwelling units, or for time-share estates, interval estates, fractional fee u~its,~time span estates or time-share licenses, unless the improvement with the same: density has previously complied with the re- quirements of this chapter; or (3} a house, condominium, .apartment or any other dwelling unit which is divided into two or more separate interests through division of the fee titled thereto, whether by conveyance, license, lease, contract for sale or any other method of disposition. Unless the method of land disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this definition, the term "subdivis~.on" is defined in this section shall not apply to any of the following divisions of Land or interests in land: (a) The division of land by order of any court in this state or by operation of law. (b) The division of land by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security instrument. _- - . - T (c) The division of land by a security or unit o~ interest in any invest- ment trust regulated under the laws of this state or any other interest in an investment entity. ~~ ~ Page 2 (d) The divis.ivn of land which creates an interest or interests in oil, gas or minerals which are now or hereafter severed from the surface ownership of real property. {e) The division of land by the ',~ acquisition of an interest in land in the name of a husband and wife or other persons in joint tenancy or as t~:nants in common and any such interest shall. be deemed for purposes of this section as only one interest, provided, however, that no agree- ment exists, either recorded or unrecorded, between the co-tenants allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more co- tenants to the exclusion of one or more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccuring or not if said agreement is in any ,ray binding or effecta.ve upon any ' ~ assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement continues to be in any way binding or effective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property. {f) The division of land by reason of the dissolution of a joint venture or other business entity. Section 2. Chapter 17 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to Subdivisions is amended by the addition of the following: • is 17.08.053 FRACTIONAL FEE (a} a fractional fee is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property, including condominiums, created or held by two or more persons, partner- ships, corporations, or joint venturers {and similar entities) wherein the joint tenants or tenants in common have formerly or informerly arranged (by oral or written agreement or under- standing} for the preferred or exclusive use by one or more of the tenants in common during specific periods of time except as excluded in Section 17.08.150 (e}. 17.08.055 INTERVAL ESTATE Interval Estate is a form of time sharing as defined in the statutes of the State of Colorado (b) The estate for years shall not be deemed to merge, with the future interest, but neither the estate for years nor the future interest shall be conveyed or encumbered separtely from the other. "Interval Estate" also means an estate for years as described here and above where the remainder estate, is defined either by the prcject instruments or by Page 3 the deed convey~.ng the interval estate, is retained by the developer or his successors. in interest. 17.08.095 PROJECT INSTRUMENTS The Project Instrument shall be defined in accardance with the Statutes of the State of Colorado 17.08.070 TIME SPAN ESTATE A Time Span Estate shall be defined in accordance with the Statutes of the State of Colorado 17.08.085 TTME-SHARE ESTATE A Time-Share Estate shall be defined in accordance with the Statutes of the State of Colorado 17.0$.086 TIME-SHARE LICENSE A Time--Share License shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy, during 5 ox more separate tame periods extending over a term of mare than 2 years of a parcel or any of several parcels of real property identified at the time the license is created or to be identified later, but no. time share is ' a time-share license if it meets the definition of interval estate, time-share or time-span estate. In 17..,04..020 of the Vail Munica.pal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 17.04.020 COMPLIANCE (a) General Prohibition It shall be unlaw- ful for any person, firm or corporation to violate any of the provisions of this chapter or to transfer, sell, lease or agree to sell or lease, any lot, tract, parcel, site, separate interest (including a leasehold interest), interest in common condominium interest, time share estate, interval estate fract.ional..:fee, time span estate or time-share license, or any other division within a subdivision, is def fined in Section 17.08.150, within the Town of Vaal: until such subdivision has been approved in writing by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council, as applicable, and a plat there- of recorded in the office of the Eagle ~ County Clerk and Recorder. Provided, ~ however, that a written agreement to sell or lease which is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by the seller with the subdivision regulations of the Town of Vail within a specified period of time, and which expressly recites that seller's failure to satisfy such condition within said period of time shall terminate the agreement and entitle the buyer to the prompt retuxn of all consideration~here- tofor paid by the buyer under said agree- ment, shall not constitute a violation of this subsection. Page 4 • • (b) PROHIBITIVE CONVEYANCES No lot or parcel of Land.,. nor any_..interest therein, shaZl.be transferred, conveyed, sold, sub- divided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new non-con- forming_use or to avoid or circumvent or subvert any provision-af this chapter. (c) The owner, developer, buyer, or seller, shall be fully responsible for all acts of agents or employees thereof that are committed in violation of the terms of this chapter. (d) PROHIBITED CONSTRUCTION No structure shall be constructed, nor Building Permit issued for a structure, on any parcel of land within a subdivision approved pursuant to this chapter except where such structure is to be constructed upon a lot separately designated within the plat of such approved subdivision. The lot lines established in such approved subdivision shall not be altered by conveyance..of a part of such lots, nor shall any part of any lot be joined with a part of any other Lot for conveyance or construction .unless and until written applicat.a.on has been made to and approved the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council, as applicable after finding that the general purpose ~•and purport of this chapter shall not be weakened by such change. {e) REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS In addition to a~.l remedies provided by law, the Town of Vail shall be authorized to enforce its subdivision regulations as follows: (1) The Town, in addition to other remedies provided, may institute an injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropri- ate action or preceding to prevent, enjoLn, abate, remove an unlawful construction, use, occupancy or con- veyance or to enjoin any subdivider from selling, agreeing to sell, or. offering to sell, or otherwise convey, before full compliance with the pro- vision of this chapter, any parceled land or other interest which sale or conveyance would constitute a subdivision under Sectioni7.08.150. (2) The .Town Building Inspector shall reuse to issue permits of any kind for the construction of any building. or other improvements upon any Land for which an approved final plat is required by this chapter, unless and until the requirements hereof have been complied with. • Page 5 f~ {S) No Building Permit shall be issued for any lot or parceled land which has been transfered, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired in violation of this chapter. Any trans~fe.ree who acquires a lot or a parcel of land in violation of this chapter ~ without knowledge of such violation, ~ and any subsequent transferee, shall have the right. to rescind and/or receive damages from any transferor who violates the provision of this chapter. {4) The Planning and Environmental Commission may withdraw any approval of a plan or plat or require certain corrective measures to be taken following a determination that information provided by the sub- divider, or by.:anyone on his behalf, upon which a decision was based,_.is f else or inaccurate. The: Planning and Environmental Commission shall cause written notice to be served on the subdivider, ar his assignes, setting out a clear and concise statement of the alleged false or inaccurate information provided by the subdivider, whereas agents on his behalf, and directing the sub- divider to appear at a time certain far a hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission not less than ten days nor more than thirty days after the date of service of notice. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine at the hearing the nature and extent of the alleged false ar inaccurate informa- S tion and sha11 have power, on good cause being shown, to withdraw any approval ox' require certain corrective measures to be taken. However, with- drawal of approval or imposition of corrective requirements shall not be an exclusive remedy on finding by the Commission that false or in- accurate information has been received, and any and all remedies provided by law may be exercised. Section 4. Section 17.16.030 is amended by the addition of a subparagraph (i) to read as follows: (1) project instruments, if applicable. Section 5. Subsection 17.16.11.0 is amended by the addition of two additional paragxaphs to be lettered (b) and (c} to read as ~o~.lows r Page 6 !~ • (b) The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of his application. and plan, its conformity,to the design requirements of this chapter, the 1ack.of adverse affect of the proposed development, and ..the compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or knowingly submit a false statement as paxt of an application for subdivision approval, exemption or exception. Section 6. Chapter 17.16 of the Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of the following; 17.16.080 TOWN COUNCIL REVIEW t {a) A decision. of the planning commission may be appealed to the town council by the applicant, any aggrieved person, or the town manager, (b) Within three days following a decision by the planning commission, its decision to approve, disapprove, or request changes in a subdivision application shall be transmitted to the applicant. The decision shall became final if no written appeal is made to the town council within ten;days following the decision of the planning commission. C] (c} Not more than twenty-one days following the filing of an appeal, the town council shall review the action of the planning c~uu„ission. The fawn council shall confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the planning commission within twenty-one days following the filing of the appeal. If the council finds that there is insufficient information to provide the basis for a sound decision, the council may postpone fa.nal action for not more than thirty additional days. Failure of the council to act within twenty-on.e days of the filing of the appeal or within the thirty additional days if the appeal has been continued by motion of the council shall be deemed approval by the council of the subdivision unless the applicant consents to a time extension, (d) Any decision of.the town council which results in the disapproval of the subdivision shall specifically describe the basis upon which the disapproval. was entered.- t BONING CODE Section 1 Chapter 18 of the Vail Municipal Code is amended • as follows: (a) relating to high density multiple family Sections 18.20.010 and 18.20.020 are amended by the addition of terms - "time share estate units,~.interval estate units, tame-span units, time-share licenses and fractional fees units"-..following the word "lodges" in each of the sections. {b) relating to public accommodation ,district as Section 18.22.010 and 18.22,020 are amended by the addition of terms - "time share estate units, interval estate units, time-span units and time-share licenses and fractional fee units following the word "Lodges" in each of the sections. (c) relating to Commercial Core F, Sections 18.24.010, 18.24.020 (b)(7), 18.24.030 (b)(3), 1$,24.040 {a)(2), and x.8.24.050 (a)(2) are_ amended by the addition of terms -"time-share estate units, interval estate units, time-span units, ,=t;ime-share licenses and fractional fee units" following the word "lodges" in each of the sections. (d) relating to Commercial Core lI, Sections 1$.25.010 and 15.25.040 (b) are amended by the addition of terms - "time-share estate units, interval estate units, time-span units, timeshare licenses and fracti~nal~fee units" following the word "lodges" in each, of;tlie... sections. • Section 2 Chapter 18 of the Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 18.58.125 to read as follows: All dwelling units located in single family residential, two family residential, primary/secondary residential, residential cluster, low-density multiple family, and medium--density multiple family will be restricted to the six-month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. The other lease arrange- ments or tenancies agreed to on after the September 15, 1979, shall be a violation of this code. Section 3 if .any-part,.-se~tian, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any ane or more parts, sections, • subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Sect ion 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares t • i• I• that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants. thereof . Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail. Municipal Code is provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accxued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof.; any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue .of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. • Section l.dld. APPLICABILITY; EXEMPTIONS {A) This chapter applies to all time-share units, interval estates, fractional fees, and time span estates, as defined in Chapter i7 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to subdivisions, except as provided in Subsection B_(below). {B} A public offering statement need not be prepared or delivered in the case of: (1} a gratuitous transfer of a time share; (2) a: disposition pursuant to Court Order; (3) ~ dispposition by government or governmental agencies; (4) .a disposition by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure; (5) a transfer to which Section 1.060 re- ~ lating to resales applies. Section 1.020. PUBLIC OFFERING STATEMENT - GENERAL PROVISIONS ~ {A) A public offering statement~.must contain or fu11y and accurately disclose; (1) the name of the developer and the principal - - address of the developer and the unit or units offered in the statement; {2) a general description of the time-share units, including without limitation, the developer's schedule of commencement in com- pletion of all buildings, units, and ameni- ties; (3) as to all units offered by the developer in the same projects (a) t'he types and number of units; (b) i,lentification of units that are time-share units; (c) th.e maximum number of the developer's units that may become time-share units; (d) ..statement of the maximum number of time shares that may be created, or that there is no maximum; and (e) the number or proportion,-of time shares the developer intends to market in blocks to investors. (4) copies ar~d a brief narrative description of the significant features of the governing instrument and any documents referred to therein (other than any plats and plans), copies of any contracts or leases to be signed by Purchasers at closing, and_a brief, narrative description of any contracts or leases that wi11 or may be~°subject to can- cellation by the time-share owners; :.::: r - _ Page 2 • (5) any current balance sheet and a projected budget for the time-share units either within or as an exhibit to the public offering state- ment, for (one) year after the date of the transfer to a purchaser, and thereafter the current budget, a statement of who prepared the budget, and a statement of the budget's assumptions concerning occupancy and inflation factors. The budget must include, without limitation; (a} a statement of the amount, or a statement that tl~ex~e is no amount,. included in the budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement; (b) a statement of any other reserves; (c) the projected common expense liability by category of expenditures for the time-share units; and (d) the projected common expense liability for each time share. • (6) any services not reflected in the budget that the developer provides, ar expenses that he pays, and that he expects may become at any subsequent time a common expense of the time-shares and the projected common expense liability attri- butable to each of those services or expenses for each time .share; (7} any initial or special fee due from the pur- chaser at closing, together with a description of the purpose and method of ca]:culating the fee; ($) a descrip.~ion of any liens, defects, or encum- brances on or affecting th.e title to the time-share units; (g} a description of any financing offered by the developer; (T0;) the terms and significant limitations of any warranties provided by the developer,- including statutory warranties and limitations on the enforcement thereof or on damages; i• i• (11) a statement of any judgments against the developer and any association or manager, the status of any pending suits to which the developer and any association or manager is a party, and the status of any pending suits material to the, time-share units of which a developer has actual knowledge; (12)~ a. statement that any deposit made in connec- tion with the purchase of a time share will be held in an escrow account until closing of the transaction; (13) any restraints on alienation of any portion of any time share; (14) a~._descripti.vn of the insurance coverage provided for the benefit of time-share owners; Page 3 ~J (15) any current or expected fees or charges to be paid by time-share owners for the use of any facilities related to the property; (l6) the extent to which a time-share unit may be- come subject to a tax or other lien arising out of claims against other time-share owners of the same time-share unit; and (17) all unusual and material circumstances, fea- tures, and characteristics of the property. (B) If the time share owners are to be permitted or re- quired to become members of or to participate in any program for the exchange of occupancy rights among themselves or with the time-share owners of other time-share parcels or .both, the public offering .. :. statement or a supplement delivered therewith must contain or fully and accurately disclose: (~.) the manner in which the program is operated, the identity of the persons operating it, and any affiliation between the program and the developer; (2) whether membership or participation in the program, or both,. are voluntary or mandatory; (3) the costs or ranges of costs of membership and participation in the program as of a specified date not more than one year before the public offering statement is delivered to the purchaser, and whether those costs are payable to the developer, the persons operating the program, or the time-share owners with whom exchanges are made; {4) whither and how any of the costs specified in paragraph (3} may be altered and,. for any such costs which are to be fixed on a case-by-case basis, the manner in which those costs are to be fixed in each case; (5) the number of time shares and time-share par- . eels involved in membership or otherwise participating or available for participation in the program, and the number of each that may be withdrawn from the program, as of a specified date not more than one year before the public offering statement is delivered to the purchaser; (C) A developer promptly shall amend the public offering statement to report any material change in the infor- mation required by subsection (A}and the public offering statement or any supplement thereto to report any material change known to him in the in- formation required by subsection (B). Section 1. 0 30 . SAME - CONVERSION FROPERTY (A) The public offering statement for the time-share units in a conversion property must contain, in ad- dition to the information required by Section 1.020: Page ~ • (1) a statement by the developer, based on a report prepared by an independent architect or engineer, describing the present condition of all structural components and mechanical and electrical installations material to the use and enjoyment of the time-share units; (2} a statement by the developer of the expected useful life of each item reported on in para- graph (1) or a statement that no representa- tions are made in that regard; and (3) a list of any outstanding notices of uncured violations of building code or other municipal regulations, together with the estimated cost of curing those violations. (B) This section applies only to units in which resi- dential use is permissible. Section 1.00. SAME ~' .TIME-SHARE SECURITIES If a time-share unit is currently registered with the i• Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States., a developer satisfies all requirements relating to the preparation of a public offering statement of this Act if he delivers to the purchaser and files with the Town a copy of the public offering statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Section 1.050. TIME ~'OR PROVISION OF PUBLIC OFFERING STATEMENT (A) Before transfer of a time share and no later than the date of execution of any contract of sale, the developer shall provide the intended transferee with (1) a copy of the public offering statement and any amendments and supplements thereto, and (2) the disclosures required in the case of resales by Section 1,060. i• i• SECtion 1.060. RESALES OF TIME SHARES (A) In the event of a resale of a time share by a time- share owner other than a developer, the Seller shall furnish to the purchaser before execution. of any contract for the sale, or otherwise before the transfer, a copy of the governing instrument (other than the plats and plans) and a certificate cones taming: (1) a statement disclosing the effect on the proposed disposition of any right of first refusal or other restraint. on alienation of the time share; (2) a statement setting forth the amount of the common expense liability and any unpaid common expense assessments or other sums currently due and payable from the seller; e Page 5 • (37 a statement of any other fees payable by time-share owners; ahd (~) a statement of any judgments or other matters which. are or may become liens against the time share or the time--share unit aind the status of any pending suits which. may result in such liens. {B) If the seller owns or offers for sale more than an aggregate of 12 time shares in more than one time- share unit in the same project and the managing entity for those time-share units is an association or manager, the seller shall include in the certifi- cate furnished pursuant to subsection {A): (1) a statement of any capital expenditures pro- posed by the managing entity for the current and the next succeeding fiscal year; (2) a statement of the amount of any reserves for capital expenditures and of any portions of those reserves designated by the managing entity for any specified projects; {3) the most recent regularly prepared balance sheet and income and expense statement, if any, for the property; (4) the current operating budget for the property; (5} a statement describing any insurance coverage provided for the benefit of time-shams owners; {6) a statement as to whether the managing entity has knowledge that any alterations or improve- ments to the time-share unit violate any pro- vision of the governing instrument; (7) a statement as to whether the managing entity has knowledge of any violations of the health or building codes with. respect to the time- share unit, or any other portion of the pro- perty; and {8) a statement of the remaining term of any leasehold estate affecting the property-and the provisions governing any extension or renewal thereof. {C) Any association or manager, within 10 days after a request by a time-share owner, shall furnish a certi- ficate containing the inforamtion necessary to enable the time-share owner to comply with this section. A time-share owner providing a certificate pursuant to subsection (A) is not liable to the purchaser for any erroneous i:nfgrmaton provided by the asso- ciation or manager and included in the certificate. (D) A purchaser is not liable for any unpaid common expense liability or £ee greater than the amount set forth in a certificate prepared by an association or manager. A time-share owner is not liable to a purchaser for the failure or delay of an associa- tion or manager to provide the certificate in a timely manner. P a.ge 6 • Section 1.070. ESCROW OF DEPOSZT5 Any deposit made in connection with the purchase:.or reservation of a time share from a developer must be placed in escrow and held in an account designated solely for that purpose by a title insurance company licensed in this State, an insttu- tion whose accounts are insured by a governmental agency or instru- mentality until (1} delivered to the developer at the expiration of the time for rescission or such later time as may be specified in any contract of sale; (2} delivered to the developer because of purchaser's default under a contract to purchase the time share; or (3} refunded to the purchaser. Section 1.080. LABELING OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL • If any improvement to the property is not required to be built, no promotional material may be displayed or delivered to prospective purchasers which describes or depicts that improvement unless the description or depiction of the improvement is conspi- cuously labeled or identified as "NEED NOT BE BUILT." Section 1.090. DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIOTd TO COMPLETE :.~~ die-deve•ls~per-shat3~:coi~tpl:ete.aL].promised improvements described in the governing instrument and promotional materials. Section 1.100. REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS (A} In addition to all remedies provided by law, the Town of Vail sha11 be authorized to enforce these time-share regulations as follows: it (1} t'he Town, in addition to other remedies pro- vided, may institute an :injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropriate action or pre- ceding to prevent, enjoin, abate, remove an unlawful construction, use, occupancy or con- veyance or to enjoin any developer from selling, agreeing to sell, or offering to se11, or otherwise convey, before full compliance with the provision of this chapteri (2) no Building Permit sha11 be issued for any lot or parceled land which has been transfered, con- veyed, sold, or acquired in violation of this chapter. Any transferee who acquires a time- share unit in violation of this chapter with- out knowledge of such violation, any subse- quent transferee, shall have the right to rescind and/or receive damages from any transferor who violates the provision of this chapter. Page 7 L` i~ i. (3} the Planning Commission may withdraw any approval of a plan or plat or require certain corrective measures to be taken following a determination that information provided by the developer, or by anyone on his behalf, upon which a decision was based, is false or inaccurate. The Planning Commission shall cause written notice to be served on $ie developer, or his assigner, setting out a clear and concise statement of the alleged false or inaccurate information provided by the developer, whereas agents on his behalf, and directing the developer to appear at a time certain for a hearing before the Planning Commis-~ lion not less than ten days nor more than thirty days after the date of service of notice. The Planning Commission sha11 determine at the hearing the nature and extent of the alleged false or inaccurate information and shall have power, on , good cause being shown, to withdraw any approval or require cer-~an=corrective measures to be taken. However, withdrawal of approval or imposition, of corrective requirements shall not be an exclusive remedy an finding by the Com- mission that false or inaccurate information has been received, and any snd all remedies provided by law may be exercised. ~? PROJECT REGISTRATION 'F ~ Section 2.010. DEFINITIONS r (A} Department. As used in this section, "Department" means the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail. Section 2.020. REGISTRATION REQUIRED '€ . A developer may not offer or dispose ~~ a t_~.~-°sk~.axe_ intbrval estate, fractional fee, or time span estate unless the subject parcel is registered with the Department, but an offering by a developer of said estates in no more than one parcel, in any one project at any one time is exempt from the requirements of this section and Section 2.030. Section 2.030. APPLICATION -- APPROVAL (A) For the purposes of this section, "substantially completed" means all structural components and mechanical systems of all buildings containing or comprising any time share unit, interval estates, fractional fees or time span estates or portions thereof are finished in accordance with the plans, as evidenced by a certificate of occupancy (B) An application for registration must contain the information and be accompanied by any reason- able.fees required by the Department':s rules. A developer promptly sha11 file amendments to report any actual or expected material change in any document or information contained in his application. . {C) If a developer files with the Department the governing instrument,or proposed governing instrument, or an amendment or proposed amendment to the governing instrument, describing the time-- share, i.e., fractional fees or time span estate parcels comprised in whole or in part of buildings or portions of buildings that have not been substantially completed, the developer sha11 also file with the Department: (1) a verified statement showing all costs involved in completing the property; (2) a verified estimate of the time of completion of construction of the property; (3) satisfactory .evidence of sufficient .funds to cover all costs to comp~.ete the property; (4) a copy of the executed construction contract and any other contracts for the completion of the property; _ (5) if purchasers' funds are to be utilized for the construction of the property, an executed copy of the escrow agreement with an escrow company or financial institution authorized.to do business within the state which provides that: (a) disbursement of purchasers' funds may be made from time to time to pay .f or construction of the property, architectural, engineering, finance, and legal fees, and other costs for the completion of the property in proportion to the value of the work the contractor as cer- completed by ' , tified by an independent architect 1 • or engineer, on bills submitted and approved by the lender of construction funds or the escrow agent; (b) disbursement of the balance of purchasers' funds remaining after completion of the property may be made only after the escrow agent or lender receives satisfactory evidence that the period for filing mechanics' and mater ialmen's liens has expired, the right to claim those liens has been waived, ar adequate provision has been made for satisfaction of any claimed. mechanic's or materialman's lien; and (c) any other restriction relative to the retention and disbursement of purchasers' funds required by the Department; and (6} Any other. materials or information~tho Department may require by its rules. (D) The Department may not register the time-share parcels descxibed in the governing instrument or the amendment unless the agency determines, on the basis of the material submitted by developer, that the time-share parcels to be added to the property will be completed. Section 2.040. ORDER OF REGISTRATION (A) Within 60 days of the receipt of the application the Department shall determine whether: (1) the application and the proposed public offering statement satisfy the requirements of this Chapter and the Department's rules; (~} the. governing instrument complies with this Chapter; and (3) there is any reason to believe that the improvements the developer has undertaken to make cannot be completed as represented. (B) If the Department makes a favorable determination, it shall issue promptly an order registering the, parcels. Qtherwise,_unless the developer has consented in writing to a delay, the Department shall issue promptly an order rejecting registration. Section 2.050, VIOLATIONS If the Department determines after notice and heaxing, that any person has disseminated or caused to be disseminated orally or in writing any false or misleading promotional materials in connection with a time-share, i.e., fractional fees or time span estate parcel, or that any person has .other- f wise violated any provision of this Chapter ar the Department's rules or orders, the Department may issue an order to cease and desist from that conduct, to comply E • with the provisions of this Chapter and the Department`s rules and orders, or to take affirmative action to correct conditions resulting from that conduct ox failure to comply. Section 2.060. REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION (A) The Department, after notice and hearing, may issue an order revoking the registration of a parcel upon determination that a developer or any officer or principal of a developer has: (1) failed to comply with a cease and desist order issued by the Department affecting that parcel; (2} concealed, diverted, ar disposed of any funds or assets of any person in a manner impairing rights of purchasers of the parcel; (3) failed to perform any stipulation or agreement made to induce the agency to issue an order relating to that parcel; or {4) misrepresented or failed to disclose a. material fact in the application for registration. (B) A developer shall not dispose of or transf er a time share i.e., fractional fees or time span estate while an order revoking the registration of the time-share parcel is in effect, without the consent of the Department. (C) In appropriate cases the Department, in its discretion, may Issue a cease and desist order in lieu of an order of revocation. Section 2.070. DUTIES 4F DEPARTMENT {A) The Department may adopt, amend, .and repeal rules and issue orders consistent with and in futherance of the objectives of this Chapter, but the Department may not interfere with the internal activities of the managing entity or of owners undertaking self-management except to the extent. necessary .t.b. prevent ~viola:~ion5 0~ this Chapter. The Department may prescribe forms and procedures for submitting information to the Department, -. ^ ::>~ (B) If it appears that any person has engaged, ' is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice in violation of this Chapter or any of the Department's rules or orders, the Department without prior administrative proceedings may request that the Town Council ~~ authorise the bringing of a suit in the appropriate courts to enjoin, that act or practice or for other appropriate relief. (C) In issuing any cease and desist order or order rejecting or revoking registration of a parcel, the Department shall state the basis for the adverse determination • and the underlying facts. (D) The Department, in its sound discretion, may require bonding, escrow of portions of sales, proceeds, or other safeg~.ards it may prescribe by its rules to guarantee completion of ail promised. improvements pur- suant to the Developer',s Obligation to Complete. Section 2.080. DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF PUBLIC OFFERING STATEMENT {A) The Department at any time may require a. developer to alter or supplement the farm or substance of a public offering statement to assure adequate and accurate disclosure to prospective purchasers. (B) The public offering statement may not be used far any promotional purpose before registration and afterwards only if it is used in its entirety. No person may advertise or represent that the Department or the Town of Vail has approved or recommended the time-share parcels, the dis- closure statement, or any of the documents contained in the application for registration. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 9-24-79 WORK SESSION: 1:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. Field Trip to the Valley with Jim Cunningham 1:45 P.M. Preliminary Discussion of Vail Village Inn Phase TII 2:45 P.M. A. Presentation of Additional Information on Amendment to Agricultural and Open Space Zone District B, Appointment of two Planning and Environmental Commission Members to the Vail Village Preservation Task Farce PUBLIC HEARING: 3:00 P.M. l.) Development Plan for Phase III of the Vail Village Inn located on Lots O & P, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. (Table at Request of Applicant) 2.} Resubmittal of Landscaping Plan for-the Schober Building. 3.) Amendment to Special Development District Located on ' s Lots Cl-C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 to allow a Manager Unit in the Recreation Building. 4.) Setback Variance for a new Residence to be located on Lot 24, Vail Meadows First Filing. 5.) Conditional Use Permit to a11ow an Office Building on the Getty Oil Site an an Unplatted Farrel in Bighorn which is in a Heavy Service District. 6.} Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance concerning Interval Ownership, Time Shares,, and Fractional Fees. MIND'TES OF PLE~NNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF 9-24-79 Not Yet approved., by the Board Members Present Members not Present Jack Goehl Roger Ti.lkemeier Sandy Mills Ed Drager Ron Todd Jim Morgan Gerry White Staff Members Present Jim Rubin Dick Ryan Peter Patten 1.} Development Plan for Phase III of the Vail Village Inn located on Lots 0 & P, Block 5~-D, Vail Vi11a~e First Filing, Jim Rubin explained that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled. . Sandy Mills made a motion to table this item to October 8, 1979. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2..} Resubmittal of Landscaping Plan,, for the.Schober Building. Jim Rubin explain that Craig; Snowdon, the architect on this project will be coming at 3:30 and asked that this item be moved to the last item. The board agreed. 3.},Amendment to Special Development District Located on Lots Cl-C5, Lionsridge Filing No,1 to allow a Manager's [Trait in the Recreation Building. 'She applicant had not arrived. This item was moved to later in the Agenda. 4.} Setback Variance for a new Residence to be located on Lot 24, Vail Meadows first Filing. Peter Patten explained this item. Dr, Jost, the applicant, explained his reasons for the request. He said he would like to move-the house back to the forest service line. He does not feel that it impacts anyone. It would be less excavation for him, He would like to stay as faraway from other buildings in the neighborhood as possible. • The site plan was presented. PEC Minutes 9-Z4-79-Page TS,ro 4.} Jost Variance continued Sandy Mills said that the Board cannot. .consider an economic hardship so they cannot consider the excavation issue. Peter Patten pointed out that the issue here is.thaS_ .there is not a real hardship. The Board discussed the view corridor. Gerry White said the view corridor is not .a hardship either, Gerry White made a motion to deny the setback variance for a new residence to be located on Lot 24,~ Vail Meadows First Filing. Sandy Mill seconded the motion. Four people voted for the denial. Ed Drager voted for agproval, Jim Morgan°abstained as he was not present for the presentation of this item. Ron Todd explained to the applicant that he has 10 days to appeal this decision to the Council. Item No. 3 was presented at this time. 3.) Amendment to Special~Development District Located on Lots Cl~-G5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 to allow a Manager's-~Tnit in the Recreation Building. Jim Rubin explained this it.ern. He mentioned that the developer has agreed to change the plans to a two bedroom and and two bath unit rather than the plans presented.. Jim explained that the reason the developer would like to add this-unit is so that they can have a central location where they can have mailboxes, fire alarms, laundry facilities etc which is supervised 24 hours a day. With the manager living in a-separate-unit, this would not be possible. Jim mentioned ti~at the restrictions that apply to the entire project (cannot be condominiumized or short termed for 20 years) would also apply to this unit. It would only be used by the manager. Jay Peterson, representing the developer, explained that the unit would be used by the manager and h~:s family only. They hope to have a manager who is a family person. It~def finitely would not be used by several individuals. The board looked at and discussed the plans. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the Amendment to Special Development District Located on Lots C1-C5, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 to allow a Manager's Unit in the Recreation Building. {Revised plans were for a two bedroom, two bathroom unit approximately 1Q80 square feet.) Gerry White seconded the memo. The vote was unanimous. ,lay Peterson asked if this needs 'to go the Design Review Board. Rein Todd said it can be staff approved. PEC Minutes 9-2479-Page Three • While the Board awaited. arrival of some of the applicants, Ron Todd asked dim Rubin if he would like to finish the discussion on Agriculture and Dpen Space started during the work session. Jim said he dust wanted to reiterate that the Town did not create this rezoning to punish Vail Associates or the P.ulis family~or anyone. He asked everyone to look at the new material~he gave them at the work . session and if they have any questions, please get ahold of him before October 8. Ed Drager asked if Don Walker will be getting back to the Planning Commission an his progress in obtaining the properties suggested for Agriculture and Open Space, .Dick Ryan said the Planning Commission will be updated. Ron Todd said he heard that the Town: was trying t.o obta.in a parcel of land that was under contract to another party and he felt that this was not proper. He hoped that all the Town's dealings for the Open Space land would be above board. The Board then discussed Item 4~fi while awaiting applicants. 6.~ Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and. Zoning Ordinance concerning . Interval Ownership, Time Shares, and Fractional Fees. Jim Rubin explained that Larry Rider, the Town Attorney, was in court and unable to make the meeting. Sandy Mills said she would like to have a work session before the October 8 meeting. Gerry White made a motion to table the item until the October 8 meeting and have a work session on Tuesday, October 2 at 10:00 A.M. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Ed Drager asked to be excused from the meeting. He has.a conflict of intexest on the.last two items anyway. He left the meeting at 4:05. The Board then discussed Xtem ~~5. 5.} Conditional Use Permit to allow an Off ice Building on the Getty Oil Site on an Unplatted Parcel in Bighorn which is in a Heavy Service District. Jim Rubin explained this item. Fritz Glade made his presentation.: He showed the~site and elevation plans to the Board. He explained that these are only preliminary drawings as he dust didn't know what to do on this issue as 'the Planning Commission • PFC Minutes 9-24-79-Page Four • 5.) Getty Oil Site continued had given them one.directive~and the Council had given them a different directive, Jay Peterson, representing Pitkin Creek Park, voiced disapproval of the off ice building. He~feels they are trying to get too much on the site. It is like a largeduplex on stilts. He thanks it should look residential. He does not think an office building fits with the .character of the neighborhood which is all.residential. Jay pointed out that this parcel of land was zoned Heavy Service years ago primarily because it was owned by Getty Oil and Heavy Service would-have permitted a gas station. He feels--that zoning is not appropriate today. Aon Todd said it is wrong to say., "na residential, no gas station, no office building." The property is zoned and a contract has been signed .. and the board must approve some use. Jay Peterson said he is not against residential but is against mass. Residential would be appropriate but-.much less density that they originally approved. Sandy M311s said she feels the current plan for the office building . is a sea of asphalt. Fritz Glade said the Town Ca.uncil had ruled out residential so the developer felt that'an office building is their. only alternative. Ron Todd said he feels that the Office Building could be designed to look residential. Jim Morgan said that if a gas station had been built there, it definitely would have been a sea of asphalt. Jay Peterson reiterated that the zoning on this parcel is out of date. Fritz Glade explained that the Building is on the .level with the highway. He also pointed out that this is the only piece of land in Vail that can be developed for office space. Jack Goehl asked what types of occupants-the building would have, Fritz Glade said so far they have had interest from a cont~actior who would like to establish his corporate off ice there, a developer, an architect, accountants etc, Tt would not be used by people.who need on site visitation. Jay Peterson said he is not in favor of them cutting down on the • parking. They will def finitely need it. He.feels it is a Denver type building and needs to drop to at least a two story building. PEC Minutes 9-24-79--Page Five 5.) Getty Oil Site continued Craig Snowdon spoke from the audience. He said that four out of the five Design.Review Board Members are-a,t this meeting. He suggested that if the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the office building they could specify and recommend criteria tv the Design Review Hoard. Jay Peterson said he feels the square footage .and parking need to be specified here. Ron Todd said he feels that the Planning and Environmental Commission either needs to approve or disapprove the Office Building today. Sandy Mills said she feels the building is too large and no:t sensitive to the neighborhood, Jim Morgan read from the zoning ordinance as to what the~Hoard is to be deciding on this conditional use. .Tack Goehl asked if ~':ritz Glade was .aware of what he was to submit with this application. Jim Rubin explained that the application is not clear but that all the required material had not been submitted. . Ron Todd asked for a motion. Jack Goehl made a motion to deny or table this item,' It was decided that the motion should be for denial ar tabl;ing but not both. ;: Jack Goehl made a motion-to table this item until October 8,when the applicant could present more information. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Ron Todd, Jim Morgan, and Gerry White voted against the motion. Sandy Mills and Jack Goehl voted for it. J.im Morgan made a motion tv.approve the Conditional Use Pertuit to allow an Office Building on the Getty Oil Site on an Uriplatted Parcel in Bighorn which is in a Heavy Service District contingent upon the applicant submitting a better landscape plan, a more. detailed site plan and a modif ied building plan to them at a later date. The plans must conform more with the area. Gerry White seconded the motion. Ron Todd, Jim. Morgan, and Gerry Write approved the motion. Sandy Mills and Jack Goehl.voted against it. The Board said the applicant may go to the Design Review Board with his plan, but they must see it again also. Fritz Glade asked for a directive from the Board. Jack Goeh1 said it needs more parking which is done correctly. Sandy Mills said she does not feel and office building is the right • solution for this parcel and she gust can't give any directives. Jim Morgan said they definitely need more parking and a modified building. PEC Minutes 9-24--79-Page Six LJ 5.) Getty Oil.Site continued Gerry White said he feels that the architect .paid boo little attention to the way people see this site when they drive by. It def finitely needs more landscape, a drop in the elevation, and a redesign of the parking. Item ~~2 was discussed at this point. 2.) Resubmittal of Landscaping Plan for the Schober Building Jim Rubin explained the Staff feelings on this. Craig Snowdon ,made his presentation. Sandy Mills said their previously approved landscape plan .is•non-conforming and by approving the new plan they would be approving something that is even more non--conforming. Gerry White made a motion for denial of the revised landscape plan far the Schober Building. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. . Ron Todd told Craig Snowdon this can be appealed to Council .within ten days. The meeting adjourned at 4:56 P.M. r 1 MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9-21-79 RE: TIME SHARING REGULATIONS Due to Larry Rider's not being able to be in Town on Monday and due to the length of the Agenda, we would request that the discussion on changes to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in regard to Time Sharing Regulations, etc. be tabled until October 8, 1979. We would also suggest that a work session be scheduled for some time prior to October 8, 1979 to discuss these changes further. it would also be very helpful to us if you could jot down some of your thoughts on the proposed changes and get them to us at your earliest convenience. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 9--21-79 RE: Study Session Item on Phase III of Vail Village Inn Phase 1TI of Vail Village Inn was scheduled to be presented at the meeting on Monday for a public hearing. Because of the complexity of the plan and previous approval of Special Development Distridt.6, the department considers that the Planning and Environmental Commission hold a study session an this item. As part of this study session there will be a presentation on Special Development District 6 by the Staff and applicant. In addition, the preliminary plans for Phase III will be presented for ,your review and comment. Enclosed is a copy of Special Development District 6 for you_to read over and became familiar with what was approved. Eldon Beck who worked with the Staff on the development of Special Development District 6 has reviewed the submission for Phase .III. The staff will present his comments at the study session. • Below are the statistics presented by Bill Ruoff, the architect who worked on~the original proposal for Special Development District 6 and Joe Staufer, present owner of the property. Phase III will be under new ownership and the firm of Santangelo-Dahman Architects will be working on the boil ding design. The Department considers that it is importan.tto have the entire site function as a coordinated plan. Mr. Staufer also wants to insure that the entire project is architecturally compatible. Ta date, the C...~u«unity Devlopment Department is pleased...to see that the architect working on the project respects these issues and is responding to them in the plan presented. • c: VAIL VILLAGE INN (SD6) PHASE III BUILDING AREAS LEVEL ELEVATION UNITS SERVICE PARKING COMMERCIAL RESIDENTAL P1 85 71- P 2304 2b,8$0 3456 - P2 95 52- P - 17,920 5872 - 1 105 13- R - - - 16,319 2 115 9- R -- - - 11,182 3 125 7- R - - - 8,975 4 135 7- R - - - 7,855 5 145 4 ~ R - - - 4,830 TOTAL 40 2304 44,800 9,328 49,161 • i• RESIDENTIAL DREAKJOtidN GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) CIRCULATION ~ MECHANICAL % EFFICIENCY UNIT COUNT TOTAL PARKING TOTAL SITE AREA PARKING & DRIVES PLAZAS & LANDSCAPE BUILDING COVERAGE LAND USE 46,492.4 s.f. 1,800 s.f. 24,694.4 s.f. 18,000 s.f. 40,000 s.f. 9,161 s.f. 81.4% 40 123 SPACES 100% 3.9% 57.4% 38.7% ~..- .--, - --- . -- r--. - . ~ : - r-- . ~~.- w `~ - ;sunset park 3D5 186D larlmer st. deriver, co. 8D2U2 (303j 623-i&53 / 892-7Q95 r- ~ i f i s 7.ON1NG . +' ~ .~ i ` • ~~ Chapter 18.50 I SPECi~IL U1~VELOf'~~1ENT DISTRICT ti (SDG) ~ • ~ Sectiatts: ' 1fi.50.010 Established. ` i 8.50.020 l'ur-~~ose. ~ iS.S0.030 Devciopmerlt pl~~rl--Approval i?racedure. 1$.50.040 Develollrllctlt 11Ian- Contents. 1$.50.050 [ e~~nlitted Uses. ~ 18.50.060 Canditiarlcll115es. 1$.50.070 Accessary aces. 1$.SO.OFO Devefopnletlt sta-ldalds. P 1b.S0.090 Lat area :111CI site dinletlsions. E f 1$.50.100 Setbacks. i1i.50.1 10 Uist:ttlce l~etwPen buildings. 1 18.50.120 Height. i $.50.130 Uerlsity. 18.50.140 i3luldill~ bulls. ~ ~ ~ ~ 18.50.150 Coverage. 18.SO.iGO Qj)C11 Si]~C2. 'ter ? 18.50. t 70 Gatrdaealling and site development. _ i$.SO, I SO P~~lr•tcitrg alld Ioaditlg. 18.50.190 Fireplaces. .. •~ 18.50.204 Cotlser-vtltion cotltrols. 1 fi.50.210 Rccreatian~rl anlenlties tax. 18.50.220 Lilllitstion arl existence. 18.50.230 Anlettitics. - ' 18.SO.OlO Fstablislled. Pltlsuant to the provisions of Cl3aptei•s I8.02, 18.40 and 18.G6, as arllcndecl, special dcvelol~merrt district. G (SDC), a , special cleveloptlleni zoning ciistric#, is est~tblislled for the - dcvrluprnent on a certain Marcel of land comprising 3.455 acres in t11e Vctil ~~ilkagc arcs of t11c to~vrl, and the cotliny orclillclllce atld t13L official zonintt ~rlap arc ar3lertctc,d by the arlclition of this chapter, ~vhi~:11 shall l.~r;conlc Cha,plcr 18.50, the captiorl of \V1t1Ch 511(311 lac `~S~l'Gl:tl CIE:vC10I1111Ci1t LliStriCt G'~ ^lld 3 111i1p . which sltrrll bcconle arl ~ldditi«n to ille official zoning trap. ~#2G • SPECIAL DI:VEC.OPMI3NT llISTIZICT 6 {SDG) {Ord. 7(1976} § 3: Ord. S(1973}Art. 13 Ch. 7 {part).} 18.50.420 Purpose. . A special development district is established to assLtre comprehensive tlcvelopmcnt anti use of art area in a rnanncr that will be harmonious wit.f~ the gcrteral character of the town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, End promote the olJ.{ectives of the zoning ordinance of fire town. Ordinarily a special district will be created Drily when ttte development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning, and the devcloprnent is regarded as complementary to the town by fire town council, planning commission, and design review board, and there are significant aspects of tyre spacial dcvelopuzent which cannot be satisfied under. the existing zoning. (Ord. 7(1976) § 4: Ord. 8(1973) Art. i3 Ch. 7 {part).) 18.50.030 Development flan-Approval pracedrtre. A. Tlie development plan far the Vail Village Inn, which is part of its application, shall be incorporated by reference; and made a part of special development district 6 and constitutes a general plan arzd guide for development within •#lte special district. '~ I3. Amendments to the approved dL;veloprnent plan which do not change its substance and which are fully recornmende.d in a repart of the planning commission may he approved by the town council by resolution. C. The environmental impact report and a supplemental report for each phase of construction which shall be submitted to the zoning admvlistrator in accordance with Cltapier 18.56, prior to the cornrnencerrrcnt of site preparation, builclin~; COl1StrLECtIOn, oz' other improvements of open space. Each phase of the devcloprnent shall require review and reconurrindations of the planning conarnission anti approval by t11C tOWll GouI3Cr1. D. Eac}r phase of the devclaprnent shall require the prior aptn-aval of the dt~siL n review board in accordance with. thy. applicable provisions of Clr;tptcr 18.54. Each phase shall be reviewed by an OL1tSr[le consrlltarzt at the expense of the 427 ,~, `, .` ~LQlttlNCs • ~ _.~ cicvelopcr, wito shall give titcir recotnmcnciations to tlic design review board. I'}t~ developriietlt plats shall be atttr.nclecl to retlcet architectural clctail of each ph:rsc. (Orel. 7{ 1~7C•) § S: 4rci. H(1973}'Art. l~ Ch, 7 (part),) 1$.50.040 vevefnpntent ptan-Carttc:lts. 'l7te proposed developnlcitt plan sha11 inc}ude, but is riot lim ited to, the following data as amcndeci t~}r exltiUits provided by consultants Royston, 1-lailantoto, bc:clc and Abey, on l~eb.ruary } 2, 1976: A. L:xisting and ~ proposed contours after grading and site devcloptnent !saving contour intervals of not rnc~re than two feet and prclisnrnary drainage P}att. Supplementa} c}ocinnentation of proposed' contours and drainage sllali be SU111111ttt;Cl t4' tltc .zonltlg adlninistratOT Witll tlY~ plans for each phase of the development; B. A site plan, at a scale of one inch cqua}s forty feet or larger, showing the locations and dittlc;nsians of all l~s.iilclings and ~-~ siruettrres, uses }n tllc buildings, and all principa}. site ~. development features such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service areas, dTiVC\Vays, and Of~t-Street paTl~lil~; atld loadtnt; aTG1S;. v ~. ~ pl'cliitlislary landscape plan, at a scale of one inch equals forty feet or }arger,. slto\ving existing landscape features to be retained or r~rnoved, and showing proposed landscaping r and landscaped site developtllcnt features stick as autdoar rccrcatioslal facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pee}~strian p}azas atld \va]kWstys, water features, find otttcr elements; D. Schematic 131111din~ elevations, sections and l~loar plans, at appropriate scales, in sufficient detail to de.t4rrllinc floor aria, general circulation and use location, atld re;ne:-al sea}c • and bulk of the proposed devclopnaent. Specific detail f©r tltcsc itcnls artci tllc :tp.pc;arailcc sllal} be submitted on a phase basis; E. A voltrilletric model as amended by consultants Roystosl, llanairit3to, 13c:ck and flbcy on lAebruary 12, 1976, of the site and the proposed development cioc:umented by photographs, :tt a scale of one inch equals sixt~cn feet or larger, portrsyirlg the scale and relatiotlsltip of the ~~$ SI'IrCIAL UI~VI~LOPMENT DISTRICT 6 (SI)G) ~` dcvclopcnertt to the site, and illustr~ttirtg the fornf anc~ mass • of structures in develol}ment. Supplentc~ntary volt~mrtric ntotiels sltail be submitted larior to construction of cacti F ~ phase to rolled existing and proposed clcvelopn~cnt; F. ~ A phasint; plat of tltc proposcci cicvcloprnent ilidicating ardcr anti general timi~~,* of consti:itction phases, antcnitic>, anti proposed interim clevekoprne~rt.. (Ord. 7(1976) § 6: Ord. b(l 973) Art. ! 3 Clt. 7 (part).} 18.5€1.050 Permitted uses. All permitted uses~as defined in the public accotnn~odation district, Section 18.22.020, s11aI] be permitted in SD6. (Ord. 7(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) Art. 13 Clr. 7 (part}.) 18.50.060 ~=onditiunal uses. All conditional uses as defined in the public accommodation district, Section 18.22.030, and subject to the issuastce of a conditional use permit itt accordancE with the provisions of Chapter 18.60, shall he pen>7itted in SD6.' (Ord. 7(1976} § 8: Ord. 8{1973) Art. 13 Ch. 7 (part).) J 18.50.070 Accessory uses. All accessory uses as defined in the public accommodation district, Section 18.22.040, shall ite permitted in SD6. (Orel. 7{197b) § 9: Ord. 8(1973) Art. 13: Cli. 7 (part}.} 18.50.080 pevelol~n~ent standards. The development standards set out in Sections 18.50.090 tllrougYh 18.50.230 are ntinit~tttm dcveloptt3ent standards in special district b. (Ord. 7{1976) § 10 (part}: Ord. 8(1973) Art. 13 Clr. 7 (part).) 18.50.090 l..,ot area and site dintensinns. Tlie sliccial district shall COIlStst of an area totalling 3.455 acres as specified in Sectiolt 15.50.010. (Ord. 7(1976) § 10(A): Ord. 8(] 973) Art. i 3 Ch. 7 {part).) ~l29 4 ~l,ONl1~lG •~ 18.50.100 Setbacks. , '1'ltc rc:cluirccl setbacks shall vary as indicated is] the . • cievCloprnent plan, provkl~ill=; space for pl+Inting and an acccptabic rclaiionsl]ip to adjacent properties. 1'artions of the . contmercis3 sl~acc may abut the south property line. (Ord. 7(~197G} § 30(13): Orel. $(1973} Art. 13 Clt. 7 (part).) 18.50.110 Distance bctweest buildings. T1te nl~nil]itIn] c}istancc bct~veen l~ttildir]gs on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan but in no ease sh~tl3 ttc less titan fifty feet. (Orel. ")(1976) § 10(C): Ord, 8(1973) Art. 3 3 Clt. 7 (part).) 18.50.120 1~Ieigltt. ' ~ A. Stacy shall lie; as defined by tl]c Uniform Buildil7g Codc. $. Of the allowable site coverage far the development, the ' fallowing are allotivable heights in stories far tl]e structure as - ~,~ ' out3ined an tl]e devc3opntent plan:. 1. Maxilnun] height area A, five stories, maximum r elevation range of one hundred fifty-five feet to one hundred fifty-eight feet fI•om a base elevation of '' ninety-five feet ; • ' 2. Maxinttrn] height area B, 11ti•ee stories, maxilnunt ~. elevation ranges of ane hundred thirty-five feet to one 3tunclred forty feet front a base elevation of ninety-five feet; ~ 3. Maxin]un] hcigl7t area C, four stapes, tnaxin7ttrrt elevation range Of OI]C l1LtI]drecl thirty-nine feet to ane ' hundrecl forty-four feet ftoln a base elevation of ninety-five feet; ' ~l. MiiXrltlitn7 height area D, stcpdo~vn areas shall be lower tltatt ilte areas tvhiclt they adjoin, and desceltding in . height to the citd of tire buildit]g mass in an acceptable relationship to rite rc:Ittais]der of the siic and shall not excccci tl]4 foI]owil]g maxin]usn: a. «'r:.st stepclowr] area, three stories to two stories, wif It tttaximl1m clevatio.n rartge of one hundred seventeen feet !o ane 1]undtt;d twenty-six feet from ,~ 430 I~ Sf'EC1AC. Ui:V1~LUPMt:NT 1)1STR1C"1' G (S1~G) a t)asc clevaiiort of ci;;31ty-six feet, b. North stepdaWn ~trca, three stories, with a maximum ' C1L'YUtla11 rilI1~;4 at arlC htlnclrCCl tlril"ty-frVE; fCCt t0 • one iutndred forty feet from base elevation of ninety-five feet, c. East stepclown area, four stories down to one story, wltlt n-~aximum elevation range of one ltuncired feet • to one 1~untlrccl forty feet from a base elevation of eighty-six feet; end line of east steridown area not to exceed Crossroads ai Vail setback. fri no event shall the total average height of the project exccccl ' forty-five feet; 5. D4axitntln~ height for area E, eomnaercial space, the dominant Itcight Sllall b0 two StC)I'iCS, a1lOWIIt~; BCCCnt efr:ments to forrll an acceptalite relationship to the projec ~. ' C. The intent of the height limits alid rang:.s is that file ~lF1ldIIZh COIrlpleX SllOilld bC aS lOW a$ pa551b1C. At tills 1CVC1 of detail It IS not I'CaliStlG i:ij t1C dawn a 1}rCCISe maxin3U171 elevation. final dC51~n5 With rCgard t0 01CVati0I1 W111 dC~C[lCl upon further detail Study and proJectlon of the building • mass onto photos of the actual site conditions. The massing respects the spirit of tvhat is desired and final heights Wi11 be '~ CSte~tJ11Sl7ed basvrl all final clecisian. Tl'L:. 5llapping inter3t iS to n]allttalrl the village quality aI1C1 t0 nlalntairl tl1C two-scary elevations as tllc predominant l~~:igllt. This lr~:iglit can vary upward or do~vnWard by half a level. (QI•d. 7(176) § 10(D): Ord. 8(1973) Art. 13 Ch. 7 (part).) ls.sa.l3a 17el1sity. The gross residential floor area (GR1~A) of all btlilclirlgs constructed in the spe.ci,al district shall not exceed one hlxnc[red thotlsaruf sciuare feet. The gross residential floor area devoit~c€ to accolnrnodatian units slratl exceed the gross residential ilaor area devoted to d~vel]tng units. if tota€ gross residential floor area is devoted to accanylrlodation units, the number of accol3lmodatian units shall nvt exceed tllrec hundre;d. (Ord. 7(1970) § 10(1;): Urd. 8 (1973) ~~rt. 13 Clr. 7 (part).) 431 I'~ .LONCNC t $. S 0.1-40 ~~`.~il'° : - y ` tr(s~x{-'y~,~.'y~~~.r,~y-~5,y .~-ay~}~P}~ ~~~:"l T~~{E.:~~~+~~'f '§i4:~L~~4.'~~~~l tpef ~'. ~,s~. ' rx~„u..~."k; Riw~`~T~'~I:P S iI$Yl. i.~~l t tS`I .,~. ~4 ~.~~ 18,50.1 SO Coverage. The site area to be covered by buildings shall be as generally ]ndtCaiCd on the development plan, but ill no case shall exceed (iffy-five percent of the total site area. (Ord. 7(19'76) § 10(G}: Ord. 8(1913} Sri. 13 Ch. 7 (part},) 18.50.16(} ;~~~:>'~=iN~+:~~" ~.._.. -- ~`'~ '. ~" -•~ '; ~:., 18.5(7.170 Landscaping and site developtllent. ' At least thirty percent of the tot~.i] site area sl'~all be l~uldscape and plaza area. f.andscapinl; and other site J develal~nlcilt stall obsel~e the landsca}3ing concept as indicated • in tike at~pravecl develol?nlelli plan. (Ord, 7(1976) § 10(1}: Qrd. - 8(1973) Art. l3 Cll. 7 (part).} 18.50.180 l~al'ltlTl~fi, 2nd laadili~;. „ A. 1~a1"1<i11g alld loadnlg Sllall 1JC prOVrdGd a5 reQuil'0c1 ril the public accolnnlodatioil district, Section 18.?.2.1;0, and callsstcnt ~vitll the previsions of CILal~ter 18.52. All requirc.ci parl:islg shall be ~vithill the main btlildirtg ar bElildings or beneath accessory decks, plazZ and patios except tl]e nlinimtun necessary for registration itnd temporll~y laadiny and Etnlo:]dinb. 13. 1';n"kint; sh~t11 1?c pravi~iecl tar cllat'ter bt:ses. C. Laaclin,_, c{clivery altd garbage f<lcilities shall be off-street and within i11C StrliCtErl;e as indicated an the c}evelop]llcnt ~~ 1~Ian. X132 !,~'J \~ .~ SI'I~CIAL ll13VlLOPM1iN1' llIS'1'R[CT G {SUG) (Orel. 7(1976) § 10(1): Ord. $(1973) Art. 13 C1~. 7 (part).) r 18.s0.1~a h'il~eplaces. ' t~irel~laccs shall not be pera»itted in ilydiviciual accon3modation units. (Ord. 7(1976) § 11: Ord. $(1973) t1 rt. 13 Ch. 7 (part}.} 18.50.200 Conservation controls. ' Developer shall include in the building colzstruction enemy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the tune of construction. (Ord. 7(1976) § 12: Ord. 8(I9i3) ' Art. 13 CII. 7 (part).) 18.50.210 Recreational amenities tax. 'I~te recreational antenitics tax due for the dcveloprmcnt • within SDG under Chapter 3.2Q slrall be ussessecl at a rate not to exceed seventy-five cents 1?e!' s~~uare fnot of floor area anti shall be paid iIZ conjunction with constnlctiolt phases anti pl•ior to the issuance of a buiidiltn permit. (Ord. 7{1976) § 13: Ord. S(1973) Art. 13 Ch. 7 (past).) J 18.50.220 1/iruitation on eYis#ence. Prior to tllc adoption of the t•Ipproved deveIoplnent plan, the tOWi1 COtIrIClI reserves to the town the right to abrogate or modify sp4cia! cleveloplnellt district 6 for good cause tltrailgh the elaacfrncnt of an orclitZance; provided, however, that in the event the town COLlE1G11 finds It t0 be appropriate to consider whether to abrogate or modify Sl]6, the proewdures shall be ira accordance with Cl~aptcr 1$.GG. (Ord. 7(1976} § !4: Ord. $(1973) Art. l3 Ch. 7 (part}.) 1$.50.230 Amenities. A. Developer shall pI-ovidc, in its approved development plan a bus shelter of a clesi~,n and location mutually at;rc~~at}le to developer and town council. `Ric shelter to serve the aI•ca generally. ~. SW1n1Il1in~T pOOI of aclcquatc size to reasonably serve the needs of t}3e cleveloprment shall be provrdcd. {Orel. 7{19?G) § 15: Ord. $0973) Art. 13 Cll. 7 (part}.} X33 MEMORANDUM • T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9-21-79 RE: Request to amend the Landscaping Plan approved fox the Schober (Bell Tower) Building as part of the Conditional Use Permit. REQUEST The request is to modify the landscape plan for the North side of the B~11 Tower Building to permit a nine foot wide outdoor Patio along the North side of the building (by the Lancelot Restaurant) and to move the landscaping further to the North. The new landscaping as presented would be a smaller area than the one previously submitted and exter~ls approximately four feet onto Town of Vail property. BACKGROUND The expansion of the Schober Building was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 10, 1979. The proposed revision was determined to not need a new Conditional Use Permit but to need an Amendment to the one previously granted since the expansion itself was not what was being changed. RECOMMENDATION: The Department recommends that this request .not be granted. Until the Urban Desing Plan is finished, we do not think that the planted areas should be allowed to extend into the Tawn Right- of-way. Another concern is the decrease in the size of the landscaped area that would result from this modification. The site prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit was non-conforming in terms of landscaping, with the expansion actually making it more conforming by having a 10 foot landscaped strip from the building to the pedestrian walkway. The addition of the patio would, contrary to the original plan, not decrease the amount of non-conformity on the site. We would also like to thank Craig Snowdon and Pam Hopkins for their assistance in redesign the Creekside Steps and coordinating the landscape plan far the steps with that of the Bell Tower Building. • MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 9-20-79 RE: Publa.c Hearing and to the Development Located on Lots C1 Filing No. 1, Loca Road, to allow for STATISTICS APPLICANT: Chris Dittmar AREA: 10.05 Acres Consideration of Amendment Plan for Employee Housing through C5 of Lionsridge ted along the North Frontage a Manager's Unit. ZONING: Special Development District EXISTING LANDUSE: Vacant PROPOSED USE: 198 Two Bedroom Rental Units for Employees and one Manager's Unit. REQUEST: The request is to amend ordinance no. 7 of 1979 to allow a manager's apartment in the recreational building. This raises the unit count to 199 and raises the GRFA by 1443 square feet for a new total on the project of 149,943 square feet. The new unit also raises the parking spaces provided from 297 to 298. BACKGROUND: The Manager's apartment is to serve as a control unit for the entire site. The building in snihich the manager will reside {the recreation building) will contain fire alarm systems for the entire complex, all mail boxes and laundry facilities, besides the recreational rooms. REVISED PLAN: The revised plan for the recreation building shows the manager's living quarters on the second floor of the two-story building with the garage for the unit on the lower floor, adjacent to the common facilities for the tenants of the complex. The upper pEC Memo-Lionsridga C1-C5 9-20-79--Page Two r~ Revised Plan Continued floor is at grade with the road on the interior of the complex while the rear of the building-the south side, is at grade with the frontage road. The laundry and mail room are above the garage on the upper floor with access fxom the interior road. The garage would have access, although not explicitly shown in these revised plans, from the entrance road to the complex, which comes off the North Frontage Road. The owner of the project has agreed to follow the same guidelines with this manager.'s unit as the tenant's units concerning the twenty year restriction on condominiumization. The plan shows a unit of four bedrooms along with three bathrooms and the dining, living and kitchen areas. One concern is that four bedrooms and three bathrooms consisting of 1433 square feet of GRFA are too-much for a manager's apartment. We feel two bedrooms and two bathrooms with no more than 1,000 square feet of GRFA should be plenty. We would also like to see a guarantee that only the manager of the project and his/her family be housed in. the unit. . A second concern is that there should be more area for the recreation room and less storage space. The plan now shows more than X28 square feet of storage while only 456 square feet of indoor recreational area. The siting of outdoor recreational facilities such as the proposed volleyball and basketball courts are also. not shown on the submitted plans. There also needs to be one additional parking space provided for the manager's unit. A third concern with the revised plans involves the location of the manager's garage with respect to the rest of the building's facilities. We feel that the manager's garage should be located on the same level with the unit and therefore, rec~~~u«end reversal of the garage and storage area with the laundry and mail rooms. Thus, the garage access will be from the north side of the building and the complete manager's residence will be contained on the upper level. So that the tenants can retain good access to the laundry and mail rooms (high traffic level areas), we would suggest that the stairway on the west end of the building down to the lower level be enclosed. Finally, we would suggest that with the above revisions there might be room to install some of the storage area lost on the bottom floor on the top floor with the decrease in square footage in the manager's residence. PEC Memo-Lionsridge Cl-C5 9-20-79--Page Three ~J RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Devleopment recommends approval of the amendment to the development plan for employee housing at Lionsridge to allow for a manager's unit with the following con- ditions: 1.) Assurance that only the manager of the complex and his immediate family, if any, live in the unit. 2.) The garage/storage area and the laundry/mail box areas are reversed by floor. 3.) The recreation area is significantly enlarged. 4.) That the stairway on the west end be enclosed. 5.) That a revised site plan be submitted which shows revised garage access, location of outdoor recreation facilities, and the indication of one additional parking space. 6.) The unit be reduced in size to l,OQO square feet with~.no more than two bedrooms and two bathrooms. MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 9-20-79 RE: Request from Thomas Jost for a rear setback variance On Lot 24, Vail Meadows lst Filing. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is for a variance to intrude seven feet into the l5 foot designated setback on the rear of the lot. The corner of the building would go seven feet into the setback area while the deck would extend to the property line-the National Forest Service Boundary. The .applicant feels the setback variance is justified because he claims there would be no impact on others due to the lot abutting National Forest, fewer trees would have to be taken out, there would be less excavation and it would allow setting the house in a natural opening. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Cade, 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. Since the rear property line abutts National Forest Land there are no impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures nearby. 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 with out grant of special privilege. The applicants stated reasons (above) for the variance do not, in the staff's opinion, justify sufficient hardship to approve the variance. Upon staff inspection of the lot, it appears that there are other suitable building areas which would not require a setback variance and remove very few, if any, trees. Also, simply because the setback request is next to National Forest Land and would not impact others is not sufficient cause for approval, in the staff's opinion. PEC Memo--Jost 9-20-79--Page Two The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of ~o~ulatian, transportation and traffic facilitiesr .public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There would be no significant effects on these items. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are none. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing 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: (A.) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon- sistent with the objectives of this title. (B.) 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. (C.) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • PEC Memo--Jost 9-20-79--Page Three • RECOMMENDATION Based on the above findings, the Department of Community Development does not feel that a legitimate hardship has been deomonstrated by the applicant and that there are no extraordianacy circumstances that apply to this request. We, therefore, recommend denial. • • MEMORANDUM • r~ LJ C] T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 9-21-79 RE: Conditiona]. Use Request to allow and office building ` an the Getty Oil Site, which is in a Heavy Service District DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The proposal is for a three story building consisting of 12,$25 square feet of general office space. The proposed Building has a Parking Requirement of ~3 spaces, with 57 spaces being provided. The site coverage of the building is 11~, with the requirement being 75~. 56~ of the site is landscaped with the requirement being 10~. The building is three stories above grade, with the first level being primarily used for covered parking. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18_.600, ment recommends approval of the the following factors: Consideration of Factors: the Department of Community Develop- Conditional Use Permit based upon Relationship and impact of the use on development ob-iectives of the Town. When this proposal previously was brought before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council,, it was decided that residential units were not an acceptable use on the site. Zt was also discussed at the sessions with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council that a residential scale office building was a more appropriate use that should be further investigated by the applicant. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The revised site plan indicates that the building is totally located within the 20 foot setback lines and that no parking is .located within either the front or side setbacks. This. should, therefore, provide a fairly good landscaped buffer along the Frontage Road and adjacent to the Town owned property by Pitkin Creek. PEC Memo--Page Two 9-21-79-Woodbridge Meadows • Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, autom otive and pedestra.an safety and convenience, traffic flow and controls access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There is only one access point onto Bighorn Road {Old U.S. 6} which should minimize congestion. The access point is also in the middle of the straight stretch of road and is close enough to the East Vail I-70 Interchange that the increase in traffic in the Bighorn area should not be significant. 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 su.~rounding uses. With the site coverage being well below and the Landscaping being well in excess of what is required in a Heavy Service Zone District, we feel that this office building is a less obtrusive use than other uses. that are permitted in this Zone District. The specific design of the building will be represented to you on Monday through the use of a model. From discussion with the applicant, it is our understanding that it will be primarily residential in character and not out of character with the area. • Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. It should be mentioned again that this parcel is still being considered for purchase as part of the Open Space Furchase Program. There axe, however, no specific offers that have been made at this time and we do not feel that this factor should in any way influence your review of this matter. The Open Space Purchase process is one that needs to work independently of other review processes. The Environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 1$.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. --~.... - PEC MEMO--Page Three 9-21-79--Woodbridge Meadows u~ 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 ar 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. RECOMMENDATION: Tha Department of C~a««unity Development recommends approval of this Conditional Use Request subject to a more specific presentation and discussion of the design of the building, which will be presented to you on Monday. We feel that the more detailed submission on the Architectural Design and use of materials is extremely important in that this area is pre- dominantly residential and that this site is a very noticeable one being at the entrance into Bighorn. We feel, however, .that the use of the site as an office building is the direction that was given to the applicant and that this proposal is in accordance with that direction. MEMORANDUM TO: Rod Slifer, Mayor Bill. Wilto, Council Person Planning and Environmental ComYttission Craig Snowdon, Design Review Board Member Rich Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney Jeff Winston, Gage Davis and Associates FROM: Dick Ryan, Director, Department of Community Development DATE: 9-21.-79 RE: Vail Village Preservation District Task Force Town Council at their study sessa.on an September 18,.1979 appointed a Task Force to study and recommend back a preservation ordinance for Vail Village. The first meeting will be ne~rt Wednesday at 1:30 P.M. at the Municipal Building. At the meeting there will be a discussion of the purpose, boundaries and a draft ordinance of the district will be discussed. The Planning and Environmental Commission need to appoint two members to the Task Force to participate in making recommendations on the preservation district to Town Council. • PLANNIr~G AND ENVIR0I3r~NTAL coMMIS5I0N' ~.~ 10~-$-79 • 1:00 P.M. Work Session--- Continued Discussion on Time Shares Btc. 3:00 1'.M. Publ~.c Hearing ~,~,) Rediscussion of Proposed Changes to the Agricultural and Open Space District, 2.) Conditional Use Permit to a11ow a temporary structure for Small World on the Upper Tennis Courts (Court 7) at Gold Peak from Nov. 1, 1979 to May 15, 1980. 3.) Front Setback Variau.ce to a11aw a single car garage addition on Lots 1 and 2 (a Resubdivision of Lots 10 & 11) Bighorn Fstates. 4~.) Conditional Use Permit in order to expand the front of the Gold and Silversmiths Shop. (Withdrawn} 5.) Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance Concerning Interval Ownership, Time Shares, and Fractional fees. . 6.) Development plan for Phase III of the Vail Village Inn located on Lots O & P, Black 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, 7.) .Minor Subdivision request for the Kiatipes ~'arce.i in order to allow two duplex lots. MEMQEANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10-5-79 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST }3Y TOM HARNED OF VAIL ASSOCIATES TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE ON THE UPPER TENNIS COURTS AT GOLDEN PEAK FROM NOVEMBER ~., 1979 to MAY 15, 1980. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The structure will be a modular unit used as a nursery for Sma11 World similar to the Lionshead program. The unit will be screened from view by the green windscreens on the fence as one looks toward the courts in a southerly direction. Vail Associates feels. they can do this with no damage to the courts but guarantees that any damages will be paid for by the Ski School, There will be no evening use of the facility. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends Approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon, the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact o.f the use on development o.b~ectives of the Town. There is basically no relationship or impact on the development objectives of the Town due to the temporary nature of this request. The effect of the use on li.~ht and air,-distribution of population, transportation-facilities, utilities,, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. This nursery service will improve the public facilities offered in the vicinity of the Village Core. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and.canvience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability, and 'removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Na additional traffic is anticipated as a result of the proposal. Effect upon, the character of the area in which the propposed use is to he located, including the scale. and bulk of the ~pnsed use in relation to surrounding uses. Because the unit will be well-screened from view look south upon Golden Peak, we feel the visual impact upon the character of the area will be quite minimal. PEC Memo--VA Temporary Structure 10-5-79--Page Two Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. There are nozxe . The environmental impact report conCernin~ the propsed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.5b. Not required, FINDINGS AND ~tNCOMMENDATIONS: 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 i.s in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the sate 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 improvements in the vicinity. • That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development xecammends approval with the conditions that: 1.) The applicant guarantees the proper and-adequate screening of the unit. 2.) That damages to the tennis courts, if any be paid by the Vail Ski / School after its removal by Niay-15, 1979. 3.} The facility no be used after 7:00 P.M. • Minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of 10-8-74 Membexs Present Ed Aragex Ron Todd Sandy Mills Jim Morgan Gerry White Town Council Member Present Paula Palmateer Staff Members Present Peter Patten Jim Rubin Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith 1.) Redisc.ussion of Proposed Ghanges to the Agricultural and Open Space District. This item was postponed until after Item ~~2. . 2.) Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary structure for Small World on the Upper Tennis Courts (Court 7) at Gold Peak from Nov. 1, 1979 to May 15, 1980. Peter Patten presented this item. Tom Harned from Vail Associates explained their reasons for this application. Jim Morgan asked how the. building would be screened. Tom said it would be screened on all but one side with the existing screening. Gerry White asked if they had contacted the Recreation District about this. Tom said they had not but would. Ron Todd asked why the date of May 15 had been picked for the removal. Tom said they were playing it safe in case there was a lot of snow, Gerry White said he felt that they should be removed and any damaged xepaired by Memorial Day Weekend for sure. Ed Drager made a motion to allow the Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary structure for Small World on the Upper Tennis Courts (Court 7) at Gold Peak from November I, 1979 to May l5, 1980, with the conditions set forth in the Department of Community Development Staff Memo dated 10-5-79 and approval of the Metxopolitan Recreation District. Jim Morgan asked if it isn't necessary to screen the building from Northwoods. Tom said the Northwoods people would be the heaviest users of the building. Jim Rubin said they had been notif ied and PEC Minutes-VA Temporary Structure 10-$-79--Page Twa LJ • that na one had called or was anyone present today. Gerry White seconded the motion, Sandy Mills asked about the screening, traffic etc. All her questions were answered by VA people. She also asked if they would be applying for this again next year. Tom Harped said they are hoping that all their expectations for Gold Peak would be successful but if they were not, they might be back next year for the same request. Ron Todd asked if this needs to be presented to the Design Review Board. Jim Rubin said he thought it could be staff approved since the building is already built.(xt is a modular unit}. Sandy Mills said she thought the DRB should be aware of this. Ron Todd asked each member if they would like it to go to DRB or be staff approved. Ed Drager said he didn't care. Sandy Mills said it should go to DRB. Ron Todd said he felt it should be staff .approved. Jim Morgan said he felt it could be staff approved. Gerry White said he felt it could be staff approved. The vote was taken on the motion and it was passed unanimously. l.) Rediscussion of Proposed Ghan~es to the Agricultural and Open Space, District. Jim Rubin explained this item. it was tabled six weeks ago so that the Town could-work with the Pulises and Vail Associates in solving any problems they might have with the rezoning on their lots. Ron Todd asked questions regarding items ~~3 and 4~9 on the list. Ron asked what percentage of this laAd is left after the tract land would be dedicated to the Town. He thinks only three or parcels would be involved. Sandy Mills said she though the was because of tax problems with etc. Jim Rubin said that harry Rider would never have been developed really be effected. only reason it was tabled the deeding of the land said most of the dedicated land anyway so the value would not Most parcels are controlled by covenants or hazards anyway. Ran Todd said the Town and County are talking about two different things when they are talking about Agricultural. The standards do not have to be the same. aim Morgan said he feels the intention is the same. Dick Ryan explained intensive urban development. PEC Minutes-Agricultural & Open Space continued 10-8-79-TPage Three • Bob Parkex from VA said that 38O of the acres involved belong to Vail Associates. The intent of Vail Associates is to dedicate the vast majority of those to the Town of Vail in a fashion that is phased and will be a tax benefit. They do not have a master plan for this. A small portion which is under discussion for long term recreation uses. The zoning on those acres is a criucial one. Delay on this issue would be appreciated as they have not had time to sit down with the Town and work on this. They have agreed and will continue to agree not to make any moves on properties under discussion. They will not apply for a subdivision or any other variance etc. on Gold Peak until this is all resolved. He asked to have the matter tabled. Paulr~Palmateer said this was table before with the hope that it would be resolved by today. She asked Bob Parker to set a time frame for this to be resolved. She said they present Council would like to handle this, and would like to see this accomplished before the election. Dick Ryan said he would like this to come back by October 22, 1979. Council wants to see this by November 6, 1979. Bob Parker said if they don't settle this by October 22 so that Council can see this by November 6, they will dust let the process go on. Sandy Mi11s said she hopes that the Staff, Larry Rider, and Charlie . Langhoff will get together as soon as possible to get this resolved. Gerry White made a motion to table this item for two weeks until Oct. 22 with the condition that VA agrees that they will no come in and apply for development on any of those lots involved during that time. dim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3.) Front Setback Variance to allow a single car ~ara~e addition on Lots 1 and 2~(A Resubdivision~of Lots l0 and ll) Bighorn Estates for Tom Harmon. Peter Patten explained this item, Frank Dalton, architect for the applicant, made his presentation. Mr. Harmon owns both halves of the Duplex. Tt was not under Town zoning when built. He has discussed this variance with property owner to the west and has a letter from him. He disagrees with the comments that it would grant a privilege. and that there is no real hardship. He feels the granting of any variance is the granting o£ a privilege and there is a hardship in that Mr. Harmon has a physical disability which he preferred not to discuss. Dick Ryan said that the Staff was not aware of the disability until right before the meeting. PEC Minutes--Harmon Setback Variance continued 10-8-79--Page Four Jim Morgan asked if there are any other setback variances in this area. Jim Rubin said there are Wane-of this kind in the area. Sandy Mills sand she feels the granting of this would be compounding the problems. Gerry White said the setback.is a part of the ordinance. The plowing problem can be remedied. A variance is to vary the law because of a hardship. inconvenience is not a good enough reason to grant a variance. Ed Drager made a motion to deny the front setback variance to allow a single car garage addition on Lots I and 2 {a Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11) Bighorn Estates. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Ron Todd told the applicant he may appeal to the Town Council within ten days. 4.) Conditional Use Permit in order to .expand the front of the Gold and Silversmiths Shop. (Withdrawn) 5.) Amendment to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance concerning Interval Ownership, Time Shares; and ~raetional Fees. Ed Drager made a motion that the Staff forward the amendments to the subdivision regulations and registration procedures prepared by Larry . Rider and that the zoning changes not be recommended. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 6.} Development plan for Phase III of the Vail Village Inn located on Lots 0 & P, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Dick Ryan explained this item. Joe Staufer made his presentation and introduced Mr. Wall, the applicant. Dick Ryan explained that the GRFA is 50,000 square feet not 40,000 as presented in the staff memo. Joe Staufer said the developers agree with the staff recommendations numbers one through five. Paula Palmateer asked questions regarding parking and lodge accommodations. Sandy Mills asked some questions about landscaping. Ed.Drager made a motion to approve Phase III of the Vail Village Inn Development Plan including the clock tower (~~2 on the Staff recommendations). The motion failed for a lack of a second. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the developmeent plan for Phase III of the Vail Village Inn located on Lots 0 & P, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing as per the Staff memo of 10-5-79. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. PEC Minutes 10-5-79--Page Five 7.) Minor Subdivlsloa request'for the'Riatipes Parcel in order to allow two duplex lots. The applicant was not present. Jim Rubin showed plans. The Board asked questions. Sandy Mills made a motion to taple this item for two weeks at which time it may submitted for final approval. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was four in favor of the motion. Ed Drager abstained. Dick Ryan mentioned that there is a joint meeting with the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Preservation Task Force at 2:00 P.M. Tuesday. 8.) Fritz Glade resubmitted the Desl~m.for the Office Building approved at the 924-79'PEC meeting {Getty 411 Site) as requested. Jim Rubin explained that since the last PEC meeting, the revised design was submitted and passed by Design Review Board conceptually. Fritz Glade answered questions of the Board. Chuck Anderson from Pitkin Creek Park voiced his objections. Gerry White made a motion to approve this with the recommendation that that they .landscape more on the eastern side and..revegetate with ground cover etc, to the road into the xight of way.. Ron Todd seconded the motion. The vote was three to one with Ed Drager abstaining. MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FRAM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT nATE• l0-~-~9 RE: FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW A. ,SINGLE CAR GARAGE ADDITION ON LOTS 1 and 2 (A Resubdivision of Lot 10 & 11) BIGHORN ESTATES FOR ALAN HARMON. DESCRIPTION CF VARIANCE REQUESTED A Variance to construct a single car garage extending four feet into the front setback and seven feet into the side setback because of difficulties with snow plowing operations depositing snow near the rear of cars parked on the existing shoxt driveway. -The applicant also feels that construction of the .garage would eliminate the potential fnr damage to cars during snowplow operations as well as permitting the short driveway to be plowed into the yard by the owner. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Cammunity.Develo~ment recommends denial of the requested Variance based upon the fallowing factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested. variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance does not seem to propose any significant detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties or potential development in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specif led regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among-sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title~witho.ut grant of special privilege. The applicant's submitted reasons for the variance do not, in the staff's opinion, warrant the granting of the variance because it would clearly be granting special privilege. The reasons presented are common to many properties in the Town of Vail and reflect no special hardship. The property was developed or purchased with full knowledge of the setback requirements and the applicant is not presently submitting a case presenting a true hardship which would allow a variance on these setbacks. • PEC MEMO--Harmon 1~-5--79--Page Two L' The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no sigAificant effects in these areas. Such other factors and criteria as-the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are none. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shah. make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not consititute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance wi11 not be detrimental to the gublic 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-o.r unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement.. of the specif ied regulation, would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends-that the variance request be denied because we find no reasons adequately representing a hardship or special circumstances. C] MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND EN'V'IRONMENTAL CQMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITX DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10-5-79 RE: Public Hearing and-Consideration of Request for Phase III Development Plan for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Applicant, Mr. Wall, is requesting approval of Phase III of Special Development District Six. Proposed are 40~Condominium Units, 9328 square feet of commercial space and 1.27 underground parking spaces. The construction of this phase would remove two.. buildings containing 40 accommodation units and in addition 60 parking spaces would be illiminated. STATISTICS Total site area of the Special Development District~3.445 acres. Phase TII site area is 46,492 square feet. . Condominium Units Proposed--40 Gross Residential Floor Area Proposed--3,0,000 square feet Commercial Space Proposed--9,328 square feet. Parking Spaces Proposed--127 spaces BACKGROUND Special Development District Six was approved by Town Council on March 16, 1976. As part of that approval, there was a development plan showing landscaped. areas, land use, building., massing, and height .limitations. The Development Plan and Ordinance has been used by the Staff and Eldon Beck, Consultant on the Project, in reviewing the proposed Phase III. Mr, Beck was the Consultant for the Town in the formulation of the Special Development District back in 1976 and has reviewed Phase I and Phase II commercial which has been constructed. The Staff used Mr. Beck as the Ordinance states that each Phase shall-be reviewed by an outside consultant at the expense of the developer. The Planning and Environmental Commission at their study session two weeks ago, received copies o~ the Special Develnpment District .Six and reviewed the development plan and the presentation by the applicant for Phase III. The Staff and Mr.. Beck consider the Applicant has responded to many of -the concerns in their latest submission. The major concern of Mr. Beck is that before this proposal continues on to the Design Review Board that the applicant needs to work with Mr. Beck in the design of the plaza spaces, the, focal point that is described on the development plan and the perimeter . landscaping of the site, PEC MEMO--Vail Village Inn TIT 10-5-79--Page Two n The Community Development Department considers that the request submitted for Planning Commission. Review and Recommendation is in conformance with the approved Special Development District Six requirements. The building heights and architectural character is consistent with intent of the District and Phase T and Phase TT construction. COMMERCIAL SPACE At the time of .the approval of Special Development,Dist.rict Six, the Public Accommodation {PA) Zoning District stated that accessory eating, drinking,~or retail establishments were permitted if they did net occupy more than 20 percent of the total floor area and 40;000 square feet of retai type uses. After approval of Special Development~District Six there was-an amendment where gross residential floor area was substituted for total floor area. Because the Sgecial Development District Six restricted the gross residential floor area to 100,000 square-feet ttie site would allow only 20,000 square feet of commercial type uses. After discussing this with Larry Rider, he said that the Town should • proceed with the rules in effect at the time of approval of this ordinance. Therefore, the original intent was to have approximately 40,000 square feet of Commercial uses. The approved development plan does show commercial at the southeast corner of the site where Phase TTI commercial is shown.. Tt is important to have commercial in this area instead. of residential to draw people west along East Meadow Drive and back into the Phase TI Commercial area. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn proposal. 'Ibis phase is in conformance with the overall development plan for this site. There still needs to be some details worked out concerning the plaza areas and landscaping. In addition, the. Department considers that the proposed clock tower is in conflict with the current tower and that two vertical focal points are not needed. Conditions recommended .for Phase TTT are noted below: 1.) Before submission of Phase III to the Design Review Board, the applicant works out the plaza design-and landscaping with Eldon Beck. Landscaping on the frontage road should. be up-to the pavement. PEC MEMO-Vail Village Inn III 10-579--Page Three • 2.} Remove the clock tower as there does not-need to be two vertical focal points at this location. 3.) Provide access from the parking structure to the upper level co~nercial. 4.) Provide an access agreement for this property to insure access from the west is guaranteed. Work with Mr. Beck on the landscaping of the bank along the frontage road. 5.) Design the parking structure to carry the weight of the stone wall, top so i1, and trees along the frontage road. • • STATISTICS FOR VAIL.VILLAGE INN S EXISTING PARKING East Lat 60 North Lot. 40 West Lot 50. Husky Owned by VVI 20 TOTAL 170 Cars East Lot to be demolished {60) 40 Rooms to be demolished 40 NET LOSS (20) . New Underground Spaces to be built 130 NET GAIN 110. Required for Phase TII 80. OVERALL NET GAIN 30 .Spaces • VAIL VILLAGE IN .BUILDING STUDY EXISTING Building l (Demolish) Building 2 (Demolish) Lobby-Building 3 Pancake House-Building 4 Dairy Depot-Building 5 Phase I-New Commercial Phase II-New Commercial TOTAL GROSS TOTAL NET TOTAL RESIDENTIAL NET TOTAL COMMERCIAL~NET Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net . Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Grass Net PRESENT COMMERCIAL SPACE 6,500 .5,500 6,5oa 5,500 6,500 5, 500 900 (BAR) 6, 500 5, 500 2750 25, 400 2210 (DAIRY ~7EP) l$, 500 190 (SMOKE HSE} 20,000 16, 900 16900 (COMM} 17,000 9, 4 0 0 625fl (COMM} 88,400 66,$00 37,500 29, 200 29,200 VAIL VILLAGE INN AFTER PHASE III Phase YIT- Gross Net Building 3 Building 4 Building 5 Phase I Phase II TOTAL TC~S, 393 58,ooa Gross 6,500 Net 5,500 Gross 6,500 Net 5,600 Gross 25,x#00 Net 18,500 Gross 20,000 Net 16,900 Gross 17,000 Net 9,x#00 Gross 205,900 Net 113,800 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL NET TOTAL COMMERCIAL NET RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION UNITS RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ACCOMMODATION UNITS 87,600 37,600 5o,oao 69 Existing 9328 (COMM.) 3$,528 n VAiL VILLAGE INN (SD6} PHASE III BUILDING AREAS LEVEL ELEVATION UNITS SERVICE PARKING COMMERCIAL RESIDENTAL P1 35 71- P 2304 26,880 3456 - P2 95 52- P - 17,920 5872 -~ 1 105 13- R - - - 16,319 2 115 9- R - - - 11 ,182 3 125 7- R - - - 8,975 4 135. 7- R - - - 7,$55 5 145 4- R - - - 4,830 :TOTAL 40 2304 44,800 9,328 49,161 • r RESIDENTIAL CIREaKDOWN GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRF'A} CIRCULATION & MECHANICAL % EFFICIENCY UNIT COUNT T07AL PARKING TOTAL SITE AREA PARKING & DRIVES PLAZAS & LANDSCAPE BUILDING COVERAGE LAND USE 46,492.4 s.f. 7,800 s.f. 24,694.4 s.f. 18,000 s.f. -:50,000 s.f. 9,161 s.f. 81.4% 40 123 SPACES 100% 3.9% 57.4% 38.7% -.. -y . ~ ~ _ r- ~ ~ __ , sunset park 305 18601arlmer st. deriver, co. 80202 (303) 623-Tfi53 l 892-7095 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE; October 4, 1979 RE: PITKIN CREEK MEADOWS REQUEST FOR A MINOR SUBDIVI5rON ON KIAHTIPES ~'ARCEL IN EAST VAIL, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The request is to subdivide the Kiahtipes parcel into two lots, each to contain a duplex. The parcel is 1.52 acres and is located directly East of the Pitkin Creek Townhouses on the North side of I-70 in East Vail. The parcel is Located in a straight duplex zone r,~hich requires 17,500 square feet of buildable site area per lot. The parcel has 35,309 square feet of buildable site area'(under 40%) which would allow for the creation of the two duplex lots as presented, Letters have been recieved from all the Utility Companies stating that they can serve the property. Access onto the property will. be prpvided by a bridge that the State Highway Department is presently constructing across Pitkin Creek. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community.Development recommends approval of this Subdivision request with the one condition that before any building permit is issued that a written agreement from the State Highway Department be received stipulating that they wi11 bring the access road on the North side of I=70 up to "Sown of Vail Standards. PL~,NDTING AND EL~tVIRONMENTAL CONMISSIE~T • AC~NDA 10--22-79, 3:00 P.M. I.) ANN~~Ja.l of Minutes 2.) Election of a Vice Chairman 3.) Selection of ~~~r3~er to attend Design Review Board Meetings 4.) Amenu.,~.t to Zoning Ordinance c~cerning the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District 5.) Conditional Use Permit for expansion of Biy~n....~~A Fire Station located on Lot 15, Bighoxxl St~h~ ~ vision which is iri a p,,r,~ ~ c Use District. (Table at bequest of applicant.) 6.) Parking Variance to allow expansion of his retail store located in the Gondola Terminal Building which is in the C~~«~~.,.cia1 Core II {CC TS) District. 7.) Final Flat for minor subdivision for the Kiatipes Parcel located east of the Pitkin. Creek Townhouses. • • Planning and Envi.~.~u«.~tal COmmi.ssion Minutes of 10-22-79 Not yet approved by the Board Members Present Ed Draper Sandy Mills Ran Todd Gerry White Jack Goehl and Jim Morgan came in after itean ~3. M~,~d,~rs not present Roger Tilkemeier Staff M~r~.rs Present Council Member Present Larry Eskwith Paula Palm~.teer Peter Patten Jim Rubin 1. A,.~,~vua1. Of Minutes Of Meeting Of 10-8-79. Ed Draper made a motion to.a~.~~~e the above minutes. Gerry White seconded the motion. The vote was uz~ara.imaus. . 2. Election of a Vice Chairman. Ed Draper made a motion to nominate Sandy Mills. The motion was withdrawn. Ed Draper made a nx~tion to nominate G~iy. Trite. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. G~iy Yn7h,ite was elected Vice Gh~ ~ z. 3. Selection of a ~«rber ~ attend Design Revvew Beard Meetings. Ron Todd made a mr~tion to select Ed Draper to attend the Design Review Board ireetings. Gerry Tn]hite seconded the motion. Three ~~~r:..ers voted for approval and tyre was one abstention, (Ed 13rager) . 4. Amendment to ZOninq Ordinance ccncerninq the Agricultural and yen Space Zone District. Jim Rubin explained the intent of this item again. He stated that this change was started by the Council at a work session. Ed D.rager said he would like to hear that tape. Jim Rubin said the Council directed him to L~~~~~t the ordinance so that the purpose and density is consistent. ~ 'T'odd said he does not feel by changing this district from One unit per two acres to one unit per thirty-five acres, we are making • it consistent. In the cOUnty zoning, the intent Of the Agriculture and Open Space is to preserve sma11 ranches etc., Ours is more of a PE1C Minutes-10-22-79 Page Two C, rural residential zone and should remain one unlit per two acres. Ed Drager said the-only intent the Staff has is to stop one owner from developing their land. He said Dick Ryan told him before this all started that he would not let Gold Peak be developed as lcmg as he is here. Gerry Whine sa;~a his main concern was that this would not have been «~,~,~~~..~iate when the ordinance was written but is appropriate now. ~2on Todd asked if they shouldn't look at the entire Chapter instead of just the density section. Ed Drager said there is no reason to make this change at a11. Paula Palmateer said it was a directive from the Council. The current intent is no longer app~~,~.~iate in this zone. Ed Drager said this is not good planning. He said that in House Bill No. 1041 the zoning only applied to Counties and unanc..».~,rated areas and it did not apply to cities and towns. Jim Morgan said as planners, the Board should be in favor of this change. . Ed Drager said the staff is the only one in favor of this change. Lat,yt~.~ce Lavine, an attorney far Vail Associates, voiced some questions regarding ~.~".,edures. He asked if a notice had been published. in the newspaper. Jim Rubin got the file and showed him the public notice. Mr. Lavine asked if the adjacent property owners had been notified by certified mail. Jim Rabin said the ~,L~?rty owners had been notified by certified mail. Ed DragPr asked if adjacent proerty owt~.ers had been notified. Jim Rubin said they had not as Larry Rider had advised him it was not necessary. 'T'here was a discussion about whether it was necessary to notify these people or not. Mr. Lavine asked how this was brought to the public. Was it a motion of the Couch, a citizen petition or a resolution by the Planning Commission. Jim Rubin said it was a petition by him. Sandy Mills said this whole ~~~.edure started iri August and was tabled several tames because of a private discussion that Charlie Langhoff had with each of the Board ~F~~~bers individually asking them to table the item until Vail Associates could get the tax issues worked out on these lots. The Board tabled this in y~,~.l faith. The staff had done everything as a directive of the Council and the advice of the Town Attorney and were acting in y~~3 faith also. Sandy said at this point, she does not feel Vail ,Associates is acting in good faith. PnC Minutes-10--22.79 Page Three Bob Parker from Vail Associates said these is a disti:nctir~ between Vail Associates acting in. good faith and the Process that the Town of Vail should have taken. They have been a«E,ing with representatives of the Tpwn and da not know if their talks will bear fruit. He said. they are not questioning the desirability of the dcrwnzoning only the legal procedure. Mr. Levine said the purpose of the district as he sees it is to preserve land from intense development.- He c~~~,a,.~d this zone to the county zone. He feels the Town is going about this the w~~~~g way. Larry Eskwith said he doesn't knave what reason Larry Rider had to say it was not necessary to notify the adjacent r~~~rty owners but he feels it is the N~~,~,edure that should have been followed. Ed Drager made a motion to ta~,1e this item until the staff can take the necessary procedures. Jack Goehl seconded the motion. Jack, Ed, Ron and Gerry voted in favor of the mention. Jim and Sandy voted aga.ir~st it. Gerry White raised the questiaris as to why VA waited until na,r to bring this up. It has been 69 days since the, Planning Commission first heard this . • Sandy Mills said she felt the Staff did what they thought to be the correct procedure. They acted on Larry Rider's advice and she is disappointed in Vail Associates. She said they are not operating in good faith. Bob Parker said that during the first parts of this process they assumed that everything was proceding legally and was proper. They also hoped this could be resolved before now. When they found it couldn't be resolved, they decided to let the process go forward. It was at that point that they asked for legal advice and found there wexe prod+~Yal questions. As a tam payer, he feels it is best the deficiencies have been found nc~w instead of attacked 1n court. He said important issues are at stake here. They want the process to be correct. Mr. Levine said when he found these procedureal questions, he approached Mr. Farker and Mr. Parker said he felt they should ra;~A the questions Public instAa~ of "sand-bagging" it and having to take it to court. Ji.m Rubin thanked Vail Associates and Mr. Levine for bringing this to the Town's attentic~. Jim said they will probably change the Ordinance rather send the adjacent property owners the notices. 5. Conditional Use Permit for expansion of Bighorn Fire Station located on Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision which is in a Public Use District. Jim Rubin said the Applicant asked to have this tabled. Sandy Mi11s made a motion to table this item. Gerry White secarided the motioa~. The vote was unanimrnxs. P~]C Minutes-10-22-79 Page Four 6. Parking Variance to allow ex~lsion of a retail store 1gCated in the Gondola Terminal Build:ir~.g which is in the C~tn«cial Core TZ (CC YI) District. Peter Patten explained that Dean Liotta from This Wicked West is applying to expand his shop in the above building. The staff has reC~.sa~~~ded approval as this type of expansioal was re~,v~~.~~~d at the Improve Uail Workshops. Dean Liotta made his presentation. Sandy Mi11s asked if he was aware tYsat he would have to contribute to the parking fund. He said he understand he will have the opportunity to do this. 'T'here was a discussion regarding who has paid to the parking fund and who has not. Mr. Liotta said he feels he is being punished for i,~~,~ovang his c.~~LL~.anity. He said no one has ever paid the $5000. Jim Rubin said letters had L~~~ sent to those who owe but at this point, no monies have been received. People who owed lesser amnwzts have paid but no one has paid the $5400 figure. a Ed Drager made a arotion to approve this parking variance to allow expansiari of 'T'his Wicked West Reatii Store located in the Gondola Terma.nal Building which is in C.A««..ial Core Z~ (CC 22) Distxict. Gerry White seconded the motion. 'T'he vote was unanimous. 7. Final Plat for Minor Subdivision for the Katipes Parcel located east of the Pitkin Creak To~cmhouses. Jim Rubin explained this item. He said he has not received the final plat at this time. Jim Weisshan representing Ralph Putnam, the developer, said they will have the final plat to Jim Rubin within days. Rare Todd asked if they wanted to table this item. Jim Rubin suggested since the Board had seen the preliminary plat at the last meeting and there are no changes, perhaps the final plat could be staff a~N~~~ed. He said they have letters from all the utilities and the devel~~... understands the road will not be accepted by the Tornm until it meets the standards. He also said Ron 'T'odd has to sign the final plat as Chairman and has the right to refuse to sign it if there are any major changes from what the Board has already seen. • PE~C Minutes-l0-22-79 Page Five r~ u Gerry G~ite made a motion to allow the staff to approve the final plat for a minor subdivisiari for the Kiatipes Parcel located east. of the Pitkin Creek Townhouses subject to there being no major changes since the Board saw this item two weeks ago. Ron Todd seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor of the motion with the exception of Ed Drager who abstained. There was a discussion regarding the Design presented to DRB on the duplexes for the Kiatipes Parcel. Ji_rn NY~rgan asked the opinion of the Board but they made no definite rec.~~u«ndations. They said DRB would have to decide. There was a discussion about wether there will be a meeting on Nov~r~r 12 which is a holiday. Jim Rubin said if anything is applied for there will be a meeting on the 12th or lath. Gerry White made a mration to adjourn the meeting. Ed Drager secarided the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. • MEMORANDUM • T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10-18-79 RE: PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THIS WICKED WEST DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is to allow a 160 foot expansion for This Wicked West, a clothing store in Lionshead. This Wicked West has taken over the space at the: bottom of the stairs leading into the Gondola II terminal in a space previously occupied by the Vail Associates Marketing Department. The request would bring the Store Front out to the front of the building. In addition to expanding the area in front of the store, the applicant intends to have a roof overhand extending 3-4 feet out from the front of the building and to use brick pavers in the area underneath this overhand extending out to the bottom of the steps. A colored rendering of the new storefront will be presented to you at the meeting. 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. During the Improve Vail Workshop and subsequent meetings to develop an urban design plan for Vail Lionshead, two major issues regarding Commercial expansions were discussed. First, the participants considered that office space on the ground floor should be discouraged and eliminated, and small shops encouraged. Second, Commercial expansions out into the mall area were recommended in order to have store fronts near where pedestrians walk, similar to Vail Village. In addition, the expansions would create a stronger human scale to Vail Lionshead. Presently almost all shops in Vail Lionshead are in buildings that are four to five stories tall, with little human scale to them. We feel that this proposal will have a very positive impact in accomplishing what was recommended from the workshops. PEC Memo-This Wicked West 1a-18-79--Page Two LJ • 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 Gondola II building as we11 as many of the other buildings in Lionshead either have a deficiency of parking spaces or are right at their maximum parking requirement. Without the granting of Parking Variances, the merchants of Lionshead would be severely restricted in their efforts to improve their spaces in accordance with the recommendations of the workshop. Previous Variances of this type have been given to the Landmark Building and more recently to the Curxents Jewelry store. The applicant is aware of the $5000 Parking Fee that will be assessed if this request as .approved.. .~ .- The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We foresee no negative impacts on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. A letter from Vail Associates, the owner of the space and the area adjoining the space, has been received in support of this application. A copy of this letter is enclosed. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not consititute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specif ied regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. PEC Memo-This Wicked West 1Q-1$-79--Page Three . The strict or l~.teral interpretation and envorcement of the spec~.fai.ed regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development strongly recommends approval of this request. The applicant is willing and anxious to start on it this fa~.l and have it completed by the beginning of the Ski Season. We feel that this proposal is in conformance with the Vail/Lionshead Urban Design Plan, which is very close to completion. We have no reservations recommending approval for this proposal prior to the official adoption of the plan, in that approval of this p~apo~al will enable improvement to take place immediately, which we feel is to everybody's advantage. • n • VailAssociates,lnc. October 13, 1979 TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Post Office Box 100 Vail., Colorado 81657 Re: Parking Variance Dean Liotta This Wicked West Dear Commission Members: The following information is made available in support of the application of Mr. Dean Liotta: 1. Mr. Liotta's interest is not in increasing the amount of useable space, but merely to modify the existing frontage to be more interesting and create better retail show windows. 2. The modifications to the existing frontage will up-grade an area which, to date, has had little pedestrian appeal. 3. In allowing Mr. Liotta's right to modify said frontage, the Town of Vail is not creating a material in- crease in the number of feet to be occupied by This Wicked West. ~;-. Ta deny Dean Liotta the right to up--grade his frontage is not in the spirit of Section 7.8.66.060. The intent behind the ordinance was not to discourage and/or penalize individuals who have an interest in up-grading existing commercial spaces. 5. Dean Liotta is interested in making a contribution to the visual appeal of the area. He has retained a special storefront and graphic design firm to mitigate existing circumstances which are not consistent with good retail practices. • Box 7, Vaii, Colorado 81657, 303/476-5601 Town o~ Vail Qctober 13, 1979 Page Two '~ Because of all of the aforementioned, Vail Associates, Tnc. feels it to be in everyone's best interest to allow a variance to permit Mr. Liotta to make the requested modifications. Your cansideratian in this matter is appreciated. Very truly, IL ASSOCIATES, INC. J ck Marshall, resident JM/ac • • LJ PLAND]ING AND CC~lNL~SSION No~,~r~,er l2, 1979, 3:00 P.M 1. A~,~~~ual of IO-22--79 Minutes. 2. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Concernz.ng the Agriculture and Open Space Zone District. 3. Election of Planning and Etivi.L~~u~~~tal Commission Member to the Library Competition Review Board. • Minutes of Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of 1i-12-79, 3:00 P.M. • Minutes not yet approved by the Board. The meeting was called to order by Ron Todd. Board Members Present Ron Todd Ed Drager Sandy Mills GcL y,~ W~llte Jack Goehl Roger Ti]kemei_er Jim Morgan Staff A~r~,.s Present Dick Ryan Jim Rubin Peter Patten I~arzy Eskwith Council Member Present Paula Pa7mateer 1. Approval of Minutes of 10-22-79 Planning Commission Meeting. Roger Ti].kemeier made a zmtiari to ar,~,~~.re the minutes. Gerry White seconded the rrotion. Dick Ryan asked to make a consent on the minutes of that meeting. He had ta]ked it over with Ed Drager. On Page Two of fhe minutes, Ed quotes Dick Ryan and Dick would like it to go on record that he (Dick Ryan) did not say that and disagrees with the stat~~~xt. Ron Todd said that statement will not be rra«v~ed from the mirxutes as Ed Drager did say that at the 10-22-79 meeting. However, it will be on record that Dick Ryan disagrees with that stat~~~.t. Ron Todd asked for the vote on approval of the minutes, The vote was unanimous and the minutes were approved as read, 2, Amen.:u~~.t to Zoning Ordinance Concerning the Agriculture and Open Space Zone District. Dick Ryan P~~iained this item. Since the Board had been cons~~arinq this item since August, they have had considerable amount of ,c~i~,s and information presented previously. He said, hawevex, there .is one change. The 36 acre parcel. owned by Vail Associates north of the Gold Peak area and Northwoods was never annexed into the Town of Vail and, therefore, is still a.ri the County with a Resource zoning of one unit per 3S acres. Rr~n Todd asked which parcel it is. Jiro Rubin showed the parcel on. the map. Tt is item number 22 on the list given to the Board. Minutes of PEC Meeting 11-12-79 page ~ Ron 'Dodd reviewed the process goes+;~*~ed at the last meeting by the attorney for Vail Associates. Jim Rubin explained that the Staff sent 267 certified letters to all the adjoining Ny~t~'ty owners and prop~Ly c~r„mers at $1.40 each in addition to ~~~ablishing the Public Notice in the Vail Trail. He said they had received several calls frown concerned ~~.~~,erty owners wanting to know why their lot was being dawnzoned and it was explained to them that the land being dawnzoned was adjacent to their land: Two letters were received from Mr, Bob Kendall and Dave Sage. Jim Rubin read the letters into the reoond in approval of the rezoning. The Public Notice was not published 15 days ~ advance of the meeting, However, Jim Dubin explained it was felt that the 15 day requir~~~~t was not necessary because it was published ifl August and was continued at all the subsequent meetings. Ron Todd asked Larry Eskwith-if he feels the Town has now met all the requ;rpr,~nts of the Ordinance. Larry said he feels all the requiL~~~~ts have been made. Ron Todd said they would now have disucussion faram the Board and the audience on this item, taking all c,k««~ts from the Board first and then the audience. Roger Tilkemeier asked h~v much of the Gold Peak area is now in the '~awrr of Vail.- Jim Rubin said aN~.~~,~imateiy nine acres. Jim Rubin and Bob Parker pointed out the area on the map. Ron Todd asked about Vail N~adows grid Filing. He said since it is 12 platted lots the number of buildable units under the o1~ and new zoning would be 12. Jim Rubin said that is correct but it is not fAa~~ble but due to the location of the creek and the steep slopes, normal development is not possible. Jim said he had spoken to Diana Toughill, the foi~«,. Zoning Administrator, who said who.sai.d this parcel-was zoned Agricultural and Open Space because it was felt regular duplex zoning was not possible here. This parcel was platted in the County well before it was annexed. Technically they are 12 individual lots. Ed Drager asked haw many units are now effected with parcdl 22 taken out. Jim Rubin said it would be arN~~imately- 47 units. That is the diff~.~.~yce between the old zoning and the new. Ed Drager asked how many are actually covered by the passage of this ordinance and haw many are already covered by covenants? Jim Rubin said it wr~uld take him awhile to figure this out. Ed Drager said he asked for this last July and can`t understand why this information couldn't be furnished by now. Jim Rubin said he provided all information asked of him. Bob Parker from Vail Associates said that Vail Associates is continuing to negotiate with the Town of Vail on the issues involved here. He said unfortunately the principals involved ixr the negotiations namely Rod Slifer, Minutes of PF7C Meeting 11-12-79 Page 'T'hree U Rich Caplan, and Jack Marshal are all out of fawn today, and have not been able to get together since the last meeting. ~n the absence of a negotiation settl~~~~t between Vail Associates and the Tr7uan of Vail, he feels VA must defend their rights as currently held under the existing ordinance. He feels passage of such an ordinance would be an unfair taking and they wa.11 take whatever legal steps are necessary in order to have a proper legal record. Bob Parker introduced Vaii Associate's attorney, Mr. Conwick. Mr. Conwick said he is a partner of Larry Levin who was at the last meeting but who was unable to be present because of an illness in the family. He said he is here on short notice.. He is not totally aware of past proceedings. Havever, he feels there are several short ccm~i.ngs is3 the way the meeting was called and brought them to the attention of the Board. The Ordinance does require 15 day publica~-~~n notice whirr the staff admits was not done. In addition, he understands that the mailing was completed howeu~r, he can understand why people were confused by the notice because it does not seem to provide all the necessary information. He had difficulty understanding the tG.~.~~~ used in the notice and could not find where they were defined in the ordinance. He suggests the Staff consider the potential defects in the procedure. . Mr. Mall frarn the audience asked for an explanation of the history of this item since this is the first tuns he has atter~~ a pt,~~~o hearing on this subject. Dick Ryan said the Town Council directed the Staff to do this rezariirig changing it from one unit per two acres to one unit per 35 acres. They felt the Agricultural. and Open Space Zone should be mere rural. 7."he Staff rode these changes and is rec~~~u~~~ding a~~,~~,ral of them by the PF]C . Mr. Mall asked if there would be a transfer of density to allow high density on one of the other tracts that could withstand it. Dick Ryan said the ordinance does not allow transfer of densities. Mr. Ma11 asked if there is one owner involved Here or several. Dick Ryan said there are several. Nir. Mall asked who owns the 36 acre parcel mentioned earlieac. Dick Ryan said Vail Associates. Mr. Mall said he is ~ favor of this ordinance, but is trying to understand it. He asked about the negotiations with Vail Associates and the 3bwn of VAiI mentioned by Mr. Parker earlier. Dick Ryan said if an agre~~~~t is reached it will be a public agreement but the negotiation meetings will prr~~~y be private. Bob Parker said since VA is a public co~~~ation and the Town of Vail is a Colorado Municipality, any outWA~~ of the meetings would be public. He said there might be some private meetings leading up to the settl~«.L., but the out~..k~~ would be public. Jim Morgan asked who attended the meetings Minutes of PEC Meeting 11-12-79 Page Four U thus far and how many there have 3~~~. Bob Parker said. the one ~~~cLang was attended by the Mayor, Jack Marshal, Rich Caplan, and him. Dick Elias from the audience said he is very confused about this. He is ..~.N~sed. to condomuziums in Gold Peak but not .~~,~sed to devel~~~~.~t of Gold Peak. His is not against ,.,~.4~~.~.Lza1 expansion,, the ski school, etc. For the record, he said Mr. Mall is their attorney. He said in the past they received hazy answers from Staff and council about zoning etc. in Gold Peak-Manor Vail area. He thought under the Agricultural and Open Space Zoning most of the use was recreational zone. Fie asked haw this ties in. Dick Ryan explained that under the zoning ordinance, conditional uses such as parks, recreation facilities, tennis courts etc. are permitted uses. Dick Elias asked what can happen at Gold Peak? Jim Rubin said under the present zoning Vail Associates could build four units. They have indicated to him that they plan to come in with a plan to subdivide and develop four single family detached lots. Under the new zoning, they would only be allowed one single family dwelling unit. . Dick Ryan said that on 11-X18-69, ..there was an agreerr~.nt between Vail Associates and Vail Met,,~~ulitan Recreation District that said. this land is to be used only for recrea+-~~nal purposes. The term of the agre~.~~t is 50 years renewable. Larry Eskwith said he will read the agre~.~xt and that it is probably binding i:f it is as presented today. Gerry White said it is a long-term re~newabla contract. Bob Parker said there is a difference between the land in the Recreation District Agre~«::t and the nine acres they would like to develop. He said they need time to study this. G~~y White asked Bob Parker about-the negotiations. He .said they hope to arrive at a settl~.~~t to allow them to develop recreation impro~G,~~,ts on their land perhaps a joint effort to be utilized by Vail Associates in the winter and the Town of Vail i_ri the s~~rc~r. He said if that could be ac~.~.~,lished, then they would be in favor of this rezoning. Gerry White asked. about N.~uNOSaI of (four condo units seen by PF7C. Jim Rubin said the proposal was not an official p~~~.sa1. Sandy Mills asked if they are talking abort four lots to be sold. Bob Parker said they are talking .about inherent values here. Ron 'T'odd asked Larry Eskwith and Jim Rubin to reply to Mr. Conwick's c..~.sti~.ts on the procedures taken. Larry said the notice, mailing, etc. is adequate. Minutes of PE~C Meeting 11-12-79 Page Five Ron Todd said at previous meetings it was discussed that perhaps the purpose of the entire zone district should be changed. There was no discussion. Jack Goehl asked how many of these parcels are under negotiation for acquisition by the Tawn. Jim Rubin said again that there are three or four but that the values would not be lessened. They were put in Agricultural and Open Space not with the intent of devel~~,~~~„t. Mr. Conwick said the purpose clause is inconsistent with the proposed change. It is a massive change. To modify without modifying the purpose clause is not consistent with the intent. He has not hpaYd why 35 acres was chosen. He feels it needs mare study. Ed Drager discussed his feelings on the arN~~~,Liateness of this change. Dick Ryan-said that 35 acres was chosen after studying other ordinances throughout the State of Colorado. ..They felt one unit for two acres is Urban Deve1~N~~~~t. Jim Nbrgan said he doesn't feel the intent was thought out when the ordinance was written. Jinn Fh,~-,;,~ said that John Donovan, who was on the Council when the Ordinance was written, went back and researched the intent because he felt that one unit for two acres was not the .intent of the district but that the intent was for no develL~,~~~„t. Ron Todd said the key wUrd is ,intensive. He said one unit for t~ acres is not intensive devel„~„~,t. He fe~1s the entire ordinance should be rewritten. Ed Drager asked why these parcels were put in a developable zone if the intent was to not develop as Jim Rubin quoted John Donovan. He said this sounds like inverse condemnation to hizn. He feels maybe a s~~Yate zone should be created for the undevelopable parcels and the developable ones Left in the zone they were put in to be devel~~.~~.. He said all ordinances say different things. Jim Rubin said the purpose section is not out of character. ~'he intent was to allow a farm house. The purpose is consistent. He thinks this is just another att~~~l. to delay this which isn't in anyones best interest, GG.~,.~r White said he feels the pt~,.~se is correct. Tiro acres back in 1967 or 1969 seP~d like a lot of land but now there .is not a lot of space. One unit for 35 acres is a standard to have the effect of open space. Bob Parker asked as a citizen why a careful study couldn't be done to see if the entire ordinance shouldn't be rewritten. He asked what is w~~~g with that process. Gerry White said it is always being examined and this is a result of that examination and it is being changed because it was examined. Minutes of the Pk7C Meeting 11-12-79 Page Six Sandy Mills said the T+~wn has been criticized for having an ordinance that is too dense and therefore we are m-~king c..~.~~ctions. Sandy said she agrees with this change and with the purpose and doesn't think we should continue this anymore. Mr. Mall. said he thinks he is in favor of this but wonders if this ordinance ^Flould be sustained in court. He hasn't seen anything in the interest of the public safety, health and welfare which is the purpose of changing a ordinance. Jim Morgan said the interest of Growth. Manage..t would be the interest of public. Mr. Crowich said he agrees with Mr. Drager the the aNN~.~ach here i.s ~l1VAAg• This is an inverse condemnation. New matters have come up today thatneed to be studied. He would like a chance to study these ne5nr points . Mary Smyth, from the audience asked about a lot she represented. Jim Rubin said because of the location they probably eouln't have developed it. She asked if they could put .tennis courts there. If it is a two acre lot under the old zoning they still could put one unit on it under the new zoning. Dan Corcoran from the audience said when he was on the Board each zone district was addressed constantly. Growth Nlanag~~~AAt has been an issue for three or four years. We all want to maintain the q~~a~~ty of life we have. He said he is totally in favor of this oxx~inance. He said the whole ordinance is always under review. Roger Tilkemp~pr said parcel 20 is not in the Tc~m either. Jim Rubin said he thinks it is but he will check. it out. Dick Ryan said he feels the purpose as stated is not consistent for the one unit per two acres but is consistent for the one unit per 35 acres zoning. Ron Todd asked for a motion. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve an aA~~AAdment to Section 18.32.050 Lot Area and Site Dimensions of the Agricultural and Open Space (A) District to change the minimum lot area from one detached dwelling unit on two (2) ac,~es to the minimum lot area of thiity-five {35) acres. SGVI/AAd, tO amend Section 18.32.090 density of the Agricllltllz'e. and Open Space (A) District to a11ow not ~~~..,.~~ than one dwelling unit for each thirty--five (35) acres of site area. G~~y Y~hite seconded the motion and added that it should be as per the DepartmP~nt of C~~~~«anity Devel~~~~,t memo of 8-10~-79. Paula Palmateer asked if Roger Tilkemeier would be voting. He said he would not. Rosalie Ruoff from the audience said she thinks Jim Robin's statCA~cAAt regarding the values effected by the downzoning was not right. He said the land that is under consideration for acquisition would not have values affected. She does not feel this fair to the others who might Minutes of the PE7C Meeting 11~-12-79 Page Seven • want to sell their lot. Jam Rubal~ tried to clarify what he said. Sandy Nulls said she feels daumzoning makes land ~~u~.~ valuable, Bob Parker said there is notharlg in the ordinance that provides a mechanism for establishment whether land could be developed or not. If this passed, you will have to cow up with a procedure to develop this land. Haw do you decide whether they are developable. Larry Eskwith said downzoning is not invalid. The question is not are you reducing the value but are you doin~this in the best interest of the public. Ji1n Rubin said there is a procedure for developing all these parcels. Zf a plan was su]~ni.tted on any 'one of the they would have to go thru the Design Review Board process as would arty other district. Jim Morgan said the statement that they can develop four units on that nine acres isn't the cu~~~~t zing. We are not even talking about real values. Ron Todd called for a vote. Sandy Mills, Derr White, and Jim Morgan were in favor of the motion. Fd Draper, Jaek Coehl and Ron Todd were against. Roger Tilkemeier abstained. Ron Todd asked Larry Eskwith what happens next with a 3-3 vote. Larry said it will be forwarded to the Town Council as a 3-3 tie vote. Dick Ryan said Town Council will deal with this at 2:40 P.M. t~~u~~~a. 3. Election of a Planning And Enva.ra~„~~.Lal Commission R~~i.,Gr to Library Competition Review Board. Ec1 Draper made a motion to have Ron '~bdd attend these meetings. Jim Nbrgan seconded the motion. The vote was unani:mus. Sandy Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Jim Morgan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 4:47. • PLANNING AND ENVI~ONNfENTAL CDMMISSION . AGENDA 11-25-79 1,} Selection of a new Chairman 2.} Approval of Minutes from last meeting. 3.} Conditional Use Request to allow use of the basement storage and mechanical area of the Vail Mountain School fora Lunchroom, Indoor Recreational Area and Dark room. 4.) Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance involving notification. PLANNIlVG AND IIWIVTAL CC~++~'LCSSIC~ AGE[dDA. November 26, 1979, 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of 11-12-79 Minutes 2. ) Ail'IP.nCunr..~it to Section 18.66.110 and 18.66.130 ar~d 18.66.080 of the 7bwn of Vail fining dx'dinar~ce. 3.) Conditional Use Permit for Vail Mountain School to allow use of the basement for Indoor Recreation Use, a Darkroom and a lunchroom. To be published in the Vail Trail on November 23, 1979 n Minutes of Planning and environmental Commission Meeting of 11-26-79 Not yet approved bq the Board • Board Members Present Jack Goehl Gerry White Sandy Mills Jim Morgan Ed Drager (After Rein #3) Staff Members Present Larry Pskwith Peter Patten Dick Ryan Jim Rubin Council Person Present Paula Palmateer 1. Selection of a New Chairman The Board decided to discuss this item later. . 2. Approval. of Minutes from Last Meeting. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the mintues of the 11~-12-79 meeting. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3. Conditional. Use Request to allow use of the basement storage and mechanical area of the Vail Mountain School for a lunchroom, indoor recreational area axed dark room. Peter Patten explained this item. When this was approved before they did not request approval to use the basement. Therefore, they have to come back to the Planning Commission. Gerry White asked if the school would be able to meet the fire code requirements. Gordon Pierce said they would be required to have a sprinkler system which would require a four inch water line. They wouldn't be able to do this. until Spring but they would be able to comply within a year. They would still l.ikE approval now. Jim Morgan asked if they had considered putting in a holding tank for the sprinkler system. Gordon Pierce said they had not. PAC Minutes for ~.1-2b-79 • Page Two Paula Palmateer asked if the adjacent property owners had been notif ied. .Tim Rubin said they had. Sandy Mills asked if they planned toput in a kitchen. Gordon Pierce said it will just be a small kitchen to serve parties etc, but not for preparation of lunches for a lunch program. Jim Rubin read from the original letter that was sent to the Vail Mountain School regarding use of the building in summer. The letter said it was for the use of the Vail Mountain school only. There was a question raised as to whether the building could be used after 7;00 P.M. in the evening. Jim Rubin said there was no restriction. Jack Goehl made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Request to allow use of the basement storage and mechanical area of the VAil Mountain School for a lunchroom, indoor recreational area and dark room. harry Eskwith said the Board must comment on their findings. Jim Rubin said the motion would just have to be in accordance with the staff memo of 11-21-79. Jack Goehl amended his motion to be in accordance with the staff memo of 11-21-79. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 4. Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance involving notification. Jim Rubin explained this item. He said he would also like to add one more change to Section 1, It would be number five and would read Changes in Density Control Sections in all zone districts. Paula Palmateer asked if the Zoning Administrator actually wanted the freedom afforded by this change. Ed Drager voiced his objections to the power being given to the Zoning Administrator by allowing him to initiate amendments. Jim Morgan said he felt this change was just to "grease the wheels" and should be approved. Gerry White asked for comments from Ron Todd who was in the audiencs:. Jim Rubin explained this change to Ron as he was not present for the beginning of the item. Ron Todd said he would hate to see planning without the PEC. • PEC Minutes for 11-26-79 Page Three • Jack Goehl said he doesn't understand why we are always trying to save time. Jay Peterson said he feels all amendments should be done by resolution of the Planning Commission not initiation of the Zoning Administrator. Jim Rubin said the change was suggested because it has always been done by Zoning Administration initiation in the past and this amendment was dust to change the Zoning Ordinance to the way things have been done in the past. Gerry White asked whether it would actually expedite matters. Paula Palmateer said she thinks this was brought about because of the Vail Associates thing and for the record she would just like to clarify that the staff on that matter was directed by the Council. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the staff memo of 11-21-79 for Section 1 only with the addition of change number five as Jim Rubin stated which would be as follows: "S. Changes in Density Control Sections in all zone districts." There was a discussion about having to send the notifications by certified mail at $1.40 each. The Board agreed that first class mail was sufficient. Ed Drager added the mailing requirement to his motion, It should read: "Said notice shall be mailed by first class pre-paid mail." Section 2 and 3 changes mentioned in the staff memo were not included in the motion. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 5. Selection of a PEC member to attend Library Competition meetings. Jim Rubin explained that the Board had selected Ron Todd to represent them but he would now be representing the Council. The Board selected Jim Morgan to represent them. Item number one was then discussed. 1. Selection of a new Chairman. Sandy Mills made a motion to appoint Gerry White as the new Chairman to replace Ron Todd who now is on the Town Council. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Since Gerry was the Vice Chairman, it was then necessary to select a new Vice Chairman. Jim Morgan nominated Ed Drager. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35. T0: ~'LANNTNG AND FN~TZR~1N~'PAL CO1~'~'QSSION FRONT: DEPA'RTN.~T OF CONlMfJ~IITY DEVII,OPME~iT DATE: NC)VEI~II2 21, 1979 RE: CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST 'I'0 ALTAW USE OF TIDE ?~A.~ENfENT STORAGE AND MnCHANTr~F, ARP' QF THE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOQL FOR A LU~TCII~tOOM, Il~IDOOR R~cREATZC~L AREA AND DARx xooM. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSID USE The original approval of the Vail Mountain School allowed a max~m~nn floor area not to exceed 10,000 square feet. This is the area contained arz the existing building. Also in the existing building is a basement which at the present time can solel~be used for storage and mechanical equiN~~~.~t. Below grade storage and mechanical areas are not included in calculating floor area. The x~~xest is to allow the conversion of approximately 3,200 square feet of this space from storage into actual uses. 'I'he intended uses .include a lunch room, dark rooQn, and indoor recreational area. The remainder of the basement, consisting of approximately 1,400 square feet will .~~,~.in as storage and mechanical space. "I'he proposed change will axn no way effect the number of students allowed to attend the school, which is 110. . CRITERIA AND FIl~iDIflTG5 Upon review of Section 18.500, the Depart-~~,t of C~,un~ty Deve1~~~~~t rec~~~d~~nds A~.~.~~rral of the Conditional Use Permit based l.~.J,z the follawirig factors: Gonsideraticn of Factors: Relationship and i~act of the use on devel~~~~~~t objectives of the Town. In the review of the original Conditional Use request of the Vail.Nbuntaixi School, the PEC felt that the use of the parcel as a private school was a positive one for the C.,,«<~~znity. We da not feel that this proposal changes that in anyway. The effect of the use on light and air, distributicm of ,.~,~alation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recxeatian facilities, and other public .facilities and public facilities needs. 'This request will have no effect on the above mentioned factors. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flew and control, access, maneuverability, and ,.~«,ral of snow from the street and parking areas. This request also will have no negative effect on these factors. Vail Mountain School P~]C MII~ 11-21-79--Page 'Ztao r~ LJ Effect t,~~a. the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use ~ relation to surrounding uses. None. Such other factors and criteria as the Conmis~ion deems applicable to the p~~,.ti,sed use. 't'here has been discussion between the Town Building and Fire Departments and Gordon Pierce, Architect for the school on fire safety ~~airements for the bas~~~,~t space, with a general understanding reached as to what wi11 be necessary to make the basu~~~t area safe for occupancy. We request that an a~N~~~ral only be given with the assurance that the necessary fire safety measures be taken before the space is utilized for anything other than storage. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an impact report is ~~aired by Chapter 18.55. Therein no EnviL~..~~~nta.1 Impact ~c~,rt ~~aired. , FIlVDINGS AND RDCCN~IDATIC~15: The Depari~~~~t of Coanrnu~ity Deve1~N~~~~t recomn~aads that the Conditional Use Permit be P~+roved based on the following findings That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purpose 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 matexally .injurious to properties or improvemPxits in the vicinity. That the proposed use would wi~~ly with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. ~ON~DATIO~T The Department of Community Development rec~~~~~~~ds aN~~~,ral of the conversion of the basement space with the assurance that no • occupancy of the space will occur until necessary ~=~ safety measures are taken. • Zb: Flanning and Envi,,~.u~~nta1 Ccala~ission I'~.k«: Depart~rit of C..u««an,ity Development Date: 11-21--79 Re: Proposed Amenc„~~~ts to the Zoning Ordinance involving Notification The ~,~~~,sed amen~"~xts found below wane as a result of the Agricultural and Open Space District zone change, when it was brought to our attention that the present ordinance requires the notifica.taon of adjacent Nl~r~'tY cu+mers for even changes to the Zo~.ing code itself. L~hat we are Nl~r~~g through the Amendment is to only do the notificatiari procedure for: 1.} Changes in Distract Boundaries 2.) Conditional Uses 3.) Variances .4. } Devel.~~,~~~~t plans for Serial Devel.r~«nt Distracts A secarid part of this p~~~sed am~.dment is to allow the Zca~ing Administrator to initiate changes to either the Zoning Ordinance itself or to district boundaries. It as the way that it has-been done in the past, but is not clearly spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance. It was also a part of the caritention in the discussion of the Agricultural and Open Space District Zone Change. ~'he proposed amen~~~Lt sane as follows: Section 1. Sectiara 18.66.080 F~Ying Notice is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.66.084 Hearing Notice A. Not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date set for the heaving before the Planning Ccamu.ssion, the Zoning Administrator shall cause a copy of the Notice of the time and place of the hearing to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. In addition thereto. the Zing Administrator shall mail to pr^i~vty owners within 300 feet in a single-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone distract; and to adjacent property owners or the managing agent, registered agent, or any a~~.t...er of the Board of Directors of adjacent condcaninium projects in other zone districts, a copy of a notice of the time and place of the hearing ,name of the applicant, a general description of the property indicating its location, a brief sutm~ary or explanation of the subject matter of the hearing, and a stat~~~~t that the application ox ,~l~~,sal is available in the Zoning Administrator" s office during regular business hours for review or inspec~-~~n by the public. Said notice to prop L~r owners shall only be rern~i red for: 1.) changes in District Boundarries 2.) Conditional Uses 3.) Variances 4.) Development Plans for Special Devel~,.~~~t Distracts PAC ~~~~ 11-21-79-~-Page 9.t,~ra Zoning Changes :7 Said notice sha11 be mailed certified return receipt requested. Section 2. Paragraph A of Section 18.66.110 Amen~~~xt Initiation is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.66.110 Amen~~~.t Initiation A. An amen.~,~~~t of the regulations of this title or a change in district boundaries may be initiated by the town council ari its own motion, by resolution of the planning commission, by petitiari of any resident or rl~t~tY corner in the town,. or by the Zoning Administrator. Sectica~ 3. Section 18.66.130 Amendment-Hearing is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.66.130 Amen~~~~t Hearing Upon filing of a petition for ~~~~~«it or ~~ initiation of an amenl~~~t by the town council, planning ccemlission, or Zoning Adm~istrator, the Zoning Administrator sha11 set a date far hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.070. Notice shall be given and the hearing conducted in accordance wa.th the prov~~~^ns of Sections 18.56.080 and 18.66.090. {Ord. 8 (1973) & 21.503.) • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~_ AGENDA ~_ MEETING OF MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1979 at 3:00 P.M. l.) Approval of Minutes of 11-26-79 Meeting. 2.) Density Variance Request for Vail Racquet Club Condominiums in Buildings l4 and 15 to Build Employee Housing Units 3.) Changes in Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance involving Notification and Initiation. 4.) Approval of the following Condo and Townhouse Plats: A. Vail Spa Condominium B. Pitkin Creek Townhouses C. Mountain Meadows Condominiums D. Northwoods Building B E. Sandstone Creek Club Bldg. A Minutes of the Planning and Cnvironmental Commission Meeting of 12-10--79 ''~ Not yet approved by the Board Members Present lack Goehl Ed Draper Gerry White Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Members Absent Jim Morgan Staff Members Present Peter Patten Jim Rubin Dick Ryan Council Person Present Dr. Steinberg 1.) Density Variance Request for Vail Racquet Club Condominiums in Buildings 14 and 15 to Build Emplavee blousing Units Peter Patten explained this item. Gerry White asked Walter Kirch if he would like to make a presentation. He said he would just address questions. A person from the audience asked about the number of units this will give them. Walter Kirch explained that under the former zoning through the County, they could have had 3fi0. They will now have 247 condo units and 2$ employee units fora total of 275. Under the current MDMF zoning, they are three units over the allowable. They would not be over under the former MDMF zoning before that district was downzoned. 50 to 70% of the units were built before the downzoning of the district. Sandy Mills asked about the impacting of peoples views etc. She said she was concerned because there had been such a large group of people protesting at the last Vail Racquet Club/PEC meeting. Both the Staff and Walter Kirch said there were no objections this time. Notices have been sent to all concerned. The Staff pointed out that there is no visual impact. Sandy asked about the height. Peter Patten said there is no problem there. Walter Kirch said some of the owners s who protested last time about employee units have now actually leased the units. He said people were mainly concerned with having employees in their building. PEC Minutes from 12-10-79 Meeting Rage Two r 1 There was a question about parking. Walter Kirch said that they have the same ratio as before. One space for one bedroom units and one and onewhalf spaces for two bedroom units. Overflow parking can park in the Clubhouse parking lot. The staff agreed there should be no .parking problems. Dr. Steinberg asked how many of the units will be used by Vail Racquet Club employees. Walter Kirch said after construction, about one-third of the units will be used by Vail Racquet Club employees and two-thirds will be available to community employees. Ed Draper made a motion to approve the Density Variance Request for the Vail Racquet Club Condominiums in Buildings 14 and 15 to Build Employee Units as per the Staff memo of 12-&-79. Jack Goehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2.) Changes in Amendments to the Zoning. Ordinance involving ~otificatian and Initiation. Dick Ryan explained this item. After the last PEC meeting, this was presented to the Council. However there were two changes. One change is to only notify adjacent property owners in all districts. This is a change from notifying property owners within 300 feet in single family and duplex zones. • The second change involved the Amendment Initiation Section. In this section, it was previously required for the PEC to initiate amendments by Resolution. The proposed change would allow this to be done by Motion rather than by Resolution, the difference being that a written document would not be required. In addition, the Councii approved the staff's request to allow the Zoning Administrator to initiate Amendments. Ed Draper said he still objects to the .Zoning Administrator being able to initiate Amendments. Jim Rubin said both sides (the Planning Commissions and the Staffs) were discussed and that the Council was notified in the Staff's referral that the PEC had voted against this. Ed Draper said he would like a copy of that referral. All Soard members were given copies. Ed Draper said he would still like to know why the Staff wants this change, Jim Rubin said it is mainly to expedite matters. Ed Draper said it should stay the way it is. Roger Tilkemeier asked if this were passed if amendments could go from the Staff to Council bypassing the PEC. Jim Rubin said they could not. PEC Minutes from 12-i0-79 Page Three Sandy Mills said she doesn't think the passage of this is going to make any difference. The Staff is not going to be doing anything differently than in the past. They will still bring everything to the PEC in work sessions etc. She feels the Board is making too big an issue of this. Roger Tilkemeier said three people stopped him and said this was not a goad i dea . Gerry White asked Dr. Steinberg about the Council meeting on this. He said it was not discussed in too great of detail but he feels it will be before the second reading. Ed Drager said it is a bad idea. Jim Rubin said the process will be smoother and they are not taking any power from the PEC. Ed Drager said the Staff cannot give one good reason for this. . Gerry White said there is always a credibility gap between the government and community and he feels the more notification the better even if it takes a longer time. Jim Rubin said as many people are notified as possible. The Staff is not going to do something that is not approved of ar like by the entire community. Gerry White said he approves of the change from Resolution to Motion as that is in the best interest of the community and makes the process smoother. He also approves of the second change in notification. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the changes in the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance involving notification initiation as per the Staff Memv of 12-6-79. Ed Drager said the motion should also contain the Boards continued disapproval of the Initiation by Zoning Administarator Section. Sandy said the Council had a1 ready approved that section and it was not for the Board to say anything more. Gerry White asked for a second to the motion. The Motion failed for lack of a second. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the changes in the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance involving notification as per the Staff Memo of 12-6-79 with the section on Initiation of Amendment to remain the same as it now is. Ed Drager seconded the mtian and called for the question. Gerry White asked Dick Ryan if he wanted to say anything else. Ed Drager said Dick could not say anything else as he had called for the questions. The vote was taken. Jack Goehl, Ed Drager, Gerry White and Roger Tilkemeier voted for and Sandy Mills voted against. PEC Minutes from 12-10-79 Meeting Page Four 4.) Approval of the following Gondo and Townhouse Plats: A. Vail Spa Condominium B. Pitkin Creek Townhouses C. Mountain Meadows Condominiums, Phase T, TT, and TII D. Northwoads Building B, F, and F2 E. Sandstone Creek Club Bldg. A Jim Rubin explained this item. He said some additional plats had come in since publication of the memo and would like to add the following: F. Courtside Townhouse Phase T G. Potato Patch Club First Supplement H. Vail Golf Course Townhoues First and Second Supplement Ed Drager made a motion to approve. the above as per the staff memo of 12-6-79 plus additions. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 5.) Approval of the Minutes of 11-26-79 Meeting.. Sandy Mills made motion to approve the minutes as written. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Roger Tilkemeier said he would like to bring up one more item. He said he heard that the owner of the Getty Oil Site had gone back to Council and they had told him they would be in favor of a residential use on the site. He said that that did not settle we11 with him and wanted to know other Board Members opinions. He does not think residential is an appropriate use. Sandy Mills said she attended the meeting with the owner regarding the Getty Oil Site. She said she voiced her opinions regarding the office building being inappropriate and Ran Todd had expressed what happened at the Planning Commission meetings on this. Sandy Mills said she thinks six units would be more appropriate there than an office building. She thinks we should even require them to be employee housing. Dr. Steinberg said the Council was hung on this and reluctant to make a recommendation.. He thinks they recommended the residential use as the lesser of two evils. Jack Goehl said the people in Bighorn da not want commercial uses that will make more traffic. Gerry White asked how residential fits in better than commercial. PEC Minutes from 12-10-79 Meeting Page Five Dr. Steinberg said residential would be less traffic. Jack Goehl said any use would be an increase in an already busy spot. Jim Rubin pointed out that whatever the use, the owner will have to come back to the Planning Commission. Joe Lewandowski said he thought the owner had said it would be 1981 before he could do anything now. Jim Rubin said it would be appropriate for the Board to make a group recommendation to the Council. Jack Goehl said he would like to see open space there, a park etc. Ed Draper said he had a conflict on this. Gerry White said whatever would keep the traffic low there. Sandy Mills said she feels residential is the only alternative to a park which is her first choice. Roger Ti7kemeier said this land is in a spot to serve .the residential i area surrounding it. He sees nothing wrong with a convenience store and a gas pump. Jim Rubin and Dick Ryan said there will be no meeting on December 24th as it is Christmas Eve. The next meeting wall be January 14. Gerry White said he would like to consider a growth management point system. Dick Ryan said Boulder has a Growth Management Ordinance, and he could get a copy of it. Fd Draper said he would rather see something from Aspen or Breckenridge as some of the things from Boulder in the past have not been too slick. Peter-Patten said the Town, VA, VRA, the County, and the Forest Service are doing a Town and Mountain Capacity Study. This should give us some growth management information. Gerry White asked about getting a traffic counting system. Dick Ryan explained that there are so many problems with this type of thing in the snow. Jim Rubin asked the Board to think about any changes they want to make in the zoning Ordinance so it can be done all at one time. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Sand Mills seconded and the Meeting was adjourned at 4:30. MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE; 12-6-79 RE: DENSITY VARIANCE REQUEST FOR VAIL RACQUET CLU$.CONDOMINIUMS IN BUILDINGS 14 ANA 15 TO BUILD EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS. DESCRIPTION 0~' VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Walter Kirch, wishes to continue construction of employee housing units by building eight one 'bedroom units in Building 14 and two two bedroom. units in Building 15. The Density Variance is required due to a previous voluntary downzoning in 1977, 'which does not permit the proposed. units. Also, the additional ten units would put the Racquet Club three units over the M~MF Zone maximum for the site. This variance request is similar to the one previously granted on March 23, 1979. At that tame, a density variance request for 16 Employee Housing Units in Buildings 4 and 13 was unanimously approved by Planning Commission. Mr. Kirch now wishes to complete his construction of employee housing units. The units will be built at garden level on both buildings and will raise the Height of the buildings 4.5 feet. The GRFA of the 10 units totals 4900 square feet, 3220 for the eight one bedrooms and 1680 far the two two bedrooms. The units would be restricted to long-term rental units for twenty years. The units would be available to employees of the Racquet Club first, with the remainder offered to other emplnyees of the Vail Area. There are sufficient parking spaces at the Racquet Club. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 15.62.060 of the Municipal Code, Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recazhmends'apprvval of the requested Variance based upon the folln~ring factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Height increase should not adversely impact any other surrounding properties. The distribution of employee housing throughout four buildings represents a sound solution in terms of integrating the Racquet Club community. Conduct of the tenants will be strictly monitored by Mr. Kirch and his staff sa that no negative impacts upon other users of the grounds and facilities will be realized. • PEC MEMO-Vail Racquet Club I2-b-79-Page TwQ :~ The degree to which relief from the strict o~ literal: ariterpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is:necesaaty'to achieve:compati~i~ity and uniformity of treatment among sites iri fr-'e~-~`vicinity'or to attain the ob.iectives of'this title without grant bf special privil.e~e. The Commissioners are obviously aware of the critical need for employee housing in the Town. A policy of granting density bonuses for employee housing has been adopted with this in mind, we feel that in no way would approval of the variance represent a granting of a special privilege. Moreover, the applicant has voluntarily downzaned in the past and is now asking only for an extra three unitsbeyond what is allowed. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Not only do we feel that the spreading out (versus concentrating in one building} of the units in four buildings is desirable for the Racquet Club, but is also a sound concept for the geographical distribution of employee units for the Town as a whole in terms of transportation, the Town's Sus' System provides excellent service to the Racquet club. Recreational facilities are obviously no problem as-Club privileges are conditionally included. Adequate parking will be provided. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. We highly encourage developers to provide employee housing as part of their pro~cets and feel the community will benefit from the granting of this variance. FTNDTNGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following find_i__nQs_ 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 notbe detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • PEC MEMO-Vail Racquet Club I2-6-79-page Three That the Variance is warranted for the following reason: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. R~COMMDNDATiONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance request. The critical need far quality employee housing will continue to be addressed by granting variances of this type. MEMORANDDM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMTFNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE : 12--6-79 RE: CHANGES IN THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE INVOLVING NOTIFICATION AND INITIATION Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1979 which was adopted on first reading by the Town Council on December 4, 1979. In this Ordinance there are two changes from what was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission. These changes were formulated by the Staff between the PEC meeting and the Council Meeting, and we felt that they were na.t substantial. in nature. The Staff, however, did bring it to the Council's attention that these changes had not been specifically presented to the PEC and that it was the Staff's intention to present it to the PEC between lst and 2nd Readings. The First Change is in the notif icaiton procedures, where it was decided to notify adjacent properties in all zone Districts. The present procedure requires notification of adjacent properties in all zone districts except for single family and duplex, where it is necessary to notify all properties within 300 feet of the subject property. This change would require notification of only adjacent property owners in the single family and duplex zone districts. This change was discussed with the Town Attorney, who had no problems with it. The Second Change involved the Amendment Initiation Section, In this section, it was previously required for the PEC to initiate amendments by Resolution. The proposed change would allow this to be done by Motion rather than by Resolution, the difference being that a written document would not be required. The Town Council also dad approve Sections 2 and 3 of Ordinance No. 49, which enables the Zoning Administrator to initiate Amendments. The Council was appraised of the PEC's recommendation on this matter and your reasons for not recommending it. This Ordinance wi11 be discussed by the Town Council. again on December 18, 1979, when it will be considered by the Town Council on Second Reading. • 4 `, ial u) h N N 3 'c5 N O •~ O i7 O Iv 1-. c) C p: r '~ rr . N ^•ea w t o ~ r: N 1-h a n c: a it h~ ,. ~ -• is K O J r W ~,. m r' .y 1~~ N N m C la ~ ~. o-3..n ~~c m D o~ ^a a.~ °' ~~'.ta w F ro ~~ ,.. U. O ff 1~. 1+• N a i rr w N= r- o' 'e n .t 7 O r~ ,ram Ur r ~.~ O M 7 rJ N W. H ,q t _5 • O K ni r; m s+ ^ii d C~: ,-F+i' ~ ~ ~ ;T Y d N y p.NO n p•nmroN•rr r+rr'r.. a ', B rtomo •> wNrsn t irorno n~~~.~o ~- e d E3 0 ob d:YCy 0 ^s rr m o a ~ y. - Ncrn.tlOw O'ti O'r+N ONw. :nHrtc- n Wn d'ob n"~>.F rv o 5nnrro :r r. m N O O N• Y rf t ~ t~ i b N Y ,y Oi ~ h., a^ Orr Pa ]' ~ N N o' .; w . w cJ a'-. © H 7 G W O w 1~~ aq r5 N w ~+ m N' N 3 ~'O O ^S m 1-' ~R ro t7 w t Li rr r• ~ ~n o o m ~ :r a C~ O i Zi n ;7 N +'" n a ; '7 v C] O4 G oa'aorrm.Tn yew w nN v.trKN HO GO wi,-+~Q`Fr. N a Qq n K C ti ~ N. N rt O N. n 1.+• +, ~ Nrrw f Ny N• >,•towmob 0~0~,. aN:~~y:nwc y Kv~'iy fil M rt V. Q. N N I (D f N. m F+ O Nu. ,y N.O rhD- CL? O C Ot7 OnN nrl n0 Orry y~•h mnoa• ~brr ~ .s to r•~mn wK s mr w m U9 [? rr O r'• ra to O ~ ~ N m cr U` m N O h wnm n fn H ri [2, Y• O a 0 hb tY m K O r• w O O >! r0 N N m O H H N r~ N N G+. a. N N :~ H a r-3 :5' r ri f {u r' 0 a H h rF w O O D y by 0 O ro m R N N O O m R u. K O y ,~ w H S} +E m n n E N a Y S N N O N b 'S O N t= w ,°H n O r, .7 r, A. C 'S i- :i G 'C N• b n a S~ O e n W v O ci 7 a r'r O 4 r ti f. .O Y O C rt 'z' C U 0 fl, r• R n N N F% N a w h C r+ N 4 li 1.. U7 ~; C's• r•~ i~ tr C~ y L~ n. 0 r-n d b H O C N O O r+ C w W S= q }~1• Y• IU w n O m k; O l )~. tb f5 m N n rr N• O H t0 'Cl tp O 'Y n N P w .% :s a N N „5 ~~ n F:°O N 9h7 r•G" d r~'Z3 N d:j 'n• Y~O F'UfJ 1~•~ M ~ • r riOO-• CI f. N r~ .•. - r-r. O r+ I r O r- *•, W ~ h H ~ O O h O 1~~ y v w ~ ~ v U ~ 62 '•oa- ~~ H ~,o W :~~ r7 e M a C, i-1• r+ C ~ W c,^a~• • 7a N 1'i %~ '~ U O s5 to COO i3 a N ., 1 a fs ~i .. U r nuv a ~ a Q h~ r i ~+ H v d~3.nco f~ :j U '~ 'i C: r• :3 C: f+ :~ i N . ~ ,+. r - E3 4" u n '. ,ro l:. r <• tf. :~ ~' n s •r,' ~~ - • G J . _ •:; i rf +{ t'r f. ;T r ~ • N U: .y ~ O ;Y 'i U. YS F% N :: ~, 1 .f -; :r. , q; r,) ~ ' .'1 !n ,, v t^ to a w a i"!, a M a O y ,, N d rM O+ N V` 4' {) rr u F+ m n rt v ,7 37 U x w Oq y rr (n 7 m H `C w A• K n :Y w N a rt O N N a U, 0 H O C J ~3 7: N ra t= r~ « ~ ~ ~, D a' O r; , ''3 ra m ca 1" 17 rt r~] ,.: to ,., ` Y Ifs- s~', n h7 ...1 ~ L1 h ,- .., -. O J C: .5 ~. O Ir{ ?• C~ t~l h: a fh ~ 'a Cv s :c: u, c7 N r- Cn i~ ~ to M r~ 7 a. D r+~ :1 ~ N to s5 rv ~ ~ n s ,~ a O C O ~ ;3 x; a s m C ~ w t~ ~~, v N 9 N n .] :A ~ C M r g, F, N. .. ~ N• r~ A'. 4R s'r il ~ - :T :> a n P' C C. 'J% S UI d rr 1~• C] _ f17 rn y ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ S 'C O ~ P+ N ~ ~ C r+ rn r,. ;.a . ho ri hi O S N• r-t~ 7 . r p H rf fq C :3' G7 . y Y• 13 rr O O F,. U c~ ~' o w rr s N z a N~ ~ H w ~ oq a m a e ~ a :' m n ~ r~• q n ~ D o ~ tz3 ',' ~ ~ ~, ~ m °a r, 3 C O h- n ~ tp Y~ •- N N c'F f) a H w ~ y O. r+ to ~ 6 ~ o rr ~ m a rr va N w O N ~ ~' ~ r ~' o , tr O F O W rh ~ y~. ~ ~ P7 n ro n rr w O t~ ' 'c 0 'a t5 O Y NK y a p 3 N Y' ~c n r+ N r ur,~ as '~ 1.., w 9 N~ N n ro m ~% ~ ^ ,. . n ` - 3 wca a a^~ rte' ,`.,:i (6 a 0 7 ~c1 rt .~ ~~` cyo a o '6 >v M h' 7 ! "l R O ~_ N. O ~ci-ran O ~ O h~•'t sr.a~ro ~-? ( 7Yi W U ".> .. r+ :~ no -: O'! C ~ ^. cr.,~.~~ v. v,Dr~c v; a ~e .J J r> c. ri o , :n •c' 'Y Y !f N! W N w O m 6) G~ W O .~ f~ rl• V n a 9? th H rj (1. W 0 a G t} F:. v ;i t H• N fR r- ~ r'- O O rt a ~ O M• ~ N S O y t .~'.. ~3 [z. 7 G N f~ .O r`'. G `o ;r lj ~+ 9 y fn G1 c~ (! ,~~3pp0: ^O.3t3 , •~3 - -3 CJ ~~~ ~) h ! b G) ~3~n "c,~µ U~. .•tn ~ rs3 :. ~O~ x C~ -- =~ ~ O to r., ax t~1r: ~ ~pm.~[[=3 [H ~] F-1 C r i~ :~ W t" t~''i t3 ~ S O W rt cY r:n C rs w rC C h-3 am ~w r c-n t; '.. h+. O .. .i + . ;-. f. F- ~, s=..~~ ~a'~ moo. n F- m '? ~ N. r, r. •nv.a~r~tn. O. - :Y R~ c O F: O n :i ^. t: z C r :% .+ - f.. :r r U: . F% (` F -s }-. .-w C~'O rj !-~ .., .~~~.'r ~~ -; ; G' r C' - J K S' ~ - - ~' _ - [, S~ ' f, :.3 _. ,~ .. v r-- ,y f. r 1~ ~3 i~ ~n ro S n rf '•3 N- oa S J N• ~ :s F% ;s V t O '3 <! m •~; nn Da ~ •1 r1 ~ N y ;:. f! yr t7 r m ~_ D " a - N ~ U, S= H ;: •S / r~ Ki ^, 1: ;a n.:: :il N C h c: O ~r o (Z '^ N~ a rr Cr N• U 63 ~ .. ~a C.', W U ~~ tr h O '~. t. 4/ a '% a ea .; ~, u ~ ~ r' to :~ O 4'= 7~ P. 4~ (~. r{ r,~--. U /5 q r•r :7 f~ i~7 .,: 'o` N; /i D ,7 0 a i~ h 7. c J ~; r, r; i H r O .3 ~• ~- C ~ f~ 'c Ur >i ... L>w N ~' f: tr H ) t:3 at ~7 ~ m zs E; n o-a c~ 8 < A' G. C3 M [n ^ 1.7 ~ , c-0 N G L° to R' ~. ~-~ A+ P ~ .i Ul V N ~ •,~ :, O~ ti~ ry .7 ... ~ F.. ,.. N Fi h H hf w. n rj r•~ h ~ F., t,, (7 a c ~i ~ r• ., i~^ a w ~ J L o rr ~ m m r' c7 l j .~~ 7 :~' ~n t O ! o )a „ ;... ' ,, t r i U t• m C~ c V+ c: rr J c m to t*1 W ,_ ~-~~ i~ h U. C1 c! [C~ ~ trJ v~ 7 67 ~ Lr 7 ,-~ O n ~ 4 C7 Q C O ,7 ~. ~ r~ i~ ~- FL f N3 i-o O ^• [C C U3 w~ R , K Cn O C7 Y n A N O N• H C"3 n O t" ~a n +.~ to v _ - t~ ti ;7 zT O O a z- N F~• 1-r 'c t+f N O ~ r' W r. to N ~ O F~ ~ O ry w Lt '~~ >s ~ O. K to t~ C H I r to tn. +~: m ~ V R. 'a ~ .r ~C ~ N cJ ~ W °C r! w O .. v. to ~ ~< -a ~« a ~ '- ~ a ^ rr r H 4] O tD ;r C: y [Y O O w• W !: C r - N b $ F' 'C C i'f '! d (~ r' ^ w e w L» n r+ O N ~ ~ ;3 V. w c ~ f :u c w a. ~ r r o h Q c .n ti ~. :s ~ c b 'b C cD '^ v' ~~ tG a' - r ;~ F x n o N ro F- m c ` n a 0 ~ H- m r C ~ a~ w ~ M r~ 9 t= a rt r r' H i + -s N- •~ C ~ a m ~" ~ ~ o ~ a a ~» . a P f1 p~ r; }., ~ F,. - . ~ ~' ~ y N r' ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ty ~ ~' c H <+ ."3' .-. tD C o R m m n r C c* :s C] o C ' O _ U, r ~ w p. C9 I+. .. b (1 (~ m C ~ h' F-, ~' C: Tt W F> .n ~'>• t4 tU ~ tom= N ~ '3' ., N R G w (D a a ti K N w ~` ' MEMORANDUM • T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PROM: 3IM RUBIN/BONING ADMTNTSTRATOR DATE: December 6, 1979 RE: APPROVAL OF THE 1'OLLOWING CONDOMINIUM AND TOWNHOUSE FLATS I would request that you approve the following Condominium and Townhouse Plats. These Plats are all on new projects and have been reviewed and approved by the Town Staff. The Condominium Conversion Ordinance requires that alI Condominium Plats be approved by the F~.anning Commission. On thaw Flats, there is really nothing for the Planning Commission to review, since in all.- cases there are buildings actually constructed. Any plat which involves the division of just land, without buildings such as Casolar, will be presented to you in greatex detail. The Staff also is presently working on rewriting the Subdivision Regulations, which have not been rewritten since 1970, and need major refinement. Under new procedures, we would anticipate that these type of Condominium Flats would not need specific FEC Approval. • The new Subdivision Regulations will hopefully be presented to you in early ,7anuary. Until new regulations are adopted, aI1 Condominium Plats will be presented to you for your approval. The Flats which I would like approved at this time are: Vaal Spa Condominium Fitkin Creek Townhouses Mountain Meadows Condominiums Northwoads Building .B Sandstone Creek Club Bldg. A • MEMORANbUM • T0: planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Cathie DATE: 12-14-79 RE: New Zoning Ordinances 1~e have been having copier problems all week so I have not been able to complete the new zoning ordinances. As soon as I can get them done, we will deliver them. ~~'<k~ • • ~~°`~.°' r ~LANNTNC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~j. There will be no Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting on December 24 because of the Christmas Holiday. The Board and the Planning Staff wish everyone a nice Holiday Season. The next meeting sill be .Ianuary 14, 1950. Thre is still a vacancy on the P~.anning and Environmental.Commission. To qualify, you must have been a resident and registered voter in the Town of Vail for at least thirty (30) days and a resident of Eag~.e County for a minimum of one year. Interested person should submit letters of application to the Department of Community Development, ~3ox 100, Vail, CO 81657 no later than December 17, 1979. To be published in the Vail Trail, on 12-14-79 '4 €_ ~.