Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 Planning & Environmental Commission Agendas, Minutes & Memos July to Dec.PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, July 14, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes of June 23, 1980. 2. CDS Enterprises - Lot line Vacation Lots 1,2,3, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition 3. Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the Municipal Building. 4. Study Session a. Fare study of Vail Village b. Review of Zoning Amendment changes • To be published in the Vail Trail July 11, 1980. • Minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting. Members Present John Perkins Gerry White Jim Morgan Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Roger Tilkemeier 1. CDS En July 14, 1980 3:00 P.M. Council Member Present Ron Todd Staff Present Dick Ryan Jim Ryan Peter Patten ises - Lot Line Vacation -Lots 1,2,3, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Jim Rubin presented the memo. Duane Piper of Wheeler -Piper Architects showed a plot plan. There was concern about the number of accesses. Dan Corcoran asked if there could be only one access. Jim said that his office didn't review the plan itself, and that the two driveways would be discussed with the DRB. Roger pointed out that the lot line vacations were all that they had to consider at this time. John Perkins felt that these vacations would be a good addition to this property. Roger Tilkemeier moved to approve, John Perkins seconded. Unanimous vote. 2. Conditional Use Permit to 11. a ow expansion of Municipal Building. Dick Ryan presented a new rough sketch indicating the addition on the west side of the building adjacent to the back wall of the Council chambers. It extended west and north of the main building. He said that it would abut the handicap ramp. Gerry asked how close it would be to the property line. Dick answered 6 or 8 feet. Gerry asked if it followed set -back regulations. Dick replied that there were none. John wanted to know about the roof height. Dick explained that the roof would follow the present roof line and that there would be some storage under some portions, and cathedral ceilings in other places, with a ladder to the storage. Sandy asked if the ladder met the fire codes. Dick replied that it did. Sandy asked if the Community Development Department was going to be getting the area that they needed. Dick:.yes, about 1300'sq'. ft. John Perkins wanted to know a budget estimate. It was estimated to cost. about $35 /sq. ft. Discussion of mechanical hook -up followed, and Dick explained there would be only electric heat. Sandy showed concern about parking impact, and it was explained that there would be no new persons added to the staff. Most of the PEC members expressed displeasure of such a rough sketch. PEC MEETING July 14, 1980 Page two 40 Gerry asked where the library would move, and Dick replied, "Across the hall. Bill would move into the Com. Dev, space, and the police into Bill's office." Gerry asked if this expansion would be large enough to solve the needs in the future, and Dick replied that it was. Roger wanted to know if they had considered using partitions such as Herman Miller office furniture instead of walls. Dick answered that he had worked in an office with Herman Miller partitions and that the sound carried right over with no privacy. John added that it was very expensive as well. Discussion of the door into the lobby area followed. John felt that despite the rough drawing that he could support it and that it shouldn't be too expensive. Motion by John Perkins to approve the conditional use permit, seconded by Roger Tilkemeier. The vote was unanimous. 3. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 23, 1980. Dan Corcoran moved for approval, seconded.by John Perkins. It was decided that the next date being July 28, the date of the golf tournament, and the one item, Christiania Lodge, could be carried forward, that there would be no meeting on the 28th. There is to be a work session on the 4th of August and the next regular session on August 11. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 for a work session on fire study and zoning amendment changes. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.. • AGENDA August 11, 1980 1. Approval of minutes of July 14, 1980. 2. Lot 13, Bighorn Terrace Addition variance. 3. Study Session Discussion of Major Amendment process to the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan • To be published in the Vail Trail August 8, 1980. MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 8/7/80 RE: GRFA Variance Request for Paul Curfman to Allow Construction of 281 square feet for an Addition on Lot 13, Bighorn Terrace DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to enlarge the Northeast side of his unit No. 13 at Bighorn Terrace to allow additional dining room and kitchen space. The applicant feels the area existing for food preparation and consumption is inadequate in relationship to the sleeping facilities. Also, other additions of this nature have taken place., some of which have negative impacts on setbacks, etc. at Bighorn Terrace,.and the propsed addition will have none, according to Mr. Curfman. Unit 13 is located on a lot of approximately 1888 sq. ft. Under current zoning in the MDMF Zone, this allows 660 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing unit contains about -764 sq. ft. of GRFA and the proposed addition consti- tutes another 177 sq. ft. Thus, we find the application is actually • for a GRFA Variance of 281 sq. ft., or .42% of the allowable GRFA, as opposed to the application for a ill sq. ft variance. These numbers are according to maps and drawings the applicant has submitted. 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: The relationship of the requested.variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: This variance request would not have negative effects upon other struc- tures. However, we would like to present a brief overview of the history of variance requests within Bighorn Terrace so that the PEC can have a complete look at this factor: 0 DATE .77 VARIANCE REQUEST HISTORY OF BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION TYPE OF AM'T OF STAFF PEC APPLICANT REQUEST VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION ACTION Benysh GRFA 130 sq ft Appr. Appr. Setback 8' Appr. Appr. May 78 Rowe GRFA 473 sq ft Denial Appr. Setback 7.5' Denial Appr. July 78 Alder GRFA 75 sq ft Denial Appr. Setback 8' Denial Appr. Aug 78 Turnbull Setback 7' Appr. Appr. The staff .feels that, as with the other GRFA variance requests after 1977, this would be a granting of special privilege. The applicant has not demon- strated sufficient reasons relating to hardship which warrant this variance. The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution of 20 ulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public .facilities and utilities, and public safety. No negative impacts are foreseen with the exception that the proposal would bring the building to within 10' of Columbine Way. FINDINGS: khe Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings efore granting a variance: That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal ,interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial, as.we are of.the opinion that this would be granting special privilege and would set precedent for other MDMF zone homeowners to greatly increase the size of their units beyond zoning restrictions. We would remind the PEC that one of our goals is to reduce density and bulk in the Gore Valley. • otection r c� town i b o x 1 o o • v a l I , c o l o r a d o 8 1 6 5 7 • 3 0 3 - 4 7 6 - 5 6 1 3 Planning Commission Vail, Colorado 81657 July 21, 1980 To whom it may concern; This letter is being sent in regards to my conflagration study presentation to your group July 14, 1984. During the conversation following the presentation of the tape, I gave certain examples in answer to questions; specifically using the Red Lion Inn. Due to the seeming confusion and obvious misinformation arising from my use of said example, please let me clarify a few points. The management of the Red Lion Inn has been more than cooperative • with the fire department in meeting all current fire codes and in their willingness to upgrade the entire facility as needed. Although faced with inconsistencies in. design, none of these areas are a present fire hazard, and all new addition work will be built with total fire and life safety protection in mind. I am sorry for the misunderstanding caused by what I now realize to be a poor example amid discussion. If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. JS /js r� u Sincerely, James G Spell Communications Officer Vail Fire Department MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department, Dick Ryan SUBJECT: Zoning Regulation Amendments There will not be a study session on the zoning amendments on August 4, 1980. Town Council has requested a joint meeting scheduled on August 19, 1980 to discuss the changes. L� �J . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, August 25, 1980 3:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes of August 11, 1980. 2. Exterior Modification to the Lionshead Gondola Building. 3. Setback variance to build a deck on Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Village 7th Filing. 4. Christiania Lodge Parking Variance to allow a 2800 square foot addition. S. Vail Associates Conditional Use Permit to place temporary structure on the upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts for the 1980 -1981 ski season. 6. Setback Variance to build an addition onto an existing residence on Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1. 7. Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's apartment addition to the East of the Village Center D Building, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing. 8. Special Development District request for Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3. (The Owner has requested that this item be tabled to the September 8, 1980 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting.) To be published in the Vail Trail on Friday, August 22, 1980. • MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 25, 1980 3:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Gerry White Ed Drager Dan Corcoran Gaynor Miller John Perkins Jim Morgan Roger Tilkemeier COUNCIL PRESENT none STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Jim Rubin Dick Ryan Betsy Rosolack 1. Approval of minutes of August 11, 1980. Dan Corcoran moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Ed Drager, vote was unanimous. 2. Exterior Modification to the Lionshead GoAdola Building. Jim Rubin presented the project as explained in the memorandum and stated that the staff recommended approval. B. J. Britton, owner of A Place on Earth, showed drawings and described the snow piled high in the winter in front of the building. He mentioned that the two store fronts were conceptual, that there were no tenants as yet. Discussion followed concerning the fact that the barrier in front of the building separated the building from the mall, and that it was so wide that it lacked people perspective. It was felt that this modification was needed for the Lionshead commercial exposure. Dan Corcoran moved to approve, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, Ed Drager seconded, the vote was unanimous. 3. Setback variance to build a deck on Lot 1, Blk 8, V.Villa e 7th Jim Rubin presented the project and, after explanation, stated that the staff recommended denial because no hardship existed. Eileen Schilling explained the drawings further, and pointed out that a neighbor (Davis) was given a variance to extend a deck and build a garage. Further, neither of her neighbors objected, and the other.owner.of her duplex wrote a letter requesting that Eileen be allowed to build on the West in order not to intrude on his privacy. She pointed out that the reason the deck was not proposed for the.back was to.save the trees there, and because the site was steep. Discussion followed about the fact that there is no neighbor to the West because it is an avalanche area, and will never be occupied, therefore won't impact anyone. Roger Tilkemeier moved to approve this variance, John Perkins seconded, and all voted for approval except for Jim Morgan who abstained and Ed Drager who voted against approval because he felt no hardship existed. 4. Christiania Lodge Parkin2 Variance to Allow a 2800 SQ Ft Addition Peter Patten presented the request explaining that it was not in CCI. Paul Johnston mentioned that there was a past parking agreement betweem the Christiania Condos, the VA, and Chateau Christiania. Roger Tilkemeier PEC Minutes - 8/25/80 - page 2 said that he wasn't aware of any agreement with the Christiania Condos, but that the agreement was with the Christiania Lodge, VA and the Kendall residence. Paul added that only one space has been deeded to one condo. He went on to explain that the units he wanted to convert were very small and also that 3 units had only showers. The plan was to reduce 9 units to 6 larger units, thus improving the guest rooms, and change 2 units on the ground level to housekeeping quarters and storage. John asked if a parking variance was needed. Others did not see the need for a parking variance, expecially in light of the fact that there may be a letter verifying the parking agreement. Peter and Dick felt that it may be good to give a parking variance so the applicant wouldn't have to come back again. Others felt that since Paul wasn't under a time duress, he didn't need a vote now. Ed Drager moved that considera- tion of the Variance be postponed, and Roger T. seconded. The vote to postpone consideration was unanimous. 5. Vail Associates Conditional Use Permit to place temporary structure on the Upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts for the 1980 -81 ski season. Peter Patten presented the study and mentioned that it was the same request as last year, and the staff recommended approval. Discussion followed about the parking stalls cut into the bank illegally, and the fact that the parking stalls had been there 2 or 3 years. Tom Harned said it was VA's intention to fix up the bank beyond the parking, and that the parking was supposed to be for the race personnel.. Request was for one year at a time, until such time as VA will build permanent facilities for Small World. Tom had a letter from Pat Dodson indicating an agreement with the Recreation District. Dick Allis of Manor Vail spoke to say that they were not basically opposed to the structure, nor to Small World, but was concerned about the amount of traffic and the speed of some of the traffic in that area. He also mentioned the impact on his parking. He asked for a speed bump. Gerry White felt that the Council would read these minutes and receive the comments. Dick felt the need for some sort of trade -off since he let the Ski Club use 4 parking spaces. He felt that it was the only part of Vail that has retained the character that Vail started out to be. Dan Corcoran moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Ed Drager seconded, and the vote was unanimous with Roger T. abstaining. 6. Setback Variance to build an addition onto an existing residence on Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1. Peter Patten presented the staff findings and the staff recommendation of denial. Mark Donaldson showed photos of various sides, saying that the projected addition would impact the site the least. The discussion that followed questioned the reason for putting the garage in that position or in that place, and it was generally felt that the garage could be moved a little to keep it within the setback. 0 Ed Drager moved for denial, seconded by Roger Tilkemeier, and the vote for denial was unanimous. PEC Minutes - 8 -25 -80 - page 3 7. Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's apartment addition to the East of the Village Center D building, TraCt C, Block 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing. Jim Reuben explained the proposal and Fred Hibberd pointed out that when the building was constructed, all traffic to the Village Center was supposed to enter through the ramp from E. Meadow Drive. The ramp was too steep, and so was,not used. Proposed is a one story commercial space and a manager's apartment on, second,.floor. Jim Reuben was asked if the plan conformed to the Urban Design Plan, and he said that the Urban Design Plan dealt with one story but it could be stretched to deal with a 2nd story. The height was discussed and the view plane was examined, and the fact that in 1974 a 22 space parking variance was granted in exchange for the landscaped area which is the: proposed site of the new building. Hibberd stated that he found it difficult to keep the area. watered, and was continually picking trash up from it, and felt that it did not work. Part of this Land would be dedicated to an exclusive bus lane. Cecil Dodson, President of Village Center Buildings A,B, and C spoke. He felt that the 2nd story would cut off the view corridor for 2B, 3B, and 2C, 3C, 4C to the North side. He expressed support of the concept of pedestrianization, and the lst story (even though the lst story would cut off his own view), He felt that even more important was the impact on the view corridor to the South. He felt it was good to eliminate . the entrance with the ramp. Support was for the commercial space, not the second story. More discussion about the impact of the 2nd floor followed, with Dick's suggestion that perhaps changes be made in the plans,. especially in light of the fact that the Urban Design Plan deals with only one story. More discussion followed concerning the need for employee housing in the core. Back to the plan and the Urban Design Plan calling for one story addition and one small pedestrian park. Gerry felt that any change from that Plan called for redesigning of the Urban Design Plan. Ed Drager proposed that this was a major change to the DGPlan. There was no second. Jeff Winston had written comments on the plan that were read. The fact that it is one of the major entrances to the Town and therefore should remain one story was pointed out by Gerry. Discussion followed concerning keeping the addition one story on the North, and 1/2 story on South. Jim Morgan suggested that photos be taken. Fred Hibberd stated that he didn't want to make major changes to the UD PlAn and was willing to go to.-one story and skip the residential part. Ed Drager moved that the request be tabled until Sept. 8, seconded by Roger and the vote was unanimous. 0 Roger moved that the last item ( #8) concerning Lot 1, blk 3, Lion's Ridge #3 be tabled to Sept 81 seconded by Dan Corcoran, vote was unanimous. Moved that the meeting be adjourned, 2nd by , unanimous. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 8/21/80 RE: Parking variance request for Paul Johnston to add a 2,800 sq ft addition to the Christiania Lodge located on part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village lst Filing, in a Public Accommodation (PA) zone district. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Christiania is re- arranging and adding floor space in their lodge. No additional units are being created, just larger units and some office space for internal operations of the lodge. Building height is being raised in certain places, but not so as.to negatively affect view corridors or to violate zoning retractions The parking situation for the Christiania has been the problem in the study of this proposal. Parking facilities for the Christiania exist in two locations: A gravel lot across the street (Hanson Ranch Road), and a small area West of the Lodge. Complications arise when the parking requirements for the Christiania Condominiums, located East of the Lodge, are figured in, because they also use the lot across the street from the Lodge. • in the last few days, questions over the amount of parking spaces which the condos have a right to in the lot have arisen. If, as presented by Mr. Johnston, the condos have a right to only one spot per unit, no parking variance would be needed by the Christiania Lodge for their addition. The Lodge is 3 spaces short when the new addition is figured in along with the normal allotment given to the condos according to zoning (15 spaces). There are 9 condos existing, so if they only have rights to 1 unit, the Lodge makes up 6 spaces and needs no variance. The Staff is requiring written proof of the parking arrangement with the condos before the waiving of the variance is granted. The memo is being written, and PEC is considering the matter under the assumption that, at the time of the hearing, no written agreement is produced. The 3 space variance would be subject to the $15,000 fee. • Christiania - 2 - 8/21/80 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS . Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 Code, the Department of Community Development recommends the requested Variance based upon the following ,factors: Consideration of Factors • • of the Municipal approval of 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: Vail Associates has indicated their possible desire to construct a lodge on the existing gravel lot. As a potential use., parking for the Christiania complex would need to be taken, care of at that time in a sufficient manner. The Planning Staff is not aware of any major existing parking problems in this vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati- bility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege: We feel that quality lodge space is an important goal for the Town, and that, in actuality, no additional generation of cars may result from this proposal. The number of units is not changing, and this is an important factor in determining the potential for increased . parking problems. Also, the architect has made a new proposal for arranging the parking spaces in a more space -- efficient manner to accommodate more spaces in the existing lot. Our opinion is that no special privilege would result in approving the request. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities,. public facilities and utilities, and public safety: As stated above, no effects upon distribution of population is foreseen because the number of units is not..beirsg increased. No compounding of parking problems in the Village is foreseen with the granting of this variance. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance: The proposal is not located in CCI, and thus is not subject to review by the PEC under the Village Desgin Guide Plan. The exterior alterations will go to the Design Review Board if the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the parking variance. Christiania - 3 - 8/21/80 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 the reason that the strict or literal interpretation and.enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. U • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . DATE; 8/19/80 RE: Addition of a 4,000 square foot building east of Village Center Building D, located on a part of Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing requiring both a Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification Approval. Applicant: Fred Hibberd PROPOSAL The Village Center is located in a Commercial Core II District, so, although it is located adjacent to Vail Village, it will be reviewed under the Vail Village and Vail. Lionshead Design Considerations. It' is, however, included in the Vail.Village.Urban Design Guide Plan, and will be reviewed by that plan. The proposal is for a 4,000 square foot building located to the East of Village Center Building D (on top of the covered parking). The 4,000 square feet is to consist of 2,900 square feet of ground level commercial space and a second level 1,100 square foot manager's apartment. This proposal must be reviewed under two separate processes: Density Control Variance and Exterior Modification. The Density Control Variance is needed for the 1,100 sq ft manager's unit, since the Village Center is currently in excess of both its unit and its square footage standards. In looking at the past history of the Village Center Building, there was a 22 parking space Variance granted by the Town Council by Resolution Number 12, Series of 1974. The 22 space variance was granted in exchange for a landscape plaza, which is the proposed site of the new building. We, therefore, have determined that this request, if approved by the Planning Commission, will also have to go to the Town Council for a Resolution amending Resolution No. 12, Series of 1974. STATISTICS Total Land Area = 65,299 sq ft Total No. of Units Allowed: 37 units Total No. of Units Existing: 62 units GRFA Allowed: 52,239 sq ft GRFA Existing: 65,038 sq ft Commercial Building D: 5,160 sq ft • U Village Center Bldg D - 2 - 8-19 -80 A.* EXTERIOR MODIFICATION REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010 The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The Commercial Core II District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. The Commercial Core District 11 is intended to include sites for residential dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty -- five dwelling units per acre. The proposed addition does comply with the purpose section by creating another building which would be clustered.with the existing development and would actually create a more unified development. The present land scaped area to the East of Building D is and has been an eyesore and will never function properly as either useable or aesthetic open space. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSI- DERATIONS 1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan Number 21 of the East Meadow Drive Sub -Area Concepts describes a one story addition of similar size to the.one proposed in this request. The proposed addition does have a second story (where the manager's unit is) but this second story would help to block the larger building behind it which is also specifically mentioned in Number 21. We feel that the general intent of Number 21 is being followed by this request. 2. Urban Design Considerations a. Pedestrianization: The proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian experience by making the scale of the buildings a more comfortable one for the person walking between the Transportation Center and Crossroads. Another part of this proposal is to work with the Town in the Construction of a pedestrian walkway along the South side of Village Road. This will greatly enhance the area. b. Vehicle Penetration: A service and drop -off area should be incorporated into the new design. C. Streetscape Framework: This proposal will vastly improve the pedestrian experience. d. Street Enclosure: This building addition will improve the street enclosure situation by reducing the impact of the larger building in the background. e. Street Edge: The Street Edge will become slightly more regular which, in this case, will enhance the pedestrian experience. f. Building Height: The two level proposal is well under the allowed building height. g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal. h. Sun shade changes: Not significant. Village Center Bldg. D - 3 , 8/19/80 3. Zoning Code Considerations • The 4,000 square foot addition generates an additional parking require- ment of approximately 11 spaces, which cannot be accurately determined until more specific floor plans are submitted. The commercial part of the parking requirement would be assessed at .$3,000 per space, the resi- dential at $5,000 per space. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the commercial part of the proposal as the proposal specifically orients itself to the objectives of the Urban Design Guide Plan of Vail Village and the Design Considerations for Vail Lions - head with the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail.Village. In addition, agrees to dedicate the land necessary for the exclusive bus /pedestrian lane if determined by the Town as the appropriate design solution for this area. B. VARIANCE REQUEST REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon Review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Muni- cipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or po- tential uses and structures in the vicinity: The current Village Center complex is 25 units and 12,800 sq ft over what is presently allowed. The only type of Density Control Variances that we feel is acceptable is for bona fide employee housing. We question if an 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment is bona fide employee housing. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com- patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. We feel that a 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment would not be consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and could be considered a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities . and utilities, and public safety. None of these items are affected by this request. Village Center Bldg - page 4 - 8 -19 -80 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other pertinent factors. 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: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unneces- sary 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 specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ther properties in the same district. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment. Our suggestion would be that the 1,100 square feet be divided into two smaller units that are used solely for long term employee units. • � r i VILLAGE CENTER _W August 20, 1980 The Town of Vail Planning Commission Vail Re: Village Center Retail Colorado Shops Addition Dear Members of the Town of Vail Planning Commission, This letter is to give information concerning the proposed addition to the Village Center Retail Shops.. The planned addition will be constructed on a portion of the covered deck east of the existing Village Center Shops. The history of this deck goes back to April of 1974. At this time, plans were approved by the Town of Vail under Resolution • Number 12, 1974 to construct a landscaped plaza area in lieu of 22 parking spaces, which would have been required on the deck. As part of the 1980 Vail Village urban design plan, commercial expansion is being proposed according to the plans being pre- sented. In addition, I will be making land available to the Town of Vail for the pedestrian loop on the north side of Village Center, and for the town bus route on the northeast section of the Village Center property, These changes will most likely require an amendment to Resolution Number 12 series of 1974. The intention here is to still provide a landscaped plaza area. The plaza itself will contain planters on the southeast side of the plaza, The concrete section of the deck will be covered with paver bricks. And in the center of the plaza will be additional planters to round out the landscaping.. All of the changes mentioned above are an effort to make improve- ments according to the urban design plan, which should result in a more pleasing and a more functional answer to the area, Sincerely, Fred Hibberd Village Center Commercial Shops MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: August 21, 1980 RE: Expansion of Lionshead Gondola Building Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. PPnPORAT. The Lionshead Gondola Building has requested an addition of approximately 500 square .feet of commercial space on the North side mall level of the existing Gondola Building. The addition is a 9 foot extension of the building from the Place on Earth on the East to the Corporate Office en- trance of the Gondola Building on the West. Part of this request is also to convert the existing space East of the Corporate Office entrance from offices to commercial. The entire commercial expansion proposal would be on private property. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010 The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The Commercial Core II District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the •permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. The Commercial Core District is intended to include sites for residential . dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty - five dwelling units per acre. The proposed commercial expansion fully complies with all aspects of the Purpose section. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE.PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERA- TIONS 1. Sub -area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan Item 19 of the Vail Lionshead Urban Guide Plan encourages the building's expansion and the conversion of the office space.'into commercial use. This proposal does exactly that. 2. Urban Design Considerations a. Pedestrianization: One of the major problems noted during work -. shops on Vail Lionshead was that many store fronts were recessed back into the buildings. The proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian experience by making the scale of the front of the building a more exciting and interesting one for the person walking through Lionshead. • Lionshead Gondola Bldg - 2 - 8/21/80 2. b. Vehicle Penetration: NA (service is still at rear of building) . c. Streetscape Framework: This proposal -will add some variety and interest to the Lionshead Streetscape, something greatly needed. d. Street Enclosure: This building extension will improve the street enclosure by reducing the amount of space between the Landmark and Gondola Buildings. e. Street Edge: The street edge will become slightly more irregular which tends to enhance the pedestrian experience. f. Building Height: The one level proposal is well under the allowed building height. g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal. h. Sun shade changes: Not significant. 3. Zoning Code Considerations Approximately 500 square feet of commercial space could be added with the proposed store front expansion. Until a final plan for each store is submitted, it is difficult to determine the exact parking requirement. The applicant would be required to pay the parking fee established by Town Council of $3,000 per parking space. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval as the proposal specifically orients itself to the objectives of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan (reinforces more activity and interest along the Lionshead Pedestrian Mall). A condition of approval is that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for the Vail Lionshead area. Some improvement after construction of the building expansion should take place along the mall area. The applicant must do mall improvements to ensure there is safe and adequate access to the building and for the pedestrian walking on the mall. n . MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 8/20/80 RE: Side setback Variance request for H. L. Rhoads on lot 34, Filing 1, Vail Meadows DESCRIPTION OF.VARIANCE REQUESTED This lot is zoned Residential and has a 1600 sq ft single family home on it. A gravel driveway exists on the far eastern boundary of the lot. The applicant wishes to construct a 2 -car garage in the area where he presently parks his cars. A 475 sq ft expansion to the-house-will be constructed at the same time as the garage. The 2-car garage would require a 5' setback variance. The nearest neighbors are 150' to the east. 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: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the.vicinity: There would be no negative impacts on surrounding properties, be- cause of the large distance between the existing house and the neigh- bors to the east, and due to the single story nature of the building. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites. in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege: We feel that the granting of this variance would constitute a special privilege because no true physical hardship is demonstrated. The only reason the variance is needed is to allow a double garage versus a single. The house was constructed when East Vail was in Eagle County. The driveway was built too close to the east property line. We sympathize with the applicant that this is a harmless . variance, but also feel that he is subject to present Town regulations. ` Rhoades - 2 - 8/20/80 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety: No effects are foreseen upon these factors. FTMnTMf"-C 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 variance is warrented for one or more.of the following reasons: 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 regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We feel that because a homeowner wishes to build a 2 -car garage requiring a setback variance as opposed to a 1 -car garage with no variance, is not sufficient reason, under the criteria set forth for a variance, for granting this request. • Under the present regulations, we find no evidence of the physical hardship which must be proven for a setback variance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety: No effects are foreseen upon these factors. FTMnTMf"-C 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 variance is warrented for one or more.of the following reasons: 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 regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We feel that because a homeowner wishes to build a 2 -car garage requiring a setback variance as opposed to a 1 -car garage with no variance, is not sufficient reason, under the criteria set forth for a variance, for granting this request. • I MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: 8/20/80 RE: Conditional Use Permit request by Vail Associates to allow a temporary mobile unit on the upper tennis courts at Golden Peak for the 1980 -1981 ski season. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE This is a re- application of a conditional use permit granted on October 5, 1979. The mobile unit is used to house the Small World Nursery. Screening will be the same as last year by the existing green wind screens on the tennis court. Again, no evening use of the facility is proposed. It is our understanding that no damage to the courts resulted from last season's use. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: . l.Relationship and .impact of the use on development objectives of the Town: No relationship or impact on development objectives exists. 2.The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans- portation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs: The nursery is an important facility serving the public to allow adults to go skiing without worrying about obtaining a private baby sitter. 3.Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control., access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas: Visual impact will be negligible. No complaints as to traffic congestion have been registered with the Department of Community Development. 4.Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses: No negative effects are foreseen. n . Small World - 2 - 8- 20--80 5. 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 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. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION We recommend approval, as we feel the nursery performs an important func- tion for the Town and the ski area. We haven't received any input in- dicating any major problems with the functioning of the nursery during the last ski season. East of the bus turn - around at Gold Peak, there were some illegal parking stalls cut into the bank. This area should be restored and landscaped, and no parking should take place in this area. This would be the only condition of the approval recommendation by the Community Development Department. The Recreation Board has reviewed the request and has no problem with the proposal. r� MEMORANDUM i TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PETER PATTEN DATE: 8/19/80 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LIONSRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 3, LIONSRIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING 3. APPLICANT: GORMAN /WHITNEY DEV. CO. /SMF PROPERTIES - A JOINT VENTURE. ARCHITECT: HAVLICK- HUGHES- GILLILAND, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. BACKGROUND Upon annexation of Lionsridge, it was agreed that this parcel would be subject to preliminary approval procedures for Special Development Districts. Thus, the proposal must go before the Planning and Environ- mental Commission and Town Council for their approval before forwarding to the Design Review Board. Also, at the time of annexation, a density restriction of 48 units and MDMF Zone District development regulations were applied to the parcel. Thus, GRFA, site coverage, parking and other requirements and restrictions . have been determined using the MDMF Zone District. SURROUNDING LAND USES East: Vacant parcels zoned R P/S West: Buffer Creek Subdivision (Eagle County zoned Residential Suburban Medium) South: Vacant parcel of 1.8 acres owned by applicants North: Vacant land with steep topography and cliffs DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL STATISTICS Site Area Buildable No. of Units GRFA (acres) Site Area Allowed Allowed (sq ft) 7.27 3.79 48 57,760 PROPOSED: 40 56,900 Average GRFA /Unit = 1394 sq. ft. Average building height allowed = 35' of if it proposed = 30.4' • • • Lionsridge - Page 2 - August 19, 1980 PARKING: Total Spaces Required, 76; " " Proposed, 80; SITE CONDITIONS Covered Spaces Required, 38 it *' Proposed, 80 The site faces south and is located below the Lions Ridge cliffs at the far western boundary of the Town, on the north side of 1--70. Existing vegetation consists of scattered aspen trees with native grasses and brush. Slope on the site ranges from 10% or less in the southern portion of the parcel, close to the road, to over 50% on the northern portion. The exact slope of the area of proposed development has not yet been determined, because the applicant has not submitted a site - specific certified topo- graphic map. Most of the units are proposed to be situated on the lower, flatter portions of the site. However, some of the units on the extreme eastern and western areas may be on 40% slope, and the certified topo will either confirm or deny this. A potentially hazardous rock fall condition from the cliffs above the site has been mitigated. A soils and geological report has been sub- mitted, and subsequent correspondence has confirmed that the hazard has been mitigated through scaling and blasting. The report does recommend that annual inspections take place to make sure the rocks do not begin to break loose again. SITE PLAN The applicants are proposing 40 units accessing off one street, with units on both sides of the street. Two accesses from Lions Ridge Loop are proposed. Units are individual townhouse -type attached in rows of four. Parking is provided by two -car garages with each unit with 8 guest parking spaces scattered throughout. Other guest parking could take place near trash enclosure areas and on private driveways. The proposal is for 8 units under the allowable, but only 860 square feet under the allowable GRFA. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION In mid- April, another developer and architect submitted a proposal for this parcel. The proposal was withdrawn at the last minute due to financial complications in the purchase of the property. The site had been studied in depth at that time. Several development concepts were examined including a townhouse arrangement similar to the one proposed and a concept where 5 -7 units were within a single building (resulting in.a total of 6 buildings on the site).. This architect chose the latter scheme because the overall impacts upon-the site would be significantly less. TTT e negative impacts of_the townhou proposed by this applicant are: 1. Aesthetically, the viewer will see a • with virtually no break as one views 2 concept on this parcel, as very long "wall" of buildings the parcel. Development of all the buildable area of the site resulting in little to no useable open space or amenities. 3. Extension of units into steep slope areas on the east and west sides of the site. This results in large cuts into the hillside and is environmentally and aesthetically displeasing. Lionsridge - page 3 - August 19, 1980 0 4. Access to individual units uses up the site and results in difficult, steep driveways. In conclusion, the Department of Community Development recommends denial. We feel a more innovative and creative site.design can be found to work with the site in a superior manner than that which is proposed. More sensitivity to the impacts of hillside development, visual impacts and project open space and emenities is required. L", • 0 S MEMORANDUM is TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 8/20/80 RE: Setback Variance request for Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Village 7th Filing Applicant: Eileen Schilling DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The variance request is for a deck addition that extends to the Western lot line. The current two -- family residence previously, in 1971, received a setback variance for the structure so that it could be built within 3 feet of the lot line. The reason that the variance was granted at that time, was to save trees on the rear of the lot. The deck addition is in conjunction with the extension of the living room across the existing front porch. This extension was within the confines of the existing building, so it did not need any variance and has actually been given a Staff Approval to proceed. There was a clear understanding, however, that the approval was only for the living room extension and in no way included the deck. The lot directly to the West of the subject lot is owned.by the Town because of an avalanche path which crosses it. This lot will never be built on and is too steep for use as open space. 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: l.The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: The deck extension will have no impact on any existing or potential structure in the immediate area. 2.The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati- bility and uniformity of treatment among.sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of.this title without grant of special privilege: We cannot find a specific hardship in this case. The proposed location of the deck is probably the most suitable place to put it on the site, but we question if this is a sufficient reason to grant this request. 3.The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety: The proposed deck extension will have no impact on the above factors. . Vail Vill 7th, Lot 1, Blk 8 - 2 - 8/20/80 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable • to the proposed variance: There are no other factors deemed applicable. 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 districtl That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the.vicinity, That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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- ulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends denial of this request on the basis that a sufficient hardship does not exist in this case. There is no question that the deck addition will have absolutely no impact on surrounding uses, especially since the property to the West of the subject property will never be built on. We, however, still feel that the hardship and special privilege issues.have to be adequately addressed and cannot be in this situation. • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING August 11, 1980 3 :00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Gerry White Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Roger Tilkemeier Ed Drager none STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Dick Ryan 1._ Appggyal_ of M,j,au:Les of duly 14 , ,1980 . meeting. Dan Corcoran moved, Gerry White seconded, unanimous approval. 2. Lot 13 Boghorn T rr ge Addition Variance, Peter Patten presented memo and described request, and explained that denial was recommended. Paul Curfman showed drawings, and pointed out that there existed another addition similar to the addition he wishes to add. He further remarked that the lots were very small, and that the subdivision was zoned MDMF after the area was built, for, in his opinion, lack of a better zone. He .felt it placed unfair limits on residents' ability to adapt. Ed asked the distance between buildings. Paul said there were 431. He felt that the lack of sufficient kitchen space should be considered a hardship. The bedrooms accommodate 4 people. Paul felt that the request is consistent with the other 4 variances listed on the chart in the memo, and that he wasn't applying to increase the number of dwellings per acre. He felt the coverage limit unfair and repeated his feeling about why he thought the area was zoned MDMF. Sandy asked what was preventing him from extending the kitchen without a diningroom area. Paul said it was already too crowded in the living room. Roger observed that those units are minimum. He felt that if something is being done to make employee housing more livable, it U s ould be approved, and that that was the reason behind the other approvals in that subdivision, and that there have been so many changes, that this was just one more. Gerry wanted to know where since it was owner inhabited. housing, and that he shouldn't it employee housing. Gerry di designed as cracker boxes, and could see no problem with it. annexation. Peter: about 10. it says it will be used for employee housing, Roger felt his own house was employee have to rent from someone else to make sagreed. Roger felt that since they were since this would began improvement, he Ed asked how many had been expanded before Ed Drager moved that the variance be approved, and Roger seconded. Vote: For, 2 (Ed and Roger) Against, 3 Gerry, Dan and Sandy. The motion was defeated. In the discussion that followed, Sandy stated that she didn't feel • that we could make zoning changes based upon the number of people living in a unit. Rather than expanding, fewer people should live there. PEC Minutes - August 11, 1980 - page two Dan added that he remembered the Sandstone 70 units being small and someone wanted to enclose a deck even smaller than this. Gerry felt . that a 42% variance was unacceptable, and repeated the idea of expanding the kitchen in the interior. He pointed out that the down zoning that had been accomplished made the request unacceptable. Paul felt that it wasn't realy a 42% variance, because a Grandfather clause existed since the units were already there when zoned. Gerry said that the Grandfather clause does not exist in regard to variances. Ed pointed out that the deck addition was adding one more room, and Dan... said that this was also one more room. Paul said that they were speaking of precedent setting, but variances are settled case by case. Gerry: Correct. This particular case is un- acceptable. Roger felt that if there wasn't any adverse impact, it would be arbitrary to not approve it. Gerry felt that precedent setting was a fact that should have an effect on the decision, and that since zoning applies throughout the Village, there would be a certain amount of precedent setting in this case. 3. Discussion of Amphitheater at Ford Park. John Dobson described the fund raising to date, and stated that in order for the fund raising to be really successful, that they would like to grade the park this fall, so that.people could see some actual progress. He explained that George Eisenhower, a consulting firm has designed the accoustics and Bill Ruoff the basic plan stage,ete. He wants to apply • for a Condition use for the open stage with a tent for an interim period. Gerry asked about vehicular access to the park, and then parking . in general was discussed. Gerry then asked each member of the board for their feelings. They were generally favorable, but felt it was important to see the plans, the methods of solving parking,.traff ic,. and suggested Dobson apply for Conditional Use and go through regular procedures. Sept 2 was set as good time to meet for this purpose. 4. Request for a letter to Forest Service with respect to Livery Stable. Roger said he'd like to get a letter from the PEC with respect to the operation of the livery stable and its completion addressed to the Forest Service. He intends to operate on an annual permit. The Forest Service, before issuing a permit, would like to have input from the Town. Roger wants to complete the building or moving of barns from Dowd Junction as presented last spring, and wanted the PEC to encourage completion this fall. Until he gets a permit, he felt there was no point in developing a plan. Sandy wondered if the approval for the stables was for one year. Discussion followed about traffic, campers, intersection. Gerry felt we could proceed with a letter and give unanimous approval. 0 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, September 2, 1980 3:00 P.M. Ford Park Amphitheater South of Tennis Courts To be published in the Vail. Trail, August 29, 1980. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES: OF .SPECIAL: MEETING September 2, 1980 3:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Ed Drager Peter Patten Dan Corcoran Jim Rubin (part of the time) Roger Tilkemeier Betsy Rosolack Gaynor Miller Jim Morgan COUNCIL PRESENT John Perkins none Conditional Use Permit request by Vail Ford Fund to allow the construction of an amphitheater in Ford Park, a Public Use District. Ed Drager called the meeting to order in the absence of Gerry White. Peter Patten presented the information in the staff memorandum.. He stressed the staff's concern with the parking and restroom problems. He spoke of the use of the Transportation Center in the Gerstenberger • study, and felt that more study needed.to be done. He also emphsized the need for a central scheduling system. Bill Ruoff, architect for the project showed drawings and explained them, adding that the amphitheater would be funded by the Vail Ford Fund, but would be owned an Inaintained by the Town. There are 927 fixed seats in the primar_ or which the accoustics are correct. When the green seating is added, there is a maximum of 2500 seats. John Perkins was concerned about the methods to be used to control those who come without paying. Ruoff said that eventually there would be walls and landscaping that would handle the problem. Dan Corcoran asked if the construction were to be done in Logical stages based on funds. Fred Meyer of the Ford Fund explained the funding and Bill Ruoff said that the project will be done in a step by step process that will be usable at any point in the construction. Each stage would improve the facility, but not be necessary in order to use it. Discussion followed concerning the sewage and how it would be carried. Ruoff mentioned two possibilities, one of which would use a lift station, and that he had been meeting with Ernie Freggiaro and the Town about this, and that the Town was looking to budget this next year. Parking, traffic and transportation were a great concern to the members, Peter repeating condition #2 of his memo, and others wishing to see the G,erstenberger study before voting on this permit. John Dobson mentioned that the parking of 1,000 people for the Rita Cooledge concert this sum- mer was not a problem, and that there was not only no special parking provided, but that the Lionshead East parking lot was not available. Minutes of PEC Special Meeting - 9/2/80 - 2 Discussion followed about using the soccer field for parking, using regular bus service, and the fact that many will be walking along the Manor Vail access. A sidewalk along the Frontage Road was felt to help discourage parking there. Conflicts between the soft ball games and early evening concerts was discussed. Rich Caplan came in and said that the Town would charge fees to cover the cost of maintainance, and stressed that the Town would have a Ford Park schedule. Further, that the Town is constructing a practice field at Matterhorn that would relieve the Ford Park fields. The multi - purpose use of the amphitheater was explained, and also the working of the canopy onto tension cables, the shedding of rain and the fact that the sight lines of the people in the green seating would not be obstructed. More concern about parking was expressed, with Jim Morgan's comment that the existing parking problem should not prevent this project from going ahead. Others felt that we should know how we were going to handle the parking before approval of the project. John Eberle was called in to answer questions about busing. He felt that the bus system was flexible within bounds. Four to five buses could handle a large crowd if the peak rush could be spread out over one hour before and one hour after each concert. But, past experience showed that the buses were blocked by traffic. He felt that paths should be lighted to encourage walking. Also, he mentioned that in an average summer, the parking structure was only half full. iSound considerations were also discussed: nuisance plus the fact that some people could listen from the ball fields or tennis courts. The fact that the theater sound was controlable and that some performances Were to be used without amplification was mentioned. Dan Corcoran felt that the solutions to the water, sanitation and parking problems should be shown, following the Town's ordinances. Rich Caplan said that the Town could give a letter of intention to build restrooms on the site and the necessary sanitation facilities to handle this. After much discussion about the need for this assurance and the need for further study of parking facilities, Dan Corcoran moved for approval of the Conditonal Use Permit requested by Vail Ford Fund to allow the construction of an amphitheater in Ford Park, with the condition that the staff will administratively approve or will receive a letter that the Ford Fund has approval of water and sewer from the Water and Sanitation District.and that they would continue to work with the staff on the parking. Roger Tilkemeier seconded, vote was unanimous. (5 -0 Jim Morgan left before the voting) The Ge-stenberger study was to be mailed to the members. The meeting adjourned at 5 :00 P.M. • TO: MEMORANDUM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: August 28, 1980 RE: Conditonal Use Permit request by Vail Ford Fund to allow construction of an amphitheater in Ford Park, A Public Use District. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The amphitheater would be a facility constructed and utilized by the Vail Institute and dedicated to the Town upon completion, to hold musical, theatrical and other entertainment events. The facility will contain a stage, dressing rooms, prop construction and storage areas on the stage level. The basement level will include offices, dressing rooms, practice areas, restrooms and an orchestra pit. Nine hundred permanent seats will be built with leveled -off grass seats behind them, and a grass bank to the very rear. An automated roll- out cover for the permanent seating is also part of the facility. Access and parking is the major issue. The transportation center -will be emphasized as the main-parking facility. Shuttle busses to Golden Peak and walking should form the means of access to the amphitheater. • The existing foot path through Manor Vail's property should form the Major access. Of course, the Golden Peak, soccer field and Ford Park parking lots will be utilized, also. Access from the Frontage Road should be discouraged. 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 of the use on development objectives of the Town: One of the objectives of the Town is to increase cultural oppor- tunities for both the resident and visitor. The amphitheater would perform an extremely valuable contribution toward that end by providing a truly high quality facility for entertainment performances. 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 proposed facility would definitely begin to diversify the offering • of facilities at Ford Park, enhancing its use. Public restrooms for this and other Ford Park users should be installed as soon as practical, definitely no later than completion of the amphi -... theater. FORD PARK AMPHITHEATER MEMO - 8/27/80 - page 2 Effect u on 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 major issue concerning the amphitheater has been how to avoid traffic congestion, where to park and other access - related questions. Allen Gerstenberger produced a parking and transit study.for the amphitheater in April of 1979. He outlined his major recommendations at that time, including the dual - access (Frontage Road and southerly routes), both of which he was instructed to consider_ In all but the once -a -year huge crowd situation, the staff feels strongly that the Frontage Road should not be utilized as either a parking area or pedestrian access for the amphitheater. The safety and congestion problems along the Frontage Road are presently obvious during athletic events at the park. These problems would intensify during amphitheater.events and in no way should be encouraged to worsen. A central scheduling system must be provided to avoid concurrent scheduling of athletic and amphitheater events. The best solution at this time, we feel, is to publicize and introduce incentives to get people to park at the Transportation Center. From there, they may either walk or ride the special shuttle.bus to Golden Peak, where the foot path to the amphitheater can be found near Manor Vail. Aesthetically pleasing signage can be installed to make the route easily found. Also, people parking at the soccer field can easily get to the facility via a path near the Nature Center. Gerstenberger's report points out the undesirabilities of Frontage • Road parking and the need for major re- alignment and a sidewalk if this is to be considered. We feel all practical steps should be taken to highly discourage any such use and to avoid costly improvements. Thus, we feel a single ticket booth should be provided on the western side of the amphitheater, rather than have an inviting acess with a ticket facility to the North, inviting people in from that side. Effect upon the character of the area in which the pro osed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; The proposed use would increase use of the Ford Park area, especially in terms of pedestrian traffic and hopefully not in regard to vehicular traffic. Avoidance of scheduling athletic and amphitheater events at the same time will greatly aid in reducing negative impacts upon the area. Moreover, the behavior of patrons of the amphitheater will be the determining factor upon such potential negative effects such as parking at the structure, trash disposal and orderly ingress and egress. The design of the theater seems to fit very well with its public park location. Minimal permanent seating is provided and works well with the "green" seating toward the rear (which blends in nicely with a park setting). • ` FORD PARK AMPHITHEATER - 8/29/80 - page 3 Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems a plicable to the proposed use. We feel signage and incentives as outlined in the Gerstenberger parking report are key elements in achieving the smooth workability of the amphitheater. Further specific study and cooperation are needed to ensure potential problems of congestion and safety hazards are avoided. The environmental iM act re ort:concernin the ro osed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56: No environmental impact report is required. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings and conditions: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The following are conditions of approval: 1. We highly recommend one ticket booth oriented to pedestrians ap- proaching from the South and West. 2. Methods be studied and implemented to encourage Transportation Center parking and bussing or walking from there to the facility using the Golden Peak Facility for busses and the existing foot path to the amphitheater via the Manor Vail access. 3. Public restrooms be provided before public use of the amphitheater begins. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA September 8, 1980 Work Session 2:00 P.M. Meet at Village Center Building D to look at revised proposal for Village Center. Public Hearing 3:00 P.M. 1. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village lst Filing, Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's apartment addition. 2. Cyrano's, application for an Exterior Alteration and Modification do to allow an addition onto the existing Gondola Ski Shop Building. 3. Vail Village Inn, Unit 128, Conditional Use Permit to allow this unit to be used as a real estate office. 4. Garden of the Gods Club, rezoning from Public Accommodation (PA) to High Density Multi- Family (HDMF). �1 LJ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, September 8, 1980 3:oo P.M. 1. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village lst Filing, Density Control Variance and an Exterior modification to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's apartment addition. 2. Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3, approval of Special Development Plan for Lions Ridge Condominiums. 3. Cyrano's, application for an Exterior Alteration and Modification to allow an addition onto the existing Gondola Ski Shop Building. 4. Vail Village inn, Unit 128, Conditional Use Permit to allow this unit to be used as a real estate office. 5. Garden of the Gods Club, Rezoning from Public Accommodation (PA) to High Density Multi- -Family (HDMF) . • To be Published in the.Vail Trail, Sept. 5, 1980 n u • MEMBERS PRESENT Gaynor Miller John Perkins Gerry White Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Minutes of September 8, 1980 Meeting STAFF PRESENT J im Rub in Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT Ron Todd The meeting was called to order by Gerry White. 1. Approval of minutes of August 25, 1980. Roger Tilkemeier corrected the minutes saying that he had abstained in the vote on the Lionshead Gondola building, making the vote on that 6 -0, with one abstention. Roger also felt that he had voted in favor of item # 6, a setback variance for Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1. That vote would then be 6 -1 in favor of denial. John Perkins seconded: the motion.for.adjtournment for:.that.meeting. Ed Drager.mored these minutes be approved subject to the above changes, Roger Tilkemeier seconded, the vote was 7 -0 in favor of approval 2. Approval of minutes of September 2, 1980 meeting. Dan Corcoran moved these minutes be approved, Ed Drager seconded, and the vote for approval was 6 -0. Gerry White abstained. 3. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village lst Filing Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's apartment addition. Jim Rubin presented the staff memorandum stating that this .item had been postponed until the second floor was redesigned. He felt that perhaps it should be postponed another 30 days to permit a look at the bus and walkways. Discussion followed suggesting two concepts: The inclusion of a second story with a smaller foot print, or a one story with a larger foot print. Some felt that it may be better not to discuss this now, since they would have to go back in 30 days to see what Jeff Winston of Gage Davis Associates had planned. Gerry White felt that in all fairness to the applicant, he was entitled to find out the commission members' reaction to the plan. PEC Minutes - 9 -8 -80 page 2 Fred Hibberd said he'd like to hear the comments on either of the two proposals, and commented that the 2 story was actually 1 -1/2 stories. 40 He added that, for the record, they might want to wait to see where the bus route.would. come in. • • Jim Rubin stated that the Urban Design Guide Plan used one story as a guide. Discussion of height followed, and Fred felt that there was an inaccuracy in the Urban Design Guide Plan outline of Building D. He repeated the idea that they wait until the bus route was known. John Perkins added that there would be high vehicular traffic on this corner, and that might influence their decision.. J. Comments from the members: Jim Morgan: I feel that the original presentation was a better transition in roof line. Ed Drager: If the guide lines suggest one story, I feel we should stay with the guide lines. If the applicant wants something larger, I feel he should say why it should be larger. Dan Corcoran: I prefer the first presentation without the top floor and with a larger open area. John Perkins: I favor the first presentation, but I'm.not sure if I favor it without the 2nd floor or not. I can approve of it vertically, but without knowledge of bus routes, etc, we don't have all the pieces to make a decision. Gaynor: I agree with Jim and John, the orignal plan is the most aesthetic and can be worked out. I can't commit to a decision, but the stepping down of the roof seems less stark. Roger Tilkemeier: I prefer the first to the second plan. It is not as abrupt. We should wait to see where the bus routes come. Gerry: I feel that the original Urban Design Plan with a story added to it is Amy choice. Until we know what is needed for busses and walkways, we can't make a decision. Fred Hibberd requested that the item be tabled until the October 13 meeting. John Perkins moved that the item be tabled until October 13 at the request of the applicant. Roger Tilkemeier seconded. The vote was unanimous, 7--0 in favor of tabling. 4. Cyrano's, application for an Exterior Alteration and Modification to allow an addition onto the existing Gondola Ski Shop building. Jim Rubin presented the staff memorandum and the staff recommendation with the three conditions as stated in the memo. Jerry Greven of Cyrano's showed plans and elevations. Jim Rubin stated that it was nonconforming in that it covers more of the site than presently allowed. He added that the site - coverage requirement Qan be,supercedea if the change is a positive one. He added that the staff feels that the patio in the back is a positive contribution since it is on the South, and that the area REC Munites - 9 -8 -80 page 3 for which it is proposed is not now very aesthetic. • Parking spaces were discussed, and Jerry was reminded that more spaces may be required (the payment for them) . The Northwest corner of the building was felt to be an eyesore and that Mr. Colombo must address this part of the design. Members were unhappy with the visibility of the trash dump and the parking space. Gaynor Miller moved that the commission approved the addition of 120 square feet with the staff recommendations included. Roger seconded this, and the vote was 7 -0 in favor ofthe application. 5. Vail Village Inn, Unit 128, Conditional Use Permit to allow this unit to be used as a real estate photo gallery for Century 21 Real Estate Co. Jim Rubin presented the staff memo and explained that the staff recommended denial because of the 50 parking space deficiency existing now and because to approve could add to the congestion in an already congested area. Discussion included the fact that the 3rd phase would bring the parking spaces into conformance, but that it was unclear when or if the 3rd phase would be built. The applicant, Van Ewing stated that this office would not generate any additional auto traffic, and that parking was provided for this unit now..He added that his employees would park in the parking structure. Mention was made of Mike Palmer's office and that it was not to generate auto traffic, but that 1 or 2 cars daily..were.ticketed there. Motion to deny for the reasons outlined by the staff was made by Dan Corcoran, seconded by Jim Morgan. Vate was unanimous, 7 -0. 6. Garden of the Gods Club, zone change request from Public Accommodation (PA) to High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) . Jim Rubin presented this and mentioned that 'there had been ohanges- 'since the, memo had . been written. One sleeping unit would be removed & ..made' into a manager's apartment. All changes would be interior with the possible exception of a couple of windows. Gordon Pierce, ardhitect for the project, stated that there would be fewer people, fewer cars, no restaurant, and that each unit would contain extremely small kitchens. The owner was requesting the change because financially the private lodge would not work out. Roger T. mentioned that a lodge was favorable in the commercial core, and compared the situation in Lionshead where there are few lodges in the core, and that condo owners tend to stay in more. The building is in a key location. The feeling of some of the members was that it could.be changed to a public lodge. Gordon Pierce stated that this was not in Lionshead, but in an area where there is already a good mix of different uses. This was a small private club made into a few apartments. He felt that the commission wasn't con- sistent, that this was down zoning, and felt that it was a good move on the Town's part. PEC Minutes - 9 -8 -80 - page 4 Gerry felt that the need for accommodation units was important in a resort. that the number of accommodation units was what made a resort work. . Ed Drager felt that if they were changed to condo units, the accommodation units would be lost forever. Dan pointed out that there was a difference in down zoning and change of use. More discussion of the effect of removing accommodation units not being good for the town, John Perkins did not agree with the others. He felt that this was a special request that did not quite fit as P.A. units as they are presently used. He felt that if it were changed to condominiums, the number of people would be lessened who would have an impact. He also felt that the Town has no option to gain public accommodations. Gerry White disagreed, and mentioned that he had had 4 people come to his lodge from the Garden of the Gods requesting lodging accommodations. Others suggested that it be changed from the private club to public lodging to keep the use consistent with the zone district. Gordon wanted to know how the Town could object'to down zoning, and the answer seemed to be that it was the use that was objected to, not the down zoning, and that these units would not serve the public. Roger Tilkemeier moved to recommend to the Town Council that the zoning change of the.Garden of the Gods from Public Accommodation to High Density Multi- family be denied because lodging units are vital to the well being of a resort community. Dan Corcoran seconded this. The vote was 6 -1 with John Perkins voting against denial. Gerry told the applicant that this would be brought to the Council on September 16. Ed Drager moved that the staff send a memo to the Council explaining the commission's position, Roger Seconded this, and the vote was 6 -1, John Perkins against the idea. Gordon requested a copy of these minutes. More discussion of the item followed. Gerry felt that to grant the change would set a dangerous precedent. Any hotel could be converted to a private club, and then converted into condominiums. Ron Todd felt that Gordon did have a point with regard to inconsistencies in Town actions. He felt that if there had been real concern that this could happen, the time to show it would have been at the time that the applicant asked to be a private club. John moved to adjourn and Dan seconded. Unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 4 :45 p.m. is • r1 LJ • MEMORAN11UM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 9/4/80 RE: Conditional use and Enterprises, Inc. to Inn to allow a real Estate Company. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Parking Variance request for Ewing - Bachman convert Unit 128 in the Vail Village estate photo gallery for Century 21 Real Unit 128 was previously used as a lodge room and is now used as storage. It is located directly East of the Swiss Hot Dog Company with the entrance being on the blank wall just East of the Hot Dog Company's entrance. The proposed use (as described in the accompanying letter) is for a real estate photo gallery with only one employee. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends Denial of the Conditional. Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and im act of the use on development objectives of the Town. We feel that this is the wrong location for a Real Estate Gallery because we believe that the Real Estate Gallery will generate automobile traffic and that the Vail Village Inn parking lot by this location is too congested at the present time. The effect of the use on la ht and air, distribution of 2opulation, trans ortation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. This use should have no effect on the above factors. Effect a on traffic with articular 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. There is a 50 space parking deficiency at the Vail Village Inn until Phase III is constructed. We feel that this definitely results in a deficiency of parking for the Village Inn complex, and that approval of this application will aggravate the problem. • n L J Century 21 - 9/4/80 - page 2 Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the ro osed use in relation to surrounding uses. - - The proposed use will actually improve the appearance of this corner of the building, by replacing a blank wall with windows and a doorway. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable ----- - - - - -- - -- to the proposed use. There are no other factors deemed applicable. The environmental im act report concernin_q the an environmental impact report is required by Not applicable. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: > osed use, if )ter 18.56. The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable pro- visions of this ordinance. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department recommends denial, because we feel that the photo gallery will generate automobile traffic. We also feel that, especially in this location, the existing parking problems are serious enough that new uses should not be allowed until the necessary underground parking facilities are provided. PARKING VARIANCE We feel that the parking variance is inconsequential, and that the real decision should be made under the Conditional Use application. If the Conditional Use request is approved, we feel that the Parking Variance is not a separate issue, and therefore should also be approved. If the Parking variance is approved, a payment of $250 (.05 space x $5,000) would have to be made into the Parking Fund. A , • • € Io f{ i l iiE l� REALTY OF VAIL, INC. 2271 North Frontage Road - West Va0, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -4721 (303) 629.9341 TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: VAN EWING DATE: 4 September 1980 RE,: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for Vail Village Inn Building # 5 Unit # 128 Pursuant to your request for a written narrative on my intended use of the space above referenced, I wish to create a real estate photo gallery at this location. This gallery will duplicate the gallery which I now have and will retain at my corporate head- quarters in the Chamonix Center Building at 2271 North Frontage Road West in West Vail. This newly created gallery will provide a "Walk -In" location for my customers who are located in the Village. These customers will now be able to utilize the Town of Vail bus systems or walk to this location and view a photo display of the properties I have available. This space will be staffed by only one of my agents who will park in the parking structure, take the bus to work, and stay at this location for the entire shift, only making appointments with customers and not "touring" from this location. The bulk of my business will continue to be conducted from my Chamonix Center location and again, this new location will only be a photo gallery. The prior use of this space was a lodge unit at the Vail Village Inn and the unit has been rendered unserviceable to them now be- cause it is located at the service entrance to the Phase 2 remodel. As a lodge unit, this space had 61/100th's of a parking space allo- cated to it. As a photo gallery, the town would require 66 /100th's of a parking space, or a net difference of 5 /100th's of a space for which we would need a variance. As a lodge unit, the allocated par- king space was in frequent use. Asa photo gallery, the traffic will be foot traffic or bus traffic and the allocated parking space will not be used, thus assisting in the relief of the existing parking condition at this location. My intended remodeling I feel will enhance the continuity of the paver Village Inn Plaza. plans also call for a brick paver patio which aegt:hetic quality of this area and add to the patio's which now exist throughout the Each Office is Independently Owned and Operated REALTOR° w Page 2 In conclusion, I feel that the conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance should be granted so that 1 can remodel and up- -grade the existing area, add to the landscape and patio con- cept that exists throughout the Vail Village Inn Plaza as well as the Town of Vail, add a "Walk -In" facility to this area of town, thus relieving the parking load and being located so that T can monitor the use of this parking lot and assist in the con- trol to the mutual benefit of my business, the adjacent businesses, the Village Inn Plaza, and the town of Vail. Sincerely yours,k r P. VAN EWING III Owner /Broker I • �J MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNINC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JAMES A. RUBIN DATE: 9/4/80 RE: Zone Change request for Garden of the Gods Club from Public Accommodation (PA) to High Density Multi- Family (HDMF) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The request is to convert the Garden of the Gods Club from a private club to a condominium project. As part of this request, 8 Accommoda- tion units would be converted into 4 Dwelling (condominium) Units and the small restaurant facility and two employee sleeping areas on the first floor would be converted into another Condominium Unit. Two other employee sleeping areas on the first floor are intended to remain in that use. The history of this matter is that in July of 1976, the Planning Commission and the Town Council approved a Conditional Use Request to convert the Valhalla Lodge into a Private Club. The only condition of this approval was that the small restaurant facility be limited to a seating capacity of 80 people. STATISTICS A. Number of Units 1. Existing 16 Accommodation Units 4 Employee sleeping rooms Penthouse Unit 2. Proposed 9 dwelling units 2 employee sleeping rooms 1 penthouse unit 3. Allowed HDMF 12 dwelling units B. GRFA 1. Existing 12,871 square feet 2. Proposed 13,292 square feet 3. Allowed 13,208 square feet • • � Garden of the Gods Memo - 9/4/80 - page two DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request with the condition that 84 square feet of GRFA be removed, either from an Employee Sleeping Area, or from one of the Dwelling Units, so that the requested changes would completely comply with the High Density Multi- Family District requirements. This request is in fact a Down Zoning in that the Public Accommodations Zone District has a higher denisty factor (.80) than High Density Multi- Family (.60). This request would not be considered spot zoning, because there is about an equal amount of HDMF and PA in that area. HDMF properties include the Row Houses, Vorlaufer, All Seasons, Vail Trails East and West, and the Texas Townhouses. PA properties include the Rams -Horn, Tivoli, and the Christiania. The Villa, although zoned PA, is Condominium use and should be zoned HDMF. There is one remaining question, which is whether or not the Garden of the Gods Club should be considered.a Lodge. If it is determined to be a Lodge, when it would have to comply with Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1980, which retricts the number of days that an owner can use his unit, and requires the Lodge to provide the same services that it presently provides. Our recommendation is that since it is a Private Club, open to members only, and not open to the general public walking off of the street, that It would not be considered a Lodge. • TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: September 10, 1980 RE: Revisions and corrections to Garden of the Gods.Club rezoning memorandum Several mistakes were made in the Memorandum to the Planning and Environ- mental Commission dated September 4, 1980 on the Garden of the Gods Club Rezoning Request. There were also some revisions to the original plans, which address some of the concerns stated in the Department's Recommendation. These changes were all discussed at.the Public.Hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission. In the first paragraphs under Description of Request, the 8 Accommodation Units should be changed to 12 and the 4 Dwelling Units should be changed to 6. Also in the first paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to state that one of the two other employee units would be removed with the other one being converted into a Manager's Apartment. In the Statistics section, under Number of Units Existing, the 16 Accommo- dation Units should be changed to 12. Under the Proposed, the 8 dwelling units should be changed to 7 and the 2 Employee Sleeping rooms should be changed to I Manager's Apartment. Under the GRFA, the Proposed should be changed to read 13,110 square feet. This would put the GRFA under what is allowed in the HDMF Zone District, so that the request would completely comply with the HDMF District requirements. TO: TOWN COUNCIL . FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: September 10, 1980 RE: Planning and Environmental Commission REcommendations on Garden of the Gods Rezoning Request. The Planning and Environmental Commission by a 6 -1 vote (John Perkins opposed) recommended denial of the Garden of the Gods Rezoning Request from Public Accommodations (PA) to High Density Multi - Family (HDMF). Their vote reflected very strong feelings that the Public Accommodations zone should not be diminished and that Lodge rooms were a vital part of the Vail community. They furthermore stated that the Garden of the Gods previous change of use to a private club should have no bearing on this request. Their recommendation was that the Gardens of.the Gods Club, if anything, be converted back into a Hotel /Lodge use. John Perkins felt that it wasn't presently being used as a lodge, so that the requested change would not be removing existing lodge units. • • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ JAMES A RUBIN RE: Exterior Alteration Request for Cyrano's Restaurant A. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Cyrano's Restaurant is requesting the addition of approximately 120 square feet of enclosed floor area. Cyrano's has taken over the street level space previously occupied by the Ski Connection. The added space would be on the West side of the building where there are stairs that go up to Cyrano's Restaurant. The street level space will become a cocktail bar /appetizer area with the stairway on the interior leading up to the second floor. The entrance into the bar and restaurant will be through the existing entrance into the Ski Connection space. Although the Planning and Environmental Commission is only specifically reviewing the floor area addition. there are several other exterior changes being contemplated. First of all, there will be a major facelifting of the front of the building which will consist of a more symetrical window layout and a greater number of windows, and the transformance of the current front porch into a landscaped patio area. Another change will be a redesign of the area to the east of the building so that it works better for deliveries and trash removal. A third change is the addition of a ground level patio in the rear of the building. One other minor change is the redesign of the mechanical equipment storage areas on the roof. B. STATISTICS 1. He _ght Allowed: 60% of site coverage under 30 feet 40% between 30 -40 feet Proposed: 100% under 30 feet 2. Density Control No GRFA 3. Site Coverage Allowed: 80% or as.otherwise stipulated by Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. Actual: The present building is non - conforming with the only change being the addition of the rear patio. The rear patio addition should enhance the.rear of the building and meets the general intent of the Design Considerations for Vail Village. Cyrano's Memo - 9 -4 -80 page 2 4. Landsca2ing Allowed: No reduction in current landscaping. Proposed: The only reduction is the rear patio, which we feel is a good location for a patio and will enhance the area. 5. Parking Parking cannot be addressed until more detailed floor plans are presented. At that time, any additional parking require- ments will necessitate payment into the parking fund. As far as exterior parking is concerned, there is one space allowed to the East of the building, and we will require a better control system to make sure that only one car is parked there. 6. Other Statistics Existing Restaurant: 2,250. square feet Existing Ski Connection: 2,900 square feet Proposed Addition: 120 square feet C. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION . 1$.24.010 Purpose The_ Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to rlra.intain the unique character of the Vail Villa ye Commerc_ial. Areas )vj_th_ -_its mj.:�_ture of IodeLc-ti -_and coznmelrci�LI establishments iL. a ?rcdw) I ma te.y]_ c destri�a.n environment. The Commerci 1 Core I Di,str iict is _ aatet.ded to ensure adequate lip-ht , aj.x._o��r� a(Le annddotiler amen ifj.es appropriates to ihc_p,c emitted_ �y�eh_.of bui1- dir_.,o and uses. The District re Rtil.atioas i.n accordance witi, the Vail_ Vil.l,_w,e Llrb ri De_si_ ��ri,.i .Garrido Plan and Design Considc r. ation��cr. Ucc 'be site development t f_anclards that--are intended to ensure the main ---� temmee .lnc:��rescrvati.c�ti of the tight�_�� ..eIisl.e_rfd are ^:1����inents of bit7l.cl n cd(-strx,tn_ways and lie eeinvays and to on.;ure con l=ima :Lon of building_- scale and refiit �ctur l a:L�i tiiees' 1:11at St:.irL�;ui_sil the ViA.I.rc- c_-�._. - We feel that both the change in use and changes proposed to the exterior of the building are very positive ones and meet the intent of the Purpose Section. 0 • • Cyrano's - 9/4/80 - page 3 D. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Sub Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan There was no specific designation at this location. 2. Urban Design Considerations a. Pedestrianization: This will be enhanced by eliminating the dangerous outside stairs and by improving the facade of the building. b. Vehicle Penetration: No impact. C. Streetscape Framework: This will be enhanced by the planned improvements to the front porch areas by the addition of planters and brick pavers, and the potential for this space to be used as a sma.11.outdoor seating area. d. Street enclosure: No impact e. Street Edge: The existing stairway creates an alley type effect. This will be improved by the proposed ex- tension of the building. f. Building Height: No impact g. Views: No impact h. Sun /Shade: No impact 3. Zoning Code Considerations.. a. Parking: The change of.use from Retail to Restaurant does increase the parking requirement. This will be determined on the receipt of more detailed floor plans. 4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations This proposal substantially complies with the specifics of the Design Considerations. These matters will be more specifi- cally discussed during the Design Review Board Review. Cyrano's - 9/4/80 - page 4 E. RECOMMENDATIONS: . The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vaal Village. 2. The applicant revegetates along the West side of Mill Creek and will work with the Town to decide on an appropriate location for a Pedestrian Path going from Seibert Circle to the Pirate Ship Park area. 3. Some material changes be made on the front patio area. These will be discussed with the Design Review Board. • • • • �J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 13, 1980 3 :00 P.M. 1. Approval of Minutes of September 8 meeting. 2. Miskell greenhouse addition Lot 2, Blk 2, Vail Village 13th 3. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village lst Filing, Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification 4. Covered Bridge Store New shop on 2nd floor 5. Gart carport and entry addition Lot 12, Blk 7, Vail Village lst 6. Andy Norris Amendment to height requirement for SD 4 7. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances Height, Density and Water Quality 8. Assign member to DRB meetings. Published in the Vail Trail Friday, October 10, 1980 r-] n U • MINUTES. .OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT Gerry White John Perkins Dan Corcoran Ed Drager Roger Tilkemeier Gaynor Miller Jim Morgan Monday, October 13, 1980 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBER Bill Wilto STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Jim Rubin Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by Gerry White. Dan Corcoran moved the minutes of the Sept 8 meeting be approved, seconded by Ed Drager. 5-0 in favor (JIm Morgan and Gaynor Miller hadn't arrived yet). 2. Miskell greenhouse addition, Lot 2, Block 2, Vail village 13th, setback variance request. Peter Patten presented the staff's feelings as written in the memo mailed to the Commission, recommending denial. Whitney Miskell distributed more information including a letter from the neighbor to the east approving the greenhouse. Dan Corcoran felt it would be a positive addition to a very plain East side of the house. John Perkins. said he was the original designer, and although he would abstain from the vote, agreed with Dan. Roger T. moved that the variance be a pro ed, Dan seconded it. The .vote was 3 in favor, l(Gerry) against. Gaynor abstained, since he did not hear the discussion. 3. Addition to Village Center Building D, requiring both a Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification Approval., Revised Proposal. Jim Rubin said a survey had been completed to see if the proposal would interfere with the bus lane, and explained the differences in this proposal. He pointed out the 5 conditions listed in the memo that the staff wanted to see implemented if approval was granted. He felt that the plan was in basic conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. The 2 smaller units that were regested by the staff in the original proposal were discussed. Cecil Dodson, president of Village Center Condominiumn Association, Bldgs A,B & C questioned approval of twice the square footage as proposed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. Dick Ryan replied that the Urban Design Guide Plan did not dictate exact plans, but was.a guide only. Mr. Dodson protested the two stories, but stated that he approved the improvement of the area. John Perkins felt that the massing helped to make the transition from one story to the present two story building. Mr. Dodson asked if it was worked within the Urban Design Guide Plan. Gerry White replied that the °UDGP provided the guide. Dick added that Jeff Winston had reviewed this proposal presented the first time, but not the 2nd one. John P. questioned the landscaping of the area to the east, and if the owners would work with Jeff oA that. Fred Hibberd replied he would, adding that the lst plan had the same footprint, then he tried to please others by changing the elevations. In doing so, one owner had to exchange h:.i,s view for additional space. pec - 2 - 10/15/80 Fr 40 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 ed Hibberd's statements he wasn't looking for he'd like to continue the bus lane does enc work well and he will agrees with this agrees with this on the 5 conditions were: a condo to market to to work further with Jeff_ Winston roach onto his property, but it and the walkway dedicate the necessary land for them Ed Drager didn't agree with having a second story, since a 1 story.was shown in the UDGP. John Perkins stated that the design cannot be set at the scale of 1" =200', nor square footage specified. Gaynor Miller felt that in working with Fred for 1 -1/2 months, that this was a much better design and that it would blend in very well, adding that the Town needs buses and walks and a compromise should.be made. Roger T. added that the location was very visible and that when the commission had visited the site that they had agreed that a one story building didn't look right at that location. Gerry agreed and stated that he felt it was in keeping with the UDGP. Roger moved for approval subject to the 5 conditions in the memo, John seconded. Vote was 4 in favor, 2 against..(Dan & Ed against).. Jim abs since he didn't hear the full discussion. 4. A Conditonal Use Request for the Covered Bridge Store to allow the conversion of one aprtment form Residential to Commercial. Jim Rubin summed up the memo, stating that the staff was in favor of approval, for the reasons stated in the memorandum. Ed Drager asked how one could say that there is no way one can keep people living in the core area- -did that mean no one wanted to live there? He felt it was inconsistent with the prior case where the staff is insisting that an apart go in to make something look better because people will want to live there. Jim Rubin felt that the apartments were in two different locations. This one is right across from 2 night clubs with more commotion at this location. John Dobson stated that Bridge Street is a heavily traveled area in Vail Uses of this type have been granted. In the early days, it made sense, but doesn't now to any where near the degree. Gorsuch, the Bank building, etc. have done the same thing. There are perhaps two long term spaces in the core, and precedent has been established. Long term has not worked out. Dan Corcoran .then added that the Town is being sued by a property owner who considered just the opposite, that his proper- ty was quite valuable, namely the tower over.the Rucksack. They certainly. wouldn't want that conversion. He stated that he was on the Planning Commission when the conversion came through with the apartments that used to be above the Liquor Store and he opposed that. John Dobson asked if conditionaluses were granted to the Ore House Building, the Cyrano building, or for Gorsuch. He repeated that the precedent had been established and that long term housing simply does not work out in that area as it once did. He read the purpose of the CCI zone district. Jim Rubin reiterated one „statemgnt that John D had made, that there are no controls that would require those units to be long term. John could rent them out short term. PEC - 3 10/15/80 Gerry White stated that the history of downtown Vail had been one of both granting and denying use for just this kind of thing. There is the concept of horisontal zoning that was dealt with a long time ago in an effort to keep the mixture in the downtown area. He stated that the was much more conversion to commercial space on every level, with talk of the Gashof Gramshammer being converted to commercial space throughout. He felt that this was a sort of death knell for the core area. He felt very strongly that commercial space should be on ground level and the second level should be residential. Bill Wilto mentioned that one prior conditional use was granted because it was felt that no one wanted to live there, but the fact was, the renters enjoyed the apartment, so it was suitable for some. "Not desirable housing" he felt was incorrect. There was some talk of asking John to restrict John Dobson's other apartment to employee housing if this conditional use were granted, but it was felt that conditional use had nothing to do with employee housing, and John felt also that that rule should have been applied to others as well, if the commission was going to expect it of him. Gaynor Miller moved to approve the request, John Perkins seconded it. Gaynor voted for it, but the other members voted against, so the vote was 2 -5 against. 5. Lequest for a front setback variance for Jerry Gart to construct a carport on Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst. • Peter Patten presented the material from the staff, and recommended. denial. Steve Boyd, the contractor for the project, explaining that the owner wanted a covered parking area where he now had gravel parking, that was encroaching 61or 7' onto the setback. John Perkins felt that to deny this didn't make sense, and discussion followed about whether it was better esthetically to permit a garage to hide the cars completely. John moved to grant the variance as long as a garage was constructed, seconded by Roger. The vote was tied with Dan abstaining. John,Roger, and Jim Morgan for, Gaynor, Gerry and Ed against. Roger moved to deny the carport, seconded by Gaynor. For denial were Jim, Gaynor, Gerry and Ed. John and Roger against denial. Request denied. 6. Hei ht Amendment for S ecial Development District 4(SD4), the Cascade Lodge. Jim Rubin presented the matetal from the staff, and recommended approval. He explained that the design seemed appropriate and that the increase would only be one foot. Andy Norris showed drawings. Roger moved for approval subject to the Planning and Environmental Commission's granting of the Amendment to the Height Section of SD4. Ed seconded, and the vote was 6 -0, unanimous, Dan abstaining. • • PEC - 10 -15 -80 - 4 7. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances Audience participation was requested first. George Boyer, Betty Thomas, Mason Thomas, John Drywalker, Paula Lallier, Andy Norris, Stewart Brown, Charlie Powers, Fitzhugh Scott, Joe Montana, Stuart Holland, Dean Canada, and Kathy Warren spoke in opposition to the amendments. Their concern dealt with the fact that they thought their property was being devalued, some felt the decision was arbitrary, some felt a 40% slope should be built upon. Sandy Mills took exception and stated that all she could hear was "you are taking from me" instead of looking at the desirability of these changes for the whole valley and being positive. Afterward, the commission members stated their feelings: Ed Drager: Many of these ideas have been discussed for a long time. We must have done many things right. Dan: As the document is now, I'm against not counting the 40 %. In favor of new definitions of GRFA, for proposed changes in density control. Jim: Height well taken care of, hillside development questionable. GRFA not greatly changed, against not counting 40 %, for section IV. John: Doesn't feel density control section needs to be changed from what it is now. Height limitation have been scared of; footprint fine, at one time had 30% as cut -off point, GRFA - careful -- sometimes secondary unit would be cut down to be very small unit. Roger: Our concern is to get a document to control visual impact, we need more work done. However, I get concerned about all comments on values. If one had bought property even 6 -8 months ago, one would have experienced an increase in value. I agree that it is important that values continue. Gerry:. We are primarily dealing with space. I feel 40% slope should not be omitted. I like GRFA. Concern about values. Roger moved to table the meeting to October 27, John seconded it Unanimous, 6 -0 (Gaynor had left). Roger was selected to attend the DRB meeting on Oct. 15. Ed moved and Roger seconded to continue the rest of the agenda until the next meeting. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10/23/80 RE: Side Setback Variance request for Jim McDonald to move the building envelope on site 15, Casolar Vail II DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is to encroach 5' into a 15' side setback. There is a 10' utility easement constituting the remainder of the setback. The reason for the request is to move away from the adjacent duplex to the east. The exterior decks of the two buildings, without the variance, would be 5 feet apart, due to the proximity of the building envelopes. Thus, the request is to allow some "breathing room" and privacy between the structures. 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. As described above, the building envelopes on this parcel are in close proximity to each other. A settlement was recently reached with regard to the width of the duplex to the east, the dispute being over the actual size of the decks vs what the approved plans showed. The owner to the east is cutting back his decks 4' to allow some room between the structures, and this request is to move another 5' away. This allows some visual lines through the density on this lot and aids in the reduction of a fire hazard between the two decks. No structure will be built on the western side. The dearee to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of_a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com- patibility and _uniformity o_-f_treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob-iectives of this title without grant of special privilege. We feel the physical hardship here is the insufficient distance between structures and the granting of the variance is harmless and is an improve- ment. 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 a sewer Line 4' off the property line, 6' from the proposed location of the building foundation. It's possible that, if the sewer line needed work in that area there could be problems with the location 0 McDonald - 2 - 10/23/80 of the house. In the event the location of the foundation became a problem due to the granting of this variance, the owner of the house would be responsible for solving the problem. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. None exist FTWnT1 aG- The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before arantina 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 objectives of this title. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development feels there is a hardship involved in this case, and that the granting of the variance has a positive effect upon fire safety, privacy of the homes, and sight lines between the buildings relieving the dense feeling one gets when viewing the lot. Thus, we recommend approval with the following conditions: If, because of the granting of this variance, problems occur with future sewer line work in the easement, the owner of the structure on envelope 15 would be responsible for solving the problem in a mutually satisfactory manner. PUBLIC NOTICE rNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Sandstone 70 Condominium Association has requested a Public Hearing to review the Conditional Use Permit granted Vail Guides, Inc. occupying the Printery Building. Application has been made in accordance with Section 18.60.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on November 10, 1980 at 3:00 PM before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Said hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building. The application and information relating to the proposed change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular • business hours for review or inspection by the public. Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980. PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jerry Gart has applied for a setback bariance in order to build a garage and entry on Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Application has been made in accordance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18...66.060 of the Municipal Code on November 10, 1980 at 3;00 P.M. before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The application and information relating to the proposed change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular business hours for review or inspection by the public. L� Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980. • MEMORANDUM 0 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10/8/80 RE: TERMS OF OFFICES, ETC. Ed Drager's term of office is officially over on 10/17, and John Perkins has resigned effective 11/15. We have advertised for applicants. We need to appoint another PEC member to the DRB effective immediately. John has attended these meetings since June. is MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 8119/80 RE: Addition of a 4,000 square foot building east of Village Center Building D, located on a part of Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing requiring both a Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification Approval. Applicant: Fred Hibberd PROPOSAL i The Village Center is located in a Commercial Core II District, so, although it is located adjacent to Vail Village, it will be reviewed under the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations. It is, however, included in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Man, and will be reviewed by that plan. The proposal is for a 4,000 square foot building located to the East of Village Center Building D (on top of the covered parking), The 4,000 square feet is to consist 90100 square foot manager's square fe level commercial space and a s econd level 1 apartment. ( This proposal must be reviewed under two separate processes: Density Control Variance and Exterior Modification. The Density Control Variance is needed for the 1,100 sq ft manager's unit, since the Village Center is currently in excess of both its unit and its square footage standards. in looking at the past history of the Village Center Building, there was a 22 parking space Variance granted by the Town Council by Resolution Number 12, Series of 1974. The 22 space variance was granted in exchange for a landscape plaza, which is the proposed site of the new building. We, therefore, have determined that this request, if approved by the Planning Commission, will also have to go to the Town Council for a Resolution amending Resolution No. 12, Series of 1974. STATISTICS Total Land Area = 65,299 sq ft Total No. of Units Allowed: 37 units Total No. of Units Existing: 62 units GRFA Allowed: 52,239 sq ft GRFA Existing: 65,038 sq ft Commercial Building D: 5,160 sq ft Village Center Bldg D - 2 -- 8- 19--80 A.' EXTERIOR MODIFICATION REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010 The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a 41 mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The Commercial Core 11 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. The Commercial Core District TI is intended to include sites for residential dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty - five dwelling units per acre. The proposed addition does comply with the purpose section by creating another building which would be clustered with the existing development and would actually create a more unified development. The present land- scaped area to the East of Building D is and has been an eyesore and will never function properly as either useable or aesthetic open space. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSI- DERATIONS 1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan Number 21 of the East Meadow Drive Sub -Area Concepts describes a one story addition of similar size to the one proposed in this request. The proposed addition does have a second story (where the manager's unit is) but this second story would help to block the larger building behind it which is also specifically mentioned in Number 21. We feel that the ( x general intent of Number 21 is being followed by-this request. 2. Urban Design Considerations a. Pedestrianization: The proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian experience by making the scale of the buildings a more comfortable one for the person walking between the Transportation Center and Crossroads. Another part of this proposal is to work with the Town in the Construction of a pedestrian walkway along the South side of Village Road. This will greatly enhance the area. b. Vehicle Penetration: A service and drop -off area should be incorporated into the new design. C. Streetscape Framework: This proposal will vastly improve the pedestrian experience. d. Street Enclosure: This building addition will improve the street enclosure situation by reducing the impact of the larger building in the background. e. Street Edge: The Street Edge will become slightly more regular which, in this case, will enhance the pedestrian experience. f. Building Height: The two level proposal is well under the allowed building height. g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal. h. Sun shade changes: Not significant. Village Center Bldg. D - 3 , 8/19/80 3. Zoning Code Considerations The 4,000 square foot addition generates an additional parking require- ment of approximately 11 spaces, which cannot be accurately determined until more specific floor plans are submitted. The commercial part of the parking requirement would be assessed at .$3,000 per space, the resi- dential at $5,000 per space. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the commercial part of the proposal as the proposal specifically orients itself to the objectives of the Urban Design Guide Plan of Vail Village and the Design Considerations for Vail Lions - head with the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail.Village. In addition, agrees to dedicate the land necessary for the exclusive bus /pedestrian lane if determined by the Town as the appropriate design solution for this area. B. VARIANCE REQUEST REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon Review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Muni- !. cipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or po- tential uses and structures in the vicinity: The current Village Center complex is 25 units and 12,800 sq ft over what is presently allowed. The only type of Density ControlVariances that we feel is acceptable is for bona fide employee housing. We question if an 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment is bona fide employee housing. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com- patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. We feel that a 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment would not be consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and could be considered a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. None of these items are affected by this request. • 1 Village Center Bldg - page 4 - 8-- 19--80 4. such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other pertinent factors. 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: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci- fied regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unneces- sary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions theovariancecthatmdoanots conditions apply to generally applicable to 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 then properties in the same district. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment. Our suggestion would be that the 1,100 square feet be divided into two smaller units that are used solely for long term employee units. ALTERNATIVE ZONING PROPOSAL CHANGES 1. The density control factors should be left the same through the calculation of 30,000 sq. ft. for the Single Family Zone and the two Two - Family Zones. 2. Change factor to .00 for square footage over 30,000. 3. Eliminate any reference to flood plain, snow avalanche zones and 40% grades. By making the above changes it would restrict the square footage in the Single Family Zone to 4875 and in the two Two - Family Zones to 5250. This would make the proposal fair and just to all people. It would not absolutely wipe out some people and have no affect on others. It is a proposal that all people can understand both professional and unprofessional. It would be open and up front iand no one could claim that they have been singled out. It would also make it very easy for site owners, architects, builders, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and the building department to understand, explain and administer. r� } il , HOLLANDER & COMPANY, INC. • WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS 600 BROWN ROAD S'T'. LOUIS COUNTY HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI 63042 October 1, 1980 CERTIFIED MAIL #197201 Planning & Environmental Commission Box 100 Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: My name is Stuart Hollander and I am the owner of Lot 7, 10th Filing, in the Town of Vail, Colorado.. S1 was recently informed by a notification from Mr. James A, Rubin, with magnification on the subject from Mr. Mason Thomas, an adjoining property owner, of a major change in the Town of Vail Zoning Code. 0 TELEPHONE 314- 731 -4680 I wish to call to your attention how this change would effect Lot 7, 10th Filing. The new proposal would limit the size of the house to 2,000 sq. ft. in an area that is zoned. 1 and 2 family and surrounded by homes ranging in size from 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. total. I doubt very much whether this was the intent of the new proposal, however, I want you to know this property owner's feelings on the proposed legislation. We have been spending several weeks of each year in Vail for approximately the last 16 years, and many years ago decided that some day we would choose this area to build a future home. We did not purchase the land for speculation and we are not in the real estate business.- Several years ago we purchased Lot 7, 10th Filing --- but only after assurances from the prestigous Fitzhugh Scott Organization that there would be no building problems on the subject lot. That, along with the avalanche study documents, encouraged us to execute the sale, We took all possible precautions prior to signing the sales contract. (contId) • U • Planning & Environmental Commission October 1, 1980 Page #2 Now we find we did not take into consideration the possibility of the Town of Vail passing an onerous and capricious law primarily effecting those few property owners who did not build prior to the inactment of said proposed law. The financial losses that we would incur if this proposal is passed would be very substantial. Z will be present at the meeting on October 13, 1980, in the Town of Vail along with the other property owners. i am also making preparations to take whatever legal action is necessary to curb this type of injurious legislation. SH:lwh cc: Mr. Gary White Mr. James A. Rubin Mr. Mason Thomas Sincerely, Stuart Hollander Executive Vice President • perly & Co. the mark of extraordinary properties October 3, 1980 REGISTERED MAIL RETURN[ RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Rubin: I received a notice of a meeting in Vail on October 13, 1980 relative to a change in density control. I am a half owner of property on Willow Circle. The address of my property is 63 Willow Circle. If any change is contemplated in that particular area that would prevent building under the stipulations currently in effect, I wish to go on record as being strongly opposed. I will be in California on October 13 and unable to be at the meeting. I would appreciate hearing from you if this area is to be chanced and if so, what actions I should take to protest same. Very truly yours, Ken na rd P. Perry President KPP /mr cc: Mr. Arthur G. Bishop REAL ESTATE -INSURANCE • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 101 SOUTH MADISON STREET • DENVER, COLORADO 80209 (303) 399 -7777 TO""WN and COUNTRY 'E-STATES I]] REALTOR - 8 SELLEVIEW WAY LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121 761 -7117 October 5, 1980 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road West Vaal, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed Zoning Change Lot 12, Glen Lyon Two- Family Primary /Secondary Zone Slopes in Excess of 40% Dear Sirs: We have owned Lot 121, Glen Lyon for approximately 2 years having purchased it from Gore Creek Associates, the developer. We chose Lot 12 over 5 other sites because of its unobstructed view down the valley to the West. The site also has an almost level area in a beautiful meadow near the street to build a double and it gets the sun until It sets in the evening. Out of the total 80 acres of the Glen Lyon property 40 acres have been dedicated to the town of Vail as open space. The development received final approval by the Town of Vail on January 3, 1978. 20 lots are within the forested area. No dwelling shall be permitted with more than 4200 GRFA and a double must divide the 4200 GRFA 113 - 2/3 between the two units. Lots 30 and 31 have a moderate risk of wet snow avalanches while Lots 14, 15 and 16 have some risk of moving debris. After studying an aerial topo of the forested lots which does not seem to relate with our ground inspection., we found at least 6 lots which will be reduced below their presently allowable 4200 GRFA because of slopes in excess of 40 %. Our particular lot could lose as much as 11000GRFA and be reduced to 3200 on the basis of the aerial topo, but at this time we cannot be sure since we do not have a special on site topo. These 40% slopes are at the rear of the lots. It would have been very easy to include this sloping_area in the designated open space behind these lots at the time the land was designed. Instead - these lot owners are now going to be penalized and hurt economically if the 40% slopes are not counted in calculating GRFAA We have purchased the WHOLE site and are paying taxes on the TOTAL square footage of the site. It does not make sense to penalize the buyers after the fact when the Town of Vail just approved the plat on January 3, 1978. If you are concerned about 40% . slopes, DO NOT ALLOW a developer to plat`, this part of the ground into building sites and DO NOT ALLOW him to sell them to the public. 1 TO';WN and Cou TRH' cEsTATEs 13 REALTOR' 8 SELLEVIEW WAY LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121 761 -7117 October j, 1980 Town of Vail, Planning and Enviromental Commission Page Two What really worries us is how is the general unknowledged public going to know before the hearing on October 13, 1980, whether his site has a 40% slope or more and whether or how badly it will affect allowable GRFA. When you purchase a site the seller does not have to furnish the buyer with a survey or topo of the vacant lot. Most people have not walked their site to the very back especially if it has a steep slope. People are most interested in where the dwelling is going to be located, the view, how much sun will shine on the site, the trees and other such considerations. If you approve this change, you are not protecting the public but you are penalizing them because the Town of Vail allowed these areas to be platted and sold to the public. Alot of study and thought has gone into the preparation of this letter and we hope you will give it consideration since we feel we are professionals in the business and we are very concerned about the problems that this proposed change will create for the unknowledged and especially absentee vacant lot owners. Respectfully submitted, MASON S. TH0114AS Land Developer Custom Home Builder 20 Years Experience in Real Estate BETT . THONUS Real Estate Broker for 18 Years • 0 � `TO"'GVN and COUNTRY 8 BELLEV[EW WAY LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121 761 -7117 October 5, 1980 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Sirst ESTATES Re: Proposed Zoning Changes Lot 6, Vail Village 10th Filing Two - Family Zone We have owned Lot 6 for over five years having purchased the building site from Vail Associates, Inc. We have always Looked forward to the day when we would be in the position to build our dream residence for our family of seven. We felt that we took great care in selecting OUR future home site. Our lot is affected by a high hazard avalanche area, slopes in excess of 40% and the new density control factors as follows: HIGH HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA Vail Associates, Inc. had an avalanche study done on the 10th Filing before offering the lots for sale. The front 100 x 100 of our site is in the Snow Avalanche Hazard Zone II and is buildable. The remainder of the site is in Hazard Zone 1. Our site is 30,580 sq. ft. with approximately 10,000 sq. ft. in Hazard Zone II. This proposed change would limit our GRFA to 2,500 sq. ft. when it is now 5,279. This proposed change denies us the same rights as our neighbors (Lot 4, 5 and 8 have enjoyed when building their residences. Our neighbors' property value would also be adversely affected by having two 2,500 residences (Lots 6 & 7) built among residences of more than 5,000 sq. ft. We would be penalized because we,have not had the opportunity to this date to build our personal residence for our seven member family. The economic and personal loss that we would suffer would be totally unreasonable and action would have to be taken by us. SLOPES IN EXCESS OF0f After inspection of our site it is possible that the rear portion would fall into the 40% slope range. 113 REALTOR- TO`-_WN and COUNTRY ESTATES 113 REACTOR' 8 BELLEVIEW WAY LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121 761 -7117 October 5, 1980 Town of Vail, Planning and Environmental Commission Page Two The description of zoning changes from Jim Rubin states, "The purpose of these changes is to place an overall limit on the size of structures and to reduce the size of structures on steep sites." Why at this point in time pack out and penalize the people who have already purchased a site with some 40% slope? This does not make good sense. In our case the residence would be built on the street in a 100 x 100 foot area of genial slope while the 40% slope is at the very rear of the site. Five years ago we bought and have paid for the WHOLE SITE. For five years we have paid taxes which are based on the TOTAL square footage of the site. If you are concerned something about it. sites slopes of 40% the public. about 40% slope or more on a site then do DO NOT ALLOW a developer to plat into building or more and DO NOT ALLOW him to sell them to You are trying to penalize the general and in most cases the ignorant public AFTER THE FACT. NEW DENSITY CONTROL FACTORS We bought Lot 6 because the square footage of the site would allow us to build a large enough residence to accomodate a family of seven and still be able to build a double for business purposes and be able to sell the other side. Your new factors would take away 529 sq. ft. of GRFA and limit us to a single family dwelling and thus hurt us economically especially since construction and real estate are our businesses. It is our professional opinion that the general public is not aware of how this proposal will ACTUALLY affect them since it is not clearly spelled out in. simple terms. Why not tell the public in the explanations that they will be limited to 4375 GRFA if they own a single family site and 4750 GRFA if they own a site in either of the two two- family zones? Why not tell the public exactly what areas are now going to be included in the GRFA that were not included before and how this will also reduce their living, sleeping and bath square footage? If your only concern is that some structures are visually too large then you have other ways to control visual impression. TO"--WN and COUNTRY ESTATES 8 SELLEVIEW WAY LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121 761 -7117 October 5, 1980 Town of Vail, Planning and Environmental Commission Page Three Do this at the time that a structure is submitted to the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. DO NOT PENALIZE the remaining lot owners because a few people have built visually unattractive dwellings. Also, please remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it would be very hard to get all people to agree on what is attractive to them personally and what is not attractive. PLEASE do not penalize the few remaining lot owners for what a very few have done. Do not down grade Vail and the present vacant lot owners property values as you are also hurting the property values in the whole town. IT IS YOUR DUTY TO THE PEOPLE TO GIVE ALL THE PROPOSALS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND BE SURE OF HOW THEY WILL ESPECIALLY AFFECT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ABSENTEE LOT OWNERS AND ARE NOT KNOWLEDGED ENOUGH TO KNOW THE AFFECT OF THESE CHANGES. THESE PEOPLE • TRUST THE TOWN TO ACT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS AND NOT BEHIND THEIR BACK. Respectfully submitted, MASON S. THOMAS Land Developer Custom Home Builder 20 Years of Experience in Real Estate 113 REALTOR' BETTY . THOMAS Real Estate Broker for 18 Years • REAL ESTATE Nationwide: 1- 800 - 525 -9293 483 West Lionshead Mall ail, Colorado 81657 03/476 -1600 Denver Toll Free 534 -5025 • October 6, 1980 Town of Vail Planning Commission P.O. Box 100 Vail, CO 81657 20 Eagle Road Avon, Colorado 81620 303/949 -4368 Denver Toll Free 893 -2403 I am gravely con - ance. T am also hased land in this I find that they feet their situation Thank you for the considerations given to this letter and my concerns. Sincvleehy, O an S. Canada, GRI Executive Vice - President [qJ1 if 11 I ail] (1;Ndiii I • HOLLANDER & COMPANY, INC. WHOLESALE 1)1.' ITRIBUTORS 600 BROWN ROAD ST. LOUIS COUNTY HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI 63042 TELEPHONE 314-731 -4680 October 1, 1980 CERTIFIED MAIL #197201 Planning & Environmental Commission Box 100 '.Gown of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: My name is Stuart Hollander and I am the owner of Lot 7, 10th Filing, in the Town of Vail, Colorado. I was recently informed by a notification from Mr. James A, Rubin, with magnification on the subject from Mr. Mason 'Thomas, an adjoining property owner, of a major change in the Town of Vail Zoning Code. I wish to call to your attention how this change would effect Lot 7, 10th Filing. The new proposal would limit the size of the house to 2,000 sq. ft. in an area that is zoned 1 and 2 family and surrounded by homes ranging in size from 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. total. I doubt very much whether this was the intent of the new proposal, however, I want you to know this property owner's feelings on the proposed legislation. We have been spending several weeks of each year in Vail for approximately the last 16 years, and many years ago decided that some day we would choose this area to build a future home. We did not purchase the land for speculation and we are not in the real estate business. Several years ago we purchased Lot 7, 10th Filing -- but only after assurances from the prestigous Fitzhugh Scott Organization that there would be no building problems on the subject lot. That, along with the avalanche study documents, encouraged us to execute the sale. We took all possible precautions prior to signing the sales contract. (cont'd) I t . Planning & Environmental Commission October 1, 1980 Page #2 Now we find we did not take into consideration the possibility of the-Town of Vail passing an onerous and capricious law primarily effecting those few property owners who did not build prior to the inactment of said proposed law. The financial losses that we would incur if this proposal is passed would be very substantial. I will be present at the meeting on October 13, 1980, in the Town. of Vail along with the other property owners. T am also making preparations to take whatever legal action is necessary to curb this type of injurious legislation. 0 Sti : lwh cc: Mr.. Gary White Mr. .lames A. Rubin Mr. Mason Thomas • Sincerely, Stuart Hollander Executive Vice President + . October 13, 1930 Town of Vail. Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lot No. 15, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1 Gentlemen: We received a public notice mailed September 26, 1980 that a public hearing is to be held October 13, 1980 concerning requested amendments to the Density Control Sctions of the Zoning Ordinance. We have the following objections: 1) Although agencies in the executive branch of government are allowed to do business on le•3al hol- idays, we question the validity of holding'a public hearing on a legal holiday. • 2) The proposed changes concerning lots with slopes in excess of 40% appear to re unfarily directed at a small percentage of lot owners with the effect of drasti- .tally affecting their property values. 3) The arbitrary adoption and application of the requested amendments could work'an extreme hardship on us. 4) We have been advised that additional amendments will be considered at the hearing affecting lots with slope in excess of 20%. We received no copy of that proposed change, although it appears to affect.our lot. We' request that a representat.iv.e of the planning commission view our lot prior to the hearing and will arrive early on October 13th for that purpose. Sincerely, arc (Mrs.) Paul-EM. Lallier ,f MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: October 9, 1980 RE: Height Amendment for Special Development District 4(SD4), the Cascade Lodge DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This request is to amend the Height Section of SD4 to permit the Cascade Lodge to have an average height of one foot greater than the height allowed by SD4. Even though the advertized height was for a 2.5 foot increase, the height has been reduced so that the increase is only for an additional foot. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request. The uses, number of floors, and general shape of the building have not changed since it was last presented to you. The height difference • was caused by a change in the design of the roof. The Design Review Board has reviewed the Cascade Lodge and has approved the plans subject to the Planning and Environmental Commission's granting of the Amendment to the Height Section of SD4. • f MJ MA - -- A \/AFCI'. ITECT E URBAN DESIGN LAND PLANNING GEORGE TROCKRISE,FAIA,AIP,ASLA ROBERTA.ODERMATT,AIA ROBERT C.MOUNTJOY,AIA October 6, 1980 Mr. Jim Rubin Zoning Director Town of Vail City Hall Vail, Colorado 81657 Subject: Cascade Lodge, Vail Dear Jim: Enclosed please find two (2) sets of the revised Building Height Study for Cascade Lodge (dated October 1, 1980) as you requested. Note that the overall average building height is 52.0 feet. The zoning ordinance allows 51 feet, 45 feet plus an additional 6 feet (bonus for 9,6/12 sloping . roof). Please advise me concerning the adequacy of the information shown. • Sincerely, Thomas K. Yee TKY /pw cc: Andrew Norris George Rockrise File 405 SANSOME STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 • TELEPHONE (415) 392 -3730 MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: October 9, 1980 RE: Amendment to Conditional Use Criteria of Zoning Ordinances The Department of Community Development is suggesting the following additional criteria for the review of Time Sharing requests. All Time Sharing requests are required to go through the Conditional Use process and are only allowed in the HDMF, PA, CCI and CCII Zone Districts. The Department is also, at the request of the Planning and Environmental Commission, initiating an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove Time Sharing as an allowed Conditional Use in a Public Accommodations Zone District. 18.60.060 Criteria - Findings 7. For any approval of a Time -Share Estate, Fractional Fee or Time -Share License request, the applicant must show documentation that 75% of the owners of existing units of a project agree in writing to the proposed use. TO FROM: DATE: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ PETER PATTEN October 6, 1980 SUBJECT: RESULTS OF RESEARCH ON TIME - -SNARING REGULATIONS STATE LEVEL The state regulations being adopted are, for the most part, concerned with financial disclosures, regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regu- lation of sales practices and classification of time sharing as a subdivision. The ordinances Vail passed several months ago address these issures. Vai.l.'s adoption of these ordinances was in response to the lack of State of Colorado legislation being passed at their last session. Other states which have adopted time sharing regulations or are considering them are Hawaii., Cali- fornia, Florida and Nebraska. Of these, Hawaii's is the most stringent, as they have experienced serious problems with underhanded sales practices and a large amount of conversions from existing single -owner condominiums to time sharing. LOCAL LEVEL *Some of the major resort towns in the country have adopted time sharing ordinances. The first and most complete is the ordinance of Sanibel Island, Florida. Similar to other local laws regulating time sharing, it deals with zone districts where it will be allowed and conversion of units to time sharing. Sani.bel's ordinance is unique, however, in one respect. They require a minimum of 7500 square feet of recreational open space per unit for either new or converted time sharing projects. The intention . here is to relieve city recreational facilities somewhat from what Sanibel defines as a "high impact" use. Where Sanibel Island will now allow time .sharing only in "resort housing" zones, Lake Tahoe has banned it from any residential zone as a result of considerable opposition from the citizens of that community. IMPACTS OF TIME SHARING From my limited amount of research on this subject, the following are nega- time impacts or potentially negative impacts which may or may not be best addressed through conditional use criteria or another ordinance: 1. Conversion of existing condominiums to time sharing, expeci.ally when the time sharing units comprise only a portion of the project, has been identified in several areas as incompatible with a single owner_ use arrangement. • 2. The cost of maintenance of a building and grounds may be higher on a time sharing complex (as opposed to single owner units). It has been reported that furniture, carpeting and other fur.•nighings must be replaced more often in time sharing units. The implication here is that a high level of maintenance and. management sr_rvi:ces must be available on an on- -going basis for time sharing projects to ensure their quality. Z gr»oi fi r,I 7_] v ;1-1 N.awai_i . E' o Die, wlio hay';: unl_ is on a single - -owner l:''a sis r [wst.Yl.t,:; of Research on `i`a_xito-- ;h6ir-:i.rig Regulations :1.0•a6-£3 CONCLUSION For Vail., at this time, I believe the most appropriate step would be to regulate conversion of existing condominiums to time sharing. Hawaii and Sanibel Island accomplish this through requiring the applicants of such conversions to supply documentation of the condominium association's approval. of the proposed use. Hawaii requires 1.00% of the condo owners to approve the conversion, where Sanibel requires a confirmation through existing condo declarations that time sharing will or may be created within a complex. if, in Sanibel's case, such declarations are not provided, an amendment•to the declarations stating that time sharing will be permitted signed by all owners of units and all who hold liens on units will be accepted. The other recommendation at this tame, for Vail., is to determine what, -if any, zone districts are appropriate for time sharing. In this manner, we may restrict time sharing to what we feel are the most compatible areas for it. Since time sharing is a new phenomenon, there is very little that is really known about it. Studies axe beginning or underway, but determining what. r-i is: really good or bad about the concept, or use, is only just begun. l:t �ere is a feeling on the part of many locals and state officials that this is a different concept that needs regulation because: of its high impact. Definition of the- sper..if ic. problems as a result of such a high impact use are foggy, at best. Maybe this feeling was summed up best by Mayor Duane White of Sanibel. island when he addressed his Town Council, and a packed house of citizen, and developers of time share projects on the night they passed their pione.er ordinance: "I question the impact on the quality of life on Sanibel. I'm interested in building a quality community, not a resort. I hope we're a commnunity first, not a resort first. I'm not for stopping time sharing, but this is my home. I'm trying to re- concile what's going to happen on this barrier island, and to preserve its environmental integrity. You can't tell me that 7,500 families having a week of whoopee where we thought 150 families would be, doesn't have an impact." J MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: 10/9/80 RE: Revised Village Center Proposal DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The revised Village Center Proposal is very similar to the first Proposal. The first floor is identical, showing 2,900 square feet of commercial space. The second floor is what has changed. The new proposal shows an 850 square feet apartment that will be used as a long term rental unit. The second floor also has 200 square feet which is to be added to Les Streeter's apartment in Village Center Building D. This addition is to replace the window that the new addition will remove. The plaza to the East of the new addition remains in a similar configuration to what was presented in the First Proposal. A survey has been done of the area which determined that the proposed location of the building does leave enough room for the bus lane and a walkway. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the revised plan with the following conditions: 1. That a 20 year restriction be placed on the 850 square foot apartment. 2. That the applicant is responsible for all improvements:in the plaza to the East of the proposed addition. 3. That the applicant dedicate the necessary land for the bus lane and walkway. 4. That the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district, if and when formed for Vail Village. 5. That the applicant agree to work with the Town in the redevelopment of the walkway along Village Center Building D and pay for those improvements that directly benefit his commercial space. We feel that the revised plan is in basic conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. - - -_. --may L MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: 10/10/80 RE: Comparison of Slope Regulations between Town of Vail and Eagle County COUNTY REGULATIONS The Zone District to examine is Residential Suburban Medium Density RSM (most of West Vail is zoned this way). The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 8000 sq ft of buildable site area. In the County, buildable site area does not include slopes over 40 %, geologic hazard areas(avalanche) or 100 year flood plain. These areas considered unbuildable are subtracted out of the total lot area in all zone districts. To determine the number of dwelling units allowed (5.5 /acre maximum in RSU), the County uses what they call the "500 rule ": After the unbuildable areas are subtracted out of the total lot area, the average___ slope of the remaining area is calculated. This figure is multiplied by 500 to determine the minimum amount of square footage of site area required per unit. Here's an example: 30,000 sq ft of site area; 30% or 9,000 sq ft over 40% slope; 21,000 sq ft of buildable site area; Average slope of the 21,000 sq ft = 20 %; 20 x 500 = 10,000 sq ft needed per unit; 21,000 sq ft buildable on site, so 2 units could be built The formula works so that zone. This means that if would require 8,000 sq ft for the district. Above per unit. in Residential is 30%. the threshold slope average is 16% for the RSM the slope of the lot is 16% average, the formula of buildable area per unit, which is the minimum L6% average slope, more buildable area is required Suburban Low Density, the threshold percentage The County does not, however, draw a relationship between floor area ratio and slope in the RSM Zone. The factor remains .30 to 1.0 or 30% of the total lot area, no matter what the size of the lot is. Thus, a 30,000 sq ft lot could have 9,000 sq ft of floor area put on it. Finally, in regard to building on the slope itself, the County requires special engineering reports, etc. on any slope of 30% or more which is proposed to be built upon. This is a staff review and is not required to go in front of any particular board. VAIL REGULATIONS Basically, we do not slope, avalanche or or more restrictive change handout). subtract out, in SFR, R. and R PIS Zones, any 40% floodplain areas. The GRFA is calculated on a stricter, basis than the County (the GRFA formula is in the zone In regard to building on 50% slopes, we require extra engineering reports similar to the County. Also, some design considerations of steep slope development are considered at DRB meetings. E i MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10/9/80 RE: Request for a front setback.variance for Jerry Gart to contruct a carport on Lot 12, Block.Z, Vail Village 1st. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This is a request to encroach 11' into the 20' front setback requirement. The house is an older Vail house and is already violating setback require- ments on another portion of the structure. There is existing off- street parking on a gravel drive where the applicant wishes to put the carport. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Upon review of Criteria and Findin s, 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: No negative relationships would be created by this proposal. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve coaatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special rivile e: Again, the Department of Community Development feels there must be a hardship demonstrated to grant a variance. There is no hardship in this case. Because the house already violates setback regulations is not a hardship to grant another variance. The off- street parking already is there, and so there would not be any change in number of spaces available. There are no existing regulations for this zone district which require covered off- street parking. The effect of the requested variance on light and airrdistribution of population,_ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety: There are no effects. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. None FTNnTWag 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 P Gart Carport - 2 - 10/9/80 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: is 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. 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 regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development can find no hardship to grant this request, so we must recommend denial. • 0 z MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 9, 1980 RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Covered Bridge Store to allow the conversion of one apartment from Residential to Commercial. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: The second floor apartment space is approximately 540 square feet. The intended use is as a needlepoint shop with access through a new entreyway to be shared with the Covered Bridge Store. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Upon review of Section 18.60.060the 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 of development objectives of the Town: As is stated in the Application, the precedent for change of use of space originally designed for long term residential in the Core area has been .set by the Clock Tower Building, the Liquor Store Building, and the Ore House Building. The reason for the requested change is the amount of night time noise created by bars and restaurants in the immediate area. We feel that this reason is a legitimate one, and that the precedent has already really been established. There will be one long term residential apartment that will remain on the second level of the Covered Bridge Store Building. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facili- ties, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. There should be no effect on these factors. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parkin2 areas: There should be no effect on these factors. Effect-ul2on the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses: The character of the area will not be changed by this change in use. There are some minor modifications to the exterior of the building which . will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. In our review of these changes, we feel that they are positive improvements to the building and do conform with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the pro2osed use: The environmental. Jimpact report is not required. 0 I Covered Bridge Store - 2 - 10/9/80 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: aThe Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: the pro2osed location of the use is in accord with the purpg nrainannp and thc- nurnoses of the district in which the site located. M health, af ety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would campj3rwith each of the applicable provisions of this ordiinanGe. We feel that, unfortunately, the era of long term residential units in the Core is coming to an end. We would like to encourage those units still existing to remain, but do not feel that we should require them to do so. The one condition of approval would be that $2,280 be paid into the Parking Fund. This is for the increase in the Parking Requirement due to the change of use. n • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 9, 1980 RE: Setback variance request for Whitney Miskell on Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing to construct a greenhouse. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED A 7.5 foot side setback is being requested to construct a greenhouse on an existing deck. As allowed in the zoning ordinance, a deck was constructed halfway into the side setback on ground level. However, structures are not allowed on these decks or in the setback area, unless a variance is granted. 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 re guested Variance based u on the following factors Consideration of Facators The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: The nearest structure is to the East about 30' from the existing deck. The property owner to the East has submitted a written approval of the proposal. Thus, no structures would be adversely affected. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilit and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit y or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege: There has been no hardship identified in this proposal. The applicant wishes to build a structure in the setback area. We feel, because there is an existing deck legally in the setback, that that has no bearing upon the request. A hardship must be demonstrated for a recommendation for approval. The granting of this variance would be a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on li population, transportation and traffic fac and utilities, and public safety. There are no effects on these factors. and air, distribution of ies, public facilities •Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the pr02Osed 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 Z _ -- -- --- .4 ---1- d-1, .4.1,.. l 4-4 a - ..d - i --- -- — d-1,or ------4-4 -- ^ I ncci -F i Miskell greenhouse - 2 10/9/80 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 regulation would deprive, the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development must recommend denial of this request,as no hardship has been demonstrated. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10/8/80 RE: TERMS OF OFFICES, ETC. Ed Dr_ager's term of office is officially over on 10/17, and John Perkins has resigned effective 11/15. We have advertised for applicants. We need to appoint another PEC member to the DRB effective-: immediately. John has attended these meetings since Jti:az.e . lie PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Deane L. Knox has applied for a density control variance for Casolar II, a Resubdivision of Lot A -7, Lionsridge Filing Number 1. Application has been made in accordance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 27, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The application and information relating to the proposed change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during 0 regular business hours for review or inspection by the public. JIM RUBIN Zoning Administrator TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail, October 10, 1980. r� . PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that James and Tina McDonald have applied for a setback variance in order to move the building envelope on Site 15, Casolar Vail II, a resubdivision of Lot A -7, Lionsridge Filing 1. Application has been made in accor- dance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 27, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The application and information relating to the proposed . change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular business hours for review or inspection by the public. JIM RUBIN Zoning Administrator TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail, October 10, 1980. -:w� �:,. =� = _ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 27, 1980 3:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 10/13/80. 2. Assign member to DRB meeting. 3. McDonald setback variance Site 15, Casolar Vail II 4. Knox, density control variance Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7 Lionsridge #1 5. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances Height, Density and Water Quality 6. Amendments to Conditional Use Criteria of Zoning Ordinances LJ Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980. .J MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . MEETING Monday, October 27, 1980 3:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gerry White Jim Morgan Dan Corcoran Gaynor Miller Ed Drager John Perkins Roger Tilkemeier Jim Rubin Peter Patten Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL MEMBER Ron Todd 1. Dan Corcoran moved that the minutes of the meeting of October 13,1980 be approved, seconded by Ed Drager. . In favor 5 -0 (John and Roger had not yet arrived) . 2. Dan moved and Ed seconded the appointment of Roger Tilkemeier as member to attend DRB meetings. In favor, 5 -0. Gaynor Miller said he would be the alternate. 3. Side Setback Variance request for Jim McDonald to move the building envelope on site 15, Casolar Vail II. • Peter Patten presented the explanation of the memo mailed to the members. Jim Rubin added that when the original Casolar subdivision was presented, it wasn't contemplated that the decks would be so close together. Mark Donaldson representing Jim McDonald explained that the building envelopes are tight, and that the owner is willing to risk building near the utility line. Discussion followed about how best to make certain that future owners would also be responsible. A deed was felt to be inappropriate by Brian O'Reilly, who felt that a recorded notice of this variance would be more appropropriate. John Perkins moved that the side setback the staff reccommendation that the owner for solving any problems that occur with the easement, and with a recorded notice the motion, and the vote was 4 -1 in favor Dan and Ed abstaining. variance be approved with of envelope 15 would be responsible future sewer line work in of this variance. Roger seconded r (Jim Morgan against and 4. GRFA VARIANCE for Casolar II - Deane L. Knox Jim Rubin explained the memo and some of the very complicated events that transpired over the past several years, adding that the request was for a 2,447 sq ft var-i.ance.Deane Knox gave his point of view, adding that in Phase I there was less density.than permitted, and that there were 19 units instead of 20. Deane and Jim disagreed abut whether or not the Town had given direction on the amounts of GRFA. Also in disagreement was the vacation of lot lines, whether or not Knox approved some of the duplexes, how aware of the restrictions Knox was, etc. The applicant asked to have this request tabled, and it was tabled by the PEC. Ir PEC - 2 10/27/80 5. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances Height,Density and Water Quality Jim Rubin suggested that Section 11, Hillslae Development Guidelines, . be removed from consideration, that it was better addressed in Design Review Guidelines and that the Design Review Section would be rewritten in the upcoming months to include the hillside regulations among other changes. Density Control B. (last page). Discussion of this section included remarks by Stuart Brown, Scott Edwards, Mason Thomas, Dean Canada, Stuart Hollander, Jim DeMartin, Mr. Carosel.li, Mrs. Thomas and Frank McKibben, all of whom objected to it. Using the "Proposed Changes to the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance" dated September 25, 1984, the members decided that: SECTION I. HEIGHT received unanimous approval. SECTION II. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES: it was decided to use the existing Hazard Ordinance, but change the slope in the Special Restriction Section from 40% to 30%. SECTION III. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA -- NEW DEFINITION Approved as proposed with 6'6" head room rather than legal headroom, and including allowing 25 sq ft air lock (not including it in GRFA). • SECTION IV. OTHER CHANGES TO ZONE DISTRICTS INVOLVING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES. Unanimous approval. SECTION V. WATER QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS Approved with following changes: C.7.a. and C.8.c. 5 acres shall be changed to 2 acres, and paragraph D. B. 7. is removed. SECTION IV. NEW APPEAL PROCEDURES Unanimous approval. SECTION VII A CHANGES TO DENSITY CONTROL The vote to approve the revised GFRA factor as proposed was taken. John Perkins had left just before the vote. The vote was 3 -3 with Gerry, Jim and Gaynor voting against the proposal, while Ed, Dan and Roger voted for. SECTION VII B The PEC was presented with 4 options(see next page). Six of the PEC members voted for Option B, with Ed Drager favoring Option C. PEC - 3 - 10 -27 -80 OPTIONS for Section VII B. A. Proposed in Handout 1. Eliminate 40% slope, high hazard avalanche, and 100 year flood - plain from affected lots before calculating GRFA in Single Family and Two Family Zone Districts. 2. Lots with less than 8,000 square feet of buildable lot area to be allowed 2,000 square feet of GRFA. 3. Allowed to build on 40% slope in accordance with Special Re- strictions Section. B. Existing in Current Zoning Ordinance 1. Parts of lots in single family and two family zone districts in 40% slope, high hazard avalanche, and 100 year flood plain are counted in calculating allowable GRFA. 2. No development allowed in 100 year flood plain or high hazard avalanche. Development allowed on 40% slopes in accordance with Special Restrictions section. C. Proposed in Handout with Changes . • 1. Same as A, except that maximum size of a unit allowed on a lot affected by 40% slope, 100 year flood plain or high hazard avalanch is changed from 2,000 square feet to either 3,500 or 4,000 square feet. D. Proposed in Handout with Changes 1. Same as P, except that 40% slope areas, 100 year flood plain areas, and high hazard avalanche areas would only have a 50% reduction in calculating allowable GRFA. • PEC - 4 - 10 -27 -80 6. Amendments to Conditional Use Criteria of Zoning Ordinances r18.60.060 Criteria - Findings Peter Patten had just returned from a time -share study trip, and stated that he had much to share later, but at the moment felt very strongly that 100% of the owners rather than 75% (as stated in the memo) should agree in writing to the proposed time share.use. Ed Drager moved that this amendment be forwarded to the Town Council with the 75% changed to read "100 % ". Dan Corcoran seconded, and the vote was unanimous (6 -0). The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 23, 1980 RE: GRFA Variance for Casolar II APPLICANT: Deane L. Knox DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED A copy of the description of the Variance being requested is enclosed. The staff finds several discrepancies in this description that they wanto to address. 1. The applicant was informed before Casolar II was approved that the property line between lots A7 and A8 could not be vacated because the two lots were in two different zone districts. 2. The request for approval of Casolar II never contained any reference to the left over GRFA from Casolar I. -� 3. The 1,400 square feet per unit was always considered as an estimate, with a 40% slope study needing to be completed before the actual square footage could be determined. 4. The Town Staff requested on numerous occasions that the Slope study be completed so that the square footage could be determined. This Slope study was not given to the Staff for over one year following the approval of Casolar II. Because of the slope analysis not being complete, the covenants for Phase II were never approved by the Town. 5. The applicant was fully aware that the slope analysis had to be com- pleted. The Staff was never asked to figure the Square Footage. It was finally done as a courtesy to Mr. Knox. 6. The Town Staff has recalculated the Square Footage on the Carling Duplex and has determined that its Square Footage does comply with the 3,380 that was originally proposed. 7. Since the filing of this application, two more duplexes have been approved by Mr. Knox with a GRFA of 3,380 square feet. This does leave 933 square feet for the remaining duplex site. 8. The staff believes that they have been up front in this whole sequence of events. Even if the 1,400 square feet per unit (the pre slope analysis number) is used, this would only permit the remaining unit to be 1,234 square feet. We, however, believe that the applicant was totally aware that the final number would not be determined until after the requested slope analysis was completed. I Xnox Casolar II - 2 - 10/23/80 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS . Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Communiity Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the followinq factors. Consideration of Factors The r.elationshi2 of the re nested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: Under Town of Vail zoning, square footages of buildings are checked very closely with no variations permitted. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interj2retation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve compati- bility-and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attai the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. An increase in allowable square footage in a multi - family zone would in our opinion be a grant of a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of o ulation, trans ortation and traffic facilities, -public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no effects on these factors. • Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors deemed applicable. T? TMitT TNT(-'-q - 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 selfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. n Knox Casolar II -- 3 - 10/23/80 There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applica- ble 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends denial.of this request. We find the applicant's description to be in error and find no ground for approving it. AL p - r + Town of Vail Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator Town Council Planning Commission Casolar Project in Vail has run into a problem concerning the GRFA on phase II. I would like to review the transistion of events for your review. 1. In 1977 the town reviewed and approved the following. A. "Envelope" concept for the Lion's Ridge Lots A -8 and A -9, R.C. zoning. S. Vacation of property line thus combining total square footage and establishing a gross GRFA of 35,740 square feet or 1775 sq. ft. per unit x 19 units (Exhibit A Toughill's note). C. We established a plan of 9 duplex "envelopes" and one single family envelope. However, we reduced the 1775 GRFA per to 1690 GRFA thus picking up an additional 85 sq.ft plus an additional 2015 sq. ft. GRFA or a total of 3630 sq. ft. of un- used GRFA. Please note the purpose of this plan was to combine this surplus GRFA with Phase II (Lot A -7) to give us the necessary GRFA for the planned eleven units of 1690 GRFA each (four duplex and one triplex). During this term of the previous zoning administrator this was discussed. A repeat of the same A -8, A -9, process was suggested for phase II. The same review and suggestion was made by the incumbant 7.A. When we sub- mitted the phase II plan in 1978. The R.C. concept in phase II, was identical to phase I, was declared in the planning commissions minutes of Aug. 22, 1978. (Exhibit B.) The approval of Phase II was however not inclusive of the additional GRFA from Phase I due the existance of the property line that we neglected to vacate. This was brought to my attention by the Z.A. Because the zoning of Lot A -7 is LDMF the GRFA was approved at 1400 GRFA per unit: (inclusive of an estimated 40% slope area). We requested a slope study at that time. In 1977 and 1978 the declaration and restrictive covenants were reveiwed, changed, and finally approved by the town of Vail based on 1690 sq. ft. GFRA per unit. We did not vacate the A -7, A -8, 9 lot line because of numerous changes. The town in a letter to Casolar and Transamerica suggested a final plan be submitted when all changes such as envelope adjustments etc. are finalized. In 1979 we were told verbally that Casolar II could not vacate the property line to absorb the additional footage to reach our planned 1690 GRFA per unit. On June 4, of 1980, we finally received the re- evaluation of our long awaited slope plan. We were reduced to approximately 1220 GRFA per unit in Phase II, eight months from your receipt of plans by Richard's Engineering . we responded with the letter of June 20, 1980. (Exhibit "E "). Page 2 Last year we as well as the town approved 1690 GRFA for Phase II units. . All zone check work sheets show the allowed GRFA as 1690 (Exhibit "F ") approved by the town. We now realize that town officials initially concluded that the zoning on phase I and phase 11 were the same thus allowing the merger of the two phases. This denial of the original direction given us by the town has placed us in an extremely precarious position with our present owners. Of the five envelopes triplex with 1342 GRF, questionable overage. requested a 1690 GRFA a reduced GRFA of 933 - 933). in Phase II, two are 4 per unit and lot 14 Duplex lots 13 and per unit allocation. sq. ft. A reduction in construction. Lot II, a a duplex with 1690 plus a 15 are in planning stage and have This leaves lot 12 a duplex with of 2447 sq. ft. of GRFA (3380 At this writing most of the above is academic, but the factors must be dealt with. 1. The project was approved for 1400 sq. ft. per unit and was the enforced limit. 2. The town authority after an unreasonable delay further reduced the GRFA. This followed town approval of two structures in excess of the initial limitations. 3. The town has ignored the limitations it has granted on both GRFA catagories and granted approvals of sturctures in excess of the limitations. 4. The town further approved one triplex and four duplex lots. The net results of the last site has been squeezed down and is impractical to use as a duplex site. 5. Therefore, the entitlement of site 12 as a duplex has been taken away from Casolar by the arbitrary granting of excess floor area in total disregard of the limitations. We have planned within Casolar a small non - sprawling community with dedicated recreastion area, a solar concept, and a larger common area. We don't believe that our request is unreasonable and beg your indulgence to consider this variance. n LJ :1 0 Orr A.) 7 7 -71 --5� X/C . 0 -7 7 Miti utes -PEC August 22, 1978 pg. G 1 M, 7 14L 131, C01-1,Jna and feels the lot is too close to the creek. C )?d Drager then questioned whether there should be a streamside setljri.cl.• 1{oger Tilkemeier felt that to ansyrer all the questions brollf" 1i, up today this matter should be tabled until the next re,,11] s,,r•l.y scheduled meeting. His Uotion is to table thv )t,t: Bank of Vail request for a Conditional Use Permit and Par(tJ.r1(, Variance until the Planning & Environmental Commission ,Ile C,4J.r1(, scheduled for September 12, 1978. Gerry White seconded itla Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to table this matter. 7,he 4th item.on the agenda, Wedel Inn -- Rezoning from Public Accommodation to CCl has been withdrawn by the applicant. The Commission requested that item number six be discussed at this time. Casolar Vail II - R_ equest for Resubdivision of l,ot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing 1. -- Deane Knox and Harold Engstrom were present to speak to the Commission. They explained their proposal which is basically U townhouse concept. Their proposal is for 2,400 sq. ft. duplex lots and one 3,200 sq, ft, triplex lot. The units will be 1,400 sq. ft. GRFA and the density meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements urt stated by Jim Rubin. Their access will be from Sandstone Road and Vail View Drive. The covenants have architectural controls. Ron Todd made the ?lotion to approve Casolar Vail II request for Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No, 1 uK It is in accordance with the cluster housing concept and hiu, been recommended for approval by the Department of Community D'U'Velopment. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimous approval. Item 5 on the agenda was then discussed. Cooper -- L'ots and 20 -2 (Resub. Lot 20) Bighorn Subdiv, request for ���:�t.zor� oaf lot line between these t��o lots. The owner wants'to.work with this site as a whole. are two Residential Cluster sites, 9 units are permitted t�..� C- 11 "Icr is putting only 7 units on the site. il'lle 'Conlmission asks for the owner's reasoning on this request. Vxpl.ained during discussion that it may be more feasible IIIfl ilt o the lot line making one single site so that they i "111y have to have one driveway for access to the project. 7s 11oted that the plan is to save trees on the site by arranging i dings around the existing trees_ The Design Review Board pv% i" 'Ill'oved this plan. The Commission feels the plan as a single �t Is a good idea and gives the project more flexibility. __ li0111'er Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the vacation L` town a box 100 vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 June 2, 1980 Deane Knox 1 Downing Street Denver, CO S+E" Re: Casolar II Square Footage Dear Deane: department of community development This letter is to let you know what square footage still remains for Casolar II, and how we are allocating it. If you desire to have it allocated differently, please let me know. Lot Area Slope over 40% Net Developable GRFA Factor GRFA Used Carling Kintzing TOTAL GRFA remaining TOTAL Units remaining TOTAL GRFA per unit 1,220 1) Unless we hear differently rom you, this is the square footage per unit that we are using for zoning purposes. 5� It( &. ('v V"IT -v 53,753 square feet 3,485 (per Richards Engineering 9- 20 -79) 50,3$4 square feet .30 7,759 3,732 4,02' 7,321 -6- Sincerely, 4 .James A. Rubin `� Zoning Administrator 1 • • %(S11 Jim Rubin Zoning Adminiotrator Box 100 vail, d0 31657. June 20, 1930 Dear Jim, Thank you aTteruraraportoan0asnu�er ;ofhitemsrp z am etill concern your 1. The maximum GRFA as de:.±Lnated in our declarRtion is maximuat difasecf.I smendmentoto Phase�Ildoes notOstato maximum. ph rjZFA but relates to Phase z. sn . f't. ) 2. .,'e approved Cari`n{- on maxfn.url iscr to cY which � will GRFA, and there seeds to be a discrepancy pursue with Carling. . 3. As you may recall, we were to be allowed a g-ross lot (Phase I & 11) area since we have an over abundance of square footage on 1 ha.se T and since all three lots have been combined into one project with i.nterconnectinR- roads throughout the project. As you brought to my attention, there is s difference in zoning between embining. A.-71 A -8 and A--9 ohich would disallow any I would like to requeot a�study and possible varice pp ncedto thin problem as sae wrOta the dgclaration by the tzAn and of course sold the lots on that basis. Also# : pleaso notd that part of the I ;e slope was excavation from the road that has been rerlovad. Should we review' the Richard's Engineering report? , I will be up Friday, June 27th an3 will stop by to review possibilities with you. =. 4 1 I ' 4 1 Doane L. Knox DLK/la - ;' C? Env i ronm,nta I /Ha zards: Avalanche Flood Main S1 Ope 6 c,,-O (,-- Zoning: A;,)pro%/e(1/Disc11 jP1'Ov('d-, Date: ZO: 11 L 111 TI, cl T=—X4A1 5 r- for SM % [,/S MINE D) STIZI C TS Jon Legal Description: Lot Block ing 0 Omer r Or Archi feet Zone Dis'l-Tict Proposed U Use Lot Ai-(.!a Height Allwdud 301 Proposed Setbacks: 1-1-011,L-Required H' Proposed Sides.-Required -15' Proposed Rear -Required 15' Proposed I.,!aterccurse-required Proposed GRFA: Allowed Propot-led �— �����- t!'J -- GITA: Primary Al I ov.lcd Primary Proposed Secondary Al I owed Secondary Proposed Site Coverage: Al I a-,jed Proposed tandscap,hig Required Proposed PdrI, ing Required Proposed Slaps Pex-mitted Slope zlctuz�,_J_ Env i ronm,nta I /Ha zards: Avalanche Flood Main S1 Ope 6 c,,-O (,-- Zoning: A;,)pro%/e(1/Disc11 jP1'Ov('d-, Date: 0 � 0 7, -) iU � e �, u �7.� �IZsb 2 ------------- 0 � 0 7, -) iU � e �, u I NO of V box 100 nail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 November 4, 1977 Mr. Deane Knox 800 Washington Denver, Co, 80203 office of the town manager Re: Lots 8 and 9, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 Dear Deane; This is to confirm that all zoning and subdivision requirements have been met for the proposed Casolar project, The Planning Commission and Town • Council have approved the vacation of the property line and easement be- tween the two lots; however; the plat must be filed with Eagle County. Design Review Board has given conceptual approval for the entire project and final approval for Phase I. Each phase will require final approval from Design Review Board, The project may be condominimized or townhoused so long as the land is not further subdivided. A townhouse approach may divide the land directly under a unit if the balance of the land is held as a common element. If you have further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, DEPART T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT na S. Toughill Zoning Administrator • �a f . 500 : st L 's--: „tt rcv::;uc Tel. 837 -1091 Dcnver, Colorado 60203 1 :1i ;', ;;o,: T 71. E :.:I. 831 -7G13 Der,vcr, Colo,-;,:;o 30203 Av. Va „iarta 1:;03 -202 ici. 25 -93 -97 Guadalajara, Jai., i iexico - i _ :, c,,ora Juluapan, Ltd. • � 0__ I Ms. Diane Toughill Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Diane: 36 tt April 6, 1978 i -7 Attached you will find a check for $100.00 and a plan of the Casolar Del Norte site. I would like to outline briefly the events leading up to this application for variance. In 1977 we had received conceptual approval of the entire project from Design Review Board based on a condominimized or townhouse approach (attached copy)- In reviewing the concept both with Transamerican Title, lending sources, and Council, a problem arose as to just what is the prospective buyer receiving.' How is he protected and what are his limitations? Using the townhouse concept we developed site locations that we shall call Envelopes. The Envelope was to be the site which the buyer was allowed to design and build a struc- ture. He was given six months to submit plans. After approval a survey was to be provided to establish the parimeters of the foundations and finally, a deed issued showing what the buyer really bought. (Attached declaration and restrictive covenants). The problem's that have been created by this form are as follows: 1. The purchaser of a site does not really own anything until submission and approval of plans. This may take considerably more time than six months. 2. Title corlpanies will not insure title until survey. Therewore,e purchaser is unprotected during the interim. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 24, 1980 3:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION: 2:00 p.m. 1. Continue discussion of activating a study area and amendment to the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 2. Discussion of horizontal zoning for Vail Village & Vail Lionshead. REGULAR SESSION: 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 11- 10 -80. 2. Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit (Printery Building) 3. Knox, density control variance Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge #1 • 4. Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a proposed new library building on Lot 5, Block 1, a Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing, (by the Dobson Ice Arena). 5. Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove time -share estate units, fractional fee units and time -share license units from the Conditional Uses section in the Public Accommodations Zone District. a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING 46 Monday, November 24, 1980 3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gerry White Gaynor Miller Roger Tilkemeier Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Scott Edwards Dick Ryan Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT Ron Todd 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 11- 10 -80. Gaynor moved to approve minutes, seconded by Roger. The vote was 2 -0, all of the others abstaining. 2.Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit. Peter Patten explained that there was no memo, and that the letters received from the Sandstone 70 condominium association, and from Vail Guides, and copies of the original Planning minutes and memo explained the problem. He added that excessive vehicles and not adhering to the Ororiginal agreement by Vail Guides not to store any vehicles there, seemed to be the major problem. Jim Rea, owner of Vail Guides, Inc., addressed the Commission to point out that until he received a copy of the letter from Sandstone 70 to the Planning Commission, he had not been aware of any problem. He admitted that sometimes there had been too many vehicles, and that he planned to modify the employee manual and make clear that this is not to happen again. He explained that drivers park to come in to get their instructions, perhaps 10 -15 minutes. Bill Pierce, President of Sandstone 70 Condos read from the letters and minutes that Peter referred to, adding that the vehicles block the South access. He stated that Sandstone's agreement eith the Printery Building was that 9 parking spaces was for the Printery from 8 -5. Ted Martin, an owner in Sandstone and a Vail fireman stated that the number of vehicles from Vail Guides presented a problem with fire access. Dan Corcoran added that some of the Vail Guide vehicles had been observed parking on the Frontage Road as well. Several commission members suggested that the two parties should get together to try to solve the problem themselves. Bill and Jim agreed., and Bill Pierce asked to have the matter tabled until January 12 when they would bring back a mutual agreement containing conditions agreed to. Roger T Moved that the issue be tabled,,..Dan seconded it, and the vote was 6 -0, unanimous. w >.A NOTES REGULAR MEETING ir VAIL TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 18, 1978 page three The next matter for Council consideration was a request from Vail Guides, Inc. for amendment to the Printery Building conditional use permit to allow a business office. r Mayor Slifer introduced Jim Rea who explained the need for the amendment, to allow his l offices to exist in that building. There was a brief discussion regarding traffic and parking. The Council clarified that permission would be granted only for an office to exist and that no storage of vehicles could take place and that only one taxi could be present on the premises at any time. Councilmember Heimba c moved to approve the amendment; Councilmember Palmateer seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion passed. There uas a five minute break in the meeting The meeting reconvened at 9:40 pm for a discussion regarding the proposed latest Vail Incorporation. Mayor Slifer introduced Dick Gustafson and covered the background leading up to the current discussions between the West Vail Community and the Town of Vail. Dick Gustafson then explained the process of the West Vail Association in examination of the alternatives and their efforts to negotiate a merger with the Town of Vail. He stated the considerations to be 1) The districting of the new town area 2) The sales Tax Question and what effects there would be in the food area, and 3) The Bonded Indebtedness_ questions. He further explained the process of the Association since the last meeting with Council and stated that the members of the Board of the hest Vail Association had voted unaminously to incorporate and stated that he hopes a compromise could be made with the Town of Vail since both groups had a common goal for consolidation of the Valley. C There was a lengthy discussion regarding the bonded indebtedness legalities and the consideration of consolidation or merger and what would happen to the Home Rule Charter. Larry Rider stated that lie believed there were too many obstacles for consolidation to be a viable alternative. The discussion continued covering questions regarding which items would be negotiable, what the voter qualifications would be, the trust of the community and valley residents for the Town Council and Town Staff, which alternatives would be fair and acceptable to all parties involved. Mr. Gustafson restated that he hopes the Council and the Association will be able to work toward a solution. Mayor Slifer thanked the group for coming and discussing the matter publicly and pledged to continue the negotiations with the Association. 0 The next matter for Council consideration was the presentation to petitions requesting the continuance of the Bighorn and Sandstone Slifer accepted the petitions and stated that as soon as the revers a decision would be made regarding the service for the spring and was a general discussion regarding what the alternatives might be. requested ferry Minger to have Bob Manzanares put together figures service and pledged to have an answer for the riders at the next Council of citizen bus service. Mayor ues have been examined, summer months. There Councilmember Donovan for a l imi ted, . or commuter meeting. There being no further business for the Council, Councilmember Donovan moved to adjourn; Councilmember Wil to Seconded; All present voted in favor and the motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. ATTEST: MAYOR Page 4. MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 4/11/78 ADhigh hazard rock fall, and he also feels that a third geologist should be hired to do another study. Diana Toughill stated that the staff agrees with these conditions and others in Larry Rider's statements, After further discussion, Pam Garton asked whether this really is the best: useage of this site, that perhaps by putting the 60 units on-one end of the site would create an unbalances; look to the situ, and do we really want to lock ourselves into site development that may r,4:,t be ideal. The architect then questioned whether there would be that much reduction to the Site as described by Ron Todd, Diana Toughill stated that anything over 40% slope and high hazard rock fall will be deducted from the buildable area and it reduces allowable GRFA and number of units. The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the request to rezone Lots 1 -6, Block C, Lionsridge t=iling No, 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to Medium Density Multiple- Family (i51DMF) subject to the following conditions: 1.) That the employee housing units would be developed upon terms and conditions mutually acceptable to the Town and applicant, provided, however, that the applicant would receive no more than 60 Building Permits for construction of the condominium dwelling units unless and until such an agreement as to the employee housing units had been entered into with the Town of Vail; and, 2,) Conditional upon the proportional reduction of buildable land area from normal slope and high hazard rock fall; and, 3.) Conditional upon vacation of Vill all lot lines. This Motion seconded by Roger Tilkemeie•r. The vote was (6) members in favor with (1) member, Sandy Mills, opposing, This Motion carried and they will now go before Council. Vail Guides, Inc. Request for amendment to Printed Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of west portion of bu'ildin fok a business office. Chairman Drager had to leave to attend another meeting and Gerry White chaired the rest of the meeting of the Planning Commission. The next item on the agenda, Vail Guides, Inc., request for amendment to Printery Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of west portion of building for business office. dim Rea, owner of Vail Guides, Inc., addressed the Commission and assured them that no vehicles will be stored on site, just spaces for his employees during the day, and a taxi will be parked there off and on between runs.. He will have 2 to 3 employees possible, but most of the time there gill be only one employee there using a parking space, Scott Hopman asked Mr, Rea where he was planning on parking his fleet; Mr. Rea answered that he doesn't really know at this time, he may be able to use Gold Peal: going through Vail Associates, Inc. He added that the Sandstone Condominium Association has approved the use of the office space in the Printery Building. The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the request for amendment to the Printery Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of the west portion of the building for a business office subject to the recommendations by the staff that no on site vehicle storage will be allowed. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve. • Sandstone 70 Con' domninium Association P. (]. 33ax :1.706 Vail, Colorado 81657 October. 1.4, 1 -980 Vail Planning Commission 'own of Vail Box. 1.00 Vail, Co 81 -657 Dear. Commission Members, on behalf of the Sandstone 70 Condominium Association, I request that a formal hearing of your board be held to review the Condition Use t'ermit granted Vail Guides, Inc. several. years ago. Vail. Guides, Inc. occupies a portion of the Printery building located at the northwest corner of the North Frontage Road and Red Sandstone Road in the Town of Vail. The Printery building shares a -total of 7 parking spaces with the Sandstone f'0 Condominium Association with mutual. consent. The seven parking spaces are for use of all customers and employees of the Printery building and are intended for normal passenger 'vehicles. At the time that the Conditional Use Permit was granted Vail Guides, Inc., we felt that the operation was small enough to be compat -lble with the residential character of our rxe. ' ' hood. Due to apparent growth of Vail. Guides Inc. and the elaboration of their services, we feel_ that the use is no longer compatible with the residential character of Sands-tone 70 Condominium Association for the fol-lowing reasons: A. The number of vehicles controlled by Vail Guides often:, exceeds the number agreed to for the entire Printery building. building and B. The parking spaces shared by the Printery g pied by Vaal Guides Inc. Sandstone 70 are customarily occu outside the ?,ou rs agreed to . C. In Fact, access to Sandstone 70 through our south parking access is of-ten, blocked by vehicle-s controlled by Vail Guides, Inc.. This is bath an inconvenience and a clanger. in that this access is often closed -to emergency.,. vehic:l_ec, as well as vehicles owned by persons residx; in Sandstone 70 Condominiums. D. V011cles -such as buses, over.l.y l r ;e limasixzes ,saris, trucks, sides,; Inc: p area Find other equ i-pn�era t carrtrol. led by Va s.l C _ . often parked on our property. These with isles .remain beyoraci f . agreed upon hours 9 obstruct access., prevent v.is:cia1. ob structions for use oI' our d.ri.vcway and are' one�70- Condobminii:m with 'the resi- dential. character of Sandstone 7 Association. � given above I would again request your For the reasons to this matter at your cat "'Ost conveni enc e . - would 1 i i{ e resolution of this matter before winter. arr'i-ves i�r f - _.andstone 70 Condominium Association �- _-- -- -_-- --- _..�._ -- ._�. ----- — F.- O. Box 3.206 Vail; Colorado 81657 I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. -Respectfully .yours, r William Pierce President 827 -5677 cc: Mayor, Town of Vail Mown Man,.ger, Town of Vail Zoning Administrator, Town of Vail 0 TO PLANNING COi•t,1ISSION • FRUi1 KPARTM NT OF COMMUNITY . DEVELOPMEN , DAVE 10 April 1978 REF Vail Guides Inc. Application to Amend Conditional USE, Permit _ Priqjjgry Building. Jim Rea has applied for an Amendment to tile, existing Conditional Use Permit at the Printery Building. He proposes to use Viestern por t i on of the bui l di nq as office space foj° Vail Guides, In =P . BeforLh acting on a Condi ti o'nal Use Permit application, the Plann ing CoMi ssi on shall consider the fol l owi nq factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact; of the-use oil developrlent; ol.jectives of the Town. r The existing office space in the Printe Building does not seem to have a detrimental effect on the residential neighborhood. Use of the subject space as outlined in the letter of April 6, 1978, seems to be in _ keeping with other office uses in the building and with the residential character of the neighborhood. 2.) The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, scia ool s , parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities, and public facilities needs, we foresee no adverse effects _ on these factors.. 3,) The effect upon traffic, with particular reference to con�]c- �stion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, -q aneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The.appployee states that each permanent employee (estimated 3 ei�lployees) will need a parking space during business hours, plus one parking space for a taxi cab also during business hours. As a condition of granting the Conditional Use PoriSait we strongly recommend that no storage of Vail Guides, Inc. vehicles be allowed on the site either during business hours or at night. 4.) The effect "Pon 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 surroubdinrg uses. See item no. I above. r,,) Such other factors and criteria. as the Commission docas ppl i cab l e to the proposed use. if mobile radios are to be used as part of the operation, visible ant (ennae should not be a i Mowed on the building. ' ngs before I ie P1 anni ng Comm followllg find . granting a Conditional Use Permit. 1.) That the proposed location of the, use is in accordance with the f Page 2 ` MEMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10178 f purposes of this title and the purposes of the-District in which the site is located. See Item No. l under criteria and findings. pt 2.) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions i under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety:, i }i welfare, or materially injurious to properties or i Hip ro—vements in the vicinity. 3.) That the proposed use will comply with each o f the applicable provisions of this title. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with the provision that no' ... �. on -site vehicle storage be allowed. '. • I• VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION P.O. BOX 186 VAIL, COLO 81657 DEAR MEMBERS: C�Ilj I APRIL 6, 1978 Scenic Jeep T Ips I VAIL.. GUIDES, INC. WISHES TO APPLY TO AMMEND THE CONDITIONAL Limousine USE PERMIT ON THE PRINTERY BUILDING IN THE LIONSRIDGE AREA AS TO PERMIT VAIL GUIDES, INC _. USE OF THE WESTERN. PORTION Servicu OF THAT BUILDING AS OFFICE SPACE. _. VAIL GUIDES, INC., IS IN- THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS' AND -- PROVIDE=S YEAR ROUND TAXI SERVICE IN VAIL. AND TO ALL OTHER': ". PARTS OF THE STATE. IN ADDITION, IN THE SUMMERS GUIDES OPERATES A SIGHTSEEING AND TOUR BUSINESS, AND IN Breakfast, Lunch THE WINTER, A LIMOUSINE SERVICE BETWEEN VAIL AND DENVER Dinner Cookouts STAF'LETON AIRPORT. THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRINTERY BUILDING BY VAIL GUIDES, INC., WOULD BE AS OFFICE USE ONLY. WE ANTICIPATE, DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF YEAR, ONE TO THREE:, FULL TIME EMPLOYEES USING THE SPACE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. WE ANTICIPATE DURING CERTAIN PERIODS OF THE SUMMER-'--.- AND MINTER, THE OFF=ICE WOULD BE OCCUPIED FROM APPROXIMATELY TrorscbackPlaing 7 - :00 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M.' IN SO FAR AS PARKING IS CONCERNED WE ANTICIPATE THAT EACH OF THE PERMANENT EMPLOYEES MAY REQUIRE PARKING SPACE DURING THE DAY, PLUS SPACE FOR PARKING ONE TAXI CAB DURING THE LAY. WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THE AREA WOULD BE USED FOR GENERAL PARKING. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT-THE GENERAL STORAGE OF Fishing VEHICLES IS POSSIBLE IN THIS OR ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA WITHIN VAIL. IN SO FAR AS TRAFFIC IS CONCERNED, VIRTUALLY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF OUR RESERVATIONS ARE MADE BY TELEPHONE. WE DO NOT EXPECT OUR USE OF THIS SPACE TO ATTRACT SUBSTANTIAL, Elk11unting ADDITIONAL TRAF=FIC TO THE AREA. THERE WILL OF COURSE BE THE TRAFFIC NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OFFICE OPERATION. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM OR HARDSHIP FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA. Ski Bobbing F. 0. Boy. 1474 a Fail, Colorado 81657 0 303/476 -5337 o PUC 10492 PU'C 7321 _ ...... _. __.. _ .. ...: .� .. ... -.+ w .- .....� ._.. ..... a ....a.-- ..w.�.a . -.. ... <_..�..- tea._... ..t......._. :�:. k. ��..a 4r.. �.. •.r aas...�m4a..w a.....1._r...... 3 ON THURSDAY, APRIL G, 197, I MET WITH THE BOARD .OI~ D I RECTORS OF THE SANDSTONE 70 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; WHO VOTED TO j SUPPORT THE ABOVE REQUEST. IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THAT OUR USE OF THE PRINTERY BUILDING CONSTITUTES AN ACCEPTABLE USE FOR THE SPACE AND ASK THAT THE PRESENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE AMMENDED TO ALLOW1 US TO OCCUPY THE WEST PORTION OF THE BUILDING. � RESPEc- rFULLY . YOURS,e JAMES B. REA VAIL GUIDE INC. JBR /LN CC ii MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Construction of a library building South of the John Dobson Ice Arena. DESCRIPTION OF USE: Proposed is a library building containing 16,170 square feet of library uses and three employee housing units. The library design was selected by Town Council last January, and the Council, Town Librarian and architects have been refining interior plans and exterior materials for the past few months. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Upon review of Section 18.60.060 of the Zoning Regulations, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use request based on the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationshi and impact of the use of develo ment objectives of the Town: • The site where the library is proposed was one of the three or four areas studied for this use a couple of year ago. At that time, it was determined the site across from the Dobson arena was the best location. The library use will be on one level with the employee housing units at the lower level to the west. 0 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 Rublic facilities needs. There should be no effect on these factors. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; The library building is a low profile structure that will look like a landscaped area from the north. Effect anul euesLrlan saiezy ana convenience, 'Crarric riow aria control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas: Parking for the staff of the library and employee housing units will be provided east of the Dobson Arena. People who will use the library have the opportunity to use the bus service that has a bus stop directly in front of the library, walk to the library or park at the new Lionshead Parking Center. FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 21, 1980 RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Construction of a library building South of the John Dobson Ice Arena. DESCRIPTION OF USE: Proposed is a library building containing 16,170 square feet of library uses and three employee housing units. The library design was selected by Town Council last January, and the Council, Town Librarian and architects have been refining interior plans and exterior materials for the past few months. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Upon review of Section 18.60.060 of the Zoning Regulations, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use request based on the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationshi and impact of the use of develo ment objectives of the Town: • The site where the library is proposed was one of the three or four areas studied for this use a couple of year ago. At that time, it was determined the site across from the Dobson arena was the best location. The library use will be on one level with the employee housing units at the lower level to the west. 0 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 Rublic facilities needs. There should be no effect on these factors. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; The library building is a low profile structure that will look like a landscaped area from the north. Effect anul euesLrlan saiezy ana convenience, 'Crarric riow aria control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas: Parking for the staff of the library and employee housing units will be provided east of the Dobson Arena. People who will use the library have the opportunity to use the bus service that has a bus stop directly in front of the library, walk to the library or park at the new Lionshead Parking Center. IPEC - Library - 2 - 11 -21 -80 PINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Development Department recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based upon the factors stated above. The building does fit into the environment surrounding the site. In addition, this site has been determined as the future library site for Vail. . U J Snowdon and Hopkins Architects • 'Gore 2a1 creek Drive 303 476 -•2201 P.O. Box 1938 Vail, colorado 81657 November 4, 1980. THE TOWN OF VAIL LIBRARY 11/4/80 -s.f. Library Adult Fiction and Non Fiction 2300•s.f. _ Reference Cbllection/Desk 14QO s.f. Audio Visual Collection/Desk 500 s.f. Card Catalogue 575 s.f. Periodical Display and Reading. • 600 s.f. Adult Reading 1.025 s: f . Study Room 140 s . f . Periodical Storage 300 s.f. General.Circulation /Desk 675 s.f. gyAing 60'!§,'.f . 7575-s.f.. Children Cbllection 1000•s.f. Reading and Project Area. & 500-s.f. Story.Telling Area Children Librarian /Lounge .770 's f . 2270 s.f. Staff Areas Librarian Office 160 s.-f. technical Services 760 s.f. Staff mom 740 's: f. . Book Storage .-1q0.:§' ; f..'. S.- . 'IGrAL; LIBRARY 11, 695 s.f, Cbm-amity Rooms 2 roar /525 s . f: 1050 s . f . 1 room 3a0 s : f . � 1400 s.f. EMloyee Units 2 units /437.5 875 s :f. S 1 unit 400'8 :f: 1.275 s . f . r Miscellaneous Areas `± Mechanical. 500 S .' f . Custodial 50 s . f . Entry /Restrooms /Gbrridor 1800 S.f, WIM BULDING 16,170 s . i. s • U � Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects 201 Gore Creek Drive 303 47 6-2201 P. O. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado 81657 November 40 1980 THE TOWN OF VAIL LIBRARY Library Adult Fiction and Non Fiction Reference Collection/Desk Audio Visual Collection/Desk Card Catalogue Periodical Display and Reading Adult Reading Stud Room Periodical Storage General Circulation /Desk Typing Children Cbllection Reading and Project Area & Story Telling Area Children Librarian /Lounge Staff Areas Librarian Office Technical Services Staff Roam Book Storage TOTAL LIBRARY CbMMmity Rooms 2 rooms /525 s.f. 1 room Ehployee Units 2 units /437.5 1 unit 11/4/80 s . f . 2300 s.f. 1400 s.f. 500 s.f. 575 s.f. 600 s.f. 1025--s :f. 140 s.f. 300 s, f . 675 s.f. 7575-s.f. 1000 -sif. 500 s.f. 770 ' s. :.f , 2270 s.f. 160 s.f. 760 s.f. 740's f. S. 1. 11,695 s.f. 1050 s.f. '350'8.f. 1400 s.f. 875 s.f. '400's :f: 1275 s.f. Program s.f. 3570 s.f. 500 s.f. 500 s. f . 450 s.f. 650 s.f. 380 s.f. 306 s.f. 300 s.f. 520 s.f. .. .tea �011M- M 700 s.f. 460 s.f. 1400 s. f . 200,s.f. 500 s.f. 750 s.f. '250 's :f: 1700 s.f. 11,700 s.f. 1000 s.f. 1000 s. f . U Miscellaneous Areas Mechanical 500 s.'f. Custodial 50 s.f. ]Ent y/Restrooms f Cbrridor 1800 s.f. Ewim BUILDING 163,170 s.f. 250 s.f. 250 s.f. "1000'9:f. 1500 s. f . 130310 s.f. • U 0 n NN r box 100 WJ1, 00101- aclo 81057 (303) 476 - 561,1 d(cpartment of community devc ),-Iliont MP!.MORhNDUM TO: Larry Rider, - Larry Eslctaitll., Rich Caplan, Dich� Ryan and Jim Rubin. FROM. Peter Patted DATE,: Onto))er 22, 1980 St713J3 G'.t': . Report on Time Sharing Field StUdy on Sanibcl Island, Flor -d a F3RIEF _BACKGROUND OF SAZ` IBEL :ISLAND Sani.bol is a harrier island off the southwe ,,t coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. The unique tropical environment consisting of ..Lush vegetation, white sand beaches, eery abundant .wildlife and souse of the world's best sholling makes it an extremely beztutiful and appo al.:i"ng place. Opened to dovoiopmen.t pressures as a X-esult of coz:struction of a callso- ay in .1.963, t-he resort industry quickly recognized the j.mmrnse potential of the quiet, low key, island. S_imilczr to Vail., t11e island aevolopc�d slowly at firs t. I�.,Ilch to the dismay of the existing residents, the island grew rapidly in the 70',,;. Hotels, con(ioa1li_ni ap�--i- ri:.ments, single family homes and co)- imiercial development made an :inipact on the ecology and serene c:nvironinenat. of .Sanibel :Island. In 1_975, a lone time sharing development stood amongst: all the Other kinds of construction. In ro sponse to Ell]. the fast-paced resa.denti"al, commercial and resort development, the ca.ty fa�-.laer-s and planners drew up some re ula- t.loals in the late 70's. A strict_ co"mprull� nsi_ve Land Use Plan with downzol- lirlg, couploEe Ti.th <-a Rato of Growth Ordinance (sim:i_]_ax to Boulder's; has served to slow do\;rx1 the growth and coal. -urc? t c� c "�il.a1ity of no development. In April of 1979, an amendment to the Plan was adopted Which regulated t.imcl- sharing proposals. It was and probably still i> the most strict muali.cip�ti. ord) the country. .ncance regulating time sharing in Time Share Study -"2 Today, Sanibel contains approximately 3,000 permanent residents and 5300 dwelling units (every hotel unit represents a dwelling unit). Much of the vegetation remains along with the wildlife with the aid of a National Park Bird Refuge, constituting 50% of the land area of the island. Beautiful one story low density residential areas exist nicely adjacent to the resort housing areas which contain some of the nicest vacation resorts anywhere.. WHAT TIME SRARING IS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO Yffi_,;1SOLI,P_J_CA J_ ATTITUDES�ON SANIBEL_ ISLAND The residents of Sanihej, both old and naw, dW not nocessarily enjoy I 'all the now resort devulopment; They felt it wat vary damaging to the natural environment and the quiet atmosphere of the island (there is virtually no "night life" on the island). The development continued despite the slow down under the new ordinances of the late 701s. And then--it seemed like it was all of a sudden...- -thorn was a new concept in resort marketing whi6h could almost ensure year around occupancy. This now concept was an outgrowth of skyrocketing inflation cauoinU rentals in vacation areas to go up and up each year, and condominium sales prices going out of range of all but the affluent. Moreover, there were tremendous amounts of money to be made in the new scheme. The new idea was, of course, time sharing, The two main kinds of time sharing are interval ownership and right• to-use. An interval ownership project is one where the purchase of a resort vacation home or condominium is made by the week, with 411 owner ,hip ,conveyance by decd in the save manner as a home or whole condominium unit. This allows a buyer to own a piece of real estate in a resort area for only a fraction of the whole unit costs Over a period of years, the cost of an interval week is substantially less than renting even nominal motel accommodations in today's in• flationary market. A right-to-use project leaves ownership in the hands of a single individual br corporation, while the interval purchaser purchases the right-to•use the accommodation for that week. These are commonly referred to as vacation clubs and are often conversions of hotels or motels which are not totally Successful (especially in Hawaii). My research in Florida was totally centered on interval owner. ship. I encountered no right-to-use projects on or near the island. Thus, the remainder of my report will deal with the ownership concept. Briefly, interval ownership is no longer a new or small idea. Ovor 300,000 American families are interval owners with over 400 locations throughout the country and a total. cajes voluine that miglit exceed $1 billion in 1980. Major len6ing institutions are becoming involved, and many high quality projects have been developed in the finest resort areas in the U.S.A. In the near future, interval owner- ship may well reach a dominance in the vacation/travel industry. Time Share Study - 3 The reason interval ownership sells so well is because it allows the buyer to use the conodminium only when he really wants to, and to pay for only that time period. The owner has a rapidly appreciating piece pf real estate, a (partially) pre--paid vacation, and an ownership i.ntere.st: in the project. There are two types of time sharing developments. One is a new project, built and designed for interval ownership. The second is convcrsions of hotels or condoinir iums to time sharing. All of the project , except for one, on San.iibel T gland (there are 8 or 9 on Sanibel) were bu i..7. t as o ,nnership projects. Hotel to interval ownership ��.0 3[ 'n' nearby Z i yey.,3 Flotels par r.­. 14 .t_ps are' ,I o:C7.Tm C..C.1 h _,tween thej.• , cn,,r ers and a timo share co,:c_pany to tu7;:n. the uylit s into interval owner units with total:I_y new furnishings and floor arrangements. Many hotels making a marginal. profit will. turn. to interval as a way to revitalize and realize a new high pro_C:i-t. margin. Time sharing is a. vacation. use. 1t: is a year cIro—ond high occupancy (80­90u) resort use. People corrfe to their interval units to relax and basically, vacation. Thus, the 1.0. projects are lively and used int.ensivc:ly. Occupancy is high because people usually buy with the ant.t .D. t- :i.r;r of u it, and, i t they dozy ' t use i t , ti1<:T17 rant it or exchange it for a week at;. other interval resorts throughout the world. 'It is because of U,,.e i.ntenr,ive use that interval- is not compatible with residential housing. interval should be located in an area suited for resort housing. The conflict which an integrated (part 1.O. and part resi..dont:i_al) project presents is an obvious one. A resident living newt to a vacationer which changes each week or two of the year is not a desirable arrangement. Quality interval projects .sell to duality buyers. On Sanibel Island, '.he, buyers are mostly betx %seen 45­55 yesars old (household head) making over $40,000 /year and owning two or more weeks. They come with money to spend because their accommodations are prepaid. They support restaurants, shop_, golf courses, etc. They also act like owners with regard to enforcement of condo rules, maintenances of building and grounds and managem(.�n-L- of the project. Thee follks are more than satisfied with their purchases and most plan to buy more weeks (indication of money to invest, not necessarily to use them), Further, most of the owners ors Sanibel are using their weeks and not reque,st:i nq trades. These characteristics are not necessarily reflective of i.nc a.stry• wide owners who appear to be of an overall „lower quality" and may be buying with the intent to exchange the week for another location. Back to the Sanibel residents' react° -ons to this new concept. It is so).uewhat. obv-ious that the :i.n-t:e.nsivc� and high occupancy c,harac- tor.ista_c.,s of interval own {�rsh:i.p aye in di.#'e'ct conflict ,%7i.th the objective of keeping Sanibel a qu.i.et:., uni_ntei- isi.vly developed. islai-.!d. Soma neutrals on the :island call it the "TGM" attitude (T Got Mine) , which processes the "keep out. newcomer" mentality. There � no questios3 of the number • of newcomers when a building of 30 units has 1530 owners, using the place on a year around. bassi -s. Time Share Study - 4 The result of this conflict and dislike of continued resort growth . is the Sanibel Time Sharing Ordinance. Thu,, the motivation behind the ordinance was not so much to intelligently control a:!-ic,l regulate time sharing, but to stop it completely to eliminate the new vacationers. THE CITY OF SANIBEL' S ST-MR 3.NC ORDINANCE AND HOW IT WORKS and L ?21:1..'tMs X7:1:, high are i- .Jibe shcl..-C {-_d. uiaits, short ­term r�,,ntals in or h.ol_eal units. However, to qualify as a high impact unit, it must contain 600 square feet or more. Units of high impact are restricted to a resort bout:,.i,ncj zone and must meet open sptac (c standards of 7500 square feet of on site recrea.tio.nal open space (I �,_oadly defined) for Each 1111ii;. It 3 ec trict s convC:1:sions to time s)1r3)_inq by requiring the con. do declarations to show allowance of time share estates and requiring all owners of units to agree to the conversion. Also, the zoning and recreational open space requirement must be met. The ordinance also :+"estr7.c'f:s 1::'.tC.`. sale of int.erva.l 1gC:c'S.s to c ri €'ina.I. .sa.lc s ofa.),.y (regulating the continuance of proble.ii'- ;) Lic sa:l -e,, prac-Li-c es) . Since the ordinance has be cn). passed, one new interval x>roject of_ 9 unit.a has been approved. The proposal was 7200 square feet. :short of the open space requirement, but agreements to construct a bicycle path and contribute to a a_oad improvement ;project were, accepted as a trade -,off. The conversion, section has not been effect.ive due to the fact that it did not includc: smaller_ hotel rooms (cinder 600 sq. ft.) as high impact units. So, one of the hotels containing no units over 600 sq ft. proposed a conversion to interval. The project was denied. on a scapogc,,at clause of not mco —ting the Coastal Construction S e'rbac:k L i.ne. total7_y irrelevant to the application for a special use permit.. The developer argued non -- conforming use (built under previous setback regulations), but the Sanibel Planning Commission with their dislike of interval. and its implications, denied the request. This may end up in court. At -the present time, ordinances are being drawn up to -eliminate the 600 sq ft rule so t.hat hotel conversions will be stopped by not meeting open space requirements, etc. and to not allow any development (conversion is development) in violation of the Coastal Construction Setback Lind. These, of course, are roundabout ways to pull the reins even tighter on inte:r.val. ownership. Most folk_ on the City's side feel the performance standards of the o:c:d.i.riance are good and that provis.:i.on of on site recreational amr_-�nit:i.es i_.s i.mpor_ t:ant. Also, zoning interval into a. rc-�sortl housing zone was a. headed and positive mcas: ?re. Conversions cP" " also well care. of by requiring :1.00% owner approval.. This eliminates the possibility of mixed, or integrated projects, which everyone feels is not goad. .7 . Time Share Study - 5 Regulating bales to original weeks only puts a restriction on sales practices, but this could go further. Putting a lid on the time period for sales may be better and would eliminate the withholding of a.couple weeks to continue resales and the intensive sales operations. Restricting-the high level of traffic and parking generated by intensive sales practices would also be needed. in conclusion, we see that the Sanibel "pioneer" ordinance has allowed a learning experience and that some positive examples of regulation have, bean produced, oven if this was not n6cessarily tho intention or-motivation bakind the reguJaWans. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF TIME SHARING 1. MKINTENANCE Time sharing projects require a high level of :3 maintenanc i ca_x�s 'daily basis because of the intensive use the f acilitie. receive. Arcas which need constant attention are appliances, swimminr and hot tub pools, air conditioners and other accessory items (bicycles, sailboats). As with any other multi-family development, landscaping and grounds need to be kept up. if a high level of maintenance is not provided according to the need, times share projects could quickly become in a state of disrepair and result in owner dissatisfaction. The arringement kor providing maintenance is that the budget is funded through annual fees charged per week. The projects I looked at averaged between $150-185 per week annual fee which included taxes • and per them charge. The developer then hires managers to work at the project to make sure maintenance is kept up and that the place runs smoothly. These fees are subject to increase eaQh year, but so far have not increased greatly. 2. MANAGEMENT Closely related to high level maintenance is the dire need for quality long term management of the entire project. This is an extremely iyftportant factor because of the large number of owners involved in a single development. i encountered two different methods of management of interval ownership projocts. The most common is to form a Board of .Directors of 5 owners to make management decisions and to allocate the budget. The board is aidcd by a back-up management company, usually a subsidiary of the developer. While the Board of Directors makes the decisions for the particular club, the management company coordinates special events and vacation opporLunities for all the projects owned by that developer. Problems which can arise out of this form of management are an unresponsive Board of Directors, badause they don't have that much of a stake in the project and possibly an insufficient budget with which to provide maintenance and services. The budget is a critical- factor. sufficient funds must be available for upkeep and club amenities and services. . Time Share Study - 6 Another major developer of interval ownership on Sanibel maintains 40 control of management of the project for 7 years beforo they turn it over to the association. This qan be an excellent way to handle it, As the developer creates a sophisticated company to manage and maintain the entire project. This type of management retains developer interest in the long-term, on going quality of the resort. 3. INTEGRATIONS As mentioned earlier, the type of noe associated with time sharing combine(I in close proximity to less intensive, wbole-owned condominiums, is not desirable and definitely would be a pr6blem. Time sharing is a vacation type of use, whereas condominiums are usually a residential We or less intensive vacation use. Larger projccts where different types of ownership are found in different areas of the project are not detrimental. ' There is a project of over 300 acros on Captiva Island (connected to Sanibel) where interval ownership, whole-owned condominiums and a hotel exist in separate areas of the development. Thore have not Open problems with this arrangement Wcauso of the resort nature and use of the project and the isolation of the different uses from each other. 4. IMPROPER ZGNING Time sharing should not take place resort housing. Tt definitely shouldn't areas for residents, even high density z condominium project was time sharing, it pre-set criteria. 5, SALES-2PACTMES in any area not designed for be placed in any primary housing ones. If the whole high density would then have to meet other Some resort areas. especially Hawaii, have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of agents trying to sell time share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a project, an, in- tensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems come 1. in the areas of solicitation on beaches, streets and shopping malls, promises of free g ' ifts for sitting through a high pressure sales presen- tation, and people buying because of the high pressure involved and not being able to get out of it, other identified problems are excessive traffic generated and on-site parking deficiencies due to the high number of prospective buyers on perhaps a weekend, and finally, generally sleasy operations. Sanibel's ordinance restricts sales to original. weeks only, but some developers could get akound that by leaving several weeks unsold, so that they can continue sales indefinitely (re sales).' U Time Share Study -- 7 6. CONVERSIONS Conversions to interval can be a problem if the development is not accomplished in a quality manner addressing the above concerns. Most problems have been realized when "marginal" hotels convert to make money. Shoddy developers converting to interval can be a big problem and can give the industry a bad name. Hawaii has experienced a lot of conversions from condos, apartments and hote:t.t` to right - -to -- use clubs which have attracted "lore quality" buyers and have caused severe j ?7':C3b1C?.ms with :i.nt-tC?gr"at~J_C3-s, maintenance, manG:iCjE'.mL=nt and silos BENEFITS TS 0IP TIME, SHARING 1 • LEVELS OFF SEASONALT mIE S OF A Y V ^fi ST i 1A DE Because use their wC- E ns or rent them, {:::Lme share projects s as e: full year around; This is good fog: business in town and is a healthy step toward year around vitality of the resort community. 2. ❑T_f_'RAi.T.i._ON OF W.. ,i }� A w(Al_ done, well managed high quality time sha;c� project will attract_ high income, responsible tourist-.s. They have prepaid their accommoNtions and have money to spend--and they spend it. They have more of a stake in the community than do hotel guests and they have the pride of ownership toward their project. 3. EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF fit.,_. OWC S Many say that a condominium sitting empty Dot goad for the community and not an efficient services like sewer, water, electricity and the themselves. The services and facilities, must be ment to occur"--why not C f f is ie ntly utilize them? 4. PRIDE OF OWNERSETP most of the year is use of facilities and buildings and grounds provided for the develop- The owner of even a week or two in an interval project has an investment that they want to appreciate. '.i:'hey know that proper maintenance and management of the project is the way to make the investment appreciate. Thus, for the most part, they care about the development as an owner, not as a renter of a hotel room who doers not have a stake in the project. Time Share Study - 8 SUGGESTIONS 'aR REGULA1.140N_ :CDT VAIL You may have concluded by now that my conclusion is that a high quality time share project is a benefit to the community, the developer and the owner.. The commodity is the limey. There's no question of the widespread existence of shodJy, irresponsible developers out to make the very big dollars to be made in the :i_nt:.e.r_val ownership industry. As wi_t=.l; all other is evel opmen't proposal reviews, ?`..i:]e proper standards and -;. urances U high qualitY need to be met. Va.-,._l has been i:_b c, for the my s t. part, to acco;Zpl _ ` h this, and there l s no ;i: '.aeon why it cannot be accomplished in the area of interval ownership, Any suggestions for this regulation arcs as follows, and I would like to add that the country's foremost "indopc.nd; nt" authority on the time shearing industry (the only person or agency to conduct, a major survey of interval o wncra and the indust:.ry :i.n. gonc;.ral) would concur with, these recommendations. I say this be=cause I had the extremely fortunate opportunity to Ji sc.uss with him on my field trap his conclusions from his extensive study, even though it is not loot completed at this point in time. The reasons for this have been well outlined alcove und need no repetition. A strict prohibition of mixed pr6iects; can be accomplished by rcqui.r i_ng all owners of a project proposed for conversion to agree to the time share use for the entire building. Looking at the degree of integrati_on within a project, my recommendation is tha.t mixing time sharing and other uses should come no closer than totally indopenderi -t t eparaLed areas and facilities within a single development. S don't think there are any parcels of land remaining in the Gore Valley sufficiently large enough to accormaodat.e <`a development wherein adequate separation of the u,scs could be successfully accomplished. . TICHTl'.Y RESTRICT CONVERSIONS Conversions of "mafginal" hotel., have been identified as a problem. Conversions should be allowed only wherry it is an entire lodge or condo project, where the zoning is proper: and where on site recreational amenities are adequate to serve the high level of demand. sales practices need to be tightly regulated, also. The best tine share project is the one planned, designed and constructed for time ~haring. However., good quality conversions benefiting the Town, the developer- and the buyer can be accom- pli_shod under strict controls. 3. RESTRICT ALES PRACTICES Salsas operations ;:should, be restricted to on silo only and to either a year's time period or 80% of the original weeks. Extra parking should be provided during this time period to accommodate sales-generated traffic. Enforcement and dealing with complaints should be strict and immediate. We already have rules requir Ing the licensing of the sales agents, but we need to have a buyer recession regulation allowing they purchaser to get: out of the deal within a 3 or 4 day time peri.od. This is necessary to prevent people from succumbing to high pressure sales tactics and not having a way to get out of it. • • • Time Share Study - 9 4. WHEN REVIEWING TIME SHARE PROPOSALS ENSURE Quhl'ITY TIiR(5UGH THE FOLLOWING AREAS a. COMPETENT LONG TERM MANAGEMENT Developer retention of management seivi&s May be the best form of manage- ment for the first years of existence. This form of managcmont allows less complexity in communication and dealing with problems and involvement of a projessional management Agency trained in the fiel& 0. HIGH LEVYL MAINTENANCE Adequate budgets to assure high level ma on site to deal with daily problems on a in the proposal. Possibly, the Town may the exterior upkeep of the project. TO of recreational facilities and amenities impacts on site. intenance must 24 hour basis requize escra servicing and is important: be'provided. People should be included q funds to guarantee continued functionin( Keel) the high c. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE RECREXTIOWAL AME -IT.TES A suggestion would be to relate amount of recreational facilities to number of units. In other wordsr you need x number of tennis courts per unit or x amount of swinning pool area per. unit. An additional re- quirement could be included similar to Sanibel 's where the development needs a certain number of square feet of recreational open space per unit. Our present regulation of the Recreational Amanities Foe goes a long way in addressing this concern, but we may have to study it to see if inteival projects require a higher degree of recreational services. & DESIGN AID CONSTRUCT FOR HIGH LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND H.1 0C ........ ... On Sanibel, they put the air 'conditioning units in. an easily accessible area of the parking area underneath the residences There are only 4 units in a building in many of the projects to minimize the noise and disturhince leveis of your neighbors. These types of considerations should be addrcssed in an application for time sharing. PROVISION OF TRANSPO r._T_ION IF REQUIRED, TO ZND FROM LIFTS A shuttle bus system. operating at a high service level should be provided so that it is convenient for the owners and so as not to adversely impact our bus system. Time Share Study -- 10 FINAL N0'J'L This report, I k)elieve, represents an up --to-the - minute status of interval ownership. The only reliable study is a two volume study being conducted by Richard t. Ragatz Associates, . Inc. They are consul- tants in vacation housing and recreational properties. Their client is thc� 2-�mrr_J_can Land Ecvelopan.ent. Association. vol.uInU I is a s{lr -vey of -1.0,000 owncrs of intce ry -.l ownership pro- ')..83 C1]_• >..fexent dc- ivk'I- OPTneMn -fk i, and re'sPor- e.s 3 =U)'fl il.�_l_ [)J: l�c�.:i.._!.. �.`i p7.GS71_'C t' i .Et t _, reC c'1'l'�..s.� b^e]., {;oi�tt�� t:'_ti._ec' and includes an examinatic,n of tht:� �: r. .Lowing areas : co.a � tre3 experiences, i.c.�nc c s, demographic characteristics, time sharing characteristics, consullier satisfaction, future plans and use patterns. vollari1P TI, scheduled for publishing in late Novewbta., is A ca.;c st.uvd:.ies of i1.�1�e sha. -e projects in terms of a cost..- •l)( -:,n �fi.t analysis to the comRitiIrrity. 'J'hfr study looks at employment, public costs and revenues, and time sharing -versus whole: - -owned condos, motels and hotels. The locations of the developments being examined are: san Diego; Park City, Utah; Maui, Hawaii and sa.nibc Island. when. 1 .-- Zag'=.t:! �.�-t��.�.;.j znzT .11a"Libe..1 v:_f_iit:., he said he could pi:zl_l. out. the stat:i_s,tics :i n volume tor the �Zoc ] �7 ��.oua,taa.az ,ata.tc s {repr_esent. i_ng 1000- ; 500 respondents) and provide such information as: -what they spend on all vaca'`ion expenses, by season of year -flow ownership pattern varies from week to week. • -num)er of people owning weeks in the off-season - amount spent in restaurants volume I costs $180. 1 recommend we purchase it. If PEC and Couaj4.3_1 wish more specific information., we can obtain it from Ragatz, agency. volu -ale 'n should also be valuable, in regard to th,e. conmmunai.ty`s outlook on time sharing. Mr. Ragatz reinforced my concerns about: time- sharing, calling the three biggest problems= shoddy conversions, integra- tions and selling practices. He also felt that a quality project: was a benefit to the community and that the degree of sati_s'r=ac;tion of the coiisilmer t ,,7a.s "unbelievably high ". He wra.s t.c)t ;,A.ly impressed with the concept and had many positive feelings toward it i-f clone correctly. He is a part time urban planning professor at University of Oregon Graduate School. This report has been only a summary of my research, and conclusions. To go into further detail and to answer questions from staff, PEC and Council ulembe s, Larry Rider has suggested an hour long work session involving those parties. This would be a goad opportunity to attempt to answer some of the questions which arise after reading this report. C Time Share Study INTERVIEWS - SANIBEL ISLAND TIME SHARE RESEARCH • 1. Neil Bowen, City Attorney, city of Sanibel, Oct. 15, 1980 2. 'Bruce Rogers, Director of Planning City of Sanibel, Oct. 15, 1980 3. Yeith Trowbridge, President, Captran, Inc., Oct. 15, 1980 4. DavA Bragan, Assistant Dircctor of Interval Owner Sales and Marketing, Marlv2r properties-V.J.P. Kea! Estate, !no., Oct. Ax 1980 5. . Sandi Allen, Sales Manager, Intervul Realty, Inc. , a subsidiary of Captran, Inc., Oct. 16, 1.980 6. Robert Duane, Associate Planner, City of Sanibel, Oct. :t_7, 1980 7. Chuck Faber, Realtor Associate, V.1-P, Inc. at Plantation Beach Club, captiva Island, Oct. 17, 1980 8. Bob Gibson, owner, R D Liquor Store, Sanibel Tsland, Oct 17, 1980 9. Gwen Stephenson, reporter, island Reporter Newspaper, Sanibel island, October 20, 1980 10. Michael B. Perceri, President, Marquis Hotels and Resorts, Oct. 20,180 11. Richard L. Ragatz, President, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc., Consultants in Vacation Housing and Recreational properties, Oct_ 20, 1980 12. Marjorie M. Patten, former Assistant Manager, Sanibel Beach Club, October 16, 1980. � 0 k�• ,1..,0 MEMORANDUM TO Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Deletion of time share estate fractional fee and time share license units from the Conditional Use Section of the Public Accommodation Zone District At the request of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the staff published to amend the Conditional Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance to not permit time share estate, fractional fee and time share license units in the Public Accommodation Zone District. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 10, 1980 STUDY SESSION: 1 :30 p.m. 1. Discussion of activating a study area and amendment to the Vail Village and Vail. Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 2. Discussion of horizontal zoning for Vail Village.& Vail Lionshead REGULAR SESSION: 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 10- 27 -80. 2. Knox, density control variance Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge #1 3. Gart Garage front setback variance Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village 1st 4. Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit Printerty Building 5. Presentation by Fire Department • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 10, 1980 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 10/27/80. 2. Gart Garage Addition Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village 1st 3. Vail Guides Conditional Use Permit Printery Building 4. Presentation by Fire Department • Published in the Vail Trail, November 7, 1980. • • • is PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 1980 3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gaynor Miller Dick Ryan Ed Drager Peter Patten John Perkins Betsy Rosolack Jim Morgan COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT Ron Todd 1. Approval of minutes of meetin of 10 -27 -80 After discussion about John Perkins' vote on part VII Density Control, Gaynor moved for approval, seconded by John, and vote was 4 -0, unanimous for approval. 2. Knox density control variance, applicant asked to table till the meeting of November 24. John Perkins moved to table and Jim Morgan seconded. Vote was 4 -0, unanimous. 3. Gart Garage front setback variance, Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst Peter presented the memo and said that there still remains basically no hardship, and that there was not much change from the first memo sub- mitted for the October 13 meeting, recommending denial. Jerry Gart explained that there were only 2 units in the building, not 3, and that he was using it as a single family home. He added that there had been a garage, but that the driveway was too steep and the garage had been changed into the secondary unit. Mr. Gart described neighbors on either side of his house who were closer to the street than his requested garage would be. He felt that the garage would add to the appearance of the house while hiding the trash. Jim Morgan moved to approve the variance, and John Perkins seconded it. The vote was unanimous, 4 -0 in favor of approval. 4. Vail Guides Conditional Use Permit Review Applicant asked to table till the meeting of November 24. John moved to table, seconded by Gaynor. Vote was 4 -0, unanimous. Peter Patten thanked John Perkins for serving on the Commission and for being such-a big help on the DRB. John was moving to Eagle -Vail and it was his last meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 3:35. n LJ 9 PEC - 11 -24 -80 -- 2 3. _Deane Knox density control variance, Casolar II Resub Lot A- 7,_Lions ridge #1 The applicant asked to have this tabled again. Roger moved that this item be tabled at the request of the applicant, Dan Corcoran seconded it, and the vote was 5 -0, unanimous to table. 4. Request for Conditional Use permit to allow the construction of a proposed new library building on Lot 5, Block 1, a Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing (by the Ice Arena). Dick Ryan presented the memo, emphasizing the community room and the employee units. Scott Edwards wondered if there had been any imput from property owners to the east. Dan assured him that they were aware of the library plans. Roger wanted to make certain that the Town officially owned Tract D. Craig Snowden showed plot plans, elevations, floor plans and sections, and answered questions. Craig explained that parking would be in the lot next to the rink and in the West Lionshead Parking Structure. Craig estimated construction could begin next summer or fall, but that a public bond issue must first be passed. He also asked that he not be tied down to a definite square footage, that fluctuations in the working drawings could result in a 1 -2% change. Roger moved the commission grant the conditional use permit as presented in the staff memo with the provision of a 1 %--2% fluctuation, seconded by Scott Edwards, and the vote was unanimous, 5 -0, with Dan C. abstaining. 5. Request for an Amendment to the Zoning ordinance to remove time- share estate units, fractional fee units and time -share license units from the Conditional Uses section in the Accommodations Zone District. Dick Ryan presented the memo, and asked if there might be other criteria that should be considered. Peter felt that in interval ownerships, rental units were important, and that rental units were built in, because many people buy for investment purposes, and rent their unit out. Gerry White was in favor of the proposal, for he felt concern about the availability of units for the public on a nitely basis. Discussion centered on whther or not there would be a less personal service if time sharing were involved. The feeling about this seemed divided. Gerry pointed out that there were very few buildings in the PA Zone.. Duane asked if there should remain a renewal process. Roger moved to recommend to the Council that the staff and the Planning and Environmental. Commission do further study and come up with additional criteria for time sharing in the PA zone. There was no second. Dan moved to request an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as stated in the memo, seconded by Roger. Roger,, Gaynor, Gerry and Dan voted in favor, Duane and Scott voted against. The motion passed, 4 -2. Roger moved the meeting be adjourned, and Dan seconded it. Meeting was adjourned at 4:45. . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT:Study areas and amendments to the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. The Community Development Department has received a request to activate study area #5 of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and to amend area #13B on the Gore Creek Drive /Bridge Street plan of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Enclosed is a copy of the map and text for the specific areas on each plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission, along with the applicants' rep- resentatives and staff must now sit down and determine how the Town and applicants' objectives can or cannot be achieved by activating study area #5 in Vail Lionshead and #13B in Vail Village. The purpose of.the study session is to start the discussion and determine how future meetings can be productive to the applicants' representatives and the Commission. For the study area in Vail Lionshead, the Urban Design Plan text states, "Additional study areas to explore potential to: future upgrade second mall entry, expand and intensity Lions'Pride Court, and complete pedestrian connection to Gondola Plaza. Service /delivery functions essential to maintain, as well as private parking." The second area to consider is the alley between Plaza Building. Number 13D in the text is noted (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza." that is not in conformance with the Urban Design have to be amended to permit the new use. Detai. at this time. C� the Casino Building and as "Mid -block connection Proposed is a new structure Guide Plan and would Ls have not been received • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Review of Horizontal Zoning in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Town Council has asked the Planning and Environmental Commission to review permitted and conditional uses for Commercial Core I and II. What needs to be reviewed is if any changes are needed for permitted and conditional uses in the basement or garden levels., first floor or street level, second floor, and above second floor. Refer to the zoning ordinances for CCI and CCII. The purpose of this part of the study session is to determine how the Planning and Environmental Commission wants to approach this matter. U • Y Vail, Cc.lo �•l: �� ,. OCtnhBr" 70, 980 �:.� 5 t'...y,�: �.._i . yY .« 3034M3G i•..{ i ; Mr,. Dick Ryan Dcpr)rirrr(' r)1 of Con- irnuniiy Develoi m.ent P. 0. Box 100 Val 1, '81657 Dear Mr. Ryon: i i ' The purpose of this leiter is io inif-iate a joint study pro<yarrr >3eiv een ourselves and the To�Nn of Vail for Additional study area .5 of the Vail 1_ionshead U: ban i Design Guide Plan:. It is 'our intent to work wiill the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and staff to jointly. review this problem _area,, developa' program for impiovcnent, acid impltmesi+ adesign solu,fl i t #)cj# significantly `upgi"cici es the visual Ers1p 7ct and visitor use of flee area As we have discussed in meetings with yowl "self and Jeff Winston, we believe a that this should be a joins stud of the best uses of the property, both -fr6n ,-lie l Y owners viewpoint and the Town's, rather than the traditional method of owncr ipresen :anion and To'nvrr reaction, In line with the diagram, that was creuied on i July 17 in our office wiih you and Jeff, stie a €e submifiting some writtat� sfiudies for file area. These studies tie in with what is being proposed for the POA t i Enir }% Park far the east entry, and the north side of .Vail 21 VAte find that we agree with most objectives of the Urban Design Guide Plan with some exceptions to the parking criteria , We feel that as much traffic as possible sl)auld be diverted to the parking structure and. only controlled larking s..pots - should be provided from East L.ionshead Circle, This would help avoid congestion E and pe:destriar7/auto interference. i Yours iggesiion is that we proceed with a joint study session with the P.E.C. and our request is that you schedule this rneetinq} We look fo Aurd to working with file to•.vn,oz this most important project of the Vail f_ionshead Urban Design Guide Plart. _ r Sincerely, . Ken€'mil) S. \" /entworih &chilc'cjs',, AJ A. ` RUOFf /\Ycntwor1h KW /fd 1lrfliart ', itn)ff • I.<:i sill r2 j- , 11'.. [ r, •�?f €f7 ,IV Preliminary Studies by Ruoff/Wentworth Architects 10 - -1 -80 • Ti,e Vail Lionshood URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PUN Sub Area Concepts East Mall Entry "(-,--)Additional study area to explore potential to: further upgrade second, I ail entry, expand and intensify Hon's Pride Court, and ccx»pltto �:.destriarz conrc-dion io Gondola -Plaza, Service %delivery funr,i1017s essential to maintain, as well as private parking." A. To analyze existing conditions we will fake these items one at a time. 1'. 'further upgrade second mall entry" a. Over and above (pocket entry park) Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide flan. ,. b, Presently an eyesore. c, Intended as auto entrance shares use with pedestrians because of • easy access to Gondola Plaza, d, Close to caninercial areas but has no pedestrian activities. 7. ' "expand and inionsi y laon's Pride Court" a, Only have control over one side of this courtyard. b, Lion's Pride Court last stop on the trip to nowhere. 3, "canplete pedestrian connection to Gondola Plaza" a. See item � 1 ( above ) . b. No present reason for pedestrians except to get to soi-newhere else, 4. "Service delivery function essential to maintain as well as private nrlci r�� . a. Present delivery functio is create traffic problems and congestion. b, Delivery functions and pc7rking traffic cross flow and inferfe:re with pedcsfriar3s and cause. a bad experiarice. c„ Many delive.ry fdncti ons care io outside or the special siudy district I of 3 r B, Possible solutions to previously lisied problems and goals of Urban Design Guide Plan. 1. "further upgrade second mall entry" a. Seperaie cuto entrance and pedestrians. b, Develop or.ea west of propaseci "pocket park" to he rr ore tlu5n . a parking lot. c. Provide reason for people to use this entrance. 2. "expand and iniensi Lion's Pride Court" a. Don't know how it coin be expanded., b, Change cxiaosure of Ufthouse ( 1st Bank ) canmercial c. Adopt �17 Urban Design Guide Plan I jonsheod. 3. "Ccxnpete pen(strion connection to Gondola Plaza" a. See itern rr 1 � (above) . b, Upgrade stair" connections from pedestrian entry above. c. Single eni-rance into porkirng from the east towards the northern edge wiih pedestrian access near south edge. d. Bury parking down 1 level fro,-n existing grade. 4. Service /delivery function essential to maintain as well as private . �arkina." o, Delivery functions could be improved by providing central loading decks ❑nd delivery at propar levels with Out crossing pedestrian flow and parking in access drives, b parking essential tO rrlaintain but use of parking structure would be inc)re appropriate for others. I c. See seperaie parking study. P 2 of 3 • ConcIt,s €Otis: a, The present condition is not acceptable for oe'sillctic, pedesirion traffic, outamobile traffic, and ease of delivery and service reasons. 6, Surfoce E-x;rking is not the 1-)est use of t}-re area from on oesth( tip: view nor prol:)ably frorrr a practical' nt with the adjaceni P>Drking foci liiy cornpleiod. G, Underground pocking for Lifthouse Lodge and Vail 21 should be provided with access relocaied to northern portion of eas3 property Line for sci?arotion from pedestrian activity. d. A central loading dock should be proviaed (also underground) for service to adjacc, ni. shops vrith its service routes held within the under ground structure. e, A pedestrian area should be consiructedat the present g.rode level with reasons for pedestrians to be there ( ie, shops, restaurants, offices) pleasant landscape, ect, f . Entrance: to Lifthouse should be upgraded and mode more attror.. -rive: with an easier auto access for regiistrailon, ur loading luggage, etc, 3of3 .i . ' -� U � 1 i ' ,f . a•' . .._ >S tin .11 • -�' i r. � �- - -_. f� c♦ fie '. 5 1 jt AS" wool .-r- ova nn 01 A • 13 ! 0 j rye Yn TOY A 41 ju 4p ON �ZZ oil -4- 1W • • is MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: 11/5/80 RE: Request for a Front Setback Variance for Jerry Gart to construct an enclosed garage on Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This is a follow -up request from the PEC meeting of October 13,, 1980 when the request was to encroach 11' into the 20' front setback to construct a carport. The Planning and Environmental Commission first moved to approve the request if a garage was built instead of a carport. This motion failed by a 3 -3 vote with 1 abstention. The PEC then denied the carport request with a 4-2 vote. This request is to contruct the enclosed garage in the same location. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Code the Department of Community Development recommen_dsden_ia 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 October 13 meeting, the Staff has contacted the previous owner of the house, Roger Brown. As was suspected, Mr. Brown confirmed that there had been a garage in the house, and he had enclosed that garage to make it a rental unit, because the driveway steepness made the garage inaccessible in the winter. He also stated that he belived there are 3 dwelling units in the house (there are only 2 allowed). Upon site inspection, the driveway did not appear to be over a 6% grade. The degree- to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com- patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. We feel that no relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the regulations is warranted in that the garage was converted to living space previously, and that conversion precludes the granting of a subsequent variance to put in a new garage. �J • • Gart - 2 -- 11/5/80 The effect of the requested variance.onlight and air, distribution_ of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal would have no effect street because there is room for 4 This, number would not change with would, however, "hide" from view 2 upon number of cars parked on the cars in the driveway as it exists. the construction of a garage. it cars. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. None. 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: 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. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli- cable 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. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development feels that this request should be denied. The house had a garage; the previous owner chose to convert it to an apartment. To grant a variance for a garage now does not make sense. Also, an investigation as to the number of units in the building should be made. Zi SPORTS' ' 1 a SRI ES UMP, - . INS7E7'il7iONAL 14 5CIi00L ; e V11i-10LESRLL JOBBER & IMPORTLR � � '�� RETAIL �:. � � 'S SP()R7ENG GOADS October 20, 19 0 MAIN STORE "Sports Casite" 100D 8roadw" Y - Denv 8G1 0122203 303 - UPTOWN 303 16th Street Denver, CO 80202. 303- 534-9925 T.cMn of Vail nDe rel0F&1 Xlt -Run p ltdgC i gRORA Ifa Ave. 75 South FrOT C i Aurora, CO 84010 Vail r Colorado $117 303- 364 -3316 13 Ccnt�:lcmcal CINDERELLA CITY rC�1PSt COr aroxrt SCtbB % ctCld ciE SHOPPING CENTER Block �s �ictil �]1�.c3gC l.5tr letter. is in xec; t 12 The 111MM:nt 7:eac Shamrock Mall 7'11is .�.g80 . 701 W. Hampden construct 8 Cam+ QCtOiPS 9 r L �ir1d Et,9lewnod, CO 80110 to dated 1 D �5 error In judCg1i1F. Xlt. 303 — /G1 4880 rep1Y to yOLlr nlrandLlm S aCGS x]1 the are�I lack. of parking p Obviau ,ly your Ij randl`nn r that due tod-t =h de a a],,),t aut -iaatic . you the LAI;L-SIDE been led to be7 reLat :e to y HOPPENG CENTER e variance would � let me ' 266 Forest 1�ad CYlronol.ogicallY 5801 W.4ath Ave. Df �Tftat7On VTDS ]_ncorrect• Denver, CO 80212 my info. gC�t. 303 -433 -6442 C- 5LtrrOlJild]r1q rem rY objection � bad ago- `I.`he f it at obi ❑ C 60 nays ac3 we were inforrf>ed VILLA ITALIA Property t had Ito tlarage' ]clr �glth the SHOPPING CEId I FR purchased p farm. - ' I also 7200 W. Alameda Blvd- j.-O the property it�elf Vass rD. rty. Denver, CO 80226 . Steven Boyd. had been the Contractorj�47aof s p used to sending 303 934 GD24 I�r. V711CJ f�OTl2 the PRUSt rECE'Tlt 3 V co �rac or r s D� I'd that the house, ent to c T'Vloy a d about the q He a.Trform�ed W the L1 rFMAN H1=IGHTS }�l1 -(, ]_t DenvO i x spoke to j�r. . Y one up frcxT+ Laver . dur_ inch the winter. F, dr3..ve r that SHOPPING CL-NTEB r, to be 115 d 1JPnealll the � Wc3y 698 Peoria Sr. Wds W- O steep r durE directly OT13 -j Aurora, CO 80D11 ( 1 Vc.vaay Welter P� C85 "t_e r a.T1d th, tl1E 3D3- 364 4601 SEWeY �71�]C S slid ou dOV7r1 so it would bE �• P rt vh..�-1-Cki WOtJld it could not b. build a garage Or cart ade but Cover roblem was to reduce i:he qf` necessary PLAZA DE MONACO c;ojve the p cars. if nee -, SKOPPINGck:NTER tO 3 , and. allow l�c� not Only �C)ur to x� -1X 6460 E. Yaffe Ave.insulate the p` 1Y as from freezi -'c. Denver, Co 80222 the ai3.ve,r hq door and prEVe the Pis beneath 303-758 -24G' we cDUld � �I�l1SS1.o1Z O ❑ �h made apps Y for and �o a GART [1Ra5. SPORT COUNTRY S1 OIZE 1Y U G' 110W 839 S. Gollecle at c1 later C7c�t£' 1n7e COUlc1 enC].pSe it �c fact the v�rinter will be here '' D T �1DUld build t-11E- q q- 2 1ci a C�upart, t =eeJ iT) w3 dcned rt. cot CO 30521 �g Irk case ht. G1e 1_avi,: already 30.3-221-42 IS k t. Gt�lh ara e if it woulr�. help Y 303- 512- 09GGDenver r11�.1 q� q Ct t1C CDrs DLit O a anted �^lE stead of later. anal g , - car lane . tf a variance could qr the Lira ve f rclm nne to two cars Of f the street- 13 GART Br1aS. SPORT Cat, as. Inany as S l�C COUNTRY STOr1L uld then be able to g Ar,Pahoc V'ill;uie co 2a5D Ars,p:Shov sr. INDUSTV E3oukder,CO80302 j/� �} t �} FiV i PORTING O" 303 - 449-9022 -i1�� �f`1 V�Ry AWARD GART / �S. i t II3 I"* ��✓ ilk vl ,!} �� � =` 44a ; ".tck `ii I Tho ,SPOR'E'S CAS I l.E" . You vu �' INS • • 0 Town of Vaal October 20, 1980 Page 2 :En reading your �rn�or -jndum T note that a. hardship mast be dow)nstrated in order foe- you to grant this variance. Certainly in my opas-licrn this falls jaatYai.a� the cxi tc�ri.a as ovt]_aned ire. your menr]xand . I rni-ght add that the very first co rr�unicataon T had with any of our neighbors was a note on one of our construction employee trucks, signed by Barbara Parker, a neighbor aci.oss the street, asking us to please not park at jLhat particular location since they had five cars and recp.Ured every space. Add:i ti_onally, there presea-itly exists our trash area in front of the house. This area would be eliminated by being enclosed within the • gara.ge structure-. When'the trash area is full it becomes somewhat unsightly; the garage would certainly improve this sitivition.. T ��an not familiar with tt�e correct�roceclu�_e to acccattpli_ .�tx nay goal and am at this time asking yoU to help me as to the most rapid solution to my problem. I have fotuzd enough carpenters so the structure could be built within a week, once permission is granted, if there is any chance I can get this variance on a tijy��ly basis so we r€kay still build it before the cold weather sets in. Thank you for your consideration. JC:d 1.0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, December 8, 1980 1:00 p.m. Review of Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plans 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 24, 1980. 2. Knox density control variance, Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7 Lionsridge 1. 3. Preliminary review session on applications received for exterior alterations or modifications in Commercial Core I and II. In Commercial Core I: Pepi Sports addition, Gordon Pierce, Architect Sitzmark Lodge, Wheeler - Piper, Architect Red Lion Inn expansion, Ruoff - Wentworth, Architect The Lodge at Vail addition, Ruoff - Wentworth, Architect Alley Project on Bridge Street, John Perkins, Architect Casino Building addition, John Perkins, Architect In Commercial Core II: Lionshead Center Building Addition, Ron Todd, Architect Lionshead Center Building Addition, Ron Todd, Architect Lionshead Center Building Addition, Prentice Chan Ohlhausen, Architect Ul • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Monday, December 8, 1980 3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Scott Edwards Gaynor Miller Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Jim Morgan Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White called the meeting to order. STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT Bill Wilto 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 24, 1980. Dan Corcoran moved the minutes be approved, seconded by Roger. Vote was unanimous, 6 -0, Jim abstaining. 2. Knox den-sity control variance, Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge 1. The applicant asked to have this tabled for the third time. Dan moved that this item be tabled at the request of the applicant, Roger seconded, and the vote was in favor, 7 -0, unanimous. 3. Preliminary review session on a alterations or modifications in lications received for exterior ommercial Core I and II. The nine projects were reviewed with the applicants and comments were made of the staff. Problems and concerns were expressed both from the point of view of the Urban Design Guide Plan and from the zoning regulations. Each applicant was informed of these concerns. The meeting was adjourned at 5 :45.