Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1981 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - September
PEC INDEX JANUARY TO JUNE 1981 JANUARY 12., 1981 PEPI'S Preliminary Review CASOLAR II, RESUB LOT A,7, KNOX Density variance DESIGN REVIEW BOARD change from 5 to 7 members TIME SHARING remove from CCI and CGII PRINTERY BUILDING review of Vail Guides conditional use permit BIGHORN 3RD, BLOCK 3, LOT 3, Luke density control variance JANUARY 26,1981 WEST VAIL Study Session FEBRUARY 9, 1981 BIGHORN 3rd again BIGHORN 5th, Lots 5 and 6, BORGEN, relocate lot line SITZMARK elevator • RED LION 3 dwelling units & shops FEBRUARY 23, 1981 REQUEST FOR BARBER & BEAUTY SHOPS ON STREET LEVEL in CCI PEPI SPORTS expansion LOT 17, BIGHORN 4th, minor subdivision- Distelhorst PROPOSED CCIII ZONE DISTRICT PROPOSED WEST VAIL ZONING MARCH 2 , 1981 ZONING OF LOT 40, BUFFER CREEK SUB ZONING OF HIGHLAND MEADOWS March 9, 1981 LOT A -7, CASOLAR II, KNOX, GRFA variance ALLEY between CASINO BLDG and PLAZA LODGE CASINO exterior alteration 0 MARCH 23, 1981 PULIS RANCH setback variance CCI AND CCII, NEW CRITERIA RE PERSONAL SERVICE AND REPAIR SHOP on first floor • AMEND GRFA DEFINITION dealing with storage areas. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN APRIL 13, 1981 HIGHLAND MEADOWS, future SDD LOT 37, BLOCK 7 VAIL VILL 1st, setback variance LOT 8, BLOCK 2 VAIL VILL 6th, setback variances MINIATURE GOLF, Lionshead, request conditional use SPRADDLE CREEK RANCH, Conditional use permit APRIL 20, 1081 SDD 7, MARK, amend re: # of fireplaces, density control & removal of tennis courts MAY 11 , 1981 STUDY AREA #5, LIONSHEAD LOT 6, BLOCK 5, VAIL VILLAGE 1st, front setback variance . LOT 6, BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE 11th, amend flood plain INTERMOUNTAIN SWIM & TENNIS CLUB, 2 additional units and parking lot MAY 26, 1981 INTERMOUNTAIN SWIM AND TENNIS LOT 13, BLK 5, V VILLAGE 1st, setback variance SDD 11, HIGHLAND PARK GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE BEAUTY SHOP ALLEY BETWEEN CASINO BLDG AND PLAZA LODGE PRIMARY /SECONDARY 60/40, 15,000 square foot limitation, JUNE 8, 1981 LOTS A -1, A-- 2,LIONSRIDGE, variance to build on slope in excess of 40% and with ARCHITERRA a setback LOT 12, BLK A7, CASOLAR VAIL II, GRFA variance PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF CCI AND CCII UBRAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN PROJECTS Hill Bldg Lodge at Vail Casino Bldg Concert Hall Plaza Lionshead Gondola Gld Lionshead Study Area #5 s ' JUNE 22. 1981 LOT 12, A7, CASOLAR VAIL II, request to table • LOT 20, POTATO PATCH, COLLINS, appeal of administrative decision re color SUNDIAL PHASE II, setback variance LOT G -1 LIONSRIDGE #2, zone change • • w PEC INDEX JULY DECEMBER 1981 . JULY 13, 1981 SUNDIAL PHASE II, setback variance LOT 20 POTATO PATCH COLOR LOT 12, BLK A7, CASOLAR VAIL II request to table LOT G -1, LIONSRIDGE FILING #2, amend zoning ordinance LOTS A -1 and A -2, LIONSRIDGE #1, minor sub to vacate lot lines HIGHLAND MEADOWS Lots 26 -42 SDD 11, minor sub request, roads and lot lines LODGE AT VAIL, exterior alteration LIONSHEAD GOLDOLA BLDG, exterior alteration INTERMOUNTAIN SWIM AND TENNIS, variance to permit 2 additional units THE VALLEY, PHASE 6, revise site plan JULY 27, 1981 LOT G -1, LIONSRIDGE #2, amend zoning ordinance RIDGE AT VAIL, VALLEY PHASE 4, minor sub VAIL ASSOCIATES WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AT GORE CREEK AND RED SANDSTONE CREEK • CONCERT HALL PLAZA, exterior alteration AUGUST 31. 1981 IPANEMA, minor sub LOTS 4 and 5, BLOCK G, VAIL DAS SCHONE, #2, density variance LOT 5, BLOCK 6, INTERMOUNTAIN variance from covered parking CASINO BUILDING exterior alteration HILL BUILDING exterior alteration STUDY AREA #5, amendment to Urban Design Guide Plan SEPTEMBER 14, 1981 CASINO BUILDING, exterior alteration LOT 5, BLIK 1, INTERMOUNTAIN SUB LOT 1, RESUB OF LOT 14, BLK 4, BIGHORN 3rd, setback variances LOT 5, RESUB OF LOT 14, BLK 4, BIGHORN 3rd, setback variance SEPTEMBER 28, 1981 49 SUNDIAL, PARSE I vacate lot line LOT'2 CLIFFSIDE SUB setback variances CASINO BLDG "' Can ~t KKAB SEPTEMBER, 28 ,icon °t PARKING AND PUD changes to zone districts REGISTRATION OF NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURES AMEND THE ZONING MAP RE TOWN OWNED PROPERTIES LOT 14, BLK 4, BIGHORN 3rd OCTOBER 12, 1981 VAIL MTN SCHOOL lift restriction of student body LOT 12, VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2, setback variances VAIL VILLAGE INN real estate office permit LOT 6, BLOCK 2, POTATO PATCH employee unit CASINO BUILDING deck area OCTOBER 26,_ 1981 LOT 12, VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2 setback variances VAIL VILLAGE INN real estate office permit LOTS 2 and 3, CLIFFSIDE minor sub AMEND ZONING MAP re Town owned land LIONSHEAD TRANSPORTATION CENTER retail space VIEW CORRIDORS FOR VAIL VILLAGE review NOVEMBER 9, 1981 LOTS 2 and 3, CLIFFSIDE minor sub LOT 3, BLK 1, VAIL DAS SCHONE #3 PULIS RANCH, setback variances ARCADE amendment to zone NOVEMBER 23, 1981 LOT 12, BIGHORN 4th setback variance LOT 16, BLK A, VAIL DAS SCHONE #1, variances LIONSQUARE LODGE request for a radio equipment sales and service DECEMBER 9, 1981 RED LION study session revisions ARTERIAL BUSINESS review LOTS 10, 11, 12, BLK 1, POTATO PATCH LOTS 1 thru 5, CLIFFSIDE rezone request . CCI EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR Gallery, Slifer, Lodge and Red Lion deck review PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 0 Monday, January 12, 1984 1.00 p.m. Study Session 1. Fire Department Presentation 2. Administrative Appeal 3. Continued Preliminary review of Pepi's Sports exterior modification for Commercial Core I. 3:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes of December 8, 1980 meeting. 2. Knox density control variance, CasolarII, Resub Lot A -7 Lionsridge 1. 3. Changing Design Review Board membership from 5 to 7 members. 4. Removal of time sharing from Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. Published in the Vail Trail December 25, 1980 and January 2, 1981. :7 5. Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit (Printery Building). 5. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, Third Addition Published in the Vail Trail December 25, 1980 and January 2, 1981. :7 TOWN COUNCIL and -40 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WORK SESSION January 13, 1981 1200 p.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. (1) Discussion of Horizontal Zoning (2) Update on West Vail initial zoning (3) Zoning within the community (4) Water conservation 2:00 p.m. Joint review of projects in Vail Village that were classified by the Planning and Environmental Commission to be of significant impact or a plan amendment and require a 90 day study period. (1) Alley between Plaza Lodge and Casino Building -- plan amendment- the Urban Design Guide Plan #13B. "Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza" Concerns (a) what is the appropriate use of the alley? (b) Height of proposal in regard to the Design Considerations • (2) Office addition to Casino building - significant impact Concerns (a) Street enclosure Wall Street (b) Sun /Shade (c) Height of building based on criteria in the Design Consideration (3) Red Lion building expansion - significant impact The Urban Design Guide Plan #11, "Limited building expansion /improvements. Increase facade transparency on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line. Additional vertical expansion may be considered on south end of building to improve street enclosure proportions, but must respect designated Hill Street - Gore Range minor view corridors. Potential second level open balcony deck (sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost from ground floor terrace. Concerns (a) Modification to the minor view corridor. The view east from Hill Street to the Gore Range was classified as a minor view corridor when the Vaal Village Urban Design Guide Plan was approved. A minor view corridor can have some modification. • • Town Council and PEC Work Session - page 2 - 1/13/81 (b) The street enclosure aspect should be presented. (c) Discussion on how service and delivery would be handled for this site. (d) Review of height requirements in the Design Considerations to see how the proposal meets the criteria MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING January 12, 1981 3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gerry White Dick Ryan Scott Edwards Peter Patten Roger Tilkemeier Betsy Rosolack Gaynor Miller Dan Corcoran COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Duane Piper Jim Morgan Bill Wilto The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Gerry White. 1. Approval of minutes of December 8, 1980 meeting_ Dan moved to approve, seconded by Roger, vote was unanimous. 2. Knox density control variance, Casolar 11, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge. Peter Patten explained that this was first brought to a PEC meeting in October, 1980. The events were complicated, and there was a basic disagrement in the sequence of events between the Town of Vail staff and Mr. Knox. He explained that Jim Rubin had written a memo which Peter read: "he (knox) clearly understood the 1400 sq ft per unit and the need for the slope analysis. He knew that it was up to him to allocate the square footage for Casolar II. He was never told that he could tranfer extrasquare footage from Casolar 1." Peter explained a letter from Diana Toughill dated January 8, 1981 distributed just before the meeting. Diana: As I see it, part of the disagrement is whether the Town had the responsibility to enforce the covenants or whatever, pertaining to the GRFA. As I remember the whole. thing as it went thru the original approval, is that the Town in fact required that certain things be put in the covenants, and in sales contracts and a number of other things, so that the Town could in fact enforce the GRFA so we wouldn't end up with problems later. Gerry: What you are referring to are the restrictions in terms of total size. Diana: No, the maximum GRFA per unit. I looked back at some of the files, and I think if you look at that, you'll find my original notes on the covenants, making certain require- ments in terms of changes in the covenants so that there.was a maximum GRFA per unit stated in the covenants. Dan: As you recall, then, there was a maximum, and even though the Town reviewed every building that comes through, even if any one or two or three of those buildings were over, and were approved as being over, they weren't being approved as individual, they were still working against the grand total? Diana: The way I remember it, it was on a per unit thing because it was divided into lots or parcels and that the maximum GRFA applied by unit, to each unit, and that there was a unit max rather than a total max. Dan; So if the Town approved 200 extra feet on parcel 12, or whatever, the numbers are, that didn't then automatically come off of the last parcel to be developed? If each one was individually reviewed and if approved, that was not going to affect the last unit getting built? Diana: That's the way I remember it. PEC - 2 - 1/12/81 Larry Eskwith: I just want to point out some legal problems that seem -to be presented here. I'm a little confused as to the facts, and.I think a lot of people are confused. I'm not sure exactly what did go on at the initial and subsequent conferences between the . staff and the applicant, I don't know, but I think there's a question in regard to the covenants - -a legal question. Because we may have been engaged in some of the discussion suggesting certain requirements to the applicant, are we in a position where we have to enforce those covenants whenever anyone comes to the PEC or Town, and in fact, do we have. a legal right to enforce those covenants? If we went to court and said, "We're going to sue on the covenants ", the court would say, "Well, too bad, you can't sue on the covenants, you're not a signatory to the covenants." Legally, we can't because we were not a party to the covenants, Dan: When, on the square foot question, those individual little parcels were on an-approved plan, and they are subdivided pieces of land, even though they wouldn't meet minimum lot sizes for the Town for a duplex. So my question still is, I guess, were there so many square feet approved per parcel, or were there so many square feet for the entire thing? This is an odd subdivision, It's the only one we have. Those lot sizes aren't even legal size in a duplex zone. If we had standard sized lots, it would be very easy to look at every single one and say, "O.K., you've got 15,000 sq..ft and that's it." Larry: The problem is, I don't know what we have here exactly. I don't know exactly what sort of situation we're in. It seems to be a zone that is imposed on an existing zone informally thru legislative action. Peter: In Jim Rubin's memo of 10/23/80, it states "The staff beieves that they have been up front in this whole sequence of events -even if the 1400 square feet per unit (pre slope analysis number) is used,.this would only permit the remaining nit to be 1234 square feet. We believe, tho, that the applicant was totally aware that the final number could not be determined until after the slope analysis had been completed." and #4 of this memo states: "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 lI were never approved by the Town." No. 5 states: "The applicant was fully aware that the slope analysis had to be completed. The staff was never asked to figure the square footage. It was finally done as a courtesy to Mr. Knox." r1 PEG - 3 - 1 -12 -81 Knox: Who does make the final decision on GRFA.!,i,f you deduct the GRFA from the final 10t;-in this unusual project? The town allows over 1690 in one case per unit times two, that's 3380, The Town allowed 352 sq ft over the maximum allowed in Phase • I, not Phase II, on a Phase II lot. They deducted it from the last lot which is lot 12, and so the guy who owns the lot, whom I'm basically here to protect his interests is stuck with a lesser amount of property, under the .minimum as stated in the declaration, so he is stuck with a goat pasture. Gerry: You made a statement a minute ago about the 40 % slope analysis not coming until late. What were you referring to there, because your engineer didn't get it in until late? Knox: First of all, we got into the 40% slope just at the time that your ordinance on 40% slope came, just as I was requesting the second phase, Then Mr. Rubin, so we could get this through, on the second phase, estimated the 40% slope on the properties as he saw it on the Town's aerial.photographs. He estimated and deducted which brought us down to 1400 sq ft GRFA per unit, and then subject to, he told me I would have to get engineering, and the same day I called Jeff Spinel, and I even paid him in advance. Mr. Rubin informed me during this period that we waited, that he also called Jeff Spinel. The 1400 was after an estimated deduction of j 40% slope. Then it came out that there was more 40% slope than Mr. Rubin had estimated in his first round. We had received approval on the project subject to, but it was already taken out and estimated down to 1400 sq ft. I think what your looking at right now, is a reevaluation which came after our November meeting of the GRFA determination, Some things came up which I was unaware of and playing around with figures so long and came up with this, and I'm basically reevaluating the GRFA from what I consider was the correct one. There were some errors in the original. I have a maximum of 1690 per sq ft in PHase II in the Declaration which carries through the supplement on the Phase II. It's 1200 minimum to 1690. And if you . read the evaluation of the GRFA determiniation, I think some of the questions in here are answered, It shows the down zoning to a certain extent. So what I'm requesting is not the 1690, I'm requesting 1372 on that last lot, which I already have some of that GRFA allotted, It's been reduced down by other structures taking away from the gross GRFA allowed me, and there's no protection for that last lot 12, and so it has been reduced considerably. Jim Morgan: Well what happened when this letter of June 2, 1980 went out when Jim Rubin was informing you that there were 6 units left and that now your square footage was dropped to 1220 per unit? You must have realized that obviously your square footage was on a gross unit basis, At least the Town at this point was working on that basis and they were just deducting units by what was being used per unit. And yet, since that time, 4 more units have been built out, to bring this thing down to 968 per duplex, I don't understand why, way back to this stage, prior to construction, 2 of those duplexes were .. Knox: But in the meantime, between that time, a project was approved for 1690. Morgan: Right. What I'm saying I guess is that it seems like this letter would have made it clear to you - -it seems clear to me - -that he's saying that you have used this much, you've got this much left, so you now have 6 units that are smaller than you originally had. So they are 1220's. And yet, since then, I guess two more units have eaten up a whole bunch more of that, and you're down to whore you don't have any. It just seems that it should have been clear at that point that the Town was going on gross area that was left and dividing it up, and as it got used up, the amount • per unit was just dropping, as everyone kept taking the 16.90 that were in your covenants or something. It seems that all the way back in June of last year that they were just dividing allowable footage up by what was left and by how many units were left. ,i PEC - 4 - 1-12 -81 Some of these figures are over the GRFA even .allowed by the Architectural Control committee of Casolar. Two units are over the 1690 allowed on Phase I. Jim: You're saying what was set up in your covenants. Roger: It seems to me that from this conversation, Jim you referred to Zou, which apparently meant Deane, but I think Deane had sold those lots with covenants on the lots that were worked out with the Town of Vail. We had those covenants, theoretically' we can't enforce covenants, but nonetheless, that was from a practical standpoint, when the person who bought the lot from Deane came in, with an 1800 sq ft house, or a 1600 sq ft house, it would seem to me that under this special set of circumstances, that we, -the Town, then should have said, "Hey, you can't do that." if we were going to, in the final analysis, tell the last owner of the lot that he could only build 900 sq ft because these other guys came in. Take, for instance, what if Deane wasn't here. He sold the property, and he resigned. So you have a very very uncom- fortable., and I think unfair situation where the first builder can come in and build and progressively prevent the last owner from building a reasonably sized place. Jim: But I think the thing could have been caught way back. Roger: But why didn't we refuse the building permit? Larry: I'm not sure what power you had to do that, Roger. Peter: I think some of the stuff is beginning to be. a little more clear to me. First of all, the Town had, I think the Town had a certain obligation to not go above that 1690 in approving that, because we were working very closely with the Casolar home owners' board. I think that it is very clear in Jim Rubin's documentation that the Town was never going by any kind of a hard line per unit, and-we never do, except on . a single family or duplex lot. We were never going by a 1400 sq ft. This was a strictly estimate that both Deane and Jim understood that it was an estimate. We were not held to 1400. 1690 is what we've always worked with. Jim has said in his memo previously that the Carling duplex was recalculated to be 1690 and even if it was 300 ft over, we have given him that consideration. Another point is that Mr. Knox was at the meeting when the Carling duplex was approved was approved, and he has also approved two duplexes since this application of 3380 sq ft. So the 1690 was actually never violated. Those are the only things I think that the Town, even though we aren't legally tied to it, we have upheld that end of it. Knox: We have 2400 sq ft we call envelopes. This is what the Town requested we Put things in. No owner can build beyond those 2400 sq ft. The Town enforces that. If they want to cantilever a deck, etc, they must make a special submission. I was brought in on that meeting with Carling knowing.that he asked for 1690. And also, assuming that I was going to get my relief GRFA from Phase 1, which I still have about 3500 sq ft under. That was my error. I did not have good council on that.Basically on Carlings, I saw his original plans that were a mirror image of his first project on Phase I. This was for Phase II. Except for cosmetics, they were supposed to be the same. He went over 352 sq ft which is not on that tape. It was not even brought out until way afterward, until I had gotten the letter of June 2, 1980 that he was over on his GRFA. It took me four months discussing with Jim Rubin who would not release that extra square footage, would not come off of it. Would not even analyse it. The Owner of lots 12, 13, & 15, Mr. McDonald,.has threatened suit unless he gets his 1690. I was not on the board, since the determination of this. He called me because of a member dropping out of the board of Casoslar. He asked me if I would approve his plans so that he could get his foundations in this fall. I never signed it, I gave verbal permission, I still haven't seen it, didn't want a law suit. Who is responsible for the GRFA? e PEC - 5 - 1/12/81 Jim: Unfortunately, being the first and only to come through and be designed in this fashion, it probably should have been not only envelope, it should have been footage per envelope, instead of the range situation, because somebody should have sat down, and figured out, that if you just kept going 1690, you were going to go way over. . Knox: No, I wasn't, not as long as I had Phase I. And I went thru a number of changes in this town of personnel, various planning commissions, etc, so I didn't cover my base, and I realize that, but down at the end of the line, I believe that lot 12 should be protected, and I'm not asking for 1690 on both sides. I cut the triplex down, by the way, those people don't have 1690. I got them down to 1300+ and the Town approved that and then this letter for 1220 came in. I would like to have this studied by the Town and see if I'm accurate on the determination. of.GRFA. I've got it down to 1372, not 1690, Dan: This is the footprint concept is unique, but is it still has always remained Residential Cluster, and under that zone, the Town never administrates any further than the total square footage on a density project, I don't believe. And even with the footprint concept, you do have a condominium association of sorts here. I wonder if my previous question, we shouldn't have just working against the total as far as the Town goes, because it is Residential Cluster there are always going to be town houses or condominiums, however they handle it, and the Town doesn't stick in on, say, Timber Falls, it gets down to how many buildings are left. It is still Residential Cluster, so doesn't that mean that the Town only administers the total square footage? Peter: That's correct. Roger: Can we legally allow him 1372 square feet under the zoning regulations? Larry E. Well, he's asking for a variance. You can allow a variance as long as it . doesn't relate to use. He's not asking to change the statute. Gerry: He's not asking for a change in unit count. Peter: The bottom line is that there is 932 sq ft available, and Deane is asking for additional 1800 sq ft. Gerry: It would seem as if the Town's relationship is solely with the developer That the individuals who come into this project as home builders are working with the developer, who is working with the Town. They are not working directly with the Town. There fore,, it is the developer's responsibility to know the total square footage allowed, and when someone exceeds that, he deducts it from his total. Knox: The owner works with the association, I've deeded the common element of the project to the association, Gerry: What I'm saying is that the square footage-as approved was approved with you as the applicant and it was a total figure, from.which. every project that was built was deducted, and all that is left now is 932 square feet to be developed without a variance. i Knox: It still, states in your approval of August 22, 1978, Ron Todd made the motion to approve Casolar II request to resubdivision of lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge #1 as it in accordance with the cluster housing concept, and has been recommended by approval by the Dept of Community Development. Their proposal is for 2200 sq ft • duplex lots., and one 3200 triplex lot. The units will be 1400 sq ft GRFA and the density meets the zoning ordinance requirements as stated by Jim Rubin. The covenants have architectural control. Jim: Which was you. Aren't you the one reviewing all these as they came through? PEC - 6 - 1 -12 -81 Knox: Well, yes, but naturally I resigned as soon as.I deeded over the last one a year ago, September 1979 . Jim: So basically, the board of directors of the condominium association reviewed themselves on how much they gave themselves. Knox: That's true. Here on the working papers they proposed 3510, and actually went up to much more than that, and was already deducted 352 over. Mr. Rubin said to settle this with Mr. McDonald, and he said (I think I'm correct) that he would overlook the 40% slope., and give us that additional square footage if we could work out something where Mr. McDonald would be happy with less than 1690 sq ft. which he wasn't at the time. Roger: Diana, refresh my memory, when you were involved in this, discussing it with Deane, did you anticipate that the Town would exercise some control over those square footages? Diane: Yes, in fact I requested that they put a map of the GRFA into the covenants, it was not in the covenants at first. Roger: Mr. Chairman, I think we could discuss this and discuss it forever, and I would like to make a motion approving a maximum GRFA of 1370 per side, and I make the motion in favor of the variance because this was a unique subdivision, and one that was worked on a great deal, and the apparent interpretations of those who were involved in it at the time did anticipate that the Town would be involved in the policing of the square footage, and that I think it's an undue hardship on the last owner to be left with a lot that he purchased under that subdivision for a duplex lot to have 900 sq feet. I think this is a unique situation, it isn't one that would set a precedent for other developments because it was an experiment, if you will, in that kind of development at that time. Jim: Larry, would this be setting a precedence? Larry E.: I don't think any variance is a precedence, you look at each individual instance as an individual situation and you weigh the facts and standards that are set forth in the ordinance, and judge whether in fact each situation and its facts meets those standards. The key standard is is it a hardship? One of the key principals of variance laws is that a hardship can not be self inflicted. So I guess the determination is is it a real hardship, was it self inflicted, and are you granting a special privilege? Dan: Another item on our agenda requires another GRFA variance in Casolar Vail II, so has that number has been considered? Scott: I second the motion. In my mind, I've got it boiled down to what Larry just said, There is no doubt in my mind that there is a guy that has a hardship here and he is going to sue the fire out of somebody. Was it self inflicted? The only thing I have in my packet says that Deane Knox applied for 2400 sq ft lots and 3200 sq ft triplex lots and Ron Todd made the motion that the request be granted and it was granted unanimously., so the only I see here is that we approved some lots with a definite square footage per lot. Sct: But at the public hearing about it, Jim Rubin said that you've got x no. of square feet, go have fun with it. The Planning Commission gave him 2400 sq ft on those duplex lots. That's the size of the envelope that he's granting. Then was he told, "you have x no. of sq ft, see you later "? or was he ever given any indication that there was a limit to the no. of sq ft for each envelope? Dick: I think the limit was based on getting that survey i�h kh showed how much per- centage of the lot was over 40 %. PEC - 7 - 1 -12 -81 Peter: I think it's pretty clear from both of Jim's memos, he strongly states that the 1400 sq ft per unit was indeed an estimate, that Deane understood this, and he understood the need for the slope analysis to complete. The minutes of the Planning Commission may be somewhat confusing in that they are basically minutes, and that it might have been a presentation saying that this is about.what we have in mind, and it comes to about 1400 sq ft per unit giving the Planning Commission a general feeling for what is going to built, rather than approving that number per unit at that point in time. I think it is totally, clear, and if you read #3 again, it says 1400 sq ft was always considered an estimate with the 40% slope study needed to be completed before the actual sq footage could be determined. We have never, in the past, worked off of a per unit square footage. RC zoning, you have a gross square footage, if you have 5 units and want to put all that into one unit, that's your square footage. As far as I know that is the way we've always worked, and that.is the way Jim related it to me when I asked about the first duplex that came before me to do the zone check. Scott: Generally, you have a developer coming to you, he.owns the land, he takes out the permits. But in this case, weren't these individual people coming to you? Roger: We set it up so that he could sell the lots to individuals and they could do the building, and I think maybe this was an area where we were lax in working out the deal. Jim: There was a zoning change, though, the footage hasn't changed, that is the biggest problem. No one was catching it. Roger: Then I guess then, our responsibility wasn't only to write Deane Knox, it was to notify the individual owners and the association that was .formed. I think that we have a very unusual circumstance in this particular instance because of the way that it was structured. Gerry: I do too, and rather than let this drag on, we are going to have to vote. I think that everything that we do with regard to this kind of development is prece- dent setting. It is very important to acknowledge that as -we go ahead, and I feel very strongly that it is the developer's responsibility to notify and to work with the buyers. Dick: I have a question. The Planning Commission motion is that a variance of 2744 sq ft? Roger: No, total 1372. Peter: It would be a GRFA variance of 1812 sq ft, which is (1372 x 2)- 932. Vote to grant the request for the variance: Roger and Scott in favor, Dan abstained, and the other 4 against. Motion denied. Gerry reminded Knox that he had the right to appeal to the Council within 10 days. 3, .Changing Design Review Board membership from 5 to 7 members. Peter had written a memo explaining the need and reasons. Dan Moved, Gaynor seconded to recommend the change in size to the Town Council. Vote was unanimous 4. Removal of time sharing from Commercial Core I and Commercial "Care II. Dick Ryan explained the meo, adding that in Lionshead, Vail Glo was the only lodge in CCII (and added, also the Enzian). >_ I PEC - 8 -1712-81 Minutes Roger moved, and Jim seconded to recommend the removal of time sharing from Commercial Core I and II. Dick stated that at present only the HDMF and CCI and CCII zones could have time sharing at present, and Gaynor added that also 100% of the owners have to approve to change .to time sharing. Gerry reminded the Council that much time sharing would change the character of accommodations in Vail. Bill Wilto stated that the Council's concern was that public accommodations would be reduced. The vote was 6 -1 in favor of removal. Duane Piper voted against removal. 5. Review of Vail Guides conditional _ use permit (printery, Building). Bill Pierce and Jim ilea stated that they had worked out an agreement and that Vail Guides had 4 parking spaces to be used during Vail Guides business hours - -3 on the west and one on the North. Dan asked that the Rocky Mountain Airlines bus be instructed to pull farther away from the intersection so as not to obstruct visibility to the West. 6. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Sub, Third Addition Peter Patten presented the memo, explaining that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are RC zoned, and Lot 4 LDMf. All of these have 40% slope. He referred to the memo, reiterating that much study had been done and much deliberation went into the hazard ordinance (see memo). Vail has received much praise from the Colorado Geological Survey concerning this or- dinance which was well researched. The second point is the concern with downzoning. Luke purchased his property in 1966 when it was in the County, and then he could have 28 units on lots 2 & 3. Now it is zoned for a total of 6 units on lots 2 & 3. This is the .issue: progressive ordinance is inevitable. Peter asked for denial. Bill Luke spoke about the site plan that was approved in 1973 by the County for 12 units for lot 3, and added that the soil report for 1973 was "clean ". He explained that the Town of Vail did road improvement which resulted in huge boulders being placed on his property, Now with Town zoning, 5 units could be built on lot 2, and one on lot.3. The commission members discussed changing the zoning, and asked Peter more questions about the hazard zoning. Mr. Luke reiterated that the boulders had changed the grade. He asked to have the request tabled until he could bring in the survey made before the road work, and one made after. Roger moved that favor of tabling, 7. Landmarc setb this item be tabled, seconded by unanimous vote, 7 -0. ack variance. Lot 7. Block 1, Gore Creek Park. . Vote was in Peter Patten presented the memo, described the background, recommended approval. Rick Baldec of Mountain High Enterprises explained that the gas lane had been located, but the size had not been known. Peter said the gas company would really like to see 10' distance from the house. He went on to repeat that the alternatives are worse. They are: move the gas line redesign the house Rick mentioned that the gas company wanted someone from their office on the site at all times when work is underway. He explained that the gas line is not in the center of the right of way. The deck would be in the flood plain if the house was moved, but that was all. • Dan Corcoran moved that the setback variance be granted, seconded by Roger.Tilkemeier. and the vote was for, 7 -0. Gaynor moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Dan. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. F January 8, 1981 TO: TOWN OF VA1L PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COPMISSION FROM: DIANA TOUGIIILL RE: CASOLAR SUBDIVISION Since there has been so much confusion about the GRFA and intent for the Casolar subdivision, Jim Rubin and Peter Patton requested that I attempt to remember some of the background information and discussions. Deane Knox, the developer, approached the Town with a totally new concept (also the first project proposed under the new RC zoning). The intent was to develop a residential subdivision that worked better than might be allowed under the conventional zoning. Because the plan was a better one than what might have resulted under the standard RC zoning, I tried to work with the developer to make the plan feasible. As I recall, I reviewed not only the subdivision plat and proposed plans, but also the proposed declarations and covenants and the sales contract. To make sure the Tourn was protected against illegal resubdivision and exces- sive GRFA, I required several changes in the documents, including a statement about the maximum allowable GRFA per unit. The reason I remember this so vividly is that Stu Brown and I had some violent arguments about the wording and the bank's attorney didn't like the restrictive language either. (I think my marked -up copies of the originally proposed documents are in the file). In order to allow the requested GRFA, all property lines were to be vacated. This was requested so that additional units could not be added on the adjacent LDAW lot at a later date and so that all three lots were developed cohesively. The LDMF zoning allowed greater density than what was proposed under the envelope, cluster concept. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, January 12, 198f 1:00 o.m. STUDY SESSION 1. Fire Department Presentation 2. Administrative Appeal 3. Continued Preliminary review of Pepi's Sports exterior modification for Commercial Core 1. 3:00 2.m. 1. Approval of minutes of December 8, 1980 meeting. 2. Knox density dontrol variance, Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge 3. Changing Design Review Board membership from 5 to 7 members. 4. Removal of time sharing from Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. S. Review of Vail Guides conditonal use permit (Printery Building). • 6. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition 7. Landmarc setback variance, Lot 7, Block 1, Gore Creek Park. • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 1980 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 EDITION; SETTING FORTH STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF ROOFS IN THE TOWN OF VAIN; PROVIDING THAT SAID CODE AND AMENDMENTS-BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND DESIGNATING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE FOREGOING WHEREAS, the Charter of the Town of Vail and the Statutes of the State of Colorado provide that standard codes may be adopted with amendments; WHEREAS., the Town of Vail has adopted the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code with amendments; WHEREAS, the Vail Fire Protection District has conducted an inten -. 'sive investigation as to the potential of a conflagration in the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, the results of the conflagration study have been published and show that combustible roof construction would be susceptible to and contrib- ute to a conflagration; WHEREAS, most of the roof construction in the Town of Vail and the surrounding area is of combustible construction; WHEREAS, other factors contributing to a conflagration have been shown to be narrow streets and consistent winds, which are common to the Vail area, and to which no possible solution exist; WHEREAS, the insurance rates are established according to the grading schedule as determined by the Insurance Services Office; WHEREAS, the Insurance Services Office has determined that combustible roof construction, narrow streets, and consistant winds affect higher insurance rates and has endorsed the adoption of and enforcement of this ordinance; WHEREAS, the economics of roof construction and maintainence thereof are favorable to the taxpayer by passage and enforcement of this ordinance; WHEREAS, the United States Forest Service has measured the wind direction and velocity, the fuel moisture, the relative humidity, the climate factors and the fire danger for the Holy Cross District -and determined that the adjacent for PAGE 2 ORD. NO. • WHEREAS, due to the difficulty in fighting and containing the spread of roof fires; WHEREAS, certain types of combustible roof construction has been banned in other cities and states due to the proven hazards of combustible roof construction; WHEREAS, these factors and others, when taken,as a whole, pose a very real threat td the safety of persons and property in the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail is of the opinion that the public health, safety and welfare would be better served by the adoption of this ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY -THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL. THAT: 'Section 1. The following amendments are made to the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the Town of Vail: A. Section 1704 shall be changed to read; Roofs Sec.1704. Roof assemblies for all buildings and structures shall conform to Tables 17 B, 17 C, and 17 D. Chapter 34. Chapter 36. Skylights shall be constructed as required in Penthouses shall be constructed as required in For,the use of plastics in roofs, see Chapter 52. For Attics: Access and Area, see Section 3205. For Roof Drainage, see Section-3207. B. Section 1717 (b) 4. shall be amended to read; Foam plastics may be used as a roof covering if the foam plastic is part of a Class A, B or C roofing assembly when installed in accordance with PAGE 3 TABLE 17 B ROOF ASSEMBLY REQUIRED ACCORDING TO ZONE ZONE Single Family Residental Two Family Residental Two Family Primary /Secondary Residental Cluster Low Density Multi - Family Medium Density Multi - Family High Density Multi - Family Public Accomadation Public Usage Commercial. Core 1', Commercial Core 2 Commercial Service Center Agriculture Heavy Service Gt eenbel t Parking Special District ORD.NO. CLASS ROOF ASSEMBLY REQUIRED C C A' A A A A A A A- A A C C i* Structuresin Special Districts shall be rated according to the zone most like that which resembles the usage of the structure. TABLE 17 C ROOF ASSEMBLY REQUIRED ACCORDING TO USAGE USAGE CLASS ROOF ASSEMBLY REQUIRED A Occupancies A B Occupancies. A E Occupancies A H Occupancies A I Occupancies A M Occupancies C R - 1 Occupancies A R - 3 Occupancies C TABLE 17 D ROOF ASSEMBLIES REQUIRED ACCORDING TO TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CLASS ROOF ASSEMBLY REQUIRED I F.R. A II F.R. A II 1 HOUR A II N A 111 1 HOUR A III N A IV H.T. C V 1 HOUR C • PAGE 4 ORD.NO. D: Section 3202(b) shall be amended to read; Quality of Materials. The quality and design of roofing materials shall conform to the applicable standards listed in Chapter 60, allowing for new methods of construction, new designs and new mat- erials which have been tested and approved by a recognized authority. The Building Official, may at his discretion, require proof of such test and results. E. Section 32.03.(b) shall be amended to include; _ s Class A Roof coverings are effective against severe fire exposures. Under such exposures, roof cover- sings of this class are not readily flammable, afford a fairly high degree of fire protection to the roof deck, do not slip from position and pose no flying brand hazard. Class A roof coverings and assemblies shall comply with_U.B.C. Standard. {32 -3.of the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code.Standards. CLASS B ROOF coverings are effective against moderate fire exposures. Under such exposures, roof coverings of this class are not readily flammable, afford a moderate degree of fire protection to the roof deck and pose no flying brand hazard. Class B roof coverings and assemblies shall be in compliance with U.B.C. Standard 32--7 of the 1979 edition of the U.B.C.Stds. CLASS C ROOF coverings are effective against light fire exposures. Under such exposures, roof coverings of this class afford a measurable degree of fire protection to the roof deck, are not readily flammable PAGE 5 ORD.NO. F. Section 3203.(d) 1. General..; shall be amended to read; Application of roof materials listed in-Table No.32- B-shall be in accordance with.the pro visions- thereof. All roof systems shall be either Class A, B, or C and shall be installed in accordance with Tables 17 B, 17 C, and 17 D. All roof systems shall be approved and listed by an approved agency and shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Where there is an apparent conflict in standards in this Chapter, the more strict standard sha -11 apply. G. Chapter 32 shall be amended to include; Section 3209. Re- Roofing. All reroofing shall comply with the standards of this Code. EXCEPTION: Repairs and maintainence done to a roof,totaling less than 1oq of the square footage, in one calander year, or less than 25q in a 3 year period may, at the discretion of the Building Official, be exempt from compling with requirements other than those in effect at the time of the original installation. Section 2. Three copies of the amendments proposed by this Ordinance shall be available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase a PAGE 6 � ORD.NO. be declared invalid. Section 4. There shall be a public hearing for the consideration of the. adoption of this ordinance on the day of 1980 at 7 :30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers, Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. The Town Clerk shall have notice of that public hearing published in the Vail Trail on two occasions, the first not less than(15) fifteen days prior to the public hearing and the second not less than (8) eight days prior to the public hearing. Section 5. The Town Council hereby.finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is neccessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1980, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the.Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the day of 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. ATTEST Town Clerk Mayor 0 6t , awtv 4207 East Columbine Drive No. 5 Vail, Colorado 81657 December 23, 1980 Mr. Gerry White Chairman of Planning and Environmental Commission Vail Municipal Building 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. White: As owner of Unit No. 103 in the Golden Peak House Building (Lodge Lobby), I am submitting this letter for your consideration in granting me the zoning permit for license needed to open my own Barber and Beauty Shop in the above mentioned space. Some time back I visited with zoning Administrator, Mr. Jim Ruben, and explained to him the remodeling I wished to do in this space for the purpose of opening up a Barber and Beauty Shop. This remodeling consisted of plumbing work necessary for my shop, close and move some of the small windows, and other carpenter work. Mr. Rubin was familiar with the space, which had been occupied by the business, "The Sugar Daddy." I asked him for advice concerning regulations, permits etc, and I assumed he would have given me all the information I needed to know for this type of change. He told me that I did not need a permit for changes such as this since they were being done inside the building, and that he could see nothing that would prevent my opening a shop. After my visit to Mr. Ruben's, I proceeded with the remodeling of my property. I am now cam-&tted to approximately $20,000 which includes the remodeling plus new furniture, light fixtures, and equipment. Feeling confident that because I had followed Mr. Rubin's instructions, I went to the Town Hall two weeks ago to obtain my town license for opening my shop and was totally shocked when I was told by Mr. Peter Patten, the new president of The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, that it was prohibitive for me to obtain my license due to technical reasoning that the shop would be street level. Along with the above informational material, I would like to cite the following facts that I believe constitute valid reasons for my being granted .J a. ak� Mr. Gerry White December 23, 1980 Page 2 a town license for opening my shop.: I. The ccmTercial space is approximately 24 feet away fran the street line,'inside the Golden Peak House Building (Lodge Lobby) and the space has its own separate entrance. II. Due to the fact that the space is round and consists of only 150 sp -tare feet, it is not suitable for most businesses categorized as street level. III. Conditional uses --- Factors applicable (see Page 350 of C nulercial Core l (CCI) District. My property complies with these restrictions. IV. Since the time this building was ccinpleted and occupancy was granted, there has been a beauty shop housed in it. The shop moved only 24 months age. (Lady Vail) V. There is a definite need for a facility such as my proposed one, since there is not one on the south side of Gore Creek. La Coiffure in the Sitzmark Lodge was street level. VI. The Golden Peak House Condominium Association has given their approval for such a shop. VII. The State Board of Cosmetology has granted me license for a shop. My family and I have lived in Vail for seven and one -half years, and this is a critical point for us. Much of our future depends upon your decision. I would deeply appreciate every consideration given me. Sincerely, Karl Hoeve7mann cc: Gaynor Miller Dan Corcoran Roger Tilkemeir Duane Piper Jim Morgan Scott Edwards V January 6, 1981 Mr. Gerry White Chairman of Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Gerry: I would like to respond to the December 23, 1980 letter from Karl Hoevelmann. My recollection of my visit with him is considerably different from what is stated in his letter. My recollection is that he asked me if he could put plumbing in the Sugar Daddy Boutique, but at no time mentioned that he intended to change its use into a barber and beauty shop. I even remember asking him what the plumbing was for, and remember his answer to be that he was planning on putting a sink in the boutique. This meeting did happen a while ago, and I don't completely.re- member the visit. This is, however, my best recollection of what Karl. and I discussed. &16 Sincerely, AMES A RUBIN Former Zoning Administrator JAR:bpr cc: Karl Hoevelmann • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: JIM RUBIN DATE: November 21, 1980 RE: GRFA Variance for Casolar II, Deane Knox 1. He clearly understood the 1,400 square feet per unit and the need for the slope analysis. 2. He knew that it was up to him to allocate the square footage for Casolar II. 3. He was never told that he could transfer extra square footage from Casolar I. S& MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 9, 1981 RE: Recommendation Regarding Changing Design Review Board from 5 to 7 Members The Design Review Board has always been compiled of 4 members from the community at large and 1 member from the Planning and Environmental Commission., for a total of 5 members. During a recent work session with Town Council,.disc.ussion was raised with regard to making the DRB a 7 person board for the following reasons. 1. To give newly annexed West Vail some solid representation by filling the addi- tional 2 slots with people who are familiar with the architectural styles and other site planning problems and opportunities in that area. 2. To decrease the chances for not acquiring a quorom at a meeting. Several times in recent years meetings have been cancelled due to lack of quorom because of members' busy schedules, vacations, illness, etc. It is felt that a quorom of 4 out of 7 will be easier to obtain than 3 out of 5. It is the Department of Community Development's recommendation that the Board be enlarged to a 7 member board. We feel that better decisions relating to West Vail will be made as a result of enlarging and that this is an excellent way, for West Vail representa- OL should generally be continued by filling at least 2 positions repeatedly with people knowledgeable about the West Vail area, .'7 r 040073111141001 AOL TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 8, 1981 RE: Request for variance to Section 18.14.090 Residential Cluster Density Control as it relates to 'Buildable Site Areal' defined in Section 18.04.045 by Wm. Luke for Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant seek relief from the slope regulations which eliminate area of slope over 40% when computing buildable area in the Residential Cluster Zone District. He explains that he has owned the property for 14 years and has been downzoned many times. With the current regulations, he is allowed one unit on the property. He wishes permission to construct three units. The following are the statistics relating to the subject property. Zone Distract = Residential Cluster Gross Lot Area = 31,511 square feet Area over 40% = 19,700 square feet Buildable Site Area = 11,811 square feet or .27 acres Units allowed = 1.62 or 1 (.27 x 6) GRFA allowed = 2,953 (11,811 x .25) 66 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS .Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the .Department of Community Develo ment recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The lot to the east is zoned Residential Cluster and is also owned by Luke and would be allowed S units. The next lot to the east is also RC, zoned for 4 units and is owned by another party. The adjacent lot to the west is zoned LDMF and would be allowed a triplex. All of the properties are currently vacant and have areas over 40% slope. Across Bighorn Road to the south are duplex lots, while 1 -70 abutts the lot to the north. It is unclear whether Mr. Luke desires to unify development on Lots 2 and 3. He has indicated his desire to sell lot 3, which would indicate plans not to develop the lots in conjuction with each other. In 1973, a plan was drawn up for both lots by Mr. Luke which included 28 units on the 2 lots (evidently meeting 1973 zoning regulations). The staff would prefer to see lots 3 and 2 and even lot I be developed as a unified, clustered project, as was intended for the RC Zone District. However, due to the exis- tence of the individual lots, it's the owners! preference as to the development of each lot. Vacation of the lot line between lots 2 and 3 would allow 6 units to be built on the 2 lots. In conclusion, the relationship to potential uses and structures is not clear at this point because of the lack of plans for the adjacent lots. The whole block where the lot is located is zoned for RC or above density. Luke, Lot 3, Blk 3 Bighorn 3 - page 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 _ ltreatment among 5ite5 �in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without � gram of s ecial rivilege_ w • This is the crux of the issue. This is the first variance request to relieve the slope restrictions. We feel it is important to look back to some of the discussion which occurred during the process of adoption of the hazard.ordinance and the reasons that it was felt important. This -request is questioning the integrity of that ordinance. The Hazard Ordinance was adopted in May of 1978 after considerable study, amendments and review from citizens, staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. As stated in the beginning of the ordinance, the primary reason for its adoption was that "the Town of Vail is located in a long, narrow valley with steep slopes and other significant natural features that are of major concern to the community because of their potential hazard and their visibility to all within the community and traveling through it." The ordinance goes on to state that "in order to define the natural areas of the community for their potential hazard and visual impact, the Town Council through the Town Staff has reviewed various studies and reports" and then goes on to list some of the reports and studies that the ordinance was based upon. It is important to this variance request that the hazard ordinance was tied to these studies. Previous Town of Vail Zoning Administrators have assured us that extensive study was performed for preparation of the regulations. Many of them were done by Hydro- Triad and Art Mears relating percentage of slopes to avalanche, rockfall and mudflow conditions. These studies reflected a proper "cut -off" point for developable land of 40% slope for the Gore Valley with the above geologic hazards in mind. Thus, the Hazard Ordinance states on page 3: "the steep slopes of the Gore Valley contain inherent dangers from the movement of snow, soil, rocks or other debris, and to allow development in such areas that would include human habitation would be contrary to the public interest ". The next paragraph explains that construction on hillsides frequently results in substantial cost to the public to provide services to the same, the risk of disasters to structures and people, degrading of water supplies, an increase in flood hazards and similar adverse effects to the public health and welfare." Low density (Single Family and Duplex Zones) were felt to be in a different category from higher density projects and were exempted from the buildable area restriction. The definition of buildable area in the Hazard Ordinance states: "Buildable Area shall mean any site, lot, or parcel or any portion thereof which does not contain designated flood plain, red hazard avalanche area or areas in excess of 40% slope ". The conclusion here is that much study and deliberation was put into the Hazard Ordinance. We feel it is a well researched and effective ordinance. Proof of this is evident in the Bighorn Avalanche last spring where lives were most likely saved by the designation of an avalanche zone where the snow and debris came down. The Colorado Geological Survey publicly praised the Town of Vail for its Hazard Zoning. Planning and Environmental Commission and the Council have.participated in field trips where 40% slopes were viewed- -most all agreed the steepness was significant and regu- lations were justified. Luke, Lot 3 Blk 3 Bighorn 3 - page 3 The secondary issue Mr. Luke has raised is one of successive downzonings. As men - tioned above, he apparently had rights to 28 units on lots 2 and 3 under previous County 'zoning. This has since been reduced to 6 under present Town of Vail regulations. The progression of the planning and zoning fields has accelerated greatly in the past 8 years. As we learn more about the community's goals and desires, we transform them into regulations reflecting those goals. In this case, we have learned about the physical environment of the Gore Valley along with the community's desires relating to that environment. This knowledge is reflected, for the public's benefit, into the existing Hazard Ordinance. We feel the ordinance does reflect an advancement of intelli- gent planning knowledge and that any property owner assumes the risk of subsequent regulations governing his or her property. In conclusion, the staff feels strongly that the approval of this variance would definitely be a grant of special privilege and that relief is not warranted, The effect of the re nested variance on light and air, distribution of population., transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Distribution of population and public safety have been addressed above. The other factors are not significant in this case. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the pro2osed Variance. There are none. esil� 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 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. Sk. Luke, Lot 3 Blk 3 Bighorn 3 - page 4 RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the variance request. We feel a very dangerous precedent would be set with the reasoning behind an approval. The best solution to the development of this property is to vacate the lot line be- tween lots 2 and 3 to make a unified 6 unit complex. We also feel strongly in regard to maintaining the integrity of the Hazard Ordinance in that it reflects a genuine advancement of environmental planning (even on a nation- wide basis according to recent staff research). Since its adoption, it has served the community well by reflecting the goals and objectives of the citizens of Vail. r� r du MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 8, 1981 RE: Gore Creek Setback Variance Request for Landmarc Enterprises located on Lot 7, Block 1, Gore Creek Park Subdivision DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a 5 foot variance to the 50 foot Gore Creek setback. The duplex has received final Design Review Board approval and was under construction when it was discovered that a high pressure 3 inch gas line was located to the extreme south of the 20 foot easement on the north side of the property. Because of this easement, the creek setback, and the triangular shape of the lot, the deuplex was restricted to a relatively small area. The approved location of the duplex would have located the structure less than 3 feet from this line, an unsafe distance according to both the Holy Cross Electric Company and the Town of Vail Public Works Department. The applicant wishes to move the house S feet to the south and away from the line to ensure the safety of.the occupants;; Moving the line, according to the Public Works department, would be unsafe. A redesign of the du- plex is an alternative felt to be too onerous a task as the structure has been through extensive DRB and staff reviews. AN D FINDINGS .,_CRUER,1L Upon review of Criteria and Findi ment of Community Development rec The following factors:. Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the De art - ds a royal of the requested variance based u on Consideration of Factors The relationshi of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and struc- tures in the vicinit . No effect upon other structures or uses would be realized if the variance was granted. The degree to which relief from the strict or, literal inter retation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibility and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of s ecial rivi•lege. We feel there is a unique situation here in that the physical characteristics of the lot, combined with the setbacks and the misplacement of the gas line all add up to a situatie where relief from strict interpretation is necessary for the safety of the occupants of the structure. Public Works has reviewed the proposal and finds it acceptable. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, Ru blie Facilities and utilities, and 2ublic safety. 'safety would be increased with the granting of the variance. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. No other factors are applicable. W Page 2 - Landmarc Lot 7, Gore Creek Park - if 8/81 FINDINGS: ing and Environmental Commission shall make the foll a variance: findings before That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be 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 applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance because of the alternatives involved, the simple moving of the house seems to make the most sense The basic reason for the variance is to increase the overall safety during construction and for the future occupants of the duplex. we**54- MEMORANDUM epkap�_A DATE: January 7, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Deletion of time share estates, fractional fee and time share license units from the Conditional Use Sections of the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zoning districts. The Town Council requested the Planning and Environmental Commission review and recommend the possible removal of time share estate, fractional fee and time share license units from the Conditional Use sections of Commercial Core I and II zoning districts. Before the Town Council considers the deletion of the time share from the Public Accommodations zone district, they would like your considera- tion of removal in Commercial Core I and II. r �; ��.� �, E. �;"_ �I�, �: -. 1' - ' .�:.. v St �. � �� 4.: �� X 1. � '- a �:�T � �.. . z .. j.. :: Y -: , +�,; �' � � - -� �, �4 �� .. ;.. . .. - " �_ ,.y_ _ �� 4 ,, .. _ R.�. • � . � - - - "�. �. - .. TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN SUBJECT: Supplementary memo on Luke Variance request pP Y DATE: January 26, 1981 Enclosed, you'll find a copy of the previous memorandum concerning the Luke Variance request so that you can refresh your memory from two weeks ago. We'd like to re- emphasize the importance of the findings the Planning and Environmental Commission must make before any variance is approved. Those three points are as follows: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other - properties in the same district. I* r-] J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING Minutes, January 26, 1981 3:00 p.m. PRESENT Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Roger Tilkemeier Scott Edwards Jim Morgan arrived for study session. Gerry Rhite, chairman, called the meeting to order. STAFF Peter Patten Peter Jamar Larry Woodley Betsy Rosolack 1. Appr)val of minutes of meeting of January 12, 1981. The staff requested that this item be tabled. Rober Til_kemeier moved that it be tabled, seconded by Dan Corcoran. Vote for tabling was 5 -0, unanimous. 2. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Sub, 3rd Addition Peter explained this item was tabled to look at the possibility that with the construction of roads, some differences may exist in the slope, He added that Mr. Luke had brought in 2 surveys just before the meeting today, but the staff hadn't had time to review them. He explained the new memo, and stated that the staff feels that Mr. Luke's request does not fall into any of the categories in the memo. Mr. Luke stated that rocks from road construction changed lots 2 & 3. He stated that he also wanted to vacate the lot line between these two lots. One survey was made in 1973 --4. Mr.. Luke requested that the issue be tabled until the commission members had had a chance to look at the site. Roger moved, and Dan seconded, that the request be tabled until the meeting of FebruLiry 9. 1,11e voce was 5-0 to table. The study session began here. a • t PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, February 9, 1981 1:30 Site inspections of Garton alley and deck and Luke, (lot 3, blk 3, Bighorn 3) 2 :30 Study Session: To study a proposal to close the alley between the Plaza and the Casino Buildings in Vail - Village. 3:00 Regular Session: 1, Approval of minutes of meeting of January 12, 1981. 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 26, 1981. 3. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Sub, 3rd Addition (tabled from January 26 meeting) 4. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an.existing lot line between lots 5 and 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Bjorn Borgen. 5.' A request for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I and height variance to construct an elevator at the Sitzmark building located at 183 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Bob Fritch. 6. A request for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I for the Red Lion building, to construct three additional dwelling units and shops at 304 East Bridge Street. Applicant: Jeff Selby. Published in the Vail Trail February 6, 1981. L� w • 0 • Vail Town Council February 17, 1981 Page 3 SLIFER: The next item on the agenda is a Casolar appeal. And-let me read into the record an appeal a letter that�we received today. "Gentlemen: The following telephone conversation between Roger Tomash attorney for Mr. Dean Knox and Larry Rider, Attorney for the Town of Vail, Dean Knox is requesting that proceedings on his petition for variance on Lot 12, Phase 2, Casolar Del Norte be returned for action at the Planning Commission level. The basis of this request is that Mr. Knox wishes to submit a significantly changed proposal to reduce the GRFA and the number of units in the subdivision which are now requested." X would assume that would require a motion on our part to send the matter back to the Planning Commission as requested by the.applicant or by the appellant. RIDER: Mr. Mayor, I would say that what occurred in this case was that' I got a call yesterday afternoon from Roger Tomash representing Dean Knox. He indicated that he had discussed with his client the matter of this variance and said that what they were going to do , or informed me that what they were-going to do tonight was to propose To cuti L. a single -- family residen by 600 or 700 square fe the Council would not h Commission input. 1 fe he said, well, they had hearing. Then I got a going to be here. Then that' he was having some time I informed him aft there should be a writt US. Since that appeare would consider that ton change and it appears t it— I..1UPLCi26 yi L1 W11 [i Faµ ...w a— :e and drop the GRFA requirement request :t and I told him at that time that gar the proposals without Planning Lt that was a significant change and no objection to Planning Commission call from them that they were I got a.call at noon today indicating difficulty in getting out and at that �r discussing. the matter with Rich that �n application to have it sent back to i to be appropriate that the Council ight. The issue being the significant :) be a very significant change. SLIFER: Any commments? Would someone like to, -- - -- Mr. Ruder? RUDER: Yea, I'd like to just .... we got in our packet this many, many page, many, many year document relating to this project and I think that our zoning laws in the area are pretty clear as to what is allowed on that particular piece of property and, I think that as I read all of these many, many documents that the owner of the property was advised at that time and that he just, he didn't take good care and caution in planning and when it got down to the last lot he had some problems and now he's trying to find a way out and I would be, I think we should act and uphold the Planning Commission's ruling. Otherwise I think we're kind of passing the buck if the applicant wants to come back and reapply to the Planning Commissi.on,...that's. part of the democratic process and he can do that. RIDER: Well.,. I would state that I told Mr. Tomash exactly what rani, hftc indicated, but, if the Council turned it down he can i ` Vail Town Council meeting February 17, 1981 Page 4 WILTO: I don't have any problem sending it back to the Planning . Commission. • RUDER: The reason, I guess, that it bothers me is that we have two ways in this town of allowing densities and they're pretty clearly explained in all zones and that we're really opening up Pandora's Box when we allow an increase in gross residential floor area in one of the zones and that's what this application would do and as I understand it, reduction of 600 or 700 feet or the changing in units that was going to be the new proposal would still be an up- zoning of the property in respect to - Gross_residential floor area and -I think that we have to treat up- zoning gross residential floor area in this valley very careft.11y and, I am one person who would be very.in favor of doing that and I think that this would be a way of us telling this applicant that, you know, the rules have been very clear through all of these proceedings WILTO: We can't act on what he's proposing now, all we could act on would be the Planning Commission RUDER: That's right. • WILTO: It has to go back to them anyway. RUDER: That's right. But what we're telling the Planning Commission i by upholding them that we, you know, we agree with the way they're treating these kinds of situations when something is brought in front of them we,! agree the way they treated that. As soon as we send back to them without, you know, without good explanation they may sit there and say, "Well, you know, maybe the Council does want us to consider giving additional gross residential floor area variances, I guess it would be, and in isolated special cases." 'I don't know how they would read us sending it back and I think it's a very touchy situation because it's one of our two guidelines in all of our zones to zoning. • TODD: SLIFER I have a question. As far as what was said to the representatives of the people who were appealing to us, because it would seem to me that if we were to proceed and consider the review as it was originally scheduled, that that requires that both the Town and the applicant would make a presentation tonight because we'd need to see what was presented to the Planning Commission and if the applicant was led to believe that this would be a mere formality and therefore is not here which I assume the applicant isn't here., , and he was led to believe that this was a normal thing, it would go back to Planning Commission without the applicant being here and for that reason I would prefer to send it back to Planning Commission which is really an option it seems to me that's open to him anyway and that he would be withdrawing his appeal and just going back with a his revised plans. Could.you make that a. motion? Vail Town Council meetings February 17, 1981 Page 5 40 WILTO: 0 I would like it to be.expressly said somehow that, we do approve their decision - prior decision. STEINBERG:Why don't we just table it for tonight and have the lawyer here. next time acid make their presentation so we can vote it down? TODD: That would be good too, as long as they're fairly represented and haven't been - misled thinking they can STEINBERG:I feel with Bob that - I feel strongly that we should concur with the Planning Commission in their turning it down and I think if they want to come and plead their case, that's fine, they ought to have their day in court, but I think my mind is made up pretty well SLIFER:! Larry, could we send it back tQ the Planning Commission with, with the dnderstanding that we did support their decision? and RIDER: I don't think, I don't think that this case /as Bob has eluded you've got this whole packet of things - this Casolar I and II is a proverbial bucket of worms, I mean it's a, it's a very screwy situation and I don't know whether Dean Knox got himself into it or we helped him get himself into it or what it is. I don't think the Planning Commission in any way feels . in jeopardy because of Council's consideration of this, I think they feel pretty confortable in their decision on the GRFA. 'We have received various comments in the packet, you're not in any way questioning their decision in sending it back, and, . you know, I don't know what you, I guess maybe I stepped outside of my prerogative in telling them that you'd probably send it back if you came in with a proposal, but at the same time what have you gained by putting it over for two weeks and turning it down and they just turn right around and :reply. Probably what they would do if you table it for two weeks if they would withdraw their application and their appeal would be fine. You don't gain anything with the Planning Commission by playing that game. WILTO: Ron made a motion and I'll second it. SLIFER: Do you want to restate the motion? TODD: The motion was to return it to the Planning Commission, but with the minutes of the concerns and comments of the various Councilmembers as they have - spoken tonight - Bob, Tom and anyone else that has addressed it. SLIFER: Okay, a motion by Ron Todd and second by Bill Wilto. All understand that? If there's no other discussion, all in . favor of the motion vote by saying aye. Those oppose. Two oppose - Steinberg and Ruder. RIDER: just for clarification. You want the transcript verbatim of the comments.encl'osed? SLIFER: Of that portion of the minutes. s PRESENT 0 Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Dan Corcoran Scott Edwards Duane Piper Jim Morgan Gaynor Miller PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING February 9, 1981 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 12, 1981. . STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Bud Benedict Scott moved and Gaynor seconded that these minutes by approved. Vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 26, 1981. Dan moved and Roger seconded that these minutes by approved. Vote was 7 -0 in favor. 3. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Sub, 3rd Addition (tabled from January 26 meeting). Peter: I was able to meet with Mr. Luke between the last meeting and this one, we.went over and looked at both topographic surveys - -the early one and the one that was done I believe last year. As far as trying to compare the two surveys to see if there was a slope change, that was impossible to do because the early survey was not adequate to be able to compute slope on the site. I did take Mr. Luke's recent survey and re- analyzed the slope. I did a slope analysis myself, and it turned out that Mr. Luke would be allowed 2 units on the property rather than one. I informed him of that fact, and° it did not change his wish to get a variance to construct 3 units on the property. As most of you know, we were able to look at the site today. We took 5 of the planning commissioners and Bud Benedict from the Council out to the site and we did a complete inspection of the site. As far as the staff recommendation on this, there is no change. To repeat, we still feel strongly that, of course we would allow 2 units which is allowed. We feel strongly that the best solution in the development of this property is to develop it in accord with the adjacent lot, where there is a buildable area, and finally I'd like to quickly go through and read off the findings which the Planning and Environmental Commission must make before granting a variance. Before any variance is .approved, the three points that the Commission must find are: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 40 3. The the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The str!et 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. PDC - 2 - 2 -9 -81 3.b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. . c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The Planning Commission must make all of these findings in order to approve the variance, and, in conclusion, our recommendation remains as the original memo states, denial. Gerry: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make some comments? Mr. Luke: Yes, please. I've been here now three times, and I thought that we had made the minutes of the meetings fairly clear, but I don't see any addressing of the problem by the Planning Commission. I'm going to state it one more time for the record, and that's it. Low Density Multiple Family equals north side of lot 3 equals lot 4 , 3.7 units. Same topography, and I believe you gentlemen -have seen that today, and I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little bit impatient because I've been here 3 times and nothing seems to be happening. If you deny this today I would appreciate under the constitutional process the reasons why you are denying it. I have and they are part of the minutes of the meeting and I should not take the time of the group to reiterate for the third time, and I will not. If you would like some reiteration, I would be happy to present it to you. Thank you. Gerry: Thank you. Comments from the Planning Commission? Dan: As I recall, the postponements and the requests for tabling were on your part, not the planning commission. We were more than willing to take a vote the first time . you were here. Luke: That is not true, sir. In talking to Mr. Patten, we had to marry the original site plan process which as you know is the site plan,.to the survey which was Mr. R.W. Consultants, July 1980, marry those two to see if there was a considerable difference. Now. The rocks have been thrown on my land by you and the State. How many of each I do not know. I told you this three weeks ago. This has not been decided because there are scar places my trees, there are also no lichen moss, called moss rock. Now, I'll be happy to go into it, I've into it three times, and all I get is bottles and bees. Nobody has ever answered one question. I'm a little bit tired. Dan: You said that the rocks on your property substantially changed the topography, and that's why there is a difference. I argued with you and explained to you why if your lot was surveyed properly, those rocks would not affect your topography. You obviously didn't listen to that. Luke: No, you haven't checked it out. Dan: Oh, yes, I have. I've been out to your lot 3 times in the last two weeks walking it by myself, and with the Planning.Commission today. I'm a licensed land surveyor in this state, also. I know what is required on topography. Luke: Fine. My point still remains, and I have not changed.. �I. believe the minutes will reflect this and this history, it will be forever in perpetuity. Therefore, I will rest and I want to know what the appeal procedures are... I have an idea that I'm being denied my three units. • Gerry. Mr. Luke, you haven't been denied three units. Any other comments? Scott: I'd like to move that since the applicant has not satisfied the requirements PEC -3- 2 -9 -81 of the ordinance in requesting a variance, that the variance be denied. • Roger: Second. Gerry: Motion by Scott Edwards, seconded by Roger Tilkemeier. All those in favor. (All voted.in. favor.). Unanimous. And I would remind you, Mr. Luke, that you have 10 days to appeal to Town Council if you would like to. Luke: 10 days. Is that for appeal to the Town Council? Gerry: To the 'Town Council. Luke: And then what is the legislative process for the State of Colorado? Is that 30 days? Gerry: I don't know anything about it. Luke: I think I have to appeal within 30 days as I recall. You might check that and I'll be back with you in 10 days. Thank you very much. Gerry: No, you would appeal to the Town Council. Luke: Pardon me? Gerry: I said that you would appeal to the Town Council, if you wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Peter: Mr. Luke, the appeal procedure is for you to submit in writing to the Town • Manager's office, if you would like to appear on their agenda if you would like to appeal this decision. One other thing, the presentation that you make at the Town Council may not be different than what you have presented here. Luke: Is that 10 days from today? Peter: Yes. Luke: Do I appear here 10 days from today? Peter: No, you will not, just submit in writing. Luke: You don't know the rules of that? When do I appear? Peter: Sir, again, you submit in writing to the Town Council within 10 days. They will schedule you on a.regular. Town Council.meeting..: You_will.be informed. 4. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing lot line between lots S and 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Bjorn Borgen. Gerry: Comments from the staff? Peter: Yes. This is the site map out in East Vail, lots 5 and 6 are the ones concerned. Mr. Borgen is requesting that the existing lot line be abandoned, and that a new lot line be drawn, a very minor change, and I'll let him explain the reasons for it. . Borgen: I'm asking that this common corner between lot 5 and lot 6 be moved 12 feet to the east. When this single family home was built on this lot, it had a detached garage. PEC - 4 - 2 -9 -81 Peter: Basically, this is cleaning up the lot line because the County regulations are different from the Town's. It will eliminate the non - conforming use, and lot . 6 is still a legal size. After more discussion, Gerry asked for a motion. Roger moved and Duane seconded that the request to revise the existing lot line between lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition be approved. The vote to approve was 6 -0, with Dan Corcoran abstaining. S. A request for an exterior alteration and modification in.Commercial Core I and height variance to construct an elevator at the Sitzmark building located at 183 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Bob Fritch. Peter went over his memo. He explained that this was reviewed at the December 12 work session briefly, mentioning that it was a minor addition, and that the only reason that it was before the Planning Commission was because it was an exterior alteration, as minimum as it is. The staff had reviewed it and it had no effect on any of the Urban Design Criteria really, as the memo stated. The question was did it need a height variance, the staff has determined that it is basically an architectural projection and no height variance is required. The Sitzmark is a legal.existing non conforming structure with regard to height, and the shaft was not going to increase that discrepancy, so that no height variance is needed, and staff is recommending approval of the project. Duane Piper of Wheeler -Piper explained that the height was 35' and showed drawings with more explanation. The break down square footage to this is: mechanical equipment 298 sq ft., public lobby space increased 178 sq ft, the hallway is extended to put the elevator on the interior space. Upper two floors have storage rooms, 132 sq ft, so total envelope sq ft is 608. Dan Corcoran moved, and Gaynor seconded to grant the request as stated in the memo from the staff.sibject to the following condition: The applicant agrees to'participate in the Vail.Village improvement district if and whon formed for Vail Village. The vote to approve was 6 -0,, with Duane.Pipex abstaining. 6. A request for an exterior alteration aad. modification in Commercial Core I for the Red Lion uilding, to construct three additional dwelling units and additional shops,at 304 East Bridge Street. Applicant: Jeff Selby. Dick Ryan: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Planning Commission: This is a request under the new procedure that was just adopted by the Planning Commission last spring for a new addition to the Red Lion. The Planning Commission has had extensive presentation at the joint meeting between the planning commission and the Council on the proposal. Proposed is approximately 2,980•sq ft of new commercial space which would be by Seibert Circle and we feel would be a better connection in Seibert Circle for people to go up there and shop and browse and just make the area a much moire active and pleasant space. Also requested is 3 second floor dwelling units that would contain approximately 3,580 sq ft. The proposal for residential space is substantially under the allowed Gross-Residential Floor Area for the building. I think the applicant has been very responsive to'concerns of dealing with the site coming up with a new addition to the structure that is very compatible with what is proposed under the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Also, the applicant has responded,.in the-staff's view, _to dealing with the .minor view corridor of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. In the minor view corridor, there can be some modi- PEC - S - 2 -9 -81 £ication to this view corridor. 1 think we've all seen the presentation on the modi- fication that would take place at the view corridor. I think we've also looked at what some of the implications are if the building�is modified in other ways where other private views would be blocked substantially if the applicant continued to go with the Gross Residential Floor Area that is allowed. The staff has looked at the Urban Design Considerations that the Planning Commission needs to review as far as pedestrianization is concerned. I think it is an improvement to pedestrianization into the.Seibert Circle area. There is a better connection to the Mill Creek Building moving the Seibert Circle area to the north, which is proposed under the Urban Design Guide Plan. The Seibert Circle which actually have more sun during certain times of the year and become an even more viable place with some redesign of .that particular .area. The vehicle penetration: Potentially there could be fewer vehicles there because there is presently a 2 car garage where people come to park at the garage and they also tend to park at the back of the garage, so at times there could be 4 vehicles coming into the core at all times, realizing that they have almost a permanent parking place in the Village. Under the proposal, there would be anloading and unloading zone by Mill Creek, so that the people who would be using the condominiums would be able to use that area to load and unload their vehicles, and then they would be required,.unless they had some space that we don't know about, to go to the parking structure, or if they had a rental car, they could return the rental car, because they.,may not need it until the end of the week or until they go back to Denver, or wherever they may be going. On the east side would also be the loading area, so that the trucks that would be servicin this building would be able to use that. The streetscape framework I think we've already talked about, in fact, we feel that adding commercial shops to that end of the street will provide the opportunity for people to actually come up there and walk through Seibert Circle instead of just, what many do, look,-down the street and decide that it is not worth going down further to Mill Creek, and I think it will be an improved opportunity plus, from the design viewpoint, it will be a very beautiful entryyinto the shops. Street edge and street enclosure: The applicant has demonstrated that the street enclo- sure of 1/2 to 1 that is expressed in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan is met by this, and that there is some street enclosure by the proposal, but I think if you look at the model here today, there is still a very comfortable feeling as you would walk down the street. Building height: The proposal does meet the Urban Design Guide Plan for building height; actually.the whole building, I believe is under 30 feet which is one of the main criterias It doesn't even have to have the other percentage - -30 to 40 feet where a certain percen- tage could be actually higher. The view corridor: There is some intrusion into the view corridor taking place from Hill Street. The staff does feel that that is an. acceptable change to the view corridor. The sun /shade: There is no impact because the sun is coming from the south_.and the building is not shading the street or another building. As fax as the zoning code is concerned, the major aspect there would be that,-the applicant would be required to pay the parking fee that has been established for Vail Village for the new addition of residential space and for the new addition of the commercial space that will be in the building, and would be responsible for paying for the removal of the parking spaces that are in the present garage. • PEC - b . 2/9/81 Under the architectural and landscape controls that are in the Design Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan, I think the applicant, as far as the architectural design, has responded to the:essence.of. what is being proposed in the Design Considera- tions, and actually has the design of the building fit the character of Vail Village, and also-fits the building that is currently there. The design, we feel, blends in and is very complimentary to the existing Red Lion building. The recommendation of the staff is for approval of the request subject to 3 conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and remonstrate against -a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. 2. The applicant agrees to upgrade the landscaping along Mill Creek and and present the plan to the Community Development department for approval. 3. And the applicant agrees to participate financially in street improvements, for example street pavers, street lights and the relocated focal point at Seibert Circle if an improvement district is not formed, and the applicant will share a similar amount if we are able to get agreement from all the property owners in the surrounding area to agree upon something like a special assessment to improve Seibert Circle. I'm sure the Town would also be participating in what improvements would be there. Gerry: Are there comments from the applicant? Peter: We received a letter, I think all of the planning commission members have a copy of this, dated February 3, 1981, addressed to the Planning and Environmental Commission: Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission members: "With regret I am unable to attend your published meeting on February 9, 1981, as I must be in Chicago that day. I wish to present to the Commission, by way of a 15 minute walking site visit, opposition by Mrs. Cortlandt Hill and myself, Jack Curtin, to the request to modify the exterior of the Red,Lion building in Commercial Core I. I respect- fully request you allow a continuance of your hearing until I may present collectivly or individually to you my opposition material. Your schedule, I understand, is very full, but because of the importance of your decision, I hope you will feel compelled to hear the property owners who are definitely affected by any decision you make. I am at your convenience Tuesday, February 10th on, for my presentation. Thank you for your consideration of my request." And signed by Jack J. Curtin with copies to Slifer, Caplan, Mrs. Joan Hill, and me. Bill Ruoff: I am Bill Ruoff, architect for the pxoject.,. Before I go into my presentation, I'd like to say that Dick just stole my thunder. He said all the things I am prepared to say. I could repeat them all and elaborate on any, but I'd like to ask for some direction from the planning commission. Do you want to hear me say it all again and point to the pictures at the same time, or move on to particulars? Dick gave a rather comprehensive point by point explanation. Dan: Has the presentation changed any at all,.er,.substantially from what you gave us at our joint meeting? Ruoff: Nothing substantive. At that time, when you saw this model 4 weeks ago, there weren't any windows on this building, there weren't any people in the streets, but the Red Lion building itself has not been touched.. I can't remember, did we have the pasture painted on the wall? Dan: If there is something really different that we did not go over last time, that's PEC - 7 - 2/9/81 maybe what we should discuss. Ruoff: No, there is not. We have come today prepared to show you again the same pre- . sentation that you saw at the joint meeting at the Athletic Club. Roger: I think that everybody on our Commission heard that, and unless there are people in the audience who came here particularly for this issue and would like to hear it again, 1 don't think that is necessary. Peter: Sid just brought up the point that maybe the presentation should be made in light that, if an appeal is filed, they will have to make the same presentation to the Council. Ruoff: The graphic materials, the pictures and the model are identical. We have added nothing to what was there. If you would like, in the interest of saving time, we could identify them for the record. Peter: That might be a good idea. Larry Eskwith: If he wants to protect the record, I think you should add to what you think you need. Most of the findings have been made by the Commission, and it has been found to comply with the relevant ordinances. I don't know if you are going to have to go through the entire presentation. Sibley: I just want to make sure that the exhibits might be used at the time that we are in front of the Council,,.as this letter indicates might happen, I would just as soon at least make reference to those specific exhibits that you have up. • Gerry: I would just make one comment, and that is that the questions that were raised and discussed at that joint meeting should be raised and discussed again right now. For the record. Ruoff: Running down the list from the Guidelines, Dick has already done. I can repeat that, I can talk briefly about the drawings. We wil.i look at the photo overlays that we have that display the view corridors and how they are affected. I guess what I'm saying, do you think that it is necessary for me to repeat substantially what Dick just went through. Gerry: No, I don't. I think it is important... Roger: If you endorse what he said... Ruoff: I do and have, because... Gerry: I think it is important to raise the questions that were raised at that time. Roger: I think it was view corridors primarily were the things I. was concerned with and relationship of your drawings to the Urban Design Plan, and that has already been covered. Jim: Didn't you have some photographs at one point? Ruoff: Let me run through the drawings quickly first, and then we'll go through the photographs. This is the base plan. This plan includes all of upper Bridge Street and crosses Mill Creek and takes in Mill Creek Court and the Christiana, all of the surrounding buildings. The red Line superimposed upon the blue plan of the new building is here for reference to show the red line is the existing wall of the Red Lion as you see it in this photograph. It does not come out to the property line at present. The PEC - 8 - 2/9/81 proposed addition does. These are the 3 elevation drawings which show in considerable detail the proposed changes. To answer specific points in the Guide Lines for archi- tectural detail, articulation, pedestrian scale on the street. The top drawing on this side and the one below it illustrate the difference between the street enclosure ratio as it exists today with the roof of the Red Lion coming down very low to only about 7 feet, really above the street. The existing patio there is actually below street level. The drawing immediately below shows the same relationship as it will exist after.the addition is made. The average.ratio...of.width _ to__height is almost exactly 1/4 to 1 at present. Under the Guide Lines, this is considered beyond limits of good comforable street enclosure. What we've been able to do is achieve 112 to 1, almost exactly 1/2 to 1 which is considered optimum. The next drawing is really just an illustration of the height statistics on the building. The red line shows the height that is allowed under the currently extisting zoning and Guide Lines. It could be a 3 story building, as are all of the surrounding buildings except one 2 story and one 4 story. The average height of all surrounding buildings in the neighborhood is 3 stories. We're proposing, though, for a number of reasons, the Red Lion addition be kept down to 2 stories. This also keeps GRFA and other things way under the limit-- about.4000 sq ft under the limit on GRFA and a whole story height under on the height of the building. The bottom drawing illustrates the principal pedestrian pathways up Bridge Street, in and out of Bridge Street, and around Seibert Circle as they will exist after the project is finished.. They are not substantially different from what they are today, but we feel that.:the introduction of interesting transparent shop.-fronts from the Red Lion entrance on around the corner into Hanson Ranch Road toward Mill Creek Court building will draw the pedestrians in a way that they presently do not go. When they come up, . they follow this path on by Baxter's and The Slope toward the mountain or go over to Cyrano's, but there is nothing to draw them this way. We think we can close the circle and contain this square, the plaza area. Really, we think we're going to complete it.. There are several other drawings that we have here which you saw at the other meeting. We pinned them up and down, and I think we should do so again today for a very brief review. They are background information, and we use them to answer questions, if you'll remember; on heights, and what if we did something else instead of w4at we did. We spent no time, we didn't even refer to them much more than to say that we had them the other time., because they are not of direct interest at this time. They are the floor plans of the three floors as they will exist after the addition is made. The basement which will contain the nite club and contain the noise because there won't be any windows that will open out below the neighbors, the shops and the new condominiums as they will exist on the-floor above. Let us just run through them all. This, 1 don't believe I did show the other time, because I don't think we got into it. We had this one up. The red lines show the outline of what the 3 story building would look like. This is an actual rendered elevation of what it .would look like. We think that it is a moot point at this stage, because we don't really want to go to that height. These are overlays of the principal elevation. -of the building. There-are several series of dotted lines. They are all a little different from the one you see. But within it, we are able to show the principal alternative methods of putting the roofs on this building. The reason we chose the one that you see in the final drawings up here, is because we feel it is the best compromise on the issue of view planes and view corridors. We feel that the two low gables that we've shown there are better than . any of these. We bring these along, and occaisionally someone asks, "Well, what if you did this instead of that ? ", we can show on these exactly.what would have happened if we had done this instead of that and why we chose the one that you see in the model. C PEC - 9- 2/9/81 These are sun angle and shadow diagrams which we refered the last time, because, as Dick says, they really aren't germain to our problem because we're fortunate enough to be on the north side of the street. We're not casting shadows on anyone. These basically show how the neighbor casts a little bit of shadow on us. And this is a depiction of the actual view corridor as it exists through Hill Street. There is a very slight difference between this one and the angles as they are shown on the official Town map in the Guide Lines. We discovered when we got out there with our instruments and cameras and measurements,and so forth, that the one on the Town plan is off by about maybe one degree. It is a very minor thing. We platted this one from information which we generated through the project, and it is a little more accurate because we had a little more time to dig into it. This is an extremely accurate calculated projection of the view corridor. The principal exhibits concerning the view corridor, of course, are the pictorial ones. The large photographs. That's it for now. The overlay done in color to emphasize rather than diminish it, the impact on the view corridor as it will be viewed from what we consider is probably the most critical point in the entire length of Hill Street which isn't very much. That critical point, we feel is back here. It's actually standing in Jack Curtin's front door, which is right there. The reason we feel this is important is because all of the people traversing Wall Street heading toward the mountain or wherever, pass this way, they can look over their shoulder—is what they'll see as opposed to the people walking through the street. Only half of them can see it, unless they've got eyes on the back of their heads, so we feel that this is the most important one. We do have also on a smaller scale, a series of photographs showing how it disappears as you walk forward up Hill Street. They are smaller, we did not pin them up at the other meeting, . we again, just mention that they are here as part of the material from which these were enlarged, so that you can see from across the room. The view of the snow capped peaks of the Gore remains, but what we will cut off is some of the foreground and .a big brown hillside above the highway. It actually comes down by the golf course. We feel to the visitor and to most people it.is the snow capped peaks out there that are the most important part of the view. So that is the degree to which we impinge upon the minor view corridor in Hill Street. We went a little farther than is required strictly under zoning and other regulations. We did the same kind of study on the two adjoining neighbors upon whom there is impact views. And that is the two on either side of Hill Street here on the 2nd floor at the end of the Plaza Lodge is the apartment of Mrs. JoAnn Hill. Across the street on the entire 2nd and 3rd floors of this building is the residence of Mrs. Cortlandt Hill. We will have an impact upon the view from JoAnn Hill's living room,..an& we will have an impact on the view from Jack Curtin's apartment. Windows over here and the rest of her house are not affected. O.K. This photograph was taken from just inside, 20" back of the big sliding glass door which is the main viewing point from JoAnn Hill's living room. This is what she sees today. The impact on her view is rather similar to what it is in Hill Street. Her view now is cut off by the existing chimney of the Red Lion and the top floors of the Christiana.. She sees the peaks across here and some of the valley and brown hillside in the foreground. Our new roof line will come across here and cut off that bottom piece right in there about like this. It will still leave the view of the peaks. Now let's look at the similar thing as seen from Mrs. Cortlandt Hill's house. Here's the view. The addition will come out this way. The piece of view that is cut off here- -none of the peaks are impacted at all. This . end of the roof right here will cut off this piece of, again, the same sage brush hill- side opposite the 9th $ 10th fairways on the golf course beside the highway. In brief form, that is the presentation - -the points that we reviewed at the joint meeting 3 or 4 weeks ago, the material that we showed at that time. 16 PEC 10 - 2/9/81 Gerry: Thank you, Bill. I would just like to make one comment quickly, the same comment that I made at the joint meeting. That is, that I think that -you have a rather signifi- cant impact on the view corridor on Hill Street, and that, in terms of the streetscape, that by moving what would be the southwest corner of your roof back about 15 feet, it would be more inviting in terms of taking people around the corner which is, after all, what your design plan is hoping w.ill..ho.,achieved, and would have less of an impact in texms of a confining streetscape which I think is what the impact will be. It will be confining in terms of Bridge Street. It will extend Bridge Street up a little bit further than I think it should be. So that's my comment which is the same comment I made before. Does anybody else have comments? Gaynor: I think I liked it the way it is being proposed in the sense that I think that they have, on the south end, done enough design work, both on the roof and the indenta- tions and entrance ways and windows to not create a square building on the end, and I like the way it is proposed Scott: If you moved back 15 feet, you would have less than 1/2 to 1 ratio, for some reason, the magic number in the Guide Plan. Gerry: I would just comment that that is a recommended number. Streetscapes and view corridors are not necessarily determined by numbers, alone. Roger:. The view corridor is identified as a secondary view corridor, is it not? Gerry: Yes. Roger: In our deliberations, I think,....in the development of the Guide Plan, those were not considered as primary factors to be concerned with. I like the design the way he . has it. It think a very nice job in addressing the problems in trying to mitigate all of the potential objections, and I think that, based on the allowed GRFA, I think they exhibit a lot of restraint. Gerry: Dan, do you have any comments? Dan: I like the presentation. I think it is a nice treatment of the site. Duane: I do agree that we have obstructed to a certain degree the minor view corridor. I feel in this particular case that the improvement.to the more intimate streetscape, the sense of views, and the arrangements of the buildings out weight the fact that we do have a slight obstruction there. I do like the addition, and am in favor of it. ,Tim: I think the impact as being shown here is probably the best picture you can get of it. As you go down the alley, the impact of the building is considerably more. You move about 10 feet down and you lose the peaks, don't you? Ruoff: Jim, as you walk through now, you begin to lose the -view about here. With the addition, you begin to lose it about here. It diminishes until we reach this point in this area, and it's gone. As it is now, it diminishes and you lose it about here. Gerry: My concern isn't with seeing the peaks in total per se. My concern is with the sense of space, That the whole concept of space, of course, is what makes Bridge Street unique. I think that this goes just a little bit further than it should in terms of enclosingthe. street. I think that both things can be achieved. I like the building, and I like the fact that the building is. bigger in that particular spot. I . like the fact that the road is closed, but not that much. PEC 11- 2/9/81 Ruoff; As with most of these things, Gerry, we :end up comprising between a lot of different aspects, there is a compromise in shape of building to maintain as much as possible the view. It's true, on the ratios in here, we have followed the recommended guide lames rather closely. It wasn't difficult because it just happened to work out that the 2 story scheme here gave it to us. We consciously wanted to create more of a sense of enclosure for the Seibert Circle area, and we feel now that with the roof sloping down, the space isn't contained very well. But this we have already discussed before. There is no doubt it is a compromise amongst many elements. Gerry: Are there any comments from the audience? Robert Oliver: My name is Robert Oliver, and I work for the Plaza lodge and also for the possibility of representing Mrs. Hill. She is concerned about the things that you are talking about as far as the view corridor down Hill Street, and from the view from her apartment. These people are trying their best, and she is still concerned about the lack of view corridor that is going to come out of her casement windows and also that sliding glass door. Just one thing that I caught that you were saying, Dick. I can't understand why you can say that there is a potential loss of traffic there. You can't take one condominium and turn it into 5 and add 5 shop spaces and not expect a traffic flow on Bridge Street. For someone who has a shop there, or for someone who has given their condominium to Slifer to rent out every week, that traffic is going to be much greater. Dick: Well., I think there is a potential for being less traffic in the sense that right now there are a lot of people who come and park in those spaces on a continuing basis of just pulling in and pulling out using the cone area. With.the condominiums, at least there is the potential that you would come in, drop your bags off one day, and you may not need to come back until you actually leave the site -- instead of coming • in there and saying, "Well, I want to go someplace to do some quick shopping." You are probably going to get on the shuttle bus rather than walk back to the transportation center if you left the car there, or if you have turned the car in. Robert Oliver: That might be true, but you can't add all that space and say that the traffic is going to go down. Dick: I guess my feeling is that it's not going to increase dramatically, and there is the potential that it could go down, just from what I see of the use of those spaces in front of the garage now, which are constantly being used by everybody in Town to pull in and park, because they know there is a parking space there. Robert Oliver: I think the odds are that it is going to go up. Jim: Yes, you would have to expect more traffic with people having to bring stuff into shops. What you are saying is that there is space there that people are parking in, and for some reason, because you are going to eat up some of that space means that you are going to have less parking. But the actual demand of, like those 5 shops and 5 condos, I can see is going to have more demand that what you have there now, in terms of vehicular traffic. Dick: I think the potential for shops will be 3 small shops, probably, because there are only 3,000 sq ft. Ruoff: The potential here is for 3 shops. . Jim: Well, whatever, I mean there's got to be an increase in vehicular traffic. I don't see how you can go from the restaurant and one condo to.... Ruoff: Jim, we don't feel that there is going to be any substantial increase M.:aUffibers in vehicles because these are not food operations, we don't have food and meat trucks lie • PEC 12 2/9/81 that have to come every day to them. They are small shops that tend to get shipments pretty often, mostly by freight, UPS, or something is delivered to their home because they're using their garage as an extra warehouse. But, aside from the owner bringing in their station wagon occasionally to haul something that he is storing in has garage, we sec the UPS man parked here somewhere today anyway, while he goes to 4 or 5 places here, goes to 2 ski shops, and all the surrounding neighborhood. We're not going-to-bring the UPS in more often. We may cause him to park there an extra 5 minutes while he runs into these 3 shops and makes deliveries. But we.feel that that is quite different from bringing him in many more times. We don't think he will do that. We think that the existing pattern of the trucks that park along here in front of Cyrano's and Gold Peak will continue. Some of the points that we have discussed before, go a little beyond this project. We did at the work session discuss a little bit some of the things that will happen when and if the Seibert Circle improvements and implemented because they complement what we are doing. That will help to chanelize the traffic so the trucks then will always park on the same side of the street, and you won't find Burnett's truck clogging the other side, so that if an emergency vehicle does come through, he can't get through. These will be improvements. Again, the cars. We all know the history of the building. For many years Marg and Larry Burdick lived there full time. It was their main home. They kept 2 cars in the garage, and they are like all of us. If they had lots of business around town, and they'd run in and out. The number of vehicular movements is what we've concerned with. Now, I didn't have any reason, and I don't think anyone else did, but common sense, if you think about it a minute, may point a direction. An active couple living here full time, and the times they bring their cars out and in every day on the average is 2 or 3 times a day for each car - -is going to exceed the number of car movements for a condo owner who comes and stays a week, who comes in and out once. I really think the situation for the condos in the building is going to be very similar to what we have at the Plaza Lodge today, because your guests go in and out. Now they won't likely stay - -who knows? Who knows who is going to buy those, how long they're going to use it. I'll tell you one thing,_.though, let's not go and play the paper numbers game, but let's be realistic about it. The_.prices for which units go in the center of the Village automatically tell us something. That they are going to be bought by people with that much money. People with that much money in the cookie jar to slap down on fancy apartments in the center of the village, and then spend about $200,000 to decorate-it, are really not interested in having Slifer stuff it with every comer and run it like a hotel, because that amount of income, they're not interested in, and most of those people don't want those people staying in their place in Vail. They aren't rented very often.. They're given away to friends and family. Realities of economics and human nature pretty well tell us that, no, these are not going to have the frequency of use that the smaller condos in other parts of the community do. Gerry: Thank you, Bill. Dick: I'd just like to add that there is also going to be a loading area along the east side of the building, too, so that there will be the opportunity for someone coming in there to unload their bags and luggage without actually being parked in the street. Ruoff: And the neighboring points in the Improve Vail plan complement this beautifully. Gerry: Are there other comments or questions? Ed Drager: I'm here as an interested citizen. I sat on that same planning commission up there for 4 years, and for 4 years I and a whole lot of other people worked to get 40 the Improve Vail job done to stop development as a matter of right in the commercial core of Vail. It has been accomplished, and I think the developers here have shown a great deal of sensitivity to the work and the desires and the hopes that We had and one of the agonizing things that we went through was whether or not Hill Street was a even- .-a minor view corridor at the tame. I think the modifications here on the lie PEC 13 2/9/81 Red Lion are going to hurt, maybe shorten.up.that view corridor, but I think the improve- ment overall is a very good improvement. If I were sitting on that side of the table today, I'd be voting for it. Thank you. Gerry: Thank you, Ed. Are there any other comments from the audience? Gaynor: Are you going to be required to have parking spaces? Ruoff: At the end of the Town's recommendation, is stated the condition Dick: On page 3 at the bottom of the page, they will be required to pay the appropriate fee for parking. Gerry: I'm just going to quickly ask Jeff if he is familiar with and comfortable with the conditions of approval? Selby: Would you read those to me? Gerry: Sure. The applicant agrees to participate in not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. 2. The applicant agrees to upgrade the landscaping along Mill Creek and present the plan to Community Development for approval. 3. The applicant agrees to participate financially in. street improvements, e.g. street pavers, street lights and the relocated focal point at Seibert Circle if an improvement district is not formed. The applicant's share would be determined by the street frontage of property in Seibert Circle and other property owners in.area would also have to agree to participate. Selby: On the final one, it would not be of the situation where I'd be the only property owner in the area. The applicant's share would be determined by street frontage property on Seibert Circle of all property owners contributing, is that correct ?. Gerry: That's correct. Selby: I think we can live with -all those recommendations. Gerry: You are aware that these are conditions for approval, if approved, it would be approved on those conditions. Selby: Yes, I understand. Those things may not be known until such time as improvements ax,e completed, but I would assume that those conditions would go beyond the period in which we improve the property. It seems to me that we may get down the road here in a year or 2, and everyone will say, "Let's upgrade Seibert Circle in that area'',and we would be requested to come in at that time to contribute funds toward those improvements I have no trouble with that as long as it is an area wide understanding with other property owners. Dan: I would move to approve the request for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I for the Red Lion building per the staff memo and as presented today. Gerry: We have a motion for approval by Dan Corcoran. :Is there a second? Roger: Yes. I second. Gerry: Second by Roger Tilkemeier. All those in favor? Scott Edwards, Roger Tilkemeier, 0 Gaynor Miller, Dan Corcoran, Duane Piper, Jim Morgan. And I'm against because I don't like that one section of that one building. Motion passed 6 -1. 4 February 1951 Gerry White, Chairman Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Vail, Co 81657 Dear Gerry: After the last joint meeting, the question left unanswer- ed was whether the Alley left open is desireable to both local residents and quests. As a result, I took the init- iative to survey locals asking whether they presently use the Alley and, if not, why not, and, whether they would use it more frequently if it were improved. In order to insure that each .individual surveyed was aware of the various alternatives for the Alley Project, they were initially presented with a copy of the `nail Trail art- . isle of January 16, 1981. (See attached). The :second step was to review the survey form explain- ing that the issue was whether to close the Alley per - manently or keep it open for pedestrian traffic. Some of the alternatives offered as solutions weres the building of retail space at ground level with two flexors of residential or office space above, thus permanently closing the Alley; building a second and -third floor leav- ing the ground level open as an Alley walk— blivough; or cleaning the Alley and leaving it as it is presently. One question put to the local residents was "If the Alley was improved and maintained, would you use it more often than you do now ?" The Final step was to ask the participant to voice his /her personal preferences and offer a solution to the present situation. From the comments, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the majority of participants in the survey do not use the Alley now nor would they in the future and are in favor of closing the Alley. The reasons for closing can be con- densed into the followings 1. the Alley is not convenient as a shortcut. 2. guests are unaware of the Alley's existence and are not likely to use it because of the psychologi- cal barrier that most urban residents carry with • C --Ij C I them from their experiences at home. These bar- riers are not likely to be overcome during their brief stay in Vail as evidenced by the fact that even long -term local residents have an aversion to frequenting this alley in particular. The survey answers brought to light several additional ideas which should be mentioned here. One reflects the preferences of local residents for retail space as an important benefit for our tourist economy and future rev- enue and employment bases for our town. Those surveyed also felt that office space above the main level is a more appropriate and desireable alternative to residential space in the core village. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Pamela A. Telleen Box 279 Vail, Co 81657 MESEiV`' USE OF AND OPINIONS CONCERNING ALLE Y CLOSURE No. Date Name Address Employed Frequency of What would you Shoks'Comsee? he nAlley Use Alley a,� zs7 , P 1. G k`ti✓ Y ) ��L''G au 7� 2. 1 Q u w� -r u' sue' I 1"d i !3 v %� . � �S_� �l3/ 4 l�/ �. !rte •rt `� � C� �a.?�Z.. 60 "�'�Z�e� xr u" J 10° <) ell, 17, 7A 1 2� 11. 1 � f 16.-� 17. 18.`�b L��S� �A► �s Ah h h r1 f1 A 17 1 PRESENT USE' OF AND OPINIONS CONCERNING ALLLY CLOSURE,' . No." Date Name Address Employed Frequency of Alley would s ou like tomsee ?, Alley Use y as 1 a :�'�'tZ n tJ�s o _ZX0AA 5 2. WES7Cf ux li0 VJ 8h�`uss -0d ,AVJ Neu 12R S � Rk CAJM'-�� r �!/ � .oX 7r41 PF 11F�`-" 5 21-11k I /` ��T��Z �? c• /mac ` `7 75 �C'z " C o ' 6. 8, 2 . C7'/ � ` i ►� • �'� `...�'zhs:Sia::i 4': 5 �� �.Jii, i `:.�c . �iz t �:.,,v u the tc,n ~=? ,..: Li.:.(:l.J L j' � ,:�� ko 15. Zk `/- s/ /��I�u•4' J/��,ilG�v - s! �4� /.�G� �! G /� � ���:d G£ .r1I. C'. .t 16. 1 v1 J,,�V 914 4 �z /�� PRESENT USE OF AND OPINIONS CONCERNING AL1,EX CLOSURE No. Date Name Address Employed Frequency of what would you like to see? Alley Use Alley as is? Shops %Comml? 0th --�C] JILL NAPMEFPF N WH1,-)PF-e1N6 NEvefz- 544bP5 A- MDz-E VAWABL V AFL I C-0 E-/Y:�j L Vt 4f- '1�ACG A� A-LLE\{ 15 2. �I�� {R�iJ7i� L /p // �FNN NUT U P S ISa�. APPE 11L) 06. 3 • 4. p 1.17 r ) 5' r�� rJlSir\.A S i L 6nc Co rn - c-* . co- 6. s,, 7r c,v z r'r 1) L 1 .L' %L�'c 8 • , 2 J��' �N � h �-�- ! n cL �r�% �1 v��c�,�1� lNt;aw"c�.�-r, -r► -��`.; i l Jn ! {o,- �'� >� n ,; i`-'f 1�'1'�i��'� '�A'j j� ��.1 r �,n -d �{ 5Q u � ���.,�r C.x,Vt�� = �E`a�•..�" �,7: a tl'��.;o 100 /� C f Tf7`l— z : L Sc 1 r, %' U .j /�LG� 1 / r f� />� 1'e�l�`d✓ L1r o f — u"I/ r mod% �, C ".f 'CG — �✓ }'1! a -�� rwC�' ! Ly ZGe., ,A- -�.a�o �fL�t �9cc.1b��tih VIA- z .�- --fir•% - ✓ ^ -��Q c� �-�..�- ..�.�r C � �� 17,,r.y.e V�?�c' iv 3 Sha� 18. ,.. -NN Nvti c .� � Li.'� r 2o. iM51,:A pis' rvir 1f 1!'_ Ai' -.,� �« .r e l?`i1N { { rilQ� ► :� rllilra i ��r F°--, r • r �' ya't` '"�+1..•;p�C'E: i'' -,!y'i ,�; 4. •s' _ { 5 •n ! ! , { � t c �' . n f e ' r � !', rr^Ar a i;.'�""lP' �' 1 v .�-•- X CO cr f e CD ro m } �r,,,,,r � f .- ...may t�..�..�.- +•+,�. ' '^....^— �- �.�. -'..'" �' - n � � {p N � r�•i - E j,.r Y �� r•- 7... - t .------ T--- -- cr cr fA c, VML 1 rA rb , NIM 'ti a :Ki r %J t' © •••1 r � ° CD 'a M "MI o�w�rty'y' .q .2n���-�,yss�A.n's a t� ro Y t�n7G� E. _. G UQ0 ro F.sJ fl N rw n t� f ; p .W-_. p ` " R' N tl � � � -f � ro " � � a'•a i n, c�?r a� �7 ° . � � � fo . �. Cx c s � Ja � �3 � nr� c� .91 O,`ro7 to 'C7 - f�. G. _'. G4 ;:, ��% Cz." r" CD f.: �_ S.r.: -°. q r. C7. o a? . 4�_ :3 fdp .-+.•Y Dj r+ Cy C;� :i '7' . r _] V7 f.{ �. C3. N L`. Ay fJ 't.j° '" d• : �Y. u O f1�7: '.S M ;x Q• � :3 I:pn o sn- T Q mx J s � s� `5 CL — ZI D W N 0 A. Q ry n fJ '1 y U . (�7 .�-. fU - Vi A �' ."1 ..�. N 7j [ ' `.i I➢ Pa p pj• �C tD "° =%,'ty W '. ftl t9 ffl G 7q� iro y „p4 ? -s d, p N fD d CL tl� J' cD cr c „ N 4 n o ro FL f�i Q ^ ca' � can � � � ro ���y - tp w is :} "' C w '$�_' o � o r� go w io �y o. e=+• r+ r� V.=. "i �' p�j �' f`J �j-47 r'° r6 e'°' i9 C Q��pq,. pr .��. ' v'i C3. r�..� ro 0 7 rC�1 rte+'C .a3 ��. ° 7v % w ��' �O �p S CD ru to CY G n (D. jA '? ?Gi - • • • MEMORANDUM T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE. February 4, 1981 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision Request for Bjorn Bergen for Lots 5 and 6. Block 5, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition This is. a request to revise an existing lot line between lots 5 and 6 so that an existing non - conforming side setback from a garage located on the southern portion of lot 5 becomes conforming. The garage and a single family unit exist on lot 5, while lot 6 is vacant. The lots and those surrounding it are zoned. Residential Primary /Sec- ondary. The existing garage, built under former County regulations, is 10.8' from the property line now. The proposed lot line would place it 20' from the side property line. The existing and proposed lot areas are as follows: Lot 5 Lot 6 Existing Sq Ft 23,813 23,657 Pro used. S ,Ft, 24,712 22,759 The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Bogen Minor Subdivision request. 0 February 9, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten RE: EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST FOR THE SITZMARK LODGE BY BOB FRITCH The Sitzmark Lodge is requesting approval to construct a passenger elevator on the west end of the building. The elevator is 20' x 9' in dimension and about 39' in height at the highest point. A. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010 Purpose. The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. (Ord.21, 1980) Staff feels the proposal does comply with the purpose section. B. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: 1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Desiqn Guide Plan No sub -area concept of the Plan is related to this proposal. 2. Urban Design Considerations Pedestrianization, vehicle penetration, streetscope framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, and views. • r • L�] Page 2 With regard to building height, the staff has determined the elevator to be an architectural projection under Section 18.58.040 and thus, no height variance will be required. The Sitzmark Lodge is a legal existing non - conforming structure with regard to height and the elevator shaft will not increase this discrepancy. 3. Zoning Code Considerations No zoning code considerations are affected. 4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations These concerns will be-addressed when the project goes to Design Review Board. The elevator shaft is matching existing materials and should blend in well with the building. C. RECOi IIHENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval with the condition the applicant agrees to participate in the Vail Village Improvement District if and when it is created. Mrs. Cortlandt Hill 311 Bridge Street . Vail, Colorado 81657 February 3, 1981 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Chairman and Commission Members: With regret I am unable to attend your published meeting on February 9, 1981, as I must be in Chicago that day. I wish to present to the Commission, by way of a 15 minute walking site visit, opposition by Mrs. Cortiandt Hill and myself, Jack Curtin, to the request to modify the exterior of the Red Lion building in Commercial Core I. I respectfully request you allow a continuance of your hearing until I may present collectively or individually to you my opposition material. Your schedule I understand is very full, but because of the importance of your decision I hope you will feel tom- spelled to hear the property owners who are definitely effected by any decision you make. I am at your convenience Tuesday, February 10th on, for my presentation. Thank you for your consideration of my request. JJC /di cc: Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Richard Caplan, Town Manager Peter Patten, Senior Planner Mrs. Joan Hill, Plaza Lodge Owner • February 9, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development RE: EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST FOR THE RED LION, Applicant -Jeff Selby BACKGROUND Phase I of the Red Lion was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 9, 1980. Approved were two dwelling units and some storage and new entry for the Red Lion restaurant. The Planning Commission decision was appealed and upheld by Town Council. A. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Requested is the expansion of the Red Lion to the south property line. Requested is first floor retail shops of approximately 2,980 square feet and three second floor dwelling units of approximately 3,580 square feet. In addition, the bar and lounge located on the first floor would be relocated to the basement and the Lions' Den restaurant in the basement would be remodeled. B. EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE 1. Basement • Existing: Restaurant and storage Proposed: Restaurant and relocation of bar /lounge from the first floor 2. First Floor Existing: Restaurant and bar /lounge Proposed: Restaurant and shops 3. Second Floor Existing: Two condominium units (approved in phase I) Proposed: Three additional condominium units proposed 4. Loft Existing: No current use Proposed: In phase I approval was granted for a 312 square foot loft addition C. STATISTICS 1. Land Area - 13,989 square feet 2. Site Coverage: Allowed - 11,191 square feet. Proposed - 11,172 3. Density Control: GRFA Allowed - 11,191 GRFA in Phase I previously approved 3,780 square feet (2 units) GRFA requested 3,580 square feet (3 units) I• 4. Height: Allowed: 60% of site 40% between Proposed: 100% under coverage under 30 feet 30 -40 feet 30 feet 5. Landscaping: Allowed: 2,798 square feet minimum Proposed: 3,050 square feet 6. Parking and Loading: Existing: Two car garage Proposed: Removal of the two car garage with loading zone to the east of the building 7. Gross Residential Floor Area: A. Phase I - two units approved— 3,780 B. Requested - three units--- - - -- -- Square Feet 3,58, D. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION TOTAL 7,360 Page 2 18.24.010 Purpose The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the • unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The Community Development Department considers that the proposed changes to the Red Lion building are positive to Vail Village and do conform with the Commercial Core I District, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, Design Considerations and minor view corridor designation. E. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Sub Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan Area number 11 of the Gore Creek Drive /Bridge Street area plan states: Limited building expansion /improvements. Increase facade transparency on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line. Additional vertical expansion may be considered on south end of building to improve street enclosure proportions but must respect designated Hill street - Gore Range view corridors. Potential second level open balcony deck (sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost from ground floor terrace. Page 3 . The proposed Red Lion addition does have increased facade transparency with the proposed commercial shops and will strengthen pedestrian activity in Seibert Circle. The building is proposal to be extended to the south property line and develop a more interesting streetedge. The second floor residential expansion does,) n the Community Development Department's opinion, respect the minor view corridor designation of the Gore Range. 2. Urban Design Design Considerations Pedestrianization: At Improve Vail meetings discussion of the present and future function of Seibert Circle was a major issue. Relocation of the Seibert Circle focal point to the north was shown on the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan to allow more sun into this area. In addition, additional retail frontage was considered desirable to add more life to Seibert Circle and draw people around to the Mill Creek building. The proposed commercial activity on the first floor of the Red Lion will bring more people into Seibert Circle and assist in having them continue to the Mill Creek Building. Vehicle Penetration: By the removal of the two garage spaces there should be fewer automobiles entering the Village. Service and delivery area can be accomplished to the east by Mill Creek on the Red Lion property. Street Scope Framework: The infill commercial storefront expansion of the Red Lion will create new commercial activity in Seibert Circle and give street life and visual interest to the area. Street Enclosure: The applicant's architect has demonstrated that the proposed expansion on the south end of the Red Lion building does meet the street enclosure recommended in the Vail Village Design Considerations. Street Edge: The proposed addition does have strong but irregular edges to the street as recommended in the Vail Village Design Considerations. Building height: The proposal meets the height requirements of the Design Considerations. Views: The Hill Street minor view corridor was approved as part of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. R minor view corridor can have some modification and the Community Development Department considers that the proposal has respected this minor view corridor. Sun /shade -- no impact 3. Zoning Code Considerations Parking: At the time of building permit the applicant will be required . to pay the applicable parking space fee for commercial and residential uses. Page 4 4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations The proposal complies with the intent of the Design Considerations. Detail design issues will be more specifically discussed at a Design Review Board meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to 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. 2. The applicant agrees to upgrade the landscaping along Mill Creek and present the plan to Community Development for approval. 3. The applicant agrees to participate financially in street improvements, e.g. street pavers, street lights and the relocated focal point at Seibert Circle if an improvement district is not formed. The applicant's share would be determined by the street frontage of property in Seibert Circle and other property owners in area would also have to agree to participate. • February 9, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten RE: EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST FOR THE SITZMARK LODGE BY BOB FRITCH The Sitzmark Lodge is requesting approval to construct a passenger elevator on the west end of the building. The elevator is 20' x 9' in dimension and about 39' in height at the highest point. A. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010 Purpose. The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District . is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. (Ord.21, 1980) Staff feels the proposal does comply with the purpose section. B. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: 1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan No sub -area concept of the Plan is related to this proposal. 2. Urban Desi n Considerations Pedestrianization, vehicle penetration, streetscope framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, and views. Page 2 is With regard to building height, the staff has determined the elevator to be an architectural projection under Section 18.58.040 and thus, no height variance will be required. The Sitzmark Lodge is a legal existing non - conforming structure with regard to height and the elevator shaft will not increase this discrepancy. 3. Zoning Code Considerations No zoning code considerations are affected. 4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations These concerns will be addressed when the project goes to Design Review Board. The elevator shaft is matching existing materials and should blend in well with the building. C. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval with the condition the applicant agrees to participate in the Vail Village Improvement District if and when it is created. • • � 0 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, February 9, 1981 1:30 Site inspections of Garton alley and deck and Luke,(1ot 3, bik 3, Bighorn 3) 2:30 Study Session: To study a proposal to close the alley between the Plaza and the Casino Buildings in Vail Village. 3:00 Regular Session: 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 12, 1981. 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 26, 1981. 3. Luke density control variance, Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn-Sub, 3rd Addition (tabled from January 26 meeting) 4. A request fox a minor subdivision to relocate an existing lot line between lots 5 and 6, Bighorn Sth Addition. Applicant: Bjorn Borgen. 5. A request for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I and height variance to construct an elevator at the Sitzmark building located at 183 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Bob Fritch. 6. A request for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I for the Red Lion building, to construct three additional dwelling units and shops at 304 East Bridge Street. Applicant: Jeff Selby. Published in the Vail Trail February 6, 1981. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING February 23, 1981 1:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 9, 1981 2. Weinshienk- Hoevelmann request to allow barber and beauty shops on street level in CCI Zone District. 3. Pepi Sports Expansion 4. Request for minor subdivision for part of lot 17, Bighorn 4th. Applicant: Frederick W. Distelhorst 3:00 5. Discussion of Proposed CCIII Zone District 6. Proposed West Vail Zoning Published in the Vail Trail February 20, 1981. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES • February 23, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Edwards Gaynor Miller Dan Corcoran Gerry White Duane Piper Jim Morgan Roger Tilkemeier Dick Ryan. Peter Patten Peter Jamar Larry Woodley Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack COUNCILMAN.- Bud Benedict Gerry White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 9, 1981. Duane Piper requested that the staff check a motion made by Dan Corcoran concerning the exterior alteration and modification and height variance:of the Sitzmark building, to see whether or not it included the condition, of-participating in the Vail Village improvement district. • Dan Corcoran moved to approve the minutes subject to the correction above, and Scott seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0, unanimous. 2. Weinshienk - Hoevelmann request to allow barber and beauty .shops on street level in CCI Zone Distract. Peter Patten described the expansion of the issue from the original request on 1/12/81, as stated in the memo of 1/19/81. (The correct date on the most recent memo should have read 2/19/81). He added that interior spaces do not perform the same functions as those directly on the street. He recommended approval of the Hoevelmann request with the amendment of Section 18.060, paragraph A to add: 8. No Conditional Use permit will be approved for barber or beauty shops on first or street level in either Commercial Core I or Commercial Core II unless the applicant has demonstrated, to the Community Development Department's satisfaction, that the space in question contains no exterior frontage on a major pedestrian or vehi- cular way or public mall. Barry Permut representing Mr. Hoevelmann, stated that Mr. Hoevelmann agrees with the staff on the wording of the amendment. He added that he felt there was also a hardship in this case. Discussion followed concerning whether or not the amen&ent should cover a broader use. Finally, Jim Morgan moved, and Roger seconded to recommend to the Council an amendment to Conditional Uses on street level in CCI and CCII to allow personal services as defined in the Code as conditional uses with the added provision of No. 8 as defined in the memo dated 1/19/81. The vote was 5--2, with Dan and Gaynor voting against. Motion passed. PEC Minutes - 2 2/23/81 3. Pepi Sports Expansion Dick Ryan explained that he had visited Pepi's and that it was quite crowded, with employees in offices that were formerly closets. He added,--that-,the display was also crowded, and that there was not a lot of room to move around. The question of giving up 3 lodge rooms was discussed, and Dick said that the staff was recommending denial of the conditional use permit request because of the fact that the Town of Vail policy that the lodge base is important to Vail. Of Part II, the Exterior Alteration request, Dick felt that it is in conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, and that the staff was recommending approval (subject to the one condition in the memo). Discussion followed concerning overcrowding maybe not being a criteria, and then Pepi listed many reasons why he felt the change was needed. He needs more retail space. He uses one small room for office.-space for both businesses and has no place to talk to someone unless he takes them upstairs to his apartment where the children are. He mentioned that his businesses were growing with Vail like everyone else. He added 2 rooms on the 4th floor that were not on the original plans. He estimated that the Town's income on his sales taxes would grow from $2,000 to $20,000. Pepi felt that the space one floor up would be good for his use. He stated that these rooms were noisy, and they were difficult to rent out. In fact, he did not rent them at all during the summer. He added that the Town of Vail had changed so much that it was not the same as it was, and that no one had predicted such growth. He felt that with the 2 rooms on the 4th floor, he was really only taking away one room. He listed other people who had received . permits-- Timerhouse, Rucksack, Gorsuch, etc. He felt in working to get things better, he was making the shopping experience better for the tourist. Gerry emphasized that the purpose of horizontal zoning was to have a mixture of uses in the Village, and that this request might set a precedent. Pepi repeated that he could not rent out the 3 lodge rooms in the summer at all. Ron Riley spoke in Pepi's favor emphasizing that each case should be looked at individually,.and that the Town needs flexibility, for the needs of Bridge Street change. Gaynor agreed, and Duane felt that perhaps the policy of the zoning here was too strict. Jim Morgan added that there was a possibility to build additional rooms in another location, perhaps the back. Dick stated that under the present zoning, Pepi could't build as many rooms as he has. Gaynor moved, and Duane seconded that the commission grant a conditional use permit to Pepi to convert 3 lodge rooms into commercial space as presented in the staff memo subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate agaist a special improvement district for Vail Village if and one is formed. The vote was 4 -3, with Dan, Jim and Gerry opposed, because they were against converting lodge units to commercial space. Discussion followed concerning the exterior alteration section of the request. Dick repeated that the staff recommended approval subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for Vail Village if and when one is formed. Gerry asked Pepi if he would agree to this condition. Pepi replied that he would. Scott stated that after visiting the site and standing in the street, he found 2 things. 1, that it look like a window will be blocked off, and asked Pepi if the owner was aware that it would be blocked? Pepi answered that he didn't talk to the owner. Dick mentioned that public notices had been sent out to adjacent property owners. PEC Minutes - 3 - 2/23/81 Scott discussed the front line of the building. Roger moved and Gaynor seconded to give approval to an exterior alteration and modification to add enclosed floor area to the Gasthof Gramshammer building subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for Vail Village if dnd when one is formed. The vote was 7 -0, unanimous. 4. Request for minor subdivision for part of lot 17, Bighorn 4th. Distelhorst. Peter Patten showed maps and explained the property and property lines. Dan had know- ledge of the history of the lot with extensive surveys, and added that the lot line has been situated so legal parking requirements can be met on each lot separately.. Peter added that no GRFA could be added. Dr..;Distelhorst stated that there was an apartment on the side with the dental office, and Peter said he would change the memo to reflect this. Jim moved and Roger seconded that the request fora minor subdivision be approved. The vote was 6 -0 in favor with Dan abstaining. 3:00 p.m. Discussion of Proposed CCIII Zone District Dick explained the memo stating that conditional uses are those that need more review such as drive -up facilities. He said that the staff recommends approval of CCIII. A discussion of side set backs followed and it was decided that the section on setbacks be changed to indicate that the exterior district boundaries have a 20' setback and the words "bulk plant" be added to "commercial laundry and cleaning services." Scott moved and Dan seconded to approved the staff's.recomendation for zoning requirements for Commercial Core III District with the above changes Proposed West Vail Zoning Dick Ryan reviewed the public meetings up to that point and listed the projects under way that the County had approved and.which..the.Community. Development Department recom- mends approval: Meadow Creek, Spruce Creek, Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club, The Valley, Briar Patch, and West Vail Commons. Peter Patten explained the process the staff had gone through using the maps to show existing building, with an overlay showing proposed zoning. He added that much of West Vail, with the possible exception of Vail Ridge, had a mixture of uses. Much discussion of the Primary /Secondary zoning followed with the staff explaining that one reason for P/S zoning was to avoid mirror duplexes. Property owners who spoke against the P/S zoning included Mona Look of Highland Meadows, Wes Samuleson of Highland Meadows, Wolf Mueller of Matterhorn, Dave Shoemaker of Highland Meadows, Tim Garton who had subdivided Highland Meadows,.Jim Dougherty of Highland Meadows, Berry Permut who represented the owners of lots 26 thru 42 of Highland Meadows, John Siverly of Intermountain, Ted Kohler of Highland Meadows, &'Aloyd Johnson of Vail Village West #1. Tim Garton requested that Lot 40, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek, which is east of the Brandess building, be zoned CCITT or HDMF. He added that lot 13 in Intermountain was 13 acres, and the largest P/S lot in the valley. More discussion.on P. /..S followed, with the suggestion by Gaynor of making it 6 -/40. Peter said that almost all-the lots in Highland Meadows were at least 1/2 acre. Roger felt that perhaps the zoning regulations should include the statement that mirror image duplexes are not allowed. He later added that since there was so much response from Highland Meadows, that this subdivision should be left out of the recommendation to the Council at this time. Scott added that lot 40, Buffer Creek, should be left out also. PEC Minutes - 4 - 2/23/81 Roger moved and Jim seconded that the commission pass a resolution to the Town of Vail Council approving the proposed zoning for West Vaal as presented by the staff in their memo dated February 19, 1981, excluding Highland Meadows area because of its PUD disig- nation under County zoning and excluding Lot 40, Buffer Creek for additional hearings. The vote was 7-0, unanimously in favor. Roger moved and Gaynor seconded that there be a continued hearing on Monday, March. 2, 1981 at 3 :00 p.m. to further discuss Highland Meadows and Lot 40, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. The vote was 7 -0, unanimous. The meeting was adjourned. Appendix: Upon listening to the tape of the meeting of February 9, 1981, it was found that Dan's motion concerning the exterior alterationiamd modification:_and.height variance of the Sitzmark building did not include the condition of participating in the Vail Village improvement district. • WEINSHIENK, MILLER, BORUS & PERMUT ATTORNEY5 AT LAW HUBERT T. WEINSHIENK H. MICHAEL MILLER JOSEPH S.BORUS BARRY PERMUT EDWARD W. STERN JAMES A.JACOBSON Mr. Dick Ryan Director of Community Development Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 2200 LINCOLN CENTER BUILDING 1660 LINCOLN STREET DF—NVER, COLORADO $0264 TELEPHONE (303) a61 -4555 January 26, 1981 Re: Karl Hoevelmann - Condominium Unit No. 103 Golden Peak House Building Dear Mr. Ryan: VAII, OFFICE VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILMNO P. O. BOX 3510 VAIL,COLOHADQ a1657 TELEPHONE (303) 470 -105a In connection with the problem encountered by Karl Hoevelmann in establishing his barber and beauty shop in the Golden Peak House Building and following our discussion of this matter, I believe that the most efficient way to propose an amendment to the Zoning code which would allow Carl to use the condominium space for his beauty and barber shop is to create two additional categories of conditional uses in the "CC- -1" district for barber shops and beauty shops. Karl could then apply for the necessary conditional use permit if the amendment were passed. By making barber shops and beauty shops conditional uses, the town can continue to maintain control over street level uses, and avoid having these types of uses proliferate as a matter of right. Furthermore, the amendment to the zoning code required to make this change is simple and free of the danger of having unknown future ramifications. Karl, however, would be permitted to use his space as he desires if he can satisfy this criteria for a conditional use. Consequently, I suggest that an amendment be prepared to Chapter 18.24.030(c) of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance adding the following subsections 5 and 6: "5. Barber Shops. 6. Beauty Shops." r J lie WEINSWIENK, MILLER, BORUS & PERMUT Mr. Dick Ryan - 2 - January 26, 1981 If I can provide any assistance in preparing or processing the proposed amendment to the Zoning code, please do not hesitate to communicate with me. HTW:tjw cc: Mr. Karl Hoevelmann Ver truly yours- , Gl Hubert T. Weinshienk MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE:. 1/19/81 .(should be 2/19/81) SUBJECT: Karl Hoevelmann request for an amendment to the Conditional Use Section mmercial Core o . Zone District to allow . barber shops. -and beauty shops as permitted uses, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST This request stems directly from Mr. Hoevelmann's wish to convert a small, circular retail space near the street level entrance of the Gold Peak House to a beauty salon. Presently, beauty and barber shops are allowed on any floor except street level, as per Ordinance 8 of 1973. A review of the permitted uses in CCI clearly indicates the intent to limit this level to retail, tourist- oriented shops. Personal service and office uses were purposely left out of the permitted uses for street level. The request is to allow the beauty and barber shop use on street level with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. On January 12, 1981, Karl Hoevelmann appeared before the PEC to discuss the issue of the Planning Department's disapproval of his request to have a beauty shop in the space • formerly occupied by the Sugar Daddy.in the Gold Peak House. It was stated at that time, that the only way for Mr. Hoevelmann to be allowed his beauty shop in that space was to have the zoning code amended for street level uses in Commercial Core I. Two issues were focussed on during that PEC discussion: 1. Was a beauty shop an appropriate use on street level in the CCI Zone District? Should there be a reconsideration of this and other issues regarding horizontal zoning in both Cores? 2. Is there a difference in the impact and appropriateness of a use when one differen- tiates between direct street frontage space and off - street, interior space with no street frontage? Discussion of these items produced no definite direction or decisions. The PEC felt that these issues should be discussed at the joint PEC and Town Council work session which took place the following day. The opinions at that meeting were basically that no major changes in the horizontal zoning regulations should be made at that time, but that a 90 --day period be set aside to study it to explore the possiblities for change. Also, no request was made to direct the Staff to change the code so that beauty shops would be permitted on street level in CCI and CCII.. Obviously, we are being asked to act on this request before that overall review can take place. Thus, the following represents the staff position on the issue at hand at this time. Hoevelmann - 2 -- 2/18/81 RECOMMENDATION . We feel there is merit in examining the differentiation of impact of a use when it does not have direct street frontage on a major pedestrian way. A beauty shop may be detrimental to the goals of the original horizontal zoning ordinance if it would appear, for example, in the space that now occupies the Mug Shop or Bridge Street Inn. However, if it occurs on an interior lobby space of the Lodge at Vail, the negative effects are significantly reduced or eliminated and no.compromising of the objectives of the regulation are realized. The underlying premise here:is that major pedestrian ways should be fronted with retail tourist- oriented shops because they draw and attract interest and sales volumes - they must be highly visible.`-;Interior, unobvious spaces within hotel lobbies or interior arcades are not drawing people to them on their own- - the people usually have a specific reason or purpose other than sightseeing to enter these areas. Thus, certain uses may be appropriate for these spaces wherein they would not be appropriate for highly visible major street frontage spaces. Addressing the other issue of whether or not the beauty shop use was appropriate for street level, we feel it would be if it met the locational criteria of being off - street, interior space... The requirement would be that the proposed.space would not contain any street frontage on a major pedestrian way or outdoor mall area. The space must have access only from an interior lobby or arcade -type area. We would propose that the Conditional Use Permit Factors be amended so that barber and beauty shops requesting a Conditonal Use Permit in CCI and CCII, be required to meet these locational criteria before the permit could be granted. We feel that this may not be the only use to fall within this new locational criteria and look forward to a more complete review of other uses which may be in a similar situation. This review is upcoming soon, when we take a total Look at horizontal zoning. In conclusion, we would recommend the approval of the Hoevelmann request with the condiz tion that Section 18.60.060 Criteria - Findings for Conditional. Use Permits be amended so that under paragraph A, a number 8 would be added to read: 8. No Conditional Use Permit will be approved for barber or beauty shops on first . or street level in wither Commercial Core I or Commercial Core II unless the applicant has demonstrated, to the Community Development Department's satisfaction, that the space in question contains no exterior frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way or public mall area. LJ MEMORANDUM February 20, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use request to remove three lodge rooms from the second floor of Commercial Core I and for an exterior alteration and modification to add enclosed floor area to the Gasthof Gramshammer building. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer BACKGROUND: On April 28, 1980, the Gasthof Gramshammer received approval for a 450 square foot kitchen by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This was the first review under the new exterior modification procedure. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: This is a request-for the removal of three lodge rooms which requires Conditional Use approval and for a second floor commercial expansion of approximately 1,300 square feet at the Gasthof Gramshammer building. The commercial expansion would be used by Pepi Sports to alleviate the crowded condition in the store and for additional office space for employees who are.- .currently crowded into very small spaces. The three lodge rooms that are requested to be converted would contain a show room of approximately 374 square feet and two offices of approximately 720 • square feet. EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE The existing use of the second floor area under consideration is three lodge rooms and a deck. The proposed new commercial space would be on the deck area, while the show room and offices would be where the lodge rooms are currently located. I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST A Conditional Use permit is required for any use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit or any portion thereof on the second floor in Commercial . Core I. The removal of three lodge rooms requires approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission with possible appeal to Town Council. 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 impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town has made a strong effort to continue lodge and condominium units in Gramshammer - 2 2/20/81 Vail Village. Recently the Planning and Environmental Commission approved three condominium units in the Red Lion proposal and have attempted to continue the via - bility of lodge rooms by not allowing time sharing in Commercial Core I. Many People consider the mix of lodge rooms, condominium and commercial uses-an important ingredient to the success of Vail Village. In particular, lodge rooms seem to provide for more use by tourists than condominiums which may be used only a few months out of the year. Removal of three lodge rooms seems not to be in conformance with the policy to ensure a strong and viable lodge base. The effect of the use on I il.ities, utilities, schoo - 2ublic facilities needs. ht and air, distribution of _population, transportation ls, parks and recreation facilities, and other public This use should have no effect on the above factors. Effect uon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedes- trian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas` - There would be no change in the use of Bridge Street. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This aspect will be discussed in the Exterior Alteration and Modification section of this memorandum. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. There are no other factors deemed applicable. The environmental impact report concerning the ro osed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Not applicable. F. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use permit be denied based on the following findings: That the removal of three lodge rooms is not consistent with the development ob- jectives of the Town. The conditional use review permits the.Planning and Environ- mental Commission to review on a request by request basis, the removal of residential units or lodge rooms from the second floor in Commercial Core I. The lodge base is considered an important ingredient to the success of Vail and Vail Village as a resort community. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: • 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the district in which the site is located; 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would Gramshammer - 3 - 2/20/81 be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this tite. (Ord. 8, 1973). II. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST FOR THE EXPANSION ABOVE PEP.I SPORTS ON BRIDGE STREET Proposed is the second floor expansion of space above Pepi Sports on Bridge Street:, The new commercial area would be approximately 1,300 squaxefeet with the conversion of three lodge rooms into a 374 square foot show room and .720 square feet of office space. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan did not specifically deal with the area under consideration in this request. At the time.the Urban Design Guide Plan was under review, the staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council knew that there would be requests for exterior alterations and expansions that have not even been thought of by a property owner. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010 Purpose The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the . unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishements in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrange- ments of buildings fronting on pedestrian..ways and public groonways, and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The proposed expansion over Pepi Sports would retain the unique character of Vail Village regarding the location of the proposed expansion. The applicant's architect has moved the proposed addition back to ensure that the street closure standards are respected. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Pedestrianization: At the street level, there would be no change proposed by the construction on the second floor of Pepi Sports. If approved, the applicant would have to insure minimum disruption during construction. Vehicle Penetration: . The applicant has stated to the staff that the expansion is needed to alleviate the crowded condition of displaying merchandise within Pepi Sports. Delivery vehicles should not increase because of this proposal. GraTshammer - 4 - 2 -20 -1981 Streetscape Framework: Is The infill commercial possibly may create more interest by people looking up to see the window displays on the second floor. Street Enclosure: The applicants architect at a work session of the Planning and Environmental Commission demonstrated that a street enclosure of 112 the height of the walls to the width of the street remained. This was determined to be comfortable space for pedestrians to walk. Street Edge: This second floor addition proposal does not change this condition. Building Height: The proposal meet the standards established in the Vail Village Design Considerations. Views: The proposal does not impact any view corridor. Sun Shade: Because of the height of buildings to the south and west, there would be no impact on the sun shade factor. Zoning Code Considerations Parking: At the time of building permit, the applicant will be required to pay . the applicable parking fee for commercial space. Architectural and Landscape Consideration The exterior design will be reviewed by the Design Review Board to determine com- pliance with the Design Considerations for Vail Village. RECOMMENDATION: For this part of the request, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the exterior modification and alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer subject to the following condition:. That the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for Vail Village if and when one is formed. n L-J TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: 2/19/81 SUBJECT: Fred Distelhorst request for a minor subdivision on an unplatted parcel immediately cast of Lot 17, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Addition.... DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This piece of property consisting of 1.147 acres fronting on both Streamside Circle and Bighorn Road contains some pre - existing non - conforming uses due to the construction of a duplex and a single family home and dental office before the Town annexed the Bighorn area. Also non - conforming is the front and west side setback of the duplex located on the western end of the property, and the lack of adequate off- street parking for this structure. The requirement for subdivision of a pre - existing legal non - conforming use is that the subdivision cannot create non - conformities or make the existing non - conformities worse. The only other requirement imposed upon the applicant was to provide sufficient off - street parking (8 spaces) to meet the present parking requirement. The applicant wishes to create two Two - Family Residential (R) District lots where presently one exists. His proposal also includes a plat restriction for two tracts south of the existing buildings along Gore Creek to be used only as open space with construction of any permanent improvement or structure prohibited. The minimum lot size for the R Zone District is 17,500 square feet. After considerable discussion and revisions, the applicant has been able to meet all the requirements outlined above. The lots have been created without violation of any setback or other zoning regulation other than those already existing. The parking problem has been resolved via an easement on the plat for at least 8 off- street spaces. The following are the statistics relating to the proposal: EXISTING SITUATION No. of Sq. Ft Land Use Non Conformities Lots of Lot 1 2 Tract A Tract B 1 49,960 Two buildings consisting On west duplex: Front setback, of a total of 4 dwelling west side setback, lack of adequate units and 1 dental office off - street parking. On east unit: None PROPOSED Lot Sq. Ft. of Lot Land Use New Non - Conformities 19,275 Duplex none 17,853 Duplex & Dental Office none 8,884 Open Space none 3,944 Open Space none RECOMMENDATION Because the applicant has met all the requirements of the zoning regulations, we recommend approval of this minor subdivision request. V I 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 No. 1. Application has been made in accordance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that David Garton has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of additional office space to the Casino Building located on lots D, E and F, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Application has been made in accordance with Section 18.24.065 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Pamela A. Telleen has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a building containing commercial space on the 1st or street level and residential on the 2nd and 3rd levels located on a part of Ia Lot F, Block 5 -C, Vail Village lst Filing. Application has been made in accordance with This area is now a vacant property between the Casino and Plaza Lodge buildings. Section 18.24.065 of the Vail Municipal Code. This application also represents a request for a revision to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and is being reviewed in accordance with Section 18.24.220, paragraph B of the Vail Municipal Code. The applicant also is requesting a height variance in accordance with Section 18.24.120 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that A. Peter Patten, Jr., Zoning Administrator for the Town of Vail, is requesting amendments to Section 18.64.050, Structures and Site improvement relating to non- conforming uses. The changes relate to clarification of language and allowing legal non - conforming uses to be rebuilt after destruction 11 • by fire, etc. I* 10 1�U'1'JC.;I: IS lif;l�I;131' G.IVI;,� that A. Peter Patten, Jr., Zoning Administrator for the Town of Vail, is requestUg a revision to the Sign Code, Title 16 of the Vail ]�lunicipa.l. Code, to treat a special sign cock for the proposed Commercial Core III zone district. A Public: llear:i.ng will be held in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on March J, 19,51 at 3:00 p.m. before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for each of the above items. The applications and information relating to the proposc;d changes is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular business hours for rcva_ew or inspectio by the public. A. PETER PATTEN, JR. Zoning Administrator TOWN OF VAIL Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail February 20, 1981. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING March 2, 1981 3:00 p.m. 0 This is a continuation of the meeting of February 23, 1981. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Edwards Dick Ryan Dan Corcoran Peter Patten Gerry White Larry Eskwith Roger Tilkemeier Larry Woodley Jim Morgan Peter Jamar Gaynor Miller Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Bud Benedict 1. Lot 40. Resubdivision of Buffer Creek Subdivision Peter Patten explained that the staff still is in favor of zoning this property Residential Cluster zone, though at the meeting the previous week, the issue was raised as to whether or not this would be better zoned Commercial Core III. He added that when the Brandess Building was zoned Commercial Core III several years ago, the PEC had been opposed to extending commercial areas that far east. Barry Permut, representing Tim Garton reiterated that Garton feels the Residential Cluster zoning is not appropriate zoning. He felt that a low profile professional building would be a good transition from CCIII on the East to the RC zone on the west. He added that Mr. Garton sent out letters to the 3.lot owners adjoining behind this lot, and received no replies. Dick reminded the commission that if this was zoned CCIII, there would be no guarantee that a low profile professional building would in fact be built. The lot could be sold, or plans could change. Marka Moser spoke in opposition to zoning this commercial. She felt that there was a need to have a buffer between the residential area and the highway, and also that the traffic pattern had become very heavy in that area. Mary Jo Allen spoke in opposition to changing this to commercial, and added that she hoped the Town would consider this for a park. Loyette Goodell opposed the commercial zoning for letters from 2 other Buffer Creek property owners that to make this commercial would down grade the Jim King was opposed and added the idea of making Dick Peterson opposed the change, especially with the area. He felt the area was one of the haghes' residents. He, also, wanted to see this as green lot 40, and added that she had who felt the same way. She felt other property in the area. this a park. respect to the heavy traffic in t. in density with respect to permanent space. Barry Permut responded by saying that Tim Garton would reiterate his offer to sell the land to the Town. PEC - Minutes - Page 2 - 3/2/81 Dan Corcoran moved and Jim Morgan seconded that the Commission recommend to the Town Council that Dot 40, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek be zoned Residential Cluster as originally propsed in the Planning Staff. The vote was 6 -0, unanimously in favor. 2. Highland Meadows Peter Patten explained that having spent much time in the past week studying the minutes of the County, and records. _. He said that they had not found anything that would change their proposed zoning of Highland Meadows, and that they still felt that Primary /Secondary was the appropriate zoning, and that Highland Meadows shouldn't be treated differently from the rest of West Vail. Peter added that there was an amendment to the Highland Meadows covenants, concerning minimum GRFA of 1500 sq ft per structure, but that Eagle County did not approve the amendment. Scott asked about the plat. Peter responded that the plan says that duplexes can be put on these lots, and that there were no restrictions beyond those words. Jim asked if this was Planned Unit Development set up with duplexes, why change to P /S? Terrill Knight, formerly with the County, gave a brief history of Highland Meadows, and said that the final approval was for duplexes. He added that this was the first Planned Unit Development, aside from Beaver Creek, that the County had done, and that it was more like a standard subdivision. The preliminary plat was changed to duplex lots with legal descriptions of each lot. In stages of evaluation, additional restrictions were not.-put on. The covenants were not enforcable as.far as the County was concerned. therefore, the documents were a little of this and a little of that. He added that he was jaded by the past history of these events, and felt that duplex was appropriate for Highland Meadows. However, he qualified this, and stated that he did not know what the Town's goals were. He thought that perhaps P/S was better, but had no problem with duplex. Scott felt that if this subdivision had been approved as PUD, that to change to P/S would be going too far. Jim felt that to be fair, they ought to try to bring people into the Town as they were zoned. Roger agreed, adding that it would be good to try to avoid mirror duplexes which perhaps the DRB could enforce, and that there was a pretty substantial number of people objecting to P /S, and that since these lots were not highly visible, perhaps duplex zoning was more appropriate.. Gerry White disagreed, stating that this had never evolved into PUD, and P/S ... was the most appropriate designation. He also felt that it was important that a precedent was.being set. Peter said that most of the lots were highly visible, and that.was one concern. Gaynor felt that since the lots hadn't as yet been zoned, they were not setting a precedent by changing them. More discussion followed concerning PUD and the covenants. Jim asked if this subdivision could be considered separately from the rest of West Vail because it had been zoned PUD. Larry Eskwith said that that was the key question and added that there could be potential problems with treating H.M. differently from the rest. Barry Permut stated that this subdivision had always been referred to as PUD, that the legal notices, Environmental Impact Statements, all reflected PUD, and the final plat showed building envelopes. He stated that the Town of Vail had a chance to review this PUD and approve with certain changes, that the Town of Vail had ample time and opportunity to oppose this zoning and just 3 years ago approved it. Mona Look said that she represented about half of the lot owners, most of whom feel that they should be allowed to build duplexes. She repeated that most of them would PEC - Minutes - page 3 - 3/2/81 have built duplexes by now, but the utilities had not been in, and that the property was also going through a foreclosure. She stated that she had been in favor of the West Vail annexation, but would not have voted for it if she had known their zoning to was going to be changed. Jerry Coates, Jeff Houston, Keith Pomeroy, all spoke in opposition to the P/S zoning, and agreed with Mona. Barbara Herkert said that all she was hearing was P/S instead of asking for other courses they could take that would work for both the PEC and the land owners. Jeff added that he wasn't against the passing of an ordinance that stated "no mirror images ". Joe Fannin of lots 26-42 said he went to the County. when considering buying the lots and that it was PUD' not a normal subdivision. Barry Permut reiterated that the oxignal subdivision was PUD. The building envelopes were created and protective covenants relate to building size, site, dedication of green space, etc. He added that 15 lots in #1 and 11 in #2 were under 1/2 acre is size. Larry Eskwith felt that this particular subdivision is subject to whatever zoning the Planning Commission anc Council feel is appropriate. Jim Morgan moved and Roger Tilkemeier seconded to recommend to the Town Council to make the zoning for Highland Meadows #1 and #2 straight duplex. The vote was 4 -2 in favor. Dan and Gerry voted against. Motion passed. �J • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA March 9, 1981 3:oo p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 23, 1981. 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of March 2, 1981. 3. Deane L. Knox Residential Floor Area Variance for.Casolar I.I.,.a Resubdivision of Lot A -7, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 4. Telleen Amendment to the Vail Village urban Design Guide Plan and exterior alteration and modification request for the alley between the Casino Building and Plaza Lodge on Bridge Street. S. Garton Exterior Alteration and modification request to the Casino Building on Wall Street. Published in the Vail 'frail March 6, 1981. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 1981 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Edwards Dick Ryan Gaynor Miller Peter Patten Dan Corcoran Larry Woodley Gerry White Larry Eskwith Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Jim Morgan COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ABSENT Bud Benedict Roger Tilkemeier 1. Ap2roval of minutes of meeting of February 23, 1981 Duane Piper moved and Scott Edwards seconded that the minutes be approved. Vote was 5 -0 in favor. (Jim Morgan hadn't yet arrived.) 2. A Pproval of minutes of meeting of March 2, 1981. Scott Edwards moved and Dan Corcoran seconded that the minutes be approved. Vote was again 5�0 in favor. 3. Deane L Knox esidential Floor Area Variance for Casolar II, a Resubdivision of Lot A- 7,--Lionsridge Filing No. 1. Dick Ryan: I'll let Larry go thru and give a little background, but since many of us were not here on the staff at the time this whole subdivision was approved, I asked Larry to go back and listen to all the tapes of the Planning Commission for the sub- division and also for the approvals of the homes on different lots in the subdivision. I think he'll go through and give you a quick overview of the situation and staff recommendation. Larry Woodley: I think in the Knox situation, there are various questions that have arisen during this whole problem. No. 1 was, was the lot_line between A7 and A8 being Casolar I and Casolar IT able to be vacated, which would then allow transfering approxi- mately 3500 + or -. sq ft to Casolar IT. In reviewing the tapes, and different docu- ments from Jim Rubin, found no documentation whatsoever that this was ever allowed. No. 1, Casolar I was under RC zone, Casolar II being LDMF, and you cannot transfer density from one zone to another zone, so this 3500 sq ft, at no place was there any documentation that would lead us to believe that this was agreed to and was able to be done. Also, there was never any formal request that I could find that requested any transfer of density from Casolar I to Casolar II. The second question was the allowable GRFA on the project. Jim Rubin had done some primary slope analyses thru the project which Mr. Knox was told he could have approxi- mate 1400 sq ft of GRFA per unit. In the Planning Commission of August 22, 1978, Mr. Knox submitted an approval for 11 units with 1400 sqft of GRFA which was then approved by the Planning Commission. 0. PEC - page 2 - 3/9/81 Also, the owner, Mr. Knox stated that the Town of Vail had not controlled the GRFA in Casolar II allowing various units to be built that exceeded the 1400 sq ft. In several of the documents and conversations with Jim Rubin, we find that he was told 18 at that time that any overage of the 1400 sq ft of GRFA would be deducted from the total amount of GRFA which was allowed on the whole Casolar II because there had not been a slope analysis done by an engineering firm which had been requested several times so we could determine the actual amount of GRFA which was allowed on the project. After receiving that slope analysis, it was found actually, that 6 -1/2 % of the allowable lot area was over 40% which would actually give him a few square feet below 1400 sq ft. Based on the useable GRFA after receiving information, the total allowable (GRFA) would have been 1372 sq ft. AT 1690 sq ft per unit, the project would have far exceeded the allowable GRFA. Conclusion: based on all the information and viewed both by documents and reviewing the tapes, it is the opinion of the staff that Mr. Knox was never lead to believe that he could transfer GRFA from Casolar I to Casolar II, that the GRFA would ever be approved at 1690 sq ft per unit, that the Town of Vail had accepted covenants that indicated 1690 sq ft, and that the Town of Vail would control the amount of GRFA used or that they would enforce provisions of covenants. It is our findings that Mr. Knox did not fully comply with the request of the Community Development Department to complete the slope analysis in a timely manner, and in doing so, correct the actual allowable GRFA in the covenants. The staff believes that they have been very up front with Mr. Knox, and believes that it was solely his responsibility to control the usage of the GRFA, and that the hardship has been totally self inflicted. The staff recommends that Mr. Knox's application for the variance as set forth in the attached application be denied. 40 Roger Thomasch: My name is Roger Thomasch and I am an attorney representing Mr. Knox, and I would like an opportunity to speak to the Commissioners if I could. We come before you this afternoon asking for a variance with respect to the GRFA on Casolar II. The situation in a nutshell is this: We are down to our final remaining lot in the subdivision, lot 12, and the amount of GRFA remaining is insufficient for Mr. Knox to build anything on that lot. Therefore, left with a fairly valuable piece of land which is useless unless we, with your discretion are granted additional GRFA so that a unit can be put on that piece of property. The property is zoned LDMF as the paper has indicated. We will be..1 was not, but Mr. Knox was before this Commission I think on January 12 of this year. At that time, you presented a request concerning this lot asking for a variance and asking you to give him enough additional GRFA for that lot to permit him to build a duplex, about 2760 sq ft. Now, previously Mr. Knox presented papers to you asking for, I believe 3380 sq ft on that lot. That matter, I'm told was tabled. He reconsidered, and came back in asking for 2760 sq ft to build a duplex on that lot. You had a hearing in January on that matter, and the request for a variance was denied. Mr. Knox followed with an appeal to the Town Council. At that time, he consulted with me, and after reviewing the papers, and believed it was in everyone's best interest if we -could try to work out a compromise. It would allow productive use of the land and be consistent with the concerns which this body has. I contacted Mr. Rider and the Town Council and chatted with him and told him that I would recommend to Mr. Knox that he attempt to come back to you and drastically reduce his request. Instead of a duplex, he asks to build a single family residence. Instead of asking for 2760 sq ft, asking for simply 1900 sq ft. so that on this piece of land, instead of having it go to waste, he could at least have a 1900 sq ft single family residence. Mr. Rider suggested to me that that was so a substantial a change in the application, that we come back to this body for review rather than appeal to the Town Council, which is why we are back here today. Now, the request then, that we present to you is that on lot 12, Casolar 11, Mr. Knox be permitted PLC - page 3 - 3/9/81 to construct a residence totalling no more than 1900 sq ft on the condition that it be a single family residence. Now, I think the history of this matter is known to all of you, - probably much better than it is known to me., because I am a late comer, and don't see a need to rehash all of it for you, but there are a couple of observations I would like to make,=in that they go to, at least in my mind the consistency of this request and the objectives that the zoning regulations seek to achieve and the objectives that you try to administer. First, in respect to density: I think it is important to note that, at least as I interpret the zoning regulations, in that LDMF zoning category, .the.fact.that there are 1,2 acres involved in Casolar II, under the mathmatics as I understand it, there are 12 units per acre. There could have been 14 units in Casolar 11. I get that on the basis of understanding that you can put up 12 units per acre, Mr. Knox only asked for 11 units and that's what was approved, so that he started off asking you for three units less in that area than he would have mathmatically been entitled to if you will. Under the proposal that we are now asking, with your discretion, we would reduce that by yet one more unit, because we would replace what used to be an approved duplex with a single family. We would be now in a situation where density would be only 10 units on a piece of land under the zoning regulations, at least, it would appear to support 14 units. So I think as to density, it's a comfortable situation, In respect to GRFA: I don't want to get back again to the entire problem of the slope analysis on which both sides have their own views, but I think that what is germane is that about 1000 feet of GRFA that the developer thought he had was lost in midstream when it developed that a substantial portion of the land had a slope over 40 %. The slope is minutely over 40 %, and I suggest to you, not that there was anything wrong with the slope analysis, or that you were somehow not entitled to take that portion of the land away from the GRFA. I only point out to you that a substantial piece of that land is not developed and.is not sold because if is slightly over 40 %. Con- sequently, I think that's a factor. But the most important factor, and I'll close on this, I think that the consistency question overall with, what I would understand your concerns to be. Now, this is a solar project that covers three lots. It covers lots A7, A8 and A9. Phase I which is not the phase we're dealing with called A8 and A9, as I understand it, several years ago Mr. Knox suggested a kind of new concept in RC zone district involving an envelope development. He worked with the Town on it, and got it approved, In Phase 1, as you have heard a few moments ago. As it was developed, he used 3680 less GRFA feet than was approved. So Phase I has 3680 less feet than he could have used. Now, I don't want to assert to you that for some reason we ought to carry that over.to Phase II, because that is old business, and we've been over it, and we just heard the comments on it, but I do think that when you are exersizing your discretion on the question of whether or not it would be in every one's best interest to let him use this additional parcel, when you keep in mind the fact that this is a unified development, Phase I and Phase 11, the roads interconnect, there is only one set of amenities, there is one condominium association. If you view what this man has done as a whole, he does have over on this side, a phased development that is 3680 feet less than he could have developed. While I know that as a matter of right he ought to be able to take that over and use it on the adjoining homes. Overall, we are considering the burden on the land and the burden on the environment. I suggest to you thatit is germane is a discretionary ......,...to look at the fact that this entire development will, first of all, use less GRFA as a whole, and secondly will be some four units in density under what it could have been. I suggest to you that there is a very significant hardship here. Somewhere in the development things went awry. I think that Mr. Knox thought the Town was watching how fast he was using the GRFA, the Town thought he was watching for it, and for whatever reason and for whoever's fault we come down to a situation where we have a piece of land left and there just isn't enough GRFA left to build on. We've compromised this down to what I think is an absolute PEC - page 4 -- 3/9/81 minimum, 1900 square feet and a single family residence. I think overall it's a sound project. It's a request if a moderately sized home were put up, it would not burden the land, it would not be an unduly density factor and it would relieve a substantial hardship in a very unique situation. If there are any questions, I can answer them.. Ge_ xrY: Are there any questions from the Commission? One quick response to one thing that you said. It isn't in the best interest of the Town of Vail to grant a variance for any kind of financial hardship which is the statement that you just made. I couldn't let that pass without making that comment. It would certainly.be to: compromise the development standards of the Town of Vail to do so. Thomasch: I appreciate that, and I didn't mean to indicate that only a financial hard- ship, it's a planned community where the cost of carrying the common amenities is spread amoung the home owners. The people who bought there bought there thinking they were going to have a community of a certain size. I think there are enough of hardship factors. to just let one piece of land not go totally unused, and I think it goes beyond just a financial hardship of development. Gerry: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions from the Planning Commission? Scott: It seems like each time we review this something new comes up to change my thinking. I heard the statement earlier by staff that Mr. Knox was told that any excess of 1400 feet given to the individual envelopes would be deducted from the total GRFA, and that's the first time I've heard that statement that he was actually told that. Do we have some good verification of that? Dick I think to the letter of June 2, 1980 when Jim went through and explained what the square footage had been used in the past and ....It's in the packet under #5, and it was what the Planning Commission reviewed last time in making a determination in granting or not granting a variance, and it is the feeling of the staff that it was made pretty clearly, and that there was this amount of square footage still remaining in the units, and he could use it up, or it could be used up in any way the developer wanted to see it be used on each lot. Do you have that letter, Scott? Scott: I'm not sure which one it was. I read the whole thing—it talked about the square footage and what was left.. Gerry: Are there any other questions or comments? Yes, Larry (E.), what type of—do you feel this is precedent setting. due to the unique nature? If there were a variance granted for the additional GRFA, do you feel this would set a precedent that you could use towards that object.... Larry E.: We11, you know, the variance provision of the zoning code allows you to grant variances fog GRFA, so the mechanism is there. I think each case has to be looked at individually based on the pertinent facts, and I'm not sure that granting a variance in one particular case necessarily sets a precedent for any other case that comes before the Town. J think what you have to look at are the criteria that are set forth in the ordinance itself in determining whether a variance should be granted in each individual instance, including this one. I don't know how else to answer. Gerry: Precedent setting, if I can respond to that just for a second, would be to articulate the criteria that you are using in any particular instance, and then that same criteria could be looked at by another developer — another applicant. PEC - page 5 - 3/9/81 Jim: And obviously under different circumstances with considerably different situations. Gerry: Almost always. However, the criteria it is very important to a the criteria for granting a variance if y P rticulate you are going to grant it. Duane: There are actually two items of density control that govern the situation that we're concerned with. One being the GRFA and the other being the number of units. We're under the number of units, but we do exceed, with this variance, the GRFA. I'm really not in favor of any situation where we negociate the situation to exceed either or both of those conditions. Gaynor: I don't know what to add to this that hasn't been said before. It looks like a compromise to work out a problem. I'm afraid that I still feel that there's enough background in this thing that says he has about 900 square feet left in density. Gerry: Thank you. Are there any .last comments from the developer? Thomasch: No thanks. Gerry: Would anyone like to make a motion? Duane: I'll make a motion to deny the variance. Gerry: Motion to deny by Duane Piper. Is there a second? Gaynor: Second. Gerry: Second by Gaynor Miller. All those is favor of the motion, and that would be in accordance with the staff memo. And it is unanimous except for Dan Corcoran and Scott Edwards, you are opposed. The motion carries. Larry E. Did you, uh, excuse me, Gerry, did you carry the motion and make the necessary findings that in fact had to be made in pursuant to the staff memorandum? Dick: The findings, I can state that before the variance is granted, we must make the findings. Larry E: O.K. Well, they should be made in the negative, then. Duane: The motion was to deny the variance as per the staff memo which I think covers it. Larry E. O,K, Gerry: There are 10 days to appeal the motion of the Planning Commission to the Town Council. Minutes continued on page 6 PEC - page 6 - 3/9/81 Gerry: The next item on the a enda is the Telleen Amendment to__the Vai1_Vlae__Urban Design Buide Plan and exterior alteration and modification request for the alley between the Casino Building and Plaza Lodge on Bridge Street. Staff comments, please. Dick: Mr. Chairman, and members of the board, this is actually a two part request. The first part the Planning Commission must deal with whether to amend or not amend Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Urban.DEsign Guide Plan was somewhat specific in this area, it talked about a mid -block connection that would be between the Plaza Lodge and the Casino Building that would go from Bridge Street over to the recently redeveloped plaza. It is the feeling of staff that until the options have been explored regarding the alley., if it can be made into viable walkway through that the opportunity of closing it in should not take place. The staff has reviewed this and walked and I think members of the Planning Commission have reviewed this at the time the Urban Design Guide Plan was approved and after that. Again, it is the staff's feeling that there should be the opportunity to look at improving this as.one of the networks that we have throughout the Village, see if it is a viable alternative before we lose that option, I believe forever, once it has been enclosed and that we actually have a building placed in that location. Talking to Gerry before the meeting, he said it is a little different than the Rucksack proposal because he thought it was a more viable place to actually go through. I did not have the opportunity of seeing that. I've only been in Town for the past 2 years, so I don't really know the space that well, but it was something that was mentioned during the workshops that we had on Vail Village. Many people thought that that connection was a very viable connection for Vail Village and should not have been closed in. Again, it is the recommendation of the staff that we should explore as a community and see if it is really a viable walkway before we make a decision of changing the -- amending the Urban Design Guide Plan possibly allowing a building to take place there. Gerry: Thank you. We have two long lists of signatures of people who are in favor of the alley, and the lists were circulated by Pam Telleen, and people who signed the lists were all people who were familiar with the area, many being residents of the Town of Vail. Are there comments from the applicant? John Perkins: I'm John Perkins and I am representing the applicant. I'm about to lose my voice - -I have a bad cold, so I'll be very brief. This will be the third time that you guys have seen this proposal, and I think we've stated in the previous three meetings why we don't feel that this thing is ever going to work as a viable pedestrian walkway. Drainage, light, lack of any focus of anything, especially moving from an East to West direction. The ice run -off in the winter makes it just about impossible to get through. The existing trash enclosures that are there now, we feel like are probably off of the property of the Plaza building, and shouldn't be there. The owner of the Plaza building has stated that she did not want trash in there, and.that has been her position for some time and the trash remained in there. I don't know - -those are my basic points, and we've been through them, like I said, 3 times before. We feel like we've got a better solution here, and with respect to Dick's point, I think we could wait around forever and see many other proposals, but we have a proposal here now we'd like you to consider. Now, Dick, do you want me to run through the building or are we going to decide on the amendment first, or what is the procedure? Dick: I think it is up to the Planning Commission, if they want to go through the whole proposal and then come back and deal with the amendment and then deal with the Conditional exterior modification. Gerry: I think you could go quickly through that. John: O.K. Since you have seen this last, there have been a couple of modifications. We would now propose only one shop on the lower floor with primary access from Bridge Street. The entry has been flip- flopped. Previously the door was on the north side PEC - page 7 - 3/9/81 the entry door is to the south. Pistachio's entry way would work very much the way . that it is now. A couple of reasons for doing that. It alleviated problems of getting in here and turning in a very tight area. We also feel like the construction process- - in the construction process, we can improve Pistachio's contuing operation whale we're under construction by keeping this a straight shot for him. The shop would have a security wall -type closure. That hasn't been speced yet, but we're thinking some sort of iron separation system that possibly could go into the ceiling or some iron gates of some portion. We would like for this to be closed, and yet let the traffic into Pistachio's be able to see into this display area. You then come down three risers into this shop. The door and everything would be at Bridge Street level and there would be that elevation change inside the shop, The other major change -- the upper two floors now have been converted to an office operation, as your memo said. A couple of reasons for that: The noise factor at Garton's and Mrs. Hill's opposition to noise immediately on her north wall. We think the offices with the day time use would be more compatible there and the building still act as a noise buffer. It's our thinking that one tenant would take both of these floors. However, if that :isn't the case, I've shown it divided off into 4 basic very small office spaces with a bath on the mid level. The stairs are now a scissors stair from the mid -floor to the upper floor. They are in the same position. We tried very hard to work these stairs into the front of this thing so that those offices could have the Bridge Street exposure, but due to the narrowness of this throat, it forced everything too far in here. That corner being the only 94 ° angle, it's the most obvious place for stairs. Architecturally, this proposal has been different every time you have seen it. We now feel like we hope to have a flat roof approved. This roof would not be flat, but would be canted off of the Plaza building behind this parapet and would drain down into an interior drainage system which I've been through before. It simplifies a lot of things. The last drawing you saw on this had many different cants and valleys and things. By extending . this flower box out to a portion of Garton's roof, it gives me a point here where I can cant back to this drain. I'll do the same thing to that side which won't be as visable. This roof would have a slight pitch off, bringing everything into the 6 inch roof drain. The rear elevation does not take into account the other proposal that you'll hear today. This window would be on that stairs, you come up with decks still on the - -off of each level with flower boxes. We still feel lake the architectural character is either residential or commercial, I don't think you.couid tell any difference. We generally lake the detailing of the Curtin -Hill shop in the new building. I can't remember the official name of that building, but we like the paned windows, we think we would use some fine detailing and paint work and try to bring this into the small scale architecturally that the space is. The fire walls, again, would be 2 hour occu- pancy separation walls along both existing buildings, and Mr. Swanson has indicated that he thinks that is better than the condition that is there now. We'd also use a class A paint spread on all interior materials. The construction staging is a very difficult issue, and I don't really have any magic solution to that problem. The storage of materials and the time that businesses in this area will be affected is a different problem. I am hoping that if these two pro- jects should go at different times, that perhaps Garton's deck could be used for staging of some light materials. Heavy materials, I think that we would have to hopefully try to work something out with the Town somewhere and store those a minimum amount of time and get them in place. I thank I've covered everything - -if you have questions.. Gerry' Are there any other questions? O.K. Are there any other comments from the audience? PEC page 8 - 3/9/81 George Knox: Doesn't the Town ordinances say that there will be no materials stored on public streets etc, no construction trucks and everything will be parked.... Gerry: we aren't going to deal with the actual construction project right now with the Planning Commission. We're dealing rather with the space. Knox: You are dealing with the ability to construct it, so therefore you are dealing with the space. Gerry: The Town regulations are, of course, intact, and they will control abuse of public rights -of --way. John: We're hoping to use some of Garton's area, but that certainly won't cover heavy materials. I'm hoping that it can be staged, that the construction can be staged somehow so the storage is as close as possible to the area.,.., Knox: What is this building going to entail going into the sewer, where is it going into the sewer? On Bridge Street? John: The roof drain is going into the storage sewer on Wall Street. Knox: And that area is all going to be torn up again. Where is the other sewer going to go? John: I'm not sure. It will be to the closest one. Knox: Don't you think that's an important part of..for the inconvenience.. you know, I've gone thru...I'm not necessarily against it, I'm tired of being out • of business in the summer time. Everybody is sitting up on these boards not giving... First of all, you've got to get into the sewers, so now the street's all torn up again. And you don't know how you're going to get into the sewer -- that's what I want to know, and I don't think it should be approved until it's found out how you're going to get into the sewer, until all these things are taken care of..... John: If the closest sewer is in Bridge Street, yes, we will go into Bridge Street. Knox: Well, we don't know, and I'm concerned. Dick: George, it most likely will be Bridge Street. There is a problem with the sewer main, and there has been a problem with the sewer main on Wall Street. Knox: Is there a problem with the sewer main on Bridge St? Ryan: No., on Wall St. \KNox: Well, as I understand, there is a problem that remains with the sewer on Bridge Street, also. Ryan: I haven't heard of that one. Knox: (intelligible -- something about going into that small sewer line) Gerry: As there any other comments from the audience? 0 Diana Donovan : (Read a letter that is attached to these minutes) PEC - page 9 - 3/9/81 Michael Cole {owner of Pistachio's} I've seen this project for some little time, I've seen what goes on in the alley, I've been there -this is our 6th winter. I'm opposed to this project. No. 1, we've had a very bad winter. I think it's pretty much know throughout the village that everybody is not in very good shape. I think any loss to our business to construction., inconvenience of entry, is going to hurt us severely. I agree that the alley needs something done to it. It's pretty much of a mess. It's clean, but it's a mess. When Garton dumps his roof in there, it leaks into our building, it makes a wall of snow that's 3 feet high. Granted, that snow has to go somewhere. Fortunately they haven't had to clean their roof off this winter. I think I could go along with a covered walkway through there, but a building I don't think is going to solve anybody's problems. My biggest opposition to it is, what is it going to do to my business this summer with a torn -up entry -way and construction materials piled up all over the place? I don't personally believe that they can be kept off site. I'm not a developer. I've only gone through a couple of buildings in my life, and I don't personally see where they can put their materials somewhere else. It would be an amazement to me. Thank you for your time and your consideration of my points. Scott: One question Mr. Knox brought up. I'm assuming that in our planning and building permit process that if the commission approves a project that that in no way implies that the sewer dept has to provide sewer - -I mean that's still judged on its - -I mean the project could be stopped at any point because of lack of facilities or even lack of being able to meet the Town codes in being able to build the building, and that's not a consideration for us at this point? Gerry: No, and I would add that there certainly can and should be conditions for approval, one of which would be construction materials. For example, where they are stored, how they are brought in, timing, etc. I think that that not only is valid, I think it is necessary. Duane: Gerry, are you saying that you think this should be a condition for approval to this project? By this commission? Gerry: I think there should be conditions for approval if approval is where we're going to go. Duane: Are we really, though, in a situation like this doubling up what already exists within the framework of the Town, call it their red tape, if you will, in a situation where it's presented to the Town, it's my understanding that staff makes conditions of building site in terms of construction fencing, in terms of vehicles on site, in terms of material storage, etc. Dick: There was an ordinance passed by the Town Council last year which restricted t –e — amount of vehicles on site, and the Design Review Board would review the type of fence, where the fence was located. Some of the issues that Gerry wants to put into the whatever the recommendations are here for approval. Specifically, it's the requirement of the DRB that they look at fencing.. Duane: We would be duplicating what already.. Gerry: In effect, we would - -we'd just be adding a little muscle to it., first of all, and secondly I think Bridge St is a rather unusual street, I don't think it fits into the general criteria for development in the Town of Vail. Duane: Another point, specific to that item is that the staff says, "if we were to approve this" they have several conditions of its appearance which to me again is duplicating what the Design Review Board would see and review in this matter. PEC - page 10 - 3/9/81 Dick: I think part of it is conditions to make sure that we have the improved entry ways the shops that would not necessarily be a requirement of the Design Review Boaxd. If there is going to be access out by Wall. Street, the Town project only took it to a certain point, in that it should be improved from the edge of the Town project to the new entry way of the building itself. Duane: So you are asking specific points to program Dick That would be part of the conditions of approval for this project, that we just would see not the end of the plaza, but that there would be an actual walkway in order to get into the building Duane Could I ask the architect, are you aware of these requirements that the staff has discussed? Do you agree with them? John: I think so. Diana: I talked to a couple of people from Vail Associates, I said why wasn't this land deeded to the Town in the beginning when the streets were deeded? They said that it was an oversight. It should have been, but it didn't get done for no particular reason. One person said, "If this is not approved then Vail Associates will deed that easement to the Town." And another person higher up in the organization said that they knew nothing about the alley whatsoever. Scott: Again, since I am new on this commission, if, in taking something like this into consideration, I have no problem with the merit of the building and my feelings about that space. But, now we have 3 adjacent shop owners here who are against the project. I haven't heard them..I feel in my mind that their objections to this project is based primarily on what it's going to do to their business during this coming summer. I guess my problem is is how much weight do we give to the feelings of the neighboring businesses? Gerry: Well, it is certainly a factor for consideration. I would pursue that just one step further and do something rather unusual. If deliveries were specified for Wall St, only, the two shope that would be most severely affected in my opinion, anyway, would be the Silversmith, which belongs to Dan Telleen, and the Valley Forge, and I wonder, Warren Pulis, if you have any feelings about that -of construction material for this project? Pulis: Deliveries will interrup all of Wall St. I know that it's.going to affect our Fusiness, We have a very hard to get at (not at mike, so hard to hear exactly) these people are going to suffer losses from noise or exterior..;Obstruction. .. ,.If it were split into 2 different building periods, I don't know if it would solve anything or not ..................someone will make $, some lose. Gerry: To say there will be no growth, due to the fact that any construction would be deleterious to the existing businesses is a step that we haven't considered, and I don't think that at this point in time we're prepared to take. Knox: I think that we're addressing the wrong group. I think that what we're basically dealing with in this Town is addressing future growth, within all these areas. I think that sometime ., we've got to stop what's going on in Vail, Colorado, and it's getting scary, and everybody has their hand out for one more dime on any little space that they can get in this town. I guess if I stood out on a street in Vail and asked every single person who walked down the street, "Do you like Vail as it is now, you wouldn't be getting very good answers, cuz everyone of them would sign that petition, and that wouldn't be very fair to you, either. But the point is, there are a lot of people who keep coming back to this town, they're getting tired of this Town PEC - page 11 - 3/9/81 allowing people to be on that street building something and enclosing this thing like New York City, It's getting really ridiculous, And for some reason, there isn't . anyone in this Town who has the guts to stop it. Somebody in this Town has to make a stand about what's ..preserve the Quality of what we have here. I think we should look at what Diana Donovan said. Airline tickets, gas, etc not just snow. I talked to Dick Ryan earlier, and he said that's the Council's position, you've go to get to the Council to get these things stopped, These projects that you all are looking at right now are going to lead to more of them, I promise you, and there are going to be court cases and everything else, if somebody doesn't stop these things there are going to be more and more of them, You can look all over that core area and see where it is going to go. E. Dan Telleen: What George is talking about is true, but I think what he is talking about isn't whether or not this plan is a good plan for the alley or an improvement to the looks of the Town, but just how much more construction people can stand, and whether or not the construction that goes on is compatible with businesses around it. You asked Warren if deliveries would bother his business or if it would bother mine, and it would bother my business if they happened after 10:00 o'clock in the morning. If they happened before that, like John is saying, if the timing is correct, then the impact is going to be pretty minimal on my business, because the pounding and the stomping that go on aren't going to be right over my head. And I think it is going to be minimal for businesses like Donovan's which is really the construction worker who gets off work when construction stops at 5.00 o'clock, or for Pistachio's, the business starts for the dinner hour and goes on into the evening after construction has stopped, so the concerns that George has, I go along with, too much construction or construction that hasn't been compatible with the laws that the Town has already set up to make sure that building materials are hidden or the impact is at a minimum because noncompatible construction projects really hurt everybody, but, if you pass the plan with the idea that it's an improvement to the street and then the laws are enforced like George is asking for to make sure the construction is compatible, Ithink the negative impact will be minimal. Gaynor: I don't know if we're supposed to address time factors or anything else as George says, I'm not sure that all the problems.from construction and everything else, there's a lot of empathy that I think goes into this thing because we know Pepi's is going to be under construction this summer, and the Red Lion, I assume will be under construction this summer, and if what you say may be true, you are going to have a sewer line dug up, too to replace. Whether someone puts requirements if this thing were passed, this or Garton's, that they'd have to do it all in the month of May, and maybe that's what it takes, which is a quiet month, or from the end of the ski season till when the summer season starts to get the construction as much out of the way as possible. It has been a problem in the past, be it the Town tearing up, putting new lines in. Cities continually change, whether for the better or not is the arguement of who is doing it, or who doesn't want it done. I really feel that we need to address ourselves as to whether this alley way with this proposal should be accepted or denied. I have said it before, I do feel that this is a better- ment addition to the Town. I've seen the alley a long way and I haven't seen anything that has been done in 16 years, all of a sudden a proposal comes that I think would be an additon and enhance the area. If feel that it should be allowed to continue. Germ; I would quickly add one comment into that. I think that it is a necessary addition in terms of the space between the Plaza building and the Casino building which is now the Saloon, I think that that is not an inviting space that tends to lead nowhere as you look at it from Bridge St. Even though it does lead somewhere, it's not a visible space from anywhere on Bridge St., while the alley between the Rucksack and the RedLLion was, it led to a fairly large space at the Mill Creek Court building. That, I thought, was a very bad thing to have happened. In this particular case, I think it's in the best interest of the Town to enclose that space PEC - page 12 - 3/9/81 for aesthetic reasons and because I think it's a hazard. • Scott: Elaborating on what I was concerned about before, I agree with that project as I see it on the paper, but now, I'm starting to say, is it going to be worth what it will cost the neighbors there? It would be simple if there were another commission that they went to after they came to us to decide on whether the value that the overall Town would gain by this project would eradicate the loss of the neighboring shops, and I guess it looks to me like we have to make that value consideration in our decision on whether to approve this project. I don't think there is any other place that'the neighboring shop owners can go to prevent this. I guess they could appeal it to the Town Council. I think that we have to consider whether what the finished product is going to be worth what it is going to cost these other shop owners. Gerry: That's why I think the conditions for approval are necessary. Jim I feel that we were given a direction by the Design Guide Plan into the use of this area and if an in£ill such as this had been the direction—it took about a year to put the DGP together, if there had been an indication that that would have been the best use for that space, perhaps that would have come out of that Plan. Now, because this is the first proposal that has come in at that location, I don't see the necessity, because it would take care of a messy situation that we have another direction that was pointed out to us as a viable usage for it, to then transfer over to the first thing that comes along because it's going to do away with perhaps unsightly situation that exists now. It wasn't what was proposed by the Design Guide Plan. Gaynor: I think that we've looked at a little bit of a possible enclosure in there. I'm not sure that that is an answer. Again, thinking along my lines, conditions I would like to see a lot of written conditions on this, and.I'm not sure that what goes into the time frame that what can be done - -when deliveries can be made, all of these things are important. We've said it every year, let's get all the building done, and every year there is more building so, I can't say let's build everything and forget it for the one year. It's not practical and it's not going to work... Whether this is the year to try to do it, I don't know. Diana: (not at mike) Everytime something mentions that the alley has been there ...nothings ever been done. Everybody has looked at Donovan's to do something about it. We've always been under the impression that it belonged to the Town and were waiting for the Town to do something about it ........ now the Town can do something about it. NOw that we have the plaza, why don't you give them a chance to see if people will use that alley to the plaza, If you were to sit in our bar sometimes watching people go through that alley, you'd find out there are a lot of people going through there. In the winter when they can't get through, they are walking through our bar. So there is traffic in the alley and it is used. I would assume that with the plaza on the other end, more people are going to use it, because it will go someplace now. A building is not the only alternative. Dan T.:. The ownership of the building, it is my understanding that Randy McDonald has written several letters to the Plaza building asking them to take their dumpster out of their—it has gotten to the point where finally, Mrs. Hill installed trash compacters and instructed Donovan's bar and everybody else in the building not to use the dumpster. Gerry: If there are no further questions, would somebody like to make a motion? Dick: The first motion would deal with amending the plan which does not need conditons. It is a recommendation to Council to recommend an amendment to the Urban Design Guide Plan. The second part deals with the exterior modification. So there will be two motions that will be presented on this question. PEC - page 13 - 3/9/81 Scott: I'd like to make a motion that the Urban Design Guide Plan not be amended for this project. Jim Second Gerry: Motion by Scott Edwards, second by Jim Morgan not to amend the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. All those is favor? (Scott and Jim) Opposed? (Gaynor, Gerry and Duane) Dan Corcoran abstained. The vote is 3-2 opposing the motion. Is there another motion? Gerry Then I will make a motion to amend the Vail Village Urban DEsign Guide Plan to include this particular construction between the Plaza building and the Garton Bridge St. Saloon. Is there a seond to that motion? Duane I second. Germs; Motion for amendmen, second by Duane Piper, all those in favor of this motion? (Duane, Gaynor and Gerry) Opposed? (Scott and Jim) 3 -2 and Dan Corcoran abstains once more. The motion passes. Germ Now, we need another motion concerning this particular project. Duane: Gerry, is there some way that we can at this point take the items of clout or muscle that we wanted to put as riders to this under a staff advisement for a more thorough discussion of it, or are we at that situation leaving ourselves totally open to the motion that we've just passed? 0 Larry E. The motion was made without conditions and it passed. Dick: The motion was made specifically for the exterior modification, if there are other conditions that you wanted to place in there, the staff has recommended 3 conditions but the planning commission may have others. Duane That's what I'm asking, is there any considerations or recommendations to those con itions? John Would you read those conditions aloud please? Dick: (REad conditons on page 3 of memo) Number 3'deh.ls with working with the Casino building if that application is approved. It really deals with the Wall St. side. There have been drainage problems there where water runs directly into a building at times. The 3rd condition is to work out that situation.. As we note in the staff report the realty shop that is located imediately to the north of the proposals has done some improvements there which I think add dramatically to the aesthetics along Bridge St. The planning that has taken place there, plus the bench that is out there. So has the Copper bar this last year made improvements with plants and flowers. There can be improvements along that whole corridor which tie in not only with this proposal, but also relieve some of the problems that we know of in that area, drainage, aesthetics. John P. We would certainly do our best to solve the drainage. I feel sure that both my clients ...in seeing that the walkways are brought up to the standards of the Plaza Gerry I would just add one item that I think deserves some consideration, and i think that the pedestrianization of Bridge St. and Gore Creek Drive and there for a specific reason, That is the heart of Vail Village. That is Vail Village to a lot of people. I thank the hours of delivery of construction materials need to be spelled out. I don't think those hours should be after 10 in the morning or before 4 in the afternoon. I PEC - page 14 - 3/9/81 think that blank time for deliveries, during which time,, deliveries that have already been placed on site would be used for construction, of course. That will create somewhat of a problem obviously for concrete, and this kind of thing, -which will create some special assessments., but I do think that Wall St. should be used primarily, and that Bridge St, should be used only for certain circumstances where Wall St. cannot be used. This is a recommendation for conditions to go along with the motion for approval. Duane: Gerry, I think there are even at this time specific to the building simpler at this particular point just of the construction, both in terms of in terms of delivery, and let that be In other words, there are items that time and a blank time when deliveries more items that we may not even be thinking about and the construction in that area. It might be to caution staff and have staff review every aspect scheduling, in terms of quartering off the area, a staff item of the building inspector's department. are more complete and more total than just a delivery can't be made. Gerry:i Are you suggesting that we postpone this until. the next meeting? Duane: No, I'm simply saying that the avenues for review of this are existent under gaff, and indeed they will be reviewed, that is already established that we have that, George: Are you all concerned about the design of this? Gerry: Yes and No. We are not concerned specifically with design. We are concerned with the use. George Well, in the design of the building, What avenues does somebody who is opposed to T s thing have the right to do other than the Town Council as far as the design is concerned? How can this building infringe on a building already there? Donovan's has windows that have been in use for 17-18 years. That window was there before anybody was here. John: It is a common property line. George: What if that was the onlly light space in that building, would you have the Fight to just block it off? I don't understand how that can be right? Duane: Can you see the reversal of that situation, because that window is there, does Donovan's have the right to say there should be no construction on a site that is planned for development? Diana: It's not planned for development. George: It isn't planned for development. You just changed that. Duane: It's a void parcel of lanc, correct? Dick: There is an easement through - there. It is owned by the Casino building. George: I don't think that anybody planned that there was going to be a building in there. It was not a planned plotted out lot, the whole thing was, but when the building was originally built, it was not planned to be built on in a separate situation, do you agree to that? Now, at that time point, you have decided no.w,that you have a plan to build on. What if I had a little business in there? What if I had a hot dog stand, would that give you the right to destroy the business? Duane Not if it was an approved business. Do you have an approved business in the alleyway? Geo I said what if I did have? PhC - page 15 - 3/9/81 Duane; 'Then it would be an approved use. . George I like Pam and Dan Telleen, they're my friends. I'm just concerned about what is going to happen to this town. I don't see how you got the right to go in there and block somebody's 16 year window for the benefit of another building. Gerry: Geo, I would agree with you if it were a 20 foot corridor lined with trees. However, it is not. It's 9 feet between the buildings, and it's an almost unusuable and certainly an unattractive space the way it exists right now, and a window looking to a wall 9 feet away does not strike me as a reason. George It does not look into that wall. You cannot even see the wall out of Garton's window. It looks right straight across Garton's deck up onto that hill out there into the plaza where the Children's fountain is. You haven't even been in there. You walked up and down the street, and you didn't go into Donovan's and look out that window. Gerry: We are going to have to move on to some kind of motion. Gaynor; I would like to address the proposers of this. HOw would they feel if the imposi- tion were put on to start it immediately after ski season and sustantially complete it by June lst? Cole And just let it sit until October 31st? Gaynor I'm trying to get a point ov alleviating construction problems as much as possible. John Gaynor, I don't think that's possible, because we haven't even started contract documents and we have to go to the council. . Geo: Why to council? Dick: On a plan amendment which is the first thing they voted on. Cole:So you push the construction project back into June or July, and I hate to keep bringing this up, but ...business. John: I think we can provide an entry to the business. Cyrano's has managed to get people into their business, and that was one of the reasons why the door was .. Gerry: I would have to say that one of the conditions would have to be that the Bridge St. side of the project be kept as clean as possible, that the entrance to Pistachio's be left open and orderly, that there is nothing obstructing it or in any way taking away from that entrance. Dan C Why are the Bridge St. merchants any more important than the Wall St ones? Dick I received a phone call from some of the people in the Lazier building who were more concerned about the next request, about the disruption that would take place there and the fact that they did go through a fall this year with the construction of the plaza that took place, and there were signs that were only half visible at times, and they were concerned that why should they have the burden 2 years in a row on that side? l)s.in C The merchan .ts on Wall St. have been disrupted 3 years in a row that I can think . cT with the redoing of Wall St., the redoing of the redoing, and then the construction last year. Jim It's not even a logical progression of the materials to go down and come up. You're coming up a full level just to get to where you are working. Whereas, on Bridge St, you are on a straight... PEC page lb - 3/9/81 Gerry Rather than decide in terms of what is easiest for the contractor, we will I think be most concerned with what is most important in terms of the character of Vail. Village. We're trying not to disrupt the flow of pedestrians, etc. -Robert-Oliver Is it the interest of this board to keep in mind the pedestrianization of Bridge St. and the Village Core? (yes) Then, do you take decisions to :increase pedestrianization, or to increase a greater vehicular ..... Germs This is not a criteria for approval or disapproval, one can be ,interpreted in wither way by a number of people C The vehicular problem as it pertains to the zoning ordinance only applies to tM finished product. Construction vehicles is addressing the other municipal code. Robert Oliver There are certain problems that are immediate, the summer of 1981, and there are other problems that .......continuing..we go through years and years of the Town of Vail supaenaing people to try to create a mall act and you fight hard to try to better the conditions in the pedestrian core, but in the same breath, the next year you turn around, and not necessarily destroy, but weaken it with more construction. Another consideration is how much money did the Town of Vail pay Gage Davis to do this study? Why do you go out and pay highly professional advice and turn around and say, "we'll make an amendment "? GerxY: No, the motion was based on a disagreement with that particular part ofthe Urban Design Guide Plan and the objection to that part of it was voiced at the time that it was made by me. I don't happen to think that particular area qualifies as a viable alley that needs to be preserved. It doesn't mean I'm against alleys, I just don't think that qualifies as an alley. ?female: I have lived in Vail all my life and would much rather see a shop there than garbage. I think it's a good thing... If you put the walkway in you'll get ice and snow. The cover could cave in. Gerry Thank you. We are going to have to make a motion and proceed. To designate any one project as really the major contributor or the one project that will not be allowed due to disruption of the village core, first of all is impossible, and secondly, if you are going to do it, you have to stop them all. You can't stop one project. You are right, it is a very busy summer, in commercial core 1. The REd Lion expansion, the Gramshammer expansion, the Bridge st. saloon expansion if it is approved. It's a very disdruptive summer. And I tend to agree, that perhaps there should be some kind of an historic overlay zone placed on it after this year or some other zone, and say "This is the way it will be period" But, at this point in time, in terms of this project, I don't think that we are in a position to say that. Geo ..if you put them on different weeks, we can't fight them all at once,.,.. Gerry I think at this point, we have to .make a motion one way or the other, Duane We have some that are approved and we can't shut it off. Gerry We can voice this same concern to the Council interms of the future. There are a lot of projects in the mill now is the point. • Dick: George, one thing I'd like to add is when these projects went thru initially, and when they came up with the new process for consideration of projects, the question was asked the Planning Commission and also the Council, is there no change that should take place further in the Village? And the answer came out, there is the possiblility of change to take place in Vail Village. That change can take place, and there was no PEC page 17 3/9/81 guide line or requirement or anything that said from now on nothing can change, So that did go in front of the Planning Commission, it did go in front of the Council and that is what came out of the Council and Planning Commission at that.time. George I think it is unfortunate, I don't think there has been a lot of forsight in the thinking of the Town staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning commission or the Town Council. And surely from the town people more people haven't come in to say what they have to say about what's happening to this town. I'll probably sit here and watch Bridge St. be totally destroyed again this summer. I wouldn't be surprised if it is torn up again next summer, stt. Dan:T.I'm not sure that talking about one project or.even a series of projects is the solution to the whole thing, and have a question to Larry, is there a possibility of solving this problem by having something somehow, pass an ordinance that every other year will be a construction year, and that 1983 will be a non construction, people who bought property would know that when they bought it, and any plans that they would make would have to be for 1984, etc. one year would be good, one year wouldn't. Larry E. Feasible to pass an ordinance, I think you'd have some problems. I think you can schedule construction in an ordinance, if the scheduling is reasonalbe, and the same criteria are applied to all people who ask to build, then I think you could pass an or- dinance which would regulate in a reasonable fashion construction and when it could be done. Duane: It is unfortunate what is going on here, but at the same time, there was almost a year put into workshops, etc. to come to this Design Plan, and if there had been enough people like you who felt there should be no more building, then I think that was some- thing that should have been taken up. Apparantly, that wasn't the overriding view, and it seems like when it comes down to someone next door, it starts hitting home/ George I said that the people haven't taken an interest in doing it, and I agree that there are an awfully lot of people who are really more here Gaynor: I move to approve the alley project with the conditons as recommended by staff,. 1,2,3,. I'd sure like to put a little more teen into this thing. I don't know where the Design Review Board gets into it, and where the building code gets into it. I still think it ought to be started by a certain time. Gerry And that there would be some restrictions in terms of deliveries, etc, as have already been noted. Would you like to include that? Duane. Could we further amend this to say, "Have an item. #4, that the applicant agrees to review with the planning and environmental commission a staff approved construction plan at a later date. Here is what I'm getting at. That would allow for another public meeting, not just a staff approval in that office, but a public meeting of the approval of the construction plan. The construction plan would be defined as the schedule of materials delivered, schedule of times of delivery, etc. Gerry So long as it didn't schedule out the summer of 1981, Dan do you have a feeling about that one way or the other,? Duane: It would be to review with the PEC at a future meeting a staff- approved plan of the construction scheduling and planter construction. That merely gets to what we've been discussing here.before about let's not.make deliveries after 10 or before 4 in the evening, etc. We haven't really touched on all of these points, but these are PEC page 18 3/9/81 Points that I would like your architect to go.over with the Town Staff, the building 10 inspector, whoever else would be involved with this, and then have it reviewed publicly for another meeting with the PEC. This„ I think may help alleviate some of the problems that keep reappearing in our discussion as to what we are tearing up, when we are tearing, when we are delivering materials, where, storage of materials, no. of vehicles, etc. Dan T. First of all, it is not my project. Secondly, one thing that makes me very unhappy is t1.e more meetings that we go to, the less chance to complete it. Gaynor: I have a motion on that I haven't even finished it yet.Betsy, would you re read the motion, Betsy I move to approve the Alley project with thect)nditions as recommended by the staff, 1,2,3.. Gerry Is there a second? Then I will second it. All in Favor? (Gerry, Gaynor and Duane) Opposed? (Scott and Jim) Dan Corcoran abstains, motion passes. -if anyone would like to appeal this approval,.can do so within 10 days to the Town Council. Dick I would just like to add that the 'Town. Council will be dealing with the plan.. amendment at their next meeting which is coming up a week from this coming Tuesday, There will be discussion of this, and you are all invited back to the Town Council meeting on the 17th. Jim: George, I would appreciate it if you would put a petition together such as that, and if you even put a petition for a moratorium on building.within the village. Maybe you can get some P eonle unifiers It gets a little old, but no one seems to want to stand up and do anything about it. Minutes continued on page 19 I PEC page 19 3/9/81 Peter: This project is located adjacent to the alley, to the northwest. It is a proposal for a 2 story office addition, would be located exactly in the area where Garton's deck is existing. The statistics here are approximately 515 sq feet of office spaces proposed on that deck in a two story proposal. To go quickly thru the Urban Design Guide ,Plan criteria, we feel that the project meets the purpose of the CCI district as outlined in the zoning code. There have been No sub -area concepts relating to this plan. In other words, the Urban Design Guide Plan did not have any specific addressing of this area. As far as pedestrianization goes, the office addition won't affect pedestrianization on Wall St. Of course, we've had a discussion here today in terms of pedestrianization disruption during construction. Again, that is not part of our review, we review these on the basis of as -built as developed. It may increase the variety of pedestrian path near the south entry way by having pavers matching the village plaza pavers and connecting that pavor':area into the plaza design. And, of course, John will go through the details of more of the proposal. Vehicle penetration: It would not in any way affect vehicle penetration in any significant way. Streetscape framework: The southwest corner of the building is supposed to be a curved form and would attract attention and somewhat soften that corner of the building as the pedestrian goes north from the village plaza down the stairway. The street enclosure is the biggest issue in this project and has been the item of most concern during Planning Commission and Council reviews previously. I've included a chart in the memo, hopefully helping you with understanding what the existing and proposed street enclosure is. As you recall, the Urban Design Guide Plan had designated a comforta- ble street enclosure of approximately 1/2 to 1, 1/2 being the height of the building, as opposed to the width of the street. In other words, a comfortable ratio would be, if the street was 30 feet wide, the building would be 15 feet. As it exists, now, the Casino Building on the Wall Street side is at 1/2 to 1. The proposal is to be at 1.16 to 1 or a little more than the width of the street. On the other side it is very tall, it's 1.36 to 1 as it exists now, and that proposal, is of course, unchanged. The design considerations, when the Urban Design Guide Plan was done and accepted by the Town as the guiding document, provided for exceptions to these circumstances in certain cases. These circumstances being the street enclosure. and I'd just like to read quickly what the provision for that was: In some instances, the 'canyon' effect would be acceptable and could be created connecting larger spaces with -4 small narrow space, and it said, "in some instances the canyon effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces --to give variety to the walking experience. For suntshade reasons, it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north -south direction Long canyon streets in an east -west direction should generally be discouraged.' It goes on to say, "When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design consideration should be given to creating a well- defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect." It's a staff opinion that Wall Street is one of these connecting linkages to larger spaces being the village plaze and the Children's Fountain area. We feel that there is a strong possiblility that the Design Plan was specifically addressing Wall St. when they talked about exceptions to the canyon effect. In that regard, we feel that street enclosure issue does fall into this exception, and is not contrary to the purpose behind the Urban Design Guide Plan. Gerry: The next item on the agenda is thej.Garton� exterior alteration and mop request to the Casino Building on Wall Street,mm Staff comments. Peter: This project is located adjacent to the alley, to the northwest. It is a proposal for a 2 story office addition, would be located exactly in the area where Garton's deck is existing. The statistics here are approximately 515 sq feet of office spaces proposed on that deck in a two story proposal. To go quickly thru the Urban Design Guide ,Plan criteria, we feel that the project meets the purpose of the CCI district as outlined in the zoning code. There have been No sub -area concepts relating to this plan. In other words, the Urban Design Guide Plan did not have any specific addressing of this area. As far as pedestrianization goes, the office addition won't affect pedestrianization on Wall St. Of course, we've had a discussion here today in terms of pedestrianization disruption during construction. Again, that is not part of our review, we review these on the basis of as -built as developed. It may increase the variety of pedestrian path near the south entry way by having pavers matching the village plaza pavers and connecting that pavor':area into the plaza design. And, of course, John will go through the details of more of the proposal. Vehicle penetration: It would not in any way affect vehicle penetration in any significant way. Streetscape framework: The southwest corner of the building is supposed to be a curved form and would attract attention and somewhat soften that corner of the building as the pedestrian goes north from the village plaza down the stairway. The street enclosure is the biggest issue in this project and has been the item of most concern during Planning Commission and Council reviews previously. I've included a chart in the memo, hopefully helping you with understanding what the existing and proposed street enclosure is. As you recall, the Urban Design Guide Plan had designated a comforta- ble street enclosure of approximately 1/2 to 1, 1/2 being the height of the building, as opposed to the width of the street. In other words, a comfortable ratio would be, if the street was 30 feet wide, the building would be 15 feet. As it exists, now, the Casino Building on the Wall Street side is at 1/2 to 1. The proposal is to be at 1.16 to 1 or a little more than the width of the street. On the other side it is very tall, it's 1.36 to 1 as it exists now, and that proposal, is of course, unchanged. The design considerations, when the Urban Design Guide Plan was done and accepted by the Town as the guiding document, provided for exceptions to these circumstances in certain cases. These circumstances being the street enclosure. and I'd just like to read quickly what the provision for that was: In some instances, the 'canyon' effect would be acceptable and could be created connecting larger spaces with -4 small narrow space, and it said, "in some instances the canyon effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces --to give variety to the walking experience. For suntshade reasons, it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north -south direction Long canyon streets in an east -west direction should generally be discouraged.' It goes on to say, "When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design consideration should be given to creating a well- defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect." It's a staff opinion that Wall Street is one of these connecting linkages to larger spaces being the village plaze and the Children's Fountain area. We feel that there is a strong possiblility that the Design Plan was specifically addressing Wall St. when they talked about exceptions to the canyon effect. In that regard, we feel that street enclosure issue does fall into this exception, and is not contrary to the purpose behind the Urban Design Guide Plan. PEC page 20 - 3/9/81 As far as street edge goes, on wall st. there is no change on the street edge Near the entrance to the alley proposal, I had that the proposal should be cut back if the alley was not approved. These two projects are somewhat related in certain design and instances. However, we are definiately considering them separately. As far as the views go, the view map for the Urban Design Guide Plan does show a major view corridor from the area of the Children's Fountain toward Vail Mountain. The addition does intrude to a minor degree on the eastern edge of that corridor, but in no significant manner. In fact the buildings south of the Casino Building, do cut off the view already and the proposal would not, in any significant way affect that view corridor. As far as the sun /shade goes, I think John is going to give us some more information today. In the summer, when the sun would be in a very high position, the addition could cause more shade on Wall St. We don't feel that that period of time would be a signifi- cantly long period over the course of a year, and I think John may have some more infor- mation,, but we feel that Wall St. is already an enclosed area, and sun /shade is a minor consideration. Zoning code considerations, there is one, the alley project has been approved today, and one of the relationships between the alley project and the office addition is that one of these would require a height variance. And because we're now - -the way that CC.I height is calculated, that is both of these got approved, one of them would need a height variance, And the office addition was mistakenly published for a height variance, and as far as publication, we're o.k. on that. But that will be a requirement, and we will have to take a vote on that. Our recommednation would be to approve the height variance. Our recommendattion on this project is approval of the office addition with the five • conditions that we have set forth, and if you like, I can read them off at this point so everybody understands what they are. The first one is that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district, if and when formed for Vail Village; the applicant will submit a request for a Conditional Use permit to allow the use of an office on the 3rd level; the applicant will work out an agreement mutually acceptable to the Town, the applicant and other business owners in the Casino Building as to construction schedules and practices, so that disturbances of existing businesses are kept to an absolute minumum; #4, the appliclant must improve the area from the Plaza to his entrance with similar materials used in the plaza; #5 is irrelevant at this point, however, I should mention it in case the Planning Commission decision is reversed: If the alley project is denied, the applicant cut back the proposal on .the first level to let adequate light and air into the alley opening. I think John can explain what we mean by that. Those are our recommendations. Gerry Comments from the applicant? John Perkins : I hope my voice will hold up for this. Do you need me to go through the plan and everything, or are you still..... Dan I have one question. Where is the 3rd floor office? I only see two floors. John See, that's taking the height from Wall St, Dan. There are only 2 floors.If you take it from Wall St, it's 3 floors. Peter The other proposal will have to go through the conditonal use process also, because that was at a late date changed from residential to office. Any third floor office is a conditional use under the zoning code. PEG page 21 3/9/81 Dave Garton: He (John) can't talk very well, He appeared in front of you guys about a month ago or so, and the major change that he has here is what was asked for or recom- mended by you. Instead of having an interior 2nd floor walkway that.was going to be in the back, that to open this area up here, that we have an exterior walkway, which is the change we made. Duane Could someone explain the height variance problem. I don't understand that. Peter: John, let me just try to explain it without having to go through the figures. When the Guide Plan was adopted, there was a new height requirement adopted along with that for the Village. A certain % of the building can be up to 40 feet, and a certain % can be up to 30 feet, With the. approval of the alley project., we have a greater % falling into the 30 foot category, and it pushes the totals in a way that-the rest can't go over 30 feet., and he is going over 30 feet. Both are considered part of the Casino Building, Garton: It is? Why does it have to be considered part of the Casino building? Peter: What do we consider it? It is proposed as an addition to the Casino building. John: It's on the same property. It has never been proposed as an additon, but it is technically on the same property. This is Neil McCann from our office. I'm going to let Neil come up and show you these sun /shade studies. They are small... Neil: This first couple show the 9:00 a.m. shadow on June 21 which is the summer solstice. The top one shows without the addition, and this one shows with the addition. Now this is the most extreme case, cause at 2:30 there isn't much difference between the addition and the existing. By noon, there is no shadow cast at all from the addition or the deck as it is, and so afternoon, the Lazier Arcade becomes the predominant shadow, and then during the equinox, March 21 and Sept 21, we have similar conditions where the Plaza building at 9:00 o'clock will cast a shadow covering most of the area of where Garton's deck is and half of Wall Street. With the addition of the office space., not much more shadow will be cast, as you can see. At 10:30, there isn't much of a significant change between the shadows with the addition or without. And then, at noon, again, there are no shadows. Most of the shadow is cast by the Lazier Arcade. And then, the most dramatic one is 9 :00 o'clock on December 21. Most of it is in shade just because the Plaza building casts shade, a shadow all the way back to here, The darker portion is drawn to show what the addition will cast. I didn't draw lines.,,because the Plaza building overwhelmed the addition. And then at 10:30 on Dec 21" shows the light shining straight up the corridor and if you notice here, the darker portion is the Casino office addition, and the lighter portion is the cast from the Plaza Building, and they are virtually the same, and then at noon again, the light coming in with the predominant shade from the Lazier Arcade. Gerry: Thank you. John, do you have some more comments? John: I don't think so, I think I've been through this so many times, I'll just answer questions. Dan T, : I'm Dan Telleen, and I own the Silversmith Shop that is directly underneath t edeck. I was at the last meeting that you had with the Town Council. I expressed the same concerns that I'm going to express now, There are two: First of all, l just realized that construction happens" -we're in a boom town., and Dave and I will just have to work out the impact on my business. But, what I'm worried about more than this summer PEC page 22 �1 /9/81 is next year and the year after that, and the year after that. I've got to make sure that whatever he builds up there will not impact my business with the kind of noise that . I'm used to getting from people walking across the deck right now, and I don't know how he's going to stop the noise from happening. I'm sure we can put in-a good floor, the best than they can provide, but Dr. Huttner put in the best ceiling he could get in Kentucky Fried Chicken, and he still has noise down there, so I'm really worried about how the project itself in the long run is going to affect my business. And the second thing is the construction on it. I hope that however it's built, it's built best. I'm in a weak structure right now that was built maybe before Vail even thought about having a building code, and we've got to make sure that it's really done right, all the studies are made, and we understand that the foundation that is there is strong enough to hold 2 more stories, or if it's not, that the 2 stories that are built are built correctly so that they are strong and not dangerous. Duane: Comment to Dan's remarks, I'm sure that this commission fully agrees with what you're saying. I'm not sure that we have the bounds within what we work with to address that particular problem. I would hope through building codes that some of those problems would be addressed. Again, it would come through building inspection and staff and also just a good conscientious effort between the owner and the architect specific to that construction, and I'm sure he's heard your remarks also. Do you have anything to address to it, John? John: Well, Dan 4 I discussed this problem, and right now what I am going to propose is removing the exterior deck, verifying what kind of roof structure.he has, and then leaving an air space between that roof, or if that roof needs to be upgraded, upgrade it first, leave an air space between there, except at the bearing points, and then try possibly a tectile type of floor on the deck that is a light weight concrete deck. Without researching it in great detail. We will go into it in great detail to try to solve those problems. Also I've spoken with Steve about the footings that have been put in there, I've also talked with Mitch Hoyt who installed them. We will have an investigation of those footings with Steve Patterson present. Dan T. : John, whatever kind of roof you put on my deck, and there will be that air space, if there is a leak, and we've had leaks in that roof, how will we get it fixed? I'm also worried ..Dr. Huttner with his fancy ceiling in Kentucky Fried Chicken stopped the noise from coming thru the ceiling, but it comes right down the posts. The posts are what the sound out..vibrate..that's where the sound comes from. I know these will be offices, and I don't expect a lot of problems from the activity of a carpeted office, but what I worried about is that if that walkway that goes in the front of the building is a walkway to successful shops and offices and really attractive and people want to walk in there. I think it's 6 feet from the front of my shop, that will have that traffic constantly going back and forth. Right now I get it in the evening from the bar business and once in a while there is a party in the.afternoon of rugby players. It's not often. but a daily thing, I'm afraid it might be too much........ Duane: Dan, your concerns are more under the jurisdiction of the building inspection department than they would be under ours. Warren Pulis: I think our concerns are pretty much the same as the alley project.. ,..(not at mike) Steve Patterson: Would it be possible if we could see an elevation, if the architect showed an elevation, and discuss both projects and how they relate to each other. John: I can show you on the model. Gerry: I think in terms of this public meeting, that is something that can be done at some other time, certainly in the building department. PEC page 23 3/9/81 Dave Garton: I would just like to comment on recommendation #4 says that the applicant must improve the area from the Plaza with similar materials used in the plaza. I think that's just a little bit of an overage job, We'll make everything on the Casino land be up to standards of the same material used in the plaza, but I don't feel that ,I should improve Donovan's land from my land to the plaza. I think that's somebody els's respon- sibility. I'm not going to tear up that land, If I were to do some damage, of course I would return it to its previous situation, but I don't feel that I should be responsible for fixing the path in front of Donovan's. Dick: That's Town of Vail property. Dave: Then, I don't feel that I should have to fix up Town of Vail property. I'll keep all our property up to snuff, but 1 shouldn't have to fix up the Town of Vail property going to the plaza. Dick: Well, it was the feeling of staff that if this major improvement was going to take place, that we should complete that whole area. Dave: Sure, but not out of my pocket book. Dick: Well, that's a recommendation of staff that the Town commitment to do the plaza ended at that location and I doubt if the Town is going to have the money to go through and complete the rest of that this next year. Dave: Well, then I would ask the commission, or I would suggest that that shouldn't be my responsibility to fix up 'Town property. I will bring mine up to the level that I'm required to do, and I approve of that, but I don't think I should have to pay for . the improvements of the Town property. Duane: In review of that, do we have anything to show what this no -man's land is that we are talking about? I thought that the Town of Vail has improved up to the property line. Dick: No, we have not, we've only improved to the edge of Donovan's. John: This doesn't really show the plaza. Dave is talking about this area approximately from here to about these steps. His obligation would go right here..... Dan C.: Then actually the Town's property is right here, and half of Donovan's deck is on the Town property. I don't feel that since all we have there now was an alley that isn't being used by anybody that the Town should have to pay to improve this to provide the access to the additional shops. The Town would not have to do anything at all in there if those shops weren't there because this is an alley that nobody uses. Duane: Well, I suppose the Town still wouldn't have to do anything. Dan C: No. Well, I'm sure that once this project were there, if I were in that building, I'd be on somebody, the Town or whoever to have something there besides a dirt walkway coming in my front door,,.,.... (change of tape) • PEC page 24 I Dick Specifically that we should get together to work on that improvement. 0 Gerry: The alley project, one of the conditions was approved both by the planning commi- sion and the applicant that the applicant would agree to the improvements necessary to complete the walkway from the Village plaza to the shop entrance and to work with other users in the first floor of the Casino building to improve the sidewalks, so it would really be a sharing kind of a project. I don't think that it is the Town's responsibility to provide a walkway up to your building. Dave: I don't think that I should have to pay for... Gerry: ,.improvements, even though they're going to your building, no matter whose prop-, erty they're on. Dave: I guess I guess, as Dan was saying, that would be my responsibility, if I have tenants in there, if I decide to improve my project to have abetter walkway, then I would come to the Town and ask you to put it in. If you said no, I'd way, well, do you mind if I put it in? I can't see where I could be required at this point to.... Steve: I might put something in on that building code that any buiding will have approved access to the public right -of -way. The building department could... Duane: Well, it's a public right -of -way that we're speaking of here that's being improved. Dave, you prefer to take a wait and see attitude as to whether or not it's really neces- sary, is that what you're saying? It's a little bit like a user's tax in essence. You are saying that you are improving your building, and this will be used. ARe you willing to have a taxation to it? Dave: Well, I'll pay if someone else will pay, too, but I think Donovan's should share a little of that. Just because he's on the Town Council and everything else -- half of that goes straight to his bar. Why should I pay for all of his? Gerry: I would just add that this is recommended as a condition for approval, and I would personally agree that it should be a condition for approval. Are you in agreement with that? Dave:: Obviously, I'm not in agreement, or I wouldn't have brought it up. Gerry: It will have to be, though, Dave: May I ask permission to approve this and scratch condition #4? Gerry: You may ask permission to do that. Dave: Would you? Dan: I think that if there is an improvement district, even if it's only fox the 3 people involved, and I brought it up, I don't think it's fair for a property owner to improve it, but you wouldn't be coming to this board, you'd be coming to the Council. If I were a member of the Council and after this thing had been approved, you then . are beating on the Council's door saying, I want something put in here really nice like the rest of the Town, you'd be real hard pressed to bend my ear, I do agree with you, I agree with you that you shouldn't have to pay to put it on the Town property_, but I don't think the Town is obligated to improve it any more than it is right now. Dave: Absolutely, and I agree with PEC page 25 - -3/9/81 Dave: Absolutely, and I agree with Steve.Patterson, I'm going to have to go along with his policy that—out to the public right -of -way. I just think that this is passing the jbuck along to someone else. Duane: This is directed toward staff, Is #4 a little bit redundant of #1? In other words, #1 says.,we would possibly make a special improvement district, and under a special improvement district, one of the things they might do would be to improve this portion of walkway that is on the Town of Vail land. Is that correct? Youfre saying, we may not have to do that if you have an agreement that says the applicant will do it. Dick: The walkway is currently, you step off pavers down into a dirt walk, and that's what's there today, and the feeling of staff is that with the building approval, there should be similar type of treatment up to the entry of this building. Gerry: I must say I agree with that. We're looking at. We're looking at a fairly minimal expense, really, if it comes down to dollars and cents, and it should be a part of the project, and approval should be, in my opinion, conditioned on that, as recommended by the staff. Dave: Do you really think I should improve the walkway to Donovan's? Gem: This is not a personal vendetta. This is a condition .of approval, and it is the same condition that was put against the alley project, and I would read once again, recommendation #1, that is, the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district. The special improvement district will be the one that will most certainly be put together to foot this. 0 Dave: I approve of that, but then we don't need #4.. Gerry: I think we do. I think we need it because it needs to happen right away, and a special improvement district is something that kind of floats like a cloud. Dave: What's the owner of the Copper Bar? Should he pay for some of this, or since this was there earlier, and to improve his property,, he doesn't have to? Dick: I don't know how you place a condition on this if someone's not requesting it. Dave: That's what I'm saying. I don't see how you can request it of me. Dick: Because you're going through a process of the Town of Vail right now requesting a specific type of thing to take place, like the Telleens. There was a condition similar in that request. Dave: But I couldn't complain about that. I think they should have complained. They shouldn't be responsible for that whole walkway. Gerry: I would remind you that the owner of the Copper Bar was here to object to the project., so I don't think it's in keeping with that objection to include them with the people who would have to pay for access to your project. Dave: dust because he objected? • Gerry: Yes, in part. Any other comments from the audience, commission,. or staff. Peter: Yes, I just wanted to comment that we've had some discussions as to interpretations as to our variances, specifically on height, how total buildings apply to the total regulations and how additions apply, and we've come to the conclusion, I think at this PEC Page 26 /9/81 point that we need to clarify it, but the position is that they will not need a height variance. Dick: The way the nonconforming section reads now, is that if you have additions to your building that is in conformance with the basic requirements of the code, you don't consider the whole building. When we go through the nonconvorming section, one of the things that was attempted to do as far as the height requirements in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan was to make sure that we didn't end up with these big boxes, in other words, 3 or 4 story buildings that were just completely filled in. If we continue and have our non-conforming section read the way it is, we could potentially have that] happen because each one is based only upon that specific conditon, not looking at the whole building when you are concerned with height. In the next 2 or 3 weeks, we're going to be lookeing at the nonconforming section. We'll have the opportunity to look and see if we want to change it. Duane: Could I address the recommendations and the conditions to the recommendations? I'd like to remind PEC that condition #1 was recently appealed on another job to Council, and Council agreed with the applicant that that be removed as a condition. Why does it keep showing up? Dick: Because that was specifically for something that would have occurred for a small addition of an elevator shaft, not for a major addition to a building, and I think the difference that the Council saw was that there was a major benefit taking place to some with proposed additions because they were gaining significant benefit from this. Mr. Fritch's proposal was just an elevator shaft that was not a..significant benefit - -to inprove the circulation of the building. Bud: The feeling of the Council was that the addition to the 5itzmark bldg was not male possible by the Urban Design program, and if something is made possible by the Urban Design program, that would mean it would give someone the right to ask for additions and changes, that would possibly not have been available prior to that program being put into effect, then in fact they would not have to comply with Condition #1. If it goes hand in hand with the Urban Design project, it all has to be considered as part of it., but what they are asking for had no bearing on the Urban Design Guide Plan. Duane: I though Bob's address was a little bit more to the direct principal of this acct —that it was signing a blank check, etc. Dan: I talked to Bob Fritch today at noon by chance, and he did not want to take the credit for getting that removed, or he is not against in anyway an improvement district. He thought that this project would stand on its own merits without the Urban Design Guide Plan, and this is why he opposed that condition being placed on his approval. He is not against, and he told me he would back or participate in an improvement district. Duane: That's my understanding, too. He just didn't like the idea of it being forced upon him as a blank check and a condition of the approval of this particular project. And I also wonder about the basic concept of tacking on all these conditions. Why can't we let these approvals stand on their two feet without tacking on a whole bunch of stuff to them as riders, Maybe that's too purist of a standpoint, We've got S on this one- - it seems like it's getting fairly... . Gerry:: We're talking about..... PEC Page .27 _3/9/81 Duane: I'm not sure we should be in position to be negotiating all these conditions. Gerry: I'm not convinced we are negotiating. I'm not sure that we aren't making them a condition of approval period. But it would require, of course, an agrement from the applicant. Dan: Many of the projects, I don't think, would be considered or approved if it weren't for some of the conditions in the outlines of the guide plan, so I think what Dick is saying is some bending of what could have been done otherwise has taken place. The Town is willing to bend to try to get things down to a more pedestrian scale and to improve the overall village, and if we're walling to do that, are you willing to participate? That's the way I see it. I don't have a hang up with it. Duane: I'm not sure I do either,.. Gerry: Would someone like to make a motion either for approval or denial? Dan: I would not make that motion, because I feel the same as Mr. Garton, as I said before, and even though I may be in favor of his project, if it goes thru stated with condition #4 in there, I would vote against it. I would move for approval to the Garton building per the staff memo with the exception of #4 in the conditions. Duane: I'll second; Gerry: To take out one of the conditions sets a kind of precedent - -what reason to take R out? and what is the reason for ever applying it to anyone else? Dan: I'll answer since I made the motion. #4 is adequately covered by #1 that if anything is done there it should be an improvement district. It shouldn't be one of the adjacent property owners that is going to pay for it. Dick: The only problem I can see is the possibility of any improvement district functioning this year is probably slim, so what they're going to have is a dirt walkway if it doesn't pass, or some minor improvement which the building department would require, and if that's true, you should go back and amend the first one, because it talks about agreeing to the improvements necessary to complete the walkway from the village plaza to the shop entrance. The same types of requirement was placed on that one, too. We need to state that that is the feeling of the Planning Commission to do something about that one. Gerry: The problem with the first is the phrase "if and when formed for Vail Village" which sort of leaves it up in the clouds. Dan.: Who paid for the improvements in the rest of the plaza? The Town did, right? Dick: Mrs. Hill paid $100,000. Dan: She was the only person benefiting from it. I don't think one person who is going to benefit from that ... if the Town paid for part of the Plaza, why don't they pay for part of that walk? • Gerry: Because it isn't benefiting the Town, it's benefiting.. Dan: It's an extension of the plaza. It's part of it - -it just kind of dies right at the top of the stairs. • • • PEC page 28 3/9/Sl Gerry: But if the offices weren't there, there wouldn't be a need for a walk. It's a question of don't build the offices or build the offices and the walk. Dave G. Gerry, there is a need for that walkway now. We have people using that pathway.. I think maybe the Town should have done it when they did the plaza. Gerry: I'm not sure you're not right. However, I don't have any control over that. Didn't and don't. I still think they should be a part of the conditions for approval. We have a motion by Dan Corcoran, 2nd by Duane. All those in favor... (The vote was 2 for, 3 against. Dan and Duane.for, Gerry, Scott 4 Jim against. Gaynor had left. The motion was defeated.) Gerry moved and Duane seconded to approve the request according to the staff memo dated 3/5/81. The vote was 2 for, 3 against. (Gerry and Duane in favor). Motion defeated. Dave Garton then stated that he would go along with Condition #4, and then Dan moved and Duane seconded the same wording that Gerry had used. The vote was 3 in favor, and 2 against. (Dan, Gerry and Duane in favor.) The motion passed. Gerry reminded the audience that anyone could appeal the decision to the Town Council within 10 days. Duane moved and Dan seconded that the meeting be adjourned, It was adjourned at 5.45. ROATH Sc BREGA, P C. C. HENRY ROATH L5 F; BREGA HAROLD S.BLOOMENTHAL LOREN L. MALL ROBERT L. ROBERT5 JAY W. ENYART JOHN H. BIRKELAND ROGER P. THOMASCH EDWARD N. BARAD J.STEPHEN MCGUIRE JACK W. BERRYHILL ROBERT E. KENDIG ROBERT C. KAU FMAN DAVID W. STARK KENNETH D. WILLIS STUART N. BENNETT HERRICK K. LIDSTON E,JR. * NOT ADMITTED IN COLORADO March '2, 1981 LAWRENCE B. SWARTZ KEVIN MICHAEL SHEA EVE M. HERNQUIST HOPE P. JOSSERAND MICHAEL T. MCDONNELL GREGORY L.GUILF'ORD DONALD SALCITO LESLIE J. ROOS JOHN M. WEINBERG FREDERICK S. SKILLERN Lawrence C. Rider, Esq. Town Counsel City Hall Vail, Colorado 81557 Re: Casolar II 0 Dear Larry: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 100 WRITERS' CENTER IV 1720 SOUTH BELLAIRE; 5TREET DENVER, COLORADO 80222 (303) 759 -5-400 TELEX:45 -0252 OUR FILE NUMBER As you and I have discussed by telephone, I represent Dean Knox, who is the developer of Casolar II. It is my understanding that the Vail Town Council, at its February 17, 1981, meeting, remanded the variance request pertaining to Casolar II back to the Planning Commission so that consideration could be given to a revised request by Mr. Knox which greatly reduces the square footage and density which had been requested at the earlier hearing before the Planning Commission. It is also my understanding that the revised variance request will be heard by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the afternoon of Monday, March'9, 1981. If that is incorrect, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. As you will recall, the request which was presented to the Plan- ning Commission by Mr. Knox at the Commission's January 12, 1981, meeting sought a variance which would permit construction on Lot 12 of Casolar II of a duplex totaling approximately 3,380 square feet. Although the construction of a duplex was permis- sible under the existing zoning, an increase in the permitted GRFA was necessary. The variance request was denied. The amended request, which will be presented on March 9, 1981, will simply request approval for the construction on Lot 12 of a single family residence containing 1,900 square feet or less. . Thus, there would be less density than is presently authorized, and the requested GRFA would be substantially reduced. ROAT H & t3 R EGA, p c. • Lawrence C. Rider, Esq. March 2, 1981 Page Two I would hope that the application and accompanying documentation which was filed in connection with the January 12, 1981, hearing will fulfill the necessary formalities required for placing the matter on the Commission calendar. Alternatively, we will be happy to complete the necessary forms or pay any additional fees at the time of the hearing. If there is any problem in this connection, please let me know. I have not contacted the Planning Commission directly and assume that you will forward this letter to the Commission if you feel it is appropriate for them to have it in advance of the hearing. Thank you very much for your cooperation. RPT /lsw Dictated but not read. • Sincerely, A � t; � Roger P. Thomasch 0 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 1981 TO. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an amendment to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and an Exterior Alteration and Modification for the construction of a three story addition to the Casino Building. BACKGROUND: During the discussion and approval of the Vail Village urban Design Guide Plan, the alley between the Casino Building and Plaza Lodge was noted as "mock connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza." REQUEST The applicant is requesting the exterior alteration and modification to construct a three story addition in the alley between the Casino and Plaza Lodge. Proposed is first floor commercial and second and third floor office space. This is a change by the applicant who initially requested residential use on the second and third, floor. If approval is granted for the plan amendment and exterior alteration and modification, the applicant will be required to come back and to through a conditonal use review for office space on the third floor. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT: The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan must be amended before the Planning and Environmental Commission can deal with the exterior modification and alteration request. The Urban Design Guide Plan states that the alley shall be a "mid block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza." The Community Development Department recommends that the Urban Design Guide Plan not be amended. Improvement of the alley has not been fully explored, and until it has been determined that the alley cannot function as an effective pedestrian way, it should not be filled in with a building. At the time the Rucksack expansion took place, a pedestrian connection to the Mill Creek Building was removed. During workshop meetings on the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, many people discussed . how this connection could be re- established. A second floor connection was discussed and determined that very few, if any, visitors would walk up a flight of stairs to go to the Mill Creek building. If the site was redeveloped., the Urban Design Guide Plan states "Future mid -block connection to further the Mill Creek Court to core area. Entry reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge Street". The staff considers the alley similar in circumstance. Once the opportunity is removed, there may never be the ability to have a pedestrian passage way through the property. Two decisions need to be made concerning the alley. First, should there be a passage way between the Casino Building and Plaza Lodge? The Community Development Department considers that there should be an improved walk way that could be usable many months of the year. Second, should all spaces between buildings in Vail Village be filled in? In the Village today, there is very little private property that is not developed. If this area were landscaped, there could be "No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant, or as specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations. 3/6/81 - page 2 - Alley Even though the area is not landscaped, there could be improvements in a combination of landscaping and pavers in the alley. Third, creating interesting and usable connections between other streets was considered an important aspect of the Vail Village plan. This is one of the few opportunities remaining in Vail Village for a through connection. This decision resprosents a key decision on the value and future of alleyways in the Village. The issue can be looked at in two ways: 1) There are few alleys, and not many more "possible alleys". The loss of this one would only be a confirmation of the essentially "street" network presently existing. 2) On the other hand., if Vail does eventually want to have and encourage "a variety of pedestrian experiences" (i.e. alleys as well as streets), this alley represents a good starting point. The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request to amend the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. II. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST FOR THE ALLEY Part two of the request is the exterior alteration and modification to permit first floor commercial and second and third floor office space. The first floor would have a new entrance for Pistachio's restaurant and a store facing Bridge Street, while along Wall Street, there would be a small shop. There would be approximately 450 square feet of space. The 2nd and-3-rd floor office space contains.900 square feet and is a change from the original request of one dwelling unit. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010 Purpose isThe Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial. Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of building fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of builing scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The proposal to enclose the alley has been discussed regarding the Urban Design. Guide Plan. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Pedestrianization: Closing off the alley has been previously discussed under the plan amendment. Vehicle Penetration: By adding two very small shops, there would be very little additional traffic in the Village. The office space users would be required to park in the Trans- portation Center. Service and delivery vehicles to Vail Village will be required to follow time restrictions set out by the Town of Vail. 3/6/81 page 3 Alley Streetscape Framework: If the building is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission, greater.. attention to the streetscape in front of the entire Casino building needs to be part of the approval. Currently, there are drainage problems, and the sidewalk area between the building and street should be improved. Brandess - Cadmus Real Estate has made some improvements by adding a bench and flowers during the summer. On the West end, the applicant will be responsible to improve the walk way to the building from the completed plaza area. Surface treatment should be the same as the plaza. Street Enclosures This would not change by the addition of the structure to the alley. Street Edge No change by the posposal Building Height The proposal meets the height requirement established in the Design Considerations. Views The proposal does not impact any view corridor. ! Sun Shade No impact because of the Plaza Lodge Zoning Parking - At the time of building permit, the applicant will be required to pay applicable parking fees for commercial and office use. Architectural and Landsca ing.. The exterior design will be reviewed by the Design Review Board to determine com- pliance with the Vail Village Design Consideration. . RECOMMENDATION.: The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request. We consider that the structure addition from either Bridge or Wall Streets looks like an addition and not part of the Casino building. The Staff is also concerned with the flat roof and how it looks against the abutting buildings. If the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request, the following . conditions should be placed on the approval: That the applicant agrees: 1) to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if one is formed for Vail Village, 3/6/81 page 4 Alley 2) to the improvement necessary to complete the walkway from the Village Plaza to the shop entrance, and 3) to work with the other users on the first floor at the Casino building to improve the sidewalks. • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: 3/5/81 SUBJECT: Exterior Alteration Request under the Vail. Village Urban Design Guide Plan for David Garton to allow construction of a 2 level office addition on the existing deck of Garton's Saloon in the Casino Building. A. Description of Request The request is to construct a two story building exactly in the area where the exterior deck is located on the west side of Garton's. Access would be provided via an unenclosed balcony and stairway entering from near the alley opening. The design of the project near the existing alley is somewhat dependent upon the approval or denial of the proposed alley infill project. B. Statistics: 1. Existing: An exterior wood deck of approximately 850 sq. ft. 0 2. Proposed: Use Sq.Ft Office 1515 (5 offices) Common Area 695 (stairs, hails, bathrooms) Total 2210 C. Compliance with Purpose Section 18.24,010 Purpose The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain Ahe unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Com- mercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continu- ation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The Community Development Department considers that the proposal for the office addition to the Casino Building is in conformance with the purpose for Commercial Core I District. Casino Bldg - page 2 - 3/5/81 D. 'Compliance with Vail Village Urban Design Guide.Plan and Design Considerations 1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan No sub -area .concept relates t6 this proposal. 2. Urban Design Considerations a. Pedestrianization: The office addition will not affect pedestrianization on Wall Street. However, it may increase the variety of pedestrian paths near the south entryway by having pavers matching the Village Plaza pavers and connecting that paver area into the Plaza design. b. Vehicle Penetration: Presently, no vehicular traffic is allowed on Wall Street. The proposal would not, in any significant way, affect vehicular penetration. c. Streetscape Framework: The southwest corner of the building will become a focal point for the eye as a person comes down the stairs from the plaza heading north. The top floor of the building's southwest corner will be a curved form recalling some of the curved plan forms of the plaza. This will aid in softening this prominent corner of the building. Also, the exterior unenclosed balcony paralleling Wall.Street will aid the interest of the pedestrian as they walk by. d. Street Enclosure: The feeling of street enclosure will be increased by the proposed addition. This has been the item of most concern during previous PEC and Council reviews. The fallowing chart helps to clarify • the existing and proposed situations with regard to street enclosure as depicted in Section B of the application. Existing Building Proposed Building Side of Wall Street to Street Ratio to Street Ratio East (Casino Building) 1 /2.to 1 1.16 to 1 West (Lazier Arcade) 1.36 to I ..unchanged The Design Considerations for Vail Village suggest that a street enclosure ratio of about 1/2 to 1 is the most comfortable and desirable. It also states that if built ding height is.greatex than street width Cover a 1 to I ratio), that the "canyon" effect is created. The Design considerations continue to include the following exception to these conditions: "In some instances, the 'canyon' effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces - -to give variety to the walking experience. For sun /shade reasons, it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north -south direction. Long canyon streets in an east -west direction should generally be discouraged." "When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design consideration should be given to creating a well.- defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect." We feel that Wall Street is one of those areas that is a short connecting link between larger spaces (Children's Fountain and Village Plaza). It also meets the other criteria addressed in the Design Considerations of a north - south linkage and a well - defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis. With 0 �1 �J Casino Bldg - page 3 - 3/5/81 these criteria in mind, we feel that, although the existing deck does provide a bit of a "breather" in an other wise very enclosed area, that the proposal fits well into the exception category provided for in the Design Considerations and does not create anything contrary to the purposes of the Urban Design _Guide Plan. e. Street Edge: On gall Street, there.is no change on the street. edge. On the area near the entrance to the alley, the proposal should be cut back to keep the Tight and air to a maximum near the alley opening. f. Building Height: The applicant has submitted a height diagram showing the proposal, if approved, will not require a height variance. The height of the proposed addition will not at any point exceed 33 feet from Wall Street level. g. Views: The View Map for the Urban Design Guide Plan shows a major view corridor from the area of the Children's Fountain toward Vail Mountain. The proposed addition does intrude to a very minor degree on the eastern edge of this view, but in no significant manner. The buildings south of the Casino Building cut off the view presently in the same way the addition would, if approved. Thus, no relevant effect on this view corridor is forseen. h. Sun /Shade: In the summer when the sun is in a high position in the sky, the proposed—addition could possibly cause more shade on Wall Street. We don't feel that this would be a significantly Jong period of time during the course of the year. The applicant will have more information to present on this aspect at the PEC meeting. Wall Street is already very "enclosed" and currently does not receive much sun. E. Zoning Code Considerations Since no limit on the square footage of commercial space is in effect (under the Urban Design Guide Plan) for CCI, the proposal needs no square footage variance. No additional site coverage is realized either, because of the commercial space existing directly below the proposal. Thus, all zoning code regulations are being mot with the proposal. Also, at the time of building permit, the applicant will required to pay the applicable parking fee for commercial space. F. Architectural and Landscape Considerations The details of the building proposal will be reviewed in front of the Design Review Board. The proposal appears to blend well with the existing building and generally is consistent with the Design Considerations. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the office addition to the Casino Building with the following conditions: 1) The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improve- ment district, if and when .formed for Vail Village. 2) The applicant will submit a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an office on the 3rd level. 3) The applicant will work out an agreement mutually acceptable to the Town, the applicant and the other business owners in the Casino Building as to construction schedules and practices, so that disturbances of existing businesses are kept to an absolute minimum. 4) The applicant must improve the area from the Plaza to his entrance with similar materials used in the plaza. 5) If the alley project is denied, the applicant cut back the proposal on first level to let adequate light and air into the alley opening. i IN box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 March G, 1981 department of community development TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development RE: G.R.F.A. Variance for Casolar II, Lot A7 Applicant: Dean L. Knox Description of Variance Requested A copy of the description of the variance being requested is enclosed. The Staff would like to recap various issues which have led up to this request. 1. Could the lot lines between A7 and A8 be vacated, as being Casolar I and A7 being Casolar II. Mr. Knox was notified by Jim Rubin that they could not be vacated. In reviewing the P.E.C. tape of October 27, 1980 Jim Rubin indicated to Mr. Knox that he was told that he could not vacate the property lines and thus be able to transfer 3500 sq.ft. of G.R.F.A. plus or minus to Casolar II. Mr. Knox said, "I guess I didn't do my homework and I understand that this cannot be done." The request of approval of Casolar II never contained any reference to the left over G.R.F.A. from Casolar 1. 2. The 1,400 sq.ft. (G.R.F.A.) per unit was always considered as an estimate allowable per unit. This was based solely upon an estimate done by Jim Rubin without the aid of an engineer analysis as requested. In reviewing the P.E.C. tapes of August 22, 1978 there was approval given for 11 units with a maximum of 1400 sq.ft. of G.R.F.A. r L Page 2 3. The owner (Mr. Knox) has stated that the Town of Vail did not control the G.R.F.A. limitation of 3380 sq.ft. of G.R.F.A., or 1690 sq.ft. per unit. The fact is that the Town does not enforce covenants and 1690 sq.ft. (3380 sq.ft.) was not the total G.R.F.A. agreet to. Mr. Knox, on several occasions, was told that the total G.R.F.A. being submitted for on projects prior to agreeing to a final G.R.F.A. figure would be deducted from the total The total of usable G.R.F.A. was as follows: Lot area 53,796.60 Minus area over 40% 3,485.00 Net usable 50,311.60 G.R.F.A. usable 15,093.48 G.R.F.A. used to date (3 -6 -81) 14,167.00 Remaining G.R.F.A. 926.48 Based on the usable G.R.F.A. after receiving information on slope the 11 units proposed by Knox would only be allowed 1372 sq.ft. of G.R.F.A. per unit. At 1690 sq.ft. per unit this project would have far exceeded the allowable G.R.F.A. Conclusion: Based on all the information reviewed both by documents and by reviewing the P.F.C. tapes, it is the opinion of the Staff that: Mr. Knox was never led to believe that: 1. He could transfer G.R.F.A. from Casolar I to Casolar II 2. That the G.R.F.A. would ever be approved at 1690 sq.ft. per unit 3. That the Town of Vail had accepted his covenants which indicated 1690 sq.ft. 4. That the Town of Vail would control the amount of G.R.F.A. used or that they would enforce any provision of the covenants It is also our finding that Mr. Knox did not fully comply to the request of the Community Development Department to complete a slope analysis and by doing so, correct the actual allowable G.R.F.A. in the covenants. The Staff believes that they have been very up front with Mr. Knox and believes that it was solely the responsibility of Mr. Knox to control the usage of usable G:R.F.A. in Casolar II and that any hardship has been totally self-inflicted. The Staff recommends that Mr. Knox's application for the variance as set forth in the attached application be denied. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 23, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT Roger Tilkemeier Scott Edwards Gaynor Miller Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper ABSENT Jim Morgan Gerry White called the meeting to order at 3:15. 1. Approval of minutes of March 9, 1981. 3:00 p.m, STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Dick Ryan Peter Jamar Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Bud Benedict Dan Corcoran corrected the minutes to read that he had abstained on the vote on Deane Knox. Duane moved to approve the minutes as corrected, and Dan seconded. Roger abstained from voting, and the vote was 5 -0 in favor. Motion carried. 2. Request for a 16 foot set -back along the North and West ro erty lines for a • 5 acre unplatted parcel, commonly known as the Pulis Ranch adjacent to Vail Village Third Filing on Sunburst Drive for the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. Applicant; Shapiro Construction Company. Peter Jamar explained the staff memo and showed with maps moving -the buildings down slope 16 feet, Ron Todd explained further that the result would be moving two buildings out of the moderate hazard area, and also obtaining a better site plan by easing the grading, Ken Shapiro emphasized that the basic reason for moving the buildings 16 feet was to remove them from any potential hazard, and that the improvement in the site was a side benefit. Dan explained that the property line in question would eventually change from being an exterior property line to an interior property line because the adjacent property was part of the same development. Roger moved and Scott seconded to approve the request in accordance with the staff memo, The vote was 5 -0, in favor with Dan Corcoran abstaining. Motion carried. 3. Amending the conditional use criteria ... findings section of the Zoning Code to add a new criteria regarding personal service and repair shops located on the first floor in the Commercial Core I and II zone districts. Peter Patten explained the background, that Karl Hoevelman had been in with a request of use an interior space in the Golden Peak House for a beauty shop, and had requested an amendment to the zoning code to allow him to do so under a conditional use process. The issue of no street or pedestrian frontage was discussed. Peter ex- plained that only barber and beauty shops should be included now until more study is made, When asked why the staff didn't suggest that the whole issue be postponed until all the other applicable categories be studied, Peter answered that'the staff was com- fortable including these, and that it would mean making Mr, Hoevelman wait still longer PEC - 3/23/81 page 2 and that the staff had studied these hadn't been studied at this time was . so much of the staff's time, categories. One of the reasons all categories because the annexation of West Vail had taken Roger stated that if this category was appropriate, he felt they should approve it, rather than have a bureaucratic process prevent someone from starting a business. He pointed out that they had voted and had decided that it was appropriate at one point. Dick Ryan remanded them that Mr. Hoevelman would still have to apply for a Conditional Use permit, Jim Jacobson, representing Mr. Hoevelman reminded the Commission that Mr. Hoevelman had already been before them twice before that day and didn't feel that it should be held up again. Gerry White felt that travel and ticket agencies should be included, Dan agreed with Gerry and moved to amend 1.8.24.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street Level to include barber or beauty shops and travel and ticket agencies, and amending Section 18.60.060, Criteria- Findings section of the zoning code to add that no conditional use permit will be issued for personal service and repair shops for Commercial Core I or Commercial Cor II if the proposed space contains any exterior frontage on (including direct access from) a major pedestrian or vehicular way or public mall area. The vote was 5 -1 in favor with Scott against, The motion carried to recommend to the Council the changes:: 4. Amending the Floor Area, Gross Residential definition of the zoning code dealing with storage areas. • Peter Patten explained that the staff, along with some builders and architects went through considerable study on this subject. The reason the staff wanted to change the code was that several builders or owners were found to have changed storage space into living space after their plans had been approved. Peter read from the memo listing three changes to be made. He then showed a set of plans -.n which excessive storage sppace was proposed under the recently passed definition of GRFA. Steve Patterson addea that a concern of the building department was that people were using former storage space as living space and that sometimes there was inadequate ventilation or egress. Much discussion followed with questions as to what exactly did the building department do when they discovered these infractions, Ken Shapiro pointed out that some changes had caused useless and unusual expense for the contractors. He mentioned building into a hill with a stepped foundation which was not in the best building practice and was expensive, or building a steep roof and then not using the space -- putting in a flat ceiling to satisfy the GRFA. He felt that this did not result in making the building larger. Many members felt that the most concern was with the bulk, but Steve Patterson added that the concern in his department was with safety. Ken felt that if the building department dealt with infractions so severely, then 1 or 2 cases a year would be sufficient evidence to others not to break the law. Mason Thomas spoke against the measure. Stewart Hollander spoke against legislation that decreased the size of his house or his family's activities. Carol Duddy objected to having to come back again to discuss this item after the ordinance had been passed 4 months ago. Betty Thomas asked for clarification. Scott reiterated the two objectives -- safety and bulk limit. Scott moved and Roger seconded that the commission request to table the subject to give the staff more time to study it for two weeks. The vote was 6"0 in favor, Motion passed. • Jim Rubin presented-the Ea.gle.. County. master, plan. (Roger moved and Gaynor seconded to adjourn at 5 :35, and the county master plan presentation continued,) MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER JAMAR DATE: March 16, 1981 RE: Request for a setback variance to allow the relocation of two buildings which are to be constructed as a continuation of the Vail Golf:Course Townhomes development. APPLICANT: Shapiro Construction DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Shapiro Construction Company, is applying for a 16 foot variance on the North and West property lines of a five acre unplatted parcel, commonly known as the Pulis Ranch., adjacent to Vail Valley Third Filing. Hardship is evidenced by the impact of a wet spring avalanche run -out area located to the southeast of the proposed buildings. Relocation of the two buildings down the slope a distance of sixteen feet would remove them from the moderate hazard avalanche zone. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal Code, the Department Ot Community Development recommends a roval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or 2otential uses and structures in the vicinity. The adjacent property owner at each of the requested setback encroachments is Shapiro Construction Company, and the adjacent projects are previously approved phases of the Golfcourse Townhomes., of which these units are to be a continuation. The property lo- cated to the rear of the development is Forest Service property. The movement of the two buildings into the north and west property line setbacks would result in the buildings being 16 feet closer to the adjacent Golfcourse Townhome buildings. The resulting distance between buildings would be 30 feet for the building on the west side of the property and 135 feet on the north side. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified 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 2rivilege. The moderate hazard avalanche zone constitutes a physical hardship. The buildings could be built without the setback variances by placing a portion of the two units in the moderate hazard zone. However, the relocation of the buildings provides a better plan for the site by removing the buildings from the hazard area, reducing the impact on the hillside, and providing more open space adjacent to the hiking trail. The staff . feels that this solution will better meet the objectives of the zoning code and will not constitute a special privilege. lie Vail Golf Course Townhomes - page 2 - 3/16/81 The effect of the requested variance on 1 of population, transportation alnd traffi utilities, and public safety. and air, distribution ilities, public facilities and Moving the buildings into the North and West setbacks will create a positive influence on light and air to the rear of the buildings adjacent to the trail and will not have any significant effect on transportation, traffic facilities,.or utilities. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are none. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the folowing findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege in- consistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be 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 applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval based upon the existence of natural hardship. Moving the buildings from the moderate hazard area would reduce the potential for avalanche damage to the structures. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: March 18, 1981 SUBJECT: Amendments to the Conditional Use Section of the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11 Zone Districts to allow the category of uses known as "Personal Services" to be permitted uses on street level, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and amending the Criteria. - Findings Section of the Zoning Code pertaining to Conditional Use permits to add that no Conditional Use Permit will be issued for personal services on street level in either Commercial Core I or II if it possesses exterior frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way or public mall area.. BACKGROUND This amendment is a result of the Karl Hoevelmann request which was in front of you two weeks ago. Mr. Hoevelmann wishes to use an interior space in the Golden Peak House for a beauty shop and has requested an amendment to the zoning code to allow him to do so under a conditional use process. The staff recommendation was to allow such uses on street level in CCI and CCII as long as no exterior frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way or public mall area existed. The other change was to add the personal service category to the list of uses allowed in CCI and CCII subject to the issuance of a conditonal use permit. The motion for approval iof these two changes passed by a 5 -2 vote. The reason this is back before you, is because the addition of criteria number 8 to the Conditional Use Criteria - Findings Section had not been published. This has been done, and can be officially approved at this time. The changes proposed by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. Section 18.29.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street Level C.S. Personal Services and Repair Shops, including the following: Barbershops Beauty shops Small appliance repair shops Tailors and dressmakers Travel and Ticket agencies 2. Section 18.60.060 Criteria - Findings A.B. No Conditional Use Permit will be approved for the category of uses known as personal service and repair shops for Commercial Core I or Commercial Core II if the proposed space contains any exterior frontage on (including direct access from) a major pedestrian or vehicular way or public mall area. Personal Services - page 2 = march 18, 1981 RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with the exception that only barber and beauty shops be under the change at this time ( &xclude the remainder of uses within the Personal Service and Repair Shops category). We feel that other uses can and should be studied for their suitability of including them in this category of differentiating between street frontage vs interior space,.but that we are addressing only barber and beauty shops at this tame. If other uses are to be included, all possibilities should be studied together with a final recommendation at the time determination is made. Thus, our recommendation for the zone change is as follows:. 1. 18.24.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses -First Floor or Street Level C.S. Barber or Beauty Shops 2. 18.60.060 Criteria - Findings A.8. No Conditional Use Permit will be approved for barber or beauty shops in Commercial Core I or 11 if the proposed space contains any exterior frontage on (including direct access from) a major pedestrian or vehicular way or public mall area. I* lie lob 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department /Larry Woodley RE: Amendment of GRFA Concerning Storage Areas DATE: March 18, 1981 In the past months, we have found that there is a total misconception of the use of storage areas. We have had plans submitted with areas indicated as storage with square footage as much as 900 square feet. It is a well known fact that square footage in a Vail structure is a very valuable commodity. The way our present code reads, it enables an architect to merely design in a large space and designate it as storage. These large storage areas are later being converted to useable GRFA. Two such cases have been brought to the attention of the Planning staff in the last few months. Based on this evident misuse of storage spaces, the staff would like to make the following recommended changes in our present zoning codes:. 1. All storage space within the Gross Residential Floor Area be counted as GRFA. 2. Below -floor crawl spaces be limited to a maximum ceiling height of five (5) feet. 3, Attic spaces cannot be constructed with solid decking, plumbing or heating, and lighting be limited to only one (1) Keylis type fixture. Attic space ceiling height is not to exceed five (5) feet at its highest point. Factory -built truss roof systems which do not exceed 2 x 4 construction will be exempt. Based on this information, the staff hopes that you will concur with our recommendation and find that this change is needed. is 0 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE I5 HEREBY GIVEN that.the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with the Zoning Code of the Vail Municipal Code on March 23, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. at the Town Council Chambers in the Municipal Building. Public hearing and consideration of: 1. A request for a 16 foot set -back along the North and West property lines for a five acre unplatted parcel, commonly known as the Pulis Ranch, adjacent to Vail Village Third Filing subdivision on Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Shapiro Con- struction Company. 2. Amending the conditional use criteria—Findings sectioxy of the Zoning Code to add a new criteria regarding personal service and repair shop.. located on the first floor in the Commercial Core I and II zone districts. 3. Amending the non - conforming sites, uses, structures and improvements section of the zoning Code to add new sections under purpose, continuance, sites, uses, strut tures and site improvements, maintenance and repairs, discontinuance change of use and restoration. 4. Amending the sign code of the Town of Vail to have a new sign code section for Commercial Core III zone district. S. Amending the Floor Area, Gross_ Residential definition of the zoning code dealing with storage areas. Information relating to the requests is at the Community Development office in the Municipal Building during regular business hours for review by the public. A. PETER PATTEN, JR Zoning Administrator Town of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on March 6, 1981. MEMORANDUM 0 March 26, 1981 TO: Town Council and Planning Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: — Joint Work Session Tuesday, March 31, 1981 at 1;00 p.m. 1. Possibly changing the two -- family primary /secondary zone distract to allow the .. second unit to have up to 40% gross residential floor area. The staff suggests that we send this change to the architects in Vail to see if this improves the potential floor plan for the second unit. In addition, we would request their input on criteria to insure we get away from the mirror image duplex. 2. Study Area #5 in Vaal LionsHead is bounded on the east by the Vail 21, on the south by Lions Pride court, on the west by Lift House Lodge and Westwind and on the north by Vantage Point. In the Vail LionsHead Urban Design Guide Plan study area, #5 states: "Additional study area to explore potential to: further upgrade second mall entrance, expand and intensify Lion's Pride Court, and complete pedestrian connection to Gondola Plaza. Service /delivery function essential to maintain, as well as private parking" In addition, the east entry to this area on the guide plan states: "Pocket entry park (created by reduction of parking structure) to create and enhance an alternative entry to the mall, reduce congestion at peak periods, increase pedestrian exposure to back areas and to screen the parking structure and generally upgrade the approach to LionsHead." Enclosed is a letter from Ruoff /Wentworth Architects discussing a proposal for study area #5. The purpose of the meeting is to receive input from the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the direction they are taking. Their goal is to submit for a plan amendment at the next review period for projects in Commercial Core II the end of May. 3. Discussion of horizontal zoning. Enclosed is a copy of the horizontal zoning regulations for Commercial Core I and 11. The staff will present uses on the first, second and third floors in CCI and II at the meeting. 4. Discussion of sign code direction for Commercial Core I. With the annexation of West Vail, we now have an auto type of shopping area. The staff will go through a sign program for CCIII for your review and comment. 5. Discussion on amending the non - conforming section of the zoning code. 6, Storage space. At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting last week, the staff presented a new definition of what would and would not be counted as storage space. Enclosed is the staff memorandum that was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Ll BRIEF HISTORY U' VA11, 1- WU4LX.LA1) JWUl ALL - •• RELATING TO REQUESTS FOR USE CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL CORES I AND 11 CHRONOLOGIC HISTORY: BUILDING REQUEST ACTION COMMENT5 1974 McBride or A &D Add 750 sgft for Country Approved Flair Shop which was a dwelling unit 1975 Sept Mill Creek 1976 1977 Dec . 1977 Mar 14 1978 Convert add'l 1764 sgft later withdrawn (YEAR NOT REVIEWED) Zoning approval for Acme Barbershop Approved A dwelling unit was converted to storage just before Hor.Z adopted 5 -1 Bldg Permit already Denied accidentally issued Town of Vail adopts CUP Criteria of "continuance of various commercial, residential and public uses in CCI to maintain existing character of area." Lionshead Real Estate Office Unanimous Office thought to increase Gondola on 1st floor - CUP Approval traffic in area. June 13 McBride *78 June 28 Village Center 1978 "D" convert apt to office or retail on 2nd Floor - Gorsuch CUP for real estate office -1st floor 5 -1 First time staff seriously Approval raised issues and much discussion occurred Unanimous Approval July 11 Lionshead CUP for Real Estate Unanimous Pam Garton stated that they 1878 Arcade office on 1st floor Approval have relaxed their position on horizontal zoning July 31 Bill Wilto letter to PEC stating concern over recent decisions on horizontal 1978 zoning.feels liability of area (CCI) depends upon use mix. Sept 26 Lionshead 1978 Center Oct 24 Casino 1978 Mar 13 Hill 1979 *Apr 10 Schober 1979 CUP for real estate office in space now storage Benchmark Inn CUP for real estate office on 1st floor CUP -trade garage space for comm'1 space -gain 361 sq ft CLIP convert 2 accom units to employee units Denied -tie Space was already converted - Vote 2 -2 attitude was let's make it legal. 5 -1 denied business license had mistakenly been signed 3-1 Residence space also added approval 1 abstention Unanimous approval Aug 10 Golden Peak Cyrano's deck 3-2 1979 house enclosure -CUP approval r"i1D 1r;+e -h Pn Adti unanimous Previous proposal denied - convert acc. unit to condo some PEC members felt this would change character PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA f Monday, April ril 13 1981 2:00 Joint meeting with Design Review.Board to study.lots 26 through 42 of Highland Meadows for future Special. Development District 3:00 1. Minutes of the meeting of March 23, 1981. 2. A request for a front setback variance at 153 Beaver Dam Road, Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Bo Price and John Wisenbaker 3. A request for a front and side setback variance on the south and west property lines at 765 Forest Road, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village 6th to build a garage. Applicant: Tom and Candy Jacobson 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow installation and use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on Lot 4, Block 1, Lionshead First Filing and Tract H Lionshead 3rd Filing. 5. A request for a conditional use permit for 10 years at 100 north Frontage Road, • the Spraddle Creek Ranch, to construct barns, corrals., fences, cabins, etc. to accommodate from 40 to 60 horses, 30 cars and the people necessary to operate the livery stable business.which would include trail rides, wagon rides, sleigh rides and other related activities. Applicant: Roger Tilkemeier. 0 is MEMBERS PRESENT Gerry White Scott Edwards Duane Piper Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Gaynor Miller ABSENT Dan Corcoran PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 1981 STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL MEMBER Bud Benedict Gerry White called the meeting to order at 3:00 p,m, Dick Ryan told the PEC members that the Town Council upheld their decisions on Luke, Knox and Garton's deck. 1. Minutes of the meeting of March 23, 1981. Roger moved that these minutes be approved, and Scott seconded. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Jim abstained. 2. A request for a front setback variance at 153 Beaver Dam Road, Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village Ist. Applicants. Bo Price and John Wisenba er + Peter Jamar presented the memo and showed plans. Tim Clark, the architect showed photos and elevations. It was pointed out that the house was built prior to setback regulations and lies 5 inches from the south property line, and that it is in need of aesthetic improvement, Peter also mentioned that he had checked with Public Works, and they had no problem with the proximity to the road. Scott moved and Roger seconded that the request be allowed as per the staff memo, The vote was 6 -0, unanimous in favor. C. J 3, A request for a front and side setback variance on the south and west pxoperty lines at 765 Forest Road, Lot 8, block 2, V Village 6th to build a garage. Peter Jamar presented the memo and explained that there could be no parking on the road, for it was used for snow cats in the winter. The:applicants explained that if they built the garage on the other side of the house, it would black the view of the neighbors across the road. Peter added that the restriction. ' originally asked for by the Public Works Department of having a 151 drainage easement along the east property line had since been removed when it was discovered that the drainage could be taken care of another way. Roger moved and Gaynor seconded for approval of the request as stated in the memo, less the restriction of the 151 easement. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Unanimous approval, 4. A_ request for a conditional use permit to allow . installation and use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on lot 4, block 1, L,ionshead First Filing and Tract H, Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bud Benedict Peter Patten reviewed the memo and stated that this was a renewal of a permit granted last year. Bud Benedict stated that they would like to have a permit for as long as the VA will let him have the course, that his lease with VA was for 5 years, so he would like this CU permit for 5 years, He added that one addition to the golf course this year would be I or 2 buildings (miniature buildings). He also said there would be no food or drink or music, that the operation would be open until 10:00 p.m. PEC 4/13/81 page 2 Jim Morgan moved and Scott seconded to approve the conditional use permit as stated in the staff memo, but for a 5 year period and with the conditions that the course must be removed by October 15 each year and that daily the operation must close by 10:00 p,m. The vote was 6 -0, unanimous. S. Are uest for a conditional use permit for 10 years at 100 North Frontage Road, the Spraddle Creek Ranch, to construct barns, corrals, fences, cabins, etc. to accommo date from 40 to 60 horses, 30 cars and the people necessary to operate the livery stable business which would include trail rides, wagon rides, sleigh rides and other related activities, Applicant: Roger Tilkemeier. Peter Patten presented the memo and summarize the staff concerns in it which included the visibility of the parked cars from the Interstate and frontage roads, which the staff felt must be screened, the revegetation of the fill banks, the fact that there must be adequate water and sanitation facilities. The staff wanted highly visible and easily understandable signage, at the intersection with the Frontage Road. Roger voiced objection to the concern of the visility of the ears, He state that one of the Forest Service concerns was that he have plenty of parking and not on the Forest Service road except for overflow parking, Dick Ryan.mentioned receiving complaints from people about seeing the horse trailer last year. Roger indicated that the trailer would be parked far up the road behind a building, He added that he wnats to run a 4 -horse team to the Transportation Center to pick up 20 -25 people which may eliminate much parking need. He admitted that the cars would be visible if one were driving east on either the North Frontage Road or the Interstate. Peter Patten's concern with the view from the village. Jim Paxon of the Forest Service stated the F5 was concerned that Roger have adequate parking spaces, and that they have demanded that the road be kept open to the public and maintained, Roger maintained that this summer operation was no different from the winter operation in which the parked cars in town were very visible. He added that these cars would be at least 1000 feet from people driving past. Duane Piper felt that cars parked in an urban area had less impact that cars parked in an otherwise unblemished hillside. Jim Morgan suggested that the PEC grant a one year permit until they could see what impact the cars might have, Roger felt that he couldn't operate on a one year basis only. After much discussion of the issue, the members went out to the parking lot to view the hillside where the cars would be. It was mentioned that since some of the cars would be visible anyway, why.argue over 7 addi- tional cars? Gerry White was not satisfied with Roger's not complying with the Ist condi- tion to screen the cars from view. He was concerned with the people in the condos of the village being able to see the cars, too, and felt this was one complaint from the Town residents he felt strongly in sympathy with, Discussion followed concerning slope stablization, revegetation, and sanitation and water supplies. Roger stated that he would have the revegetation finished before July 15, 1981, and that he has tapped a spring for water, that temporary sanitary facilities would be used this year, because he wasn't able to start construction last fall. He has an agreement with VA to use their shower facilities. He stated that there would be 13 people living on the site, with 2 living about 1 -1/2 mile up the mountain at the chuck wagon site. He planned to construct a self contained sanitary facility this fall. He stated that he would use sodium chloride or oil on the road to contain the dust. Jim Morgan moved for approval, seconded by Gaynor Miller the request for a conditional use permit for 10 years as stated in the staff memo, and with the conditons in the memo with the exception of #1, visibility of cars. The vote was 4 -1 in favor, with Gerry White voting against the measure, repeating that he felt the complaints about the cars were important. Duane moved, and Gaynor seconded to adjourn at 4:45. Unanimous, U-1;Mu g i;;f�711u1 • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTJPETER JAMAR DATE: 4/7/81 RE: A request for a setback variance at 765 Forest Road, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing in order to construct a garage, APPLICANTS: Tom and Cindy Jacobson DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This is a request for a front and side setback variance on the south and west property lines of a residence at 765 Forest Road in order to construct a garage. Presently there is no covered parking on the site and cars are parked on the south edge of the property adjacent to the road. The land to the west of the property is zoned Agriculture and Open Space District and Forest Road is located 5' from the south property line. The proposed garage would be located 1' from the west property line and 5' from the south property line. The garage would sit 10' from the edge of the road. There is also a 10' easement along the west property line in which the Town of Vail Public Works Department and the utility companies have given approval to the applicant to construct the garage. The Public Works. Department approval is contingent on the condition that the applicant must provide a 15' drainage easement along the east property line. • CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the. Municipal Code, the De artmenfi of Cumminity -Development recommends a roval o£ t e requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the re uested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The construction of the garage should not have any adverse effects upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The garage will provide an area for enclosed parking which will improve the visual appearance of the area. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal.inter retation and enforement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and.uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. There are several reasons why a physical hardship exists and the setback requirements cannot be met in the construction of the garage. The house was built prior to setback requirements, and the house is not situated such that a garage could be built on the south portion of the property and stay within the required setbacks, The east side of the lot does provide enough area for a garage. However, the area now contains many trees and gardens and construction of a garage on this portion of the site would eliminate these plantings and also obstruct the view of the creek from the home across the street. Jacobson garage page 2 4/7/81 The applicant is unable to construct the garage further to the north portion of the . lot toward the creek because the sewer line is not located within the easement, but is 29 feet inside the property line. Forest Road is the access that Vail Associates uses for their snow cats to go up the mountain, and this also creates a hardship by eliminating the possibility of any on-- street parking. Because of these hardships which exist and the fact that similar variances have been granted in the area, the staff feels that the granting of this.variance request will not constitute a special privilege. The effect of the transportation an public safety. equested variance on light and air, distribution of population traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and The granting of the variance request should not significantly affect the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems ap licable.to the kroposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the physical hardship which exists, and the fact that the garage will be an improvement to the site by providing covered parking., the.staff recommends approval of the variance request with the condition that a 15' drainage easement along the east property line must be provided by the applicant. • !u u[111TIR[Dilial TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ PETER JAMAR DATE: April 8, 1981 RE: Setback variance request, lot 37, block 7, Vail Village Ist Filing Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. B Price, Mr. & Mrs. John Wisenbaker DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This is a request for a variance from the required front setback of 20' from the south property line at 153 Beaver Dam Road; Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, in order to construct a deck, new entry area, and stone wall on the east end of an existing primary /secondary dwelling unit. The house was built prior to any setback restrictions enforced by the Town, and sits approximately 5 inches.from the front (south) property line. This property.line is located approximately 18, from the edge of Beaver Dam Road. Thus, the house sits approximately 1815" off the road. The proposed new entry area and stone wall would abut the property line, and the deck would be located approximately 3' to the north of the property line. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62,060 of the Municipal Code,`the De artment of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based u on the following factors: Physical hardship is demonstrated by the fact that the dwelling was built prior to setback regulations and lies 51' from the south property line. The house is in need of aesthetic improvement and the staff feels that the addition will be an improvement to the site. Other lots in the area of lot 37 also have experienced similar hardship and have been granted similar variance requests. Because of these conditions, the staff feels that the granting of the requested variance would not constitute a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, ublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed addition will have no significant effect on the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Plannimg 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. • Lot 37, blk 7 V V 1st page 2 4/8/81 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • The strict or literal interpretations 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the requested variance based on the existence of the physical hardship of the existing structure being located 5 inches from the property line, the fact that similar variances have been granted in the area in the past, and that the addition will be an aesthetic improvement of the site. 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: April 8, 1981 RE: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 10 years for Spraddle Creek Ranch, Inc. to operate a livery stable and related activities. APPLICANT: Roger Tilkemeier DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The proposed use includes construction of barns, corrals, fences, cabins, parking spaces, etc. to accommodate from 40 to 60 horses, 30 cars and the people necessary to operate the livery stable business. Horses would be used in the following activities: Trail rides., chuck wagon cookouts, wagon rides, sleigh rides and other related activities CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town: • The Department of Community Development feels that the livery operation is an important one to the tourist business in Vail. The activities offered have been proven to be very popular for the tourists and the business serves an important function. A year around operation would make it an even more valualbe asset to the Town. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of P02ulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The application included no information concerning sewer and water treatment or supplies. The staff feels that the operation must meet minimum requirements of the local water and sanitation district. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to.congestion, automotive and edestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal. of snow from the streets and parking areas_ We have not received any input stating that there have been significant negative impacts at the Vail Road intersection due to traffic from the livery stable. Highly visible and easily understandable signage should be used at this intersection to insure the safe ingress and egress for the business. The staff is also concerned about the possible visibility of cars parked on the site. The site plan shows numerous spaces near the southern property line, close to the interstate and Frontage Roads. We would like to have graphic proof that these cars would not be visible from the roads below 0 or a guarantee that they be screened from view. Spraddle Creek Ranch page 2 4/8/81 Effect u on 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 location of the proposal, surrounded on 3 sides by Forest Service land and 1 -70 on the south, prevents any negative impacts from being created. A minor nuisance on occasion is the odor from the stables, but there really is not much to be done to prevent this. The smooth operation of the livery stable last summer has relieved much of the staff's concern about the location of the business. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems a. licable to the pro osed use The staff is very concerned that the fill banks on the entire site, but especially the ones visible from the roads below, be adequately revegetated and quickly. The current fill on the site will require topsoil to be placed over it and then re- vegetated. A plan for this process should be submitted and the revegetation completed by July 15, 1981. The environmental im act re ort concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: feThe 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. RECOMMENDATIONS: The community Development Department recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. Information be presented to the staff clearly indicating that no cars will be visible as one drives by on the Interstate or on either frontage road. If cars would be visible, a new plan showing no visible cars will be required. 2. The applicant demonstrate not only the need for however many people he wishes to house on site, but also that proper sanitation and water supplies are available. 3. A detailed revegetation plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development, and that the revegetation be-completed by July 15, 1981. 4. That an adequate surface to control dust be placed on the parking and road surface in the area. QJQ7V 4I�7: k1 U • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 0 DATE: April 10, 1981 RE: Request for conditonal use permit for Bud and Marcet Benedict to allow installation and use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on lot 4, block 1, Lionshead 1st filing and Tract H. Lionshead 3rd Filing. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicants wish to install an 18 -hole miniature golf course facility in the area southeast of Monson's sun deck in Lionshead. It would be operated ,Tune through early -mid October, A 48 square foot ticket booth structure is proposed. The facility would be in operation from approximately 12 noon to 10:.00 p.m. A fence consisting of wood poles and wire mesh to stop the golf balls is also proposed. This past summer, the miniature golf course was well used and seemed to have only positive effects on the entire Vail Lionshead area. 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: Relationshi2 and impact of the use on _development objectives of the Town. One of the development objectives of the Town is to increase commercial usage of the Lionshead area. The staff feels this proposal greatly enhances activity and creates a more lively atmosphere in this currently "dead" space, The effect of use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facili- ties, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The proposed use adds another dimension of public recreational opportunities for Vail's residents and guests. Effect safety i pedestrian areas. The Proposal creates no adverse impacts in these regards. All pedestrian walkways will be kept open so no existing pedestrian traffic will be impeded or changed. 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 proposal significantly improves the existing character of the space. Surrounding businesses and residents (10 condominiums) have given their approval of the proposal. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Miniature Golf Course page 2 4/10/81 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. CONDITIONS: 1. Golfcourse must be removed by October 15 each year. 2. Operation must close by 10:00 p.m. • • PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail on April 13, 1981 at 3:.00 p.m. at the Town of Vail Council Chambers in the Municipal Building. Public Hearing and Consideration of: 1. A request for a front setback variance at 153 Beaver Dam Road, lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, in order to build a deck, new entry area, and stone wall. Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Bo Price, Mr, & Mrs. John Wisenbaker. 2. A request for front and side setback variance on the south and west property lines of a residence at 765 Forest Road, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing, in order to build a garage. Applicant: Tom and Cindy Jacobson. 3. A request for two variances for Lots A -1 and A -2, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No.l. One request is to build on a slope in excess of 400; the other is a setback variance on the south side of the property on Sandstone Road, Applicant: AAV Limited Partnership. 4.. Request for a conditional use permit to allow installation and use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on Lot 4, Block 1, Lionshead lst Filing and Tract H, Lions - head 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bud and Marcet Benedict. 5. A request for a conditional use permit for 10 years at 100 North Frontage Road, the Spraddle Creek Ranch, to construct barns, corrals, fences, cabins, etc. to accommodate from 40 to 60 horses and the people necessary to operate the business of a livery stable, stabling of horses for trail rides, wagon rides, sleigh rides and other related activities. Applicant: Roger Tilkemeier. Information relating to the requests is at the Community Development office in the Municipal Building during regular business hours for review by the public. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Peter Patten, Jr. Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail March 27, 1981. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April 13, 1981 3:00 p.m. 1. Minutes of the meeting of March 23, 1981. 2. A request for a front setback variance at 153 Beaver Dam Road, Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Bo Price and John Wisenbaker 3, A request for a front and side setback variance on the south and west property lines at 765 Forest Road, Lot 8, Blk 2, Vail Village 6th to build a garage. Applicant: Tom and Cindy Jacobson 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow installation and use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on Lot 4, Block 1, Lionshead First Filing and Tract H Lionshead Third Filing, Applicant: Bud and Marcet Benedict. 5 A request for a conditonal use permit for 10 years at 100 North Frontage Road, The Spraddle Creek Ranch, to construct barns, corrals, fences, cabins, etc. to accommodate from 40 to 60 horses and the people necessary to operate the business of a livery stable, stabling of horses for trail rides, wagon rides, sleigh rides and other related activities. Applicant: Roger Tilkemeier. 6, Amending the floor area, gross residential definition of the zoning code dealing with stroage areas. • Published in the Vail Trail on April 10, 1981, • � 0 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, April 20, 1981 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of April 13, 1981, 2. A request to amend Special Development District No. 7 of.the Series of 1977 concerning the number of fireplaces, density control and removal of tennis courts for the Marriott Mark. In addition, review of Phase II of the special development district. Applicant: Kaiser Marcus. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT April 20, 1981 3,.00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT ---� - Gerry White Peter Patten Dan Corcoran Peter Jamar Duane Piper Larry Eskwith Gaynor Miller Betsy Rosolack ABSENT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Jim Morgan �°--- Scott Edwards Paul Johnston Roger Tilkemeier Gerry called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of April 13, 1981. Gaynor moved and Duane seconded to approve these minutes. The vote was 3 -0 in favor, Dan abstaining. 2. A,re nest to amend Special Develo ment District No. 7 of the Series of 1977 concerning the number of fireplaces, density control and removal of tennis courts for the Marriott Mark. In addition, review of Phase II of the special development district. Applicant: Kaiser Marcus. Peter Patten reviewed the staff memorandum which described the plan revisions and the amendment requests. He listed 5 conditions the staff recommended with the approval, Ken Wentworth added that the owner had agreed to all the listed condi- tions. He then showed plans and two models, One was a model of the previously approved addition, and the other the changed proposal as presented with this memo. Ross Cooney, also of Ruoff- Wentworth, felt that some of the massing decisions made earlier were goc3d ones, but now they wanted to have a greater orientation to the south. He added that 73% of the rooms proposed would face south, which caused a modification in the massing, One change still to be made is to move the parking structure farther from the building and perhaps change the fire lane. Kaiser Marcus stated that they now need more hospitality rooms, which was the main reason for the request for the kitchens. Bill Ruoff added that if the Town of Vail wants more conventions, they must have what the conventions want. Kaiser Marcus mentioned that their contract with the Marriott is for 25 years, and they have an agreement with Marriott to provide 320 hotel room keys. Dan said that he felt that the Mark had been the forerunner in providing employee housing. Ken felt that the parking spaces should have been 235, and not 257. Ross added that since there really had been originally 2 plans, that the number might have been taken from the wrong one. Dick Ryan stated that the staff would make sure that the number that had been approved in 1977 would be the number they would work with. Delivery vehicles, convention kitchen access, and the conference center were discussed. • PEC - 2 - 4/20/81 Dan Corcoran moved and Gaynor seconded that Phase ll Addition and 2 amendments to Special Development District 7 for the Marriott's Mark Hotel with the five conditions listed by the staff in the memo, be recommended to the Town Council. Discussion followed the motion to have the staff resolve the number of parking spaces to make the motion conform to the original approval. More discussion of the-environ- mental impact statements followed. Ross stated that they didn't know all of the ways that they would incorporate energy saving devices as yet. Dan felt that the location of the solar collectors must be considered with respect to the visibility from Forest Road. Concern was then expressed over the length of time the project would be under construction, and how soon the contractor could finish the landscaping. After many assurances from Marcus, the commission members were content with the statement from Ken that they would plant in the first planting season following completion of construction. Dan amended his motion to include the provision that the number of parking spaces be clarified by the staff, and that one more condition be added to say, that planting must be done the earliest planting season following completion of construction. The vote was 4 -0, unanimous. This was to go to the Town Council the first Tuesday in May. Dick mentioned that Architerra would be included in the next PEC meeting on April 27. Dan Corcoran was appointed to chair the meeting on the 27th, as Gerry wouldn't be there. Duane moved and Gaynor seconded to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 4 -0, unanimous. s • I• C7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Envrironmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: April 20, 1981 Corrected Memorandum May 28,. 1981 RE: Request for Approvals for Phase II Addition and 2 Amendments to Special Development District 7 for the Marriott's Mark Hotel R A rur_uni imn In February of 1977, Special Development District 7 was adopted for the Mark Resort. A Master Development Plan was adopted at that time for the entire project. The Plan at that time showed general locations and designs for the buildings and the intended uses proposed. The SDD Ordinance outlined development standards and maximum density controls. The proposal currently under review is called the Phase 11 Addition of the Marriott's Mark Hotel and resprsents the final development of the property. THE PROPOSAL The plan submitted for approval contains additional dwelling units, accommodation units, a convention center of 8,750 square feet, parking structure and 2 additional tennis courts. Also included is the completion of the landscaping and construction of a bicycle path. The following statistics represent the existing, proposed and allowable situations: A. Number of Units Proposed: Ace. Units Dwelling units Original 74 14 Phase 1 106 12*- Phase 2 66 27* Total 246: 53 Allowed: 304 34 (This section changed since Planning and Environmental Commission meeting.) *An efficiency kitchen will be removed from Phase 1, unit 108, converting Unit 108 from a dwelling unit to an accomodation unit. B, Gross Residential Floor Area (Acc. units and dwelling units) Pr0p0s6d: GRFA(sq ft) Existing 86,513 Phase 2 46,996 Total 133,509 Allowed: 134,000 ` Marriott's Mark -- page 2 - April 20, 1981 C. Parking for total project (This section changed since the Required: 238 spaces, all underground Planning and Environmental Commission meeting.) Provided: 238 spaces PLAN REVISIONS AND AMENDMENT REQUESTS There are several revisions from the 1977 Plan and 2 official requests for amendments to the Special Development District. The revisions are as follows: 1. Relocation of the parking structure from underneath the Convention Center to the west side of the property. This is proposed to increase the speed of construction resulting in less disruption for Marriott's Mark and Lionshead. 2. A minor redesign of the massing and building envelope to produce a more appropriate design with regard to scaling down the apparent size of the west elevation. This revision also aids the passive solar function of the residential portion of the addition by allowing a large number of rooms to face south. 3. The original approval included a covered tennis court facility. The applicant argues that tennis has lost some of the mass appeal that it had four years ago when the plans were first approved. Also, they report that the Marriott's Mark's tennis courts have been under - utilized and they have spoken to the owners of the other indoor courts in Town and have learned that the guest has.a low usage rate at those facilities. They do propose 2 additional outdoor courts on the roof • of the parking structure, The requested amendments are as follows: 1. The applicant wishes to install fireplaces in the eight dwelling units in the Phase 2 Addition. At the time the prohibition for fireplaces in SDD7 was passed, there was much discussion about not allowing any new fireplaces to be constructed throughout both Commercial Cores. `Phis, of course, did not happen, and the applican feels that this is a hardship on him as fireplaces are allowed in other dwelling units in the Town. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We agree with the owner and feel this amendment is justified. There are no other instances in Town where we do not allow one fireplace per dwelling unit. 2. The applicant is requesting a change in the density control section for Phase II. For this phase, the request is for 82 accomodation units and 27 dwelling units. This would be an amendment to the number of accomodation and dwelling units for Special Development District #7 and not an increase in the total density of the site. In management agreement of Marriott's Mark, there are guarantees that a total of 320 keys be available for re-atal for a period of 25 years. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports this change as the proposal is within the total number of units allowed under the zoning, and there is a guarantee that the accomodation and dwelling units remain for rental for 25 years. Marriott's Mark - page 3 - April 20, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT SDD7 requires that each phase of the project should contain a supplement or update to the original Environmental impact Statement. We have asked that three issues be addressed for this phase: 1. Energy Conservation - investigation and possible incorporation of alternative energy sources for the project. 2. Employee Housing - the past operation of the complex should have demonstrated tTle adequacy of the employee housing situation, and we asked for the results of such an investigation to update this information, including the Phase 1I increased demand. 3. Pedestrian and Bike Path Considerations On the original plan adopted, a pedestrian walk was.proposed for the north part of the original building. we asked the applicant to tell us when this would be provided. Also, the Town plans to construct a bike path to the south of the property near Gore Creek, and we wanted to know if they were willing to connect into this path. . APPLICANT RESPONSE 1. The developer is incorporating some valuable passive solar aspects into the plan (see enclosed report on energy conservation for the project), . and other energy efficient technologies for heat and water are proposed. The report submitted to the staff also includes a very positive attitude concerning active solar panels for hot water and swimming pool heating, We feel the short pay -back period on these systems and the significant percentage of reduction in conventional energy systems warrants the incorporation of such a system in this project. 2. The owner of the complex owns 56 dwelling units that are utilized for employee housing for the Marriott's Mark employees. He states that they are all utilized in the winter months, but that in the summer the demand goes down and many of them are rented to non - employees of the business. They expect that 12 to 16 additional maids will be required for the Phase Il Addition, but that no other additional employees would be needed. The staff feels that the number of units provided is adequate, but we feel that possibly some agreement between the owner and the Town would be justified to ensure these units remain available to the employees of the Marriott's Mark on a demand basis and for a certain period of time. 3, The Phase Il Addition plan does show a bike path connection to the property line, and we would require as a condition of approval, the full connection to the Town's path. Another condition of approval will be that the pedestrian path be constructe . on the north side of the original building in conjunction with the Phase II work. • Marriott's Mark - page 4 - April 20, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'ION In the Staff's opinion, the project is well thought out and an improvement to the overall complex. The convention center is a needed facility and an asset to the community. We feel the same way about the indoor tennis courts, and don't like to see them eliminated, but do not want to force the developer into a non --cost effective program, either, Except for the amendments requested, the development proposal meets all the SDD requirements in terms of development standards, provision of facilities and density ceilings. In conclusion, the Staff recommends approval of the Phase II addition to the Marriott's Mark Resort with the following conditions: 1. Consider the incorporation of an active solar system to heat hot water and the additional indoor pool. 2. An agreement between the owner and the Town be worked out to ensure the continued availability of the employee housing units for the project's employees for eight years. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission will review hhe project in eight years to see.if it warrants extension. 3. The applicant agrees to connect the bicycle path /walkway proposed to the west of the existing tennis courts to the Town's system (if located near the property) and construct the path to Town standards. 4. Because the parking structure is proposed 5' from the western property line, there should not be a loss of existing parking spaces due to the construction . of this building. S. The applicant agrees to participate in the design and construction of improvements for West LionsHead Circle in front of the Marriott's Mark to improve pedestrian and vehicle flow and beautification of this area. * 6. Parking be resolved so.as to conform to original approval given by Council. * 7. Landscaping be completed in the following planting season following construction. * Conditions 6 and 7 approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at their meeting. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, May 11, 1981 2:00 Work session on Study Area #5 Lionshead 3:00 p.m. Regular Session 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of April 20, 1981. 2. Election of new chairman, vice chairman,.and DRB representative. 3. Request for a front setback variance to construct an addition at lot 6, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing, 303 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Bud Parks. 4. A request for an amendment tothe Gore Creek 100 year flood plain with the intent of building a duplex at Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing. Applicant: Carl W. Summers, Jr. 5. A request for amendments to an approved development plan under Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981, to build two additional units at the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and to redesign parking and landscaping of lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Intermountain, Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. Published in the Vail Trail May 8, 1981 r- I Ll MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Morgan Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper ABSENT Roger Tilkemeier Scott Edwards Gaynor Miller PLANNING AND ENVIROMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 1981 Gerry White called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Peter Jamar Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Paul Johnston 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of April 201 1981. Dan moved and Duane seconded that the minutes of April 20 be approved. The vote was 3 -0, Jim abstaining. 2. Dan nominated Scott as DRB rep -pesentative, seconded by Jim. Vote was 4 -0, unanimous. It was mentioned that the chairman of PEC is the automatic back -up for the DRB rep. Dan moved that Gerry White be reappointed chairman of PEC' seconded by Jim. Vote was 4 -0, unanimous. Duane moved that Dan be Vice Chairman, seconded by Jim. Vote was 3 -0, Dan abstaining, motion passed. 3. Request for a front setback variance to construct an addition at Lot 6, Block 5 Vail Village Ist Filing, 303 East Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Bud Parks. Peter Patten presented the items from the memo., explaining that this unit is the only one of the 6 without a "broken up" building line on the north facade. It was asked if the units to the East were part of this project .(they aren't), and the elevations were shown, along with the site plan. Jim moved to approve the setback variance request as stated in the memo. The motion was seconded by Duane, and the vote was 4 -0, unanimous, 4. A re nest for an amendment to the Gore Creek 100 year flood plain with the intent of building a duplex at Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing, Applicant: Carl W. Summers, Jr, Peter Jamar showed a topo indicating the high water line at 100 year flood stage. He mentioned that Hydro -Triad did study and approve the modifications to the lot. Dan asked if the adjacent lots were in the flood plain, and Peter responded that. the lot to the East was vacant, -The lot to the west has done the same modification as that proposed. L� PEC 2 - May 11, 1981 iDuane Piper moved that the commission approve the requested amendment to the flood plain as stated in the memo., seconded by Jim. The vote was 3 -0, Dan abstaining. Motion passed. 5. A request for amendments to� an a roved, devel olyment plan under Ordinance No. 13 series of 1981 to build two additional units at the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and to redesign parking and landscaping of lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. Peter Patten explained Ordinance 13, that the projects were specially accepted by the Town because of County approvals. He went on to explain the memo, and that there were two parts. The first part dealt with a parking plan revision, There was concern about whether or not 16 spaces were enough for the Swim and Tennis Club. Chuck Ogilby stated that the only time the parking spaces were really used was when there was a swim or scuba class when at most there would be 10 cars. He explained that they had trouble fitting a bridge in the existing right- of-way, and that they had left room for the expansion of the bridge later. Peter mentioned that the parking lot doesn't meet Town of Vail requirements until interior landscaped areas were provided. The proposal does meet town requirements with 47 spaces. He added that the staff recommended - approval of the revised parking and landscaping with the conditions listed in the memo. The second part dealt with the addition of two units in Building C to be used for . employee housing for approximately 5 years, then be sold as additional condominiums. Peter went on to discuss Ordinance 13 in which all projects were zoned RC. He added that it wasn't the intent of the staff that projects have.a right to develop the addi -.. tional 1/2 unit per buildable acre. The projects were approved as they came in, period. There is no density by right in Ordinance 13., and RC was simply an underlying district. The staff recommended denial unless the units remained as designated employee units for 20 years. Chuck Ogilby stated that he had talked to Peter Patten regarding the employee housing issue, and before annexation felt that he and Stan could afford to make the two units employee housing, but the cost was high, so they felt they couldn't tie up that amount of money, He stated that they felt they had a right through both the County and the Town of Vail to add the units. Their preliminary approval from the County was based on 4,3 acres, which was an error, excluding a parcel which included additional acres, which would have made the total 5,1. With only 4.3, they could have built 24 units in the County, and with 5,1, they could build 28 according to the County regu- lations, They didn't notice the error until they had started doing site work, and they had the legal redrawn to read 5,1 instead of 4.3. A letter from Jim Rubin was read in which Jim stated that the County's regulations have been changed since the time of the error, requiring the elimination of Gore Creek and the 100 year floodplain before calculating allowable density, which would prop.ably result in Ogilby's not being allowed to add additional units even though the acreage had increased. r -I LJ PEC - 3 - May 11, 1951 Chuck added that at the first annexation meeting he asked specifically of Larry Rider . if the floodplain was considered, and that Larry Rider answered that if they look at the whole thing. Rider also added that they could come in and ask for additional meetings. At the next meeting, Chuck and Stan met with Peter and Larry Woodley when no mention was made of Ordinance 13. They asked what they must do to redesign the site to allow for additional units, and nothing was mentioned, They learned of Ordinance 13 when talking to Peter Patten. He stated that they were only asking for 2 units instead of 6 if they leave the site as is, They don't want to redesign the site. Discussion followed concerning the appearance of the buildings, and the elevations were shown, Stan repeated that Larry Woodley told them specifically that they could have extra units based on RC., then they decided that they didn't want to re- design the site, so asked for 2 units rather than 6, with respect to the discrepancy in the acreage. Gerry stated that what Chuck and Stan were told and accepted was that their project was approved by the County and was accepted as is by the Town. Now, the error by the County, and the analysis of the site under Ordinance #13 limits the number of units. • • Discussion of the error by the surveyor followed, Dan pointing out that a layman wouldn't have know of the mistake, and reminding that the written description has precedence over the drawing. Peter stated that if the commission felt the survey error is reason for approval, he felt that the staff should again review the case. It was decided further study was needed. Chuck stated that they would like to present their case on the basis of the survey error and :asked to have the request tabled until the next meeting which was to be on Tuesday the 26th at 2:00 p.m. Dan moved to accept the request, Duane seconded. The vote was 4 -0, motion passed. Dan moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jim. Vote was 4 -0. Adjourned at 4:45. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 7, 1981 RE: Request for rear setback variance for Bud Parks on lot 6, block 5, Vail Village lst Filing to construct an addition to an existing row house unit. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant proposes to build an addition on the Gore Creek side of the dwelling unit. The property line setback is 20 feet in the HDMF zond. district. The proposal would encroach 8 feet into the setback. The Gore Creek setback would not be affected or violated. Unit 6 is the only rowhouse in this area which does not have "broken up" building lines on the north facade, and the applicant wishes to make unit 6 similar to the adjacent buildings. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findin The Department of Community Develo based upon the following factors: s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, vent recommends approval of the requested variance Consideration of Factors • The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposal would create uniformity in the treatment of the building facades on the north elevation of the row houses. The proposal would not negatively affect any sur- rounding properties. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The row houses were constructed prior to existing zoning regulations and thus, as they exist, additions are extremely difficult to accomplish without some sort of setback variance. Another reason for this is that the row houses were divided off into indi- vidual lots, now of non - conforming size, and they have zero setback situations on the side setbacks. No special privilege would be represented in the granting of this variance. 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 negative effects would be realized. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Bud Parks - 2 - May 7, 1981 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 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: . The staff recommends approval, as this is a minor addition which architecturally improves the building and has no negative effects on surrounding properties. Also, the row houses' non - conforming lots make it difficult to do improvements without such variances being approved. • MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PE'T'ER JAMAR DATE: May 6, 1981 RE: MODIFICATION OF FLOOD PLAIN ON LOT 6, BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE 11th FILING Carl W. Summers, Jr. has requested an amendment to the 100 year floodplain for Gore Creek with the intent of constructing a duplex on the above described lot. A floodplain analysis as required by Section 18.69.033 was done by Hydro Triad and has been favorably reviewed by the Department of Community Development, Public Works Department, and Doug Smith of Block & Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Denver. The criteria for reviewing floodplain changes are found in Section 18.69.040 E which states that, "the work (modification of the flood plain) will not adversely affect adjacent properties or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters." The attached Hydro Triad report concludes that the proposed floodplain revision will have no adverse impacts on adjacent properties and will no.t increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. Plans for the Summers duplex have been reviewed by the Department of Community 18 Development. The plans as presented comply with the specific requirements of the floodplain report. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested amendment to the 100 year floodplain for Gore Creek as presented. HYDRO - TRIAD, LTD. April 23, 1981 Mr. Rocky Christopher Vail Associates Real Estate P.O. Box 1155 Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail Village Filing No. 11, Block 3, Lot 6 Dear Rocky: At your request, we have further reviewed the 100 year floodplain impact upon your Lot 6 development plan as set forth on Drawing No. 1.Site Plan by Tim Clark, dated April 11, 1981 entitled "Summers' Duplex ". This review confirms our previous conclusion (letter to you dated February 2, 1981) that the amount and location of proposed fill activity will not cause adverse hydraulic impact upon upstream or downstream properties, nor increase the quantity or velocity of the 100 year flood waters event. Consequently, we judge your proposed development plan to be satisfactory with regard to 100 year floodplain hydraulics, so long as the conditions set forth in our February 2, 1981 letter to you are complied with, and development occurs according to the above referenced site plan. If you have any further questions, please contact us. Thank you. Sincerely, HYDRO- TRIAD, LTD. Wil iam B. M hews, P.E. Project Manager 0 WBM /mfg 12687 WEST CEDAR DRIVE - SUITE 100 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 PHONE 303- 989 -1264 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 2:00 p.m. May 26, 1981 1. Approval of Minutes of May 11, 1981 meeting. 2. A request for amendments 'to an approved development plan under Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981, to build two additional units at the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and to redesign parking and landscaping of Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. 3. Request for two side setback variances for the Storey /Oglesby residence located on Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing to construct two additions to the resi- dence. Applicants: Charles P. Storey and Enslie Oglesby, Jr. 4. A request for approval of Special Development District if and the vacation of lot lines thereof for an area of Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing No. 1, Lots 26 through 42. Applicant: Sun Tech..Builders, Inc.`. 5. Request for a conditional use permit under Section 18.24.030 C of the Town of Vail zoning code, to operate a beauty shop on the street level of the Golden Peak House. Applicant: Karl Hoevelmann. 6. Continuance of an application for exterior alteration or modification in Commercial Core I, to allow an office building tee. be constructed on the 2nd and 3rd levels of the alley between the Plaza and Casino Buildings, leaving the street level open for pedestrian traffic. Applicant: Pamela Telleen. 0 7. Request for amendments -to the density control section of the zoning code that the second unit shall not exceed 40% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area (currently this figure is 33 1/3 %) allowed on the lot in the P/S residential district. Also, lots in the residential district containing less than 15,000 square feet of site area shall not have a second unit exceed 40% of the toal GRFA allowed on the lot. In addition, lots in the residential district with development proposals whereby the average slope beneath the structure and parking area is in excess of 30% shall not have a secondary unit exceed 40% of the total GRFA allowed on the lot. These changes would result in a new 60/40 allocation of GRFA wherever the 66/33 allocation presently is in effect. Applicant: Peter Patten, Town of Vail. 8. A request for amendments to Sections 18.12.090 and 18.13.080 concerning the process and criteria for granting exceptions to the density control regulations in the Residential and Primary /Secondary Zone Districts for lots of less than 15,000 square so that these lots may receive a secondary unit for employee housing use. Applicant: Peter Patten, Town of Vail. r49 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING May 26, 1981 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Edwards Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper later: Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Gaynor Miller Dyck Ryan Peter Jamar Larry Eskwith Larry Rider Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL - PRESENT Bob Ruder The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by Gerry White, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of May 11, 1981 meeting. Dan Corcoran moved for approval, seconded by Duane. Vote was 3 -0, Scott ab- stained. 2. A request for amendments_ to an approved development plan under Ordinance 13, Series of 1981, to build two additional units at the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and to redesign parking and landscaping of Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Intermountain and Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. Dick Ryan presented the memo and added that the staff had checked the size and confirmed 5.1 acres. He added that in discussing this with the Town Council, they stressed that they didn't want to approve additional units unless the units were to be for employees. fie stated that under the present zoning, no additional units could be added. The question about the error made in surveying was discussed, some members felt that the applicants could have had more units originally when the error was discovered, others feeling that this did not change the issue now. Dan moved for approval of the revisions of the parking lot and landscaping per the memo of May 6, 1981. Scott. seconded it, and the vote was 4 -0, unanimous in favor. More discussion followed with the realization that the applicants could come back and ask for a variance, which they were.not doing at present, and this could be a way to correct the error, and well as a time to come into conformity with respect to having more than 4 units in one building, with respect to streamside set backs, etc. PEC -2- May 26, 1981 Gerry moved and Scott seconded to deny the two additional units requested by the applicants in accordance with the staff memo of May 13, 1981. The vote was 3 -1, Dan Corcoran voting against. The request was denied. 3. Request for a side setback variances for the Storey /Oglesby residence located on Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing to construct two additions to the residence. Applicants: Charles Storey and Enslie Oglesby, Jr. Peter Jamar explained the plans and explained that this was part of a row house. Andy Beck mentioned that all was explained in the memo. Dan moved and Duane seconded to approved the request for the side setback variance per the staff memo dated May 20, 1981. The vote was 5 -0, unanimous. 4. A request for approval of Special Development District Ii and the vacation of lot lines thereof for an area of Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing No. 1, lots 32, 38, 39, 40 and 42. Applicant: Sun Tech Builders, Inc. Dick Ryan reminded the Commission that they had reviewed a request for lots 26 thru 42 at previous study sessions. He added that the developers had spent much time with the staff and with Gage Davis and he felt that the present site plan was much superior. The staff recommended approval with the conditions lettered A through 1. Roger Denton, a landscape architect for the project showed several sketches of the site and answered questions. It was felt that the impact of the project had been reduced, but there were several questions about the height of some of the buildings, and how well they would be hidden by the trees. He added that they had no problems with items of condition, A thru I:. Dan moved and Roger seconded that the Special Development District be approved with the conditions stipulated in the staff memo dated May 14, 1981. The vote was 6-0-,(with Gaynor abstaining) for approval. S. Request for a conditional use permit under Section 18.24.030 C of the Town of Vail zoning code, to operate a beauty shop on the street level of the Golden Peak House. Applicant: Karl Hoevelmann: Dick Ryan explained that this issue had been before the Commission and the Town Council several times, and both groups had approved an amendment to the zoning code that would permit by conditional use review, barber and beauty shops without exterior frontage in CCI.. Hubert Weinshank, representing Mr. Hoevelmann, submitted a letter from Ron Riley, president of the Board of Directors of the Condo Association stating that they had dropped their opposition to the beauty shop. He added that a couple of owners of the condominiums were opposed, but that the association as a whole was not. Discussion followed concerning ventilation and odors. It was finally decided that this was a matter for the condo association and for the building department of the Town. PBC -3- May 26, 1981 Roger moved and dim seconded to approve the conditional use permit per the staff • memo and cautioning the applicant to monitor odor. The vote was 7 -0, unanimous. 6. Continuance of an a plication for exterior alteration or modification in Commercial Core I, to allow an office building to be constructed on the 2nd and 3rd levels of the alley between the Plaza and Casino Buildings, leaving the street level open for pedestrian traffic. Applicant: Pamela Telleen. Dick presented the memo, reminding the Commission that on March 9, there was a public hearing to build a 3 story building on the site, and that now the application had been changed, although the original application was appealed to the Town Council. The changed application would leave the passage way between the plaza and Bridge Street. The Staff was concerned that the space for pedestrians would not be used because the height was only 10 ft & the alley is very narrow. There was much discussion of the problem of obtaining a clear title. Larry Rider explained the situation, saying that in reviewing the title, he found a number of clouds of title, and that one restriction in a deed was "unfettered ingress and egress to the Plaza and that there be no permanent structure built in that area." In looking further, he found that the surveys didn't match. He suggested that the applicant be asked to show clear title. He added that Pistachio's and the Lodge encroach into the area. Bill Post representing the applicant stated that the owners have a right to use what they own. He added that one stipulation for the original plan was to have a safe and attractive walkway, and at present it was neither safe • nor attractive. He also felt the applicant could be required to post a bond so that if the project was stopped, there would be no expense to the Town. Larry added that the Town must be certain that the applicant was indeed the Owner. Gerry stated that they could proceed with the rest of the hearing as to whether or not this was a suitable structure, but one conditional could be added that the applicant must have a clear title. Roger said that he .represents VA, ana that they would not take sides. John Perkins showed the plans and elevations and answered questions concerning roof drainage, Pistachio's door, lighting, etc. Pam Telleen said that Pista- chio's had opposed the first presentation because of the interruption of their businss, but were for the present one because it would eliminate the leak over their stairway. John Perkins also added that the shops along the alley would be encourage to place windows onto the alley, .helping the alley to be more inviting. Pam was asked if it was her intention to continue the walkway to the Plaza. She responded that she would contribute her share, whatever that may be. Bob Ruder felt that snow and ice would still.get into the walkway. Discussion followed concerning the construction restraints and interruption of Wall Street traffic. Gerry read the three conditons and Pam Telleen stated that she agreed to all of them. y 'a • PFC -4- May 26, 1981 t Gaynor moved that the application be approved with the recommendation made part of the approval. He felt that the building was important to the area, that they would still have a walkway from Bridge Street to Wall Street. Scott felt they should add that the clear title must be.shown as a 4th condition. Dick Ryan stated that in talking to the Town Council, he was instructed not to issue a building permit until a clear title was shown. Gaynor wanted to add another condition to his motion, that of requiring a bond to protect the Town. Duane Piper seconded the motion, and the vote in favor of granting the permission for the alteration was 5 -0, with Roger and Dan abstaining. The motion passed. 7. Request for amendments to the density control section of the zoning code.. that the second unit shall not exceed 40% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area (currently this figure is 33 1/3 %) allowed on the lot in the P/S Residential District. Also, lots in the Residential District containing less than 15,000 square feet of site area shall not have a second unit exceed 40% of the total GRFA allowed on the lot. In addition, lots in the residential district with development proposals.whereby the average slope beneath the structure and parking area is in excess of 30% shall not have a secondary unit exceed 40% of the total GRFA allowed on the lot. These changes would result in a new 60/40 allocation of GRFA wherever the 66/33 allocation presently is in effect, Peter Jamar explained the memo, and discussion of the various aspects followed. Scott moved that they follow the staff recommendation to recommend amendments to Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 and 18.69.050 of the zoning code that the secondary unit shall not exceed 400 of the total GRFA allowed, and, 2) amendment to section 18.12.050 to reduce the minimum lot size in the (R) Rsidential.District to 15,000 square feet of buildable site area from 17,500 square feet. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion., and the vote was 7 -0 in favor. 8. Request for amendments to Sections 18.12.090 and 18.13.080 of the zoning code concerning the process and criteria for granting exceptions to the density control regulat ins in the Residential (R) and Primary/ Secondary Residential (P /S) Zone Districts for lots of less than 15,000 square feet so that a secondary unit may be constructed on these lots for the purpose of employee housing. Peter Jamar explained why the staff felt these changes were important. Dick reviewed the process of the application: 1. Apply to DRB 2. After the decision, the Staff will make certain the unit will be employee housing. 3. A written notice will be sent to the PEC, so the PEC can review and if they don't agree, the PEC can appeal the decision of either the staff or DRB. 4. Applicant or adjacent property owner can appeal to PEC. . . • PEC -5- May 26, 1981 It Concern was expressed over the condition that no variances be allowed, and this was discussed at length. Variances can be granted only if it benefits the visual appearance of the site and surrounding area. Also discussed was the fact that 1/2 of the cars must be enclosed. Tom Briner stated that he had brought a project to the DRB the previous week when he took issue with the requirement for covered parking for 1/2 the cars and wondered if having only one space for the employee housing would be enough parking. The Commission members felt that there were very rarely only one person living in each employee unit, and that two spaces were definitely needed. Dick added that cars had been considered an eyesore in many previous discussions. Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve the recommendation of the staff that Sections 18.12.090 and 18.13.080 be amended concerning the process and criteria for granting exceptions to the density control regulations, etc. as stated in the memo dated May 21, 1981. The vote was 6 -0, unanimous. (Jim Morgan had left.) The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. r- 1 L-A MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: May 14, 1981 RE: Request for Approval for Special Development District 11 to be known as High- land Park with corresponding approvals of the Environmental Impact Report and the vacation of lot lines located on lots 32, 38, 39, 40., 41 and 42, Highland Meadows Filing No. 1. BACKGROUND OF SUBDIVISION AND PROPOSED PROJECT The Highland Meadows Subdivision received final approval from Eagle County in 1978. Because of the extensive geologic and slope problems existing throughout the subdivision, the Staff believes Highland Meadows subdivision has many site problems. However, the fact of the subdivision and the corresponding development rights are a reality, and the problems any development will present must be dealt with in as best a manner as we know how. The Staff believes this will involve a very careful, detailed analysis of siting, design and geologic conditions for every structure constructed in this subdivision. As you know, the County approved each lot for two units, and the Town has been consistent with this approval in designating Residential (R) Zoning. The creation of small, individual lots on a subdivision with areas of severe geologic problems is not con- sistent with sincere attempts to minimize environmental impacts of development. This type of zoning presents severe restrictions to the possibilities of locating units outside of the environmentally sensitive areas. Districts such as Planned Unit Develop- ments or Special Development Districts allow for flexibility in unit location and clustering of buildings to allow sensitive or unbuildable areas to remain open. The Staff wished to do this for all of Highland Meadows Subdivision. They were approached by the owners of these 17 lots which were geographically isolated from the remainder of the subdivision with the intention to do a unified project. We were pleased with this opportunity, and with mutual agreement between Staff and developer, Special Develop- ment District 11 was underway. With the abandonment of the lot lines, we were able to work toward the objectives of keeping areas of hazardous geologic conditions, steep slopes, mature vegetation as open space and generally re- designing development for the entire area. All of this was accomplished maintaining a basic duplex nature, unified "community" approach to the project, working generally with zoning restrictions of the Residential Zone. The result of 4 months of work between the applicants and the Staff is the proposal in front of you for Special Development District approval. SITE CONDITIONS The site is ecologically diverse consisting of gentle sloping meadow, aspen groves and dense lodgepole pine forest. An area very prone to landslide exists above and through the meadow area due to an underground spring draining this area. Areas of severe slope are scattered throughout the site, concentrated on the outskirts of the proposed building sates. There is an abundance of birds found on site along with other wildlife normally inhabiting the corresponding ecosystems, A small section of the site is suitable for passive solar usage, while the remaining exposures are not conducive to solar application. Highland Park - 2 - May 14, 1981 PROPOSED PLAN The plan works within the general development standards and design parameters of the Residential Zone., using the SDD to locate units where they will produce a minimum impact upon steep slopes., mature vegetation or problematic soil conditions. A total of 34 units are proposed with a total of 74,111 square feet, 15,006 square feet under the maximum allowable of 89,117. The buildings have a southwestern flavor to them while fitting well within a mountain environment. The plan includes many detached garages to minimize driveway lengths, to allow flexi- bility in location of the garages and to create private inner courtyards for the units. The open meadow area created by landslides is retained as open space and contains a small skating rink. A community room with a sundeck is located to the east of the slide area in the meadow, The units are located away from the steeper, more problematic slopes. Some of the existing cut and fill areas (from the road construction) are proposed to be building locations so that trees are preserved, The relocation of the roads has allowed short driveway lengths and an ability to stay within the 8% grade limitation for all roads and ,driveways. The northeast part of the site is favorable for solar exposure, and the proposal designs in passive solar usage for these units. The plan takes great care toward the preservation of meadow and mature tree areas. Areas of selective preservation take place around the units themselves, while total preservation areas occur within 10 feet of the buildings. Some domestic landscaping is proposed within the courtyard areas, Native vegetation is planned for all disturbed areas. Physical designation of undisturbed areas will take place prior to construction to ensure tree preservation. The following is a brief summary of how the proposal measures with respect to Residential Zone development standards; Required/ Standard Allowed Proposed A Setbacks 20 front, 15 others SDD makes one lot, 40' is minimum proposed B Height 33' at any point 39.5* maximum on one building, average of all units is 32.8' C Density -units 34 total 34 Density -GRFA 89,117 74,111 D Site coverage 20% maximum does not exceed 20% E Landscaping 60% maximum exceeds standard F Parking 2 spaces /unit double garage /unit plus guest parking on driveway * Where height is the greatest, tree cover mitigates the elevation's impact. • Highland Park - 3 - May 14, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Staff asked the applicants to submit a brief EIR covering the items in the report you have reviewed. Much of the information was studied and reported on when the sub- division was approved in Eagle County. The EIR covers many of the points already out- lined in this memo, The Staff is impressed with the developer's efforts and willingness to preserve trees and to ensure "the safety of building on identified poor soil conditions. The inclusion of erosion control measures is another positive step in minimizing project impacts. One area of concern is the design of foundations for each individual structure. The geologic reports call out severe enough potential soil problems that detailed engineering investigations need to be submitted and approved for each building on the site. This can take place at Design Review Board, In conclusion, we recommend approval of the EIR for Highland Park and would make its contents part of the approval for the project (this requires the developers to f¢llow through with the proposed actions and stipulations contained in the EIR): STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Staff feels that the proposal is a major improvement over the previouw conventional lot layout scheme. The plan makes the best out of an area which presents many land planning problems. The project has received a large amount of staff review and input and the applicants have been extremely cooperative in responding to this input. An immense improvement has taken place in the project design over the last several months, and we feel the result is a project utilizing the SDD concept to preserve land and vegetation which should be preserved and generally mitigating environmental impacts, The Staff recommends approval of the request for SDDll, the vacation of lot lines and for the approval of the EIR, with the following conditions: A. Resubdivision of area for dedication of streets,.vacation of streets, utilities, drainages, otc. B. The location and engineering for unit 15 West with respect to the landslide area in which a part of the unit is located. C. The location of unit 6 East as it relates to the steep drop -off on the east of the unit. D. Units 7 East and West to study the feasibility and engineering of building on these fill soils (from.road construction) and with regard to regrading details necessary to make these viable building sites. E. The minimum diameter necessary to make the cul -de -sacs functional while preserving as many trees as possible with their re- location. • Highland Park - 4 - May 14, 1981 F. A detailed soils, foundation engineering and drainage analysis be submitted and reviewed for every structure to be built on the site. These reports will require approval of the Town Staff and (if necessary) the Town's consultant before any building permit is issued for that unit. G. That the access driveway to Units 8 North and South be widened to the minimum requirements for the Fire Department. H. That the project relocate fare hydrants according to the Fire Department recommendations. 1. That Public Works approves all utility locations and road construction before any Gerificate of Occupancy is given out. r 1 UNIT "A' (GRFA) = 2133 SQ.FT. i 2 E* Z F-4 a Q � =w °� F-4 P:o 42 33.5 A B. C 35.5 W* 1 N 104 72 32— 67.5 33 S 112 78 34 28.5 5 E* 8 N 57 25 32 53.5 22 S 63 28 35 36.5 W* 10 N 102 67 35 46.5 7 S 107 70 37 36.5 11 N 112 80 32 S 118 84 34 12 N 106 74 32 S 112 78 34 13 N 127 95 32 S 137 99 38 UNIT "A' (GRFA) = 2133 SQ.FT. i 2 E* 85.5 47 30.5 W 75.5 42 33.5 3 E 70.5 35 35.5 W* 70.5 36 26.5 4 E* 67.5 33 26.5 W 60.5 32 28.5 5 E* 60.5 25 29.5 W 53.5 22 31.5 6 E 49.5 13 36.5 W* 55 14 33.5 7 N 46.5 7 39.5 S* 49.5 5 36.5 UNIT "B" (GRF'A) = 2405 SQ.FT. 9 E 79 48 31 W 79 48 31 14 W 137 106 31 E 140 1'08 32 15 W 143 108 35 E 142 106 36 16 W 141 108 33 E 139 108 31 17 S 130 99 31 N 128 97 31 A' ms C UNIT "G" (GRF'A) = 2041 SQ . FT . UNIT "C" - ALTERNATE - (GRFA) = 1889 . FT. 1 Bisthe lowest existing or proposed grade within this area. Building heights with asterisks are figured from this point. _tom �i is the Dwest elevation n this area. - -A j I i is the owest elevation n this area. 0 • • denton asommociateks, hic. architecture • planning • landscape architecture box 1020 eagle, colorado 81631 328-7226 April 24, 1981 Tbwn of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, OO 81657 RE: Hi hland Park Project Description, Reason for SDD, and the Environmental Smpac Repor Requirement Gentlemen: The Highland Park project consists of 13.14 acres of open meadows, deciduous and evergreen tree cover located almost directly south of the West Vail interchange on the northern slope. The land is currently zoned and subdivided for 17 individual duplex units. The site is distinctly separate from the remainder of Highland Meadows Subdivision. There are no through streets within the project. The site is surrounded on three sides by federal lands or open space. The project design criteria called for the creation of a "sense of place" that identifies the project as an individual community within the Vail community. 'throughout the design process there has been recognition of constraints and restraints of the site. Several of the major considerations are as follows: 1. Slopes. Slopes of the site were a major consideration in the initial subdivision of the property and are of primary importance to any development that will occur in harmony with the environment. A slope analysis was performed on those areas of the site considered developable. Our findings were that Lots 30, 32, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, and 42 are the least difficult to develop due to topographical restraints. Lots 26, 27, 28 and 37 give the greatest difficulty with access to the site. It is evident that in most cases access to the property should be a major consideration in siting the buildings. 2. r� Drainage. Drainage of the site is not dominant except to the extreme east and west of the overall sit i rainage should be protected to avoid development problems. 0 j i iR I_' � C���i ki tt �5 i ......«..•,,.....�..«- ,.w..m, .... a.-.. �— �......�...._n.�...�.lA....... • Town of Vail April 24, 1981 Page 2 3. soils and Geology. Soils reports have been prepared by CTL /Thompson, Ync. in December of 1977, Charles S. Robinson & Associates, Inc. of 1980 and Jerry Klug & Associates of 1980. Reports are detailed enough to include individual reports on each lot. Our general findings from reviewing these soils reports are that development of the sites will be structurally expensive, but practical. It is important that each structure have the foundations prepared by a structural engineer. 4. Vegetation. The site is currently heavily vegetated.with aspen and lodge pole pine. In the immediate center of the site, over Lots 31 and 33, there is an open meadow. The aspens seem to grow immediately around the open meadow, and the lodge pole pines are behind the aspens. Any development should retain as much vegetation as possible to preserve the character of the site. If it is necessary to destroy vegetation in order to develop, care should be taken in order to preserve the pines because of the re-establishment time required. 5. solar. The solar potential of the site is restricted because of existing vegetation. Solar studies were conducted to determine what the percentage of available sunlight would be during the winter. The general conclusion is that Lots 40, 41 and 42 have a limited solar potential of between 65% and 77 %. 'These sites should be given passive solar consideration. Lots 31, 32 and 33 have a 38% to 40% solar potential because of the slopes and dense vegetation immediately to the south. The remaining lots have little potential. 6. Views. The views from the site are mostly to the north with minor views to the east. Wherever possible the site should take advantage of these views. The site also has some very impressive inner views that should be taken advantage of in every situation. 7. Noise. Lots 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 all receive a high level of n �o se from the interstate highway and great care should be given to buffer those noises. B. Road Cuts and Fills. In order to maintain minimal slopes on the access roads called Vermont Road and Vermont Court, there have been some severe cuts and fills. These cuts and fills not only scar the property but also increase the difficulty of access to individual sites. 9. Vehicular Intrusions. Lots 41 and 42 should be given special consideration to avoid vehicle lights shining into the structure when rounding the corner on Vermont Road just past Vermont Court. 10. setti . Lots 26, 27 and 28 are the most visible sites from the access road and seem to set the feeling for the entire development upon entry. . ., i. 0 0 'mown of Vail April 24, 1981 Page 3 11. Building_Setbacks. In order to lend environmental consideration to this development, the subdividers of Highland Meadows prepared the site such that large areas were left natural to the rear of each property and in those cases where open space was not required in the rear, a 10' easement would be required. They also provided that 7 1/2' setbacks would be required on either side of all side property lines, but no front setback would be required because of the steep slopes. The architecture of the buildings is Southwestern in character, yet is designed to fit the wooded mountain site. The materials utilized will blend well with summer and winter characteristics of the mountain and the use of walled courtyards permits the development (buildings) to be held close to the roadways, thereby reducing the amount of pavement but still offering the privacy desired of outside areas. Building, courtyard walls, and other outdoor retaining walls are connected in a flowing fashion so that they appear as a part of the common design. The central plaza area Located in the open meadow strengthens the community concept and the Southwestern feel. Before annexation to the Town of Vail, the project was designed to fit the • county- approved plat and zoning. However, several of the sites were extremely steep and difficult to access, and the placement of a duplex on the site created conditions that were less than desirable. When the Town of Vail annexed the property, they imposed duplex zoning upon it. However, the lots as platted by the County continue to exist. In discussions with the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, it was the consensus that a Special Development District would be the most appropriate vehicle to improve the site design. The SDD allowed the removal of interior property lines and setback restrictions which allowed the relocation of buildings to where they fit best. The densities remain within the permitted use. The changes allowed by the SDD in general decrease all environmental impacts from what they would have been under the existing subdivision platting. However, at the request of the Town of Vail Zoning Administration we reaffirm the following areas: A. Geologic Conditions. Geologic and soil conditions are well detailed in three individual reports, the first by Robert W. Thompson, Inc. in 1973, the second by Charles S. Robinson & Associates, Inc. in 1977, and the third by Jerry Klug & Associates in 1980. These reports which are enclosed point out several areas of geological and soil concerns. The approved County subdivision plan took steps to mitigate these concerns. The Town of Vail special development district allows a greater freedom of . building location and therefore improves mitigation of these geological and soils problems. .0 0 0 . Town of Vail April 24, 1981 Page 4 r1he Klug & Associates report of 1980 is a site by site soils investigation giving foundation recommendations. The buildings designed for Highland Park have taken these foundation concerns into consideration and individual foundations will be designed for each structure prior to submittal to the Town for building permits. B. Hydrologic Conditions. The Charles S. Robinson & Associates report identified several groundwater and soil permeability characteristic problems. The special development district again has allowed greater avoidance of the severe areas. All foundations designed for the project will follow the engineering recommendations by installing foundation drains, by using drilled peer foundations where required, and by installing additional sub--surface drainage systems where appropriate. Surface drainage consists of several small dispersed channels over the entire site. These channels are not substantially altered and drainage characteristics will not substantially change. C. visual Conditions. The Highland Park project is visually separate from other development in the West Vail area. The dominant natural feature of the site as it presently exists is an open meadow area that is ringed by deciduous aspen tree cover, all of which is located in a dense pine forest. The access roads have been cut leaving large scars. The County- approved subdivision divided the site into 17 duplex lots spaced almost evenly over the entire site. Siting of buildings required by this arrangement were disperse and uniform over the entire site. Buildings were located in the central open meadow area as well as in the aspen tree cover and the dense pine cover. The design freedom allowed by the special development district has allowed the rearrangement of buildings in a clustered fashion which allows the preservation of the open meadow. All of the buildings are now located within the tree cover of the site where their visual impact from a distance will be reduced. We have also utilized portions of the existing road scars as building sites thereby reducing their visual impact. The buildings are designed to fit the site and to create as little site disturbance as possible. Natural existing grade is maintained around the building exterior wherever possible, utilizing foundation extensions where required rather than severe grading. The structures themselves are a grouping of small forms that reduce the building mass. The building roofs are wood shakes used for their softening effect and ability to blend with the tree covered site. The visual image of the building complex is one of unity, a sense of place, but not the repetition of 34 identical units. There are actually three different types of buildings which are visually dispersed throughout the site to reduce sameness. • Town of Vail April 24, 1981 Page 5 The central meadow area of the project will remain undisturbed except for the addition of a public area which will consist of an ice skating rink, a decked firepit area, and an underground plaza room. This central focal point will exist in a natural state. D. Vegetative Characteristics. The entire site is centered around an open meadow of native grass Immediately adjacent to those native grasses is a band of deciduous aspens varying in width and totally encompassing the open meadow. As a backdrop on every side except the north, immediately adjacent to the aspens is a forest of coniferous trees, consisting mostly of lodge pole pines. The native grasses vary from very dense in the open areas to almost non - existent under the coniferous trees. open grass meadows offer the beauty of nature yet lend little visual protection for development. The development of Highland Park is now situated so that this open meadow remains almost entirely intact and the homes are situated in the deciduous and evergreen trees immediately around them. There currently exists several severe land scars created when roads and underground utilities were installed. Structures are now positioned so that they utilize these existing road scars and road extensions have been made to shorten driveways so that we can preserve as much of the natural beauty of the site as possible. The site grading is being held to a minimum and retaining walls are used where necessary to avoid the destruction of natural foliage. In many cases, the structural walls of the units themselves are used as retaining walls to confine the construction limits to within 10 feet of structures. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. only a small portion of land adjacent to each unit will be maintained in domestic landscaping, and the remainder of the site will be revegetated in native grasses and trees. Wherever the land is disturbed more than 10 feet from a structure in an area that was not originally in meadows, the area will be replanted to tree cover at a rate similar to that of the surrounding area. Through this type of revegetation concept, we believe the impact of the site will be minimized and the native vegetation will continue to thrive. E. Construction Impacts. During construction, the following steps will be taken to insure the minimization of environmental impacts: (1) Damming or ponding of drainageways that will carry run -off from areas that have not yet been properly revegetated will be done on a temporary basis to reduce erosion. 40 (2) Areas of vegetation cover that are to remain undisturbed will be physically designated by roping them off and marking them as an area that is off - limits to construction. ", • • 0 0 Town of Mail April 24, 1981 Page 6 (3) Trees that are to be maintained on a selective basis will be marked so that they can be clearly identified. F. Revised site arrangement, which is allowed by the special development district, decreases or leaves unchanged the environmental impacts of atmospheric conditions, noise levels, odor characteristics, wildlife, land use conditions, transportation or circulation conditions, population characteristics. Sincerely, Roger W. Denton Architect Enclosures � 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department RE: Public hearing and consideration of an Exterior Alteration and Modifica- tion for construction of a two story addition with the alley open to the public for the Casino Building BACKGROUND: The Planning and Environmental Commission at their meeting on March 9th had a public hearing to amend the Urban .Design Guide Plan and for a three story building in the alley between the Plaza Lodge and the Casino Building. At that meeting, the Planning and Environmental Commission by a vote of 3 -2 approved the plan amendment and exterior alteration and modification. The Planning and Environmental Commission's action was then appealed to Town Council. Before the public hearing took place, the applicant requested that the plan be resubmitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The plan before the Commission on May 26 is the revised plan for this site. 9 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the construction of a building over the that would have two floors. The first floor would continue to be a passage way to come and go from the Plaza and Bridge Street. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan states that this area be "a mid - -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza." COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: Pedestrianization: The proposal does allow for the "mid-block" connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza" as noted in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. A couple of concerns of the Staff are steps at the west entry to the alley and the height of the cover over the alley. Since the alley is narrow with not a great amount of natural light, should there be more enclosure at the west end? The view through • the space would also be interrupted. In addition, height of the second floor could give a more enclosed feeling within this narrow space. The Staff considers that the solution proposed still does not provide a good pedestrian corridor. Alley Project - 2 - May 21, 1981 Vehicle Penetration There should be very few additional vehicles entering the core because of the small size of the office space. Streetscape Framework If the buiding is approved by the Planning and Environmental. Commission, greater attention to the streetscape in front of the entire Casino building needs to be part of the approval. Currently, there are drainage problems, and the sidewalk area between the building and street should be improved. Brandess- Cadmus Real Estate has made some improvements by adding a bench and flowers during the summer. On the west end, the applicant will be responsible to improve the walkway to the building from the completed plaza area. Surface treatment should be the same as the plaza. The applicant should also be responsible for improvement to the alley and the connection to the Village plaza. Street Enclosures This would not change by the addition of the structure to the alley. Street Edge No change by the proposal. 0 Building Height The proposal meets the height requirement established in the Design Considerations. A concern of the staff is the flat roof under this proposal. Views The proposal does not impact any view corridor. Sun Shade No impact because of the Plaza Lodge. Zoning Parking: At the time of building permit, the applicant will be required to pay applicable parking fees for the office use. Conditional use: Before a building permit is ussued, the applicant will need approval of a conditonal use request to permit office space on the second floor. is Alley Project - 3 - May 21, 1981 Architectural and Landscaping The exterior design will be reviewed by the Design Review Board to determine compliance with the Vail Village Design Considerations. Legal Considerations The Town attorney still does not consider.that the applicant has clear title to the property. Before a building permit is issued, this must be shown and approved by the Town attorney. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of this.request. Every space in Vail Village does not need to become a building, and there is a better solution to the pedestrianization of the alley. When the alley is improved there needs to be a solution to insure use by the pedestrian. If the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request, the .following conditons should be placed on the approval. isThat the applicant and owner agree:, 1. To participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if one is formed for Vail Village. 2. To improve the alley to Town of Vaal standards including necessary lighting and improve the area to the Village plaza. 3. To work with other owners of the Casino building to improve the draining prob- lem along their sidewalk on Bridge Street. • • � 0 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE: ALLEY PROJECT on BRIDGE STREET This is a new proposal to cover and improve the alley between the Plaza and Casino Buildings in Vail Village. Proposed devel- opment consists of paving and upgrading of the alleyway at grade, and covering the walkway with two floors of office space. Each floor of office space would consist of approximately 450 square feet. The office space would be accessed from a stair at the northwest corner of the alley. it is felt that a clear soffit height of 10' -0" would be a minimum allowable clearance for overhead. This soffit would be punctuated with recessed light- ing as designed by a lighting consultant. It is further hoped that new windows for display and advertising could be developed into the south side of the Casino building and the north side of the Plaza building. Benches and limited landscaping are also possibilities. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION The proposal would not close or alter any existing pedestrian patterns. It is hoped and intended that the proposal would make the alley a safe and pleasant connection from Bridge Street to the Plaza. Lighting of the alley will be designed to draw people into and through the tight space. • • 0 B. VEHICLE PENETRATION This proposal will not affect any existing Commercial Core I vehicular access policy. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK Alteration of the streetscape will be most noticeable during the evening hours. The lighting of the alley will let the Bridge Street pedestrian know that something is happening through and hopefully beyond the alley (i.e., Hong Kong Cafe, The Lodge, Curtin /Hill Building, and Wall Street shops.) Very little change in existing streetscape will be perceived during daylight hours because of the narrowness of the alley and the limited natural light. D. STREET ENCLOSURE This proposal would not appreciably alter the street enclosure of Bridge or Wall Streets. E. STREET EDGE Existing street edge will be expanded into the alley with the use of matching paging materials and lighting. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Building height will.be 30' -0" from Bridge Street. The building will have a flat built -up tax and gravel roof. G. VIEWS There are no significant views through the Alley at this time. Garton's deck, the Plaza Building chimney mass, and the angles between the two buildings prohibit any view east or west. The proposed offices on the west and east will have excellent views east and west. •f • t H. SUN/SHADE The narrowness of the Alley prohibits any appreciable sun- light. The proposed building would not alter any sun /shade patterns significantly. I. ZONING A conditional use permit will be required for offices on a third floor in Commercial Core I. The applicant will pay all applicable parking fees for the office use. C � 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: May 13, 1981 RE: Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Request for Plan Amendment tabled from May 11, 1981 PEC meeting. As you'll recall, this item was tabled at the May 11 meeting to look at two things. First, you asked for a clarification and legal interpretation concerning a possible conflict in Ordinance 13, Series of 1981 regarding density control. Larry Rider, Town of Vail attorney, explains that the Ordinance does not prohibit the projects under Ordinance 13 to request addtional density up to RC, but that the PEC must find a clear community benefit as a result of the request (i.e. long term employee housing) if t� y approve it. He also explains that paragraph d of page 2 of the Ordinance was put in so that these projects were not totally locked into developing their projects strictly as per County approvals. We wanted a chance to work with the developers to hopefully improve the projects. Thus, no right to the additional density, as previously explained, is or ever was, included in this Ordinance, but it doesn't prevent the applicant from asking for it. The Town Council has reviewed the policy concerning additional units in previously approved Councy projects that have been accepted by the Town, and support additional units be restricted for employees of the Upper Eagle Valley as long as legally possible. Secondly, the issue of the survey error was brought up as the main reason for requesting the two additional units. I've spoken with Jim Rubin from the County, received related documents from Chuck Ogilby and done some buildable area calculations on the property to better understand the background behind the project and the allowa- ble density under Residential Cluster. On March 21, 1979, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club project with the condition that before a building permit is issued for the last building, arrangements be finalized committing the developer to provide an attached footbridge across Gore Creek. On March 28, 1979, the County Commissioners approved the preliminary plat with the condition that the final plat state that no further subdivision (interval ownerships) will be allowed for the project. These approvals were based on RSM zoning (5.5 units per acre), 4.382 acres of site area and no square footage subtracted for the creek or the floodplain. Recently, a survey error was discovered which raised the total site area to 5.116 acres, a difference of .734 acres, or the size of Parcel B, the southern most parcel. Evidently, the legal description submitted to the County overlooked the square footage in Parcel B, and the project went through County approvals without notice of the error. At the time County approvals were given, only gross site area was taken into account to compute number of units per acre allowed. Thus, the creek and floodplain were counted in the approval of 24 units (4.382 x 5.5 = 24.1 units). • • Swim and Tennis - 2 - May 13, 1981 according to my calculations, the creek and floodplain represent 1..66 acres within the property lines. This produces a total buildable area, as computed in the Residential Cluster District, of 3.456 acres. This acreage allows 20 units to be constructed on the site under RC density (6 units /buildable acre).. Thus, if the project were proposed under the RC District in the Town, we would allow 20 units maximum on the site. The County would allow 19. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community development continues to recommend denial of the two dwelling units requested. We feel there exists no right to these units under the Town's regulations. EAGLE COUNTY Dept.'of Community Development EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 QARD OF COUNTY MMISSIONERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION I April 6, 1981 Ext 241 ANIMAL SHELTER 949 -4292 ASSESSOR Ext 202 BUILDING IN This letter is to confirm our conversation today Ext 236 INSPECTION ENVIRONMENTAL in March of 1979, the acreage on which the project Ext 226 or 229 density was based was smaller than what is now CLERK& Chuck Ogilby RECORDER 2938.So. Frontage Road West Ext 217 Vail, Colorado'81657 COUNTY calculating allowable density. This change would PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 ATTORNEY Ext 242 Dear Chuck, ENGINEER This letter is to confirm our conversation today Ext 236 that when your project in Intermountain was approved ENVIRONMENTAL in March of 1979, the acreage on which the project HEALTH Ext 238 density was based was smaller than what is now deemed to be the correct acreage. EXTENSION AGENT Ext 247 The County's regulations, however, have also been �RARY changed since that time by requiring the elimination TfCt255 of Gore Creek and the 100 year floodplain before calculating allowable density. This change would PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 probably result in your not being allowed to add Vail 476 -5844 additional units even though your acreage has increased. PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 Sincerely, PURCHA5ING/ PERSONNEL Ext 245 ROAD & BRIDGE James A. Rubin Ext 257 Director SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 cc: Peter Patten Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328.6328 TREASURER Ext 201 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: May 6, 1981 RE: Request for a plan amendment under Ordinance 13, Series of 1981 for Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club to re- design the parking and landscaping layout and to add two additional dwelling units. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST Under Ordinance 13, Series of 1981, a number of projects (the Swam and Tennis Club included) already given approvals by Eagle County were accepted by the Town as per those approvals. Provisions for revisions to the approved plans were included in this ordinance. Any changes of a significant nature will require Planning and Environ- mental Commission approval, and of course, Design Review Board acceptance. The Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Chub is requesting to re- design the parking areas according to the Town's parking requirements, thus eliminating areas of asphalt and increasing green space. They also request the addition of two dwelling units to be used as employee housing for an indefinite period of time, and then sold off as condominiums. EXPLANATION OF ORDINANCE 13 The projects under Ordinance 13 were zoned Residential Cluster for "any zoning purpose 0 beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals." This would relate to changes in development standards other than density controls and would guide such changes according to the general RC guidelines. Ordinance 13 zoned all of the properties listed in it as per Eagle County approval- -not according to RC density regulations, which would give all these projects an additional 1/2 unit per acre. This was not the intent of Ordinance 13, and we want to make it clear that the Ordinance does not give any additional density rights to any of the projects under its jurisdiction. THE PROPOSAL 1. Parking Plan Revision The Eagle County approval included 2.5 parking places per unit for a total of 67 spaces, not including thec,20 spaces provided for the Swim and Tennis Club itself. The revision, meeting Town requirements, provides 47 spaces and additional landscaped area. The revision also eliminates a 4 space parking area west of the northern tennis court, across the creek from the dwelling units. 2. Additional units The applicant wishes to add two units to Building C. The proposal appears to be an attractive architectural proposal and actually improves the appearance of that structure. The proposal is to maintain these units as rental apartments for an un- specified number of years and then to sell them as condominiums. • � 1 �J Swim and Tennis Club - 2 - May 6, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Parking Plan Revision The staff feels this is a definite improvement over the previously approved plan. One of the policies within the Design Review Board is to minimize the amount of asphalt on development proposals and this proposal accomplishes that objective. We recommend approval of the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club parking plan revision with the following conditions: a. As per the parking requirement in the Zoning Code, all lots of 10 or more spaces include some interior landscaping. (This can be handled at Design Review Board.) b. Because the Swim and Tennis Club parking is being reduced from 20 to 16 spaces, a joint agreement be worked out so that if more than 16 spaces are needed at one time, the overflow parking can be accommodated within the condominiums" spaces. 2. Addition of Units The staff recommends approval of the additional two units only if they remain as designated employee units for 20 years, as other employee units within the Town are so required. We feel that the granting of additional units without such a restriction amounts to a density bonus or unit "giveaway" situation which may benefit the employee housing problem for an insignificant period of time. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 40 FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar • DATE: May 20, 1981 RE: Request for a side setback variance in order to construct two additions at the Storey /Oglesby residence located on lot 13, block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Charles P. Storey and Enslie Oglesby DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants request a side setback variance from the required 15 feet on the western property line of Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing, commonly known as Vail Rowhouses, in order to construct a porch enclosure and an exterior stair. The existing rowhouse was constructed prior to the current zoning ordinance and the west property line bisects the existing party wall that separates the Storey /Oglesby residence and the neighboring unit. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code the Department of Community Development recommends.aj2proval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the re uested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The deck enclosure and construction of the stairway will not have any negative impacts on the surrounding uses and structures in the vicinity nor any potential uses and will have a positive effect by aesthetically upgrading the current condition of the building. 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.. Physical hardship is evidenced by the fact that the west property line is the party wall between the Storey /Oglesby unit and the adjacent unit. Many similar variance requests have been granted in the past, and the granting of this variance request would not constitute a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, ublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are none. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • Storey - Oglesby - 2 - May 20, 1981 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 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. * •y 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar DATE: May 21, 1981 RE. 1) Amendments to Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 and 18.69.050 of the Zoning Code that the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of the total Gross Residential Floor.area allowed, and 2) 18.12.050 to reduce the minimum lot size in the CR) Residential district to 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. Currently, the floor area distribution for Primary Secondary dwelling units is that the secondary unit shall not exceed 1/3 of the Gross Residential Floor Area allowed. This 1/3 allocation of floor area is required for dwellings in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District, for lots of less than 15,000 square feet in the Residential Zone District and Residential Primary /Secondary Zone District that wish to have an employee rental unit, and in the Residential Zone District on lots where the average slope beneath the structure and parking area is in excess of 30 %. In all of these instances, the secondary unit cannot exceed 33% of the allowable GRFA. The Proposed amendments would change the floor area allocation in these three sections of the Zoning Code to read that "the second unit shall not exceed 40% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area." Thus, the amendments would change the allocation from the allowed maximum of 33% for the secondary unit to a maximum of 40 %. On April 6, the Community Development Department sent out a letter to architects, builders, and other concerned citizens requesting input on the change in floor area allocation. The response to this letter and the question of the change in floor area allocation was largely in favor of going to a 60/40 split. The general feeling is that 60/40 will do as much to prevent "mirror- image" duplexes as 66/33 has, it will allow for more architectural flexibility in the secon- dary units, and will result in more space allocated to the secondary unit. For example, on a 15,000 sq ft lot, the secondary unit would be allowed 1250 square feet under a 66/33 breakdown, and 1500 square feet under the proposed 60/40. The staff feels that these would be positive changes and would still maintain the intent of the Primary /Secondary floor area allocation. The second amendment would change Section 18.12.050 of the zoning code to reduce the minimum lot size in the Residential CR) Zone District from 17,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet. The basic reason for this change is to create uniformity in the lot size for the R and R P/S ,Zone Districts and to make the minimum lot area criteria in the R Zone District consi5 tent with the density control section of that District. " 6/40 - 2 - May 21, 1981 0 RECOMMENDATION 1. The Staff recommends amending Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 and 15.69.050 of the Zoning Code that the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of the total Gross Residential Area. In addition, the Staff recommends that in the Primary /Secondary zone district, for lots less than 15,000 square feet in the Residential Zone Distract, and for lots of over 30% slope in the Residential and Residential Primary /Secondary Zone District, no mirror image duplex be permitted. Also, for all lots of 15,000 square feet or greater in the Primary Secondary Zone District, no mirror image duplex units are permitted 2. The Staff also recommends amending Section 18.12.0.50 of the Zoning Code to read that the minimum lot or site area shall be 15,000 square feet of buildable site area instead of the current 17,500 square feet. LJ � 0 i 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar DATE: May 21, 1981. RE. Amendments to Sections 18.12.090 and 18.13.080 of the Zoning Code con- cerning the process and criteria for:.granting exceptions to the density control regulations in the Residential (R) and Primary /Secondary Resi- dential (P /S) Zone Districts for lots of less than 15,000 square feet so that a secondary unit may be constructed on these lots for the purpose of employee housing. Currently, the Zoning Code states that the Planning and Environmental Commission may grant an exception to density restrictions on lots of less than 15,000 square feet to allow the addition of a second dwelling unit for the purpose of employee housing. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code would transfer this procedure to the Design Review Board and Department of Community Development. The applicant would present all materials to the Design Review Board for their review and the DRB would then either recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications or recommend denial of the secondary unit request and forward their recommendations to the Department of Community Development. .. The Community Development Department would then take final action on the request and prepare the necessary agreements and restrictions for the use as employee housing. A notification of the decision will then be sent to the applicant, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission. An appeal.to the Planning Commission may be made by the applicant, adjacent property owner or the Town Manager. The Planning Commission can also call up matters by a majority vote. The appeal must be filed in writing within ten days following the decision or must be called up by the Planning Commission at -their next regularly scheduled meeting. The same appeal procedure then applies for Planning Commission decisions: PEC decisd or:s can be appealed to or called up by the Town Council. The Department of Community Development staff feels that this would streamline the process and that the DRB is a more appropriate body to review the design issues of this request. The amendment also adds criteria which must be met in order to be granted the second unit by requiring that: 1. No variances be allowed on the lot unless the granting of a variance benefits the visual appearance of the site and surrounding area; . 2. Half the required parking must be enclosed; • 18,12,090 and 18.13.080 changes - 2 May 21, 1981 3. The architectural design of the structure and the materials and colors must be visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures, and must not unnecessarily block scenic views from existing buildings; 4. Access to the secondary unit must not adversely affect the privacy of adjacent structures; and 5. The applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capacity for handling trash and outdoor storage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section 18.13.080 of the Zoning Code transferring the review process for the granting of a secondary unit on lots of less than 15,000 square feet in the Residential (R) and Residential Primary /Secondary P/S .Zone Distracts from the Planning Commission to the Department of Community Development and the Design Review Board. (Proposed amendments attached) • G t . j . Proposed ISecondary Unit Criteria for lots under 15,000 square feet 18.12,090 and 18.13,080 (B) The Community Development Department may grant an exception to the restrictions of this Section relating to lots of less than 15,000 square feet to allow the addition of a second dwelling unit if the following criteria are met: 1. The second unit shall not exceed 400 of the total GRFA allowed on the lot; and 2. The Community Development Department shall find that the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated; and 3. That no variances for setbacks, height, parking, site coverage or landscaping,, site development, or gross residential floor area will be approved unless the granting of- such.a_vaxiance benefits the visual appearance of the site and surrounding area; and 4. That 500 of the required parking must be enclosed; and 5. The architectural design of the structure and the materials and colors must be visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and struc- tures, and must not unnecessarily block scenic views from existing buildings; 6. Access to the secondary unit must not adversely affect the privacy of adjacent structures; and 7. The applicant must demonstrate that the site has the ability to double its capacity for handling trash and outdoor storage. 8. An application for the second unit, containing the following information, must be submitted to the Community Development Department for their review: a. Name of applicant and address b. Name of applicant's representative (if any) c. Authorization of property owner d. Location of proposal e. Fee - $100.00 plus 18� for each property owner to be notified f. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property and their addresses; and 9. The proposed plan and all required materials must be submitted to the Design Review Board at a regularly scheduled meeting for their review and approval; and P , 0 • -2- Proposed Criteria for lots under 15,000 sq ft 10. The applicant shall agree in writing: a. That the secondary dwelling unit for not less than 20 years, shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the primary unit; and b, That the secondary dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that it shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The "Upper Eagle Valley" shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle - Vail,. and Avon and their surrounding areas. A "full -time employee" is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week; and c. That the secondary dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership or fractional fee; and d. That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land. 18.12.091 and 18.13.081 Appeal to Planning Commission A. An appeal to the Planning Commission may be by the applicant, adjacent property owner, or by the Town Manager. The Planning Commission can also call up matters by a majority vote of those commission members present. B. For all appeals, the appeal must be filed in writing within ten (10) days following the decision or must be called up by the Planning Commis- sion at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C. The Planning Commission shall hear the appeal within 30 days of its being filed or called up, with a possible 30 day extension if the Commis- sion finds that there is insufficient information. D. The decision of the Community Development Department shall become final after the appeal or call -up time is exhausted without any formal appeal. 18.12.092 and 18.13.082 Anneal to Town Council made A. An appeal to the Town Council may beAby the applicant, adjacent property owner, or by the Town Manager. The Town Council can also call up matters by a majority vote of those council members present. B. For all appeals, the appeal must be .filed in writing within ten (10) days following the decision or must be called up by the Town Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C. The Council shall hear the appeal within 30 days of its being filed or called up, with a possible 30 day extension if the Council finds that there is insufficient information. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 20, 1981 RE: Public hearing and consideration of a conditional use request to operate a beauty shop on the street level of the Gold Peak House, Applicant: Karl Hoevelman. BACKGROUND Use of interior space at the Gold Peak House for a beauty shop has been under discussion by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council at several meetings. Both groups have approved the amendment to the zoning code, that by conditional use review an applicant can request "barber shops,beauty shops and beauty parlors so long as they do not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area." DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant proposes to use an interior space on the first floor in the Gold Peale building for a beauty shop. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS After review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends 4pproval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town recently approved the amendment to allow this type of use on the first floor in CCI and CCII. The effect of use on light and air, distribution of o ulation, trans utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other publi c public facilities needs. No impact. ation facilities ilities and The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No impact. The effect which proposed use is to be located including the scale andrbulkrv£fthee area in use 'n relation to surrounding s. g i ng uses. No impact. � 0 e Hoevelmann -2 -May 20, 1981 In considering, in accordance with Chapter 18.60, an application for a conditonal use permit within Commercial. Core I District, the following development factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District. No significant impact. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District. No significant impact. C. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking. No significant impact. D. Control of delively, pickup, and service vehicles. No significant impact. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. Not applicable. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. 40 . Mixture of uses continuous. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Not applicable. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke and other factors on the environment of Commercial Core I District. Not applicable. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditonal use permit; 1. That the proposed location of the use is.in accordance with the purposes of the district in which the site is located; 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. • Hoevelmann -3 -May 20, 1981 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of this request. • • 11 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, June 8, 1981 2:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION Gore Valley Water Issues 3 :00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of May 26, 1981. 2. A request for a variance to build on a slope in excess of 40 %, another variance to build within a set -back on lots A--1 and A -2, Lionsridge, between Sandstone Drive and Lions' Ridge Loop. Applicant: AAV Limited Partnership. 3. Application for a density variance in gross residential floor area in order to build a duplex on Lot 12, Block A7, Casolar Vail II at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants: McDonald, Catoe, etc.,Pension Retirement Trust. 4. Preliminary review of CCI and CCII Urban Design Guide Plan Projects 1. Hill Building additions 2. Lodge at Vail, swimming pool enclosure and restaurant addition. 3. Casino Building remodel 4. Concert Hall Plaza Building, interior and exterior remodel 5. Lionshead Gondola Building, add office space and convert 3 offices to commercial. 6. Lionshead Study Area No. 5 Published in the Vail Trail June 5, 1981. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting . June 8, 1982 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Edwards Dick Ryan Gaynor Miller Peter Jamar Gerry White Peter Patten Dan Corcoran Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ABSENT Bill Wilto Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan The meeting was called to order at 3 :00 p.m, by Gerry White, chairman. 1, Approval of minutes of May 26, 1981. Scott moved and Gaynor seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 5--0 in favor. 2. A request for a variance to build on a slope in excess of 40% in.a Residential Cluster Zone District and review of the Environmental Impact Report for Architerra at Vail on lots A -1 and A -2, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing #1. Peter Patten presented the information in the memo, stating that there were two items to be considered: the variance request and the EIR. Gerry White wondered if they were to be granted a variance on a steep slope simply because they could build- -had the technology, Peter answered specifically because the technology would help stability of the hillside. Gerry felt that no develop - ment would be better in areas above 40% slope, Gene Powell of Architerra presented slides showing construction sequence, appli- cation and incorporation of design into Architerra concepts, uses, methods, elements used, and energy conservation. Gary Larson of Matthews Associates showed the landscape plan demonstrating erosion control and revegetation. He showed the use of clear water diversion, sedimentation control with a storm water retention on the bottom of the site, heavy equipment grading with temporary scars, erosion blankets, and use of a jute material with mulch (though he stated that this method would probably not be used here). They would need Forest Service or BLM permission to temporarily divert water above the site. He added that they had a $100,000 landscape budget, that they would hope to seed and sod this £all, and that possibly would be able to plant large plants this fall. Discussion followed concerning the vacation of the lot line, the height of the retaining walls (10 feet highest), the grade of the road to be 8 %. Gerry stated that 13 units could be built and not go into the 40% grade at all. Upon looking at the model, Gene remanded them that the upper floors were to . be mostly glass, Gerry felt that the impact visually on the valley was not in keeping with the best interests of the area. Dick Ryan felt that this use PEC -2_ June 8, 1981 . of the hill was a more sensitive treatment of the land, and added that the developers had a right to use the land. He felt this use would have less impact than a conventional development would have. Gerry repeated that the impact on the valley would be enormous, and that he did not like building on a 40% slope. Dan Corcoran felt that 10' walls on the entire west end would not be hidden by aspen trees, and added that this would have more impact from across the valley than a lower building built on the lower part of the site. Scott and Gaynor felt that if this project could be done safely, that it was better than conventional construction, and that they liked the overall plan, Duane asked why the units weren't buried more as they had been originally been presented, Neil Wood's reply was that they wanted to reduce the amount of walls and wanted to have cross ventilation, Duane felt the treatment was fairly sensitive, using existing contours and blending into the swales. He was concerned with the height of the walls with respect to the Town of .Vail restrictions (the 6' limitation). Peter P. said the intent of the regulation was visual impact, and that he would have to consult with an attorney regarding this issue. Lester Cufaude in the audience stated that he was fairly knowledgeable on earth shelters and felt that this was handled nicely. The six concerns listed in the memo were addressed, with the 6th one still-not resolved, Gary Larson stated that he could work with the staff or the DRB to solve problems in greater detail. Dan Corcoran moved and Scott seconded that the staff approve the E1R for Architerra at Vail with the inclusion of the 6 concerns listed in the memo • of June 4, 1981. The vote was 5 -0, unanimous for approval of the E1R. Discussion of the lot line vacation followed, and whether or not 13 units could have been constructed if setbacks and steepness had been considered. Peter Jamar stated the number would have been 13, the only question was whether or not 13 would have been possible physically considering setbacks and steepness of slope, Dan added that with the height restrictions, steepness of road, spaces between units, it would be difficult to get 13 units. Peter felt the question was whether the lots were best developed as 2 lots or as one lot? Duane said one reason for vacation of lot lines is to improve the use of the land, and felt this project was better without the lot line. Duane moved that the variance to build on the 40 %slope be approved contingent upon three items: 1. that the lot line between lots Al and A2, Lionsridge Filing #1 be vacated; 2. that a variance be considered for retaining walls over 61; and 3, that the findings on page 4 of the staff memo concerning variance criteria were found by the PEC. This motion was seconded by Gaynor. The vote was 3 -2 in favor. Dan and Gerry voted against the motion. The motion passed. Gerry was against building on a 40% slope, and Dan felt the impact of the walls would be too great. �J PEC -3- June 8, 1981 3. Application for a density variance in gross residential floor area in order to build a duplex on lot 12, Block A7, Casolax Vail II. at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants: McDonald, Catoe, etc, Pension Retirement Trust. The applicant asked to table this item. Dan moved and 'Scott seconded to table. Vote was 5.0 in favor of tabling, Dan moved and Gaynor seconded to adjour the meeting, Vote was 5 -0, The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. • r MEMORANDUM r] TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten RE: Variance requested to build residences in 40% slope areas.in a Residential Cluster Zone District and review of the Environmental Impact Report for Architerra at Vail on lots A -1 and A--2, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1. DATE: June 4, 1981 RArxr,RntrNn Architerra at Vail and the Reinforced Earth Company wish to construct a 13 unit earth - sheltered housing project on lots Al, A2 in the Lionsridge Subdi- vision, Filing 1, above the existing Lionsmane project. The description of the original proposal is contained in detail in the Environmental Impact Report. However, you should note that the tramway, water system and parking structure have all been dropped and the proposal now includes a one -way road looping the project and two -car garages for each unit. The proposal is a unique one in that it represents Architerra's first residen- tial project in the United States. A 47 unit project in Nice, France was constructed on a steep slope and has proven to be a success. The construction technology and housing design is purposely directed at being compatible with steeply sloping sites. PREVIOUS PEC REVIEW The PEC saw a presentation by the Architerra, Reinforced Earth Company group on April 27, 1981. Generally, the PEC had a positive attitude toward the proposal and the concept with the following comments and concerns: 1. Why so much of the house was not underground? 2. Concern over the timing and amount of landscaping with mention of escrowing funds. 3. Concern about the ability of the site to handle the road construction in regard to the initial access from Sandstone Drive and the cuts and fills required to make the road work. A request was made by PEC to see a detailed grading plan along with profiles and sections of the road. 4. A perspective was requested showing the appearance of the project from the Frontage Road. 9 19 L 1 Architerra r2- June 4, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVIEW The Staff required an environmental impact report.stressing hydrologic, geologic, biotic and visual conditions as they relate to the earth - sheltered housing construction. This has been submitted and the PEC received copies previous to the April 27 meeting. Although the site plan and proposed facilities have significantly changed since the EIR was prepared, the main points covered in the report remain intact. The Staff recommends approval of the..EIR for Architerra at Vail with the condition that the following further information be submitted, reviewed and approved by either Staff or DRB (Whichever is the appropriate approval level): 1. The report speaks of pedestrian walkways throughout the project, but Staff has not received a site plan, at the time of this writing, which shows the walkways. 2. A potential problem exists with shallow subsurface drainage, especially during construction. How will this be mitigated? 3. Retainage of as many trees as possible should be an objective. The EIR states all trees will be removed. 4. Timing of revegation was not addressed in the EIR. 5. The pond near Sandstone Drive, part of the original proposal, has been removed. The EIR stresses this is a major source of sediment control during construction. What is the alternative plan now? 6. Visual conditions with respect to the retaining walls for the road system should be carefully reviewed. 40 PERCENT SLOPE VARIANCE This is the first request for relief to construct residential units on slopes of 40% or more in the Town. The applicant feels that the tech- nology and construction techniques involved in the Architerra /Reinforced Earth system specifically adapt themselves to very steep slopes and that the finished product actually improves the stabilization of the hillside. I will review this request first addressing the Master Hazard Ordinance and secondly, with regard to the normal factors by which we review variance requests. This request can be made under Section 18.69.060 which states that variances to the Master Hazard Ordinance can be applied for under the usual variance rules and regulations. Moreover, Section 18.69.030 of the Hazard Ordinance states that the "master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to conform with new information or existing conditions." Thus, it was the intent of the ordinance that it not be a concrete document, that new technologies or changing conditions should be recognized as possible exceptions. Architerra -3- June 4, 1981 • In the same section as the above quote, the ordinance states, "The purpose of the master hazard plans is to identify and alleviate present and future problems created by the construction of improvements in the hazard .areas within the town by means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to the understanding of the relation- ship between the hazards and improvements located within said areas." This points to the potential problems of constructing improvements in 40% slope areas. 40% slope was chosen because the studies the ordinance was based upon generally concluded that that was the point at which potential environmental and site planning problems occurred. However, these sutdies were not able to fully study how earth - sheltered housing and its associated technologies would affect these steep slopes. The Environmental Impact Report (on Page B -1), for the project states that: "The proposed units will be constructed directly into the hillside using the hillside itself for support and insulation. The design. is well - suited for difficult -to- develop hillsides through the use of a proven soils engineering technology, Reinforced Earth, (described in detail in Appendix A). This technology provides an architectural landform capable of stabilizing hillside conditions and thereby allowing for flexibility in the site plan design." is The Staff has no reasons to believe that the above claim is not true. The track record is one of success for both Architerra and Reinforced Earth Company. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of 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 re uested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The project should not have any negative effects on other properties. During construction, the erosion and sedimentation controls proposed in the EIR should be strictly followed so that adjacent downhill properties are not adversely affected. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve com atibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. • This, of course, is the crux of the issue. The Staff feels strongly that granting of this variance would not be a special privilege (refer to the above discussion addressing the Hazard Ordinance). This is a unique proposal for a site which is appropriate for applying the specific technology being �7_ • • Architerra -4- June 4, 1981 proposed. Earth - sheltered housing is increasing in popularity, and other similar proposals would get the same consideration this. one has received. Earth - sheltered housing affords some very significant energy -cost savings and often provides difficult -to- develop sites with a workable solution. If conventional housing were being proposed, the Staff would most likely recommend denial. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The only relevant factor here would be public safety in terms of the hillside stability. Again, we feel that the technology involved can work on that hillside and that stability of the slope will not be a problem. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. - FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall.make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve- ments in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted 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. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the 40% slope variance request for Architerra at Vail. We feel very positively about the project and feel the developers are a competent group who can make this project work. The ever - changing technologies in the housing construction industry must be recognized. The long term energy problems of our country must be recognized, and we as a staff must be flexible and open to new ideas. We back with enthusiasm this project. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: June 4, 1981 RE: GRFA variance request to build a duplex on site 12, Casolar Vail II for Jim McDonald. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED.. This is a request for 2 units of 1690 GRFA each,.very similar to Deane Knox's original request for this parcel, which was denied by both PEC and Council. Mr. McDonald, the owner of the building site now wishes to apply for the variance on his own behalf. We requests relief from an "innocent third party" point of view as the aggrieved owner of the building site. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial requested variance based upon the following factors: • Consideration of Factors As the issues have not changed at all from the previous application, we refer you to the previous memos and information enclosed. 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 specified regula- tion 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 • McDonald -2- June 4, 1981 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 regula- tion would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATION Although the Staff can sympathize with Mr. McDonald's position, we cannot change our stance on the matter. The issues and situation behind this request haven't changed, and we continue to recommend denial. • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 22, 1981 2:00 p.m. Study session, Valley Phase 6 3:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes of June 8, 1981. 2. Request to table density variance application for lot 12, Block A7, Casolar Vail II at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants: Jean and James W. McDonald, Jean Catoe, et al. This request is to table to July 13, 1981. 3r Appeal of administrative decision concerning the color of 1 a residence on Lot 20, Potato Patch. Applicant: Janine rr E and J.J. Collins. 4. A request for a setback variance to make legal an existing building which encroaches 4' into the side setback on 5040 Main Gore Drive which is part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn, titled Sundial, Phase II. Applicant: Penner Construction Management, Inc. 5. A request for amendment in accordance with Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.160 to the zoning ordinance for lot G -1, Lions Midge Filing 2 to change the zoning from Residential Cluster to Residential Primary /Secondary in order to build a residential unit together with a caretaker's unit. Applicant: Doyle Hopkins. Published in the Vail Trail June 19, 1981. i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISION June 22, 1981 PRESENT Scott Edwards Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper later Jim Morgan ABSENT Roger Tilkemeier STAFF Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack The Chairman, Gerry White, called the meeting to order at 3 :15 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of June 8 1981, Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve the minutes of June 8, 1981. Vote was 4 -0 in favor. 2. Request to table density variance application for lot 12 Block A7, Casolar Vail II at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants: Jean and James W. McDonald, Jean Catoe, et al, Dan moved and Scott seconded to grant the request to table this item until the next meeting on July 13, 1981. The vote was 5 -0 in favor o tabling. 3, A eal �of administrative decision concerning the color of a residence on Lot 20, Potato Patch. Applicant: Janine and J,J. Collins. Peter Patten explained that the applicants' architect, Craig Snowdon, couldn't be here until the July 13 meeting, and the applicants wanted to wait until Craig could attend. Dan moved and Duane seconded to grant the request to table this item until the next meeting on July 13, 1981. The vote was 5 -0, in favor of tabling. 4.. A request for a setback variance to make legal an existing build which encroaches 4' into the side setback on 5040 Main Gore Drive wh is part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn, titled Sundial, Phase II. Applicant: Penner Construction Management., Inc. Bob Pollack of Penner Construction explained that there were problems with the adjacent property owners agreeing to this request. He asked to table the item to July 13 so that both parties could meet and resolve the differences. Scott Edwards inquired about the dyke the Sundial project had installed PEC - 6/22/81 - 2 ,10 along the creek bank, because several nearby property owners had expressed concern to him. Peter replied that Hydo,Triad was currently doing a study to determine if what was constructed was the same as what was originally approved. The study would be in to Peter soon, he said. Peter also stated that Sundial's C of 0's were being held until the flood plain issue was resolved. Duane moved and Scott seconded to grant to grant the request to table until July 13, 1981. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of tabling, 5, A request for amendment in accordance with Sections 18.66.110 through 18;66.160 to the zoning ordinance for lot G -1, Lionsridge Piling 2 to change the zoning from Residential Cluster to Residential Primary /Secondary in order to build a residential unit together with a caretaker's unit. Applicant. Doyle Hopkins, Peter Patten stated that the applicant and the staff were requesting that this be tabled until July 13, 1981 so that more access alternatives could be researched before rezoning. Dan moved and Duane seconded to grant the request to table until July 13. The vote was 5,0 in favor of tabling. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. 0 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail on June 22, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. at the Town of Vaal Council Chambers an the Vail Municipal Building. Public Hearing and consideration of: 1. A request for amendment in accordance with Sections. 18.66.110 through 18.66.160, to the zoning ordinance for lot G -1, Lions Ridge Filing #2 to change the zoning from Residential Cluster to Residential Primary/ Secondary in order to build a residential unit together with a caretaker's unit. Applicant: Doyle Hopkins. 2. A request for a set -back variance to make legal an existing building which encroaches 4' into the side setback on 5040 Main Gore Drive which is part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn, titled Sundial, Phase II. Applicant: Penner Construction Management, Inc. The, application and information relating to the proposed changes are available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular business hours for review or .inspection by the public. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Peter Patten, Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail June 5, 1981. • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 13, 1981 3:00 p.m. PRESENT Scott Edwards Duane Piper Dan Corcoran Gerry White Jim Morgan ABSENT Roger Tilkemeier Gaynor Miller The meeting was called to order by Gerry White, chairman. 1. Approval of the minutes of June 22, 1981. STAFF Peter Patten .Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Tom Steinberg 2. A request for a setback variance to make legal an existing building which encroaches 4' into the side setback on 5040 Main Gore Drive which is part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn titled Sundial Phase 11. Applicant :. Penner Construction Management, Inc. Peter Patten presented the memo, explaining the error made from the destruction and subsequent re- location of a concrete monument. Jeff Spanel explained how the survey error came about, and Dan Corcoran added explanations regarding subsequent surveys showing other property corners in the subdivision and agreeing that an honest error had been made. Tim Garton representing Vail East Townhomes told of his concern of the dyking of the property and felt that it would affect their side of the creek. Peter stated that he would discuss this with Tim. Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve the request for the setback variance. The vote was 5 -0 in favor, unanimous. 3. Appeal of administrative decision concerning the color of a residence on Lot 20 Potato Patch. Applicants: Jonine and J. J. Collins, Larry Eskwith explained that the Collins had had some problems with their color and were told by Peter Patten that their only option was to come before the DRB to appeal for the change in color, or to change to the color that was lasted in their original presentation, The Collins' did appeal, and were denied. However, he (Larry) was of the opinion that the PEC did not have the power to hear this item, Scott Edwards moved and Jim Morgan seconded that the PEC did not have the authority to hear the Collins appeal. The vote was 5 -0, unanimous to accept the fact that they could not hear the appeal. PEC -2- 7 /13/81 4. Request for density variance for, lot 12 Block A7, Casolar II at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants Jean and James W. McDonald,, Jean Catoe, et al. Dick Ryan stated that the staff would like to table this item until the next PEC meeting, because that morning the staff had received a.large memo from the applicant, and wanted time to study it.. George Straw, attorney for the applicant, stated that this was the first time that Mr. McDonald had had a chance to present his case. Discussion followed, and it was decided that the applicant could make his presentation, and the request could still be postponed afterward. Peter Patten then reviewed briefly the previous meetings and appeals with Deane Knox, and added that the staff still recommended denial for lot 12, George Straw then gave his presentation for the applicant. He felt that the Town had acted illegally, and mentioned the fact that Phase I was zoned RC. and then LDMF. (Dan pointed out that this was because it was originally going to be part of Homestake.) He added that Deane-Knox had talked to Diana Toughhill in planning the subdivision. He pointed out that the plat did not show even common open space, and yet was approved. He felt that the slope analysis should have been done first on each lot, His exhibit G was a letter to Deane from Diana Toughill stating that the units could be townhouses, and Straw added that Toughill indicated that GRFA was on a per unit basis. Dan Corcoran pointed out that the plat refers to protective covenants and are part of the plat and call out the restrictions. Straw then discussed the fact.that the resolutions state 1400 GRFA, and yet 3380 GRFA was in the declarations. Deane was advised that there would be an evaluation later. Peter Patten read minutes showing that the PEC approved resubdivision request, not GRFA. Straw then stated that Carling proposed a greater GRFA and received it and then still built a larger unit. He questioned why the commission assumed Knox was the spokesman for the subdivision. Gerry White responded that Knox had been the spokesman who responded to their inquiries. Jim. McDonald stated that Knox further understood that he could transfer density from Phase I to Phase 11. Straw questioned whether or not McDonald inflicted the hardhhip on himself, whether or not the Town violated its own zoning ordinance, and whether or not the Town had ignored the true owners of the lots. Dan felt he wanted to know how many building permits were issued prior to. the problem, and were the owners made aware of the problem. Scott mentioned that the Town cannot enforce the covenants which state the GRFA. He also asked that the information in the new memo be boiled down to fewer pages, Larry E. said the events must be reconstructed. Dan asked that the staff keep in contact with Straw and McDonald so that both sides would know what would be said at the next meeting. Dan moved and Duane seconded a motion to table the item until the next meeting. The vote was 5 -0 to table. PEC -3- 7/13/81 5. A request for amendment in accordance with Sections 18.66,110 through 18.66.160 to the zoning ordinance from Residential Cluster to Residential Primary /Secondary in order to build a residential unit together with a caretaker's unit.. Applicant: Doyle Hopkins. After beginning discussion, it was discovered that there were some adjacent property owners on the Ridge who weren't notified of the meeting. Ed Drager asked to table the item until the next meeting. Duane moved and Jim seconded to table this until the next regular meeting. Vote was 4-D (Dan had left.) 6. A-minor subdivision re nest to vacate: a lot,line between lots A -1 and A -2, Lionsridge Filing #1. Applicant: AAV limited Partnership. Peter Patten explained the memo, and Dave Green representing Architerra said:. that this was really overlooked at the previous meeting when the project had been approved, Gerry White stated that, while he was opposed to the project itself, this point was a minor one. Duane moved and Jim seconded to grant the request to vacate the lot line. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 7. A request for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I1, under Section 18.26.045 on Lot 4., Block I, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing, to add 3,950 square feet of office space to the Lionshead Gondola Building, and a request for a variance to Section 18.26,150 to waive the requirement of including one half the parking within the main building. Applicant: Vail Associates. • Peter Patten explained the request, including an explanation of the number of parking units that Vail Associates have for their employees, which the staff felt was adequate. Tom Leonard of Vail Associates explained that they did not have sufficient office space for their employees. Dr. Steinberg.of the Town Council wanted to be assured that the parking lots were zoned for parking only, and Dick Ryan assured him that they were. Scott was concerned that in future years, it'.might not be remembered that this variance was granted on the basis of the existing spaces. Tom Leonard reminded them that VA had 140 extra parking spaces. Discussion of the one condition, that the applicant agrees to parti -._ cipate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed for the Lionshead area, followed. Jim moved and Duane seconded to approve the request as stated in the staff memo of July 6, 1981 including the condition described above. The vote was 3--1, Scott opposed because he wasn't comfortable with the parking situation. 8. Publ-ic,.hearing - and consideration of an exterior alteration and modification request in Commercial Core I for the addition of restaurant space and a retract- able glass enclosure over the existing swimming pool at the Lodge at Vail.. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc Dick Ryan explained that the applicant had decided to ask only for the restaurant addition. Ken Wentworth, architect for the applicant showed plans and stated that the restaurant addition would require 2 to 4 more parking spaces. He emphasized that his firm felt that nothing is happening around this edge of • the open area and that pedestrian activity would be increased... Duane agreed and added that his concern was with quality instead of quantity. Gerry White PEC -4- 7/13/81 felt that there was already one major entrance to the Lodge with a major . walkway from Wall Street. Ken stated that he felt they wore enhancing what was already there. Gerry felt that whale it seems like a small encroachment, it was not, and that the space was valuable. Duane moved and Jim seconded to approve the modification of the restaurant subject to condition #2 of the staff memo, that the applicant agree to parti- cipate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed for the Vail Village area. The vote was 2 for (Duane and Jim) and 2 against (Gerry and Scott). Scott was against encroaching upon open space. Gerry reminded the applicant that he had 10 days to appeal to Town Council. 9. A-.request for approval to replat Highland Meadows, lots 2642, the Highland Park Special Development District 11. The approval is requested to allow new road dedications and vacations and lot line removals. This is a major subdivision requested under Chapter 17;04 of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Sun Tech Builders, Inc, Peter Patten explained that this repiat was a mere technicality after approval of SDD 11, (The applicant did not appear.) Dave and.Mrs. Edeen appeared to voice their concern about a drainage problem they were having, with water running off of highland Park onto their land. They stated that they had been washed out several times in the past weeks. Dick Ryan stated that the new plat would take care of drainage with the redesign.of. the road. Scott suggested they use a method to divert the water temporarily as was demonstrated by Architerra. Larry Eskwith stated that both temporary and O�armanent diversion of water would be a reasonable condition of approval. Scott moved and Duane seconded that the replat.be.approved on condition that temporary relief of the drainage problem that exists for the Edeens be solved, Water must be diverted to the drainage system shown on the plat within 15 days of final approval of the plat, The vote was 4 -0, unanimous approval with the condition stated, 10, A. request for a variance to Section 18.14.090 of the Vail Municipal Code to allow the applicant to include flood plain area in calculating allowable density in determining the number of units allowed on the site of the Inter- mountain Swim and Tennis Club, an unplatted parcel in Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicants: Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club who wish to construct 2 additional units over the previous approval by Eagle County. Peter Patten presented the memo stating that the staff recommended denial. Chuck Ogilby, one of the applicants, showed the plot plan and explained that 1,6 acres in the center of their plot was considered flood plain. He explained that he felt the 2 units would fit well into their plot plan, that they wouldn't be adding more unit blocks., would not affect the parking, and they felt it would be a pleasing addition architecturally, He added that they felt they had practical difficulties, and mentioned that they had looked at other sites up and down the valley and felt that theirs was unique,, because of the survey error, among other things. PEC -5- 7/13/81 Stan Cole added that 1/3 of their total land was affected by the flood plain. 40 Dick Ryan felt -that this was simply a circumstance. Gerry White felt strongly that a flood plain situation was not one upon which to grant a variance. Discussion followed concerning whether or not the flood plain was a hardship. Jim moved and Scott seconded to deny the variance request. The vote was 4r0 in favor of denial. Gerry White reminded them that they had 10 days in which to appeal to Council. 11. A request under Ordinance 13, Series of 1981, for The Valley Phase 6 for major revisions to an approved site plant The proposal is to redesign the building locations and unit designs, along with a portion of the road layout. Applicant: Murray Properties Partnership of Dallas. Peter Patten showed the model and site plan. John Wheeler, representing the applicant answered questions. He explained that the cul de sacs were large to accommodate large vehicles. Jim Morgan expressed concern about cut and fills being largely visible. He wanted to make certain the impact was downplayed so that the units didn't give a wall -like facade. Gerry felt that the tennis courts were almost necessary to soften and add interest. Scott wanted to know what will happen when this project went into DRB if the DRB decided there was too much visual impact, and Dick replied that that was the reason the DRB was invited on the field trip, however, the DRB could still suggest changes. Dr. Steinberg asked if it were possible to narrow the road, and was told it was necessary to have them that width to accommodate large vehicles.. The clustering and redesigning of the building locations were discussed. Jim moved and Scott seconded to approve the revisions. The vote was 3 -0 with Duane abstaining, in Favor of approval of the site plan. Scott moved and Duane seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 6:45 p.m. MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: July 8, 1981 RE: Request to rezone lot G -1, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, from Residential Cluster to Primary /Secondary for Doyle Hopkins THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS This lot is part of the "G" lots on the hillside of the Lionsridge Subdivision. It lies directly above and across the street (Lions Ridge Loop) from the Briar Patch project (now going through DRB). Adjacent to lot G -1 on the southwest is the Cliffside Subdivision, formerly lots G -7 and G -B, is now 6 lots zoned RC but, in effect, is a single family development. Directly to the west of G,-1 is The Ridge at Vail (Phase IV of The Valley), consisting of 6 units close to the top of the ridge. Lot G-1 lies on the south - facing portion of that ridge and has some excellent views of the Gore Valley, the Gore Range and down valley. The site is heavily wooded with mature aspen trees, It possesses some severe slopes (over 40 %) on the eastern, or .lower portion adjacent to the Lions Ridge Loop cul-dersac, The steepness of this portion of the lot and the very high bank off of the cul-de -sac as a result of the road cut are the primary problems and reasons for this zone change request. The applicant also wishes the change. so that he may increase his GRFA by a 1000 square feet to be able to build a house large enough to his satisfaction along with a viable caretaker's unit. STATISTICS The following are th as it relates to lot Lot area = 38,368 sq Area over 40% slope Buildable site area Units allowed -RC = 2 statistics comparing the RC district to the R P/S district G -1; ft = 19,824 sq ft 18,544 sq ft or .425 acre Units allowed - R P/S = 2 GRFA allowed -RC = 4636 sq ft GRFA allowed -R P/S = 5668 sq ft, small unit 2267 sq ft manimum • Wi Lot G -1, Lions Ridge #2 -2- July 8, 1981 Thus, the differences are that 1032 additional square footage could be built if the rezone was granted. There is no difference in number of units allowed -- it will be two either way. Of course, the major difference in these two zone districts as it relates to this lot is that under Primary /Secondary the applicant would be allowed to construct on the 40% slope area. Under RC the area under 40% is so narrow that it nearly renders the lot unbuildable. ACCESS PROBLEM The reason this item was tabled on June 22 was to continue study of the access problem on the lot. The parcel is meant to be accessed off of the cul -de -sac on Lions Ridge Loop. However, the cut on the road bank is nearly 25 feet in height and presents severe restrictions for a driveway, The applicant's original proposal was a double switchback driveway containing large, highly visible retaining walls and really creating a scar on the lot. When looked at in combination with the large retaining walls the Briar Patch access drive will create directly below G -1, this proposal did not meet staff approval. The best and most reasonable access to lot G -1 is from the top (southwest corner) of the lot. Access from the.top would be from the existing Cliffside subdivision road and would require very little extension of the drive from its plattod location. The applicant would be willing to drop the driveway below the ridge once on lot Grl so that the Ridge at Vail units' views would not be affected. However, this access would, of course, require the approval and an agreement with the owners of the property in the Cliffside Subdivision. At this date; the chances look doubtful that such an agreement could be reached. Chuck Rosenquist, one of the property owners in the Cliffside Subdivision, has said that in the deeds for the property, it's written that no other accesses through the subdivision would be granted unless all property owners agreed. It appears that the property owners' consent would be difficult to obtain, especially that of the owner of the owner of the lot furthest northeast where the drive would extend through the property. Although the Staff is not optimistic about attaining such an access., we feel the matter should be pursued until it is entirely not possible. As the next best solution, the staff suggested an underground garage set into the existing bank. This would eliminate the need for the double switch -back driveway and would bring the cars in directly off of existing pavement, A step system would then bring a person from the garage to the house. In this scheme, the applicant has proposed the caretaker's unit over the garage, within the same structure. The problem this solution presents is it may require the use of Town of Vail right -of -way, The latest proposal shows the garage partially located on this right- of-way. The engineering department and planning staff feel this would • 0 Lot G -1 Lions Ridge #2 -3- July 8, 1981 i create a dangerous precedent for many other steeplots in the Town. We don't ! want to get into the situation of vacating right -of -way as a common occurrence and fear the granting of it here would pave the way for many Highland Meadows and other sites throughout the Town to come in with similar requests that we do not wish to grant. The underground structure can be built just southwest of where it is now proposed entirely on the applicant's property. We feel that this can be done with even less cut into the bank than the present situation and requires only a minor rem siting of house to the southwest. If a rezoning to P/S is granted, there would be no front setback requirement for the garage because the house would be built on an area of greater than 30o average slope (as per-the hazard regu- lations), In conclusion, at this point, we feel that we still need to pursue the access from the top to at least a sit -down discussion level with those involved. However, the underground garage building can suffice for a reasonable access solution, if it is built within the existing property lines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff feels that the residential cluster zone is not a totally inappropriate one for this lot, when one considers the surrounding properties. However, when the RC zone is put on a.1ot with severe slopes, it does, in some cases, unduly restrict the location of the house (due to the 40% rule). In this case, developing the lot under RC would leave a 35 foot strip of land at the top of the lot (taking into consideration the 15 foot setback) in which to locate the structure. This location would also interfere with the views of the Ridge at Vail units. The Staff does feel that 4636 sq ft of GRFA is not a hardship, however. The real difference between these zone districts, beside the relief of the 40o slope rules, is the extra 1032 sq ft of GRFA the primary /secondary zone affords. If developed under the 4636 sq ft of GRFA allowed by RC, this would give a 900 sq ft caretaker unit (as the applicant wishes) and a 3736 sq ft primary residence. This is a very fair and viable arrangement, Thus, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the request to rezone lot G -1, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, to Residential Primary/ Secondary with the following conditions: 1. That discussions be entered into and all reasonable efforts made by Staff and by the applicant to obtain access to the lot from the top (via Cliffside Subdivision). 2. If the access from the top cannot be obtained, the applicant agree to the construction of an "underground" (built into the existing bank) garage structure built entirely within the property lines of lot Grl. 0 3. That Residential Cluster GRFA be the maximum allowed on the lot. 10 MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: July 9, 1981 RE: ReTplatting request for Highland Park Special Development District 11 to vacate and rededicate the road system. RACKf;MIND Because the Highland Park project will be relocating the existing road configurations, it's necessary to receive approval from the PEC for the new road locations. The re -plat is consistent with the previous approvals given. The PEC already has granted approval to remove the interior lot lines from the project area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the new plat for Highland Park. We are pleased with the improvements we feel will take place under SDD11 and endorse the new road locations as an integral part of that plan. r--1 L--.d f TO: Planning and Environmental Commission � 0 FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: July 7, 1981 RE: Minor Subdivision request to vacate the lot.line between lots Al and A2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 1 for the Architerra at Vail project, BACKGROUND The Architerra at Vail earth "sheltered housing project was approved by a 3-2 vote at the June 8, 1981 PEC meeting. At that time, it was discovered that the request did not include vacation of the common lot lane between lots Al and A2, both of which are included in the approved plan. This was basically an oversight and logically should've been a part of the original request. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the request to vacate the common lot line between lots Al and A2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 1. We feel that this is more or less a tchnicality and that the issue of project approval has already been decided by both PEC and Town Council, (Council chose not to officially appeal the PEC decision by a 6 -1 vote.) In our opinion, the site is best developed by the vacation of the lot line as in the approved plan, r1 i MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: June 17, 1981 RE: Request for a side setback variance for Sundial Townhouses, an un- platted parcel in Bighorn, for Penner Construction Management, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The request is for a variance of 41, resulting in an 111 side setback on the northern property line. The building is in place, and the variance is requested due to a surveying error. The error is due to the destruction and subsequent relocation of a concrete monument during the construction of the adjacent project, Vail East Townhomes. The Staff has had meetings with the surveyors, along with the assistance of Dan Corcoran (acting as a neutral, expert third party) concerning how the error came about and whether or not the variance is justified. • 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 relationshi of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Directly to the north of the building which encroaches is a series of 4 proposed buildings within the Vail East Townhomes project. These buildings are proposed to be located a minimum of 201 from the common property line, We feel this 31' separation is sufficient for the distances between these buildings. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified 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 s ecial privilege. From the information the Staff has been able to gather from Intermountain Engineering and Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying, the surveying error seems to be an honest mistake and out of the control of the applicant. En- . closed are letters from Intermountain and Eagle Valley regarding the error. r Sundial -2- June 17, 1981 The Staff feels that because all the evidence supports this being an innocent mistake and the applicant does not seem to be at fault, that the granting of the variance is not a special privilege, The effect -of the re guested variance on light and air, distribution of population,, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public sa ety. There are no effects on these factors, Such other factors and criteria as the.commission deems a licable to the proposed variance, FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before -grantin•g ,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 improve- ments in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted 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. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this variance request. It's evident surveying errors are not uncommon because of the circumstances in this area of East. Vail. The resulting 11' setback does not negatively affect the adjacent development. June 22, '_• 981 -.lP1. ''� <::m� � �•� ' ryf j{ '';� 44x4 Y v-seu �-..v j� � �� `+ �.s� ' �sY 4:av y to \�t:sm �1 •':.J ¢' V � vAiL. COLOI.ADO 61657 503-A,76.4f57. Mr. Peter. Pattan Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail-, CO 81657 RE: Sundial Phase II Dear Peter: Per your request, I sat in on the meeting with Mr. Jeff Spanel of Inter- Mountain Engineering and yourself to review the survey discrepancy on the above project. We have worked on a project in that immediate vicinity that caused us to tie into the section corner in question. Our field work indicated that other existing property corners in the Bighorn Subdivision, Fifth Addition do not relate correctly to the existing section corner, while they do relate well with each other. k would also state that I do not disagree with the procedures used in replacing the section corner, proper procedures were followed. I feel that the platting and surveying errors in the Bighorn area could produce the problem on the above project.. . Yours truly, EAGLE VALLEY ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. Dan ,Corcoran, L.S. President .DC /. jw • .0 • F_ L� MEMORANDUM TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 6, 1981 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of modification request in Commercial restaurant space and a retractable existing swimming pool at the Lodge Properties, Inc. REQUEST: an exterior alteration and Core I for the addition of glass enclosure over the at Vail. Applicant: Lodge The applicant is requesting to add approximately 620 square feet to the Salt Lick Dining Room which will be renamed Harry's Bar. This will be a one story addition to the south side of the restaurant area. Also proposed is to enclose the existing Lodge swimming pool. A. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010 Purpose The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The Community Development Department considers that the proposed changes to the Lodge at Vail do conform with the Commercial Core I District, and the -Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Sub -area concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan No sub -area concept of the Plan is related to this proposal. 2. Pedestrianization The restaurant expansion or covering the pool will not have any effect on pedestrianization. Lodge Additions -2- 7/6/81 3:. Vehiae, Penetration No change 49 4, Street Scope Framework: No change 5. Street Enclosure: No change 6. Street Edge: No change 7. Building Height: The pool enclosure is 31 feet high on the high side and 13 feet on the low side. One comment that came out of the preliminary review of the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting of June 8, 1981 was the 31 foot height, The Design Review Board will review in detail this concern when the proposal is presented to them to see if this should be at a reduced height, Height of the restaurant addition is 13 feet.. 8, Views: There is no designated view corridor that would be affected by either proposal. 9. Service and Delivery: No change. 10. Sun Shade: Not affected by the proposal, • 1 ZON r lG,, C0N &1,DE IONS Parking: The applicant will be required to pay the applicable parking fee for the restaurant. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Design Review Board will review the architectural plans for the restaurant and for the enclosed ool. ENERGY CONSERVA'T'ION In the design of the enclosed pool area, energy conservation measures should be introduced. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for the restaurant expansion and covering the swimming pool. The Department considers the request in conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 1. Subject to energy conservation measures being part of the design of the enclosed pool. 2. That the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed for the Vail Village area. MEMORANDUM July 6, 1981 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT:. Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior modification and alteration in Commercial Core II to add. approximately 3,950 square feet of office space, convert existing office use to commercial space in the Gondola Building, and a variance request to waive the required one -half of the parking within the Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates. PROPOSAL The proposal is for interior office expansion of the Lionshead Gondola Building to address office space needs of Vail Associates. Approximately 3,950 square feet of new office space will be added within the building. Also proposed is the conversion of office use at the northwest corner of the building to retail space. RACKnRmIND On August 25, 1980, Vail Associates received approval for the conversion of office space to commercial space in the Gondola Building along Vail Lionshead Mall. To date, there has not been any conversion of this office space, and there has been some expansion and new entrance of A Place on Earth store. 1. 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 proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial. Core II Zone District, 2. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Vail Lionshead Urban Design emphasized the need for first floor commercial uses. As noted above, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the conversion of office space within the Gondola Building to commercial type uses. • 40 Gondola Bldg Addition -2- 7/6/81 Proposed is the conversion of the northwest corner of the building from office to commercial uses. This would be in conformance with the plan. The added office space is entirely within the building and has no exterior effect. 3. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS a, Pedestrianization: One of the major problems noted during workshops on Vail Lionshead was that many store fronts were recessed back into the buildings. Conversion of mall level office space will further enhance the pedestrian experience throughout the Vail Lionshead mall, 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: No change. e, Street Edge: The street edge will become slightly more irregular which tends to enhance the pedestrian experience. f. Building Height:. No change. O g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal. h, Sun shade changes: No change. 4, ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS Lot area and site dimensions: No change Setbacks: No change Density Control: No GRFA being added Coverage: No change, Landscaping and site development:. No change Parking and Loading: The applicant is requesting a variance from the require- ment of one =half the required parking be located within the main building. Currently, Vail Associates has 18 spaces at the rear loading dock area of the Gondola building. In addition, 120 spaces are in the North day lot controlled exclusively for Vail Associates employees. There are also 200 spaces in the West day lot that are for skiers and employees. Gondola Bldg Addition -3- 7/6/81 VARIANCE 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: 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. 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: There is no opportunity within the structure to provide one -half of the parking within the Gondola building. Moreover, very few new employees will be generated by this remodel. This is basically a relocation of existing employees. There is a definite physical hardship in providing the parking within the building. The requirement to include one -half the parking within the main building is directed primarily at the design of new structures. 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. 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 variance is warranted 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 regu- lation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 1 1� U Gondola Bldg Addition -4- 7/6/81 $. ,DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Design Review Board will review the exterior design of the new store front when a tenant is selected. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the exterior alteration and modification request for the Gondola Building. The proposal is in conformance with the zoning for CCII and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. We also recommend approval of the variance request to waive the required one-half of the parking within the Gondola Building. We feel Vail Associates owns an abundance of parking spaces close to the Gondola Building and that these spaces will adequately meet any new demand the expansion may create. A condition of approval is that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed for the Vail Lionshead area. ■ • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: July 7, 1981 RE: Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Request for a Variance to Section 18.14.090 of the Vail Municipal Code. APPLICANT: CHUCK OGILBY AND STAN COLE DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants request a variance from the density control section of the Residential Cluster Zone District to allow the inclusion of flood plain area in calculating allowable density in determining the number of units.allowed on their site. The applicants wish to construct two additional units over the previous approval of 24 units by Eagle County. As you know, the density control section of the Residential Cluster Zone District' permits a density of six units per buildable acre, which, in this case, would mean that the 100 -year flood plain area would be subtracted because it is unbuildable. The parcel of land for which the variance is requested consists of 1.66 acres within the flood plain and a buildable area of 3.456 acres. Thus, under RC density, they would be allowed a total density of 20 units on the site-4 less than the Eagle County approval. As you'll recall, the applicants made a similar request for additional units at the May 26 PEC meeting, At that time, the applicants' reason for the request was that a survey error had occurred resulting in the applicants being allowed a density by Eagle County of 24 units rather than 28 units. The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that this was not an issue for the Town to resolve, but was rather an issue between the applicants and their surveyor and denied the request for the additional 2 units. The applicants now feel that they are being unfairly penalized by subtracting unbuildable site area from density calculations. They feel that unbuildable site area should be included in calculating density. They do, however, still contend that the actual hardship which exists is the survey error which was made. • n �J • Swim and Tennis Club -2- July 7, 1981 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section Code, the Department, of Community Development variance based upou the following factors: Consideration of Factors 18,62.060 of the Municipal re of the requested The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and, structures in the vicinity, The requested variance would not have any significant effect on existing or potential uses in the vicinity. The applicants have argued that because some neighboring projects have higher densities, they should be allowed more units. These projects were in fact zoned at a higher density (12 units to the acre rather than 5.5 to the acre) by Eagle County or were developed under previous County zoning. The degree to�which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and en- oreement,of a, specified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectiv"'°of _this title,, without grant o£ special privilue. The granting of the variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege. All sites in the Residential Cluster Zone District and higher density districts have densities calculated upon -buildabde site area and excepting the Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club parcel fromm the environmental hazard regulations would not be meeting the objectives of the Zoning Code. Subtracting unbuildable area from density calculations was designed to minimize development in environmentally hazardous area, and to reflect appropriate densities for the sites. By allowing this variance other properties in a similar circumstance could be in a similar position. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of RR2Hlation, transportation and traffic facilities, ublic f acilities and utilities, and. ublxc safety. There would be no impact upon the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • Swim and Tennis Club -3- July 7, 1981 • 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 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 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege to the applicant and would not be consistent with the purpose of the zoning code, Allowing the variance would potentially affect.the buildable area definition and density within all higher density zone districts within the Town. 0 MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: July 8, 1981 RE: A request under Ordinance 13, Series of 1981, for ,a re-design of The Valley, Phase V1, a county - approved plan now applying for major changes, BACKGROUND The Valley, Phase VI was approved by Eagle County in the fall of 1980, The project had received approximately a year of detailed review by Eagle County Planning Commission, County Commissioners, County planning staff, Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, and Town of Vail planning staff. The property is approved for 42 units and 77,150 square feet of GRFA. The parcel is a difficult one to develop, because the entire site contains land which is environmentally sensitive. North of the road is a dry, steep hillside, while south of the road is the beautiful, unique meadow backed to the south by a very densely vegetated pine forest on a steep hillside. Because of these constraints, the parcel has undergone vigorous reviews,land_it is difficult to achieve a consensus among commissioners, developers and planners as to the "best" way to place buildings on the sate. • The property has now changed hands, and the new owner wishes to revise the plans completely. I will briefly outline the major characteristics of the original approval and the new proposal and then discuss the primary differences in the two plans, ORIGINALLY APPROVED PLAN The County approved plan consisted of 3 clusters of units. One cluster on the steep hillside to the north of Lions Ridge Loop of 18 units and two clusters of 12 units each located on the meadow and in the lower slope of the trees. Proposed were 3 cul -de -sac roads, one cutting into the steep bank on the north side of the road which the County required detailed engineering plans for, and two in the meadow area accessing off of a common road intersecting with Lionsridge Loop, The amenities package included a swimming pool, a cabana near the pool and two tennis courts, located on the westerly cluster of units in the meadow. Also, a detailed landscaping plan was a part of the approval, as were the engineering drawings, This plan achieved the objectives of one road -cut for the meadow off of Lionsridge Loop and tight clusters of units to preserve meadow area. The plan did locate some units at the toe of the slope of the pine forest hillside, but preserved meadow as the benefit. The hillside units were a point of contention, as the 0 Town argued that units should not be located in 40% slope areas. The Eagle Valley Phase VI -2- July 8, 1981 Ii to 0 @ounty Planning Commission felt that PUD zoning allowed the flexibility to allow • the 40% slope regulation to be overlooked, • Thus, after many meetings and a year's time, the plan was approved by the County, and the Town felt that some of our requests were being met. The components of the approval were the sate plans, unit floor plans, landscaping plan and the engineering drawings. The development regulations (height, setbacks, etc.) for the project were dictated by the proposal itself. NEWLY PROPOSED PROJECT The new site plan retains basically the same road arrangement and unit layouts for the hillside units. There remains 18 units on the hillside with the road essentially the same design. The lower portion of the site is totally revised. The western -most cluster contains 5 units with the tennis courts and recreation facilities (pool, hot tub and recreation building) separating this cluster from the rest of the meadow units. There are 2 road cuts in this proposal off of Lionsridge Loop servicing the meadow units, One road accesses the 5 unit cluster on the west and the parking spaces for the two tennis courts and recreation facilities, The other road serves the other two areas of units in the meadow. The units on the lower part of the site are sited away from the pine forest tree line and the toe of that slope, They are placed almost entirely on the flat meadow, Besides the row of 5 units on the west, there is a grouping of 12 units to the east of the tennis courts and another group of 7 units to the extreme east of the site. PROJECT COMPARISON The recreation facilities in the new proposal are slightly more substantial with the inclusion of a recreation building and a hot tub (the two tennis courts are retained). However, approximately the same location has been chosen for the facilities. The new proposal does not include a road to the south of the tennis courts cut into the hillside, as did the County- approved plan. The layout of the units in the meadow is somewhat more spread out in the new Proposal as opposed to the tight clusters in the other plan. The new plan introduces another road cut to the meadow, as opposed to the one in the previous plan. The new proposal also includes a 3 cluster meadow plan as opposed to the 2 clusters in the County plan, As mentioned earlier, the hillside units remain basically the same in both plans. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the revised site plan for The Valley, Phase VI. Again, the site has so many environmentally sensitive areas that the placement of the units is a subjective judgement. This plan preserves most of the dense tree line and steep toe slope where the meadow meets the ridge. This puts more units into the meadow area, but the Staff has ,IF Valley Phase VI -3- July 8, 1981 worked with the applicant toward preserving as much meadow as is feasible within the confines of the new plan, A good job of meadow preservation and overall site sensitivity is reflected in this plan. The applicant is providing the same amount of parking spaces as the previous plan, and.this should be adequate (or more than enough) for the needs of the project. We do feel a very thorough Design Review Board review will be a necessity to insure the visual integrity of the project, specifically the deep cut to get the upper road in and.the screening of the asphalt in the meadow. One suggestion the staff would make is to bring a tighter cluster to the central meadow grouping of units on the western end of those units. There appears to be an excessive amount of asphalt at that end, and it should be tightened if vehicular maneuverability can be maintained. • Ll MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: June 17, 1981 RE: Collins /McCarren Duplex Color Change Issue,7Administrative Appeal This is an appeal of my decision to bring before the Design Review Board the issue of the color of the Collins /McCarren duplex located on lot 20, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. I'd like to gave you a brief history of the sequence of events involved along with enclosing the relevant documen- tation applicable. 1. On June 28, 1979, the Collins /McCarren duplex received final Design Review Board approval. During the DRB, the discussion on exhibit A took place concerning the color selection for the structure. Submitted for the materials list was exhibit B, showing Olympic Overcoat Chamois as the proposed and approved color (I'll show the color chip at the meeting). 2. On November 7, 1980, I sent the enclosed letter (exhibit C) to the Collins' asking them to either change to the approved color or request a color change of the DRB. 3. On December 17, 1980, the DRB denied the requested color .change by a 2 -1 vote (see exhibit D). The DRB asked that the color be restored to the original approval (Olympic Overcoat Chamois) by June 15, 1981. Mrs. Collins was at the meeting and was informed of her opportunity to appeal the DRB decision to the Town Council within 10 days. The DRB decision was not appealed. 4. On January. 7, 1981, 1 received a letter (exhibit E) from Craig Snowdon, project architect, protesting, among other things, that the issue should have never been seen by DRB. 5. On January 22, 1981, I wrote out a "fact sheet" (exhibit F) about the issue up to that date. 6. In order to wind up the issue and be fair to the Collins', I wrote the May 11,., 1981 letter to-them ( exhibit G) allowing them to appeal my decision to bring the issue to DRB to the PEC (even though the official appeal period for administrative actions was over). 7. On May 13, 1981 we received a letter from the Collins' (exhibit H) requesting the appeal be heard. Collins /McCarren Color -2- June 17, 1981 My reason for bringing this issue to the DRB was the significant difference between the existing color of the house and the approved color (even taking into consideration the intention to add a "touch.of pink "). I believe I can demonstrate at the meeting this difference, Moreover, the issue of strictly enforcing DRB approvals, entrusted to our department, plays a factor in my decision to have a DRB review of the issue. The PEG should not focus on the merits of the color- -that has been decided by DRB. The issue is my decision that a color change from the approved color, officially on record on the materials list; had occurred. oaLe W OF MATERIALS OF PROJECT I" W iL OVERCOATm ; ;H* %L DESCRIPTION`—V�_LOT BLO:;K ']RIPTION OF PROJECT / ✓1 _ I l t !! f 41 6 FILING The following information is required for submittal by the Applicant to the Design Review Board before a final approval can be given. A.) BUILDING MATERIALS: Roof Siding Other Wall. Materials Fascia Soffits Windows Window Trim Doors Door.Trim Hand or Deck Rails Flues Flashings Chimneys Ty2e of Material Color nl� - Itz OuAloat Trash Enclosures MW Greenhouses _11/ Others �AW a L E.) PLANT MATERIALS (Vegetative, Landscaping Materials including Trees, Shrubs, and Ground Cover) 7ro Botani. cal Name Common. Name Quantity Size 64. -A b, IV Page 2 Plant Materials Continued Botanical Name Common Name Quantity Size C.) OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (Retaining Walls, Fences, Swimming Pools, etc.) (Please Specify) l I A'-�;LA I) r IA.(41` A KI " AV hill _4 , kV[4VtvA /i i, I' 1 4. E lm.-Fm of t"riii V" box 100 vaii, coforado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 J. J. Collins 781 Potato Patch Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Collins, 4'T'41/A97- r, 2 3�� department of community development November 7, 1980 Because of the "discussion" which has come to my attention con- cerning the color of your new duplex on lot 20 of the Potato Patch Subdivision, .I looked up the file which includes the materials and colors approved for the structure by the Design Review Board. The color approved is Olympic Overcoat Chamois, and a sample is in the file. The chamois color does not come close at all to the existing color. . Changing a DRB approved color undermines the purpose behind such a board. We must enforce their decisions. You may either restore the house to the approved color or apply to the Design Review Board for a color change. If you choose to apply for a color change, I need to hear from you soon, because I won't allow the existing color to remain. The latest Design, Review Board meeting for which I will allow you to appear is December 3, 1980. To get on that agenda, I need your application by Nov- ember 24. If you contact me by Tuesday morning, November 11, I can get you on the November 19th Design Review Board meeting. If you choose not to apply for the change, you have 45 days from the date of this letter to come into compliance. If you do apply for a change through the Design Review Board and that Board denies the change, you have 30 days from the date of the Design Review decision to come into compliance. This is fair in that the existing color is a violation. I would appreciate your voluntary compliance and will be more than glad to work with you. Sin erely, A �_"_ �z ,. A. PETER FATTEN R. /br cc Craig Snowdon project Name: Project Description. Owner Address and Phone: Architect Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Y Block Zone: Zoning Approved: Project Application Filing Date Design Review Board Motion by: Date /2 fz Seconded by: APPROVAL (::RD:ISAP:PR03VAL -7 Summary: Date: Zoning Administrator 1 Chief Building Official Date: Snowdon and Hopkins a Architects is 201 Gore Creek Drive 303 476 -2201 P. O. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado 81657 January 6, 1980 Peter Patten Town of Vail Zon?.ng Administrator P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter: I am writing this letter in response to the recent decision by the Town of Vail Design Review Board on the Collins residence. Their decision to require the owners to change colors, I think is an unjustified hardship. I did not argue a strong case for the Collins (I was the architect on the project) for fear of prejudicing the presentation; however, I feel the result was a grave injustice to the Collins. There are several items I think should be given serious consideration. First, the color application was not a specified color as much as an indication nf_ in i&nt using a -case cod or of "clzamios" by Olympic as ref - erence : -rThe recorded tape of the meeting in cca^tes' CITE ln�en� t to match the rock — f ormations in the general area. The DRB at that time did not require the applicant (either verbally or by written request) to return with a color verification or approval. I feel the Collins have stayed with that intent. The second item to consider is that this color application is being r� eviewed by— a- boar -d_q_ rised of members who were _n_ot inv_ol e-din the original decision. I feel this inconsistancy,after the fact, places a hardship on die cpplican .� I feel the Collins have complied with their original intent, and the Board's decision to require the change is unwarranted: Similar colors have been ap rod ved by the Board in certainly more obvious locations than the Collins, so it's inappropriate to say it's an unsuitable color. I feel this item should not have really been reviewed based on the above Facts. Could you please look into the matter r and let me know if any action should be taken. The Collins have not appealed the decision to the Town Council because they felt it is a decision that should be taken care of at this level, and I agree with them. Anything you can do would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Crai Snowdon Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects cc: Mr. & Mrs. Collins, Kris Siverston, Lon MesKimen, �.;ancy Looms, Roger Tilkemeier, Dick Ryan C ) (C f F J.J. COLLINS COLOR CHANGE ISSUE: . FACTS as seen by Peter Patten 1/22/81 1. At the original DRB presentation on June 21, 1979, the color presented by Craig Snowdon was "a warm beige to pick out the rock formations high on the bluffs" (behind the house). The exact color chosen was Olympic Overcoat Chamois, and it was described by Craig as a "beige with a touch of pink in it " in order to "pick up some of the red" (in the rocks). 2. The materials list calls out "Olympic Overcoat Chamois" as the color chosen for the stucco. The materials list includes a color sample of Olympic Overcoat Chamois which is clearly a beige color without any pink overtones. 3. The stucco sample with the existing color is a subdued pink, not a beige "with a touch of pink ". The differences in the color sample of Olympic Overcoat Chamois and the stucco sample are significant. 4. Mrs. Collins appeared before the Design Review Board on December 17, 1980 at the request of Peter Patten via a letter dated November 7, 1980. The reason for the request to appear before was the significant difference between the color sample in the file and .the existing color. The DRB denied the color change request 2 -1 with Craig Snowdon abstain- ing. It was agreed that if the tape of the June 21, 1979 meeting clearly indicated the intention to use a pink color, that the Board had no problem with the use of that tape in the case of an appeal to the Town Council, The Board said the color must be changed by June 15, 1981 if no appeal was filed, or if their decision was upheld by the Council. 5. Craig Snowdon wrote a latter to Peter Patten dated January 6, 1980 stating that he felt the decision by the DRB "is an unjustified hardship " for the following reasons: a. "the color application :vas not a specified color as much as an indication of intent using a base color of ' "chamois"` by Olympic as reference." b. The application (color change) was reviewed "by a board comprised of members who were not involved in the original decision " which "places a hardship on the applicant" c, "Similar colors have been approved by the Board "... Craig's conclusion is that "this item should not have really be reviewed...." 7-1 towl box 100 vaii, coiorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 J.J.Collins aH Potato Patch Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear J.J., it rain 75 south honlage r,ad • vad, coioraoo 81657 303,476.7000, eat 237 Peter Patten Senior Planner Department of Community Development department of community development May 11, 1981 Re: Block 1, Lot Potato Patch This letter is to finalize the Staff's and Design Review Board's position on the color of your house. Itm enclosing a "statement of facts" sheet that I put together last January. Because of Craig's letter, I have reviewed everything that has happened with this case. I regret to say (from your point of view) that after this review, I'm standing behind my decision to call the issue before the DRB. I think the difference between the approved color (even taking into consideration that it was a base color to contain a "touch of pink ") and the existing color warranted the DRB review. Thus, I stand behind and must enforce the Design Review Board's decision to have the house be painted to the originally approved color by June 15, 1981. In order to be totally fair in this matter, I will allow you to appeal my decision to bring the issue to DRB, if you so wish. This action would be classified as an appeal of administrative action under Section 18.66.030 of the Zoning Code. This would mean that the Planning and Environmental Commission would hear the issue of whether or not my decision to have the DRB review the issue was justified. Since you chose not to appeal the DRB decision, that must stand. However, I would consider moving the date back if you think the June 1S date is a hardship. Please contact me on your choice of action and let me know if I can be of help in any way to resolve the problem equitably. Sincere I I A. PETER PATTEN, JR. Senior Planner APP:bpr I Encl. cc Craig Snowdon 1A. " fjT JV 1>21 "/Le:�e-e L 4-L.//. 17/ Y-/ C- Cl el— l4 --x- /L 'T PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 27, 1981 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of July 13, 1981, 2. Request for amendment in accordance with Sections 18.66,110 through 18.66.160 to the zoning ordinance from Residential Cluster to Residential Primary /Secondary in order to build a residential unit together with a caretaker's unit. Applicant: Doyle Hopkins. 3. Request for a density variance in gross residential..floor area in:order.to build a duplex on lot 12, Block A7, Casolar Vail 11 at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants: McDonald, Catoe, Etc, Penion retirement Trust. 4. A request for a minor subdivision approval under Town of Vail Subdivision regulations on lots 1,2,4, and S,. Lionsridge #2, in the Ridge at Vail, the Valley, Phase IV. The application is requested to revise the siting of 2 duplex units and to allow a more flexible siting for a single family unit. Applicant: The Valley Associates. 5. Application for a conditonal use permit for a water collection system and pump station in and adjacent to Gore Creek, immediately below the confluence of Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek, in order to operate snow making machinery. Applicants: Vail Associates, Inc. 6. Application for an exterior alteration or modification in Commercial Core II for the Concert Hall Plaza Building to construct an entrance to the Studio from the eastern side and to revise the steps to the Concert Hall Plaza. Application is made in accordance with Section 18.24.065 of the Vail Municipal Code. The location is on Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Vail Underground, Inc. Published in the Vail Trail July 24, 1981. PLANNING AND ENVIROMENTAL COMMISSION July 27, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT Gaynor Miller Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Scott Edwards Jim Morgan Roger Tilkemeier 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of July 13, 1981. STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Dr. Steinberg Dan Corcoran moved and Duane Piper seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 4-,0, unanimous. 2. Request for amendment in accordance with Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.160 of the zoning ordinance to rezone lot G -1, Lionsridge Filing No. 2, from Residential Cluster to Primary /Secondary for Doyle Hopkins, Peter Patten explained the memo and showed where the project was in relation to Cli£fside and Briar Patch. Dick Ryan stated that the staff felt the change in zoning would improve the site plan and eliminate an horrendous road. Discussion followed as to whether or not to allow PIS GRFA or retain the RC GRFA, It was also pointed out that at the time of annexation, the area was arbitrarily RC with the knowledge that some people would want to change later, and that some lots would be penalized. Peter felt that allowing-more flexibility was a benefit without needing to grant additional GRFA also. Ed Drager, representing the owner, stated that they agreed with conditions 1 and 2, but not with 3 (restricting the allowable GRFA to RC). He felt that surrounding properties had been "given" additional GRFA, and added that there would be higher density all around this lot. He also felt that the owner would be making the lot look better by changing zones. Gerry White reminded the applicant that he wanted to develop a slope over 400, and that if given the privilege to do this, he should be content with a lower GRFA. Duane asked if they could have asked for a variance to build on the steep slope. He felt that RC addressed the slope problem, and that the site was very steep. Ed felt that the plan as it was being presented was sensitive to the site. Scott stated that RC had been planned as arbitrary, with the thought to looking at each site separately as it came in. He felt that PIS was a better zone for the property than RC. Dick reminded them that placement was important, and that under RC they could build a road. The staff felt it was important not to have that road. Dan added that if they were forced to build near the top of the site it would have a negative impact upon the neighboring units. Debate concerning.,whether or not this was spot zoning, Dick reminded them that at the time of annexation, they had decided that this area needed further study. PEC -2- 7/27/81 . Bill Post representing the developers of The Ridge (Valley Associates) requested of the commission that if they allow a road near the top of the lot, that it be required (as well as the house) to be below the ridge line. He stated that all the buildings in The Ridge were required to be within envelopes with height re- strictions so as not to interfere with the ridge line. Peter felt that it appeared that the driveway could be built so that it was virtually invisible from the Ridge units, -and that that was the reason the staff was enthusiastic about the site near the top, Scott moved to recommend to the Town Council that they grant the request to change the zoning from RC to P/S with the first two conditions as written in the memo, and with a change in the third condition to read:3) that they cooperate with the staff in developing the site so the road or any structure will fall below the ridge line. Peter pointed out that the staff doesn't make final decisions on siting, but that the DRB has that jurisdiction. Scott then changed the third condition to read: 3) that the applicant make a concerted effort to place the road and structure below the ridge line. Gaynor seconded the motion, and after discussion the vote was 2 for (Gaynor and Scott), 3 against (Duane, Roger and Gerry) with Dan and Jim abstaining. Roger then moved then moved that the recommendation to the Council be for approval with the three conditions as stated in the staff memo. Duane seconded. . Discussion followed as to whether or not to restrict the secondary unit to rental to an employee of,Gore Valley. Ed stated.that.they would then withdraw their request. Gerry reiterated his concern about building on a 40% slope. Dan felt that the Town was gaining because of the fact that there would be employee housing. Gaynor felt that the site with P/S zoning was a better one. The vote was 2 for (Roger and Duane) and 3 against (Gaynor, Scott and Gerry), with Dan and Jim abstaining, Concern about reflecting the feelings of all the members to the Council was felt. Gerry stated that he felt no change in zoning was needed, but that a variance could be applied for. Jim stated that he didn't see how the commissioners could have stated that they would consider lots in this area at a later date, and then now state that it shouldn't be reconsidered. Gerry felt that to isolate a lot and rezone didn't make sense.. Dick Ryan reminded the commissioners that that there were special circumstances and that it was stated that they would . go back and reconsider. Peter said that the staff dial not consider this spot zoning. harry Eskwith felt that this would not be considered spot zoning. Thus, no recommendation for either approval or denial was forwarded to Town Council. 3. Request for a density variance in gross residential floor area in order to build a duplex on lot 12, Block A7, Casolar Vail 11 at 1101 Vail View Drive. Applicants: McDonald, Catoe, etc, Pension Retirement Trust. Peter Patten stated that the staff had done a lot of research on this property dating back to August 1978. Dick Ryan.stat.bd that the staff felt the circumstances were different in that Deane Knox has knowledge of the GRFA, and McDonald did not. fie thought he could have 1690 sq ft on each side. George Straw, representing McDonald, didn't want to reiterate what he had mentioned at the last meeting, PEC -3- 7/27/81 Dan felt that the Town of Vail has not been without fault, and that there was lots of confusion on both sides. He thought that McDonald knew before he ever built on lots 13 and 15. He added that it was an unfartunate.situation and agreed with the Town of Vail staff that it needed to be put to rest. He felt that it wasn't just the Town's.fault. Gerry White agreed that enough mistakes has been made. Martin Rubenstein, a resident of Casolar asked for information on the proposed structure, and Peter pointed out that all the envelopes had been agreed upon by the Casolar Home Owners Association, and if changes are made, they must be approved by the Association. Martin was concerned about height. Dick suggested that he leave his name and phone with the secretary and he would be notified as to when the project came before DRB. Martin stated that as far as the homeowner meetings were concerned, he was notified after the last meeting. Duane moved and Dan seconded to grant approval to the request for a GRFA variance in accord with the staff memo. The vote was 6--0 in favor with Scott abstaining. 4. A request for a minor subdivision approval under Town of Vail Subdivision regulations on lots 1, 2, 4, and 5, hionsridge #2, in the Ridge at Vail, the Valley, Phase IV. The applicant is requesting to revise the siting of 2 duplex units and to allow a more flexible siting for a single family unit. Applicant: The Valley Associates. Peter showed 4 sets of plats and explained the memo, adding that the requests did not affect GRFA, as the project is allotted a total of 24,800 sq ft, and the developer is allowed to allocate that as they wish. Craig Snowdon showed the plans. Peter stated that the staff felt that abandoning the lot line betwee lots 2 & 3 would improve the siting of the units and that the relocation of the lot.line between lots 4 and 5 would clean up those lot lines. Gaynor moved and Roger seconded to approve the request as. per staff memo. The vote was 570 in favor with Dan and Jim M. abstaining. S. A lication for a conditional use permit for a water collection system and pump station in and adjacent to Gore Creek, immediately below the confluence of Red.Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek. Applicants: Vail Associates, Inc. Dick Ryan reviewed the memo. Gerry was concerned with the minimum stream flow, and Dick stated that there was a minimum stream flow established for Gore Creek. Jim Clark representing VA said that they had presented the required environmental assessment, with a discussion on minimum stream flow. He added that much water would be put back into the stream. Jim C. stated that he believed that the maximum amount VA will take from the stream will be 1-1/2 million gallons per day total for the first phase, and when the second phase is completed, the maximum total will be 2 million. Gerry felt that the minimum flow hadn't been addressed. Jim said that it had been identified in their report as 7 -1/2 cfs at the confluence of the two creeks. Discdssion followed concerning the use of the effluent, and the scheduling with respect to muddying the stream. Jim said that the stream would be diverted to the north side, and that they would coordinate their efforts om the bike;.path with Andy Norris with respect to paving and access. Duane asked if VA would repair the bike path if there were any destruction, and Jim Clark assured him they would. • M PEC -4- 7/27/81 Scott moved and Gaynor seconded to approve the conditional use permit with the first two conditions listed and a third that says: 3. Applicant is responsible for repairing any damage to the bike path, and a,4th: 4. A statement regarding a maximim noise level be given. The vote was 4 -0 with Roger, Dan and Jim abstaining, 6. Application for an exterior alteration or modification in Commercial Core 11 fbr the Concert Hall Plaza Building to construct an entrance to the Studio from the eastern side and to revise the steps to the Concert Hail Plaza. Application is made in accordance with Section 18.24.065 of the Vail Municipal Code. The location is on Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Vail Underground Inc. Peter Patten presented the memo, and Bill Pierce described the retail spaces and the new entrance on the east side. Jeff Selby said he had talked with Montaneros and that it was highly improbable that the entrance planned on the east will be affected. He went on to discuss how much of the new space should be counted toward required parking spaces. He went on.to explain the agreement with VA on the use of the North day parking lot. Gerry felt that it was important to have a letter from VA substantiating they. parking agreement, because VA's expansion of the Gondola Building was also based on the parking available at the North day lot. Jim Morgan pointed out that other buildings in Lionshead also used the North day lot., but also paid a parking fee. Much disagreement between Selby and the Staff ensued regarding the correct additional commercial square footage • being added to compute parking spaces required. Gerry felt that the commission would accept the staff's recommendation,. (Peter said that they would refigure the parking spaces.) Dan moved Roger seconded to approve the recommendation to the Council for the alteration with the two conditions of the staff. After more discussion concerning the amount of space being counted for additional commercial area, Dan moved to add an amendment to the recommendation to add a definition of what is going to be counted be reviewed by the planning staff and the Town attorney. Roger seconded this motion, and the vote was 6 -0 in favor, (Duane had left.) Roger moved and Dan seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. • A • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: 7/21/81 RE: Request for an exterior modification and alteration in Commercial Core II to construct an entrance to the lower 2 levels of the Concert Hall Plaza Building from the eastern side and to add 2 levels of retail space in the interior of the building on Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Vaal Underground THE REQUEST In order to aid the financially troubled Studio, the owners are proposing to add over 7,000 square feet of retail space within the present building and to construct a new entrance on the eastern side into the proposed retail mall. The new underground mall would exist on 2 levels, mostly within the confines of a large, high- ceilinged room used currently for storage, originally proposed and approved in 1977 for a recording studio, Another area along the westerly wall of the Studio will be converted to retail, slightly reducing the size and seating capacity of what was formerly The Studio, now The Opera House. As you will recall, the PEC reviewed the new entrance proposal in conjuction with the possible relocation of the stairway from the Landmark Mall into the Concert Hall Plaza at its meeting on June 8, 1981. To this date, no confirmation of approval has been obtained from the Montaneros Condominium Association as to the placement of the stairs over their existing concrete deck. Thus, the applicants from Vail Underground, Inc. wish to proceed on the basis that the stairs will remain in their current location. BACKCRnuND The Concert Hall Plaza Building and Studio -in- the - Rockies were approved in the spring of 1977 with numerous variances and conditional use permits granted at that time.. A 17 space parking variance was granted for the retail shops on the top level, while a 37 space joint -use parking agreement between Studio -in- the- Rockes and Vail Associates was also granted, The spaces, it was agreed, were to be provided by V..A.'s North Day Skier parking lot, directly north of the Concert Hall Plaza, from 6 p.m, until midnight. However, no official document has been presented or located formalizing this arrangment. Moreov;, °r, in September of 1977, the matter of what would happen if the Studio proved to be financially unfeasible was raised. Attached is a letter from. Diana Toughill to Jeff Selby addressing that question and basically saying that the conversion of use would require a Council review. Thus., this proposal will take a Council approval before it cari commence. Concert Hall Plaza -2- 7/21/81 1. Compliance with Purpose Section- 18.26.010 The Commercial Core II Distract is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations are 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 proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the CCII .Zone District. Addition of retail space in this area of Lionshead can only improve pedestrian flows throughout the entire mall area. 2. _Guide Plan Urban Design ^ nce with Item 33 of the Vail Lionshead U.D.G.P, states that on the eastern side of the Concert Hall Plaza Building there should be: "Rooftop planting terraces stepping down from Concert Hall terrace to soften the wall abutment, Brame stair- way and provide privacy screen for residential units." Item 33 is addressing the Rat 'n Willie's Proposal we saw on June 8, 1981 where the stairs were relocated to the south with extensive stonework and 40 planting terraces. Again, this proposal is at a standstill at-this time and appears doubtful due to the negativism being expressed by the Montaneros management at this point. Thus, the proposal in front of you today is not directly addressed in the Vail Lionshead UDGP because it involves leaving the stairs as they are now. 3, Urban Design Considerations a. Pedestrianization - This should be greatly improved by not only drawing more pedestrian traffic to this end of the Lionshead Mall, but offering another route through the Concert Hall Plaza Building to the new Lionshead West Entry. b. Vehicle Penetration - This will not be affected. Service and delivery remain on the west side of the building. c. Streetscape Framework- Streetscape framework should be improved by the addition of another—entryway into the building and by making a more interesting experience for the pedestrian. d. Street Enclosure - no change e, Street Edge - no change 0 f. Building Height - no change Concert Hall Plaza -3- 7/21/81 g. Views - No views are impacted h. SunrShade considerations - No change 4. Zoning Code Considerations a. Lot area and site dimensions - no change b. Setbacks - no change c. Density Control - No GRFA being added d. Coverage - no change e. Landscaping and site development - A small landscaped area of 4 aspen trees will be removed, but the proposal includes an additional landscaped area north of the new east entrance. f. Parking and loading - The additional 7,513 sq ft of retail area requires 25 additional spaces. A slight reduction in seating capacity of what is now the Opera House would reduce the original requirement of 37 spaces for the Studio- in- the-Rockies, No exact figure at this point is known as to the number of seats being eliminated. It would be the Staff's estimate at this point that an additional 18 to 22 spaces will be required by this proposal. No adequate method to satisfy this requirement has _been_proedat this time. We feel this needs to be cleared up before the project can begin. The parking must either be provided or the applicable parking fee must be paid. Also, documentation of the joint - use parking agreement must be furnished or the parking gee would be assessed for the entire re uirement of both the retail and the Opera ,House. 5. Design Considerations The Design Review Board will review the design of the new eastern entrance for conformance with the architectural style of the existing building and in accordance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vaal Lionshead. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development is in basic support of this project. The additional retail mall is a boost to the west end of Lionshead and can serve to prolong the life of the Opera House - -an important facility to have in the Town as far as cultural opportunities for residents and tourists, We recommend approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed for the Vail Lionshead area. 2. The applicant and staff agree to a parking solution by: a, agreeing on the number of spaces required b, either paying the entire parking fee if the spaces are not provided, or providing the spaces and showing formal documentation of the provision of those spaces for the uses proposed. .0 MEMORANDUM TO Planning and Environmental Commission FROM_ Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: July 27, 1981 RE: McDonald variance request for site 12, lot A -7, Block A, Casolar Vail. II. The Staff has completed a considerable amount of research on this matter since the last PEC meeting at which the request for a GRFA variance of 2864 square feet was tabled, There are 516 square feet of GRFA left on lot A-7 at this time and the request is for 2 units of 1690 sq ft each, totaling 3380 sq ft, Thus., 3380 minus 516 equals a GRFA variance of 2864 sq ft. The 3380 sq ft per duplex is a reflection of the covenants of the property and is the maximum allowed. The following represents a summary of some of these findings 1. Although at the PEC meeting of August 22, 1978 everyone agreed the building envelopes were "sites" only and not legal lots, the plat which was signed by the PEC chairman stated that these envelopes were lots. 2. The Town considered all along in this matter that Deane Knox was the legal representative and spokesman for all requests (including those for site . 12) concerning the Casolar property. It is now clear that Mr. Knox was not the legal -representative speaking for 12 he site requests, as was not the property owner of that site. However, it is obvious that Mr. McDonald was aware that Mr. Knox was asking for a GRFA variance on site 12 in the original application in the fall of 1980. 3, Mr. McDonald appears to be an innocent third party victim of extensive mishandlings of the project on the part of Mr. Knox. 4, There never was a clear understanding on the part of the staff as to the . allocation of GRFA — aggregate or per unit. At the August 22, 1978 PEC meeting, Mr. Knox estimated (because the slope analysis was not done) the project would be 11 units of 1400 square feet GRFA each. Dater, the 1400 sq ft was referred to several times (evidently taken as the estimated per unit figure), including once by a Town of Vail Staff member. The 1400 sq ft figure never reappeared again, either in project covenants or by the staff, until the GRFA problem arose, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code the Department of Community__Deveiopment 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 McDonald -2- 7/27/81 0 - and structures in the vicinity: The site was to have a duplex on it all along, as platted, No negative effects are foreseen on surrounding structures as they all expected to have a duplex there from the start. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter retation and en- forcement of-a, Specified regulation is necessary to achieve core at ibilAt y and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of s ecial privilege, We feel that, due to our lastest research, that this is a very unusual case and that Mr, McDonald did not inflict this hardship upon himself. 'There were inconsistent actions taken on the part of the staff concerning the project as well, We do not think that this would be a precedent - setting granting because of the totally unique conditions surrounding this project. The effect ofi_ the tion,, trans artati and public safety, ted variance on light and air, distribution of popul traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities There are no effects on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems ap lieable to the • ro osed variance. — FINDINGS: The Plann befo --__e gr and Environmental, commission _shall make the follow-in a variance: f in a- The the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privile e inconsistent with the limitations on other g district. properties classified in the same 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 th-e'. following reason. 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. McDonald -3- 7/27/81 • RECONNENDATION: The Staff feels that, for the reasons stated throughout this memo, that this GRFA variance whould be granted. We feel it is an unfortunate situation that we're in this position at this time, but don't feel that Mr. McDonald is basically at fault. We feel that due to the obvious'�xceptions or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone" provision that we can recommend approval, providing that the following condition be met: 1. That the 2864 square feet plus 516 square feet, totalling 3380 square feet must be applied only to site 12, lot A -7, Casolar Vail II. • LJ f • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: July 21, 1981 RE: Minor Subdivision Request for Phase IV of The Valley, called The Ridge at Vail, to abandon one lotline and relocate another lot line. On February 11, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. The approval was for 6 townhomes, 3 duplex lots and one single family lot. The Ridge contains 5 lots. Lot 5 is the largest and contains 3 existing town - homes with 3 more under construction, all located near the top of the ridge. Lot 4 is on the end of the cul= de-sac and is approved for a single family home and contains a building envelope where the house is to be located. Lots 1 through 3 are duplex lots originally to be sold to individual owners, now the developer wishes to construct on these lots himself. The request is to abandon the common lot line between duplex lots 2 and 3 to allow 2 duplexes to be built on the more level portion of this area. Lot 3 as currently . platted forces a duplex to be built on a steep, densely wooded hillside, according to the existing building envelope and would produce a negative impact from a visual standpoint. The applicant proposes to relocate that duplex to the north on the flatter, more buildable portion of lot 2 and 3 as they currently exist. This would greatly improve the siting of that duplex and lessen the visual impact of the project by maintaining a greater amount of the wooded hillside to remain in its natural state. The second part of the request is to create a new lot line between lots 4 and S. Currently, lot 5 has an "arm" which extends in a southwesterly direction far beyond the area where the b townhomes will be located. For maintenance purposes and to make lot 4 a more viable and logical lot, they wish to eliminate the long "arm" so that lot 4 contains the whole southern portion of The Ridge, A condition of approval on this would be that the current building envelope remain so-that, the house could not be relocated with this request. These requests do not affect GRFA,.as. the project is allotted a total of 24,800 square feet, and the developer is allowed to allocate that as they wish. The following statistics explain the lot changes. �1 u 10 The Ridge -2- 7/21/81 Current Proposed Area in Area in # of Lot Acres sq ft Units 1 .300 13,068 2 2 .474 20,647 2 3 ,356 15,507 2 4 .331 14,418 1 5 1.296 56,453 6 Proposed RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the minor subdivision request for The Ridge at Vaal. We feel the abandonment of the lot line between lots 2 and 3 will improve the siting of these units and will aid in reducing the visual impact of the project. The relocation of the lot line between lots 4 and 5 will clean up those lot lines and make a more sensible arrangment for the project. The following conditions run with the approval: 1. That the structure to be built on lot 4 remains within the designated building envelope as per Eagle County approval of February 11, 1980. 2. That the building envelope on lot 3 as it appears on the preliminary plan approved by the County be abandoned, Area in Area in # of Lot Acres sq ft Units 1 .300 13,068 2 2/3 .830 36,154 4 4 .627 27,311 1 5 l.0 43,560 6 RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the minor subdivision request for The Ridge at Vaal. We feel the abandonment of the lot line between lots 2 and 3 will improve the siting of these units and will aid in reducing the visual impact of the project. The relocation of the lot line between lots 4 and 5 will clean up those lot lines and make a more sensible arrangment for the project. The following conditions run with the approval: 1. That the structure to be built on lot 4 remains within the designated building envelope as per Eagle County approval of February 11, 1980. 2. That the building envelope on lot 3 as it appears on the preliminary plan approved by the County be abandoned, TO: Town Council MEMORANDUM F-1 FROM: Department of Community DevelopmentyPeter Patten DATE: August 13, 1981 SUBJECT: Review of Concert Hall Plaza Building's Change of Use Proposal The Concert Hall Plaza Building and Studio --in. -the- Rockies were approved in the spring of 1977 with numerous variances and conditional use permits granted at that time. A 17 space parking variance was granted for the retail space on the top level while a 37 space joint -use parking arrangement was approved by Council, The spaces were located in the nearby North day -skier lot owned by Vail Associates. The agreement was in the form of a letter from Vail Associates stating that they approved of public use of their lot during the hours of 6 p.m. to midnight. On August 30, 1977 at the Council work session, the topic of what would happen if the Studio- in-- the�Rockies did not survive financially was discussed. It was determined that other permitted and conditional uses for CCII would be appropriate for the space, but that Council would have to review the change of use.' This review will be conducted at your work session on August 18, 1981, . as well as the resolving of the parking issue (as discussed below). The proposal is to add 4570 square feet of net leasable retail space in the high- ceilinged room originally planned for a recording studio, Currently, this is an empty room and will house a new retail mall on two levels. A new entrance from the east will be constructed off of the existing stairs leading up to the Concert Hall Plaza. Efforts to remodel these steps have been stopped by Montaneros Condominium Association, as they are unwilling to allow the use of their concrete deck for this purpose. The remodel requires 15 parking spaces for the retail addition. The Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved this remodel with the conditions that the applicant participate in the Vail Lionshead Improvement District and that the parking issue be resolved. This involved agreeing on number of spaces required and how they were to be provided. It's now been agreed that 15 spaces are required and that no other solution exists for the applicant than to pay the parking fee: $3,000 per space required _ $45,000. Thus, what you'll be reviewing is the change of uses involved and finalizing the parking arrangement. The Staff has recommended approval for this project. • MEMORANDUM TO:. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 24, 1981 RE: Public hearing and consideration for a conditional use permit for a water.collection gallery and pump station in and adjacent to Gore Creek, immediately below the confluence of Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek. Applicants: Vail Associates,.Inc. REQUEST: Vail associates is requesting permission to construct an intake and pump system so that water can be removed from Gore Creek.and used for snowmaking on Vail Mountain. BACKGROUND: Town Council has approved an ordinance at first reading on July 21, 1981 for the issuance of up to 2.6 million dollars for sports facilities revenue bonds. The money from these bonds would be used to construct snow making equipment on Vail Mountain. Previously, the Town Council passed Resolution 6 of the series of 1981 supporting the issuance of sports facilities bonds. . CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town: The Town of Vail Council has supported the expansion of snow making equipment on Vail Mountain. Use of effluent for snow making is considered a positive action. Using treated water increases the cost of operations for the district and can reduce the amount of water available for community use. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution o£ o ulation, trans - ortat-ion facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities ,,and- others ubl-ic facitlities and ublic facilities.needs, By not using treated water for snow making, the water treatment plant will not be used as extensively. Effect upon traffic with articular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safetL and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneauverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 0 No effect. C: • Water Collection -2- 7/24/81 Effect u on the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,- incl -ud-ing\ the >scale, and -bulky -of\ the -proposed user in relation to surround4mg, uses. The proposed pump house would be at the same level as the new bike path and have minimal impact. The pump house would be along the south bank of Gore Creek. There would be no change to the flood plain because of the pump house. Concerns of the Staff are during the construction and installation of the collection system and pump house. First, it is a difficult area to get construction equipment and materials to the site, Second, there is very little room on the south bank to do construction. Third, it must be shown that heavy equipment can be brought down the future bike path over the sewer main. Fourth, coordination with Mansfield Village is critical, as that part of the bike path will be paved this fall. Fifth, for construction equipment to come to the site from the west, permission from private property owners will be needed. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the applicant submit for approval to the Community Development Department a plan explaining how they are going to get heavy equipment and construction material to the site. 2. That the applicant submit mitigation measures to insure that there is a minimum amount of disruption to Gore Creek. • WATER COLLECTION GALLERY VAIL MOUNTAIN SNOWMAKING . PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Vail Mountain Snowmaking water source is from the tertiary treated effluent from the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation Plant. Vail Associates, Inc. is finalizing engineering fdr a collection gallery and pump station in and adjacent to Gore Creek, immediately below the confluence of Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek. This proposed location, downstream from the sanitation plant on the south bank of Gore Creek, allows for the diluting and cooling of the plant product. The collection gallery is composed of a perforated steel pipe buried in rock rip rap in the Creek bed. This pipe projects into the south bank into a 12 foot by 12 foot concrete buried pump station. This vault or station pumps the cooled and diluted tertiary treated effluent through a piping system in existing easements up the hill to the Snowmaking Reservoir and Control House. The impact on the streambed will be at a minimum as construction will occur at the end of the summer after the run -off period. The impact on adjoining properties will be minimal because of the geographical location of the collection -pump station. Noise from the pump station will be virtually non - existant as the two pumps are housed inside a concrete vault. The location of the nearest building is on the opposite side of Red Sandstone Creek and Gore Creek over a high bank at a distance greater than 200 feet. That building is the CHEVRON Service Station. The other adjoining property is the office building of the Glen Lyon Subdivision - Montane Corporation. It is located .again, on the north side of the creek at a distance greater than 300 feet over a high bank and protected from view by many large evergreen trees. South of the collection gallery exists steep mountain - side Town of Vail property. The constructed system will be either buried in the creek, the creek bank, or be at or near grade level of the adjoining Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation Sewer Easement. Presently, there is a dirt path existing over that easement to become a bicycle path. Provisions will be made to assure the right of way width and repair of any damage to paved surface for the forthcoming bike path. The present landscape form of large creekside boulders will remain intact. No obvious vegetative matter will be disturbed. JPC 6 -26 -81 • Please see attached plans. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 24, 1981 RE: Jim Mc Donald Variance Request The Staff is meeting on Monday morning to discuss this matter with the applicant. We will have a short memo to present after this meeting to the Planning Commission, n 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 14, 1981 1:30 Study Session to review revisions to previously approved plans for Red Lion located at 304 Bridge Street. Review of a new zone district for the area west of Vail Lionshead, by the V.A. shop area, Texaco, Voliter Nursery, Chevron, the old Town shops and the West day parking lot. 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of the minutes of the November 23, 1981 meeting. 2. Request for a minor subdivision of lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: CDS Enterprises, Inc. 3. Request for a rezoning of lots I through S.,..Cliffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster District to Single Family District. Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl R. Burns, Phillip Ordway, Richard Brown. Preliminary Review Session for Exterior Alterations and Modifications: A. Gallery Building B. Slifer Building C. Lodge at Vail - Harry's Bar D. Red Lion Inn - Deck Enclosure PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 31, 1981 2:00 p. m. I. Approval of minutes of July 27, 1981, 2. Appointment of member to DRB meetings for 3 months. 3. Request for a minor subdivision of Lots H and I, Vail Village 2nd Paling, Ipanema Condominiums, in order to combine five feet of the westerly portion of Lot H to Lot I, pursuant to the agreement with the Fire District, and secondly to include nine feet of the southerly portion of Lot I, which was originally excluded by Vail Associates in 1971 and transferred to the Bank of Vail. This nine feet would be reinstated to Lot I as originally subdivided. Application in accordance with the Vail Municipal Code, Title 17, Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Daymer Corporation N.V. 4. Request for a density control variance in gross residential floor area in accordance with Section 18.60.020 in order to build a sun room to unit 9, Vail Sky High Condominiums at 2448 Garmisch Road, lots 4 & S, Block G, Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 2. Applicants: Richard & Lauria Brewer. S., Request for a variance from the covered parking requirement in Section 18.12.080 of the Vail Municipal Code in order to build a secondary unit in accordance with Ordinance 22, Series of 1981 on lot 5, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Sub- division, 1933 Bellflower. Applicants: Craig and Jan Webb. 6. Request for an exterior alteration and modification to the Casino building to construct three condominium units on the 2nd and 3rd floor, a small office on the 2nd floor and commercial shops on the Ist floor at the southwest corner of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street. Applicant: Carlos Agostoni. 7. Request for an exterior alteration and modification to the Hill building to add a greenhouse, dining room addition and new bedroom located at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Mrs. Cortlandt T. Hill, 8, Request for an amendment to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guidd Plan for Study Area #5, and an exterior alteration and modification to construct new commercial and office space located south of Vantage Point, north of Lift House Lodge and Lions Pride building and northeast of Vail 21 Building. Applicant: Robert T. Lazier, • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 31, 1981 PRESENT Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Jim Morgan COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Ron Todd STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Peter Jamar Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by the chairman, Gerry White. 1. Approval of minutes of July 27, 198i. Dan corrected a statement he had made concerning the Hopkins item to read that he felt that the Town was gaining by Mr. Hopkins building employee units. Roger Tilkemeier hadn't been listed in "members present". Dan moved and Jim seconded to approve the minutes with those corrections. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. Appointment of member to DRB meetings for 3 months. After discussion, Roger moved and Dan seconded to appoint Duane to DRB for Sept, Oct, and November. Dan volunteered to take the next 3 months -- December, January and February. The vote was 4 -0, Duane abstaining. 3. Request_for,a minor subdivision of lots H 4 I, Vail Village 2nd Filing, Ipanema Condominiums, Applicants: Daymer Corporation N." V, Peter Patten showed the site plan and explained that everyone thought that the parties involved had taken care of the minor subdivision before Ipanema was constructed. Dan added that a condo map would be filed this week that would show the correct lines. Jim Morgan moved and Roger seconded to approve the minor subdivision request as submitted in the memo with the restriction that no additional GRFA be added. The vote was 4 -0 with Dan abstaining. 4, Request for a density control variance in gross residential floor area in ac- cordance with' Section 18.60.020 in order to build a sun room to unit 9, Vail Sky High condominiums at 2448 Garmisch Road, lots 4 $ 5, Block G, Vaal Das Schone, Filing No. 2. Applicants: Richard and Lauria. Brewer, PEC -2•- 8/31/81 Peter Patten gave the background and listed corrections to the memo. They were that the lot size should be twice as large, or 20,908 sq ft. Dick is Brewer introduced himself and his representative, Ray Storey. Ray explained the Brewers' position, stating that the development was now primarily for employees, and were less expensive units--difficult to sell now because of financing. He added that the porch was already defined,, and that it had 4 of the 6 surfaces, and that no more space would be added, that the entrance would be improved. Discussion as to whether or not this would be precedent setting followed. Gerry reminded them that cost or inconvenience is not considered a hardship. Jim Morgan moved and Dan seconded to deny the variance as it was stated in the memo dated. August 24., 1981. The vote was 4 -1 to deny, Duane voted against denial. He felt that the added GRFA was not adding bulk., nor was it a significant increase. He also felt that a greenhouse's transparency made it somewhat less bulky in appearance. S. , Requesst ,for �a variance from the -covered parking requirement in Section 18.12.080 of the Vail Municipal Code 'in order to build a secondary unit on lot 5, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision., 1933 Bellflower. Applicants: Craig and Jan Webb. Peter Jamar presented the memo and reminded the commissioners of the restrictions of Ordinance 22 of 1981, for lots under 15,000. One restriction was that half of the parking must be covered to have a secondary unit. He added that one of the reasons for this criteria was aesthetic, but in looking at Bellflower Drive, he discovered that there were no garages at all. Therefore., the staff felt that the variance should be granted, especially in light of the fact that the added unit was already enclosed in the basement. The staff also felt that another structure on the site would be more detrimental to the site than 2 additonal parking spaces would be, and that another employee unit was desirable. Duane moved and Roger seconded to approve the request for the parking variance as stated in the staff memo dated 8/24/81, The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 7. Request for an exterior alteration and modification to the Hill building to add a greenhouse, dining room addition and new bedroom located at 311 Bridge: St. Applicant: Mrs. Cortlandt T, Hill. Dick Ryan stated that the bedroom addition was being dropped, and so the request was for the dining room and open greenhouse only. He explained the memo and Jack Curtin showed additional plans,. The addition of the green house only needed DRB approval, Roger moved to approve the request subject to the conditions in the memo,, and as stated in the staff memo dated 8/24/81. Duane seconded, The vote was 5,0, unanimously in favor of the request 6, Re uest.for� exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building to construct 3 condominium units, new retail space and office space located on lots D and E and a part of lots B, C and F, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing, Appli- cants: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. Peter Patten explained that the proposal was a complete redevelopment of the Casino building. He presented the site plans and explained the floor plans. Gerry White read a letter from the condominium association stating that the alley was common property and that to build there would require approval from them, Therefore, the alley proposal was not to be considered at this meeting. Gerry added that when he went out to the site,, he had not been told that the building would be extended 8 feet on the southwest corner. i PEC -3, 8/31/81 Dick Ryan stated that for the 2 -1/2 years that he had been in the Planning offices, there had been much talk of trying to improve this part of the Village 40 and much talk of making the alleyway a viable walkway, He felt that the project was a tremendous improvement to the Village, Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, showed slides and talked about scheduling the construction. He stated that after Labor Day, the plan was to take out the trash., equipment and partitions that weren't needed. He added that the contractor felt that he could meet the planned schedule. Discussion followed with concern expressed that the project not look half finished through winter, and maybe using a finish material on the exterior if work was stopped part way through. The northwest corner of the building was discussed, some members feeling that the building should not be extended out at that point. John Donovan also objected to the extension. Others felt that a small projection might be better than a flat wall in that area. Gordon spoke of lowering the.ailey 2 or 3 feet to make it lighter and airier, and possibly to have glass looking into Pistachio's restaurant. The proposal discussed at this point did not include the alley or the extension at the northwest corner of the building, and these two items were to be continued for 2 weeks, Dan moved and Roger seconded to approve the exterior alteration and modification to -the Casino Building as stated in the memo with two additional. conditions. 1. That the finished facade be completed before Christmas or the applicant do a treatment similar to the unfinished commercial space at the Gondola building. • 2. That the applicant agrees to participate financially in street improvements, e.g. street pavers, street lights, at the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street if a mini improvement district is formed., The applicants' share would be determined by street frontage of property and other property owners would also have to agree to participate. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. The deck area.office expansion was continued until the next PEC meeting. 8. Request for-an amendment to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan for Study Area #50 and an exterior alteration and modification to construct new commercial and office space located wouth of Vantage Point, north of Lift House Lodge and Lions Pride building and northeast of Vail 21 building. Applicant: Robert T. Lazier. Dick Ryan presented the memo and stated that this was a significant proposal for Vail. He added that the Urban Design Guide Plan discusses including more common spaceand encourages a new entry concept into the mall from the east, and this proposal fulfills some major objectives of the UDGP and was an improvement to the community. Much discussion about parking followed. Gerry felt that parking was a major issue in this proposal, and that the loss of parking did not justify the proposal. Dick felt that this was the purpose of the 1100 space parking structure, that itwas.iplanned knowing there would be more demand later, Gerry predicted that the parking structure was not going to be big enough, and sooner or later more parking was going to be needed. PEC -4- 8/31%81 Bill Ruoff showed plans and a model...Dick added that the staff's biggest concern was that Lionshead become more successful, and that something significant needed to be done there. 49 Jay Peterson stated that every project included a compromise. He added that they couldn't make a good entrance and solve Val's parking problem. Lionshead has difficulty in this area, needs commercial space here, and that the parking problem wouldn't be worsened., he felt. Gerry felt that one problem would be solved while creating another with the parking. Dick felt that they didn't want to see parking used by people who come to the commercial area, that these people should be parking in the parking structure and that this would also reduce congestion. Dan stated that both parking structures were designed for expansion later. Dinah Chapman, president of the Lionshead Association of Businesses stated that in June Bill Ruoff had presented his plan to about 30 members of the association, and that parking was mentioned, and no complaints were received, She added that with the present situation,, the alley was usually blocked and parking illegally used. The people at this meeting were ecstatic over the proposal, Gerry felt that the Lionshead parking structure would soon be too crowded to park there. Roger suggested that the other members voice their opinions. Duane said that he was in favor of the proposal, Dan said that he was also in favor, .Tim felt that it was a vast improvement to the situation there, and Roger stated that he had been working in Lionshead for the past 6 years, trying to breathe some life into the commercial aspect., and that this appears to address the most serious problem and recommended approval., He added that when the parking problem becomes more serious, the planning commission would address it and solve it at that time. Jim moved and Roger seconded to recommend approval of the amendment to the Urban Design Guide Plan to the Town Council, The vote was 4 =l in favor (Gerry against), Duane moved and Jim seconded- for approval of the "exterior alteration and modi- fication of the proposal dated August 26, 1981 with the 6. conditions listed in the memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Roger moved to adjourn at 5.15 p.m. • a MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER FATTEN DATE: August 26, 1981 RE: Request for exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building to construct 3 condominium units, new retail space and office space located on lots D and E and a part of lots B, C and F, Block SC, mail Village First Filing. Applicant: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. A. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The Casino Building has changed ownership and the new owners wish to revise the uses for the property to residential and retail shops. The proposal represents a major change in the use of the building, which has always been used as a nightclub -- -first as Casino Vail, and then as Garton's Saloon. The project involves redeveloping the street level spaces to four new retail shops, retaining the existing real estate office and maintaining the Valley Forge as is (with possibly some facade improvements at a future date). New bay windows for the retail spaces are incorporated with a sidewalk in front. Encroachments of 2' to 3' are proposed onto TOV right -of -way on the Gore Creek Drive side to provide room for the stairs and sidewalk near the stores and entrance to the condominiums. A previous proposal came out about 5' farther and has been scaled back due to negative Town Council reaction. Landscaping is in the form of aspen trees on the perimeter of the sidewalk and planter boxes in the same general areas. A major segment of the proposal is to redevelop "the alley" on the south side of the building. The proposal entails a small (about 289 sq ft) office addition on the western end of the alley, a glass enclosure of the entrance to Pistachiots, brick paver walkway, and a redevelopment of area to the west of the alley to accommodate grade changes and make an attractive, inviting entrance into the alley. The existing commercial spaces fronting Wall Street will remain as is. ■ M l I a MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER FATTEN DATE: August 26, 1981 RE: Request for exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building to construct 3 condominium units, new retail space and office space located on lots D and E and a part of lots B, C and F, Block SC, mail Village First Filing. Applicant: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. A. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The Casino Building has changed ownership and the new owners wish to revise the uses for the property to residential and retail shops. The proposal represents a major change in the use of the building, which has always been used as a nightclub -- -first as Casino Vail, and then as Garton's Saloon. The project involves redeveloping the street level spaces to four new retail shops, retaining the existing real estate office and maintaining the Valley Forge as is (with possibly some facade improvements at a future date). New bay windows for the retail spaces are incorporated with a sidewalk in front. Encroachments of 2' to 3' are proposed onto TOV right -of -way on the Gore Creek Drive side to provide room for the stairs and sidewalk near the stores and entrance to the condominiums. A previous proposal came out about 5' farther and has been scaled back due to negative Town Council reaction. Landscaping is in the form of aspen trees on the perimeter of the sidewalk and planter boxes in the same general areas. A major segment of the proposal is to redevelop "the alley" on the south side of the building. The proposal entails a small (about 289 sq ft) office addition on the western end of the alley, a glass enclosure of the entrance to Pistachiots, brick paver walkway, and a redevelopment of area to the west of the alley to accommodate grade changes and make an attractive, inviting entrance into the alley. The existing commercial spaces fronting Wall Street will remain as is. ■ M Casino Bldg -2- 8/26/81 • On the second level will be the lower levels of the three condominiums, a new office space of 909 sq ft (including over the alley) and the existing deck remodeled to a private deck with a hot tub. The third level contains the upper .levels of two of the units, while a fourth level is being proposed to accommodate the upper level of the third unit. A height increase of 8' on the southern portion of the building is necessary to accommodate the upper level of this unit due to the half -level involved in the current building design. B. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian.environ- ment, The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buidings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure -the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. The Community Development Department considers that the proposed changes • conform to the purpose of the Commercial Core I District as outlined above and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, C. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERA'T'IONS 1, Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan Concept 15 - Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increased facade transparency, entries simplified and oriented toward intersection. (This is addressing the Gore Creek Drive elevation.) All of these items are included in the proposal by creating retail shops in this area. Concept 13B - Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza. The proposal calls for the mid -block connection, but only covers a seventeen foot stretch on the western end via the "office- bridge ". The remainder of the walkway is to be heated, a very expensive proposal as well as one with a high potential for breakdown. The Staff feels that more study is needed as to the possibility of actually covering the remaining portion of the alley with a glass roof, This would allow light into the space as well as keeping 41 it clear of snow in the winter. Problems to address for a glass .roof would be snow removal and drainage. f Casino Bldg -3, 8/26J81 Concept 16 Key intersection in Village Core. Feature area paving treatment, (This is the Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street intersection.) Gage Davis and Associates has drawn some very preliminary sketches of this intersection so that we can attempt to tie -in the Casino design with those ideas. The idea at this time is to create a circular area of special pavers in the intersection. To respond to this design, the proposal for the Casino Building has curved the steps coming off that corner to blend with the curvi- linear edge of the paving treatment, 2. Urban Desizn Considerations a;. Pedestrianization Pedestrianization will definitely be improved in and through three different areas surrounding the building. A new pedestrian experience will emerge with the redevelopment of the alley and the area to the west of the alley. This new Bridge Street - Village Plaza link will open up a new pathway through the Village which can only serve to enhance the pedestrian experience. On the Bridge Street side, the existing "dead -end" walkway will be eliminated to allow sidewalk traffic around the corner to the Core Creek Drive side. Also improved will be the connection to the walkway in front of the Plaza • Building shops. A grade change of two steps will separate this sidewalk from the street grade. The Gore Creek Drive side will be vastly improved offering a new sidewalk near the entrance to the shops and the condominiums, 'This will enhance the pedestrian experience by again offering an additional alternative. This is the area where the proposal includes 2' -3' of TOV right- of- way.The sidewalk all the way around to Bridge Street allows free,£1ow of pedestian traffic by continuing the steps around the entire perimeter of the sidewalk. Also included is a landscaping proposal of some aspen trees to increase the green area of this side of the street (presently there is virtually no landscaping). b. Vehicle Penetration The types of shops that will most likely go in will not generate a large amount of delivery traffic. The delivery vehicles will be governed by existing and future Core area time zoning, The delivery traffic will probably be reduced from what it has been due to the elimination of the high delivery traffic businesses of Garton's; Kentucky Fried Chicken and Bridge Street Inn. Traffic serving the condominiums will be restricted to occupant delivery only and the general parking will be met via the parking structure. At some time of the day there may be trucks parked in front of the stores along Gore Creek Drive. Casino Bldg 74- 8f 26f 81 . c, Streetscape Framework The streetscape framework will be greatly improved by allowing pedestrian flow in three new areas and eliminating the tack -on additions along Gore Creek Drive. New retail shops will greatly aid the streetscape framework as well. • d. Street Enclosure The enclosure ratio of street width to building height is presently at a 1:1. The impact of raising the height on the south portion of the building will be negligible because the Plaza Lodge is still taller than the Casino Building, even with the addition, e. Street Edge The proposal provides a well defined street edge with t the new pedestrian walkways. f, Building Height The proposal meets the U.D.G.P. limitations on height:. no higher than 401 and 60% of the building footprint no measured to roof midpoints, even with the additional 8' end, g. Views No major or minor view .planes by the proposal. - 3. Zoning Cade Considerations he creation of 40% of the footprint higher than 301, on the south as designated in the U.D.G.P. are affected a. Site Area - .179 acre or 7.797 sq ft b, Setbacks - Zero setback allowed Proposed: East 8' South 6' West 6' North 3' c, Height see height above • d. Density Control GRFA site- -area Casino Bldg -5T 8/26/81 GRFA Allowable .•ratio GRFA .179 acre x .80 6237 sq ft UNITS .179 acre x 25 units /acre = 4 units PROPOSED 3 units of 6237 sq ft plus 20% of GRFA allowed for common areas. e. Landscaping - as mentioned earlier, an increase in landscaped areas is being proposed. f. Parking - The applicable parking fee will be required for the retail spaces and the condominiums, First payment of the parking fee is due at the time of temporary certificate of occupancy, 4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations These will be addressed by the Design Review Board at a later date. It appears the building improvements follow the Design Considerations very well, RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the redevelopment of the Casino Building. We find that the proposal includes many positive aspects for the Village by increasing pedestrian flow around the building, adding new pedestrian experiences on three sides of the building and generally improving the aesthetics of the structure, The alley proposal is a good one, if the covered roof can be incorporated and if it's workable. The conditions of approval are as follows:. 1, 'That the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. 2, That the applicant agrecs to provide and pay for.the alley improvements (including pavers and lighting), a street light on the Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street intersection, and the proposed improvements to the area to the Southwest of the building. as it connects to.the Village :Plaza steps,, In addition, the applicant will be responsible to study alternatives for the alley., including a permanent cover; and that the final design and material must be submitted and approved by the Town of Vail. Construction must be completed no later than the fall of 1982. 1 0 40- Casino Bldg -6, 8/26/81 3, That the applicant participates financially in the construction of a trash enclosure facility (compactor) in the alley of the Slifer Building, 4, That the applicant receive a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for use of property belonging to the Town. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: August 26, 1981 RE: Proposed amendment to the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan for Study Area Number 5 and a request for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core II to construct new commercial and office space. Applicant: Bob Lazier A. BACKGROUND OF PROPOSAL The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan encourages a new entry concept into the Lionshead Mall from the east, or parking structure side. A portion of these items (Sub -Area Concepts 1 -6) are being incorporated into the Town's protect-- Lionshead East Entry along with the remodeling of the Vail 21 Building. The remaining portion of sub -area concepts 1=-6 are now being proposed under Study Area No. S. The proposal also includes item number 7 addressing expansion and redevelopment of Lions Pride Court. This proposal represents a major amendment to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and has been included in the 90 -day study period for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core II. B. THE PROPOSAL The project will redevelop three levels in the area surrounded by Vail 21, Lazier Lionshead Arcade, Lifthouse Lodge and Vantage Point. It is a major proposal including commercial and office space, underground and surface parking and delivery and loading facilities. Court Level The proposal is to raze the existing parking structure and the Lions Pride Building. The project would then excavate down another level from the present lowest level for a new underground parking facility containing 64 spaces. Also at this "Court Level" would bP about 7100 square feet of retail space (including the Vail 21 addition) 4 about 2700 sq ft.labeled commercial.. This level also includes the redevelopment of Lions Pride Court by enlarging it (accomplished by removing the existing Lions Pride Building), increasing the retail frontage on the Court and generally developing a pleasant plaza area. Street Level The next level upward is called the street level, the level at which the pedestrian and vehicle will enter the project from the east. There are S vehicle entrances, one for private parking, one for delivery and service vehicles and one for guests of the Lifthouse Lodge (8 surface spaces). The pedestrian will enter via a new concrete paver area leading him from the base of the parking structure. From here, the pedestrian wiii be led through Study Area 5 -2- 8/26/81 The new mall by new retail shops (about 11,000 sq ft including the restaurant), • an outdoor restaurant deck and the steps down to Lions Pride Court, eventually connecting him with the existing mall near the front of Purcell's restaurant.. Also included is a small landscaped entry area to enhance the entry on the east side. A person coming down the main steps of the parking structure will view the new project to the west and be drawn into it by this visibility, Office Level The top level of development will contain about 7770 sq ft of office space (including the top level of the Vail 21 addition). The mass of this level has been designed to respect existing views of condominium owners in the Vantage Point complex. A conditional use permit for this use must be obtained. The request will be in front of you at the September 14 meeting. TABULATION OF NET BUILDING AREAS (All figures in sq ft) Existing Proposed Net increase Lions Pride Ct 1561 r 9800 8239 Street Level 1429 11036 9607 Office Level 1378 7770 6392 • u 4368 28,606 24,238 Vail 21 Addition 5,000 5,000 Grand Total 4368 33,606 29,238 C. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION .18.26.010 The Commercial Core I1 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations are 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. We feel that this proposal is in keeping with the Commercial Core II purpose, The proposal directly accomplishes several important design objectives of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, and it follows the use objectives as outlined by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the U.D.G.P. Study Area #5 -3- 8/26/81 D. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • At the time several workshops were conducted with the Lionshead merchants and property owners, there were discussions on the need to increase the number of commercial shops. Since that time there have been expansions approved at the Gondola building, Vail 21, and at the LiftHouse Lodge. This proposal would provide some outstanding commercial space and increase the total commercial viability of the Lionshead area, which is one of the major goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Another major issue that surfaced during the workshops was the need to improve the area between Vail 21 and Vantage Point. The current uses of structural parking and delivery areas were thought not to be appropriate uses for this area. It was felt that this was an area which could be better put to use as a commercial shopping area, among other related uses.. Thus, the U.D.G.P. designations of Sub -Area Concepts 4 through 7. These past occurrences have all contributed toward generating the proposal now known as Study Area No. 5. There are four subarea concepts of the UDGP which are directly addressed in this proposal: East Mall Entry: Concept 4 - Pocket entry park (created by reduction of parking structure) to create and enhance an alternative entry to the Mall, reduce congestion at peak periods, increase pedestrian exposure to back areas, and to screen the parking structure and generally upgrade the approach to Lionshead. This will be addressed by moving the vehicle access points to the north of their current location to allow for the pocket park adjacent to Vail 21. Concept 5 - Additional study area to explore potential to: further upgrade second mall entry, expand and intensify Lions Pride Court, and complete pedestrian connection to Gondola Plaza. Service /delivery functions essential to maintain as well as private parking. The proposal directly satisfies these points as outlined above under 'The Proposal ". Concept b - Commercial Expansion (1 -2 story) to strengthen secondary mall entry with activity /pedestrian scale, and better utilize shade -zone service court. This concept is addressing the triangular shaped infill commercial space on the north side of the Vail 21 Building. This is proposed on the plan as "future retail by others ". The building is needed to make traffic flow through the area, to eliminate current eyesores and to make the mall more interesting, We have been recently informed that this space will be constructed in conjunction with the remainder of the project. Lions Pride Court Concept 7 - Court opened to free access to Lionshead Court. Planting area reduced, relocated to abut Lionshead Arcade building to provide screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flow out of shadows into sunny area of court. Sculpture focal point. Study Area #5 -4- 8/26/81 I This court is being vastly improved by increasing its size and attractiveness. New stair design, more retail frontage, a focal point of fountains or sculpture and an addition to the Arcade building will add to the viability of the new Court. E. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS a. Pedestrianization Pedestrianization will be greatly improved by the proposal. This will open up a whole new pedestrian route through Lionshead, It will be an interesting and diverse pedestrian experience with the pedestrian passing through a pocket park with sitting areas, retail shops, an outdoor restaurant deck, and a redeveloped Lions Pride Court. The staff feels that part of this proposal should be a pedestrian connection from the project to the west, connecting with the North Mall Entry. This will provide more walkway links between different areas of Lionshead and allow another alternative to the "wandering" pedestrian. b. Vehicle Penetration Vehicle penetration will be greatly reduced and at the same time, improved. The new service and delivery facility will serve the businesses in the east end of Lionshead. Vehicles will enter from the east from East Lionshead Circle to a truck dock. A service elevator will be included to take materials down to the Court level where they may access commercial areas there. This • central service and delivery facility greatly improves the current "scramble" system in the back alley where trucks and cars are often blocked by delivery vehicles. C. Streetscape Framework The proposal is creating its own new streetscape which will be an interesting one for the pedestrian as well as beneficial to the Lionshead area. The building configurations are well laid out to draw the pedestrian through while exposing shop fronts and landscaped areas to the passerby. An area which needs heavy screening is the west end of the new mall relating to the Lifthouse Lodge's parking area. This asphalted area needs to be separated from the pedestrian area by either a wall of a minimum 6' height, or a very dense planting of coniferous trees. d. Street Enclosure The enclosure is a comfortable one for the pedestrian as nowhere will there be more than two stories above pedestrian level. This situation of two stories occurs on street level where the office story is above the pedestrian (even this will be a reduced impact because the office area will be set back from the shop fronts). This enclosure ratio will be a refreshing one for Lionshead. • • 7 Study Area #5 -5- 8/26/8i e. Street .Edge The street edge created will be varied with different building angles fronting the street creating an irregular and diverse pedestrian experience. f, Building Height From the Court level to the top of the office roof, the. building measures 331. However, as stated under street enclosure the project will never present more than a two -story appearance to the pedestrian walking through it. The height proposed is well within the height guidelines of the Vail Lionshead U.D.G.P. g. Views The applicant has submitted studies which show that the views from the Vangage Point condominiums will be preserved by keeping the building to a low profile, flat roof shape. No other major views are being affected. h. Sun Shade Changes The new pedestrian mall should get good sun exposure with the exception of several areas where taller buildings block out the sun— The Lions Pride Court will receive late afternoon sun, and the.proposal is attempting to maximize the exposure of that sun. F. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS a, Lot Area and Site Dimensions Site Area: Frontage: b. Setbacks Proposed: 45,426 sq ft 116,m53 sq ft North: 0' East 0' South 10' West 0' Because this is an amendment to the U.D.G,P., there is flexibility in the setbacks as there would be in a Special Development District (SDD). Thus, if approved, these will be the applicable setbacks for the project. c. Density Control No GRFA is being proposed. There are no controls governing addition of commercial and office space. d. Site Coverage 23.2% not including underground parking, e. Landscaping and Site Development Study Area #5 -6- 8/26/81 70% allowed. The mall area will contain planters attractively landscaping the area. The Design Review Board will review the proposal more closely. 20% of the site is required to be landscaped or as stipulated in the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Lionshead. f. Parking and Loading The parking situation has been one of constant discussion on this project. There currently exist 144 spaces utilized by condominium owners, businesses, and the general public. The proposal is to reduce parking facilities by 50% to 72 spaces. These spaces would be utilized by those same people and public parking would take place in the Lionshead parking structure. The applicant argues that most of the spaces are under ;.utilized and unnecessary because the businesses generally don't use them. They point to the office uses as ones which require more in and out parking and, thus, are providing more spaces for the offices versus the retail. The originally proposed figure was for 45 spaces. This was deemed insufficient at a joint meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. The applicant will have to pay the parking fee for both the spaces lost: 72, plus for the new commercial added (not increase): 29,238 300 = 97 spaces. Thus, the applicant will be responsible.for paying the applicable parking fee at the time the building permit is obtained for 169 spaces, G, DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The project is not far enough along in the design process to evaluate the design considerations at this time. The Design Review Board is charged with assessment of whether or not the proposal meets the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Study Area No. 5 proposal. We feel this project has developed into one which will greatly improve the Vail Lionshead area in general. The addition of the second entryway allows a much more interesting pedestrian experience by giving the pedestrian a choice of paths. The area is currently dilapidated and in need of improvement. The proposal directly fulfills some major objectives of the Vail Lionshead U,D,G.P. and in so doing is a good one for the Town, It creates some very nice new spaces on the street level which should be a benefit to the Lionshoad area. Also, improvements to the Lions.Pride Court should renovate it into an interesting, useable space which people will enjoy, w .3� • Study Area #5 -7- 8/26/81 The loss of parking is a concern, but if the applicable parking fee is paid, it can be justified by the proximity of the new parking structure:. The following are conditions of approval: 1. That the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed for the Vail Lionshead area, 2, That the eight space parking area on the west end of the new mall be heavily screened with dense coniferous plantings or that an attractive solid wall be constructed to eliminate the negative visual impact of the lot. 3. That the applicant, at his own expense, construct a pedestrian connection from the west end of Study Area No. 5 to the North Mali Entry area. 4. That the new retail space on the northwest corner of the Vail 21 building labeled as "future retail by others" be constructed simultaneously with the remainder of the project. 5. That the two building additions proposed for Lions Pride Court (1st Bank and Guillino's) be a part of this proposal and that they be constructed in conjunction with the remainder of the Liens. Pride Court improvements. 6. That the heated driveways for the project by heated with solar energy. U1" UI t:r, F110 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIROMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: August 31, 1981 RE: Addendum to Brewer GRFA Variance Memorandum A mistake has been discovered concerning the Brewer GRFA Variance. The Vail Sky High Condominiums are located on both lots 4 and 5 of Vail Das Schone Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Block G. Each of these lots is identical 'size: 10,454 square feet Thus, the site area is twice what is listed in your memo. The new site area figure is 20,908 square feet. There are 12 units on 20,908 square feet of site area, a density of 25 units to the acre. The former County zoning of Residential Suburban Medium (RSM) would have allowed 6272 sq'ft of floor area. The Town's zoning—Residential Primary /Secondary (R P /S) would allow 4341 sq ft of GRFA. There is 8,595 sq ft of GRFA existing. Under RSM, this is 2323 sq ft over. Under R P /S, it is 4254 sq ft over.. The change in lot size only affects the degree to which the project is already over on GRFA. The request for 100 sq ft variance remains the same, otherwise. 0 MEMORANDUM F-] TO: Planning and Fnvironmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 24, 1981 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and modification to the Hill building to add an open greenhouse, dining room addition and new bedroom at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Mrs. Cortlandt T. Hill REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for three additions to the Hill building: an open greenhouse on the southwest side, a small dining room addition of 64 square feet and a new bedroom of 720 square feet. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There was no specific sub -area concept for this specific property regarding the building. No. 10 states. "Seibert Circle. Feature area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential fountain) to north for better sun exposure (fall /spring), creates increased plaza area and are the backdrop for activities. Separated path on north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods." No. 10A states: "Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street. Some of No. 10A has recently been completed with the redesign by Vail Associates. New walk ways have been added to improve access to the mountain, COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Pedestrianization The proposed additions to the building will have no effect on the pedestrianization in the area. Vehicle Penetration By adding the additional residential space, there should be no increase in "vehicle penetration. Streetscape Framework �_q At the street level there would be no change. Hill Building ..2- 8/24/81 . Street Enclosure No change. Building Height The proposal meets the height requirements under the zoning code. Views From Gore Creek Drive south on Wall Street has been designated as a major view plane. Section G of the Vail Village Design Considerations states: "Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Major and minor view corridors have been designated on the View Plane map.., an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan." The proposed bedroom addition does have an effect on the major view plane up Wall Street and on the plaza. Under the Design Considerations it states "any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter, the designated major view plane will be discouraged." The Community Development Department does not support the bedroom addition because of the encroachment into and substantially altering the designated major view plane. Sun /Shade There would be some changes in the sun /shade relationship by the proposed bedroom addition that would affect the sun at the southeast corner of the Gondola Plaza. Parking At time of building permit, the applicant will be required to pay applicable parking fees. Architectural and Landscaping The exterior design will be reviewed by the Design Review Board to determine compliance with the Vail Village Design Considerations.. The Design Review Board is responsible for this review. Hill Building -3- 8/24/81 • RECOMMENDA -T1ON The Community Development Department recommends approval of the exterior alterations andwmodifications for the dining room addition, finding it is in compliance.with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Consid- erations as noted in the memorandum. The open greenhouse only needs Design Review Board approval because there is no enclosed floor area. For approval of the dining room the following conditions would apply: 1. Agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement . district if one is formed for Vail Village. 2. The applicant agrees to participate financially in street improvements, e.g. street pavers, street lights at Seibert Circle if a mini - improvement district is formed. The applicant's share would be determined by street frontage of property in Seibert Circle and other property owners would also have to agree to participate. Regarding the proposed bedroom addition, we do not support this request. The bedroom would be an encroachment and alteration to a designated major view plane. As noted in the plan, the ski slopes provide an identity for the tourist. The view plane also provides visual rel,ief.and interesting . change from the urban village, • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar DATE: August 24, 1981 RE: Webb Parking Variance Request on lot S, block 6, Intermountain. Applicants: Craig and Jan Webb. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants request a variance from Section 18.13.080, Density Control of the Primary /Secondary zone district in order to allow a secondary unit as employee housing without meeting the requirement that 50% of the required parking for the site must be enclosed. Section 18.13.080 states that the Community Development Department and the Design Review Board may grant an additional unit to be used as an 'employee rental unit on lots of less than 15.,000 sq ft. (These lots otherwise would be permitted one unit.) There are several criteria which must be met in order to be granted the density exception for the second unit, one of which is that 50% of the required parking must be enclosed. ( #4, 18.13.080) The • parking required for the site would be 4 spaces (2 per unit), thus 2 are required to be enclosed. The Webb home is currently being constructed as a single family dwelling unit of 1980 square feet, The size of the lot is 9670 square feet. The Webbs would like to convert the basement level of the home (791 sq ft) to an employee rental unit. A variance from the parking requirement is requested to make the conversion possible. The Webbs feel that they need a variance from the parking requirement for the following reasons: 1. That another building on our already small lot would clutter up the area more than the exposure of two additional cars in the driveway. 2. The garage would have to be built on the uphill side of the house which would block out the much needed sun that is very much lacking in the Intermountain area. 3. If the garage were built it would block off any remaining view of the creek for the neighbors that live across the street. 4. Since the garage would have to be built on the hillside, it would require a substantial foundation to accommodate the slope and also to meet proper frost coverage. • Webb -2- 8/24/81 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS won review of Criteria -ands Findings, Section 18,.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department- of Community Develo meat recommends a royal of the requested. variance -based upon the- following Tactors Consideration of-, Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The intent of establishing criteria for use in determining whether a lot under 15,000 square feet could or could not handle a second dwelling unit was that while there is a definite need for units as rental housing for permanent employees of the valley., the addition of these units should not create situations which would be detrimental to other property in the area. The parking require- ment was designed to eliminate the situation of 4 uncovered automobiles being parked on each lot which has an employee rental unit. The intent was that the aesthetics of the site should not be sacrificed with the granting of the second unit. The ordinance states that "no variances for setbacks, height, parking, site coverage, or landscaping, site development, or gross residential floor area would be approved unless the granting of such a variance benefits the visual appearance of the site and surrounding area ( #3, 18.13.080). In this case, there are currently no other garages in the immediate vicinity of the Webb residence. All parking in the area.is currently unenclosed. . Therefore, this is not a case where two additional unenclosed parking spaces will have any adverse effect upon other existing or potential uses in the vicinity. The alternative of building a two .car garage on the site would be extremely more difficult because of setback problems. It is the Staff's feeling that the addition of two unenclosed spaces along side the approved two spaces would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties, The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatib'ili and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Without approval of the variance request, the applicant would have two options: 1. Build a two car garage and request an employee unit, or 2. Maintain the single family use of the structure. Construction of a garage upon the lot would be difficult due to setback require- ments, -both from the creek side of the structure and from the front and side property Lines. The site is subject to a 50 foot setback from the center of Gore Creek, a 20 foot setback from the front property line along Bellflower Drive and IS foot setbacks along the side property lines, These setbacks make the construction of a garage impossible if it is to be located within • • 0 Webb -3- 8/24/81 the setbacks. The Staff feels that the variance to allow the unenclosed parking spaces is more appropriate than allowing a variance to build a garage within the setbacks. We feel that another structure upon the site would be more detrimental to the site than two additional parking spaces would be. The Staff feels that the addition of two parking spaces is not a severe enough situation to be an obstacle to the creation of an additional employee rental unit within the valley. Proper landscaping could mitigate any impacts which the two spaces might create. We feel that the granting of the variance would not constitute the grant of a special privilege due to the fact that the applicant does experience physical hardship due to the size of the lot and the inability to construct a garage. 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 Variance will create the ability for the applicant to have a secondary unit as an employee rental unit within his home. Since the secondary unit will be the basement of the home, there will be no increase in the size of the structure. The only effect of the variance will be the addition of the two outdoor parking spaces. The Staff feels that this will not create any negative impacts. , Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental- Commission shall make the following findings before gnanting� a variance: That the granting of the variance will not consititute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon- sistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicalbe to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. ,Webb -4- 8/24/81 L� 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 Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. The physical hardship of the size of the lot virtually prohibits the construction of a garage within the setbacks and the addition of two unenclosed parking spaces will not be detrimental to adjacent properties. As a condition of approval of the variance, the Community Development Department recommends that additional landscaping in the form of a planter box to break up the 4 spaces be constructed and additional trees be planted along the west side of the parking area. U • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT' OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: August 24, 1981 RE: GRFA variance request for unit 9 of Sky Nigh Condominiums located on lots 4 and 5, Block G, Vail Das Schone, Filing No, 2 for Richard and Lauria Brewer. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Brewers' unit currently has 657 square feet of floor area. They wish to construct a sunroom on their open balcony. The addition would add approxi- mately 100 square feet of floor area to the unit. They cite as a hardship the size of their family (2 adults, 2 children) and that they would have been allowed the expansion under County regulations. They have received approval from the condominium association for the project. BACxr,Rniwn The condominium building presently on the property was built before County zoning regulations went into effect. There are 12 units on 10,454 square feet of site area, a density of 50 units to the acre. The former County zone of Residential Suburban Medium (RSM) would not have allowed the addition of 100 square feet (contrary to the applicants' argument). The current zoning is Residential Primary /Secondary, Of course, the building was a non - conforming use both in the County and now in the Town, STATISTICS Lot size = 10,454 sq ft, .24.acre Existing GRFA = 8,595 or 820 of lot size Existing No. of Units = 12 Proposed GRFA = Approximately 5,695 sq ft or 100 sq ft addition Allowable GRFA -RSM = 3136 sq ft R P/S = 2613 sq ft CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings., Section 18.62.060 of the Munici , Code the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based u on the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, The condominium owners in the remainder of the building have addition. Other than possible negative aesthetic impacts upon pthe vbuilding, no significant factors on other existing or potential impacts would result. Brewer -2- 8/24/81 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and • enforcement of a�speci�fied regulation -is necessary to achieve compatibili and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives o£ this title without grant of special privilege.. Although the Staff sympathizes with the apparent tight living situation involved here, we feel that is not a bona fide hardship by which a GRFA variance should be granted, We have maintained a consistent position on variances of this type and can find no actual hardship involved in this case which would warrant recommending approval. The building was way over on GRFA by even the County's highest density district -and one of the planners of the County informed us that the variance would most likely have been denied by them. A building existing at .82 GRFA to lot size is already way over acceptable density in that area, and the granting of the variance for more GRFA can only be viewed as a special. privilege, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu- lation, transpo- rtation and\ traffic�facilities, public facilities and utilities, and ublis safety. No significant requests are forseen on these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • -, FINDINGS: The Planndng 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 applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or lieteral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deparive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other 0 1 properties in the same district, Brewer -3, 8/24/81 • RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of this variance. The building is grossly over presently on GRFA and to add to it would represent a special privilege,--,considering the hard line we have taken on GRFA variances in the past. • . August 26, 1981 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten RE: Minor6Subdivision Request for Ipanema Condominiums Located on Lot I and part of Lot H, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Background This is a request to include two strips of land which, according to previous transactions and agreements, belongs to the Ipanema Condo site. In 1971, Vail Associates sold to the 1st Bank of Vail a strip of land on the southerly portion of Lot I (presently where Ipanema is). This 10' strip is now being reinstated to Lot I from Tract B, Lionshead Second Filing as per agreements between Daymer Corporation and Vail Associates and the bank. Secondly, a 5 foot strip of land on the eastern portion of the lot belongs to the fire station site, part of Lot H, Vail Village Second . Piling, and they have agreed to transfer this as part of a previous agreement. It seems that the parties involved all thought this resubdivision had been transferred when Ipanema was developed. However, no one had taken care of it then and it is now coming in for approval. The new lot will be cdlled Lot 1, a resubdivision of Lot I and part of Lot H and will contain 26,889 sq.ft. Recommendation The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the resubdivision of Lot I and a part of Lot H with the following conditions: 1. This resubdivision does not affect the buildable square footage (GRFA or units allowable) for the Ipanema site. 2. Information on the new lot square f ootages for the fire station site and the Bank site be submitted so that accurate lot figures are recorded. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SSeptember 14, 1981 * 2:15 p.m. There will be a field trip to look at the sites. 3;00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of August 31, 1981. 2. 31 Continuation of request for exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building for the deck area and to determine the amount of office located on lots D and E and a part of lots B, C and F, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and .Tames J. Sprowls. Request for a conditional use permit to allow office space on the third floor in Study Area #5 in new commercial and office space in Lionshead. Applicant: Robert T. Lazier 4. Request for a front setback variance on Lot 5, Block 1, Intermountain Subdivision, Applicant: Byron Hoyle. 5. Request for a rear setback variance and a variance for setback from watercourse for lot 1, xesubdivision of lot 14, block 4, Bighorn 3rd addition. Applicant: Heritage Company, Dan Gagliardo. 6. Request for a front setback variance for lot 5, Resubdivision of lot 14, Bighorn 3rd addition. Applicant: Heritage Company. • Jrsr - • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 14, 1981. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gerry White Dick Ryan Dan Corcoran Peter Jamar Will Trout Peter Patten Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Jim Morgan COUNCIL REP Ron Todd The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Gerry White,,the chairman. The members had first gone out to two sites in Bighorn 3rd, 1. Approval of minutes of August 31, 1981. Dan Corcoran corrected the minutes to explain that item #3, Ipanema, should have read that the plat does show the correct lines and that.a..condo. map would be filed that week showing thel, same, correct :lines, Dan then moved and Duane seconded to approve the minutes with the corrections stated above. The vote was 4 -0, Will abstaining, 2, Continuation of re nest for exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building for the deck area and to determine't e amount of office located on lots D and E and a part of lots B, C, and.F, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. The applicants asked to have this item continued until the next regular meeting of PEC. Dan moved and Jim seconded to continue this per the appliantst request until the next meeting. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 3. Re uest for a conditional use permit to allow office mace on the third floor in Study Area #5 in new commercial and office space in Lionshead. Applicant: Robert T. Lazier, Dick Ryan presented the memo and reminded the commissioners that an office on the 3rd floor in Commercial Core 11 required the approval of a c.u. permit. Jay Peterson explained that most of the office space (approved at the last meeting) was on the 2nd floor. Jim Morgan moved and Dan seconded to approve the conditional use permit to allow office space on the 3rd floor. The vote was 5-0 in favor, PEC -2 9/14/81 4. Request for a,,£xont setback variance on lot 5, Block 11Y Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Byron Hoyle, Peter Jamar showed the site plan.and explained the memo. He stressed the fact that the setback variance would allow the saving of a 60' evergreen, would reduce cuts, and that it would result in no negative impacts, but in fact the positive factors far outweighed the negative ones on this particular lot. Byron Hoyle explained that snow removal here was also a factor, and it was important to get the cars off the road, and he added that the farther back the cut, -the greater the cut would have to be. He mentioned that the driveway grade would be greater also. Dicussion followed concerning the possibility of using another design. Some of the members felt that more study was needed by them and the staff on reasons for giving variances. Peter Patten stated that a variance may be granted with physical hardships. These could include saving major trees, drainage problems, rock outcroppings, and added that to preserve these features it may be necessary to grant a variance to accomplish this. He added that often in DRB people were encouraged to change their designs to preserve certain features on the land, Discussion followed concerning the possibility of turning the building at another angle, putting the garage underneath, detaching the Rarake, etc. Gerry felt that this was a good example of physical hardship. Jim felt that the site was buildable without having to grant a variance. Peter P. listed . examples of variances that had been granted to save trees or because of stream setbacks. He added that he felt that this particular plan was sensitive to the site, and that they should appreciate the fact that prople are coming in with variances rather than forcing a structure on a lot, He felt that each lot should be looked at on an individual basis and that there were more steep lots left now., so there were probably going to be more requests for variances to move houses into setback areas. Gerry felt that whenever a variance is considered, it should be considered in the best interest of the Town of Vail,, Jim felt that the lot had buildable area without the variances. The subject of putting only the garage in the setback area was pursued, and the applicant said he didn't like the appearance of the building that way. Gerry moved and Dan seconded to approve the front setback variance as stated in the staff memo of 9/9/81 for the reason that this was a topographical hardship. The vote was 2 in favor (Gerry and Dan) and 3 opposed. The variance was denied. Gerry reminded the applicant that they had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the Town Council. u F . PEC 3- 9J14./81 . 5. Request for a rear setback variance and stream setback variance on Lot 1, Resubdivision of Lot 141 Blo'ck' 4., Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant, Heritage Company. Peter Jamar stated that the members had visited this site before the meeting and he explained the memo, pointing out that the staff recommended denial. The staff's feeling was that, although variances may be needed to build on this lot, more investigation into designing the house to better fit the 4,:. lot should be done,, Dan reminded them that one corner of the building near the creek was at the point where the bank was falling away. John Nilsson, representing the applicant, described the site plan, stating that it would be a hazard to back out onto the road, and that-the lot was unusual in shape with lots of design problems, Comments from the staff included moving the structure, moving the two parts of the structure closer together, perhaps abolish the piazza, and reducing the size of the structure. Will Trout showing the site plan, stated that by moving the structures together, the cars would have to back into the street, and part of the structure would be closer to the creek. Jim Sayre of the staff stated that there was danger from flood on a great part of the lot. More comments from the commission included concern for the steep bank, redesigning the whole concept, opposition to variances granted to stream setbacks, reducing the size of the project. • John Nilsson stated that they would prefer to table at this point, rather than be denied the variances. Andy Haas from the audience stated that he lived on the west side and was concerned for the river that the stream setback will further push the stream toward his house, He added that the previous developer of the area had destroyed it, chopped down trees, and destroyed his view. Jim moved and Duane seconded to table this item as requested by the applicant. The vote was 4-0 with Will abstaining, Gerry felt that perhaps a work session was needed about variances. Ron, Todd mentioned that at one time a memo had been done on the subject and he would try to dig it up. Roger Tilkemeier arrived. 6. Request for a front setback variance for lot S, Resubdivision of lot 14, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Heritage Company, Peter Jamar stated that the staff felt that there was ample room in the building envelope for construction and that the staff felt that there was no physical hardship. This site had just been visited, too. Dave Irwin, Architect for the applicant showed the site plan, It was pointed out that there may be a discrepancy between the property boundaries on the map and the actual site-Dave went on, however, to describe the site showing where it drops off and also showing trees he didn't want to disturb. PEC -4- 9/14/81 Discussion that followed included decreasing the size of the units, whether or not this was the right house for the lot, the possibility of moving the structure. Dave Irwin stated that he had studied the lot carefully and designed and redesigned to fit the Town's requirements. Discussion of the danger of the switch back followed. As for reduction in size, Irwin stated that the problem would be to be able to sell the units with the costs ? -it had to be affordable to build. Gerry reminded him that financial hardship was not a consideration. Roger felt that the whore subdivision should be looked at. Peter repeated that this item was difficult to look at until there was an accurate survey. Dave Irwin asked to table to the next meeting. Dan asked that there be stakes for the garage corners, also, Jim moved and Dan seconded to table the request . until the next regular meeting as per the applicant's request. The vote was 5 in favor and 1 (Duane) against. It was tabled to the next meeting. Peter P. said that they would meet with the engineering department to discuss issues such as revegetation of scars, and whether or not the roads had been accepted as they now are, is Gerry reminded the members that a week from that day (on 9/21/81) there would be a work session with the Council at 1:30 at the RamsHorn Lodge. Gerry moved and Dan seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 A r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar DATE: 9/9/81 RE: Request for a front setback variance in the Primary /Secondary Zone District on lot 5, Block 1, Intermountain Subdivision, 2644 Larkspur Lane. Applicant: Byron Hoyle. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests a variance from the required 20.foot front setback in order to construct a single family dwelling on his lot, with a portion of the building being within the front setback. A corner of the building would encroach approximately 7 feet into the required 20 foot setback, The corner of the proposed house would be located 13 feet from the front property line. The applicant feels that the variance is warranted for three reasons: 1. The lot is extremely steep (40 %T45% slope). The movement of the house forward will minimize the cuts necessary to build the structure; • 2. The movement of the house forward into the setback will enable the driveway to be constructed at an 8% slope (the Town's requirement) rather than at a 13% slope; 3. The movement of the house forward will enable the applicant to avoid cutting the largest tree on the lot - -a sixty foot high pine tree with a 30 inch diameter. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62,060 of the Municipal Code the Department of Community Development recommends a2proval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factorsi The relationshi2 of the re guested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The variance requested presents no evidence that it will result in any negative impacts upon the surrounding properties. There is currently one single family dwelling on the lot to the west of lot S, and the land to the east is vacant. The lots in the vicinity are all Primary/Secondary lots with many being under 15,000 square feet as is the applicant's (9761 sq £t). These lots would allow single family residences, The variance request may, in fact, have a positive effect visually on the adjacent properties by minimizing the necessary cuts IN • r- 1 L J Hoyle m2- 3/9/81 in order to build on a lot of severe slope and also by enabling the applicant to save the large pine tree. The degree to which relief, from the strict or literal inter retation and enforcement of a eciTied reguriation -iTnecess ry to achieve compatibilit and una.formity -of, yreatment among sites, in t}ie v�icinitn or to attain 'the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege, Relief from the strict interpretation of the setback requirement of the zoning ordinance is warranted in this case due to the physical hardships which are apparent on this lot. The minimization of cuts and the ability to save the tree are consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the granting of the variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu- lation transportation and traffic. ilities and utilities and public safety. The requested variance should not have any negative impacts upon the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning end 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 improve- ments in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more oflithe following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon- sistent with the objectives of this title. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance. The benefits of moving the house forward 7 feet into the setback.. the minimization of cuts and saving the 60 foot pine tree outweigh any impact that a 13 foot setback rather than a 20 foot setback might have, 0 10 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1981 RE: Public hearing and consideration of a conditional use request for office space on the third floor of Study Area #5 in Lionshead. Applicant: Robert T. Lazier REQUEST To construct approximately 6,600 square feet of office space on the third floor of the recently approved plan for Study Area #5 in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. Office space on the third floor in Commercial Core II requires the approval,of a conditional use permit. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS After review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Planning and Environmental Commission just approved the plans for Study Area #5. The Staff considers this a significant improvement for Vail Lionshead. The effect of use on lig facilities, utilities, s facilities needs. No impact. t and air, distribution of population, transportation hoofs, parks and recreation facilities, and other pub The effect upon traffic with particu.ar reference to congestion, automotive and edestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera- bility, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No impact. The effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to Sur- rounding uses. The scale and bulk of the now proposal will be less than the general Lionshead area, and will be a pedestrian scale, something that this area needs to achieve 40 greater success. is Study Area #5 Office Space -2= 9/9/81 In considering, in accordance with.Chapter 18.60, an application for a conditional use permit within Commercial Cone li District, the following development factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core 11 District. Should be.reduced by the proposal. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 11 District. The new plan should reduce the amount.of_traffac on East Lionshead Circle. C. Reduction of nonessential off - street 2arking. The parking structure would only have assigned spaces for office, residential and commercial uses. D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles. This is dramatically improved by the new plan. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. A new mall area and improved public spaces is part of the plan. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in . Commercial Core-II District ',.so as to maintain the existing character of the area ji. The plan provides for a greater mix in commercial uses and improves the Vail Lionshead area, G. Control_ quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial! Core 1�1 District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The architectural design and scale will be an excellent improvement to Vail Lionshead. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust,- smoke and other factors on the environment of Commercial. Core Dis trict, I Distr t �....._.__ . Not applicable. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1, That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the district in which the site is located; 10 Study Area #5 Office Space -3- 9/9/81 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to.the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department supports the request as it does meet the criteria and findings under conditional use permit review. PLANKING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 28, 1981 3:00 p.m. 1. Request to vacate a lot line between parcels 4 and 5, Sundial Phase I, part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn Subdivision, Applicant: Benchmark Homes of Colorado. 2. Request for a side and rear setback variance for lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision, part of Lion's Ridge Filing No. 2. Applicant: David L. Cole. 3. Request for exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building for the deck area to determine the amount of office space on deck. Applicant: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. 4. Request to amend the Parking (P) Distract to permit by conditional use public uses that are transportation, tourist or town related and accessory type uses. In addition, to amend the Public Use District (PUD) to permit by conditional use, public uses, office and commercial uses that are transportation and tourist related and dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special district. 5. Request to amend the non - conforming section of the zoning code to permit restoration of legal non - conforming structures that are destroyed by fire or other calamity or by an act of God. Applicant: Town of Vail. 6. Request to amend the official zoning map:'.of the.Town of Vail in accordance with Section 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code as follows: a. Change the Ski Museum, lot 6, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) to Public Use (PUD) District. b. Change lot 10, Bighorn Subdivision from Two Family Residential. (R) to Green. Belt and Open Space (GBOS) Distract. c. Change Tract H, Vail Village 1st Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District, d. Change lot 28, Lionsridge Filing 3 from Primary /Secondary Residential (P /S) to Public Use (PUD) District. e. Change lot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision from Commercial Core III (CCIII) to Public Use (PUD) District. f, Change lot 10, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Two Family Residential (R) to Public Use (PUD) District. g. Change lot 3, Resub of lot 1, block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District. • 7. Request for a rear setback variance and for a variance for a setback from a watercourse for lot 1, resub of lot 14, block 4, Bighorn 3rd, Applicant: Heritage Company.. 1-0 h, Change Tract E, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing from Commercial Core 11 (CClI) to Public Use District (PUD). i. Change Donovan Park, a parcel of land located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 12 Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vdil, State of Colorado, from Residential.Cluster (RC) and Primary /Secondary Residential (P /S) to Public Use (PUD) District. j. Change King Arthur's Court, a parcel of land situated in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 55, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, State of Colorado from Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District. k. Parcel B of the Annexation Plat of Forest Service Pxoperty, annexed by Ordinance #7, 1980 as recorded in Book 302, page 852, Eagle County records from Green Belt and Open Space (GBOS) to Agriculture and Open Space (A) District. 1. Change Glen Lyon Stream Tract, a parcel of land located in a portion of the N 1/2, NW 1/4 of,Section 12, Township 55, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M,, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado from Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use District (PUD). m. Change Pitkin Creek Tract, a parcel of land lying within Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P,M „ Town of Vail, Eagle County, containing 19,566:40 square feet of 0.449 acres more or less from Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use (PUD) District. 7. Request for a rear setback variance and for a variance for a setback from a watercourse for lot 1, resub of lot 14, block 4, Bighorn 3rd, Applicant: Heritage Company.. 1-0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 28,. 1981 0 2- 00.-Dw Vloxk session to discuss variance procedure and review by PEC. 3:oo pm 1, Request for a rear setback variance and for a variance for a setback from a watercourse fox lot 1, resub of lot 14, block 4, Bighorn 3rd. Applicant: Heritage Company. 2. Request for a front setback variance for lot 5, resub of lot 14, Bighorn 3rd. Applicant. Heritage Company 3. Request to vacate a lot line between parcels 4 and 5, Sundial Phase 1, part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Benchmark Homes of Colorado. 4. Request for a side and rear setback variance for lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision, part of Lion's Ridge Filing No. 2. Applicant:. David L. Cole. 5. Request for exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building for the deck area to determine the amount of office space on deck. Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. 6, Request to an the Parking (P) District to permit by conditional use public uses that are transportation, tourist or town related and accessory type uses. In addition, to amend the Public Use District (PUD) to permit by conditional use, public uses, office and commercial uses that are transportation and tourist related and dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special district. 7. Request to amend the non - conforming section of the zoning code to permit restoration of legal non - conforming structures that are destroyed by fire or other calamity or by an act of God, Applicant: Town of Vail. g, Request to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Vail in accordance with Section 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code as follows: (Each of the following Properties belong to the Town of Vail.) a. Change the Ski Musium, lot 6, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) to Public Use (PUD) District, b. Change lot 10, Bighorn Subdivision from Two Family Residential (R) to Green Belt and Open Space (GBOS) District, c. Change Tract H. Vail Village lst Filing from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District, d. Change lot 28, Lionsridge Filing 3 from Primary /Secondary Residential (P /S) to Public Use (PUD) District. e. Change lot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision from Commercial Core III (CCIII) to Public Use (PUD) District. f. Change lot 10, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Two Family Residential (R) to Public Use (PUD) District. g. Change lot 3, Resub of lot 1, block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multi Family (HDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District. h. Change Tract E, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing from Commercial Core 11 (CCII) to Public Use District (PUD). i. Change Donovan Park, a parcel of land located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4,. Section 12 Township S.South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, State of Colorado, from Residential Cluster (RC) and Primary /Secondary Residential (P /S) to Public Use (PUD) District. j. Change King Arthur's Court, a parcel of land situated in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 55, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, State of Colorado from Low Density Multi- Family (LDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District. k. Parcel B of the Annexation Plat of Forest Service Property, annexed by Ordinance #7, 1980 as recorded in Book 302, page 852, Eagle County records from Green Belt and Open Space (GBOS) to Agriculture and Open Space (A) District. • 1. Change Glen Lyon Stream Tract, a parcel of land located in a portion of the N 112, NW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 55, Range 81 West of the 6th P. M., Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado from Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use District (PUD). �J m. Change Pitkin Creek Tract, a parcel of land lying within Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, Eagle County, containing 19,566.40 square feet of 0.449 acres more or less from Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use (PUD) District. Published in the Vail Trail September 25, 1981 Planning and Environmental Commission September 28, 1981 MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF Gerry White Peter Patten Scott Edwards Peter Jamar Will Trout Betsy Rosol.ack Dan Corcoran Larry Eskwith Jim Morgan Dick Ryan later; Roger Tilkemeier COUNCIL REP Ron Todd Gerry White, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. He asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 14. Dan moved and Jim seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 4 -0 in favor with Scott abstaining. 1. Request to vacate a lot line between parcels 4 and 5, Sundial Phase I, part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Benchmark Homes of Colorado. Peter Patten explained that this lot was very flat with no vegetation to be concerned about, that it was surrounded by multifamily units. Without the vacation, the owner could built two separate duplexes. The concensus of feeling was that the owner was attempting to fit-the appearance of the structures with the multi-family units farther east. Dan moved and Will seconded to approve the vacation of the lot line between parcels 4 and 5, Sundial Phase I per the staff memo dated September 28, 1981. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of approval. 2. Request for a side and rear setback variance for lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision, part of Lions' Ridge Filing No. 2. Applicant: David L. Cole. Peter Jamar explained the memo_ Craig Snowdon, architect for the applicant, showed 3 site plans and described the process that had transpired with Eagle County. He stated that after submitting the original site plan, the County sent him a letter asking for modifications. These were made, and the drawings reissued, In the meantime, the surveyor had staked out the building according to the old drawings. The owner selected a new contractor and construction was begun, but the building staking laid out by the surveyor was never rechecked or changed, leaving the existing situation. He said that this was an unintentional error on the part of the applicant. The .applicant has received letters from the owners of the neighboring lots with favorable responses in every case. Craig showed photos showing the areas where the setback variances were requested. He added that if the building were to be moved forward, it would be more promi- nent. He stated that the hardship was the fact that the building was in place. ■ PEC 9/28/81 -2- Gerry White had the copies of the letters from the neighbors (the originals • were in the Community Development files, Scott felt that there didn't seem to be an impact on the adjoining property owners, but if the road were public, he would feel differently, (The road is a private road.) Will suppported Scott, and disagreed with the County as far as the placing of the house. He favored the variance. Gerry stated that while the present adjacent property owners do not object, future owners may. Jim agreed with Gerry in that a financial hardship or self inflicted hard 'ship were not grounds for a variance. Craig admitted the hardship was financial, but stated that as a member of other boards in Town, he looks at each item individually, and also ask whether or not it is good for the Town. Scott moved and Will seconded to approve the variance based on the following findings: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classi- fied in the same district and 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, and that the variance is warranted because 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, that there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicalbe to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Craig added that the lgt was 32 -33% slope and.was also an odd shape, and that the design tried to solve some of these problems, The vote was 2 in favor (Scott and Will) and 3 against (Jim, Dan and Gerry). The motion for approval of the variance was denied, Reasons for voting for denial were given: Jim did not feel that there were extraordinary circumstances, Dan stated that being a licensed surveyor, the first thing the surveyor should have done was to check to see if the project will fit within the setbacks and easements. Gerry stated that without question, there was a mix -up in plans, and a change in contractors., but he couldn't accept this as reason for a variance. Dave Cole stated that the lot isn't like the other lots..in the vicinity, in that is has a curve the others don't have. Gerry reminded Dave that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the Town Council. PCC 9/29/81 3- 3. Request for ex'gerior alteration, and modification to the Casino • Building for the deck area to determine the amount of office space on deck, Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and .Tames J, Sprowls Gerry read a letter from the applicant requesting that this .item be tabled. Dan moved and Jim seconded to accept the applicant's request to be tabled to the meeting of October 12. The vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling, 4. Re nest to amend the Parking (P) District.to permit by conditional use public uses that are transportation, tourist or town related and accessory type uses, In addition., to amend the Public Use District (PUD) to permit by conditional use, public uses,, office and commercial uses that are transportation and tourist related and dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special district, Dick Ryan explained the memo. Dan suggested that one.item be considered at a time. Dan moved and Scott seconded to recommend the amendment of the Parking (P) Distract to permit by conditional use.public uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related accessory type uses. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. The second part of the request, amending the Public Use District (PUD) to permit by conditional use, office and commercial uses .that.are'.tourist. related and dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town • or special districts. Gerry felt that the words, "long term" should be stated, Dick said that the Town may want employee housing at the Town shops because of recent vandalism occuring there. In each case, the conditional use review will have to come before the PDC, Dan-stated that the problem that he had with this was that later on the agenda, much property was suggested to be rezoned to PUD, and he didn't feel that some of those pieces of property should have housing on them. He didn't feel that he could back this and then proceed with the other parcels. Dick stressed that the housing was to be used as an accessory to a building that is already there. Scott expressed concern about having housing in the same zone as buses. Jim suggested that when the other parcels were considered, it would be possible to change the suggested zone to Agriculture and Open Space (A) rather than to PUD. Members of the audience who spoke were: Alice Parsons who said that she agreed with Dan and Scott and would like to see a more restrictive zoning such as Agricultural and Open Space. Susan Hertzog stated that the definition of PUD was scary. It doesn't specify that the dwellings have to be in another structure, PEC 9/28/81 -4- • Florence Habenicht said that she saw this as a blank check—that it was too all encompassing - -and that she felt a need for a more specific zone. Ann Charles was concerned with putting parks in the same zone as parking structure. She felt it could be Agriculture and Open Space. Jim reminded them that dwellings would be an accessory to the principal use. Susan said that the possibility of having a zoning especially for parks seemed good, She questioned the reasori11for the PUD zone. Peter Patten suggested that when they get to specific properties in the meeting, the zoning could be discussed individually, Property that is zoned PUD at present are Ford Park, the parking structure, the ice area, post office and municipal buildings, future library property. Peter reminded the commission that as a conditional use, each request would have to go through the PEC with a public hearing process, and would be looked at individually with citizen input considered. Jim moved and Will seconded to recommend the amendment of the Public Use (PUD) District to permit by conditional use,, office and commercial uses that are tourist related and dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special districts as accessory uses to primary structures. The vote was 3 for and 2 against (Dan and Scott). The motion passed. Scott said that he didn't was against the motion when he found out that Ford Park was zoned PUD. • Roger Tilkemeier arrived. 5. Request to amend the non - conforming section of the zoning code to permit restoration of legal non - conforming structures that are destroyed by fire or other calamity or by an act of God. Appliant: Town of Vail. Dick Ryan explained the memo. Dan wondered if people would draw their own plans. Dick explained that unless people got their buildings registered, the Town could run into major problems. Photos as part of the registration was discussed, as was the problem with concern with GRFA, Dan felt that the building bulk was more important than GRFA. Dick emphasized that the same number of units must be allowed to be built, even though they were non conforming when brought into the Town, but the new construction would have to follow the most current building codes. Scott moved and Roger seconded to amend the non - conforming section as stated in the memo,,and the amended restoration section should read as follows: 18,64.090 Restoration A. Whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with requirements for setbacks, height, density control, building bulk control, or site coverage, is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God or PEC 9/28/81 -5- • by the public enemy, the use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided that restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion. B. Registration of nonconforming uses, structures or sites is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department. The owner or representative must submit sufficient information to insure if the use, structure or site can be reconstructed to the original plan. Minimum information submitted should be a site plan, floor plans, use of structure, parking layout and landscaping. The vote was 6 -0, unanimously in favor. 6. Request to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Vail in accordance with Scction 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code as follows:. At this point, Peter Patten noted that the Ski Museum had been published with the wrong lot number, so that item was postponed until it.could be published correctly.. b, Change lot 10, Bighorn Subdivision from Two Family Residential (R) to Green Belt and Natural'Open Space!:(GNOS) District. Dan moved and Roger seconded to change this zoning as listed. The vote was 6 -0, unanimously in favor.. c. Change Tract H, Vail Village 1st Filing from HDMF to Public Use District (PUD). After discussion it was decided to change this tract from HDMF to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space ((GNOS). Jim moved and Scott seconded to change Willow Circle Island, Tract H, Block 6, Vail Village 1st from HDMF to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space (GNOS). The vote was 6,0 unanimously in favor, d. Change lot 28, Lionsridge Filing 3 from Primary /Secondary (P /S) to Public Use (PUD) District. After discussion, it was decided to change this. Dan moved and Roger seconded to change lot 28, Lionsridge Filing 3 from Primary /Secondary (P /S) to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space (GNOS) District. The vote was 6 -0, unanimously in favor. e. Change lot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision from Commercial Core III (CCIII) to Public Use (PUD) District. After discussion, it was decided to change this as listed. Dan moved and Scott seconded to change lot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision i from Commercial Core III (CCIII) to Agriculture and Open Space (A) District. The vote was 6 -0 unanimously in favor, PEC 9/28/81 -6- f. Change lot 10, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Two Family Residential • (R) to Public Use (PUD) District. Dick Ryan stated that the PUD zoning was suggested because it was possible to some day build a youth center in this area. Roger moved and Dan seconded to change the zoning as indicated. The vote was 6--0., unanimously in favor. g. Change lot 3, Resub of lot 1, block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) to Public Use (PUD) District. (This is the parking structure.) The staff suggested that this be changed to Parking instead, Dan moved and Scott seconded to change lot .3, Resub of lot 1, block 1, Vail Lionslhead 2nd Filing from High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) to Parking (P) District. The vote was 6 -0, unanimously in favor. h. Change Tract E, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing from Commercial Core I1 (CCII) to Public Use District (PUD). This was change) to Parking. Scott moved and Roger seconded to change Tract E, Vail Lionslhead 1st Filing from Commercial Core 11 to Parking (P) District. The vote was 6- O.unanimously in favor. i. Change Donovan Park, a parcel of land located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, and the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 12 Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, State of Colorado, from Residential Cluster (RC) and Primary /Secondary (P /S) to Public Use (PUD) District. Dick Ryan suggested having a different zoning for the upper parcel than the zoning for the lower parcel. The upper parcel would probably never have a structure upon it, and could be zoned Agricultural and Open Space (A). The lower parcel could be zoned Public Use District (PUD) which would allow a swimming pool and structure, He answered a question from the audience clarifying that no structure would be placed on the upper parcel of the parkk' In answer; part of the conditonal uses was read aloud explaining that a pool would have to go through public hearing, since it could involve more than 200 people in assembly. Susan Hertzog was concerned that employee housing might be built on the lower parcel, Dick explained that the employee housing would have to be an accessory use to another structure. Kirsch Sanders commented that they didn't want another Fall Line., but could accept custodial units. Dan reminded the audience that POD was Public Use District, not planned unit development. Ann Charles felt that a future PEC could misinterpret the code. The definition was discussed and Peter remanded them that.the property was purchased with the real estate transfer tax which limited the use of the property to ._ recreation and open space. PEC 9/28/81 -7- Ella Knox .. spoke against the custodial unit mentioning that it 49 hadn't worked at the church.or'at the Lodge, Roger moved and Dan seconded to recommend the change of the upper parcel from Primary /Secondary (P /S) to Agricultural and Open Space (A) and to change the lower parcel from RC to Public Use District (PUD). The vote was 6 =0, unanimously in favor. T. Change King Arthur's Court, a parcel of land situated in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 S., Range 80 West of.the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, State of Colorado from Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) to Aglricultural and Open Space (A) District. Scott moved and Roger seconded to change the zoning as listed. The vote was 6 -0 unanimously in favor. k. Change Parcel B of the Annexation Plat of Forest Service Property, annexed by Ordinance #7, 1980 as recorded in Book 302, page 852 Eagle County records from Natural Greenbelt and Open Space (LAGOS) to Agrucultural and Open Space (A) District. Dan moved and Will seconded to change the zoning as listed. The vote was 6 -0 unanimously in favor. 1. Change Glen Lyon Stream Tract, a parcel of land located in a portion of the N 1/2, NW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West • of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, County of Eagle,.State of Colorado from Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use (PUD) District. Roger moved and Scott seconded to change this zoning from SDD to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space (GNOS). The vote was 6c-0 in favor. m. Change Pitkin Creek Tract, a parcel of land lying within Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, Eagle County, containing 19,566.40 square feet of 0.449 acres more or less from Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use District (PUD) . Roger moved and Scott seconded to change the zoning as listed. The vote was 6 -0 unanimously in favor. 7. Request for a rear setback variance and for a variance for a setback from a watercourse for lot 1, resub of lot 14, block 4., Bighorn 3rd. Applicant: Heritage Company. Peter Patten explained that the commissioners had visited this site before the meeting. He'added that the staff felt the design was indeed better than the last one, but that it was still not the best design in the staff's opinion. Dick said that the site visit showed that the house could be moved further. Ppc 9/28/81 -8- Will Trout, archiect for the project, explained that he felt that the design worked best with the site, He added that;the code did not mention maximum or minium cuts. Gerry felt that the part of the lot that was being left open was the part that should be built upon and that the buildings could also be smaller on that lot. He added that some fill would have to be given for the driveway -but that was better than cutting into the hillside. Jim asked if it was in the best interests of the Town not to cut into the hillside. Jim added that people make cuts and fills and if they don't need a variance, the Town does not deal with the situation, Will added that there was nothing in the code that said one had to build on the flat portion. Jim: As I see it, the site falls into a hardship - -the lot is unbuildable. It is not necessarily undesirable to the Town. Dan: I am concerned with the proximity to the stream. The buildings could be pulled away from the stream. Scott: Is this hardship self afflicted? I am against stream setback encroachments, Roger: I haven't seen the lot. If the only encroachment is toward the highway there are no serious problems with the setback on the rear. Gerry: I continue to have problems because it looks as though the site is being adapted to design rather than the reverse. They don't have to cut into the hillside so much. The inside courtyard is unnecessary. • John Nilsson, realtor, stated that the reason for the piazza was safety so that the cars can turn around before driving out, Jim moved and Roger seconded to approve the request based on the findings that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, 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, and that the variance is warranted because 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 the title. The vote was 3 for and 2 against (Gerry and Dan). The meeting was adjourned at 6.00 p.m. n MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 9/9/81 RE: Request for a front setback variance in Primary Secondary Zone District for lot 5, Resubdivision of lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivison 3rd Addition, Applicant: Heritage Company. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests a front setback variance of 9 feet-to 10 feet in the required 20 foot setback. The house would sit, at its closest point, 10 feet from the front property line. The lot is 16,988 square feet, triangular in shape, and has Bighorn Creek flowing through the property. Thus, in addition to the front and side setbacks, the lot is subject to the 30 foot required setback from the center of the creek. The applicant feels that a "drop offs' towards Bighorn Creek in the rear limits the building site and forces the building to the front of the site and into the setback required from the front property line. The Department of Community Development Staff feels that, while the site is difficult to design for, it is this design which does not is fit onto the site given the topography and setback constraints and that a different, improved design for the site could be achieved. There is a drop in topography towards the creek. However, the staff feels that a design which made use of the site area between the front setback and the drop off could be achieved. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Develo ment 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. There are five other lots within the subdivision, three of which are currently being designed for as sites of Primary /Secondary residences. There are two existing single family dwellings within the subdivision. The requested setback variance will not have any major impact upon the other uses within the vicinity other than the fact that it would be unnecessarily, at one point, only 10 feet away from the edge of the property and roadway, The effect of the short distance between the road and the house would be mainly a visual one. u Lot 5, Heritage Co. -2- 9/9/81 4 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulatlon is necessary. to achieve com atibility and uniformit o£ treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob- j- ectives af, this title without grant of - special, privilege. While there are definitely physical constraints to building on portions of the lot, there is adequate space to design a dwelling which would be within the setback requirements. The granting of the variance would not be consistent with meeting the objectives of the zoning ordinance. The effect of the requested variance on 1i po ulation, trans ortation and traffic fa.c and utilities, and public safety. and air_, distribution of ies. Public facilities The requested variance could possibly have a negative effect.upon transporta- tion within the subdivision due to the fact that the house being located only 10 feet from the edge of the roadway on the lower side of the road might hamper snowplowing efforts. There would be no significant effect upon the other factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The, Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before -granting- a vari -n-ce: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privi- lege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regu- lation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinaary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. LI I'` Lot 5, Heritage Co -3- 9/9/81 10 The strict or literal interpretation and envorcement 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 Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The Staff believe that indeed the lot is a difficult lot upon which to design a structure. However, the staff also believes that there is ample site area within the required setbacks in which to design a structure. No sufficient reason or proof of physical hardship has been shown by the applicant which is substantial enough to justify the granting of the variance. We believe that the applicant must .investigate further his design options for the property. • I J4 r . L7- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental CommisAion FROM: Department of Community DevelopmentJ Peter Jamar DATE: September 9, 1951 RE: Request for a rear setback variance and a stream setback variance on lot 1, Resudivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Heritage Company Description of Variance Requested The applicant requests a variance of 14 feet into the required 15 foot rear lot line setback and 5 feet into the required 30 foot stream setback. The lot is a Primary /Secondary lot of 20,037 square feet of area. The structures designed for the lot consist of 1,612 square feet in the secondary unit and 2,467 square feet in the primary unit for a total of 4,079 square feet. The lot is of an "hourglass" shape and to build a dwelling of this size upon the lot and stay within the required setbacks would virtually be impossible. The lot also has physical constraints to building due to Bighorn Creek running through the western and southern portion of the lot dnd a steep ridge which runs across the eastern portion of the lot. The applicant proposes a design upon the lot which would have the dwellings located one foot off the rear property line, The eastern unit would require a cut of approximately 20 feet into the existing ridge, The adjacent property on this side is owned by the Colorado Department of Highways. The design for the western, primary unit is also located one foot away from the rear property line. In addition, the design requires that a stream setback. variance of 5 feet be granted to permit the siting of this unit. The design of this unit requires that retaining walls be constructed on the creek side of the unit; at one point as close as 10 feet from the center line of the creek. The Department of Community Development Staff believes that while it will be necessary to grant certain setback variances upon the lot in order for the applicant to build, there are better solutions available for building upon this site than currently proposed. ,CRITERIA AND FINDINGS pon review ode, the D equested v of Criteria and Findin partment of Community riance based upon the Section 18,62,060 of the Municipal lopment recommnends� denial of the tors: r � . • U Lot 1, Heritage -2- 9/9/81 Consideration of Factors The relationship of the�requesred variance to other existing or potential uses and - structures in- the, yi &inity, The Department of Community Development Staff believes that the most significant impact that the proposal will have upon the area is the amount of disturbance to the hillside. The excessive cuts needed to construct the secondary unit would unnecessarily disturb the area. It is questionable whether the cuts required within one foot of the property line could be achieved without disturbing the adjacent property as well, The retainage required adjacent to Bighorn Creek could be minimized by moving the structure into the portions of the site which are not as steep. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter retation 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 .titre without giant of N c ai privilege There definitely will be variances needed for building upon the lot. There are physical hardships due to lot configuration, setback requirements and difficult topography. The staff feels that there is,' however, a more appro- priate design for the site which would not disturb as many critical areas of the site. The zoning ordinance states that excessive cuts and retaining should be kept at a minimum, Therefore, the granting of the variance request would be inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning code, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu- lation,� brans o ^tatio�a ,and t-raTfiic' facilities,, public. facilities and utilities and: pu 1ic� safety. The proposal would have no significant effect upon the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed-variance. ,,FINDINGS: The Planning and,Enyironmental 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. � r ' Lot 1 Heritage -3- 9/9/81 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regu- lation 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 interpretaion and enforcement of the specified regu- lation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, ,'STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The lot does have several physical constraints to building and variances will be needed to build upon it. We feel, however, that a building design which takes into account the topography of the site and attempts to minimize cuts and retaining on the site can be achieved. The Staff feels that utilization of the flat portion of the site for the buildings should be investigated, rather than utilizing that area for parking and garage entrances. The staff also questions whether designing a structure of nearly the maximum allowable GRFA is appropriate given the constraints of the site, • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 19$1 RE: Continuation of the public hearing for the request for an exterior alteration and modification to the Casino Building for the deck area to determine the amount of office space on deck. Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on August. 31, 1981 the deck part of the request was continued to the September 14 meeting. Concern was raised regarding the office expansion on the deck and the impact on views from the north window at Donovan's Copper Bar. The Planning and Environmental Commission should go over to Donovan's and look out the window. The Staff considers there would be little or no impact by the proposed deck expansion and supports this part of the request. LZ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: September 22, 1981 RE: Minor subdivision request to abandon the common lot line between parcels 4 and 5, Sundial Phase 1. Applicant: Benchmark Homes of Colorado REQUEST The applicant requests the abandonment of the lot line separating lots 4 and 5 of the Sundial Project, Phase I. There were 5 duplex lots, each of 15,000 . square feet of site area approved along with the recently completed townhouse project. None of these lots have been developed, and we are now getting requests for development approval on these lots. They are all zoned Residential (R) and are all allowed 3750 square feet of GRFA. The applicant wishes to unify the development of these two lots by building 2 duplexes separated from each other by a "common" garage facility. The objective is to unify development of the two lots by similar designs and to best utilize the areas of the two lots. The density and GRFA is not affected by this proposals RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this minor subdivision request. Developing the four units at one time will mitigate construction impacts on the site (between one duplex and the adjacent site). The lot line abandonment allows more of a clustered -type feeling to the two duplexes,, more closely approaching all the surrounding properties (Vail East Townhomes and Sundial Townhomes). Moreover, this proposal may allow the western- most units to be pulled away from the Vail East Townhome project which is in close proximity. lie • PROPERTY Ski Museum Duplex Lot Willow Circle Island Duplex Lot Garton Lot Steinberg Lot Parking Structure Landscaping . Donovan Park King Arthur's Court Livery Stable Glen Lyon Stream Tract Pitkin Creek Tract LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract B, Vail Village 2 Lot 10, Bighorn Sub Tract H, Block 6 Vail Village 1st Lot 28, Lionsridge #3 Lot 40, Buffer Creek Sub Lot 10, Vail Village 2nd Lot 3, Resub of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Tract E, Vail Lionshead 1st Metes and bounds west of Cascade Village Metes and bounds east of of Vail Racquet Club Parcel B of Forest Service' Annexations Metes and bounds Glen Lyon Subdivision I Metes and bounds HDMF R P/5 CC3 R PUD PUD PUD PUD HDMF PUD CC 2 PUD RC 4 PUD R. PIS LDMF PUD NGBOS ADS SDD PUD SDD PUD Total 9 dwelling units 2 dwelling units i not applicable I i 2 dwelling units 18 dwelling units 7 dwelling units 128 dwelling units 26 dwelling units not applicable not applicable not applicable 207 dwelling units RECCOM,, NUMBER OF CURRENT. MENDED DWELLING UNITS ZONE— ZONE ELIMINATED PA PUD 13 dwelling units 26 accommod.units R NGBOS 2 dwelling units HDMF R P/5 CC3 R PUD PUD PUD PUD HDMF PUD CC 2 PUD RC 4 PUD R. PIS LDMF PUD NGBOS ADS SDD PUD SDD PUD Total 9 dwelling units 2 dwelling units i not applicable I i 2 dwelling units 18 dwelling units 7 dwelling units 128 dwelling units 26 dwelling units not applicable not applicable not applicable 207 dwelling units UJ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 22, 1981 RE: Request for a side and rear setback variance on lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision APPLICANT: David L. Cole DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a side and rear setback variance for his residence located on Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision. A side setback variance from the re- quired 15' to 12.3' along the northeast building: line is requested and a rear setback variance from the required 15' to a minimum of 8.9' is requested for the western edge of the structure (see attached improvement survey). The structure was approved by Eagle County and designed under Eagle County regulations. The County's side and rear setbacks are similar to the Town's. The County requires setbacks in the rear and on the sides.of a structure to be 12,5 feet or half the height of the building on the lot. In this case, ihalf of the height of the building or 15' was used as a rear and side setback requirement. The plan approved by Eagle County for the building shows these 15' setbacks and the location of the building as being within these setbacks. Apparently, the building was misplaced on the property during construction. How this misplacement occurred is explained by the applicant's representative in the attached letter. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the De artment of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the re uested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The rear setback variance requested is bordered by a private drive owned in common by the applicant and adjacent property owners and would not negatively affect any existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The side setback variance requested, very slightly impacts the adjacent lot 3. One corner of the structure sits 2.7' into the required side setback adjacent to this lot which is currently vacant. The lot is zoned for a single family residence. Cole -2- 9/22/81 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and . enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary io achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sit-es-in-,the vicinity or to attain the objectives of, this Vitle without grant of especial privilege, . The zoning code states, that in order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships .inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning code as would result from strict or lateral interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations," such as setback.requiremen.ts may be granted. The zoning code states that a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvience to the applicant of strict or lateral compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. There is no unnecessary physical hardship evident in this case which warrants the granting of a variance. The; effect,'of,, tile, requested variance� on-. l-ight ,an& air', distribution of popu_ U7 tiomTVranswrtation land- t�rafftc Taic! l-iVi.es, - iuWi -c' facilities and utilities No impact, Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance FINDINGS The 1 'laming- and, Env i -Tonmenta1\Gomm ssion sha %T make the following_ findin before -granting a� vnri nce. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privi- lege inconsistent with the.limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 16 Cole -3- 9/22/81 There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply gone-rally to other properties.. in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regu- lation would deprive the applicant.of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Although apparently the misplacement of the building was an uninten;-... tional error and undoubtedly requiring the applicant to abide by the setback regulations will cause the applicant financial hardship, the variance requested is not supported by any unneccessary physical hardship as outlined by the zoning ordinance, • A =11 °20'091' L = 37.59' R= 190.00' CH = 3753! N 0 °07'22 "E 0 4 91 QIZh :5 °09'25" - 5.29' T�! } _'E / SET REBAR IN CONCRETE sL.S. No. 12488 19 s� � LO �N PIS �r ' i UT-ILi ti — 26.0��, W S �� �f CRS DRIVE -- �-mm° °� LOCATIrrY IMPROVEPF - CERTIFICATE �OT ?, CLII ; ,JOE EAGj I TOWN OF 'SAIL' '1INTY, COLORADO /II / tl Q 5 d = 44 052'20'1 L = 97.24' R= 124.16' CH= 94.77! S 41 ° 2525 " W rED PROJECT No. s.M�. v- rls5s T V DATE ISSUED'• 8 1 12 1 81 . C aL ++ 20.0' J.L.W. 6 PAGE 05 - 6 SHEET r na 1 OF ! Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects 201 Gore Creek Drive 303 476 -2201 P. 0. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado 81657 September 10, 1981 Mr. Peter Patten Town.of Vail Planning Administrator 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter: The applicant David L. Cole is requesting a side and rear setback variance for his residence located on Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision, Vail, Colorado. As the applicant's representative and Architect for the project we are requesting as follows: 1. A side setback variance from 15.' (as required by the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance Section 18.10.060) to 12.5' along the northeast building line for approximately 71. 2. A rear setback variance from 15' (as required by the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance Section 18.10.060) to 8.9' along the western building line for 32.7`. The reason for the variance request is due to misplacement of the building on the property during construction. -As far as can be deter- mined at this stage, -the reason for the error is as follows. 1. An original site plan was submitted to Eagle County Building Department and the intended contractor at the time of construc- tion (a copy was also submitted to the surveyor for staking of the building on the.property). 2. Eagle County requested modifications to the site plan be made. 3. Modifications to the site plan were made and the drawings reissued. 4. The Owner selected a new contractor and construction was begun., 5. Apparently in the process of changing contractor and site plan the building staking laid out by the surveyor was never rechecked or changed, leaving the existing situation.. This matter is being reviewed by.the Town of Vail PEC,. because part way through construction this property was annexed from Eagle County into the Town of Vail. It is our hope the Town of Vail and the PEC view this. as an unintentional error on the part of the applicant and would cause unw due hardship on the part of the applicant to try and relocate the building according to town standards. The rear setback variance requested is bor- dered by a private drive owned in common by the applicant and adjacent property owners and would, we feel not cause any hardships on-adjacent properties. The side setback variance is of minimal impact due to the building being placed non - parallel with the property and setback line, causing only the corner of the building to be within the setback. At present there is no building on Lot 3 (the property adjacent to the appli- cant being affected by the variance), a single family residence zoned property. Enclosed you will find four (4) copies of an improvement survey showing the existing situtation. (This was when the error was discovered) as you require. If you need further information or I can be of any help, please let me Know. Sin rely, C aig Snowdon CNS:rmg Encl. 4 I MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Dcvul-opment Department DATE: October 1, 1981 RE: Work Session on view corridors in Vail Village Attached is the approved major and minor view corridor map for Vail Village. We are scheduled to meet at the Gondola Plaza to review the request by Jack Curtin to make the Gondola Plaza view corridor to Gold Peak a minor view corridor, and the corridor from Hill Street east to the Gore Range a major view corridor. Meeting time is 12:30 on Tuesday at the Gondola Plaza. • 1---* 0- V- -7 [I_ U All - L 110 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: September 22, 1981 RE: Rezoning of Town of Vail -owned Properties Some of the Town's land, many of which were recently obtained are currently improperly zoned with regard to their existing or intended use. We have completed an inventory of these properties along with the district-owned land and have compiled the following list of properties which should be rezoned. The district -owned property was all found to be properly zoned. The attAche.d' list will summarize the statistics on the property, including the number of dwelling units being removed from the marketplace. I will present a map at the meeting locating these properties through -out the valley. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of all of these rezonings. We feel that the 207 units taken off the marketplace shows that Town of Vail.acgttisiti.on of key parcels within the Gore Valley is truly an effective means of reducing densities whale providing lands for use by the public. Rezoning these properties in the described manner allows the intended use to be reflected by the zoning on these properties. • PROPERTY Duplex Lot Willow Circle Island Duplex Lot Garton Lot Steinberg Lot Parking Structure Landscaping Donovan Park King Arthur's Court Livery Stable Glen Lyon Stream Tract Pitkin Creek Tract U] LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 10, Bighorn Sub Tract H, Block 6 Vail Village 1st Lot. 28, Lionsridge #3 Lot 40, Buffer Creek Sub Lot 10, Vail Village 2nd Lot 30 Resub of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Tract E, Vail Lionshead 1st Metes and bounds west of Cascade Village Metes and bounds east of of Vail Racquet Club Parcel B of Forest Service' Annexations Metes and bounds Glen Lyon Subdivision Metes and bounds REVISED LIST RECCOMv DUMBER OF CURRENT MENDED DWELLING UNITS ZONE ZONE ELIMINATED R HD R CC R HDl CC RC R LDl GNOS SDD SDD GNOS GNOS GNOS A PUD P P PUD A A A GNOS 00191J IM 2 dwelling units 9 dwelling units 2 dwelling units not applicable 2 dwelling units 18 dwelling units 7 dwelling units 128 dwelling units 26 dwelling units not applicable not applicable not applicable MEMORANDUM � 0 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1, 1981 Enclosed are two packets. One includes items you will be dealing with Tuesday, The other includes the packet the PEC ddalt with September 28, minus those items you'll deal with on Tuesday, • • 40 if 0 MEMORANDUM 'I'U-. planning and Environmental Commission DATE: September 21, 1981 FROM. Community Development Department RE: Public hearing and consideration of amending the Parking (P) District to permit by the issuance of.a conditional use, public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related and accessory type uses. In addition, to amend the Public Use (PUD) District to permit by conditional use, office and commercial uses that are tourist related and dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special districts. I. BACKGROUND With construction of the new Vail Lionshead Parking Center and auxiliary building the Parking (P) District needs to be amended to permit conditional public and private office and commercial uses that are transportation and tourist related and accessory type uses. Currently in the Parking Zone District there is only one permitted use - -' °private or public unstructured off -- street vehicle parking." Conditional uses are "A. Private or public off - street vehicle parking structures, B. Private or public parks and recreational faci- lities." ZONING AMENDMENT FOR PARKING DISTRICT Proposed by conditional use review is to permit the following uses to be an accessory to a parking structure: C, Public uses, private office and commercial uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related that are accessory to a parking structure. The auxilliary building under construction in Vail Lionshead= Parking Center was always anticipated to contain small offices and commercial space that would be transportation related or would assist the tourists..in..their commercial needs. The proposed amendment would by the issuance of a conditional use permit allow the activity to take place. II BACKGROUND In the Public Use District where the Vail Village Transportation Center is located, office and commercial uses need to be expanded. The area has always been considered for Town and private office uses and commercial uses that are transportation and tourist related. These uses have been in the structure for several years, The zoning code needs to be amended to be clear on this intent. In 6. lie 0 (P) & (PUD). -2- 9/21/81 addition, the Town has placed as an accessory use in the library, three employee units. This also needs to be more clearly stated in the zoning code, and the Staff is recommending by conditional use, dwellings and dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special district. The number and size of units to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. ZONING AMENDMENT FOR THE PUBLIC USE DISTRICT The following items would be added to the conditional use section of the Public Use District of the Town :Zoning Code. 0. Office and tourist related commercial uses, P. Dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special district (the number and size-- GRFAW- of units to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission). TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: September 21, 1981 RE:. Public hearing and consideration of amending the non- conforming section of the zoning code to permit restoration of legal non- conforming uses, structures or site improvements that are destroyed by fire or other calamity or by an act of God. BACKGROUND: At the time of the West Vail initial zoning meetings and public hearings, discussion took place regarding non - conforming uses, buildings and improvements, The Community Development Department stated that because the Town of Vail did not have zone districts exactly similar to Eagle County zoning, there would be several noncconforming buildings and improvoments in the area. Currently the Code states "When destruction exceeds fifty percent, or the structure or site improvement is voluntarily razed or removed by law, the structure or site improvements shall not be restored except in full conformity with the development standards by this title," In addition, the Staff recommended that this section of the zoning code be amended to permit reconstruction of legal non- conforming buildings or improvements. PROPOSED AMENDMENT Community Development Department is recommending amending the non - conforming restoration section, 18.64.090 of the Zoning Code. The new section would permit the reconstruction of legal non - conforming uses, buildings or improvements within the Town of Vail. The owner or owners of legal non - conforming uses, buildings or improvements that we can identify will be notified that they must submit plans of the building to insure that there is a record if the building or improvements are damaged or destroyed.. In the recently annexed area, records received from Eagle County are sketchy, and we need accurate plans. There may also be problems identifying some legal and illegal non- conforming buildings and improvements. The amended restoration section should read as follows: 18.64,090 Restoration A. Whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with requirements for setbacks, height, density control, building bulk control, or site coverage, is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God, or by the public enemy, the use • • ' Restoration of Non - conforming Uses �-2- 9121/81 may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided that restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion, B. Registration of nonconforming uses, structures or sites is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department., The owner or re- presentative must submit sufficient information to insure if the use, structure or site can be reconstructed to the original plan, Minimum information submitted should be a site plan.,, floor plans, use of structure, parking layout and landscaping. 0 TO: Town Council MEMORANDUM FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1, 1981 SUBJECT: Background memorandum on permitting by conditional review in the Public Use District., dwelling or dormitory type unit for employees of the Town or special district. At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on Monday, several property owners in the Matterhorn area were concerned that the Town was going to construct an employee housing project at Donovan Park. The purpose of the proposed amendment was explained as providing on -site housing for employees who work in the building or abutting Town or district building. In addition, to provide on --site security for the building, After some discussion by the public and Planning and Environmental Commission, there was an addition placed on the proposed amendment. The Staff proposal was to permit by conditional use approval: P. "Dwelling or dormitory type units for employees of the Town or special district "(the number and size - GRFA -of units to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission). The Planning and Environmental Commission added "accessory to the principal use (structure) of the property." • r r MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission PROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1, 1981 RE: Work Session on view corridors in Vaal Village Attached is the approved major and minor view corridor map for Vail Village. We are scheduled to meet at the Gondola Plaza to review the request by Jack Curtin to make the Gondola Plaza view corridor to Gold Peak a minor view corridor, and the corridor from Hill Street east to the Gore Range a major view corridor. Meeting time is 12:30 on Tuesday at the Gondola Plaza. I• 140 It • • 0 0