Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes October - DecemberPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 12, 1981 3:00 p.m. 1, Approval of minutes of September 28, 1981. 2. Request for density control variance to extend existing loft area on unit #304 of the Vorlaufer. R,H. Pickens. 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order lift the restriction to limit the student body of the Vail Mountain School. 4. Request for a variance from side and front setbacks for a residence at 1763 Shasta, lot 12, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner. 5. Request for a conditonal use permit to have a real estate office in space #7 of the Vail Village Inn, Phase III. Applicant: P. Van Ewing, III. 6. Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance No. 30, series of 1977, to add the allowance of one employee unit., on Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch. Applicant: Vail Investment and Development, Ltd. 7. Request for exterior alteration and modification to the Gasino Building for the deck area to determine the amount of office space on deck. Applicant: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls. � 0 Published in the Vail Trail October 9., 1981. • � 00, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING October 12, 1981 PRESENT Gerry White Scott Edwards Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Will Trout Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan later 1. Approval of minutes of Soptember 28. 1981, STAFF Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Betsy Rosolack Larry Eskwith COUNCIL Ron Todd Will Trout pointed out that item 7, requesting a rear setback for lot 1, resub of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd, did not include a request for a variance from a setback from a watercourse. With this correction, Scott moved and Dan seconded that the minutes by approved. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. Application for a 58 square foot Gross Residential Floor Area variance for unit #304 Vorlaufer Condominiums, Peter Jamar explained the memo adding that the applicant had also submitted two alternate schemes which would not require a variance,, and that the staff could not see that the applicant had unnecessary physical hardship.. Tim Clark, architect for Beck AsAociates, said that the applicant didn't have enough room in this condo (which he had received in an exchange), fie.added that there was not enough height room in the loft at present for anything else. He explained that to use the alternate plans would mean having to go through the bath room to the dressing or storage area. Roger stated that perhaps if the plan were a better one, that was reason enough to grant a variance. Dick Ryan reminded them that a similar request in West Vail recently was denied. Peter Jamar read part of the code, 18.64,010 regarding nonconforming uses and structures being limited in enlargement or alteration if it would increase the discrepancy, which the Pickens request did (made it more non-conform- ing) Roger felt that each case should be judged on its own merit. Duane felt that inconvenience did not sound like a real hardship. Will felt that the architect couldn't achieve the same thing with the alternate plans. Scott stated that he didn't have any problem with the bathroom as proposed, but that in order to follow the ordinance, didn't see how they could approve the request. Gerry moved and Dan seconded to deny the request because there was no. real hardship shown, and because with the alternate plans., the applicant could have a bath without the variance. The vote was 4 -2 in favor of denial. Roger and Will voted against, Roger stating that the applicant met all but the hardship criteria, and Will had stated his reason. PEC -2, 10/12/81 3. Request fora-conditional use permit in order to lift the restriction to limit the student body of the Vail Mountain School. Dick Ryan gave facts from the memo and stated that the school had been a good neighbor in the Booth Creek area, He added that two agencies would have control over the number of students in the school. The State Department of Education of Colorado and the Board of Directors of the school. Joe Stauffer, chairman of the board of the Mountain School explained that the reason the school wanted to have larger classes was a social one, that the classes of b children were too small, He added that the school has fulfilled all the promises made to work on the log cabin, pave the parking lot, and landscape. With the addition of students, they would not increase the size of the school building, and that the present facilities are adequate and can handle more students. Discussion followed concerning whether or not to set a top limit of students in the conditional use permit. Joe felt that without a top set number, that the school would use good judgement with safeguards also from the State. He added that if the classes were too large, many parents would complain, If the number of students became too much for the present facilities, they would have to come back to the PEC to increase the size or number of buildings. Dan spoke in favor as a neighbor, as did Nancy-Miller, another neighbor. Scott felt that if they removed the student limit, it was likely that the next request would be for an increase in the size.of the building. Joe said • that the present board was not planning on increasing the size of the building, but that later they were planning on coming in to ask to put in a custodial apartment in the loft area. Roger was involved in the original application process with Vail Associates to use the land for the school, and remembered that the biggest concern was to restrict 'the number of students for the benefit of the neighbors adjacent, and felt that he had no objection to the increase if the.students...could be kept within the present building. Will Trout wanted to know the precise number of students per square foot of building limit 'the State would have on the school. Joe wasn't able to answer this, but stated that 12 students per class was the ideal class size in their opinion. Scott felt that he would personally prefer a limit, even if it were beyond the board's expectation. Duane agreed with Scott, but also agreed with Dan that the school would be using the State guidelines and also that the school had been a good neighbor. Roger moved and Dan seconded to approve the request for a conditional use permit in order to lift the restriction to limit the student body for the reason that the State would restrict the number of students. The vote was 6 -1 in favor with Will voting against. Will was not opposed to expansion but felt he couldn't vote without knowing exactly what the State restrictions were in terms of numbers. The request was granted. PEC -3- 10/12/81 4. Request-, for. a 'varianc-e from side� -and front setbacks for a residence at 1763 Shasta, lot 1'2,, -Vail Village West Filing #2, .Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner. Peter Patten explained the memo adding that the staff recommended denial or tabling to let the architect arrive at a better solution to the site. John Perkins, architect for the applicant, stated that the issue is that Mr. Angleitner desired to build an European style 'Chalet, and that the house would have to be rectangular. Outside dimensions would be 30 x 40, feeling that 2400 sq ft was a necessary size for a family of 4. He explained that the lot faced south, and also the views are to the south, so they wanted to put the garage in the back and out of the way, Dan stated that after being out on the site, that he would agree that it was possible to have a better design. He was more in favor of putting the garage in the front. John's reply was that he didn't want to show the garage . doors on the front elevation. Roger suggested putting the garage on the other side, and Peter replied that this would move the house within 5 feet of the property line, and that those neighbors had already disapproved of the plan as it existed. John said that he has a letter from the owner to the west and that this owner did not have any problem with it. Gottfried Angleitner, the owner, stated that he had bought the lot before annexation and didn't realize the restrictions. He felt that the A ortheast corner was not buildable. Dan pointed out that the neighbor to the west had sold the lot to Angleitner. Gerry felt that building:;.the house as presented would overcrowd the neighbors. Duane said he did a hasty check on square footage and found that with 1100 sq ft footprint, with height, could allow the structure to be close to the required size, and that there still could be a Tyrolean style. John explained that the lot was 4 to 5 feet lower in the back, and wanted to work with little excavating or fill, More suggestions regarding stepping the living spaces down, trying to adjust the building shape to fit the lot, and the south exposure followed. Roger mentioned that the PEC is concerned with energy conservation, and that the south exposure was important, Perhaps shifting the house to the east was discussed., though a letter had been received from the property owner to the east protesting the setback requests. The owner requested tabling until the next regular PEC meeting. The members voted in favor of the request to table. ,,. $eque�st, fora condi-tional\ use permit, to, have a, real estate office in s2ace 7 of of the Vail Village Inn, Phase III. Applicant: P. Van Ewing, III, Peter Patten explained the memo, adding that this mall would be similar to the malls in Lionshead and Vail Village and should be treated the same way. Jim Jacobson, representing the applicant, stated that the location was ideal for offices rather than retail shops --that it was located toward the back. PEC -4 10/12/81 He added that one would have to go down stairs and that it didn't fit into the traffic pattern and was not on the street level. , He added that if there were to be a mix of retail space, this would be.as close to_ retail as many things. About the parking issue as stated in the memo, Jacobson felt that the whole idea of malls is to get people in., and didn't see how a real estate office could generate more traffic than a furniture store. (The staff in the memo stated that with 12 salespeople, the real estate office was bound td compound the parking situation.) Gerry mentioned that this was to be a pedestrian mall, and that if all the retail spaces became offices, the mall character would be lost. The real estate office could be on the 2nd floor as well, he added. He felt that the whole village should be treated the same. Dick Ryan explained that one reason the new mall had a connection toward Crossroads was to connect to the opening in Crossroads to the west. He agreed with Gerry that the idea was to have a pedestrian, shop oriented mall to try to tie together the whole village. Jim Jacobson mentioned that there was already a parking problem on the back of Crossroads and wondered how that could be a good place for people to walk. Dan felt that this connection was better than the one in front of Crossroads where there were 50 or 60 cars. Gerry White said that the pedestrian level should be a more active shopping center or dining, rather than office,. Peter P. added that the uses should be visitor oriented. Dan pointed out that the visitor is already going to be on foot after parking in the parking structure, and so would not generate traffic. as a real estate office would. Scott stated that back when real estate offices were a real threat--when they were making more money than the retail shops„ it made sense to legislate them out of the core areas, but that people do browse through real estate offices looking at the pictures-and brochures. However .,-he added that a real estate office on the ground floor does become very valuable space. Roger agreed that it made sense to legislate real estate offices out of Bridge Street or malls, but didn't think it made sense to compare -this mall with Vail Village and Lionshead, He felt that each particular applicant should be decided separately, Dan's concern was with the idea of just how many more real estate offices were going to want to be on the ground floor if one was allowed at this time? Peter repeated that this mall was designed for an interesting commercial, shop - oriented atmosphere, similar to Commercial Cores 1 and 2, designed for high traffic and was planned to be a prime mall as stated in the memo. Jacobson said that the developer had designated business or professional use for that spot and for another spot also. He added that there were no real estate offices in the Crossroads area, He felt that the.environment should be looked at each time., and didn't feel they were setting a precedent. • PhC -5- 10/12/81 Dan mentioned that he had just come from a vacation in Durango and as he walked . through the town., didn't like all the real estate offices on the main street, and that they were not looking for real estate offices. Eric Bachman felt that if Dan had been from Dallas, perhaps, they might have been looking for real estate offices, He added that they intended to have the office very attractive with lots of models. Jim suggested limiting the number of real estate offices in that mall. Gerry replied that there would be no way to limit other realtors from asking for conditional uses. Dick Ryan mentioned that people had talked to him about changing the first floor of the Kiandra to real estate offices. Jim wondered about using a deed restriction. Will Trout wanted to know what percentage of the area the real estate office would be taking. Scott saw no difference if Gore Range Properties asked to be in that building than in the mug shop area. Jim Morgan felt that maybe horizontal zoning should be talked about with the whole area in mind. Jim Jacobson suggested looking at having only one real estate office in the building with a non - competing lease in the deed restriction, Dan 'reminded him that they couldn't get around the parking.and traffic, Jacobson wanted to see studies showing that it?,would. indeed generate traffic,, Gerry felt that the parking was not the issue, for if there was any parking at all, people would use it. Roger felt that there were many unanswered questions. Scott and Duane felt that if there were already 42 spaces short, what the developer put in the spaces would have nothing to do with the fact that there were already too few parking spaces. Roger stated that he would vote against the project now, but with more information might vote for it. Jacobson asked if the only additional information needed was with regard to parking and deed restrictions, and asked also for a poll of opinion from the members. Jim stated that if the applicant could come back with a deed restriction and ekse his concern of the parking, he might vote in favor. Duane felt that he did not want the applicant to show a deed restriction. Dan felt that what was needed was a clarification of restrictions concerning parking and he was concerned with traffic. Gerry felt he would vote no now, because who knew the magic number of how many real estate offices were too many? Will would like to see a real estate .office there with a lease agreement. Scott was in favor of the real estate office without a lease. Roger was concerned about the parking program for the whole program. Jacobson asked to table till the next regular meeting. The members voted 7 -0 in favor of tabling. f 1 PEC T6- 10/12/81 6. Request-. for an� amendment to,the Town -,-of\ Veil Loring Ordinance No. 30 . Series of 1977,' -to add one employee.unit on lot 6, block 2, Potato Patch, Applicant: Vail Investment and Development,, Ltd. Peter Patten explained and listed the restrictions in the memo, Craig Snowdon, architect for the applicant, stated that the applicant agreed to the restrictions and added that these would be luxury units with a single access onto the Potato Patch Drive, Peter stated that he had received a letter from John Hall stating that he approved the request, Craig explained the access from Potato Patch Drive and also the visability, Gerry stressed that the total allowable GRPA wouldn't be exceeded, He was concerned with the growing need for employee housing. Jim Sheehan stated the plan was to incorporate the employee unit with the cabana near the pool, Roger moved and Will seconded to recommend to Town Council approval of the amendment with the conditions of approval listed.by staff. The vote was 7,0 in favor, unanimous. 7, Request for exterior alteration and modification.to the Casino Building for the deck area to determine the amount of o rice space on deck. Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and James J. Sprowls, Rick Baldwin of PierceBaldwin Associates, architects for the project stated that Dick Ryan recommended they come before the PEC that day, Dick Ryan said that the Council had approved the Casino request with changes, • and that Mrs, Hill had sent a letter showing no real objection with the extension to the west. Rick added that the bridge was a dead.issue at present -t-, that other external factors had forced this decision. Dick felt that the PEC must concentrate on the issue. The d -i.scussidn which followed concerned liking the proposal, Dan moved and Roger seconded to approve the exterior alteration of the deck area, The vote was 7,0 unanimously in favor, , The meeting was adjourned at 5:40. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: October 8, 1981 SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1977 as it relates to Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing No. I to allow 30 units plus an employee restricted caretaker unit, Applicant: Vail Invest- ment and Development, Ltd. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 30 of 1977 was the down zoning ordinance resulting from the Growth Management Study. One of the downzonings was a multi family parcel in Potato Patch - -Lot 6, Block 2. The PEC and Council voted to zone this parcel to a maximum of 30 units with Medium Density Multi - Family Zone District develop- ment standards (including GRFA). REQUEST . The request is to amend that ordinance to allow another unit which would be used to house a caretaker /security person near the entrance to the project. The applicant has stated that he would agree to the applicable restrictions of Ordinance 22, Series of 1981 to the unit (restrictions for the secondary dwelling unit for lots under 15,000 sq £t). Also, he has agreed that no additional GRFA will be requested (other than that allowed for the original 30 units) for this caretaker unit. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this ordinance amendment. We feel that not only does this type of unit serve a valuable purpose for the future residents of the project, but it allows the project to provide housing for the employee(s) it is generating. Conditions of Apurova i 1, That the restrictions contained in Section 18.13,080 (B) 3, 5, 6, and 10 be applied and executed as it relates to the caretaker unit. 2, That the total allowable GRFA for the original 30 units not be exceeded on the property. • *I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: 10/7/81 RE: Conditional Use Permit application to permit a real estate office in space No. 7 of the Vail Village Inn Phase 3 on mall level. Applicant: P. Van Ewing III DESCREPT-ION OF PROPOSED USE The now Phase 3 of the Vail Village Inn contains an extensive pedestrian mall and over 9,000 sq ft of commercial area, The development is part of Special Develop ment District 6 which stipulates all uses will be the same as those in the Public Accommodation zone District. The applicant wishes to use 1260 sq ft of space as office for his real estate business. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: 40 Consideration of factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. One of the development objectives of the Town, which is directly reflected in the zoning code, is to reserve mall or street level spaces in commercial areas for tourist - oriented retail shops, The VVI Phase 3 commercial area will become one of the prime tourist shop areas in the Village area, and has always been designed with that objective in mind, Being consistent with these objectives and recent year decisions on real estate offices on mall level, we feel real estate offices are better suited to other than mall level spaces, The effect of the use on light and air- distribution of population, transportation facilities ,lutilitl es, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. No significant effects on these factors is foreseen. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and ede�strka.n safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabilit and removal �of snowy from the street and parking areas. With the addition of 130 spaces in Phase 111, the VVI is making up a portion of their parking deficit which has existed for a number of .years. They remain approxi- mately 42 spaces short of meeting current zoning code requirements. A real estate office is an extremely parking,intensive use. Many cars would be in and out each day, compounded by the employee parking situation. {They intend to have 12 sales a C: VVI -2- 10/7/81 people working out of this office.,) We feel that to approve such a use in a commercial area already short of parking would be in error. Effect upon, the, character of -the area in whi -ch, the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk o£ the ro osed.use in relation to .: surrounding uses. T The character of the area in the mail of Phase 3 has always been designed for an interesting commercial, shop- oriented atmosphere, similar to Commercial Cores 1 and 2. The Urban Design Guide Plan looked at the whole area surrounding the "old Village" as taking on similar characteristics to the Village Core (Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street), and correspondingly recommended that steps be taken to enlarge the atmosphere, design and uses which make up the Village. We feel that these objectives would not be met by approving real estate offices on street or mall level in this "expanded village" area, which includes the Vail Village Inn Phase 3. With this in mind, the Planning and Environmental Commission should state clearly that real estate offices will not be approved in the "Vail Village'` area and so make it a policy of record. Such, other factors-, an & criteria as the Commission deems ap licable to the proposed, -use. The environmental ct report is r act report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental fired by Chapter 18.56. An EIR has been submitted and approved with the approval of Phase 3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. e r • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER JAMAR RE: Application for a 58 square foot Gross Residential Floor Area variance for unit #304 Vorlaufer Condominiums, \APPLICANT: R, H. Pickens DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests a Gross Residential Floor Area variance in order to add approximately 58 sq ft to the inside of his condominium at Vorlaufer Condominiums. He requests the variance to enable him to extend an existing loft area approximately 8 feet to allow for an addition of a bath /dressing room area as part of an overall remodel of the unit. The Vorlaufer Condominiums are located on lots 14 -18, Block 5, Vail Village 5th Filing. The condominiums are located intHigh Density Multiple Family Zone District which allows a total Gross Residential Floor Area for the project of 7,364 square feet. Currently, there exists 21,951 sq ft of floor area. Thus, the project as it now stands is 14,587 square feet over the allowable square footage. Unit • #304 currently has 1392 sq ft of floor area, The applicant feels that the variance request is justified because the addition is minor and is internal and will not affect the exterior of the building. The applicant has given no statement as to physical hardship or unnecessary difficulties which would be caused by complying with the zoning ordinance. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal ,Code, the, Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested irar�iance based upon- the followinjz factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the re guested variance to other existing or 2otential uses and structures in the vicinity. There may be other buildings in the area that are at their maximum or over in Gross Residential Floor Area that could request additional GRFA. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibili • an uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the obj.ecti�ve$, of ,this title., KJLthout grant of special privilege, The granting of the variance is not necessary to achieve compatability and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and would constitute the grant of a special privilege not given to all sites within the same zone district. Vorlaufer -2- 10/9/81 r The effect-of the requested variance on - 1 " ight and air, distribution of 2opul�ation -, transportation and traffics f4 J I ties pu 1ic facilities and util­it es-. mac, nubl-i� safety. T -t No impact. Such other facaors• and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed iarihnce .' FINDINGS: The Pdannin g 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 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 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. The granting of the variance would not lessen any practical difficul -,... ties or unnecessary physical hardships which are inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and would be granting a special privilege. 0 . r 0 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1981 RE: Public hearing and consideration of a conditonal: use request to remove the restriction to limit the number of students at Vail Mountain School. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, BACKGROUND The Vail Mountain School received approval to construct a new school in Booth Creek in 1978. The request was for a conditional use permit to allow a private school of approximately 9,000 square feet for a maximum of 110 students. Con- ditions of approval were as follows: 1, The maximum floor area for the Vail Mountain School building is not to exceed 10,000 sq. ft, 2, The Vail Mountain School building is to be used only by the Vail Mountain School for school functions. 3. Additional parking shall be provided by the Vail Mountain School if the proposed parking is found by the Planning & Environmental Commission to be inadequate. 4. The location of the school building and its activities is restricted to the area designated on the plans approved by the Planning and Environ- mental Commission at the 24 October 1978 meeting, which are on file in the Department of Community Development. A deed restriction from Vail Associates will limit the amount of land to be used by the school on this designated area. The balance of the 7 acre parcel is to be restricted as greenbelt. S. The cabin currently on the property is to be preserved and restored either in its existing location or in another location restricted to the Eastern part of the site as shown on the submitted plans, At the public hearing there were several property owners of the Booth Creek area who were concerned with the location of the school and the impact it would have on the neighborhood. The school has been in operation for over two years, and the Community Development Department has received very few negative comments regarding the operation or site. In November 1979 the Vail Mountain School received approval for a lunch room, indoor recreational area and dark room. 0 Mtn School -2- 10/7/81 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGE The applicant is requesting that the maximum of 110 students requested in the original application be removed to allow additional students to attend the Mountain School. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60.060 the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the following factors:. 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. The private school has provided for a community need by having quality education for the children of the community. 2. Effect of the use on light and air., distribution of population, transporta- tion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs: There seems to be no adverse impact from the school today, and by increasing the number of students, there should be few additional impacts. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area: Traffic to the site will be off the North Frontage Road. The school will not generate measurable increase of auto traffic in the Booth Creek residen- tial area. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses: The existing situation would not be expanded by this proposal. The structure was designed to fit into the neighborhood and appears as a large duplex. Parking is screened, and the area seems residential in character. 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 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. Mtn School -3- 10/7/81 STAFF REC0IMENDAT -ION The Community Development Department considers that increasing the number of students will have very little impact on the surrounding area and recommends approval of the request. • 161aUT 17:Iki Bill 6f TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 8, 1981 RE: Request for front and both side setback variances to construct a single family residence on lot 12, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting variances of St (resulting in a 12 foot setback) in the front, 10' (resulting in a 5' setback on.the west side) and 5' (resul- ting in a 10' setback on the east side) to build a single family home. The lot is a difficult one due to its small size (11,600 sq ft) and the existence of a 20' sewer easement running through the back - center of the property. The lot fronts on a cul-de-sac (Shasta Place) and has only 35' of frontage CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Munici al Code the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We feel that the 5 foot west setback is too close because the next house on lot 13 is only 6 feet from the property line. This presents fire and privacy impacts. The property owner on the east has expressed written disapproval of the variance request, as well. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of a s ecifiied reguEation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformit of treatment among sites in t e vicinity or to attain the obj ectives of this title without grant of special pri- vilege. We feel there is a definite hardship on this lot with the size, shape and sewer easement taken into consideration. However,. we feel a house more suited to the site with less variance footage can be obtained. The granting of the variance as requested would be a special privilege and would not be the best solution for the lot. T �Y 1-1 Angleitner 2- 10/7/81 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of 2opulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Public safety could be jeopardized with only Ill between structures, as requested, by a fire potentially spreading easily to the adjacent structure. 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 variance: That�the granting of the variance will not qQn stitute 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, RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance. We would like to work with the applicant to arrive at a better solution for placing a house on the site. The variances requested are too much and result in an undesirable situation. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Envirmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1981 RE: View corridors and focal points PROPOSED MAJOR VIEW CORRIDORS No. Location 1. 2 steps up from photographic point on original TOV Parking Structure - over Village 2. West of West entrance to Mountain Hause, east of Kiosk- - toward Gold Peak 3. Between Pepi's and Clock Tower Inn on Bridge Street - -to ski mountain 4. Just west of Mill Creek Court Building on Gore Creek Drive -- to ski mountain • 5. Between Lodge at Vail shops and Sweet Basil Entrance -- to the Gore Range 6. Between "alley" between Sitzmark and Gore Creek Plaza Building and Lodge at Vail shops on Gore Creek Drive - -to west 7. Southeast corner of Children's Fountain, on Gore Creek Drive-- ' i so ski mountain 8, Base of steps up to Village Plaza on Wall Street - -to south 9. Top of steps to Village Plaza looking over 10, Village Plaza - -to Red Sandstone Peak ill Near Seibert Circle toward 1 4 16 chairlifts 12. On Bridge Street near Plaza Lodge entrance to south 13. On Gore Creek Drive, in front of Lancelot awning - -to Ski Museum 14, On Willow Bridge (pedestrian) toward Clock Tower and Benchmark Mountain 15, On Vail Road east of Holiday House toward Gold Peak 16, Fourrway stop, middle of intersection --to southeast. I 0 11..6 View Corridors -2, 10/26/81 PROPOSED,MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS No. Location 1. Steps at TRC over Sonnenalp 2. View to north taken from between Pepi's and Clock Tower 3. Gore Creek Drive at Mill Creek Bridge 4. Children's Fountain to Red Standstone Peak S. Children's Fountain towards Spraddle Creek to north 6. From top of Village Plaza steps to ski hill 7. Between One Vail Place and Hill Building to ski hill 8. Hill alley to Gore Range Hanson Ranch Road to Gore Range Hanson Ranch Road to Gore Range 9. From Sibert Circle to southeast 10. Hanson Ranch Road at Mill Creek to north 11, Southeast corner of Children's Fountain to east 12. West of Golden Bear over Children's Fountain to southeast 13. North of Breeze Ski Rentals to Red Sandstone Peak 14. West of Village Center to south on Willow Bridge Road 15. East of Talisman on Willow Bridge Road to Red Sandstone Peak 16. Between west entrance to Parking Structure and Crossroads to south 17. From south of Village Inn Sports on East Meadow Drive to east 18. From bus stop at East Meadow Drive and Vaal Road looking southeast a 0 r View Corridors -3- 10/26/81 FOCAL,-POINTS No. Location 1. Rucksack Tower from between Pepi's deck and the Clock Tower deck 2. Clock Tower from Manson Ranch Road and Mill Creek 3, Rucksack Tower from West of Golden Bear (also #12 minor) 4. Clock Tower from Willow Bridge (pedestrian) (also 414 minor) 5, Ambrosia Tower from East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road (also #15 minor) Here are some alternate terms to the terms "major" 4 "minor" to be discussed at the meeting today: Major Fixed Permanent Unalterable Minor Designated Established Identified Defined PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 26, 1981 0 3:00 p, m. 1. Approval of minutes of October 12,- 1981.. 2. Request for a variance from side and front setbacks for a residence at 1763 Shasta, lot 12, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner. 3. Request for a conditional use permit to have a real estate office in space #7 of the Vail Village Inn, Phase III. Applicant: P. Van Ewing Ill. 4. Request for a minor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide lots 2 and 3 of Cliffside Subdivision. Applicant: David Cole; 5, Request to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Vail in accordance with Section 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to change the Ski Museum, Tract B, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) to Public Use District (PUD) and change Tract C and D, Bighorn Townhouse Subdivision from Residential (R) to Agricultural and Open Space (A) District, Applicant: Town of Vail. 6. Request for a conditional use permit for a restaurant snack bar, trans- portation and tourist related office space; town offices, rental car office and ticket sales at the auxilliary buiding and space in the Vail Lionshead Transportation Center. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. Request to review the view corridor map and design considerations for Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail. Published in the Vail Trail October 23, 1981. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL October 26, 1981 PRESENT Gerry White Scott Edwards Will Trout Dan Corcoran Duane Piper ABSENT Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT Dyck Ryan Peter Patter Peter Jamar Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Ron Todd Gerry White, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:.35. 1. Approval of minutes of October 12, 1981. Dan moved and Scott seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0 for approval. 2. Request for a variance from side and front setbacks for a residence at 1763 Shasta, lot 12, Vail Village West Filing 92. Applicant; Gottfried . Angleitner. Peter Patten reminded th:le board that this had been tabled from last week, and explained that now the access was from the west side, and that the setback was only 3 feet from the east side. He stated that the staff felt that this was not a better solution. Mr. Angleitner said that he had talked to the staff after the .last meeting, and they ha&.suggested moving the house to the east and turning it around, and he did exactly that and didn't know what else to do, He also expressed dismay at the use of the term "boxy European style chalet" in the memo. Scott said that he had no objection to the style, but felt that 3 feet from the property line was infringing on the neighbors. Dan repeated what he had felt the last time, that there seemed to be an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole, and that that particular house didn't fit that particular lot. Duane pointed out that the house to the east may add an addition, and then there would be a problem. He added that he did not have an objection to the style, merely to the shape not fitting the lot. Will stated that he felt the way Duane did with one.exception--one could deal in terms of the corners, stepping them off and then the building could be moved to the west 4 or 5 feet. Gerry emphasized that the concept of set- backs was something all property owners had to live with and also that the setbacks were valued by property owners. Angld trier said that if the garage were in front, the building would be in conflict with the height regulations. He added that he was willing to put in a one car garage. Dan moved and Scott seconded to deny the variance request. The vote was 5 -0, unanimous to deny. Gerry reminded the applicant that he had 10 days in which to appeal to the Council. PEC -3•- 10/26/81 It was decided to consider each change separately. Dan moved and Will . seconded to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Vaal to change the Ski Museum, Tract B., Vail Village 2nd Filing from Public Accommodation (PA) to Public Use District (PUD). The vote was 5,0 in favor, Dick reminded the commissioners that this was to go to the Council for their review. Dan moved and Scott seconded to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Vail to change Tract C and D. Bighorn Townhouse Subdivision from Residential (R) to Agricultural and Open Space (A) District, The vote was 5-,0 in favor. 6. Re nest for a conditanal use ermit for a restaurant snack bar, trans- portation and tourist related office space, town offices, rental car office & ticket sales at the auxilliary building and space in the Vail Lionshead Transportation Center. Applicant: Town of Vail. Dick Ryan presented the plans. Dan wanted to know whether or not parking spaces would be taken away. Dick stated that this area had always been shown as offices. Discussion about tourist related office space followed. It was decided the term was too broad and should be deleted. It was also decided that the ticket sales should be transportation related, Dick stated that the Town is requesting the Vail Cable TV to have a studio where local events and issues could be produced,_, and offered to give them space for programs on a TV recording studio. Concern was expressed that the Town not fund space for private enterprises. Duane moved and Scott and Dan seconded to grant the request for a conditional use permit for 5 items: 1. restaurant /snack bar, 2, transportation related ticket sales, 3. Town offices, 4. rental car offices, 5. TV recording studio. Duane read the three findings: (Section 18.60.060 B). The vote was 5 -0. 7. Request to, review the view corridor map and design considerations for Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail. Dick Ryan explained that the commissioners were to recommend any changes they felt desirable to Town Council after reviewing the staff recommendations. Peter Patten and Peter Jamar showed maps with photographs of the list of proposed major view corridors and proposed minor view corridors. Ed Drager wanted to make sure that the changes were made in the same way the original plan was done. Peter P. pointed out that this was being done with study periods, publications, and public hearings. Dick read from the Commercial Core I section of the code, 18.24.220 B. Peter Patten stated that there was at present a conflict within the document of the Vail Village Design Considerations with regard to height, and the way height is defined in the Vail Municipal Code. He read from the memo the one section as recommended by the Department of Community Development of the Vail Village Design Considerations pertaining to building height. A diagram was included with regard to roof pitches to encourage steeper roofs. With the diagram in item _ 4 was an explanation. Discussion followed concerning the way items 1 through 4 were written. Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve Section F. Building Height of the Vail Village Design Considerations 4s written in the memo. The vote was 3 -2 in favor with Scott and Gerry opposing. Scott felt that #3 could be . misconstrued as encouraging towers,.and Gerry agreed, and felt that the word "may" should read "may be permitted to ". PEC -4- 10/26/81 It was decided to meet at 1:00 p.m, on November 9 before the next meeting which starts at 3:00. Scott moved and Dan seconded to continue the view corridor review on November 9 at 1:00 p.m. The vote was 5 -0., Dan moved and Will seconded to adjourn the meeting at 5:15. A study period on the view corridors followed. i• L_J PEC -2- 10/26/81 3. Rloquest fox a conditional, use permit to, have n real estate office in space #7 of the Vail Village Inn, Phase III. Applicant: P. Van Ewing III Dick Ryan stated that he had distributed copies of a letter from Joe Stauffer saying that . stated there would be electronic control over the parking spaces, and t.;_. there would be a 11non- compete" provision in the lease to restrict the use of commercial space to only one real estate firm. Jim Jacobson, representing the applicant, brought a copy of the lease and showed it to the commission members, showing the non compete clause, The real estate office was allowed 2 spaces which would increase to 4 when Phase IV was completed. Jacobson pointed out that the parking situation would exist no matter what part of the building the real estate office was in. Dick pointed out that if the lease is discontinued, the PEC can review the request again and will be reviewing all requests for conditional use. Peter said that the conditional use permit could run the length of the lease. Duane asked if the board were requiring a non - compete clause, Dan answered that there was no need, that other real estate offfices would have to come in for conditional use review. Scott said that he had a strong feeling about th6ir being involved in the lease negotiationspuane stated that he felt that the board should not be involved in lease negotiations. Gerry felt that it was not necessary to have a non - compete clause because the conditional use permit clause gives the commission the kinds of control it needs, He added that Joe Stauffer felt that this space did lend itself to office use and that it would not impact negatively, Duane moved and Will seconded to approve the request for the conditional use based upon the following findings:. (Section 18..60.060 B). The vote was 5,0, unanimously in favor of granting the condional use. 4. Request, for,, a� minor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide lots 2 and 3 of Cliffside Subdivision. Applicant: David Cole. The applicant requested to table his request until the next meeting. Dan moved and Will seconded to table. The vote was 5a-0, unanimously in favor. 5. Request to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Vail in accordance with Section 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to change the Ski Museum, Tract B, Vail Village 2nd Piling from Public Accommodation (PA) to Public Use District (PUD) and change Tract C and D, Bighorn Townhouse Subdivision from Residential (R) to Agricultural and Open Space (A) District. Applicant: Town of Vail. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 20., 1981 RE: Public hearing consideration of a conditional use permit for a restaurant /snack bar, transportation and tourist related uses, Town offices, car rental office, television recording studio, and ticket sales at the auxilliary building and ground floor space in the Vail Lionshead Transportation Center. BACKGROUND: The Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission recently approved an amendment to the Town of Vail municipal code amending Section 18,34,030 Conditional Uses adding:sub. paragraph C. to allow as conditional uses in the Parking District, public uses, private offices and commercial uses that are transportation, tourist or Town related and are accessory to a parking structure. This change was made in anticipation of the use of the auxilliary building and ground floor space in the new Vail Lionshead Parking,.-Center. The Community Development recommends approval of these conditional uses for the space in the Vail Lionshead 'Transportation Center based upon the following criteria and findings: 1. Relationship to the impact of the development objectives of the Town, The auxilliary building and ground floor space in the Vail Lionshead Transportation Center was constructed in anticipation of meeting tourist and transportation related needs.for people who will be using the structure. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs: There should be no impact on these items, 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas: . The uses of these spaces within the auxilliary building and ground floor of the parking structure should predominantly be non - vehicle related. They should be used by people who will be parking in the parking structure or by people who will be riding the in- town shuttle bus. Trans Center -2- 10 /20/81 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses: The Vail Lionshead auxilliary building and .parking structure has previously been approved by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, and there will be no change in the scale and bulk of the structure. This should have little effect on the proposed uses within the structure. 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 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. • RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional uses for the new auXilliary building and ground floor space within the Vail Lionshead Parking Structure. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: October 21, 1981 RE: Rezoning of Ski Museum Parcel and Tracts C and D,, Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision BACKGROUND The Ski Museum parcel rezoning has now been correctly published and is being proposed to change from its existing zone of Public Accommodation to Public Use District. Public buildings are allowed in PUD as a conditional use, so this is the most suitable district for the Ski Museum. We will bring through the application for the conditonal use in two meetings, Tracts C and D of the Bighorn Townhouses Subdivision are directly across Meadow Drive from Bighorn Park (King Arthur's Court property). There is a little over an acre of property on these two parcels which the Town owns. • They are currently zoned Residential, allowing four units, It's been determined by Council that this property is to be used for parking facilities for Bighorn Park, thus the recommended zoning is Agricultural and Open Space District, I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Jim Sayre DATE: October 21, 1981 RE: Request for a side setback variance to construct a single family residence on Lot 12, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED On October 12, 1981 the applicant came before the Planning Commission requesting both front and side setback variance requests. The applicant tabled this request and is returning to the Commission with.a new side setback variance request. The old and new setback requests are outlined below:. East Side West Side Front Side October 12 Resulting Request Setback 5' 10' 10' S' 8' 121 October 26 Resulting Request Setback.. 12' 31 The applicant is now requesting one instead of three setback variances-- - a twelve foot side setback request along the eastern edge of the lot. Approval of the variance would result in a 3' setback on the east side of the lot. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors:. The relationship of the requested variance to.other existing or potential iises�.and structures in the vicinity. The current variance request is an improvement over the last request, but the proposed solution is not the best that could be achieved on this difficult lot. By moving the building site towards the east, the Angleitner -2, 10/21/81 • fire issue has at least been addressed, and the Department of Community Development does appreciate that the number of variance requests has been reduced. But this boxy building, this "European style chalet ", has merely been rotated and crammed against the eastern boundary of the lot. The design of the house has not been changed in the current variance request. Three feet is too shallow a setback. The property owners to the east, Irving and Thelma Fischer, have enunciated strong objections to the current request. The area of the lot covered by the driveway is another negative factor in this case. In the previous request the driveway covered approximately 1002 square feet; in the current proposals the driveway covers approxi- mately 1423 square feet of the lot. This department will welcome design solutions which address the shape and size of the lot and the setback requirements. x The degree to which relief from the strict or literal.interpretation and enforcement. of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com- patxbilty 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 doubt that physical hardship exists on this lot, The shape of the lot along with the sewer easement and the setbacks join to make the design of this lot a very difficult task, But a better solution can be found. To approve this variance as requested would be a grant of special privilege. Th•e, effect\ of� the, requested variance on-light and, air, distribution ofi o ulaoion,� omens ortation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact. 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. Angleitner -3- 10/21/81 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. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the current variance request. To merely rotate the house and to jam it up against the eastern property line.is not the best solution for this lot. _ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 9, 1981 1:00 p.m. Continuation of review of the view corridor map and design considerations for Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail. 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of October 26 meeting. 2. Request for a minor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide lots 2 and 3 of Cli££side Subdivision, Applicant: David Cole. 3, Request for conditional use permit to operate a pet shop on the north side of the Vail das Schone shopping center, lot 3, Block 1, Filing 3, Vail das Schone . Applicant: Catherine G. Street. 4. Request for a variance from side and rear setbacks to allow the construction of a duplex on part of the Pulis Ranch, an unplatted parcel located between lot 3, Sunburst Drive, Applicant: Shapiro Construction Co. 5,, Request to amend the zoning code so that it includes definitions of "Amusement Arcade', "Amusement Center" and Amusement Device ". Also a request for new ordinance to regulate Amusement Arcades and Amusement Center. Applicant: Town of Vail. Published in the Vail Trail November 6, 1981. r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 9, 1981 PRESENT Roger Tilkemeier Scott Edwards Will Trout Gerry White Duane Piper Dan Corcoran ABSENT Jim Morgan STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack COUNCILMAN Bob Ruder Gerry Whitey chairman, called the meeting to order at 1:15. Continuation of review of the view corridor map and design considerations for Vail Village. —` Peter Patten went over the format of the presentation, explaining that the staff wanted to first review the proposed wording and get approval. of that, show photos of the view corridors, existing and new, go through the existing view corridor map, showing which views were proposed to be removed, and then considering what }:recommendation to make to the Council. Scott wanted to know the number of people involved in the original study and why it was being reviewed. Peter stated that this was part of the • original Urban Design Guide:Plan when many people were involved, and that the staff and Jeff Winston of the Gage Davis firm had been reviewing the view corridors and became aware of the importance of the corridors and the possible need for changes. There were very few people in the audience, and it was suggested that the meeting be advertised more fully so that more people could become aware of the issue. Gerry explained that it was advertised in the Vail Trail, and people were encouraged to come in and give their input. Peter asked if the board had any problem with the 2 level system - -major and minor corridors. Jack Curtin stated that he felt all of the view corridors should be major, and the board would have more clout. Ed Drager stated that he understood Jack Curtin precipitated the reassessment of the view corridors. Jack stated that he was concerned about the Red Lion maybe adding another story. Peter P. showed the pictures of the view corridors and of the focal points and explained that the lines on the pictures defined the limits of the view corridors, and added that the photos were taken from a pedestrian point of view. The photos and continents were as follows: Major: #7 r concern about where line was, #8, sky space on left important to views, #10., should include focal point for Clocktower, #12 should be minor. Minor: #1, some objection of change from Major, #2.1 Probably should be major after the Red Lion expansion;,takes place, . #2,2 move line on right to include Tivoli Lodge, #3 Gerry felt should be major, #5 Gerry and Roger felt should be mayor, #6 Roger, Dan, Duane and Gerry felt should be major, #7 lIhy wasn't photo taken from the middle of the street ?, #19 and #21.. Gerry felt should be major. PEC T2, 11/10/81 Discussion followed concerning meeting with the council for final decision about the view corridors. Dan moved and Roger seconded to table the discussion until the next regular meeting, at which time they could decide whether or not to meet with the council. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Approval-of minutes of October 26, 1981 meeting, Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve the mintes. Roger abstained from voting and the vote was 5 =0, Request for a minor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide lots 2 and 3 of Cli£fside Subdivision. Applicant: DaVid Cole Peter Patten explained the change in this request which would eliminate setback violations. Craig Snowdon, representing Mr, Cole explained that they had obtained approval from the adjacent property owners, they had obtained a right -of -way deed, and had investigated other possibilities. Dan.stated that if this had been a normally platted road, he would be opposed, but that since it was a private road he was not, but the road would not meet the Town's specifications. He felt that the development was more like a PAD. He added that there seemed to be a technical problem with the title. Gerry felt that it was a paper solution to a real problem, that it flies in the face of everything to do with zoning, He added that the subdivision was . approved with the road at a certain width, After more discussion, Roger moved and Will and Dan seconded to approve the request. The vote was 4 to 2 in favor, Gerry and Duane voting against. Duane stated that he felt similar to Gerry, and that the intent of the setbacks is to create distance between buildings, and he felt that the true intention. of the setbacks Wasn't. served. Dan wanted the ownership of the road cleared up before the Town signed the plat. Request for -a conditional use permit to operate a pet sho on the north side of the Vail das Schone shopping center, lot 3, Block 1, Filing 3, Vail das Schone. Applicant: Catherine G, Street. Peter Jamar presented the information. Ms Street asked if she could include other aquatic animals. She was told she could, but would have to come back again to get permission to have birds or animals, and would have to have approval of the shopping center owner and the shops on all sides and condo owners above. Dan moved and Scott seconded to approve the request including other aquatic animals based upon the findings, . The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Request for a variance from side and rear setbacks to allow the construction of a duplex on part of the Pulis Ranch, an unplatted parcel located between lot 3, Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Shapiro Construction Co. Gerry stated that the applicant had asked to have the issue tabled until December 14. Dan moved and Will and Roger seconded to approve the request . for tabling, PEC 73, 11J10J81 Request to amend the zoning code so that it includes definitions of "Amusement Arcade ", "Amusement Center" and "Amusement Device ". Also a request for new ordinance to regulate Amusement Arcades and Amusement Center, Applicant: Town of Vail. Jim Sayre stated that although there were two parts to arcade regulation, this part was primarily concerned with amendments to the zoning code. He explained the potential problems concerning mixed uses, mixed ages, noise, vandalism, etc. The discussion that followed concerned the problem of liquor with arcades. Will added a concern about some electronic games being violent. Scott was concerned that the arcades did not open onto a streat, Roger was concerned with the people who would be handling the arcades. Roger moved and Will seconded to table the issue to another meeting when the owners of known establishments could be invited specifically, The vote was 6 -0, to table. Peter asked which members were going to attend the NWCOG planning session on Saturday, Nov 14, and stated that the Town would pay the $18.00 registration fee, Scott and Will were to attend. Peter stated that there would be a meeting on December 8 with the Council on view corridors, probably at 1:30. . The meeting adjourned at 4:56. C7 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 4, 1981 RE: Arcades in Vail 0 Electronic games are springing up in the higher density areas of Vaal. Over sixty games have appeared in Vail —more are likely to appear due to the popu- larity of the games. The purpose of this memo is to: Describe the number and locations of existing arcades in Vail Outline potential problems associated with arcades. Present some suggestions about changes of the zoning code so that it includes definitions of arcades and confines arcades to appropriate zones. Any regulation of arcades in Vail will come in a two part package. The first involves amendments to the zoning code and the second part involves a licensing procedure for arcades managers and owners. This memo is primarily concerned with amendments to the zoning code. CURRENT ARCADES IN VAIL Under current zoning regulations, arcades, or "commercial recreation center/ game room(s)" are classified as conditional uses in Commercial Core 3 and the Commercial Service Center. Actually, game rooms or arcades exist in several zones in Town. There are two general types of areas where these games are present - -in rooms where the games are accessory to other, principle activities, and rooms where games constitute the central activity. A list of the number of games, zone and location appears below: GAMES AS ACCESSORY USE Location Number Zone Safeway, West Vail 4 CC1I1 7 -11, West Vail 1--3 CCIII Valley Cleaners 1 CCIII Cyrano's 3 CCZ Christiania 3 PA Transportation Center 4 PUD Valli Ili, Office I SDD Rat 'n Willie's 2 CCII Alfie Packer's 2 CCII Monson's 2 CCII Ice Arena 3 PUD Purcell's 1 CCII 0 GAMES AS PRINCIPLE USE Location Number zone Holiday Inn 7 PA Opera House 14 CCII The Mark 8 SDD Vail Run Building 8 SDD • Arcades s2, Electronic games have proliferated beyond the Commercial Core III and Commercial Service Center zones. Part of the problem is that arcades or game rooms have not been defined in the zoning code. POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH ARCADES The first potential problem is of mixed uses and mixed ages. The most popular location for electronic games are bars. Kids who are not yet old enough to legally drink enter the bars to use the machines. Thus, the bar managers have the job of trying to prevent those under twenty -one from drinking. The potential problem of mixed uses -- arcades and bars- -and mixed ages - -those under and over twenty -one, is apparent in the Opera House, Rick White, the manager of the Opera House, reports that there is no problem. Nevertheless, some thought should be given to separating uses and ages. The situation at the Opera House will be partially mitigated through the construction of additional access to the "pin ball parlor" from the east. The second and more serious problem is the negative externalities produced by eletronic games: Arcades may not be the most pleasant next -door neighbors. The machines make a great deal Af noise. Also, they have a tendency to attract a young clientele who are more apt to vandalize the arcade and the surrounding area. This problem has arisen in the metropolitan areas in Colorado and in past arcades in Vail. Two Colorado municipalities, Lakewood and Arvada, report serious problems with arcades. In Lakewood, kids loitered in arcades, and noise, disorderly conduct and rowdiness accompanied feeding quarters into the Space Invaders game, Arvada's arcade ordinance was a response to a specific arcade, described by the city attorney as a "nightmare for the city" where drinking, drug dealing., and vandalism were commonplace. Russ Motta reports that arcades have caused problems in the past in Vail, Luckily, . no serious problems have appeared in Vail's present arcade scene- -not yet. An arcade ordinance would become a preventative measure. 0 • Arcades -3� 11/4/81 The final potential problem is one of aesthetics. The idea of entering the Village to find electronic games beeping and crashing from store fronts is . contrary to the ideal of a "quality" resort, Arcades should be prohibited from the ground floor store front areas of the Commercial Cores. THE CENTRAL ISSUE AND SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CHANGES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE The central issue is whether the Town of Vail should go beyond the current "game room" regulation of arcades to define an arcade, specify principal and accessory uses, and establish an application procedure for prospective arcade owners and managers. Amusement arcades (defined as establishments with more than four machines) should be classified as conditional uses; the smaller amusement centers. (establishments with less than five machines) should be classified as accessory uses, and owners would not be required to obtain a conditional use permit. Major arcades should be confined to the Commercial zone districts, the Public Use district, the Public Accommodations district, and the Parking district. This would allow amusement arcades in such locations as:. Holiday Inn Opera House Transportation Center Teen Center Lionshead Parking Structure Owners of amusement arcades and centers in Special Development Districts would be asked to request the Planning Commission to amend the conditional and accessory use sections of their respective special zone districts to allow arcades. Amusement centers would be allowed as an accessory use in the Commercial zone districts, the Parking district, the Public Use district, and the Public Accommodation district. The suggested definitions to be included in the zoning code are: A. "Amusement arcade" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains more than four amuse- ment devices. If a place of business maintains less than five machines as a sole business, this business shall be classified as an amusement arcade. B. "Amusement center" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains less than five amusement devices in conjunction with some other business. C. "Amusement device" shall mean any device which upon insertion of a coin, slug, token, plate or disc, or payment of consideration may be used by the public for use as a game, entertainment, amusement, a test of skill, either mental or physical, whether or not registering a score, which shall include, but not be limited to: pool tables, snooker tables, foosball tables, pinball machines, electronic games, fixed stand coin - operated kiddie rides, and mechanical bulls; but shall not include radios, devices that provide music only, or television carrying commercial broadcasts. M I. • 0 Arcades -4- 11/4/81 • The suggested amendments to the zone districts are: 1. Parking District a. Add to Section 18.36.030, Conditional Uses: Q. Amusement Arcade b. Amend Section 18.34.040, Accessory Uses, deleting "No accessory uses shall be permitted in the P District ", and add: A. Amusement Center 2. Commercial Core I a. Add to Section 18.24.020.c, "The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to a conditional use permit..." 8. Amusement Arcade b. Add to Section 18.24.080, Accessory Uses: • E. Amusement Center 3. Commercial Core II a. Addition of amusement arcade to conditional uses in Commercial Core II is addressed by Section 18.26.030 (p.355): "In the CC2 District, permitted and conditional uses for specific floors shall be the same as those permitted in the Commercial Core I District as prescribed by Sections 18.24.020 through 18.24.050. b. Add to Section 18.26.050, Accessory Use: E. Amusement Center 4. Commercial Core III a. Amend Section 18.27.030.H., Conditional Uses, deleting "Commercial Recreation Center /Game Room ", and adding in its place "Amusement Arcade ". b. Add to Section 18.27.042, Accessory uses, 0 D. Amusement Center ! Wcades -5- 11/4/81 0, S. Commercial Service Center a. Amend Section 18.28.040.H, Conditional Uses, deleting "Commercial Recreation Center /Game Room" and adding in its place 'Amusement Arcade". b. Add to Section 18.28.050, Accessory Uses, D. Amusement Center 6. Public Use District a. Add to Section 18,36.030, Conditional Uses, 0. Amusement Arcades b. Add to Section 18.36.040., Accessory Uses, A. Amusement Centers 7. Public Accommodation District a. Add to Section 18.22,030, Conditional Uses, M. Amusement Arcades b. Add to Section 18.22.040, Accessory Uses, D. Amusement Centers Comprehensive regulation of arcades in Vail should encompass a two part package. The first part of the package is the amendments to the zoning code ,as presented above. The second part is the licensing of arcade owners and managers. The Planning Commission might be interested in one section of the proposed licensing ordinance. Both the Zoning Administrator and the Town Clerk review applications for amusement arcade licenses. The Town Clerk researches the background of an applicant for an arcade license, and the Zoning Administrator reviews the land use considerations. The Zoning Aministrator may refuse to approve an arcade license if: 1. The proposed arcade does not conform to the zoning code. • • 0 Ades T6- 11/4/81 2. The proposed arcade does not conform to the sign code. 3. The proposed arcade would produce discordant land use relationships, including., but not limited to, excess noise, excess traffic, or hazards to automotive or pedestrian safety. 4. Where access to the proposed arcade is through a bar where alcoholic beverages are sold. The purpose of item three is to regulate the noise associated with arcades. The purpose of item four is to facilitate the separation of under -age arcade users and those who are old enough to drink. A draft of the proposed licensing ordinance is available upon request. We welcome any comments or suggestions. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 3, 1981 RE: Conditional use permit request for Mountain Tropics to operate a pet shop on the north side of Vail Das Schone shopping center in Commercial Core 3. Applicant:. Catherine Street DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant wishes to operate a retail business on the north side of Vail Das Schone to sell pet supplies and to sell tropical fish. The selling of fish or other pets requires a condition -.l use permit to prevent undesirable locations of pet stores. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following . factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Small, specialized retail shops add to the variety of commercial opportunities for the visitor and resident alike. The effect of the use on light and air. distribution of population. transportation lities, and other facilities, utilities, schools, p ._ arks and recreation fac — c�,_ „., -. _.._ ublic facilities and public facilities _� There are no effects on these factors. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and_karking areas. There is plenty of parking directly adjacent to the shop on the north side of Vail Das Schone and in the main lot adjacent to the Frontage Road. Effect a on the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be - located,, including the scale and bulk of the 2roposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The store adds to the variety of shops and services offered in Commercial Core 3. The neighboring shops have not objected to the proposal. The selling of tropical fish should not have any negative impacts. Stain Tropics -2- 11/3/81 • Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the pxopos�J E;d use. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the, proposed use.. The environmental impact report concerning.the pro osed use, if an environ- mental impact re2ort is,, required by. Chapter 18,56. No EIR is required. FINDINGS AND REC0MMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends thaV: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. We find no problem with this request, If the applicant wishes to sell small animals such as dogs and cats, she would need approval of the shopping center owner and shops on all sides and condo owners above, and come back to amend the conditional use permit. r1 �J F0 F4376TIMERLDIFJOTI TO.. Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: November 3, 1981 RE: Resubdivision of lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision Applicant: David Cole BACKGROUND On September 28, 1981 the PEC voted.3 -2 to deny a variance request for this property. The building encroaches into setbacks on two sides. The current application is to resubdivide the property to eliminate these setback violations. The proposal is to create a new northern property line so that the house is 16.8' away from the new property line (formerly 12.51) while maintaining approximately the same lot sizes. The other part of the application is to expand the westerly property line in order to eliminate the 91 current setback problem in that area. • This entails encroaching into the private road easement and giving back an access easement over that new section of the lot. The new lot con£iguation would allow a minimum setback of 15 feet, meeting Town requirements. The pertinent statistics on lot sizes are as follows: Lot Old Sq Ft New Ss Ft 2 12,500 12,977 3 10,267 10,271 RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the resub- division request, Although we are not enthusiastic about the concept of eliminating setback violations via a resubdivision, we have no major problems with this case. With the road being private, no objections from the surrounding property owners and no negative impacts created by the setback violation, we find no reason to recommend denial. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 21, 1981 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Urban Design Guide Plan in the areas of views and height. There are two specific areas of the Urban Design Guide Plan—Design Considerations for Vail Village which require revisions --- height and views, The height section contains inconsistencies between it and the zoning code and also within the section itself. The view section is being totally revised to include further definitions of the two types of view corridors, to include the definition of focal point and the restrictions applying to them, and to generally re word and clarify the section with regard to the degree of change, etc. The two sections as recommended by the Department of Community Development will read as follows: Vail Village Design Considerations, page 7 Section F, Building Height Basically, the Village Core is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street --which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. The definition of height shall be as it is in the Vail Municipal Code. Building Height restrictions in Commercial Core I shall be as follows: 1. Up to 600 of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. 2. No more than 40% of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than 331, but not higher than 43' 3. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar archi- tectural features not useable as Gross Residential Floor Area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty - five percent of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet. (Existing Section 18.58.090) Urban Design Guide Plan -2- • 4. The above heights are based on an assumed 3' in 12' or.4' in 12' roof pitches. To accommodate and encourage steeper roof pitches (up to 6' in 12') slight, proportionate' - height increases could be granted so long as the height of building side walls is not increased (see diagram below). • .7 v� W"Ll T J*M of,* I Section G. Views and Focal Points (page S) 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. Certain building features are also important character features,, orientation references and visual focal points. View corridors and focal points in the Vail Village area have been designated on the View Corridor Map, an element of the Vail 'Village Urban Design Framework Plan. Also, each adopted view corridor is officially recorded in photographic form and on file in the Community Development Department. View Corridors have been - classified into two categories: major* and minor *. Major view corridors are views of significant features which are already well.. - framed and any further encroachment into the view would significantly reduce its quality, Any proposed exterior building changes which would encroach into, or alter., the designated major view corridors will be generally unacceptable, *We will present to the Commission on Monday a list of possible terms, until then, try to come up with some of your own. • Urban Design Guide Plan ,37 Minor view corridors are views of major and minor features into which limited encroachment in certain areas would not significantly reduce the quality of the view. in certain cases, for example, a building addition which screens parking lots, mechanical equipment and /or service . roads could enhance an overall view of the mountain. Limited encroach- ments into the designated minor view corridors may be acceptable upon demonstration that the overall quality of the view is not reduced. Emphasis should be upon frmaing and enhancing view corridors rather than protruding directly into them. Views of focal points as designated on the view corridor map should be preserved. To assure the view qualities in Vail, submittals for all proposed exterior building modifications, whether in designated view corridors or not, should include a visual impact analysis to demonstrate the impact on views from pedestrian ways in the vicinity of the project. This analysis could be in the form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch -ups, models, or other simulation techniques. A means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views may also be required by the zoning administrator. (NOTE: On Monday, we will present the slides of the view corridors taken on Tuesday, October 20, 1981, Included will be recommendations on major vs minor and the exact extent of the view corridor.) i VAIL VILLAGE 4 November 1981 URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, VIEW CORRIDORS MAJOR VIEW CORRIDORS 1. By Lodge At Vail and The Sweet Basil looking east. 2. from Willow Bridge east to mountain cliffs. 3. At north end of covered bridge between Kiosk and west entrance to Pit. Haus. 4. On Bridge St. near Plaza Lodge entrance looking south Riva Ridge. 5. From Center of Village Plaza to Gold Peak over Hill Building. 6. On Gore Creek Drive at Mill Creek Court Building looking southwest. 7. Between Pepi's and Clock Tower Inn on Bridge St..- south to ski mountain. 8. From Children's Fountain area south up Wall Street. 9. Gateway to mountain on Seibert Circle toward lifts between Gold Peak House and Hill Building. _..- 10. 2 steps up from photographic point on Village Transportation Center looking south over the village. 11. From middle of 4 -way stop - southeast to Gold Peak. 12. Red'Sandstone Peak from Sitzmark and Gore Creek Plaza Building on Gore Creek Drive. fie;, 13. Red Sandstone Peak from Village Plaza. 14. On Vail Rd., east of Holiday douse looking southeast to Gold Peak. MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS 1. Gore Creek Drive looking east on G C--Cr. Drive from Children's Fountain 2. 0 of series of 3)--�3 ey looking east. 11"e.-j2. (2 of series-of Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range. i�p�✓of series of 3) Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range. IVILO 3. Seibert Circle looking east over Cyranos. 'JX O 4. Base of steps to Children's Fountain, looking southeast 11k'') 5. Gore Creek Drive at Mi11.Creek Bridge southeast to ski mountain. 6. South up the alley between 1 Vail Place and the Hill Building. *11.) 7. Alley between The Lodge and Lazier Arcade south to ski mountain. 8. Top of Village Plaza steps looking southwest to ski mountain. .(continued) Nail Village Urban Design Considerations VIEW CORRIDORS WMinor View Corridors (cont'd) Page 2 Of 2 4 November 1981 9. south of Crossroads Circle looking southeast on Willow Bridge Rd. to ski mountain over The Lodge. 10. E. Meadow Drive and Vail Rd. from bus stop panorama view to southeast. 11. From four -way stop looking south. 12. E. Meadow Drive /Vail Road intersection looking -east over fire house. )ye L4 13. South Crossroads Circle looking northwest to Red Sandstone. 14. To Red Sandstone Peak from Children's Fountain. 15. At south end of Willow (pedestrian) Bridge looking northwest to Red Sandstone. 16. South of Vail Village Inn tower looking east on E. Meadow Drive. 14e L,.,' 17. Steps at TRC southwest over Sonnenalp. 18. Southeast from Village Center Circle Road over Sonnenalp. },eL4 19. From Children's Fountain - northeast corner looking north between Pepi's and the Creekside Building. 20. North on Bridge Street between Pepi's and Clock Tower. 21. Hanson Ranch Road at Mill Creek Bridge looking northwest. FOCAL POINTS 1. Rucksack Tower fron Pepi's deck and Clock Tower deck. 2. Clock Tower from Hanson Ranch Road bridge over Mill Creek. 3. Rucksack Tower from steps to Children's Fountain. 4. Clock Tower from Willow Bridge. 5. Vail Village Inn tower from south of Crossroads Circle. 6. Rucksack Tower from Mill Creek Bridge over Gore Creek Drive. 7. Clock Tower from Gore Creek Drive west • • PLANNING.AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 23, 1981 PRESENT STAFF Roger Tilkemeier Peter Patten Scott Edwards Peter Jamar Will Trout Jim Sayre Gerry White Betsy Rosolack Dan Corcoran Duane Piper ABSENT Jim Morgan The chairman, Gerry White, called the meeting to order at 3:15. 1. Approval of minutes of November 9, 1981. Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0, Will abstaining, because his packet had not yet arrived in the mail. 2. Request for a variance from the front set -back to allow a garage to encroach 1.8 feet into the front setback on lot 12, Bighorn Fourth Addition, 4484 Streamside Circle. Applicant: Timber Falls Corp. Peter.Jamar.:6xplained the memo and the reasons the staff was in favor of the variance. Ron Riley outlined the basic mechanics of the error. He stated that no neighbors would be affected by the encroachment. Bob Ruder said that the lot line was 20 feet from Streamside Circle, Gerry stated that the board had just been out to look at the property. T Roger mentioned that the planning department now required an improvement survey, a survey which is done after a foundation is in to show location of the building in relation to setbacks. This was not required when this building was constructed, so that in this case, the board would not be setting a precident. Roger moved and Scott seconded to approve the variance as recommended in the staff memo dated November 17, 1981 with the additional fact that the present regulations require an improvement survey. The .vote was 6-0, unanimously in favor. 3. Variance re uests.to allow an employee secondary unit in an existing single family unit on Lot 16, Block A, Vail Das Schone Subdivision. Applicant: Michael Saba. Peter Patten explained that only 2variances were needed, since the GRFA had been allowed under the County. r PLC -2- 11/23/81 Elmer Stymiest, representing the owner, stated that when dealing with the County, there was a problem with the garage and the applicant changed his plans to suit the County. He felt that the owner was being asked to change back to what had already been changed. He complimented.the staff on their helpfulness, Gerry asked if the intent was to keep the employee housing for employee housing, and Elmer replied that it was, and that Mr. Saba had signed an affidavit that is part of the application process in the planning office to the effect that the unit would remain employee housing. Dan pointed out that what the County had approved was a single family house, and that this request was not the same, for it was a request for a second unit for which the Town had different requirements., He added that the board had just returned from looking at the site and felt that in the place where there was parking for 3 cars would be a good place for a garage and the drive- way wouldn't have to change at all. Gerry stated that there was more than ample room and that the site lent itself to the garage, and he could see no reason not to require it. Discussion followed concerning whether or not to grant one of the requested variances without granting the other. It was decided that it was possible. Dan moved and Roger seconded to deny the request for a covered parking variance because the granting would be inconsistent with the intentions on other properties and that there was no hardship. to the applicant. The vote was 6 -0 to deny. Roger moved and Will seconded to approve the GRPA variance per the staff memo dated 11/17/81. The vote was 5_1; with Dan disapproving because he felt the two variances were tied together. Peter reminded Stymiest that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision of denial to the Town Council. 4. Request for a conditional use permit for a small electrical equipment and sales store in a basement area of "the Lions Square Lodge Building, P�iase II. Applicant: Mountain Communications and Mobile Telephone, Inc. Jim Sayre explained the situation and showed with a sketch the location of the proposed store. He added that the staff's only concern was with the addition later of sales of TV's, stereos, etc. He asked that the applicant come back if there were to be an addition of other items sold, though there was concern about the iize of the appliances also. Scott asked the applicant if he was aware that the Lions Square Lodge people were concerned about noise, and was told that noise controls would be handled by the Lodge. Dan moved and Roger seconded to approve the request for a conditonal use permit with the re'striction that the store be limited to the sales and repair of radio equipment. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Before adjourning, the board was reminded that the Dec. 14 meeting was an important one, and would include a study of arcades, They were also reminded of the joint study meeting with the Council on 12/8. Roger moved and Will seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 23, 1981 2:00 Field Inspection 3:00 1. Approval of minutes of November 9, 1981. 2. Request for a variance from the front set -back to allow a garage to encroach 1.8 feet into the front setback on lot 12, Bighorn Fourth Addition, 4484 Streamside Circle. Applicant: Timber Falls Corp. 3. Request for 3 variances to allow a secondary unit for employee housing on lot 16, block A, Vail Das Schone #1. The variance requests are from the covered parking requirement, the 40% maximum GRFA for the secondary unit requirement, and a request for a GRFA variance from the P/S district restrictions. Applicant: Michael W. Saba 0 4. Request for conditional use permit in for radio communication equipment sal basement level in Commercial Core 11, located at 600 Lionsplace, Unit H -12, lst Filing, 1st Addition. Applicant: Mobilphone, Inc. • order to have a shop us and service on the the Lionsquare Lodge, Lot 1, Vail Lionshead Mountain Communications Published in the Vail Trail November 20, 1981 MEMORANDUM 4b TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 18, 1981 RE: Conditional use permit for a small electrical equipment and sales store in a basement area of the Lions Square Lodge Building, Phase II. Applicant: Mountain Communications and Mobile Telephone, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: The applicant wishes to operate a retail electrical supply store below grade on the north side of the Lions Square Lodge building, Unit H -12, in Commercial Core 2. "Radio and TV stores and repair shops" require a conditional use permit. Three hundred and fifty square feet of the space shall serve as an office space. The remaining 200 square feet would be used as storage and repair of two -way radios. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recom- mends approval of the conditional use permit based on the following factors: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town.... �., The Town is in need of a small -scale electrical supply store. Such a store will not negatively influence the surrounding area. The effect on the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans - portat,ion facie.- ities, utilities, schools,T arks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities. There are no effects on these factors. 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. Mountain Communications and Mobile Telephone is merely replacing another establishment, a ski supply and repair shop, in the space in question. Lions Square Lodge does have parking space available for this commercial space, and no additional parking demands are anticipated as a result of the electrical supply store. Mtn Comm, & Mobile Phone •2r 11/18/81 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 store adds to the services offered to the residents of Vail in Commercial Core 2. This small store is below grade, is surrounded on both sides by other commercial uses. The adjacent owners have not objected to the proposal, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the rprp oposed ,use. The environmental\ impact• report concerning the proposed use impact report is required by Chapter 18,56. No EIR is required.. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS if an environmental 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 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. There are no forseeable problems with this request. However, if the applicant wishes to sell large and expensive applicances, such as color television sets, refrigerators, or stereo equipment, he would be required to return to the Planning Commission to amend the conditional use permit. • i i • Z RE IA 1 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: November 17, 1981 RE: Variance requests to allow an employee secondary unit in an existing J. single family unit on Lot 16., Block A, Vail Das Schone Subdivision. h Applicant: Michael Saba DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Two variances are being requested to allow an existing area of this residence permitted in Eagle County for one dwelling unit, to add a kitchen and, thus, an employee housing unit. The variances are for the covered parking requirement (500 of the requirement, or 2 spaces) and the secondary unit restriction of 400 of the allowable GRFA.for the employee unit (proposed is 42.7% of the allowable GRFA). A garage was disapproved by Eagle County in the original submittal to them-- - the placement of the garage in the structure caused the driveway to be too steep a grade to allow. The applicant then turned to the existing plan of surface parking on the front and east sides of the lot. They argue that a garage would not be compatible with the existing structure and would infringe upon some existing ground floor views, The area proposed to be an employee housing unit is 66 square feet over the 40% maximum allowable GRFA for such a unit. However, the structure is still 132 square feet below the County's maximum GRFA. The applicant points out no particular hardship but argues that the County has approved the plans as the house exists, minus the kitchen necessary for the employee unit. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the request variance for covered parking and approval of the variance request for a_maximum of 40% GRFA allowable on the secondary unit 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. On the covered parking variance request, although the immediate area is not characterized with a standard of enclosed parking facilities, there is no reason why the applicant should not provide such a facility for this particular development. Saba 2 11/18/81 With respect to the GRFA variance, this would have no significant impacts upon other existing or potential structures in the vicinity, The degree to, which rel -ief from the stric•t or literal interpretation and enforcement,of, a specified regulation is necessar to achieve compatibility and uniformity of,,treatment`_among - sit -es, in the vir cini y or to attain the objectives of, thisv t-itle without, grant of special, privil,ege, Concerning the covered parking variance, we feel the granting of this would be a special privelege. The existing paved parking area can easily accommodate a garage for 2 cars without any adverse effects on the aesthetics of the house, while still allowing for 2 other surface spaces to meet TOV requirements. The staff feels that one of the jobs delegated to us as a result of annexation was to upgrade aesthetically the West Vail area, and enclosed parking is just one method of accomplishing that. Concerning the GRFA variance, our feeling is that 66 square feet of floor area for the secondary unit only improves the viability of the employee housing. The unit is a spacious 2 bedroom 1053 square feet with l bathroom and a sizable living area. To disallow the unit because of an excess of 66 square feet of GRFA would not be consistent with our goal of providing comfortable, viable employee housing apartments throughout the community, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of • 2opulation, trans ortation and traffic facilities, ublie.faclities and utilities, and public safety, Although the lot is not a large one, 9875 sq ft, the GRFA is existing and allowing the secondary unit would not be overcrowding either the site or the neighborhood. The Design Review Board will review a garage proposal, and at the same time, landscaping and other site considerations, Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed, variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission sha11 make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privlege 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. • is Saba -3- 11/18/81 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. The strict or literal interpretation and would deprive the applicant of privileges in the same district. RECOMMENDATION enforcement of the specified regulation enjoyed by the owners of other properties The Community Development Department recommends approval of the variance from a maximum of the 40% GRFA restriction for the secondary unit. The extra 66 sq ft only makes it a better unit and, since the floor area is already existing, no exterior building changes will occur. The secondary unit being proposed is a very nice apartment in a good location for employees (within walking distance to Commercial Core 3). Our employee housing situation may be improving, but we need to continue to push for viable employee housing further. This proposal adds to the stock of good employee housing units and would be governed by the standard restrictions for employee units in the Primary /Secondary zone district for lots of less than 15,000 sq ft. The covered parking variance is not in accord, however., with the goals of improving the aesthetics of the West Vail area. There is currently a lack of covered parking facilities in duplex neighborhoods in West Vail, and to continue that trend is not in the best interests of long range objectives. The site appears capable of handling a two -car garage while still meeting a total of 4 off - street spaces. Thus, we recommend denial of the covered parking variance. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 18, 1981 RE: Front setback variance request on lot 12, Bighorn Fourth Addition APPLICANT: Timber Falls Corporation DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests a front setback variance of 1.8 feet from the required 20 foot front setback to allow a front setback of 18.2 feet from the front property lane on lot 12, Bighorn Subdivision., Fourth Addition. The applicants request the variance due to a survey error in laying out the building and the fact that the building now sits 1.8 feet within the required front setback. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code the Department of Community Develo ment recommends approval 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 front property line of lot 12 sits a distance of 20 feet off the edge of the pavement of Streamside Circle, and thus the building now sits 38.2 feet off of the street. Gore Creek is located to the rear of the building and there is a setback of 29 feet to the east of the building. The Staff feels that the 1.8 foot encroachment will not have any negative impacts upon adjacent properties and has not received any objections to the variance request from adjacent property owners. A positive effect of the error is that trees which would have been destroyed had the error not been made, have been saved. At the time the building went before the Design Review Board, the Board suggested that the applicant examine the possibility of moving the house to the west to save existing trees. It was determined that to move the building would require either a stream setback variance or front setback variance. Due to time constraints on building, the applicant expressed desire to locate the building as shown and it was approved by the Design Review Board. Timber Falls 2- 11/18/81 The degree to which relief from the strict.or literal interpretation and and enforcement of a specified regulatdon, is" necessary to achieve coma tibility and uniformity of treatment among sates in the vicinity or to attain the objectives o, this title without grant of especial privilege. The Staff feels that although the setback is the result of a survey error, the result of the error is a positive one. The shift of the house ap- proximately six feet to the east has preserved existing trees which would have been destroyed had the house been placed where approved by the Design Review Board. The resulting 1,8 foot encroachment into the front setback is of minimal impact compared to the vegetation which has been saved. Since an objective of the zoning code is to maintain and preserve as much existing vegetation as possible when building, the granting of the setback variance would be in accordance with objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. The effect of the re nested vari population, transportation and t and utilities, and public safety No impact. on light and air, distribution of is facilities, public facilities Such other factors and criteria as.the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • ,FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 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. Timber Falls r3- 11118181 • STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. Although the encroachment occurred as a result of an error in building layout, we feel that the resulting building location has created the possibility of saving existing vegetation which would have otherwise not been saved. The encroachment into the front setback has no negative impact upon any adjacent properties or uses within the vicinity. • • Al - wl gg� PARCEL B \ 17, 4! 3 . D4+ SojjARE FEET 0 'ejOD 1- sCFtiFS 1 J s Cl l f Af?Y^L A ,,644.94 SlIUARF FEET 0, ,26 7 ACRES t '�r timber falls 4496 East Meadow Drive • Vail • CO • 81657 (303) 4762522 November 18, 1981 Town of Vail Department of Community Development A. Peter Patten, Jr. Zoning Administrator 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Patten: This letter is to serve as an explanation as to the encroachment by Timber 'Falls Corporation, on Lot #12, Bighorn Fourth Addition, 4484 Streamside Circle, Vail, The encroachment is about 1.8'. We began our set -up to layout the building from the northwest corner of the property. This corner was chosen because the southwest and southeast corners are in Gore Creek and the north- east corner is under an electrical pedestal. When the plat, that discovered the encroachment, was done, its point of beginning was on Bighorn Road (Highway 6) about one -half mile to the west. The allignment of Bighorn Road and the northwest corner of Lot #12 do not close, from a surveying point of view. We believe the Bighorn Road allignment is more accurate and there- fore, our point of beginning probably had some built -in error. The building has fifteen inside and eleven outside corners. We feel this kind of design is in the spirit of Vail architecture. All the people who reviewed the project including the Design Review Board agreed that we should save three trees shown on the plat, and that they would have a positive inpact on the building. All of the trees were saved and are doing well and have proved to be well worth the trouble of saving. Placing the building between these three natural elements however, was very difficult and each corner had to be turned with an instru- ment. Somewhere in this process the error was made. Streamside Circle is not in its right -of -way but lies about 20' to 25' from the north front property line, and is not in any line of sight, as outlined by the enclosed photos. Ron Riley is the neighbor to the east of the building, the neighbor to the west is 200' away, Timber Falls Corporation borders to the south and Streamside Circle and Bighorn F'oad border to the north. In summary we think saving the trees was necessary and the hardship of doing this along with the inconsistant plating that exists in East Vail caused this encroachment to be reasonable and we hope this is sufficient cause for you to approve this variance. If you have any further questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. S' ere ir� Ole. Ronald H. Riley President Timber Falls Corporation RHR: kmj Fnclosures n L .J fu 0[l7 ie1211110 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department /Peter Patten DATE: November 30, 1981 SUBJECT: Revision to Red Lion Inn Exterior Alteration Applicant: Jeff Selby On February 9, 1981 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved by a vote of 6 -1 the Red Lion Inn request for an exterior alteration to the south end of the building. A major revision to the originally approved plan has now been submitted for approval. Basically, the second story addition containing the three condominiums has been eliminated. The new retail portion of the plan remains, for the most part, the same. The effect of the revision is to lower the highest roof line by 9 feet- - from 24 feet to 16 feet. This improves the preservation of the existing minor view corridor from Hill Street to the Gore Range. The following portions of the Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning statistics have changed from the previous approval: 1. Vehicle Penetration: Reduced by proposing no new condominiums. 2. Street Enclosure: The new street enclosure ratio is about 1/2 to 1 -- the most desirable proportion according to the Urban Design Guide Plan. 3. Building Height: Highest new ridge is 19 feet above street level, 6 feet lower than the original submission. 4, Views: The impact of the view corridor is significantly less than before. The Community Development Department considers that there is no significant change from the approved plan. Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission needs to review the revised plan and agree or not agree with that determination. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: December 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Minor subdivision request for lots 10, 11, and 12, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicants: Dan M. Gagliardo, Marjory E. Saunders, Laurence K. Hester BACKGROUND The two duplexes on lots 10 and 11 were constructed as a unified project by a single owner and contractor. The lot -line between lots 10 and 11 was not abandoned because it would have made one large lot allowing only two units. The problem is that there are two significant setback violations existing. One is on the southeast corner of the lot 10 duplex (7.6 feet from the common property line) and on the southeast corner of the northerly unit of the duplex on lot 11 (12.4 feet from the property line common to lots 11 and 12) . THE REQUEST Thus, this request is to change lot lines common to lots 10 and 11, as well as lots 11 and 12 so that the new lots have no setback violations. Also, the new lots created have the same square footage as the existing lots, so no changes in allowable GRFA would occur. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this minor subdivision request. The existing setback violations have no negative impacts associated with them. The distance between the houses on lots 11 and 12. is 38.5 feet, well over the required 30 feet. The other infringement on lot 10 is insignificant because the corner of the house is only a couple of feet from the driveway pavement. This is the lot line that actually is meaningless as it separates what is basically one 4 -unit project. Also, the owner of lot 12 has no problems with the request. Due to these reasons, we have no problems with recommending approval. is MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1981 SUBJECT: Study session review of new proposed Commercial Core 4 (CC4) District At the joint Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in September a general proposal was discussed to look at the possibility of coming up with a new zone district for the area that includes the West day lot, Vail Associates service yard, Holy Cross, Texaco, Voliter, Glen Lyon Office Building, Chevron, and the old Town shop sites. Some general development plans were presented along with discussing the general upgrading of this area. The Planning Commission and Town Council generally wanted to see the area upgraded as it is one of the major entry ways into Vail Lionshead.. In addition, some of the uses that are currently in the Heavy Service District where a majority of this property is located did not seem appropriate for this area of Town. Concern was also registered for allowing service stations and service yards to continue, as there is a need to have these uses within the Town of Vail. A strong objection was presented in allowing any free market type units in this new zone district. One issue that still- needs resolution.is changing the west day lot:from.a Parking zone distract to the new district. The area under consideration for rezoning to Commercial Core 4 includes the following sites: Current Site Approximate Acres Zoning West Day Lot 2.6 Parking V.A. Service Yard 3.2 Heavy Service Holy Cross 1.4 Heavy Service Texaco Site .9 Heavy Service. Voliter 1.0 Heavy Service Glen Lyon Office Bldg 1.7 Special Dev.District Chevron .9 Heavy Service Treatment Plant and Town Shops 1.4 Heavy Service Attached is a copy of the new proposed Commercial Core 4 Zone distract which has been submitted by I --PLAN for Planning Commission review and comment. After the study session on Monday, the applicant most likely will be following CC4 2- 12/8/81 this up with a public hearing on the new zone district, probably in January for the Planning Commission's recommendation to Town Council on the proposed zone district. Below are a couple of concerns that the staff has with the proposed district ordinance and land area under consideration. 1. In the conditional use section,.lodges are noted as a conditional use. Most members of the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission stated they did not want free market type units. 2. The height section states that a flat or mansard roof and a sloping roof is possible. Do we want a flat or mansard roof in this area? The staff recommends a sloping roof for this district. 3. The west day lot is currently zoned Parking. By changing the zone district, parking could be removed and not be replaced. The staff has been working with representatives of I -PLAN for the past few months in coming up with the new zone district. We consider that the proposed district allows for uses currently in the area to continue and allow for the upgrading of the area. Purpose of the study session is to have the Planning and Environmental Commission review and comment on the new zone district. . 0 Sections: 18.27.010 18.27.015 18.27.020 18.27.030 18.27.040 18.27.050 18.27.060 18.27.070 18.27.080 18.27.030 18.27.100 1.8.27.110 18.27.120 18.27.130 18.27.140 - _ r of 12/9/81 COMMERCIAL CORE 4 DISTRICT Chapter 18.27 PURPOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES ACCESSORY USES LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS SETBACKS HEIGHT DENSITY CONTROL COVERAGE LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PARKING AND LOADING LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, LEASE OR RENT OF DWELLING UNITS SIGN CODE 1 0 COMMERCIAL CORE 4 (CC4) DISTRICT 18.27.010 PURPOSE The Commercial Care 4 District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, and other shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. Multiple - family dwellings for use as employee housing and lodge uses will be appropriate in specific areas of the District. Commercial Core 4 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping, business, service, and residential environment. 18.27.015 REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS PLAN A. Prior to the establishment of any Commercial Core 4 District or enlargement of an existing Commercial Core 4 District by change of District boundaries, the Planning & Environmental Commission shall adopt a general circulation and access plan for the proposed District. B. The general circulation and access plan shall show the following information: 1. Existing topography and tree cover; 2. Proposed division of the area into lots or building sites, and the proposed uses to be established on each site; 3. Ingress and egress at each site for vehicular access as well as any proposed bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; 4. Relationship of proposed development on the site to development on adjoining sites; 5. Noise abatement and control methods; 6. Such additional information as the Planning and Environ- mental Commission and Town Council deem necessary to guide development within the proposed District. i Page 2 C. The general circulation and access plan shall be used as a guide for the subsequent development of sites and the design and location of buildings and grounds within the District. All plans subsequently approved by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 shall substantially conform with the plan adopted by the Planning & Environmental Commission. D. The general circulation and access plan can be amended by the Planning & Environmental Commission at a public hearing. 18.27.020 PERMITTED USES The following uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core 4 District: A. Professional offices, business offices, and studios; B. Banks and financial institutions; C. Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the following: Apparel stores Art supply and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises Bookstores Building materials stores without outdoor storage Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and convenience food stores Department and general merchandise stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Furniture stores Gift stores Hardware stores Health clubs Health food stores Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Luggage stores a Page 3 Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Radio and television stores Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores D. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barbershops Beauty shops Business and office services Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing Coin- operated or self- service laundries Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair Shoe repair Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies E. Eating and drinking.establishments, including the following: Cocktail lounges, taverns, and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants F. Additional offices, businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.27.010 of this chapter. 18.27.030 CONDITIONAL USES The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core 4 District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Drive -up facilities B. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities C. Public park and recreation facilities Aft a Page 4 � 0 F. Pet shops G. Any use permitted by Section 18.27.020 which is not conducted entirely within a building H. Service yards I. Massage parlours J. Outside car wash K. Lodges L. Meeting rooms and convention facilities M. Public and private health facilities N. Theatres 0. Public utility and public service uses, including outside storage P. Service Stations Q. Nursery and garden supply R. Multiple - family dwellings for the employees of the Upper Eagle Valley as further restricted.by Section 18.27.130 of this Zone District. 18.27.040 ACCESSORY USES The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core 4 District: A. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to conditional residential. B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. D. Minor arcade D. Commercial laundry and cleaning services - bulk plant E. Commercial recreation center /major arcade � 0 F. Pet shops G. Any use permitted by Section 18.27.020 which is not conducted entirely within a building H. Service yards I. Massage parlours J. Outside car wash K. Lodges L. Meeting rooms and convention facilities M. Public and private health facilities N. Theatres 0. Public utility and public service uses, including outside storage P. Service Stations Q. Nursery and garden supply R. Multiple - family dwellings for the employees of the Upper Eagle Valley as further restricted.by Section 18.27.130 of this Zone District. 18.27.040 ACCESSORY USES The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core 4 District: A. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to conditional residential. B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. D. Minor arcade • 10 Page 5 18.27.050 LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS The minimum lot or site shall be twenty -five thousand square feet of buildable site area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of one hundred feet. 18.27.060 SETBACKS In the Commercial Core 4 District, setbacks shall be as follows: Front: South Frontage Road — 10 feet West Lionshead Circle — 20 feet Forest Road -- 20 feet Side: 10 feet where building height is less than 20 feet. 15 feet where building height is over 20 feet. Rear: 10 feet There will be no setback required for underground parking. Where a setback occurs at a property line adjacent to the South Frontage Road, a maximum of 60% of the length of the setback may be kept to the minimum 10 feet distance from the property line. The remaining 40% of the length of the setback shall be 25 feet or more distant from the property line. 18.27.070 HEIGHT For a flat roof or mansard roof, a maximum of 70% of the roof shall not exceed 38 feet, and 30% of the roof shall not exceed 30 feet. For sloping roofs,'a maximum of 70% of the roof shall not exceed 40 feet, and 30% of the roof shall not exceed 32 feet. 18.27.080 DENSITY CONTROL Not more than 60 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed 25 units per acre of buildable site area. 18.27.090 COVERAGE Not more than 60% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. ' Page b R , 18.27.100 LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT At least 20 percent of the total site shall be landscaped, plus the area between the property line and the shoulder of surfaced roads. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet with a minimum area not less than three hundred square feet. 10 18.27.110 PARKING AND LOADING Off- street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. No loading area shall be located in any required front setback. area. 18.27.120 LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY All permitted and conditional uses by 18.27.020 and 18.27.030 shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit. 18.27.130 RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, LEASE OR RENT OF DWELLING UNITS IN COMMERCIAL CODE 4 The applicant submitting a development plan for inclusion into the Commercial Core 4 District shall agree in writing: A. That any dwelling unit in the development shall not be sold, transferred, or otherwise conveyed for a period of not less than the life of Trent William Ruder, a life in being, plus twenty -one (21) years from the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued for said unit, and B. That any dwelling unit in the development shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and that if it shall be rented, 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 area. A "full -time employee" is a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week; and C. That any dwelling unit in the development shall not be divided into any form of time shares, 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. �,_ Page 7 ,10 0 18.27.140 SIGN CODE The sign code for the CC4 District will he the adopted sign code for the CC3 District. s Ob i i 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 1 through 5._ 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 E i 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 1 through '5.:Cliffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster Distract 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 e .1 PRESENT Scott Edwards Will Trout Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Jim Morgan ABSENT Roger Tilkemeier PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 14, 1981 STAFF Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Betsy Rosol.ack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by chairman, Gerry White, following a work session on CC4 zoning and revised Red Lion plans. 1. Approval of the minutes of the November 23, 1981 meeting. Will moved and Duane seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5-0, unanimous. �h 2. Request fora minor subdivision of lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: CDS Enterprises, Inc. Peter Patten showed site plans showing new lines with the old property lines in red. He explained why the staff recommended approval and Kcn Wilson representing the property owners explained that a driveway encroachment on lot 11 was to be eliminated with the resubdivision. Dan explained that no allowable GRFA changes would occur., Duane voiced concern about lot lines regarding the distance between the buildings. Peter assuaged their concerns. Scott moved and Will seconded to approved the request for a minor subdivision. The vote was 5 -0 in favor with Dan abstaining. 3. Request for a rezoning of lots 1 through 5, Cliffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster District to Single Family District. Applicants: Richard Brown, Daryl R. Burns, David L. Cole, and Charles H. Rosonquist. Peter Patten explained the memo showing the site plan and discussed the graphs in the memo. Phil Ordway explained that he and Dave Smentana each had a contract to buy a lot if the zoning was changed, and that they were instrumental in . requesting the rezoning. Jim recalled that when this subdivision was annexed and zoned Residential Cluster it was the intention to reconsider the zoning at a later date. He was in favor of the change. Dan stated that he felt that lot 6 should be included. Ordway explained that Rosenquist (owner of lot 6) was in favor of changing his lot to duplex (presently he could build a possible 3) or P /S. Ordway stated that he didn't have time to study the alternatives in full and so decided not to include lot 6.at the last minute,adding that Rosenquist told him that he (Rosenquist) would not insist on building 3 units. Ordway went on to state that he did not feel that this_was spot zoning for lot 6 since it was adjacent to RC zoning. PEC -2- 12/14/81 Scott agreed with Ordway adding that lot 6 was so different, there was no need to consider it with the other lots.. .Scott added that he was concerned that the houses not be built high on the ridge and wondered if a trade -off could be made in this respect. Ordway assured Scott that-the houses would be down the hill far enough so that they wouldn't interfere with others' views. Ordway added that sating was the main reason for the request. Jim voiced concern over the visual impact, also, then said he was sure DRP would take that into consideration. Will moved and Duane seconded to rezone lots 1 thru 5 to Single Family. The vote was 6 -0, unanimous. Dan voiced his concern that the home owners show concern as to how high they build, because the owners of the Ridge were purposely not building on the high point. Gerry felt this was the correct zoning because otherwise the owners would be coming in with a series of requests for variances since the RC zone in this development made it virtually unbuildable. Preliminary Review Session for.Exterior Alterations and Modifications. This s6ssioniwas to decide whether or not the submitted projects would be considered major -- requiring a 90 day study, or minor requiring a 60 day study. ' All of the following were considered to be major revisions: ■ Gallery Building Slifer Building Lodge at Vail - Harry's Bar (new location) Red Lion inn -Deck Enclosure The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: December 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Cliffside Subdivision, lots l: through 5, from Residential Cluster (RC) to Single Family Residential (SFR). Applicants: Richard Brown, Daryl R. Burns, David L. Cole, and Charles H. Rosenquist. BACKGROUND Cliffside Subdivision was annexed into the Town with the West Vail Annexa- tion of December 31, 1980. It consists of 6 lots and is located in the Lionsridge area. In 1975, lots G -7 and G -8 of Lionsridge Filing No. 2 were resubdivided into what is now Cliffside Subdivision. The lots are small. Only lot 6.is over 15,000 square feet. Cliffside was an area which was difficult to fit into the most appropriate zone district at the time of zoning West Vail. There were no other similar subdivisions in the surrounding area of Cliffside. The Valley lies to the northwest and was appropriately zoned Residential Cluster. The "G"' lots lie to the southeast and were also zoned Residential Cluster, mostly due to the Briar Patch project (on lots G -2, G -5 and G -6) and the G -4 lot (zoned for 30 units). To the immediate west, across Lionsridge Loop and on top of the ridge is Ridgecrest, a 6 lot primary /secondary zoned area. These lots are over 30,000 square feet each. To allow Cliffside to "blend in" with the surrounding properties, we zoned it RC, with a minimum,of 2000 square feet of GRFA for each lot. This special provision was included because, with slope restrictions, some of the lots would have been allowed only 1100 or 1200 square feet of GRFA. It was felt and expressed at that time that Cliffside was an area for further study as to the most appropriate zone district. THE REQUEST The rezoning request includes only lots 1 through 5, excluding lot 6, where Chuck Rosenquist's house exists. Lot 6 is the only one which could have more than one unit (it possibly could have 3, according to rough slope calculations). Lots 1 through 5 are non - conforming in terms of minimum lot size for RC, as they will be in Single Family (but to a lesser extent). The enclosed chart comparing RC to SFR, combined with the table on statistics for lots 1,2,3,4, and 5 will help to understand the situation. The main differences are three: 1. SRF allows approximately an average increase in GRFA of 647 sq ft per lot. Cliffside -2- 12/9/81 2. SFR allows flexibility in the siting of the houses on the lots because there are no slope restrictions. 3. SFR allows, on lots where the house is located on an average slope of 300 or more, the garage to be located without a front setback requirement. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the rezoning request for Cliffside Subdivision. After studying the situation, we feel SFR is the correct zone district for this subdivision. Residential Cluster is meant for multi- family development such as townhomes and condominiums. We are dealing with single family development on these lots,: not condominiums. The flexibility in siting for the houses and the garages is a necessity for these small, steep, difficult -to- build-on lots. The SFR District is a more appropriate one for the development of these lots. &0_1 W- M �i W-- DIFFERENCE IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Min. Lot Size Setbacks Height Density Control Site Coverage Landscaping Parking Slope restrictions 15,000 sq ft area 8,000 sq ft min. buildable Front -20 ft, Sides and Rear, 15 ft Flat roof -301, sloped -33' 25% of buildable area 25% of site Minimum 60% of site 2 spaces /unit, no front setback parking, I covered space per unit if required by DRB No building on 40% or more slopes, 40% or more slope areas subtracted from allowable units and GRFA Cliffside --3- 12,500 buildable area Front -20 £t, . Si.des.and Rear, 15 ft Flat roof-301,sloped- 33' 2S% of Ist 12,500 sq ft site area,+10% over 1.2,500 20% of site Minimum 60% of site 2 spaces /unit No slope restrictions relating to GRFA or unit siting s� NIS 0\13 1