The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - June-1: 1982 PEC INDEX January 25,,-1982 Amend zoning Code, -ARCADES Febru 8, 1982 SANDSTONE CREEK CLUB CONDOS,- request for density control variance SDD4 CASCADE VILLAGE, Lot 39, request to subdivide into 2 lots SDD4 CASCADE VILLAGE,:Irequest setback change to allow parking structure to encroach on north side MOUNTAIN HAUS,� conditional use for real estate office LODGE AT VAIL Harry's Bar RED LION INN enclose deck February 22, 1982 ARTERIAL BUSINESS ZONE DISTRICT, new zone DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES amendment ARCADES,,fzoning amendment GALLERY (ORE HOUSE) BUILDING, addition SLIFER BUILDING,.- addition . LODGE AT VAIL, Harry's Bar (tabled to March 8) March 8,,, 1982 LOT 1,,,VAIL VILLAGE 2nd, Byrne, change zone TEXACO OFFICE BUILDING CLIFFSIDE SUB rezone LODGE AT VAIL HARRY'S BAR March 22, 1982 LOT 2 ,,BLK 5,:,INTERMOUNTAIN,: rezone TEXACO OFFICE BUILDING SDD4,•increase office of Glen Lyon Building CLIFFSIDE SUB rezone A ri l 12,,,1982 LOT 17. 4AIL VALLEY 3rd, /setback variance HEL I,PAD 1982 PEC -2- 2jl ._26 4 1982 LOTS 3 and 26, HIGHLAND MEADOWS #2, 2 variances LIBRARY, - employee units to teen center VIEW CORRIDORS LOT 42, VAIL VILLAGE WEST #1 condo conversion May 10, 1982 Lot 11, Bighorn 2nd, SHANNON variance WEST VAIL MALL GAME PARLOR, conditional use VOLITER NURSERY REAL ESTATE OFFICE conditional use AMEND PARKING 18.52.100 ARTERIAL BUSINESS, NEW ZONE DISTRICT LOT 42, VAI VILLAGE WEST #1, SHIMON June 14, 1982 CCI PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS: Bridge St Real Estate Co, Liquor Store Building Covered Bridge Bldg entry Cyrano's north deck Hong Kong Cafe enclose patio to enlarge bar Lodge at Vail - pool. enclosure Christy Sports expand second floor office space Le Petite Cafe, One Vail Place, exterior seating CCII Le Petite Cafe, Lionshead, exterior seating Lions Pride Court and building, extend shop fronts Village Center Shops, enclose parking to a ski repair shop LOT 21, VAIL MEADOWS #1, variance , LEROY LOT 1, VAIL VILLAGE 2ND, BYRNE, rezone LOT 42, VAIL VILLAGE WEST #1, SHIMON condo conversion LOT 12, VAI VILLAGE WEST #2, ANGLEITNER, side setback variances LOT 11, MATTERHORN VILLAGE #1, WILLIAMS, front setback variance TOWN SHOPS BUS BARN ADDITION, conditional use ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT GENERAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS PLAN June 28, 1982 LOT 10, BLOCK C VAI DAS SCHONE #1, GORDON, setback variances LE PETIT CAFE LIONSHEAD, EXTERIOR SEATING LE PETIT CAFE, ONE VAIL PLACE, EXTERIOR SEATING 1982 PLU -J- June 28 (coat) ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT GENERAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS PLAN AMENDMENTS "FAMILY," "HOSTEL" AND "ROOMING HOUSE DEFINITIONS AMENDMENTS PARKING CHAPTER LODGE ROOM CONVERSION ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION July 12, 1982 LE PETIT CAFE ONE VAIL PLACE EXTERIOR SEATING IPANEMA CONDOS'CONVERT TO TIME SHARE VILLAGE CENTER CONDO TO CONVERT PARKING TO RETAIL FORD PARK BATTING CAGES conditional use AMENDMENTS "FAMILY," "HOSTEL" AND "ROOMING HOUSE DEFINITIONS AMENDMENTS PARKING CHAPTER OUTDOOR PATIOS AMENDMENT July 26, 1982 INN AT WEST VAIL CONVERSION OF APARTMENTS IPANEMA CONDOS CONVERSTION TO TIME SHARE LIONS PRIDE BUILDING EXPANSION CHRISTY SPORTS IN PLAZA LODGE REMODEL SECOND FLOOR LODGE AT VAIL POOL ENCLOSURE AMENDMENT OF CONDO CONVERIONS CHAPTER AND KITCHEN FACILITIES IN PA DISTRICT August 9, 1982 LODGE AT VAIL POOL ENCLOSURE MOUNTAIN TROPICS PET SHOP, VAI DAS SCHONE conditional use LOT 28, BLOCK 1, POTATO PATCH ROMWELL -FOX, setback variance COVERED BRIDGE STORE BUILDING ENTRY OUTDOOR PATIO AMENDMENTS PARKING AMENDMENTS CONDO CONVERSION AMENDMENTS August 23, 1982 COVERED BRIDGE STORE BUILDING ENTRY COVERED BRIDGE STORE CONVERT APARTMENT TO RETAIL SPACE ON SECOND FLOOR HONG KONG CAFE ADDITION TO BAR CYRANO'S ENCLOSE TWO DECKS AND ADD A THIRD FLOOR CONDO 4254 EAST COLUMBINE WAY ODUM variances AUTO EMISSION VARIANCE IN CCIII TOWN SHOPS BUS WASH AND FUEL PUMP FACILITY i PEC AGENDAS 1982 (cont) September 13, 1982 CYRANO'S BUILDING ENCLOSE DECKS AND ADD 3RD FLOOR LOT 9, BIGHORN TERRACE ODUM setback and GRFA variances AMENDMENT TO DISALLOW SIMILAR APPLICATION LIONS PRIDE COURT EXPANSION AMENDMENTS FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND OUTDOOR VENDING GARDEN OF THE GODS CLUB SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT GREENHOUSE LOT 45, VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2, DAVE IRWIN SETBACK VARIANCE September 27, 1982 LOT 4 BLK 2 INTERMOUNTAIN MCGOLDRICK parking variance LOT 45 VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2 DAVE IRWIN SETBACK VARIANCE AMENDMENTS FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND OUTDOOR VENDING October 11 , 1982 LOT 21, VAIL MEADOWS #1, THOMAS LEROY setback variance for garage BREAKAWAY WEST CONDO ASSOC MOVE PARKING SPACES LOT 12 BLOCK 2 GORE CREEK GOTTLIEB, setback and height variances VAI GUIDES, OLD TOWN SHOPS ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT RADIO & TELEVISION STUDIOS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS October 25, 1982 LOT 12BLOCK 2 GORE CREEK SUB GOTTLIEB height variance LOT 3, BLOCK G VAI DAS SCHONE #2, DODSON VOGELAAR setback variance AMEND CODE REDEFINE "GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA" AND STORAGE AREA AMEND CODE REDEFINE SITE COVERAGE AMEND CODE TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AMEND VIEW PLANE SECTION OF VV URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS November 8, 1982 LOT 3 BLK G VAI DAS SCHONE #2, DOSON /VOGELAAR setback variances for garage AMEND CODE TO REDEFINE "GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLLOR AREA AND ADD "STORAGE AREA" AMEND THE VIEW PLANE SECTION OF VV URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN:DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS November .22, 1982 LIONSHEAD ARCADE EXPANSION LOT 18,BL K 1POTATO PATCH 01, IRISH - BARTLIT setback variance AMEND DESIGN STANDARDS OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMEND TO REDEFINE "SITE COVERAGE" AMEND TO REDEFINE "GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA," "STORAGE AREA" PEC AGENDAS 1982 December 13, 1982 LOT 3 BLK G VAIL DAS SCHONE #2 DODSON /VOGELAAR setback and site coverage variances AMENDMENT TO URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN SECTIN G VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS REZONE ANNEXED MATTERHORN AREA LOT 1 BLOCK 4 VAI VILLAGE 7th ANDRIKOPOULOS, side setback variance for garage ry DATE --'' -"- APPLICANT 1982 VARIANCE REQUESTS 2/8 Sandstone Creek Club density and parking Vail Ridge Parners 4/12 lot 17, Vail Valley 3rd rear setback 7.5' variance Richard Lloyds STAFF PEC RECOMMENDATION ACTION denial denial 6 -0 approval approval 5 -0 -1 4/26 lots 3 & 26 to make duplex with 50/50 approval approval Highland Meadows #2 ratio on 2 lots each which 4 -0 -1 Robin Roberts are in excess of 40% slope 6/14 lot 11, Matthorn front setback house denial denied James R. Williams 4 -0 6/14 lot 21 Vail Meadows #1 to build garage in red denial denial Thomas LeRoy hazard avalanche zone 4 -0 6/14 setback variance denial denial 2 -1 -1 6/14 lot 12,.V Vill West #2 2 side setbacks -house approval approved Gottfried Angleitner 4 -O iii� 6/28 lot 10, block C Vail das 2 setback variances approval approval Schone #1, Alex Gordon for garage 6 -0 8/9 lot 28, blk 1,Potato P two foot setback - -error denial approval Romwell Fox 4 -0 9/13 4254 E Columbine Way setback - airlock approval _a- pprroved Jo}hPA-dum _ b 6 -0 " setback - deck denial denial 3 -3 9/13 Garden of Gods setback - greenhouse denial approved Mrs. Albert Hill 3 -1 =1 9/27 lot 45, V Village West setback - survey error denial approved Dave Irwin 2 -1 -1 9/27 lot 4 blk 2 Intermtn parking regulation approval approved Dave McGoldrick infring on TOV right of way 3 -0--1 9/27 lot 21, V Meadows #1 setback - garage approval approved Thomas LeRoy 6 -0 9/27 Breakaway West move parking spaces approval approved 5 -1 9/27 lot 12 Gore Creek 5' setback- stream approval approved Barnard Gottlieb 5 -0 4/12 lot 17, Vail Valley 3rd rear setback 7.5' variance approval approval Richard Lloyds adjacent to Forest Service 5 -0 -1 open space 4/26 lots 3 & 26 to make duplex with 50/50 approval approval Highland Meadows #2 ratio on 2 lots each which 4 -0 -1 Robin Roberts are in excess of 40% slope 6,14 lot 11, front setback house denial denied James R. Williams proposed 4 -0 addition 6/14 lot 21 Vail Meadows #1 to build garage in red denial denial Thomas LeRoy hazard avalanche zone 4-•0 6/14 setback variance 6/14 lot 12, V Vill West #2 2 side setbacks- house Gottfried Angleitner denial approval denial 2 -1 -1 approved 4 -0 6/28 lot 10, block C Vail das 2 setback variances approval approval Schone #1, Alex Gordon for garage 1982 VARIANCE REQUESTS 8/9 lot 28, blk 1,Potato P two foot setback - -error j STAFF~! PEC DATE APPLICANT SUBJECT RECOMMENDATION ACTION 2/8 Sandstone Creek Cub density and parking denial �` denial Vail Ridge Partne),s John Odum 6 -0 4/12 lot 17, Vail Valley 3rd rear setback 7.5' variance approval approval Richard Lloyds adjacent to Forest Service 5 -0 -1 open space 4/26 lots 3 & 26 to make duplex with 50/50 approval approval Highland Meadows #2 ratio on 2 lots each which 4 -0 -1 Robin Roberts are in excess of 40% slope 6,14 lot 11, front setback house denial denied James R. Williams proposed 4 -0 addition 6/14 lot 21 Vail Meadows #1 to build garage in red denial denial Thomas LeRoy hazard avalanche zone 4-•0 6/14 setback variance 6/14 lot 12, V Vill West #2 2 side setbacks- house Gottfried Angleitner denial approval denial 2 -1 -1 approved 4 -0 6/28 lot 10, block C Vail das 2 setback variances approval approval Schone #1, Alex Gordon for garage 6 -0 8/9 lot 28, blk 1,Potato P two foot setback - -error denial approval Romrell/ Fox 4 -0 9/13 4254 E Columbine Way setback - airlock approval approved John Odum 6 -0 9127 " setback - deck denial denial j Bernard Gottlieb , for deck 3 -3 9./1:3 Garden of Gods - - -.. �e_tliac __.- nr�erlh��ise.. denial - ?.p �?Nied Mrs. Albert Hill 3 -1 -1 9/27 lot 45, V Village West setback- survey error denial approved Dave Irwin 2 -1 -1 9/27 lot 4 blk 2 Intermtn parking regulation. approval approved Dave McGoldrick infring on TOV right of way 3 -0 -1 9/27 lot 21, V Meadows #1 setback - garage approval approved Thomas LeRoy 6 -0 9/27 Breakaway West move parking spaces approval approved 5 -1 9127 lot 12 Gore Creek 5' setback variance from from 50' stream setback approval appr.5 -0 j Bernard Gottlieb , for deck 10/25. '.' E, height variance denial anpr. 3 -2-1 PLANNING AND ENVIROMENTAL COMMISSION • January 25, 1982 2:00 p.m. PRESENT STAFF Gerry White Jim Sayre Dan Corcoran Dick Ryan Scott Edwards Peter Patten Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Roger Tilkemeier COUNCIL REP Jim Morgan --- Gail Wahrlich ABSENT Will 'Trout The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Gerry White. 1. Approval of minutes of December 14,...1981. Dan moved and Scott seconded to approve the minutes, The vote was unanimously in favor. 2. Request to amend the zoning code so that it includes definitions of "major arcade" and "minor arcade," defines in which zones they will be allowed and under what conditions, and disallows arcades exterior frontage on public ways, streets or mall areas, Applicant: Town of Vail. Jim Sayre explained that the request came in two parts, the zoning and the licensing. He mentioned that there had been a public meeting six weeks before but that no one of the public had attended. He added that at present arcades were allowed only in the Commercial Service Center and CCIII zone districts. Dick Ryan stated that part of the rezoning was to allow arcades to take place in certain areas instead of saying that the zoning .code doesn't allow arcades. He added that it was his understanding that Chuck Bettcher.fe.lt that when there was an arcade in the Crossroads area, much rowdiness occurred. Elaine Holland of the Crossroads stated that the information that she had received was that the arcade lessees didn't pay their rent, Suzanne Gregg of the Opera House questioned the use of the term "amusement center" and it was explained that it should have read "minor arcade." Elaine asked why a bar with only one machine was considered a major arcade, and Jim explained at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern about mixed uses and mixed ages, and that this was one way to deal with it. Skip King asked if there were a State law denying entry to bars to minors. Jim replied that according to Russ Motta, the State constitution outlaws saloons, and so every bar must serve food. Since there axe no saloons', there is no law against a minor entering.a bar as long as they don't drink liquor. 40 v PEC 1/25/82 -2-- o. :7 Peggy Richards of Vail Run asked if the owner of the building or if the lessee must obtain the license. Dick answered that it was up to the lessee and that if he had machines in more than one place,. he would need more than one license. Peggy then asked who had to have the manager, and Duane explained that it was up to the lessee to have a manager. Peggy went on to emphasize that the.game room in Vail Run was strictly for Vail Run owners and guests, that it was not part of a bar., that it was to entertain the children who quickly lost interest in the TV, and that the children obtained change from the desk clerk who also partly supervised the room, and that the desk cleric was not 18 years of age. Roger state that as the planning commission had noticed arcades around town, they were concerned about control. He admitted that Vail had not as yet had problems, but the Planning Commission was interested in preventing problems that might arise from arcades. Peggy stated that they could not afford to have a manager, that they don't advertise their room and don't encourage people from the street to use it, though she was sure there probably were other people who did use it, David Belson's opinion was that the new ordinance-would close the game rooms in the hotels and encourage children to go to the bars to use the machines, He added that the Planning Commission was compromising an industry and that the problems had nothing to do with Vail. Gerry reminded him that it was not the job of the commission to look at the economics, but rather at what was best for Vail. Suzanne Gregg explained that at the Pinball Parlour the arcade was started as a place for kids to go after school with supervision. She wondered whether or not some of Vail's sister cities had experienced any problems, and Jim replied that he hadn't found any that had had problems. Suzanne added that the Pinball Parlour had had some fund raisers for the local high school; and also that they had offered free games to kids with A's on their report cards, and that 115 kids and their parents had come. Dan stated that he could not get interested in the ordinance, except that he agreed with the attempt to keep the arcades from street fronts. Elaine stated that the noise could be controlled by a noise ordinance, the liquor with the liquor ordinance, and drugs the same way. Discussion followed about the wealth of the kids in Vail, and the fact that the ordinance was a preventative measure' Additional discussion followed concerning licensing regulations. Several of the Planning Commission members felt that perhaps the ordinance was toor.estrictive and that the staff should do more study of it. Dan moved and Roger seconded to table the request for further study with more direction to the staff. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling. Gerry added that there would be another public meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 3:40. 0. • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 25, 1982 Holiday Inn Homestake Room 2 :00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of December 14, 1981. 2. Request to amend the zoning code so that it includes definitions of "major arcade" and "minor arcade ", defines in which zones they will be allowed and under what conditions, and disallows arcades exterior frontage on public ways, streets or mall areas. Applicant: Town of Vaal. r • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department /Jim Sayre DATE: January 21, 1982 RE: Arcade Zoning Enclosed are the revised proposed zoning changes for arcades and a draft of the licensing ordinance. I have sent copies of this document to the establishments which have electronic games. I have tried to encourage the owners of these games to come to the Planning Commission meeting on the 25th at the Holiday Inn. The definition of "major arcade" has been revised. • tovio of v 75 south frontage rd. vast, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 Dear Sir: department of community development January 5, 1982 ARCADE REGULATION Electronic games are springing up in the higher density areas of Vail. Over sixty games have appeared in Vail- -more are likely to appear due to the popu- larity of the games. However, the location of games is not adequately regulated, nor is there a way to handle any future arcades which become a problem to the community. Therefore, the Town is proposing revisions to the zoning code which would address arcades and an ordinance which would establish a licensing procedure for arcade owners and managers. We would appreciate your comments and suggestions on the proposed regulations. Your concerns can be aired by calling Jim Sayre at 476 -7000, or by coming to the public Planning Commission meeting January 25 at 2 :00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn. See the attached proposed regulations for details. I, The tieed for Regulation: Zoning In the current zoning code "game rooms" are allowed only in the West Vail shopping center and ossroad.s. However, the situation is swiftly becoming unmanagable: — E1ec�tronic games are springing up in Vail Village, Vail Lionshead, the Dobson Ice Arena, the Teen Center, various hotels, the Mark, Vail Run, and other places. This proliferation of game rooms and electronic machines beyond the zones which they are allowed_ might present serious problems for Vail. Electronic games could be placed where they might disturb neighbors, or a large arcade might appear in a store front on Bridge Street. 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." The Need for Regulation:, Licensing Procedure Zoning is not the only potential problem with arcades. Severe problems associated with arcades have arisen in several Colorado municipalities. In Lakewood, kids loitered in arcades, and noise, disorderly conduct and rowdi- ness accompanied feeding quarters into the Space Invaders game, Arvada's arcade ordinance was a response to a specific arcade, described by the city -2µ 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. A related problem associated with arcades face the managers of bars which house electronic games: The problem 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. II, The Design of the Regulations Zoning: The zoning regulations are designed to segregate conflicting land uses. The incorporation of arcades into the zoning ordinance will ensure that the games do not conflict with adjacent land uses. For example, the new regulations would prevent a misguided pinball wizard from establishing an arcade in a residential area -- -where it clearly does:not belong. The Zoning Code: Definitions: The proposed changes in the zoning ordinance will divide arcades into two different classes. "Major arcades" will be more strictly regulated than "minor arcades." "Major arcades" are defined as those establishments which hold a valid liquor license, and /or have more than four "amusement devices." A minor arcade is an establishment which maintains four machines or less and does not hold a liquor license. Conditional Use Owners who wish to establish new major arcades will be required to obtain a conditional use permit. (Establishments which already have such machines will not be required to obtain such a permit.) To obtain such a permit the applicant is required to present his or her plans before the Planning Commission for their approval. * "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 commcreial broadcasts. No Frontage In addition, the proposed zoning for arcades will require that new machine locations be as unobstrusive as possible. The code will prohibit arcades from having frontage on a major street or walkway barber shops and beauty parlors are currently zoned in this manner. Licensing Procedures The licensing procedures are, like the zoning provisions,, mainly a preventa- tive measure. They will ensure that the problems that plague Arvada and Lakewood will not plague Vail. if an arcade does become a problem, the ordinance will empower the police to remove an arcade license. All establishments with a "major arcade" on their premises shall be required to apply for an arcade license. This will be a simple task for those applicants who already hold a liquor license. Some information on the liquor license is merely copied over on the arcade license. For those establishments which house a major arcade and do not hold a liquor license, the application procedure will be more complex. (See ordinance for details.) Establishments which house "minor arcades" will not be required to obtain a license. Applicants and holders of a major arcade license will be dssessed a $100 annual fee. The purpose of this fee is to discourage fprqinal arcade 40 establishments., and to raise revenue for the purpose of patrolling the arcades, Applicants of a major arcade license will also be required to pay a $75 investigation fee. Establishments which already hold a valid liquor license will be exempt from this $75.00 fee. ,Iatirs of Operation The proposed regulation restricts the hours of a licensed arcade from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Age of Manager No person under the age of eighteen will be allowed to serve as a manager of a major arcade. Conclusion The intent of the proposed regulations is to ensure that Vail's arcades remain problem free. The regulation as it stands is a balancing act; a balance should be struck between placing an undue burden of regulation — in terms of paper work, fees, licenses and permits - -orr the arcade owners, and the ability of the Town to prevent the problems- noise,. vandalism, • -4..H and rowdy behavior --which has often been associated with arcades. We believe that such a balance has been struck. Paper work has been kept to a minimum by proposing that information for the arcade is supplied by the liquor license. Fees have also been kept to a minimum. The annual fee is only $100—Lakewood assesses a $750 fee. On the other hand, -the proposed zoning regulations will allow the Town to review the locations of new arcades, and the proposed licensing procedure will allow the Town to have some control over the situation if an arcade becomes a serious problem. This department welcomes any suggestions or.comments. lie I* PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS 1, Parking District . a. Add to Section 18.36.030,0 Conditional Uses: Q. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area". b, Amend Section 18.34,040, Accessory uses, deleting "No accessory uses shall be permitted in the P district ", and add. A. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. 2, Commercial Core I a. Add to Section 18.24.020.c, "The following uses shall be permitted in a basement or garden level within a structure,.subject to a conditional use permit.." 8. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. b. Add to Section 18.24.080, Accessory Uses: E. Minor arcade,so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. 3. Commercial Core II a. Addition of a major 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 .doors shall be the same as those permitted in the Commercial Core l District as prescribed by Sections 18,24.020 through 18.24.050. b. Add to Section 18.26,050, accessory use: E, Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 4. Commercial Core III a. Amend Section 18.27.030 H., Conditional uses, deleting "Commercial Recreation Center /Game Room," and adding in its place "Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area." b, Add to Section 18.27.042, accessory uses: D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. -6- 5. Commercial Service Center District • a, Amend Section 18.28.040.H., deleting "Commercial recreation center/ game room" and adding in its place "Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area." b. Add to Section 18.28,050, Accessory Uses, D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 6. Public Use District a. Add to Section 18.26.030, Conditional Uses 0. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, .street., walkway or mail area. b. Add to Section. 18.36.040, Accessory Uses, A. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 7. Public Accommodation District. a. Add to Section 18.22,030, Conditional Uses, M. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street,, walkway or mall area. b. Add to Section 18.22.040, Accessory Uses, D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage :an any public way, street, walkway or mall area. • i • AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT ARCADES, AMUSEMENT CENTERS AND THE MANAGERS THEREOF; PROVIDING A DECLARATION OF PURPOSE; DEFINITIONS; LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; LICENSE APPLICATION; LICENSE REVIEW; TERM OF LICENSE; LICENSE RENEWAL; FEES; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; VIOLATION AND PENALTIES; HOURS OF OPERATION, AGE OF MANAGER; CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE FORGOING. 1) DECLARATION OF PURPOSE A. It is advantageous to the public health, safety and welfare to establish a procedure for licensing amusement arcades, to establish a procedure of reviewing the physical and design characteristics of a proposed amusement arcade, to establish a procedure of investigating the background of an applicant of an amusement arcade license, and to establish an annual fee for such license. B. These regulations are enacted "to promote and preserve the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its established.character as a resort and a community of high quality ". C. These regulations are enacted "to encourage a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses. Z)• DEFINITIONS A. "Applicant" shall mean an individual, association, partnership or corporation requesting a license pursuant to this chapter. B. "Major arcade" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains more than four amusement devices. If a place of business maintains less than five machines as a sole business, or holds a liquor license, this business shall be classified as a major arcade. C. "Minor arcade" 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. D. "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. Arcade Ordinance _2_ E, "Manager" shall mean an individual who manages, directs, supervises, oversees and administers the acts and transactions of the agents or servants of any establishment governed by this chapter, or who, through his own actions., directs, oversees and administers the affairs o£ any such establishment. 3) LICENSE REQUIRED A. No amusement arcade shall conduct business within the Town without a valid amusement arcade license. B. Amusement centers will not be required to obtain a license. C. Those establishments holding valid liquor licenses shall be required to obtain -a major arcade license. 4) LICENSE APPLICATION -- CONTEN'T'S The contents of the major arcade license application is divided into two parts—(A) Background and 'Financial History and (B) Zoning' Check. A. The contents of Part A, Background and Financial History shall be: 1. For applicants of a major arcade license, who also hold a valid liquor license in the Town, the contents of application shall be identical to the contents of the liquor license application. 2. For applicants of a major arcade license, who do not hold a valid liquor license in the Town, the contents of the application shall include: a. Application Form 1. Completed in all appropriate sections. 2. Signed and notorized. 3. Appropriate fee attached b. Proof of possession of property 1. Deed, lease or assignment of lease 2. Properly executed and signed by all parties involved. S. Consent and acceptance on assignments c. Financial Documents 1. Personal financial statement 2. Notes or loans (assumed, banks, previpus owner) 3. Affidavit on source of all funds invested, with any 0'. additional information that the Town clerk may require. 0 Arcaue uraznance. -s d. Corporate Documents (if applicable) 1. Certificate of incorporation, certificate of good standing . 2. Articles of incorporation 3. Stock certificates e. Partnership Documents (if applicable) including partnership agreement. f. Management 1. form DRC 367 (Manager's Registration Form) 2. Management agreement (acceptable employer - employee contract) g. Background information 1. Three character references for each individual involved. 2. Fifteen year employment resume for each individual involved. h. Statement of proposed hours of operation. B. The contents of Part B of the license application, zoning check, shall be: 1. Legal description of proposed arcade establishment- -lot, block, filing and address. 2. Description of the amusement devices. The number of amusement devices to be licensed, their serial numbers, the manufacturer's brand name., and the name of the manufacturer. 3. A list of proposed measures intended to ensure that the amusement arcade establishes a workable, convenient and harmonious relation- ship with adjacent land uses. 4. Building site plans, floor plans and elevations sufficient to indicate the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior and exterior character of the amusement arcade. 5, Any additional material the zoning administrator may prescribe. 6. List of adjacent property owners and their mailing addresses. 5. REVIEW OF.LICENSE APPLICATION A. Both the zoning administrator and the Town clerk shall have the duty of reviewing the content of the amusement arcade license application. The Town clerk shall undertake an investigation into the background of the applicant and manager, sufficient to verify all information required by subsection 4A, The zoning administrator has the responsibility of reviewing the zoning and • the surrounding land use of the proposed arcade. Either the Town clerk or the zoning administrator may disapprove the application using the criteria outlined in subsections B and C below, Arcade Ordinance -4- B. No license shall be issued to any applicant unless approved by the Town clerk. The Town clerk may refuse to approve any . license for an amusement arcade if the finding is made of any of the following: 1. The applicant is under 21 years of age. 2. The manager is under 18 years of age. 3. The applicant or manager has made false statements on . application. 4. The applicant or manager are not of good moral character. C. No license shall be issued to any applicant unless approved by the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator may refuse to approve any license for an amusement arcade if the finding is made of any of the following: 1. Where the proposed arcade does not conform to title 18, Zoning, of the Municipal Code. 2. Where the applicant or manager has made false statements upon the application. 3. Where the proposed arcade would produce discordant land use relationships, including, but not limited to, excess noise, excess traffic, with particiular reference to congestion, or hazards to automotive and /or pedestrian safety. 4. Where access to the proposed arcade is through a bar where alcoholic beverages are sold. D. In the event that either the Town clerk or the zoning administrator disapproves the application, the individual who made the denial shall make written findings of fact stating the reasons for the disapproval. H. Appeal from any administrative action or determination by the zoning administrator or the Town clerk pursuant to the provision of this chapter may be filed with the Town Council by any applicant within thirty (30) days following the action or determination. In the event of appeal,.the Council, after receiving a report from the zoning administrator and /or the Town clerk, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action or determination. Failure of the Council to act within sixty days of the filing of the appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action or determination. b. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Approval- of amusement arcade application will in no way exempt applicant from obtaining a conditional use permit as outlined in Chapter 18.60 •of the municipal code. Arcade Ordinance -5- 0 7. TERM OF THE LICENSE All licenses granted pursuant to this ordinance shall be-for a. term of one year. Said term shall commence on January 1st of each year and terminate upon December 31st of the same year. Applications for a license occurring at any other time during the year shall be treated the same as if they were made for one calendar year and shall terminate on the same date as all other licenses issued pursuant hereto, and no proration shall be permitted. 8. LICENSE RENEWAL Renewal of any of the licenses granted pursuant to this chapter may be had by payment of the licensing fee along with a statement that the information listed on the original license application is still trueand correct to the applicant's knowledge, or a statement listing those items of information required for a license application which have changed in the year since the license was granted or last renewed. 9. FEES A. Applicants or holders of an amusement arcade license shall pay an annual fee of $100.00. B. Applicants of an amusement arcade license shall pay an investigation fee of $75.00 to cover the cost of investigation required by this chapter. The application fee will be waived if an applicant holds a valid liquor license. C, These fees shall be paid at.--the time the Town clerk receives the application, and the Town clerk shall issue a receipt for the payment of these fees. 10. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE A. In addition to any other penalties prescribed by this ordinance, the chief of police has the power, on his own motion or on complaint, after investigation and public hearing at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard, to suspend or revoke said license for any violation by the licensee or by any of the agents, servants, or employees of such licensee of the provisions of this ordinance, or any of the rules or regulations authorized pursuant to this ordinance. B. The chief of police may suspend or revoke any license granted pursuant to this chapter upon a finding of any of the following factors: 0 Arcade Ordinance -6- 1. That any of the amusement devices maintained upon the premises are being used for gambling purposes. 2. That repeated disturbances of public peace have been occurring within the licensed establishment or upon any parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, access ways or grounds immediately adjacent to the licensed premises involving patrons, employees or holder of the license of the establishment. 3. That the holder of the license or any employees thereof are illegally offering for sale, or illegally allowing to be consumed upon the licensed premises, or upon any parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, access ways, or grounds immediately adjacent to the licensed premises, narcotics or dangerous drugs, 4. That the holder of the license or an approved manager is not upon the licensed premises at all times. 5, That the use of the amusement devices in the licensed establishment occurs during the hours when.such operation is prohibited pursuant to Section 14. b. That a person under the age of 18 years is being used as a manager of the licensed premises • 7. That the holder of the license has not paid the annual fee. C. Notice of suspension or revocation, as well as notice of such hearing, shall be given by mailing the same in writing to the licensee at the address contained in such license. If any license is suspended or revoked, no part of the fees paid therefor shall be returned to the licensee. D. The determination by the chief of police sith regard to matters of suspension or revocation of a license shall be appealable to the town council, provided a notice of appeal is filed with the town clerk within ten (10) days after the action by the chief. The town clerk shall transmit such appeal to the council at the next meeting of the town council. Upon receipt of the appeal, the council shall set a time for hearing of the appeal and shall give notice to the appellant of the time and place of the hearing. All appeals shall be heard by the town council within thirty (30) days after the date of the council meeting at which the notice of appeal was pesented by the town clerk. E. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the town from taking any other enforcement action provided for by this code or the laws of the State of Colorado or of the United States. 0 . . Arcade Ordinance -7- 15. AGE,OF MANAGER No person under the age of eighteen years shall serve in the capacity of manager of any establishment licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 16. CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT Where any licensee changes or causes to be changed the manager or managers of his establishment, any person who has not heretofore been approved as a manager by the town clerk, shall be presented by the holder of the license or shall present himself to the office of the town clerk for a background. investigation. 17,, SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for-any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 40 deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. 11. DISPLAY AND TRANSFER OF LICENSE. The holder of any license or receipt issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter shall prominently display the same upon the premises for which the license is issued. Any license or receipt issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter shall not be transferable to any other location in the town. In the event of transfer of ownership of the business at the same location for which a license or tax receipt is issued pursuant' to the terms of this chapter, a license may be transferred to the new owner of the business; provided, however, that application therefor stating the same information as required by Section 4A and 4B is first presented to the Town clerk for approval or disapproval, accompanied by the $750.00 application fee and $75.00 investigation fee as required by Section 10B. Approval or disapproval of such transfer shall be upon the same terms as approval or disapproval of a license as required by the terms of this chapter. 12. GAMBLING PROHIBI'T'ED Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit any unlawful gambling or wagering within the town. 13. VIOLATION- PENALTY - Any individual, association, partnership or corporation who is convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be fined a sum not to exceed four hundred and ninety --nine dollars. • 14. HOURS OF OPERATION Any establishment licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall not be open.for business between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 10 a.m. 15. AGE,OF MANAGER No person under the age of eighteen years shall serve in the capacity of manager of any establishment licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 16. CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT Where any licensee changes or causes to be changed the manager or managers of his establishment, any person who has not heretofore been approved as a manager by the town clerk, shall be presented by the holder of the license or shall present himself to the office of the town clerk for a background. investigation. 17,, SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for-any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be 40 deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. ade Gatn� Rlutles Stlict i r o ,nos w m ��- ARCADE From 1 -C 17, CJ v the pcalice pp and must be a roved by the city Y .'� �; :1 ,n w is y ""� :d •-• Pr„ P°� h U y y m n manager, and the Police chief. Arcades may not C1 t °C to be located within 504 feet of a school. t T" c Q ° 1 ° = y ✓ BOULDER - There are no licensing no • °"� ° w ° cc special zoning requirements. Businesses with ,l,a'p,�-r, � �4;fn- '.�Cpy�nu,.., -� P g Q amusement games must be in a business zone c o v v ad P11 M_ ; 0° 3 j .0 ° E'o-» c ' and have a sales -tax license. u,cr as s oc ai o °� t!1 cv cv �, n < 1. _ o o ✓ BROU1if'1F�LD — As lout; as the arcade a a o a V3 (V cu CU • a � >� o .� a f is in a business zone, there are no rules or b- v ~q ; �a A o , o o W o 71 � at ceasing requirements. "We get at least one call c w S.: :^ a, c < .n o .y s V •a a CZ a c . tL a week on these machines and I've been telling ® the City Council we should have some regula- o w o �, o a o ° a� tions," said City Clerk Lizzy Brawn. • nc3 " ✓ DENVER -- Every machine must be Li- �, o o �, .� �, o �, z� 3 tensed at a $10 annual fee. If a business has o Cd „ s o ar 5 3 Olin S C,3 ti o more than three machines, it is elmsified as an zM -' a� �� a� `� `� d �D ' c� amusement center and may be located even in a� o o � '° 3 certain business districts, said Robert Look, M '� ,, ro � a w x - K � .0 `� ,, �, toning inspector. Amusement centers may not -, 3 M :C: — 1. s~ be located within 1,000 feet of an elementary o a is o ., 49) M CU noaioa)'d:_ 3�'V'M "o°n"�~acam. w'01 Y '9 Z �, �, A �, �, �, �, o d o school or 500 feet of a residence. The staff is- a� +.� �, cv- ono -�� PVCdw�aaa� -, m sues licenses after the zoning, building, fire and '� a4 0 Ts R v �' ° :� o b _J ° ° a+ �' _~ = police departments investigate. ct$ .d U a 11 c" � � V o � � o � P "We've gotten more inquiries in the last year b u o M o= rq to y y a o �� , • a �,•° than ever before. Almost ever • bar and lounge a g a' and just about every restaurant has a pinball machine now," Look said. W) m b o o >• 0 1. L a) °�° "" ✓ ENGLEWOOD — Each amusement game d 1. V Cd .., Q] co o p ctl d ,5i g ,?; `� a; 3 �, L o A o �, ° must be licensed at a $25 annual fee each. Ar- cades c m zy $ 3 a �; cades must be in business districts, but there b m a 3 o a °' y y ;v a are no further restrictions. �; �,, C " ","� o . q�q a V�j ✓ GOLDEN — Each machine must be li- ' G p G� G L. 1. cd Cn 1+ O A G 'C'1 o �= E w � M w o Q 3 .., �, tensed by approval of the City Council, which o o •c m w m .fin M cn 5 t � a u o 4 :, ° w, hasn't turned one down yet. The city has U- 1..� C .� U 3 °�° W � tensed 33 games, three of which are in its own U ¢ recreation center. The licensing fee varies o °o o ' >, 0 � a •� �, .� � U cu � b c, � •� a u o from $10`to $10.0, depending on ownership and ' 3 b ° v a� Ks' o ,V'd w d a .F4 cn od number of machinesA g aVi o¢ c Q ° � �s a� "b was aAed�inOAuD August, replacing na weakae I975 �, c CO ova E- > Q � � F' 1. �s -J w a) E-' Q• oo � P ^ ^ o E o �, y o a Q o v ,a law. All but two parts of the law were upheld by a district court judge•after it was challenged by an arcade owner. Arcades are defined as busi- ., � - ,u o a, o rd nesses with more than 10 machines. They must O 1~ • Y o o u b a m y .E c1 0 purchase a $750 license and gain the approval of Z Cu a E ., u o CO E s~ c r- "n (, m o a five - member licensing authority. flours are a a o ° o ro °'° W m a°° Cr u CZ 3 restricted. and the arcades must be brightly tit. 80 o E o 'er cr ar ✓ NORTHGLENN — The only requirement N " � `nom o � � ra CU CO � 7A � ca q J i � a a �, to CO O PL a .� o a is a sales tax license. C- c o o W V as a 'CO e o o °. E o ✓ 'l HORNTON — There is a $50 annual flat ns � a, .� a �s � fee for businesses where the games are the Z p `�" Q [ �' ; o E a "I c o principal source of income. Arcades must be rl r N v 1. to caw ar t1 1. ua vi R •rs -� o Cd p E �, o o �u d o v a° n�c, located more than 1,006 feet from schools, churches a o o o°a , ~ a °J d s � 'c ` party ents in estigate thesmana management and he F- off' E PoJ E a3 3 �•.� g m 0, p u_ 10, v u o a o facility before issuing a license. ✓ WESTMINSTER — Any business with . more than IWO coin- operated machines must be licensed by thcA City Council after a hearing be- fore a s,ccial lic•en,ing board. `i'hk1'fc =e is }p per MEMORANDUM ' January 7, 1982 TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission PROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Study Session of the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission On January 12th at 12:00 noon there will be a joint study session in the Town Council Chambers to discuss the following items: 1. 12:00 to 1:30 Lunch and further discussion of the five year action plan and other general planning items, 2. 1 :30 to 3:00 Discussion of a proposed zone district for the area from the Vail Associates service yard to Voliter Nursery and the Glen Lyon office building to the west day lot along the South Frontage Road. The community Development Department staff along with planning consultants I-PLAN that have been retained by some of the property owners have been working on a new zone district for this area. Initial direction was received in Sep- tember at a joint meeting at the Rams -Horn Lodge. Comments received considered that the area: 41 1. needed to be upgraded and some properties redeveloped; 2. that the Heavy Service zone district was probably not the most appropriate for this area; 3, that a new zone district should be considered and some of the current uses should be included as conditional uses such as service stations, service yards, public utility storage; and 4. that there should be no free market units allowed within the zone district. In December the planning and Environmental Commission had a study session on the proposed zone district. Comments received at that meeting were generally favorable to the new district. Some of the comments were: 1.. benefit to the Town to have the area cleaned up, 2. Good to have area under one zone district; 3. that the zone district should be named possibly Arterial Business instead of Commercial Core 4; 4. that the west day lot should not be included in the new zone district, 5. possibly reducing the number of uses allowed by right or as a conditional use. Attached is a copy of the proposed zone district that was presented at the Planning and Environmental Commission study session in December. The Community Development Department considers that the proposal is a positive step to see the upgrading and redevelopment in this area. It is important to have the area under one zone district to insure as properties redevelop, there are good standards. to follow. In the December memorandum to the Meeting of 1/12/82 -2- Planning and Environmental Commission three concerns were noted. 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 that 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. These issues along with other concerns of the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission need to be discussed. Since the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, 1 have sent a letter to Bob Parker regarding parking at the west day lot. He called me and said that the corporation's position is that the current parking for employees and recrea- tional vehicles are important to Vail Associates, and they will provide for these uses, 3. 3:00 p.m, to 5:00 p.m. Views in Vail Village The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the new view corridor proposal on November 9, 1981. They were shown each photograph proposed as a major or minor view corridor along with the proposed focal points. Comments were made on the proposed classifications of several of the views, as well as the general system being proposed. Because of the large impact of the view corridors upon development of the Vail Village area., it was felt that a joint meeting with Council would be appropriate to discuss at least the general concepts of the proposal, The following is the existing wording of the view section of the Vail Village Design Considerations- "G, VIEWS Vail °s mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc, are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Major and minor view corridors have been designated on the View Plane map., an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan. Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter,-�the designated major view planes will be discouraged. Minor encroachments into the designated minor view planes may be acceptable. Emphasis should be upon framing and enhancing view planes rather than protruding directly into them. Whether affecting the designated view planes or not, the impact of all Proposed building expansions on views from pedestrian ways must be demonstrated and mitigated where warranted." Meeting of 1/12/82 -3- The proposed wording is as follows: 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 w T - 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'Xiew corridors will be unacceptable, except for minor modifications to the roof line or possibly new or modified focal points. Minor view corridors are views into which some encroachment would not sig- ni iicantly reduce the quality of the view. Encroachments into the .desig nated,mindr view corridors may be acceptable upon demonstration that the overall quality of the view is not reduced. Emphasis should be upon framing 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 Vain, 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. Also enclosed are several xerox xopies of some of the view corridor photo- graphs, which are part of the staff's proposal. Another enclosure lists the view corridor proposals and shows their existing and proposed classification. If you would like to come in to ask questions or look at the photos, please do. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: 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 district to the new -district. The area under consideration for rezoning to Commercial Core 4 includes the following sites: Current Site M2roximate 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 district which has been submitted by l -.PLAN For Pla.nr)iog Commission review and comailent. Al=ter t.lie study scss.ion on Monday, the aplAi.cait most-. likely w.i.11 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. C • F--� COMMERCIAL CORE 4 DISTRICT Chapter 18.27 Sections: 18.27.010 PURPOSE 18.27.015 REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 18.27.020 PERMITTED USES 18.27.030 CONDITIONAL USES 18.27.040 ACCESSORY USES 18.27.050 LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS 18.27.060 SETBACKS 18.27.070 HEIGHT 18.27.080 DENSITY CONTROL , 18.27.090 COVERAGE 18.27.100 LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 18.27.110 PARKING AND LOADING 18.27.120 LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY 18.27.130 RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, LEASE OR RENT OF DWELLING.UNITS 18.27.140 SIGN CODE COMMERCIAL CORE _4 (CC4) DISTRICT 18.27.010 PURPOSE The Commercial Core 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 RE UIREMLNTS 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; b. Such additional information as the Planning and Environ - mental Commission and Town Council deem necessary to guide development within the proposed District. • 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 1.8.54 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 PEMITTED 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 Jr 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 • 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 • . 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 laurndries 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 • Page 4 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 nvice. ;sary for the operation thereof. D. Minor. arcade D. Commercial laundry and cleaning services -- bulk plant E. Commercial recreation center /major arcade 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 nvice. ;sary for the operation thereof. D. Minor. arcade 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. • • J. Page 6 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. 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 ranted 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 tile town to insure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land. s I• II*- Page 7 18.27.140 SICK CODE The sign code for the CC4 District will be the adopted sign code for the CC3 District. VAIL VILLAGE 4 November 1981 URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. VIEW CORRIDORS MAJOR VIEW CORRIDORS I. By Lodge At Vail and The Sweet Basil looking east. Existing major. 2. From Willow Bridge east to mountain cliffs. Existing major. 3. At north end of covered bridge between Kiosk and west entrance to Ht. Haus. New 4. On Bridge St. near Plaza Lodge entrance looking south Riva Ridge. Existing major 5. From Center of Village Plaza to Gold Peak over Hill Building. Existing major 6. On Gore Creek Drive at Mill Creek Court Building looking southwest.Existing manor 7. Between Pepi's and Clock Tower Inn on Bridge St..- south to ski mountain.Ex. major 8. From Children's Fountain area south up Wall Street.Existing major 9. Gateway to mountain on Seibert Circle toward lifts between Gold Peak House and Hill Building. Existing major 10. 2 steps up from photographic point on Village Transportation Center looking south over the village. New 11. From middle of 4 -way stop - southeast to Gold Peak. Existing major 12. Red Sandstone Peak from Sitzmark and Gore Creek Plaza Building on Gore Creek Drive. Existing major 13. Red Sandstone Peak from Village Plaza. New 14. On Vail Rd., east of Holiday House looking southeast to Gold Peak. Existing major MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS 1. Gore Creek Drive looking east on.Gore Cr. Drive from Children's Fountain Ex. major 2. (1 of series of 3) Hill Alley looking east. Existing minor 2. (2 of series of 3) Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range. New 2. (3 of series of 3) Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range. New 3. Seibert Circle looking east over Cyranos. New 4. Base of steps to Children's Fountain, looking southeast New view corridor, ex. focal., 5. point Gore Creek Drive at Mill Creek Bridge southeast to ski mountain. New 6. South up the alley between 1 Vail Place and the Hill Building. Existing minor 7. Alley between The Lodge and Lazier Arcade south to ski mountain. Now S. Top of Village Plaza steps looking southwest to ski mountain. Existing minor (continued) Vail Village = Urban Design Considerations VIEW CORRIDORS M17or iew 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. Existing minor 10. E. Meadow Drive and Vail Rd. from bus stop panorama view to southeast. Existing minor 11..From four -way stop.looking'south. Existing minor 12. E. Meadow Drive /Vail Road intersection looking west over fire house. Existing minor 13. South Crossroads Circle looking northwest to Red Sandstone, New 14. To Red Sandstone Peak from Children's Fountain. Existing minor 15. At south end of Willow (pedestrian) Bridge looking northwest to Red Sandstone. Ex.: minor 16. South of Vail Village .Inn tower, looking east on E. Meadow Drive. Ex. minor 17. Steps at TRC southwest over Sonnenalp. New 18. Southeast from Village Center Circle Road over Sonnenalp. Existing major 19. From ,C,.hi intain - northeast corner looking north between Pepi's `,b.,.r gilding. New 206. North on Bridge Street'letween Pepi's and Clock Tower.Existing major 21. Hanson Ranch Road at Mill Cree 1dge looking northwest.Existing major FOCAL POINTS I. Rucksack Tower from Pepi's deck and Clock Tower deck. sting 2. Clock Tower from Manson Ranch Road bridge over Mill. Creek. New 3. Rucksack Tower from steps to Children's Fountain. Existing 4. Clock Tower from Willow.Bridge. Existing 5. Vail Village Inn tower from south of Crossroads Circle. Existing 6. Rucksack Tower from Mill Creek Bridge over Gore Creek Drive. Existing 7. Clock Tower from Gore Creek Drive west. Existing 9. Ambrosia To rom bus stop on East Meadow Drive $ Vail Rd. Existing ' terse' -ton of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive to VVT Sports corner. i PLANNING AND .ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, February 8, 1982 2:00 p,m. Work session, Architerra project revisions 3:00 p.m, Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of January 25 meeting. 2. Request for a density control variance in gross residential floor area to construct lofts in 20 units and a -request for a parking variance for the Sandstone Creek Club Condominiums on lots B4 and B5, Block B, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1 Applicant: Vail Ridge Partnership— Jack Perlmutter. 3. Request to amend Special Development District 4 to subdivide lot 39, Glen Lyon subdivision into 2 single family lots from one Primary /Secondary duplex lot. A second amendment requested is for a setback change from the SDD4 requirement for Area A to enable construction of the parking structure /athletic club to encroach on the north side. Applicant: Andrew Norris, 00 4, Request for a conditional use permit to operate a real _estate office on the basement level of the Mountain Haus at 292 East Meadow Drive, Suite #2. Applicant: Earth Sheltered Realty and Investments, Ltd. _0 S. Request for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I for the Lodge at Vail to construct Harry's Bar. Applicant: Lodge Properties Inc. 6, Request for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to allow the Red Lions Inn to enclose with glass the northern portion of their front deck on the west side of the building. Applicant: Jeff Selby, Published in the Vail Trail February S, 1982. M • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Community Development Department DATE: February 2, 1982 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration for an Exterior Alteration and Modification in Commercial Core I to Enclose 992 square feet of the Red Lion Patio. I. PROPOSAL: The proposal is to enclose 992 square feet of the existing patio on the west side of the Red Lion with glass to enable the use of the area for dining throughout the year. II. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010 The commercial core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The commercial core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preserva- tion of the tightly clustered arangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian - ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district. II1, COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan states that dining decks contribute to the liveliness of a busy street, making a richer pedestrian experience. The use of the existing patio area for dining throughout the year will enhance the street life along Bridge Street and will be in conformance with the plan. IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Pedestrianization: The enclosure of the patio should not have any negative impacts upon pedestrian circulation along Bridge Street and should improve the pedestrian experience along Bridge Street in the winter months, B. Vehicle Penetration: No change C. Streetscape Framework: The addition of people dining on the patio during the winter will improve the quality of the walking experience and will provide more street life and visual interest along Bridge Street, The enclosure W • Red Lion -2- 2/2/82 of the deck in the summer, however, would eliminate an open space which has an exciting relationship to the street and provides a strong sense of activity for the pedestrian. The applicants are not proposing to enclose the deck during the summer months completely. They propose to remove the glass panels along Bridge Street during the summer and re4 install them in winter. The brick planter with the aspen and flowers will remain unchanged. D. Street Enclosure: The street enclosure does not change since the glass would be under the existing awning. E. Street Edge: The Urban Design Guide Plan states that plazas, patios, green areas are important focal points for: gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views, and pedestrian activity. The Red Lion patio as it currently exists has characteristics which make it a popular space within the Village during the summer months, by enclosing the patio during the winter months, the space can be a much more lively attraction than it currently is when it is filled with snow and void of people and activity. It will become a focal point along Bridge Street throughout the year, rather than just for a portion of it, F, Building Height: No change. G. Views: No change. H. Service and Delivery: No change. I. Sun /Shade: The project will not increase shadows on adjacent property or public property. V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS A. Parking: The applicant will be required to pay a parking fee based upon one space per each 10 seats provided. The fee would need to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit .. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the proposal to enclose 992 square feet of the Red Lion patio with the following condition :. • Red Lion r3,- 2/2/82 1. Due to the enhancement of Bridge Street which would result from the enclosure during the winter months, we feel that the proposal is a positive one. However, we feel that the enclosure would not be appro- priate during the summer months and would detract from the exciting relationship of the open patio and the street. ,Therefore, we recommend that the enclosure be approved from September 15 to June 15 and that during the remainder of the.year,.the glass along Bridge Street must be removed and the patio be open to the street. Nothing - within the approval, however, should prevent the applicant from removing the glass panels prior to June 15 or re- installing them later than September 15. Failurc upon the applicant's part to comply with this condition would be grounds for not allowing food or beverages to be served upon the patio until such time as the condition is complied with. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar DATE: February 1, 1982 RE: Public hearing and consideration of a gross residential floor area variance request for the Sandstone Creek Club, Applicant: Vail Ridge Partnership DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests a density control variance to allow construction of 89,501 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area in the 84 unit Sandstone Creek Club project. The project is allowed by Court Order (see attached copy) 84 units and a total of 83,000 square feet. The variance request is to build 6501 additional square feet over the allowable, There are presently 3 buildings of time sharing condominium units totalling 67,872 square feet. This leaves 15,128 .square feet for the fourth and final building in which the applicants propose to build the remaining 20 units which are allowed by right. The applicant proposes to construct this fourth building at 21,629 . square feet, The applicant states that he could build the final phase of 20 units and stay within the total allowable square footage for the project, but that "the lofts would not be accommodated and the user would not enjoy quite as open a feeling within each unit," The applicant believes that since 7775 square feet of the buildings already constructed and 1949 square feet of the proposed building are comprised of loft area, a variance for additional square footage is warranted. The applicant argues that the extra floor area in no way adds bulk, mass, footprint or height to the final structures, Under current zoning, the parcel upon which the project is being constructed would allow a total of 50 units with a total GRFA of 73,155 square feet. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18..62.060 of the Municipal Code, th�eartment of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance ,based ufon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing oryotential uses and structures in the vicinity. 10 Although the applicant states that the buildings could have been built at the same mass and bulk without the lofts and resulting floor area, The applicant neglects Sandstone Creek Club -2- to point out that the construction of the lofts adds the potential for 4 -6 more persons a night staying in each loft. The lofts range in size from 401 square feet to 1,530 square feet, and there are potentially 25 lofts within the project. This could result in an additional accommodation capacity and increase in density of 150 persons maximum per night, The result of granting this variance would also indeed increase the bulk of buildings on the site, specifically in phase IV; The applicant's argument contrary to this fact would be valid only if in fact the buildings constructed and planned had been designed to fail within the prescribed limits. However, the buildings were apparently designed without regard to the limit set by the Court, and now the applicant, nearing completion of the project, has less square footage remaining than he feels is adequate to complete the project. The result of granting this variance request would increase the size of the final building by 6501 square feet, The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation,is necessary to achieve com atibil. and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the obJ eci%ves o this title without grant.of: spec al privilege. The applicant has shown no hardship in this instance.that would justify the variance request. The only hardship is one which has been created by the applicant himself within the design of the project. As the applicant himself states in the attached letter, at the time the square footage limitation was set forth, final building design had not been completed. Therefore, they had every oppor- tunity to design the project within the stipulated limitations. The granting of the variance request would constitute the grant of special privilege and would not be consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu- lation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and �Pu 1 is safety. The requested variance as proposed would result in a potential increase of density within the project by allowing: bed capacity for an additional 100- 150 persons per night and would have an effect upon parking, traffic facilities, and safety. The increase in floor area would require an additional three parking spaces over what is currently planned. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems appli cable to the proposed variance. ,FINDINGS: The Tlanning� 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. • Sandstone Creek Club -3- 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 proper- ties in the same district. STAFF IECOMWNDATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The requested 5501 square feet requested does a -ve an impact upon the density of the project and the mass of the buildings. The project, in essence, has been granted a variance by the Court to enable the project to be built at 83,000 square feet with the stipulation that the applicant agree to "take all reasonable steps" to reduce the GRFA within the project. Not only has the applicant ignored the directions given by the Court, but is now requesting a variance in excess of what the Court granted, • IN THE STRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EAGLE STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 2736 COURCHEVEL, LTD., a partnership, and L.R.B., a general partnership, Plaintiffs, VS. TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation, Defendant. STIPULATION AND ORDER The Plaintiff, L.R.B., a general partnership, and the Defendant, Town of Vail, do hereby stipulate and agree: (1) L.R.B. is the owner of that property within the Town of Vail described as Lots B--4, B -5, and a portion of Tract D, Vail Lionsridge Filing #1. (2) The Plaintiff, L.R.B., has proposed to develop said property in accordance with a site plan and basic unit plan that was submitted to the Town Council of the Town of Vail on August 16, 1977. (3) After reviewing said submittals, the Town Council approved the proposed settlement. (4) The parties agree specifically that: (a) The Plaintiff, L.R.R., would develop the above specified property in accordance with the site and unit plans, submitted to and approved by the Town Council. (b) There will be no more than 84 dwelling units constructed. (c) The development, as approved by the Town of Vail, has been designed and construction shall be done in accor- dance with the Low Density Multiple Family development standards as contained in the zoning Ordinance of the flown of Vail, the 017whicn are attached hereto. (d) The Gross ResidenLial Floor Area shall not exceed 83,000 square feet, however, the Plaintiff a rees L9. take all reasonable steps to xeduce the same. i i 1 (e) The Plaintiff shall submit his plans and proposals �t the Ippropriate stages of development to the Town of Vail DC -sign Review Board for advice and review. Nothing herein shall be construed to bind the Plaintiff to the advice of the Design Review Board. (f) The Plaintiff has previously obtained a building permit from Eagle County for the above specified pro- perty, and it need not obtain another permit from the Town. provided, however, the.Town shall provide inspection services for the project to insure that the project complies with the building codes that were in effect in Eagle County at the time the Plaintiff acquired its building permit. No additional permit or inspection fees shall be required from the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the above stipulation, the aarties to this Stipulation respectfully pray that the Court approve this stipulation, dismiss that portion of the above entitled action which relates to L.R.B., and order that each party shall pay its own costs and att neys' fees in this action. Respectfully submitted, io Raymond N satter : &•W$ 515 Western Federal Savings Building Denver, Colorado 80202 f 1 an G. Balaban su'te 1414 Lincoln Center Building Denver, Colorado 80203 Attorneys for Plaintiff, L.R.B. Lawrence C. Rader, 91r1 P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Attorney for Defendant, Town of Vail t F j r fui u f]WIN111101 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission PROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: February 1, 1982 SUBJECT: Two amendment requests for Special Development District 4 --- Cascade Village /Glen Lyon. Applicant: Andy Norris Andy Norris is requesting two amendments to Special Development District 4. One is for area A of the District - ,Cascade Village, to allow the parking structure/ athletic club building to encroach into the exterior property line setback. The second request is to allow Lot 39 of Glen. Lyon Subdivision (Area C), an existing 2.48 acre primary /secondary lot to be resubdivided into.two single family lots, I. AMENDMENT REGARDING PARKING STRUCTURE SETBACK A., THE REQUEST The request is to allow the relaxation of Sections 18,46.100 Setbacks with regard only to this building and 18,46,170 Parking of SDD4 so that the building containing the parking structure and athletic club can be constructed to within 2 feet of the northern property line, abutting the South Frontage Road, rather than the required 20 feet. The Parking section dictates that no parking shall be located in any front setback area. The proposal is for underground parking to be so located. The reason for this request at this t� time is an earlier oversight in the original Master Plan for Cascade Village. B. BACKGROUND The original Master Plan was approved as a basic guide for placement of each structure, but was not a detailed design for each individual building. Indeed, minor adjustments in the placing of each structure naturally has occurred at the Design Review Board level, In terms of the parking garage and athletic club, the master plan simply did not allow for adequate room for a full size viable tennis court facility with regard to the north -south dimensions as restricted by the existing road, As the Cascade Village project progresses according to the adopted Master Plan and regulations contained in SDD4, each building site is restricted by such givens as buildings both existing and planned, roads, utility locations, etc, This piece of the 'puzzle "--the parking structure and athletic club ---has simply been squeezed into the exterior property setback by some of these restrictions, a situation not envisioned, of course, in the 1979 Master Plan. Y Cascade Village -2- 2/1/82 C. IMPACTS OF TIE PROPOSAL The building is proposed to be located 50 feet from the existing pavement of the South Frontage Road,, except where the new right turn lane will be located, the structure will be 45 feet away from the pavement. As one travels west on the road the grade changes so that one experiences less and less of the building impact the further west one gets. The building is 12 feet high at eave line on the north elevation with approxi- mately a 6 in 12 roof pitch. The roof material proposed is a gray metal similar to the Millrace Condominium roofs. No unsolvable problems exist with regard to utility locations, A substantial landscaping proposal with a large amount of evergreen trees is proposed for the area between the building and the South Frontage Road, It is highly unlikely that the South Frontage Road will be expanded to four lanes due to physical (grade on the side of the road) and traffic amount factors. The conclusion from the above facts indicate no significant negative factors in moving the building close to the property line. Maintaining 50 feet from the road is a sufficient "breathing" distance for snow removal, minor road improvements (widen shoulders) and visual proximity. A physical hardship exists in the givens of mandatory design criteria (tennis courts) and the existing road and adjacent buildings. RECOMMENDATION • The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the amendment to Sdd4 allowing the parking structure /athletic club to encroach 1.8 feet into the north property setback and to qualify the requirement of no parking in the front setback to apply to parking other than entirely underground. The staff feels that there are minimum impacts of this amendment due to the large distance to the road surface. The building is designed to mitigate visual .impacts on the north side., and the landscaping should provide a visual screen, further improving the aesthetics of the site development. We agree that the setback exception should be made only for this building, with the provision that other underground parking could be located within required exterior setback areas., subject to Design Review Board approval. iI. DIVISION OF LOT 39,-,GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION A. THE REQUEST Lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (Area(C of SDD4) was created with the original approval of SDD. 4. The duplex lots are developed basically in accordance with primary /secondary development regulations. The lot currently contains 2.48 acres of total site area., and the proposed division would easily meet the requirement in the Single Family District of contain- ing 12,500 square feet of buildable site area. Proposed is to have is two lots, one of .888 acre and one of 1.48 acres, while dedicating to the town .115 acre of land along Gore Creek. The stream tract proposed to be dedicated is adjacent to property already owned by the town through a previous dedication. + i Cascade Village -3,. 2/1/82 Mr. Norris is proposing and will commit to a master plan, for the develop- ment on these two lots. He proposes two low -rise (1 to 2 story) luxury single family homes with extensive landscaping and water features. He requests that each house be allowed 3100 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area and will restrict the houses to a 25 foot height limitation. B, IMPACTS OF REQUEST Currently, the lot could be developed into a duplex with a maximum floor area of 4200 square feet. This is the covenant restriction of which the town is a co- signator, and consequently, enforcer. The proposal would increase the allowable GRFA by 2000 square feet to 6200 square feet total. Visually, the site-is quite open and contains only one tree, a large evergreen lying very close to the proposed common lot line of the two new lots, Thus, any development on the site will be readily seen by passersby on the South Frontage Road and 1 -70. Dividing the lot and accepting the development plan allows two separated structures of a low profile nature, but covering more of the site than under present restrictions. The 25 foot height limitation reduces by approximately ten feet the allowable height of the structures which could be built under current regulations. The development plan reflects a very high quality design of structures and their surrounding grounds, and would assure such high quality if the amendment is approved. Access for the new easterly lot would be provided by an access easement on the northern side of lot 1. The access drive would be heavily planted on the north side to reduce the visual impact from the north. In summary, the result of approval of the requested amendment is that development of a larger portion of the site would occur, but the development would be of a guaranteed high quality with minimal negative visual impact. C. \- R,%OMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed division of Lot 39 into two single family lots with the condition that each residence be restricted to 2100 square feet of GRFA. We feel positive about the development plan proposed, but we consider an increase of GRFA of 2000 square feet to be excessive and a grant of special privilege. There is no special circumstance or hardship involved in the request for the extra GRFA, and we feel that we must be consistent in judging such requests. Thus, we recommend approval of the amendment requested with a revised development plan reflecting a maximum GRFA for each residence of 2100 square feet, F.� 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February S, 1982 PRESENT Duane Piper Gerry White Dan Corcoran Scott Edwards Jim Morgan Will Trout Roger Tilkemeier (for work session only) STAFF Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack Jim Sayre COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Gail Wahrlich 2.00 Work session to study changes in Architerra and to look at S year plan. 3:00 The chairman, Gerry White called the meeting to order. 1. Ap )val of minutes of January 25 meeting. A correction to the minutes was made by Duane who stated that Duane moved.and Roger seconded to table the request to amend the zoning code for further study. Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was 5 -0 with Will abstaining. 2. Request for a density control variance in gross residential floor area to construct lofts in 20 units for the Sandstone Creek Club Condominiums. Applicant: Vail Ridge Partnership- -Jack Perlmutter. Peter Jamar explained the memo and showed a site plan. Jim Junge, architect for the project explained that he had designed the units with and without the lofts, and explained the background. He felt that the 83,000 square feet was an arbitrary number. He further added that the remaining units if built without lofts, were still saleable.. His feeling was that the additional square footage in the lofts would not add a larger footprint, and would not sleep more people. Peter pointed out that they were asking for 6500 more square feet. Junge responded that the building would indeed be smaller, if they did not have the extra 6500 square footage. Gerry pointed out that the footage was not the main concern, but that the fact that they had already used up a certain amount of GRFA and now were asking for more was the main problem. Dan pointed out that the staff didn't see this as a reason to grant a variance. He added that he felt it would be precedent settting, and that no hardship had been shown. Gerry added that any hardship that existed had been self imposed and that financial reasons were not considered a hardship by the board. Gerry also pointed out that the applicants had already received more GRFA than the Town would have allowed under the town zoning, had there not been a building permit from the County before annexation.. Dan moved and Duane seconded to deny the density control variance as stated in the staff memo of 2/l/82, Don Henshel of Breakaway West declared that Breakaway West had problems with the applicant not landscaping, and that the PEC -2- 2/8/82 applicant had built on the property line, and that Breakaway West was having to go to court against the applicant. Jim Clark, owner of a Breakaway West unit stated that his unit faced the west side of Sandstone Creek Club, and that it was unattractive and unlandscaped, reducing the value of his unit. Dick Ryan informed them that the Town of Vail didn't have the right to enforce landscaping regulations because of the court decision. Dan moved to amend his motion to include the words, "as per the findings stated in the staff memo dated February 1, 1982." The vote was 6 -0 in favor of denial. Gerry White reminded the applicant that he had 10 days in which to appeal to council. 3. Two ampldment. requests for Special Deve!o moment District..44:, Cascade Village. Applicant: Andy Norris. Peter Patten explained that there were two amendment requests to be dealt with separately and'that technically, neither was a variance request. First, the request to allow the parking structure /athletic club building to encroach into the exterior property line setback. Peter stated that the purpose of setbacks in general was for elbow space,.-utilities, aesthetics, distance between buildings, and that the staff did not feel that this encroachment made a significant negative impact. The setback was toward the frontage road and the staff felt that the frontage road would not be widened is because of the steep grade and lack of traffic. It was felt that 50 feet was an adequate setback for snow removal and for substantial landscaping. It was explained that this building was part of a master plan, but that the master plan was not detailed for each building. Andy Norris, the applicant, spoke of a survey error that had been made many years past, which was one reason for the problem of locating the building where it had been planned. He added that this particular part of Vail contained many survey errors. Jim Morgan expressed concern about snow removal and how the removed snow would affect the landscaping. Andy pointed out that they were not looking at construction plans, and that this could be looked at when there were construction documents. Discussion followed concerning possibly moving the building, using possibly rock on the wall, and protecting the landscaping. Scott moved to approve the request for an amendment to Special Development 4 to allow the parking structure /athletic club to encroach 18 feet into the north property setback for a distance measured parallel to the South Frontage Road not to exceed approximately-350 feet and to qualify the requirement of no parking in the front setback to apply to parking other than entirely within a structure. This was seconded by Jim and the vote was 4-0 in favor with Dan abstaining, n U PEC 3, 2/8/82 . Second, the request to allow lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (area C), an existing 2.48 acre primary /secondary lotto be resubdivided into two single family lots. Peter Patten explained the memo and showed the site plan adding that the staff recommended allowing the amendment with the restriction that each house not be larger than 2100 square feet. Andy Norris explained that the lot was planned originally for CMC to use and was very visible from the frontage road. Jay Peterson stated that he had brought the project before the commissioners originally and felt that in light of Andy's track record, there should be some trade off given. He reminded the members that Andy had invited the town to be co.signators to be able to enforce the covenants. Discussion followed concerning whether or not a precedent would be set if the request were granted. Will moved and Duane seconded to recommend to the Town Council an approval of the amendment without the condition of limiting the GRFA to 2100 square feet for each dwelling, but allowing 3100 as the applicant requested. The vote was 4 -1 in favor with Jim voting against the measure, and Dan abstaining. Jim voted against, because he felt the GRFA should not be increased. • Peter stated that this would be heard at the next Council meeting on Feb. 16, 4. Request for a conditional use permit to operate a real estate office in the lower level of the Mountain Haus. Applicants: LespCufaude and Bill Stoabs Peter Patten explained the staff memo and explained that this business would only be marketing earth sheltered housing and would not generate traffic. It was explained that this space had been used only commercially or for offices for a very long time, and also it was sub-pedestrian level. Dan moved and Will seconded to approve the request per the staff findings in the memo dated 2/3/82. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, 5, Re vest for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to enclose with glass 992 square feet of the existing patio on the west side of the ,Red,Lion. Applicant: Jeff Selby. Peter Jamar explained the memo and added that the staff recommended approval with the restriction that the.glass panels be removed by "at least Jame 15 and reinstalled no earlier than September.15. Bill Ruoff explained that the roof would be metal i4ith an awning covering it to make it appear to be a canvas roof. He explained that the panels on the • PEC -4- 2/8/82 Bridge Street side would be removable and that the colums would change to 4" wood columns to support the roof. He added that the panels on the end would slide, to provide 50% openness, but the panels on the Bridge Street side Would be removed completely. Jeff Selby stated that the dates in the staff memo would be better if they were from the 4th of July to Labor Day because it is still chilly in June. Discussion followed concerning whether or not to request the applicant to remove the end panels as well, Bill Ruoff explained that in his opinion, leaving the end panels in would make the space more useable and pointed out that the deck at Pepi's used plexi -glass buffers for this same purpose. Selby pointed out that the tables outside of the enclosed portion would remain with their red and white umbrellas. Duane suggested that the mullions be stackod in front of the columns for the greatest amount of transparency. Gerry wondered if the item should be tabled until the next regular meeting and be republished in order to give the neighbors a chance to comment. It was pointed out that it had been published and that all neighboring property owners had been mailed a copy of the public notice at least two weeks before the meeting. Dick Ryan reminded them that if the property owners disagree, the decision can be appealed to the Town Council. Selby pointed out that the enclosure would.be easier to heat with end panels that were not removable. Will asked about the roof material, and how it would be maintained. Ruoff answered that they hoped to glue down the canvas, but that they weren't sure whether or not it might be better to paint the roof and leave the vertical edges - canvas. Scott reminded the board that they were to consider the enclosure issue, not the detailed design. It was decided to poll the board to see how they felt about leaving the end panels in place. Duane felt that the end panels did not have a strong impact on the appearance, Dan felt the same, Jim felt that the end panels should be removed in the summer, Will felt that since glass is reflective, the south end panel should be removed in the summer, Scott had no problem leaving the end panels in place, and Gerry felt the south panel should be removed because of the reflective quality of the glass and the curve on the south. Selby questioned the parking fee requirement, and Dick explained that the fee must be paid as per the parking ordinance, because this was an enclosure of space. Duane moved and Dan seconded to approve the request to enclose the patio as stated in the memo of 2/2/82 with the staff condition of dates for removal of the panels and with the exception that the south end panels be fully removed for those same dates as well. The vote was 5 -1 with Scott voting against. Scott stated that that he voted against approval because he didn't feel the south panels should have to be removed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Jim wanted to go on record as stating that he felt the board should be more consistent. He said that they had denied extra GRFA to Sandstone Creek Club, and then had granted it to Andy Norris. He felt that Andy Norris should have been treated the same way as the Sandstone Creek Club. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 3., 1982 RE: Request for conditional use permit to operate a real estate office in the lower level of the Mountain Haus. Applicant: Les Cufaude and Bill Stoabs DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Mountain Haus is in a Public Accommodation District and requires the granting of a conditional use permit for professional office use. The lower level of the Mountain Hdus contains two commercial spaces, one which has been used as a restaurant by several different operators during recent years, and the other smaller space used mostly as an office in the past. Other areas on this level are used for ski storage, men's and women's sauna and restrooms, mechanical area, general storage, conference room and a laundry. The applicant proposes to use the 550 square foot space located on the northwest corner of this basement level to run the Earth Sheltered Realty Company. This space was used in the early seventies as the location for the Printery and has recently been occupied by Yoder Engineering, The Earth Sheltered Realty Company will be marketing a spcific earth sheltered housing product and will not be soliciting a high degree of walk. -in traffic off the street, They propose to park in the parking structure and employ a total of 3 people. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. One of the development objectives in the zoning code, as it relates to proper location of various uses, is to confine office uses to appropriate locations (i.e, not on major pedestrian ways more suited to retail use). This proposal meets those objectives by being in a lower level, off street location which is not suitable for retail use. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other pu Tic facilities and public facilities needs. No effects on these factors are foreseen, Earth Sheltered Realty -2- Effect,, ujioi► traffic wlth� particular, reference to, congestion automotive and e�i�stxian sa ety and convenience, ,traffic f� ow and controls access, manduvera- hiliTy; . and remoV*a.1 of snow• from\ the7 . street and, parking areas , The space is id6ally suited for access via the village parking structure and the bus route. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposedus.o is to be located, including the scale, and bulk 6f the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This space is designated by the Mountain Haus Condominium Declaration.for commercial use,,:as is the larger restaurant space now occupied by Alain's, Office use is compatible with the surroundings and has occurred here in the past with no problems noted. Such othertJ,,ctors and criteria as the' Commission deems..a 2klicable to the prUosed 'Use . FINDINGS.AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use ,.and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. We find that this proposal fits in well with the surroundings and will have no negative effects. • • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: February 1, 1982 RE: Revisions to Architerra�at -Vail Recently, the developers of Architerra -at -Vail informed the staff of some major revisions to the project. The staff met with the developers on January 15 to examine the changes in detail. The following is a list of the revisions along with a brief analysis of the impacts of these changes, I. The Site The site plan has been altered accordingly: A" Number of units has been reduced from 13 to 12, B. Units have been joined together forming one single, four duplexes, and one triplex. C. Buildings are positioned with 9 units above and.3 units below the road, • Impact: The impact of these changes on the site are: A. Creation of more green area, especially below the road. B. Elimination of all retaining walls except for those shaping the switchbacks. C. Provides ample parking spaces. D. Eliminates 3 garages that protruded above the landscape. E. Allows site lines through the project. II. The Units The units have been altered accordingly: A. Entrances -,the entrances have been changed from the side to the front. Impact: The impact of these changes are: 1. Reduces the excessive sidewall, 2. Incorporates structure more effectively into the hill. 3. Lends itself to more natural landscaping. Architerra -at -Vail 2 B. Greenhouses - --the greenhouses have been reduced to small glass enclosures located beneath the parapet, I.11i�C t . 1, Reduces visual impact of glass and glare, 2, Reduces problems that may be encountered with snow and ice. C, Unit Design - --the units have been designed to retain the curved fascia but with a rectilinear interior design. Im act: 1. A continuous S- curved fascia that fits nicely into the landscape, 2. A smaller parapet that reduces the visual impact. 3. Rectangular rooms that are more functional and easier to construct. 4. Sloping side walls made with exposed aggregate that blends with the natural color of the soil, 5. Outside stairs constructed with stones that blend with landscape. The originally proposed GRFA of 23,835 square feet will be retained in the new plan, resulting in an average GRFA of 1986 square feet per unit. . As a reminder, the Architerra project was approved for a hazard ordinance variance by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1981 by a vote of 3 -2. A subsequent review by Town Council resulted in a 5 -1 approval of the variance. Some of the concerns from Planning Commission, Council and Design Review Board centered around height and visual impact of retaining walls, visual impact of the large greenhouses and amount of actual earth -- sheltering of the project. All.of these concerns have now been addressed and either elimina- ted or mitigated. With regard to visual impact, the elimination of a tre- mendous amount of retaining walls is the most noticeable improvement in the new scheme, The staff feels that there has been a lot of work accomplished by the developers since the Design Review Board approved the project last August. Many of the concerns of the Town boards have been successfully addressed resulting in a far more earth - integrated and aesthetically pleasing proposal for this highly visible site. The staff, therefore, highly endorses the new plan and regards the variance approval as being just as valid for the new design as for the original proposal (probably even more so). We ask the Planning and Environmental Commission to listen to the presentation of the new scheme at the meeting ds an informational ,item. If there are no major concerns with th-ei,�proposal,,. it would just go-to the Design Review Board for their review and approval. �J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 1982 1. Election of chairman and vice - chairman. 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 8, 1982. 3. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code to add a new zone district called Arterial Business for an area west of Vail Lionshead including Vail Associates' west day parking lot, Vail Associates' shop and yard area, Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation site, old Town shop site,; Chevron site, Holy Cross Electric's yard site, Texaco site, Voliter Nursery site and the Glen Lyon office building site. 4. Request to amend Section 18.54 Design Review Guidelines of the zoning code specifying information which must be submitted with the application for design review board, setting forth design review board procedures and details. 5. Request to amend the zoning code to include definitions of "major arcade," "minor arcade" and "amusement device." The request is to amend the following zone distracts: Commercial Cores I, II, and I'll, commercial service center, public use, parking district, public accommodation district, Special Develop- ment Districts 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 and 11. Major arcades will be subject to conditional use review. In CCI and II, major arcades will be restricted to basement or garden levels. 6. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to remodel the Gallery Building (Ore House Building) to.add a condominium on a new third level above grade as well as redesigning the entrance to the Ore House, expanding the restaurant toward the west and adding and remodeling second floor office space, Applicant: Ron H. Riley. 7. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to remodel the Slifer Building in order to add storage space on the 1st floor, office space at the rear of the 2nd floor and a deck and windows on the 2nd floor. Appli- cant: Rod Slifer. 8. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to allow the Lodge at Vaal to Construct Harry's Bar. Applicant has requested that this item be tabled until the March 8th meeting. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. LJ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 2,4 1982 PRFSFNT Dan Corcoran Jim Viele Diana Donovan Jim Morgan Will Trout (later) Scott Edwards ABSENT uTune Piper STAFF Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REP Gail Wahrlich Dan Corcoran, vice - chairman, called the meeting to order at 2:10. 1. Election of chairman and vice - chairman. Diane moved and Jim M seconded to nominate Dan for chairman. The vote was 4 -0, Dan abstaining. Dan moved and Jim M seconded to nominate Duane as vice - chairman. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. Approval of minutes of __meeting of February 8., 1982. Will moved and Jim M seconded to approve the minutes of February 8. The vote was 4 -0, Jim V abstaining. 3. Request to amend zoning code to add new district called Arterial Business. (Scott arrived) Dick Ryan exaplained the memo and explained that the staff recommended that the Vail Associates, west day parking lot not be included in the rezoned land because of their reluctance to assure the Town that the area would remain parking. Dick added that the staff did not include lodge rooms in the new zone district because the parcels were so small, and that only one site, VA service yard, was large enough to be considered possible lodging. Dick went on to explain 'the differences between this memo and the previous one. Steve Isom if I- -plan, Inc., expressed concern over the addition of the sentence, "Surface parking shall be limited to 25% of site area." Steve also objected to the requirement of a pitch on the roofs of 5/12, stating that it severely restricted buildings to two stories. Diane expressed the concern that the area remain vehicular and for services not available elsewhere for residents. She was also concerned that there be enough parking, as she felt there was not enough parking in town. ,, 4 r AEC -2-.2/8/82 0 Dick explained that the uses uses rather than gift shops, to be in the Texaco site, listed were geared to more community -wide and that there was a possible office building The surface parking restriction was debated as was the requirement of the 5/12 pitch and the fact that no lodges would be permitted. Dick then suggested that the surface parking restriction be removed. The members were polled about their feelings on the issues. Will was in favor of a 3/12 pitch, leaving the lodges in permitted uses, and striking the surface parking sentence. Dan had no problem with 3/12 pitch, Diane did not feel lodges should be in that zone, and did not want too much leeway for parking, Scott felt the 3/12 roof was alright, and would like to see the code allow certain parts of the building have flat roofs, and wanted to see the parking restriction remain, and was in favor of striking the west day parking lot from the district. Diane added the concern that the area would be upzoned so much, they wouldn't be able to put in the things needed. Dick countered with the fact that now with the Heavy Service District, one could come in and get an office building with more density. Jim added that perhaps they were forcing this the other way by requiring less parking on the surface, many businesses couldn�t afford to come into the district. Jim V. asked if it were truly down zoned, and Dick explained that it was reducing bulk and increasing open land which was down zoning, and increasing the uses, which was up zoning. iWill moved and Scott seconded to approve the recommendation to amend the zoning code as stated in the staff memo dated 2/17/82 with the following changes: a. A minimum pitch of 3/12 be allowed on roofs b. Lodges be left as conditonal use c. Strike the 25% surface parking requirement d. Strike the west day lot from the total area e. Add convenience stores or grocery stores The vote was 3 -1 in favor. Diane voted against the issue, because she felt the 25% parking restriction should remain. Jim V and Jim M. abstained. 4. Request 'to amend Section 18..54 Design Review Guidelines Peter Jamar explained that this was a recommendation to be made to Council. After discussion, it was decided to remove Section 18.54.085 for further study. Diane moved and Jim M seconded to recommend to Council the revisions to the design review section of the zoning code with the exception of section 18.54.085. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. ,7 PEC -3- 2/8/82 5. Re uest to amend the zoning code to include definitions of "major arcade," minor arcade and "amusement device' etc. . Jim Sayre explained that this was the third time this subject had cone before the board. The first time there was no audience participation, the second time there was objection to the licensing, so now the licensing part had been dropped. He further explained that the Special Development Districts had been added to the districts allowing arcades. Rick Sackbauer asked about whether or not a space under the Gondola steps would be excluded from having an arcade in it and was told that it would not be allowed in that location. The Planning Commission felt that it was not necessary to include any wording that related to establishments that served liquor, since these were regulated under liquor licensing. Scott moved and Jim M seconded to approve the recommended amendments to the code per the staff memo of 2/17/82 with the definitions as follows: l.b. 18.04.252 Major Arcade "Major arcade" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains more than three amusement devices. l.c. 18.04,254 Minor Arcade "Minor arcade" shall bean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains less than four amusement devices. In Commercial Cores I and II, add to paragraphs 18.24.020 C, 18.24.080 E and 18.26.050 E. "Amusement devices shall not be visible from any public way, . street, walkway or' mall area." The vote was 6 -0 unanimously in favor of the amendments. 6. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to remodel Gallery Peter Patten explained the memo and added that the neighboring building, the Slifer building, would be treated as a separate issue, but was related as to exterior design. He explained the reasons for recommending the elimination of the north deck, John Perkins representing Ron Riley showed elevations and explained why he had hoped to have the north deck to help the design of the north elevation. He added that the applicant was not strong on retaining the deck. He showed slides and photographs indicating the view corridors and how the views would be affected. Ron Riley, the owner, explained that in actuality he was almost rebuilding, and the costs were so high he could not commit $20,000 to rebuilding the pocket park, but was willing to do some work on the park. Jim V. was concerned that in the construction process there would be enforcement of the building codes. He was assured there would be. Jim M questioned timing. Bob Ruder, the person who would be doing the construction explained his projected method. Ron added that he had to do all of the construction within 6 months, and was pushing for 3 or 4 months. Will wished to require facade plans if all the work was not done in time. Ron stated that if he could not do it in a certain amount of time, e simp y would not remodel at all. PEC -4- 2/8/82 More discussion of the deck followed, with Peter explaining that the deck was an encroachment over town property, plus the fact that decks on the north side in general did not work well and that was part.of the reason for excluding it from 'the recommendation. Will suggested that it be a planter, John stated that that would be acceptable. Diane expressed concern over lack of an open feeling in the front of the building, and the fact that the front elevation did not read open...John explained that one could see the sky through the openings and this accomplished an open feeling. Jim V moved and Will seconded to approve the modifications to the Gallery building as per the staff memo dated . 2/17/82. Scott added an amendment- -that alternate plans be shown for the facade on Bridge Street in the eventuality that the building could not be finished before the end of the building season. The vote on the amendment was 5 -0 in favor with Dan abstaining. The vote on the motion with the amendment was 5--0 in favor with Dan abstaining. 7. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to remodel the lifer Building. Peter Patten explained the memo. Diane questioned whether or not the Urban Design Guide Plan encouraged the blending of buildings. Will Trout questioned the fire code with regard to the covering of the service alley. The building department was to monitor the construction and the DRB would monitor the design. Will moved to approve the request per the staff memo dated 2/17/82 with the addition that it be confirmed and assured that the proposed design and con- struction does not in any way alter the adjacent buildings current conformance to building code, fire ordinances and classifications or insurance rating. Scott seconded this. Dan added an amendment that there not be access to the storage room from the real estate office. The vote was 4 -1 with Diane voting against, and Dan abstaining, Diane felt 'that other buildings had been criticized for being too large, and she could not vote in favor or taking two buildings and making them look like one building. Some felt the scale in this case was smaller. 8. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to remodel the Lodge at Vail to construct Harry's Bar. Applicant requested to table to the March 8 meeting. Jim V moved and Will seconded to table this item as requested. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling. Dan moved and Scott seconded to have Jim Morgan the member to be on:DRB.for the months of March, April and May with Dan, chairman, as alternate. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: Those in Special Development Districts and Businesses with Amusement Devices FROM: Community Development Department, Town of Vail DATE: February 17, 1982 RE: Proposed Arcade Regulations -- Meeting on February 22, 1982 The Department of Community Development has completed a revision of the proposed arcade regulations. The plans to draft a licensing ordinance have been dropped. The current proposal includes revisions to the zoning code only. The amendments to the zoning code have been revised to include the .Special Development Districts. This would allow the owners and managers of these special districts to house electronic games in recreational areas if they obtained a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public meeting regarding the revisions to the zoning code in the Town . Council chambers at 2:00 p.m. on February 22, 1982. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to bring them up at the meeting. A i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 17, 1982 RE: Proposed Arcade Regulations The Department of Community Development has completed a revision of the proposed arcade regulations. The plans to draft a licensing ordinance have been dropped. The current proposal includes revisions to the zoning code only. The amendments to the zoning code have been revised to include the special development districts. This would allow the owners.and managers of these special districts to house electronic games in recreational areas if they obtained a conditional use permit. I. A REVIEW OF THE ISSUES: THE NEED.FOR ZONING REGULATIONS In the current zoning code, electronic games are allowed only in the West Vail shopping center and at Crossroads. However, the situation is swiftly becoming unmanageable. Electronic games are springing up in Vail Village, Vail Lionshead, the Dobson Ice Arena, the Teen Center, various hotels, the Mark, Vail Run, and other places. This proliferation of game rooms and electronic games beyondAhe zones .. in which they are allowed might present serious problems for Vail. Electronic games could be placed where they might; disturb neighbors, or a large arcade might appear in a store front on Bridge Street. 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." II. THE DESIGN OF THE REGULATIONS The zoning regulations are designed to segregate conflicting land uses. The incorporation of arcades into the zoning ordinance will ensure that the games do not conflict with adjacent land uses. For example, the new regulations would prevent a misguided pinball wizard from establishing an arcade in a residential area - -where it clearly does not belong. Definitions The proposed changes in the zoning ordinance will divide arcades into two different classes. "Major arcades" will be more strictly regulated than "minor arcades." "Major arcades" are defined as those establishments which Arcades -2- 2/17/82 hold a valid liquor license, and /or have more than four "amusement devices. A "minor arcade" is an establishment which maintains four machines or less and does not hold a liquor license. Conditional Use Owners who wish to establish new major arcades will be required to obtain a conditional use permit. (Establishments which already have such machines will not be required to obtain such a permit..) To obtain a permit the applicant is required to present his or her plans before the Planning Commission for their approval. n u z z • • ISIIIEll1 %:VI111i', TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 17, -1982 SUBJECT: BACKGROUND Proposed new arterial business zone district For the past few months the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, Community Development Department and I -Plan have been working on a new zone district for an area from the west day lot to the Glen Lyon office building. The purpose for developing the new zone district is to allow for and support upgrading of this area and to have uses that are compatible with and to have a good transition between Vail Lionshead and Cascade Village and West Vail. At the several meetings on the new zone district, there was general support for upgrading the area and to allow some of the uses such as service stations and screen service yards to continue as a conditional use. In addition, the Board and Council recommended that the broad commercial uses initially proposed should be reduced to not interfere with uses in Commercial Core I and II. The proposal before the Planning and Environmental Commission includes the following properties: SITE APPROXIMATE CURRENT ACRES ZONING West Day Lot 2.6 Parking V.A. Service Yard 3.2 Heavy Service Holy Cross 1,4 Heavy Service Texaco .9 Heavy Service Voliter 1.0 Heavey Service Glen Lyon Office Bldg 1,7 Special Dev. District Chevron .9 Heavy Service Old Town Shops 1.0 Public Use District Arterial District -,2- 2/17/82 40 PROPOSED The revised zone district is attached and includes changes to the permitted use and the parking and loading sections that should deal with concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The staff considers that the new zone district provides for the opportunity to upgrade the area. First, uses that are currently in the area such as the service stations,- - nursery and garden supply, and service !yards can continue their operation, In addition, there are other commercial uses that would be permitted by right or as a conditional use. Development standards proposed should provide for a coordinated overall plan for the area, Setbacks are varied along the frontage road to allow for buildin s to be stepped back. The height of any new building would be stepped down so that the entire roo area would not be one height. Site coverage of 60% is proposed, while in the Heavy Service District it is 75 %. With only one level of underground parking permitted, the amount of potential space would be reduced. This was a concern of the Planning Commission and Town Council at the joint meeting in January. Landscaping under the new district would be 20 %, while under the Heavy Service District it is 10 %. The new district can provide for an outstanding opportunity to develop a new business area and be more than a strip commercial area. The staff considers that this is essential for the transition between Lionshead and Cascade Village and to continue the quality of development in Vail. The staff has the following concerns with the proposed zone district: 1. Do we want lodge rooms in this area? There are probably only two locations for lodges in this.area, the west day lot and Vail Associates service yard. Other sites are s►nall or would have a great deal of road noise to contend with. It is our recommendation not to include lodge use as a conditional use at this time, 2. The staff feels that flat roofs should not be allowed. A minimum pitch of 5 in 12 should be required. 3. Some written assurance will be required to guarantee that the number of parking spaces in the west day lot will remain even if the property is redeveloped. • 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 18.27.090 18.27.100 18.27.110 18.27.120 18.27.130 18.27.140 ARTERIAL - BUSINESS DISTRICT Chapter 18.27 I PURPOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES ACCESSORY USES LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS SETBACKS 13EIGHT DENSITY CONTROL COVERAGE LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PARKING AED LOADING LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, LEASE OR RENT OF DWELLING UNITS SIGN CODE f ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 0 1$.27.010 PURPOSE The Arterial Business` District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, and lim- ited 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. Arterial Business 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 R}QUIREMENTS PdR ESTABLISHi1ENT OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS PLAN A. Prior to the establishment of any Artorial Business District or enlargement of an existing Arterial Business 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, 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; t� S. Such additional information as the Planning and Environ- mental Comi;:ission and Town Council deem necessary to guide. develop :lent vd -thin the proposed District. • 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 to the plan adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. D. The general circulation and access plan can be amended by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing. E. Before a building permit is issued on any building design guidelines for street or parking lot lights, pavement treatment and benches, must be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department. 18.27.020 PERMITTED USES The following uses shall be permitted in the Arterial Business District: A. Professional offices, business offices, and studios; B. Banks and financial institutions; C. Retail stores and establishments with a limit of 15,000 square foot floor area for one retail business use including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises. Bookstores Camera stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Furniture stores Hardware stores Health food stores Hobby stores Household appliance stores Liquor stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Jr. Department stores Stationery stores Yardage and dry goods stores • Page 3 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: C taverns, and bars Cocktail lounges, coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Delicatessens F. Additional of. ficemitbtediusesCi,noaccordance with the to be similar to per provisions of Section 18.27.010 of this chapter. 18.27.030 COND� ITJONAL USES The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Arterial Business District, subject to issuance of ovasions conditional use permit in accordance with the p of Chapter 18.60: A. Drive -up facilities B. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities C. Public pnr.k and recreation facilities • Page 4 . D. Commercial laundry and cleaning services - bulk plant E. Major arcade. F. Pet shops G. Any use permitted by Section 18.27.020 which is not conducted entirely within a building H. Service yards Z. Massage parlours i. 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 'lhe following accessory apses shall be permitted in the AxteriaY Business 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 thurcof. D. Minor. arcade Page 5 18.27.050 LOT Ai'.1:A AND SITE DI?hf;'NS10NS 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 Arterial Business 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 sha.11 not exceed 25 dwelling units per acre of buil,dablb site area. 18.27.090 COVERAGE Not more than 60% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. Page 6 18.27.100 LAND SCAH—ING AND SITE DEVELOP:•IENT 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 are,-1 qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet with a minimum area not less than three hundred square feet. 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. Only one level, of underground parking is permitted. Surface parking shall be limited to 250 of the site 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, e >cept 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 tTNITS IN COMrtERCIAL CODE 4 1. The applicant submitting for renting of units in the Arterial Business 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 Core 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 duelling 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 • 2. Sale Units would be restricted by Town Council similar to the Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. The specific restriction must be approved by Town Council. 18.27.140 SIGN CODE The sign code for the Arterial Business District will be the adopted sign code for the CC3 district. r� U • [7 .7 U fowl box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 February 3, 1982 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION department of community development FROM: Department of Community'Dbvelopment /Peter Jamar RE: Revisions to the Design Review Section of the Zoning Code Attached is a copy of revisions which are proposed for the Design Review Section of the Zoning Code. Upon review of the Design Review Ordinances by the Town's legal staff, it was found that several components of the guidelines could be made more specific and also certain sections which are out- dated could be eliminated. These revisions are an interim part of a complete overhaul of the Design Review section of the Zoning Code and are those seen by the Staff as necessary to implement at this time. Within the next few months a complete revision of the entire Design Review and Design Guidelines will be presented to the Planning Commission for your review and action. The items underlined in the attachment are the proposed changes at this time. Use your copy of the current zoning code to compare with the proposed revisions. CHANGES IN DRB 18.54.030 Design Approval (a) The town shall not authorize site preparation, building construction, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure or paving, fencing, planting or other improvements of open space unless design approval has been.granted as prescribed in this chapter. Planting of open space common to two or fewer existing dwelling units shall be exempt from this provision. (b) It shall be a violation of this chapter and the Building Permit_for any person to commence, continue or complete work that is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the Zonin 'Administrator and/or Design Review Board and the Chief Building Official. 18.54.050 5. ....on completion. One or more perspective sketches, a scale model, pLoto2raphic overlays, or other similar technique shall be submitted, as necessary, to illustrate the overall appearance of the building and site development features in relation to adjacent properties • and the neighborhood. All exter or ...... 18.54.050 Material to.be submitted (7) The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples, and other material if deemed necessary to determine whether a project will comply with the purposes prescribed in Section 18.54.010 and the design guidelines prescribed in Section 18.52.060. 18.54.060 Board procedure (entire part B. revised) B.(1) The Design Review Board shall review the application and supporting material and if the design of the project is found to comply with the purposes statement and design guidelines of this chapter, the Design Review Board shall approve the design of the project. If additional information is needed to determine whether the project will comply with the purposes statement and design guidelines of this chapter, the Design Review Board may give conceptual approval, preliminary approval or table the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is tabled or if conceptual or preliminary approval is given, the Board shall specify the conditions and additional and /or modified materials Which must be submitted by the applicant to the Design Review Board, including any changes in the design of the project. Page 2 (2) If the project is found to conflict with any of the purposes or design guidelines, the Board shall disapprove the design of the project. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the purpose statement or design guidelines with which the design of the project does not comply and the manner of non - compliance. (3) The Design Review Board shall approve, disapprove, or request changes in the design of the project within fifteen days of the date of its meeting at which the application is considered. However, if the board grants conceptual approval, preliminary approval or tables the application or the Board determines that advice or assistance of professional consultants is needed, an additional forty -five days shall be allowed for action by the Board. Failure of the Board to act within the prescribed deadlines shall be deemed approval of the design of the project unless the applicant consents to a time extension. 18.54.085B.Administrative policies. Change "any aggrieved party" to "adjacent property owner." • • PROPOSED ARCADE ZONING REGULATIONS 1. Amend Chapter 18.04 of the zoning code, entitled, "Definitions," so that it will include sections: a. 18.04.005 Amusement Device "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 limted 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. b. 18.04.252 Major Arcade "Major arcade" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains more than three amusement devices. 0 c. 18.04.254 Minor Arcade "Minor arcade" shall mean a place of business.where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains less than four amusement devices. 2. Parking District a. Add to Section 18.35.030, Conditional Uses: Q. Major arcade b, Amend Section 18.34.040, Accessory uses, deleting "No accessory uses shall be permitted in the P district," and add: A. Minor arcade 3. Commercial Core I a. Add to Section 18.24.020.c, "The following uses shall be permitted in a basement or garden level within a structure, subject to a conditional use permit.." 8. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public wax, street, walkway, or mall area. Amusement devices shall not be visible from any public way, street, walkway or mall area. i Arcade Regs -2- 2./17/82 • b. Add to Section 18.24.080, - Accessory Uses: E. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way,,. street, walkway, or mall area. Amusement devices shall not be visible from any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 4. Commercial Core II a. Addition of a major 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 Uses: E. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. Amusement devices shall not be visible from any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 5. Commercial Core III a. Amend Section 18.27.030 H., Conditional Uses, deleting "Commercial Recreation Center /Game Room," and adding in its place "Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area." b. Add to Section 18.27.042, Accessory Uses: D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any.exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 6. Commercial Service Center District a. Amend Section 18.28.040 H., deleting "Commercial recreation center/ game room" and adding in its place "Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walk- way or mall area." b. Add to Section 18.28.050, Accessory Uses, D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 7. Public Use District a. Add to Section 18.26.030, Conditional Uses 0 0. Major arcade Arcade Regs - 3..- .2J17/82 . b. Add to Section 18.36.040, Accessory Uses A. Minor arcade 8. Public Accommodation District a. Add to Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, M. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. b. Add to Section 18.22.040, Accessory Uses D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 9. Special Development District 2 - Northwoods a. Add to Section 18.42.060 Conditional Uses E. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. b. Add to Section 18.42.070 Accessory Uses, E. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 10. Special Development District 3 - Pitkin Creek Park a. Add to Section 18.44.070, accessory uses, D. Minor arcade, so long as. it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 11. Special Development District 4 - Cascade Village a. Add to Section 18.46.060, Conditional Uses A. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street., walkway or mall area. (This conditional use allowed only in development area A- Cascade . Village.) • • Arcade Regs -4- 2/1.7/82 b. Add to Section 18.46.070, Accessory Uses D. The following accessory use shall be permitted in Development Area A: Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or well area. 12, Special Development District 5 - Simba Run and Vail Run a. Add to Section 18.48.0 70 Conditional Uses F. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. b. Add to Section 18.48.080 Accessory Uses, D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 13, Special Development District 6 - Vail Village Inn All Conditional uses as defined in the Public Accommodation District, Section 18.22.030, are permitted in SDD 6. All accessory uses as defined in the Public Accommodation Distrrict, Section 18.22.040, are permitted in SDD 6. 14. Special Development District 7 - The Mark a. Add to Section 8, Conditional Uses in the Special District 1. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage !: : olnl any publ is way, street, walkway or( mall area. b. Add to Section 9, Accessory Uses in the Special District, B. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 15. Special Development District 8 - Fallridge a. Add to Section 18.41.040, Conditional Uses • F, Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. r Arcade Regs -5- 2/17/82 , b, Add to Section 18,41.050, Accessory Uses D. Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. 16. Special Development District 10 - Valli Hi a. Amend Section F.(v), deleting "an inside recreation room with ping pong and foosball tables," and add in its place "a major or minor arcade." 17. Special Development District 11 - Highland Park a. Add to section 5.B. Conditional Uses VI. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. b. Add to Section 5.c. Accessory Uses iv, Minor arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. LJ U K } MEMORANDUM is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten PATE: February 17, 1982 SUBJECT: Request for exterior alterations to the Slifer Building under the Vail Village Urban Design Guide. Plan. Applicant: Rod E. Slifer THE RE UEST The proposal entails the addition of 1100 square feet of office and 280 square feet of storage space in the rear of the building as well as a deck and enlarged windows in the front (Bridge Street side). Also proposed is a complete refur- bishing of the building exterior to make it harmonious with the proposed exterior revisions to the Gallery Building. Some new "Town of Vail" pavers will be installed in the front of the building. Also included in the proposal is an hydraulic trash compactor located in the rear alley enclosed by a structure. A. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE DISTRICT 18.24.010 Purpose The commercial core.1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The Community Development Department finds that this proposal is in compliance with the purpose section for Vail Village. B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL.VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN 1. Sub -area concepts There are no sub -area concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan which the proposal is affecting. 2, Pedestrianization Basically, pedestrianization is unchanged, but improvement should . be realized with the installation of pavers. • Slifer Bldg -2- 2/17/82 3. Vehicle Penetration Vehicle penetration will be improved with the:addition of the trash compactor. The compactor allows for considerably less trips for trash collection. This compactor will be utilized by the Casino, Gallery, Slifer, Clock Tower and McBride buildings. We feel this is a great improvement and helps reduce vehicular traffic in the Village. 4. Streetscape Framework Some visual interest and variety will be added with the remodel of the display window along Bridge Street and the new deck above it. 5. Street Enclosure The street enclosure remains basically unchanged. 6. Street Edge Street edge is slightly improved with the new front step extending over to the display window adding an additional activity pocket area to the street. 7. Building Height Building height is unchanged. 8. Views No views are affected. 9. Service and Deliver Service and delivery is unchanged, except that the ingress /egress easement for the Clock Tower and City Limits businesses will be covered. 10. Sun /shade Sun and shade factors remain unchanged, C. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Uses The additional office area on the second floor is a permitted use in that location in Commercial Core I. The storage space on the first floor cannot be used by the real estate business, as this would constitute the expansion of an existing non - conforming use. 2. Coverage 0 Site coverage is within the 80% allowed. f • • 0 Slifer Bldg -3- 2/17/82 3. Landscaping No significant reduction in landscaping is proposed. 4. Parking and Loading Approximately 1100 square feet of additional office space is proposed. This amount of space would require 4 parking spaces and result in a parking fee, the amount of which will be established by Town Council. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the request for exterior modification to the Slifer Building with the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village. 2. The applicant agrees to participate in the cost of construction and landscaping around the new trash compactor enclosure. 3. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a mini- improvement district if one is formed to improve Bridge Street from the covered bridge to Gore Creek Drive with pavers and landscaping. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter fatten DATE: February 17, 1952 SUBJECT: Request for exterior alteration under the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan for the Gallery Building. Applicant: Ron H. Riley THE REQUEST The Gallery Building currently houses Rumours night club on the basement level, the Ore House Restaurant on the first or street level and office and storage space on the second and top levels. The proposal. for remodeling the building includes a totally new exterior appearance of stucco and redwood, a new third level luxury condominium, addition of restaurant, office and storage areas and revisions to the entrances and exists of the building. The proposal is simultaneous and harmonious with the exterior modification request for the neighboring Slifer Building (considered a separate application) and includes several improvements on public property which are stipulated in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The improvements (via landscaping and several sitting benches) of the Town -owned property to the north of the building is being proposed as well. The following is a floor by floor detailed account of the changes proposed: a. Basement Level 1. Add 338 square feet of storage area to the east side. b. First Floor and Street lm rovements 1. Add 130 square feet of dining room space to the west (Bridge Street) side of the Ore House. This brings the west wall to the property line. 2. Remodel the entry to the Ore House orienting it toward the Covered Bridge. 3. Add a north side dining deck proposed to be cantilevered over Town of Vail property. 4. Remove existing rock wall on Bridge Street. Replace with two public benches recessed from from the street by new rock wall planters. 5. Install "Town of Vail" pavers on - entire area from entry to the Ore House all the way across Bridge Street and north to the Covered Bridge. Gallery Bldg -2- 2/1.7/82 . 6. Remove existing east {rear} side encroachment of storage area onto Town property. Remodel into smaller storage area of 254 square feet including new fire exit and service entry and additional bar area of 84 square feet. c. Second Floor 1. Add 863 square feet of office space to north and east sides. 2. Construct outdoor deck overlooking.Bridge Street and add 33 square feet of office space on west side. d. Third Floor I. Construct new floor containing approximately 1938 square feet condominium. A. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE DISTRICT 18.24.010 Purpose The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The Department of Community Development considers that this psoposal is . in keeping with the purpose of the Commercial Core I District. The proposal will not only accomplish two objectives of the Urban Design Guide Plan, but will serve to drastically improve the aesthetics of the entire building. B. COMPLIANCE-.WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN RESIGN GUIDE PLAN 1. Sub --Area Concepts The proposal directly addresses two sub -area concepts of the U.D.G.P. a. Sub -area Concept 18: "Facade improvements. Increased Bound floor transparency." This is directed toward the western elevation to improve the attractiveness and visibility into the restaurant for more pedestrian interest. Proposed are three large windows broken up into smaller panes to accomplish the objective of increased transparency. The building . will also come out to the property line -- closer to the pedestrian- - so that the desired effect is achieved. Gallery..Bldg .3 2/1.7182 b. Sub -area concept 19: "Feature area paving-entry to core area." One of the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan was to identify the areas of entry into Vail Village with special paving treatments. The Covered Bridge is the main entry into the Village and the plan calls for pavers to be introduced in this area.. The proposal includes these pavers. 2. Pedestrianization The proposal should substantially improve pedestrianization by providing sitting benches off Bridge Street in an attractive atmosphere of.stone planters as well as allowing access to an improved open space area to the north of the building. The area between the Creek and the building has a long, complex history of attempts to improve it with landscaping, etc. This proposal would accomplish such improvement by a private sector initiative and be beneficial to the Town as well as to the applicant. Pedestrianization is improved by the installation of the "Town of Vail Pavers" on the south side of the Covered Bridge. This gives a special identity to entering the Core area. 3. Streetscape Framework The streetscape framework will be improved with the removal of the existing stone wall and replacing it with pedestrian benches recessed from the street. The new stone planters should be attractive and add additional color to the streetscape. Also improving the streetscape framework is the restaurant expansion and new decks on the Bridge Street side. This adds visual interest and increases the total street life. 4. Street Enclosure The street enclosure from a pedestrian on Bridge Street point of view will not be significantly changed. The condominium is set back to the east so that it is not visible from Bridge Street. However, adding interest and a small amount of enclosure and interest will be the deck and planter for the condominium which fronts on Bridge Street, 5. Street Edge The street edge should be improved with the pedestrian benches and flower planters. 6. Building Height The proposal comes very close to but does not exceed the Urban Design Guide Plan height restrictions. 62% of the footprint of the building remains below 30 feet, while 60% is the requirement. Gallery Bldg -4- 2/17/82 7. Views The proposal does not affect any existing view corridors. But a complete view analysis has been completed and will be presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission at the public hearing for the impacts created by the new condominium on the top floor. The main view corridor which could be affected is from the transportation structure to the Clock Tower. The staff is convinced that the design of the third level has been accomplished so that this very important view will be totally unaffected. 8. Service and Delivery Deliveries and service will remain via the alley on the rear. 9. Vehicle Penetration Vehicle penetration will be substantially improved with the installation of a trash compactor on the east side of the building. This will reduce the necessary trips to remove trash and, thus, accomplishes one of the objectives of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 10. Sun /shade The only sun /shade issue here concerns.the proposed northern deck. The staff feels this is an impractical request in that north- facing decks simply do not work in Vail. The deck will receive very little sun and is proposed to be cantilevered over Town owned property. The north side of the building has already been enclosed once to accommodate the bar, and now the applicant washes another addition over Town property which we consider unnecessary and impractical. The Town Council has a policy not to permit encroachment of this nature. C. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Uses All uses existing and proposed are permitted on their respective levels in Commercial Core I. 2. Density Control The site is 3160 square feet which allows 2528 square feet of GRFA by a 80% rule. Proposed is 1938 square feet of gross residential floor area. 3. Coverage The Urban Design Guide Plan allows additional coverage to accomplish building additions conforming to the Plan. 4. L..a.nd sca in No reduction in landscaped areas is proposed. 0 Gallery Bldg -5- 2/17/82 • S. Parking and Loading A parking fee will be assessed.for the additional restaurant seats, office space and condominium. The final determination will be assessed before a building permit issued according to the approved plans. D. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the modifications to the Gallery Building and the surrounding area. We are pleased that the building will be improved both aesthetically and functionally and should make some dramatic improvements on lower Bridge Street. Pedestrianization will be improved by the new streetscape and the improved pocket park area next to Gore Creek. The pavers should also improve this most important entrance to the Village, The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The applicant agrees to.participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district for Vail Village if and when adopted. 2. The north side deck proposal be excluded from the proposal. 3. The applicant agrees to install at his own expense the landscaping for the park area near the creek, his share of the trash compactor and enclosure, the pavers proposed,. the stone planters and benches and a street light long Bridge Street and the stairs from Bridge Street entering the park area as well as the benches in the park. 4, The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a mini- improvement district if one is formed to improve Bridge Street from the Covered Bridge to Gore Creek Drive with pavers and landscaping. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 8, 1982 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of February 22, 1982 2.. Request for a rezone of lot 1, Vail pillage 2nd Filing to change from Primary /S6condary to.Special Development; District with an underlying zone of High Density Multi- Family to allow construction of 5 dwelling units. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne 3. Request for a conditional use permit to construct an office bulld.ing on the existing Texaco Station site at 953 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: M & W Venture. 4. Request for a rezoning of lots 1 through 5, Cliffside subdivision from Residential Cluster to Single Family District. Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl R. Burns, Phillip Ordway, Richard Brown. 10 5. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to allow the Lodge at Vail to construct Harry,s Bar. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Published I.: t. j' ,u PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . March 8, 1982 PRESENT Scott Edwards Will Trout Diane Donovan Duane Piper Jim Viele Jim Morgan ABSENT Dan Corcoran STAFF Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REP Gail Wahrlich The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, vice chairman. 1. Apfroval of minutes of February 22, 1982, The date typed on the minutes was February 8, and Betsy noted that this should be changed to February 22. Diane moved and Scott.seconded to approve the minutes with the correction, and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. Request for a rezone of lot 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing to change from Prima . - Secondary to aecial Development District with an under! ing zone of High Density Multi -Famil to allow construction of 5 dwelling units, Applicant:. Ron Byrne Peter Jamar explained the memo, pointing out that the existing house was a duplex. He pointed out the model and the plan, adding that the staff was not in favor of the rezoning of the special development district. Dick Ryan stressed the concern of the Council and of many residents of Vail concerning Vail's growth. He quoted from a report of 1977. He added that from this report the whole community was downzoned to reduce the number of potential units that could be built. He added that in 1980 the Town purchased open space for two reasons: 1) to retain the open space and 2) to remove from the marketplace a number of potential. units, He added that when the hospital land was being considered for acquisition, the Council was concerned that there not be more units built at that time. Dick also pointed out that the proposal before the board was a significant change from what the staff felt was proper for that lot. Richard Black, architect for the project, showed slides of other buildings that his firm had done, He added that the proposal could be modified if the only issue were setback concerns. He felt that they needed a certain amount of mass to accomplish their architectural objectives. However, he asked if the board would consider 3 units, and Duane answered that they could not answer that. Black felt that they could not afford to do 2 units. Also that they could not have a transition with only 2 units, r -1 LJ PEC T2- 3/8/82 Discussion followed concerning the proposed fountain,, pavers, setbacks from stream and west side, Ron Byrne, owner, stressed that his driveway was at present a turn- around, . Ben Boutell, a neighboring property owner,, expressed concern that if the zone change were granted, the other property owners could also ask to have their property zoned differently. The staff agreed with his concern. Lynn Price of Beaver Dam Road stated appreciation of the building but was concerned about the fact that more lots would then be rezoned. Morgan Douglas, owner of the lot one removed from the property in question voiced the same concern. Will expressed concern that a duplex would not:be able to accomplish the transition, but also pointed out that the staff had spent many hours studying the issue. Dick felt that although the streetscape in front of this building had been addressed, it was important to get a long term solution to the streetscape that would deal with all of the properties, rather than dealing with one property at a time, He.added that an improvement district was needed in order to create some type of streetscape along the entire Meadow Drive to connect the Village and Vail Lionshead. Jim Morgan felt that the board could possibly consider a height variance while staying within a duplex, He added that he had been on DRB when Ipanema was being designed and that when it went through there had been little public input showing concern over the height. He added that this might be compounding the problem by allowing 5 units. Dick added that Ipanema was first denied by Council,'and after that the design was modified and eventually approved by Town Council. Black stated that if his building had been constructed on the Ipanema site, he would have no reason to be before the board, for the transition would already have been made. He added that the lot west of lot 1 was narrow, and that it would be difficult to create much arguement to make a structure on it larger than a duplex, Jim M. felt thati-nevertheless, the owner of lot 1 could accomplish the tra:nsition..w.ith a duplex. Black answered that if density were the true issue, he could possibly make the transition with 3 units, Jim V asked if•Black had looked at what could have been done with a duplex, and Black answered that the tower and the underground parking would be lost, Jim V. stated that it seemed that a 4600 square foot building was quite a lot and that perhaps the desired effect could be accomplished with a building of that size which is currently allowed within the duplex zoning on the lot. Scott felt that density and size were the issues, and that in trying to solve one problem they were creating another, Diana Donovan felt that the project didn't fit the purpose of a special development district, and added that she felt that Spraddle Creek was a logical place to have a break in the zones. She agreed that if there is a change in the zoning,,Ahe change would simply creep all along the street, Diane added that it violated several general provis,.ions of the zoning ordinance. She acknowledged dislike of Ipanema, but pointed out that their landscaping would be a buffer when the trees were fully grown, PEC -3- 3/8/82 . Duane stated that he felt the effort in transition was a positive one, but pointed out that a transition did not necessarily have to be made with a building, but could be made with landscaping and open space as well. He added that transition with landscaping might be an even better transition. Duane agreed with the members of the neighborhood, that it would be difficult to stop the rezoning. He added that he liked the streetscape, though felt it might be a little bit urban for Vail, but liked the idea that it had been designed and.was complete. Black asked for reaction to three units, and concern was raised that the neighbors could then all ask for 3 units. Will pointed out that this lot could simply be identified as a transition site, and since each case is dealt with separately, each succeeeding lot would be considered on a case by case issue. Will felt that either Ipanema or the duplex was a silly solution because of the scale jump, He pointed out that the applicant was willing to deal with this problem. Dick stated that he could see a raising of the mass on the east side of the site, but felt it could be done with a duplex. .Tim Morgan moved and Diane seconded to deny approval of the zone change to • Special Development District with an underlying High Density Multiple Family zone as per the staff memo dated March 4, 1982. The vote. was 5 -1 in favor of denial. Will voted against denial stating 'that he wouldntt have supported a five unit building, but wanted the applicant to know that he would 'support a scaled down version, 3 or possibly 4 units if it were carried out in the same manner, Dick reminded the applicant and the audience that this item was to go to the Council meeting of March 16, 1982 3. Request for $- conditional use permit to. construct an office building on the Texa6610" tw ce 9,53, South Frontage Road West. Applicant: M 4 W Venture. One of the applicants, Jim Morgan, asked to table this item. Scott moved and Diane seconded to table it until March 22, The'vote was 5 -0 with Jim abstaining. 4. Re uest.for a TeIzoning of lots 1 through 5, Cliffside subdivision from Residential Clus`Cer to, Si g1e Family pistrici.` �lppllcant�s: Charles Rosenquast, Daryl Burns, Phil eway, Richard Brown... Peter Patten stated that the applicants wanted to table, but that they had not yet put this in writing. He reviewed the happenings to date, and added that the attorney for the adjoining Ridge property owne-z had asked to start the proceedings over again. It was pointed out that if the board asked to table, they then must act within 30 days. Diane moved and Jim V seconded to table the item, . The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling. • n U S. PEC -4, 3/8/82 Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI to allow the L at Vail to construct Harry's Bar, Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Peter Patten explained that the Lodge had come before the Planning Commission in July of 1981 with a proposal to add 620 square feet to the Salt Lick dining room. The Planning Commission disapproved the addition with a tie .(2 -2). vote. Later the Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision by a vote of 7 -0. The present request is to increase the addition from 620 to 1,800 square feet and to add a meeting room of 884 square feet in the basement, Bill Ruoff, architect for the project, showed the site plan and explained that the roof would be lower than the existing roof because of removing the parapet. He added that a pitched roof didn't work on the part of the building, but that if the long range plans were allowed, other things could be done, He felt that the treatment through the alleyway would improve the alley and felt that a shortcut through the alley wasn't needed. Diane expressed concern that the building extended the distance shown, because of blocking a view of the mountains that. included the base. Ruoff stated that it was necessary in order to have the restaurant work. Diane expressed the feeling that the addition did not look as though it belonged there, but looked added on and didn't go with anything else in view. Jim Viele questioned the reason for not putting the restaurant on the other side of the building where the large kitchen was. Ruoff answered that the entry situation wasn't good on that side and that they were trying to accommodate the future plans so that the restaurant addition would not have to be torn down. He added that tVentudIly the Lodge wanted a small convention center in the existing courtyard to accommodate 600 people- -the maximum number who could stay at the Lodge. The Master Plan was looked at to see if perhaps the restaurant should be considered in light of the master plan. However, Ruoff stressed that the restaurant addition must stand on its own. Will asked how high the addition connected to the restaurant on the master plan would be, and Ruoff stated that it would be another story high. Duane asked the staff if there was a limit to the amount of density added, and Dick answered that there was no limit in commercial space, Diane mentioned that with the open space around the lodge, it didn't look as large as it really was. Jim M, mentioned concern about the shade onto the Hong Kong cafe and the board was shown the shadows on the Hong Kong on March 22 and Sept 23. Tom Gilbertson of the Hong Kong stated that he had discussed the issue with Ruoff and had decided that the Hong Kong "could live with it." He added that he would have preferred to see the Lodge placed farther back, however, Discussion followed concerning the staff's three conditions, and Ruoff said the applicant did agree to them, Will asked if the Urban Design Guide Plan eliminated flat roofs, and Dick responded that it .discouraged flat roofs but that each project had to be considered individually, Will felt that the flat roof seemed awkward. Ruoff pointed out that there is a flat roof there at present, and Duane stated that that was true, but the new flat roof would be twice as long, Ruoff said that the flat roof worked best with the existing.roof, PHC -5- 3/$/82 0 Ruoff stated that this project would be accessed through the alley during construction but in the future all service would be as it is today, from the back or Vail Road. Jim M. moved to recommend approval of the exterior alteration and addition of Harry "S Bar on the eastern side of the Lodge at Vail per the staff memo dated March 2, 1982 with the three conditions as stated. Will seconded the motion but added that he would like to have the members polled to see how they felt about approving the addition without the consideration of the whole master plan. Jim M, stated he had no problem with it as it was, Jim V said that it was difficult for him to support the plan by itself. Diane agreed with Jim V adding that she didn't feel the building stood by itself, Duane felt he could endorse the addition, without consideration.of the master plan, but did wish it did not extend so far out. Will stated that he could support the addition because it would be better in the overall scheme (he was endorsing it in light of the master plan). The vote was 3 -2 in favor of the addition. For were Jim M, Duane and Will. Against were Diane and Jim V., and they felt that they had already stated their positions. Will moved and Jim M, seconded to adjourn. Vote was 6 -0 to adjourn at 5:50. L J MEMORANDUM 40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 4, 1982 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing from Two Family Residential District to Special Development District with an underlying High Density Multiple Family Zone District. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The request basically deals with 2 issues: 1) The applicant requests the rezoning of lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing from its current duplex zoning to High Density Multiple Family zoning and 2) The applicant requests the for - mation of a Special Development District. The reason for the overlying Special Development District would be to adopt a specific number of.units, a specific maximum square footage and overall site and building design. 1) The Rezoning Request The current zoning of the lot as Two Family Residential would allow 2 units • with a maximum Gross Residential Floor Area of 4576 square feet. A rezoning to HDMF would permit 12-Units with a 'maximum GRFA of 13,.558 square feet. However, the applicant proposes, by the creation of the Special Development District, to construct and limit development upon the site to 5 units of 11,590 square feet GRFA. The size of the lot is 22,598 square feet. The lot is currently occupied by a duplex and contiguous to other duplex sites to the west and to the south across Gore Creek. The lot to the east is occupied by Ipanema Condominiums (9 units) and located across Meadow Drive to the north is the Holiday Inn. The reason for requesting the rezoning is stated by the applicant to be the need for a zoning designation for his lot which enables site improvements that relate to the scale and density of adjacent development (existing or potential). The applicant feels that a site improvement limited to the restrictions of the present zoning of the lot "will not permit a project that is an appropriate permanent statement within the context of its setting nor representational of sensitive consideration as evidenced elsewhere within the community." The main argument presented by the applicant is that a transition is needed from Ipanema, which is a five level structure located to the east of the lot, to the low density duplex lots. The applicant proposes a five -unit condominium complex with a height of 48 feet on the east end of the structure and 33 feet.on the west to make this transition. A complete set of proposed plans is contained within the encl osed document. • lot 1, VV2 -2- 3/2/82 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested zoning and Special Development District application. We believe that there are no reasons why the Planning and Environmental Commission should allocate an increased density to the property. We feel there are several reasons why the application should be denied. The Zoning Ordinance states that it is intended to achieve specific purposes, one of which is to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures With the realization that increased densities do have impacts upon the quality of community services, facilities, and thefenviron- ment, ranging from the number of fireplaces allowed to providing public transportation, the Town of Vail has had an active policy of attempting to reduce the population density within the Gore Valley, The control of density has taken the form of zoning regulations and also through the purchase of private land within the Valley by the Town of Vail. A major goal of the land purchases has been to reduce the ultimate amount of growth that can occur within the Gore Valley, and consequently the burden upon services to be provided to the citizens of the community. The only instances of increasing the density allowed upon a piece of property within the Town has been for the purpose of providing employee housing, a very real need for the community as a whole, It is the staff's opinion that the rezoning would allow an increase in density which is not consistent with the development goals and objectives of the community, The use of the site currently as a two - family residential dwelling results in a workable relationship among land uses within the area, We feel that the applicant's desire to replace the existing structure with a building of increased quality can be accomplished within the framework of the existing Two Family Residential Zone District. 2} The Special Development District Application In addition to the base zoning of High Density Multi - Family, the applicant requests that a Special Development District be designated for the lot to adopt a specific plan for development. The zoning code states that the purpose of .a special develop- ment district is "to encourage flexibility in development of ,land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character, and quality of new development, to facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." As mentioned before, the proposed plan consists of a 5 unit condominium complex with a maximum GRF'A of 11,590 square feet and a maximum height of 48 feet on the east end stepping-down to 33 feet on the west end. The project also includes a plaza and pavilion along best Meadow Drive. The parking for the project is proposed to be within an underground parking garage beneath the structure. • Lot 1, VV2 -3- 3/4/82 STATISTICS FOR THE PROPOSAL Lot size: 22,598 sq .ft Zoning Requested: High Density Multi-Family.with an overlying Special Development District Setbacks: Building Stream Deck Height: Density: GRFA Units Site Coverage: Landscaping Parkin STAFF RECOMMENDATION Zoning Requirements Required /Allowed Proposed 20 20' 30'(Spraddle Creek) 101 . 50' (Gore Creek) 75' 10' 4' 48' 48' 60% (13,558 sq ft) 51% (11,590 sq ft) 12 5 55% (12,428 sq ft) 39% (8820 sq ft) 30% (6779 sq ft) 38% (8715 sq ft) 10 13 The Community Development Department recommends denial of the Special Development District application. Although the development standards for a Special Development District are to be determined by the PEC and Town Council as a part of the approved plan, there are several zoning items which concern.the staff.. In the adoption of a SDD., there has usually been an underlying zone district by which development standards have been set, in this case the High Density Multiple Family Zone District. The proposal generally meets the standards for .HDMF. However, several overall development regulations defined within the Zoning Code have been ignored. The chart above points out that Town standards regarding deck setbacks and stream setbacks have not been complied with. We feel that these are require- ments that should not be "negotiable because of the obvious impacts of each. lot 1,.VV2 -4- 3/4/82 Secondly, the intent of a SO is to "encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use" and to "preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The staff feels that the amount of site coverage upon the lot with building (8820 sq ft) and decks and patios (5935 sq ft) has done little to preserve the quality of a lot which is bounded on two sides by natural streams. The amount of pavement, the formalized landscaping plan along Meadow Drive, and.the rock fountain proposed for Spraddle Creek do not seem to be appropriate. The design standards for SDD's state that a buffer zone shall be provided in any SDD that is adjacent to a low- density residential use district. The buffer zone is to be kept free of buildings or structures and landscaped to minimize adverse effects upon the surrounding area. There has been no attempt at such a buffer zone and, in fact, the proposed structures upon the property come within 4' of.the adjacent property to the west. In general, the staff believes that the plan has not beeen sensitive to the physical attributes of the site,..has neglected to address the requirement of a buffer zone between adjacent properties, and has neglected to follow general zoning requirements. • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: March 2, 1982 RE: Public hearing and consideration of an exterior alteration and addition of a restaurant space called "Harry's Bar" on the eastern side of the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. RAC'KGRO TND In July of 1981 the applicant, Lodge Properties,. Incorporated, came to the town with a proposal to add 620 square feet to the Salt Lick Dining Room; the addition is to be named Harry's Bar. On July 13, 1981 the Planning Commission, expressing issues concerning the reduction of open space and pedestrianization, disapproved the addition in a tie (2 -2) vote, On July 22, 1981 the Town Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision by a vote of 7 -0. At the present time the applicant is returning to the Planning Commission with a new request. The applicant proposes increasing the restaurant addition from 620 to 1,800 square feet and adding a meet basement of the remodel. The new addition will within five feet of the property line. Lng room of 884 square feet in extend 54 feet to the east; to A. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE DISTRICT 18.24,010 Purpose The commercial core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are in- tended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arangments of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure con- tinuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguisa the village, This department recommends approval of the project with the condition that the applicant pay for the improvements in the entrance to the bar from Gore Creek Drive and the entrance to the addition from the Village Plaza. • I Harry's Bar -2- 3/2/82 B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL- VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN 1, Sub–a.rea concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Although the Village Plaza is mentioned in the Guide Plan:, no specific guidelines are given for this space. The applicant has indicated that the secondary entry to Harry's. Bar will be from Gore Creek'Drive, between the Lazier Arcade and the Lodge. The sub -area concepts call for a "pocket park" with benches, planters and snow storage. The objectives of the guide plan are partially fulfilled by upgrading this area by adding landscaping and benches, 2. Pedestrianiz�ation The current proposal will alter pedestrian access to the Lodge. Access between the Lodge and the Lazier Arcade Building on Gore Creek Drive will be encouraged. The main entrance to the bar will be from the Plaza. 3. Vehic4e Penetration ,a No change. 4. Streetsca e Framework Although the proposed addition has no direct frontage on a public street, the proposed facades will eventually be an important part of a very public area in Vail, the Village Plaza. This addition should be carefully integrated into the Plaza and must be able to stand alone without relying on any future improvements—which may or may not come about, S. Street Enclosure no change 6. Street Edge no change 7. -Height The building height of 1313" is well within the height limitations of both the Guide Plan and the zoning code. S. Views There are no designated view corridors that would be influenced by the restaurant addition. One proposed view corridor., originating from Gore Creek Drive through the alley between the arcade and the Lodge to the ski mountain is affected. ■ J Yf r S • Harry's Bar 3- 3/2/82 9. Service and Delivery no change 10. Sun /shade The eastern edge of Harry's Bar will be within five feet of the greenhouse of the Hong Kong Cafe, Harry's Bar will cast a shadow over the bar area of the cafe. C. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Park ing The applicant will be required to pay a parking fee before the issuance of a building permit. The.fee will be calculated using the seating capacity of the new restaurant and the square footage of the meeting room. RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends approval of the project with throe conditions: 1. The applicant should pay for all improvements to both entrances to the bar, including the entrance from the Plaza as well as the mini -park off of Gore Creek Drive, 2. The street lights along the entrance walkways should be the same type as those purchased by the Town for Vail Village. 3. The applicant should agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district when one is formed.for the Village area. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, March 22, 1982 3:00 p.m. 1,; Approval of minutes of meeting of March 8, 1982. 2. Request for a rezoning of lot 2, block 5, Intermountain, to rezone from Residential Cluster to Low Density Multi- Family to allow the construction of two units. Applicant: Richard Torrisi. 3. Request for a conditional use permit to construct an office building on the existing Texaco Station site at 953 South Frontage Road West in a Heavy Service Zone district. Applicant: M & W Venture. 4. Request for an amendment to Special Development District 4 to increase the allowable gross floor area within professional and business offices. Applicant: Andrew Norris, 5. 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, Richard Brown. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 22, 1982 0 PRESENT Scott Edwards Will Trout Duane Piper Dan Corcoran Diana Donovan Jim Morgan Jim Viel e STAFF Dick Ryan Peter Patten Jim Sayre Peter Jamar Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3.10 by Dan Corcoran., - chairman, 1. Approval,. of minutes of March $, 1982, Betsy asked for the name of the person who moved to table item 3and was told that it was Scott. With this correction.-Scott moved and Diana seconded to approve the corrected minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor with Dan abstaining. 2. Jim Sayre reviewed the memo elaborating more with the use of a map describing the easements;-the flood plain and the existing foundation, Dick Ryan added that it was Council policy not to upzone land —that they had voted to d n upzoning. i Dick Torrisi, the applicant explained that he had misunderstood the staff, that he thought he had been encouraged to ask for the rezoning, He added that he felt that this was an undeveloped island between two high density projects, and that no one would put a single family home on it. He felt that the existing foundations and the other items on the lot such as boulders made this lot an eyesore. Richard DeGette, the architect showed.a model of the neighborhood and stated that there was very little impact on the neighborhood with this duplex. Jim Sayre pointed out that the applicant might consider Primary /Secondary with one employee unit, Torrisi explained that he wasn't interested in pursuing that. He added that the foundation in place was to be for 10 units. Dick Ryan pointed out that with the County RSM zoning of i unit per 8,000 square feet., only a single family dwelling could have been built on the lot. Dan read into the minutes that a letter had been received from Jo Caple� -a resident of one of the neighboring units expressing displeasure and pointing out that the parking was going to be a problem. DeGette restated the fact that even with a duplex on the lot, it was still much lower in density than the surrounding property, The parking easement was discussed, with Torrissi explaining that he had the right to the easement, Further discussion took place concerning a possible agreement to restrict one unit to employee housing, However, no agreement could be reached. Scott moved and Dan seconded to deny the request to rezone lot 2, -blk 5, Intermountain as per staff memo dated 3/17/82, The vote was 5�-2 with Jim M &.Jim V against, . Jim V felt that this was a special case, especially with the high density around it, • • U 3. ex i s ue&t for a condi-t Peter Patten for the new session, Th only minimum were not ver aco-Statron,s, pp cant . 77 PLC -2 .3/22/82 I use permit to construct an office build.ing on the at, 963 South Frontue Road st An"\.a Reav Seryac explained the memo and stated that the Texaco site was the catalyst arterial business district.which.had been tabled at the previous council e current request was within the heavy service district, He added that development standards were listed in the zoning code, -and that they y stringent,--,;nor were they set up for an office.building. Jim Morgan • ;one of the applicants, explained the project and handed out two papers with statistics listed comparing the proposed structure with what could have been allowed on the site, - stating that he and his partner,-,Al Williams,, felt that this was a considerable down zone and an up grading of the property. He added that there was little surface parking and there was much landscaping. He added that one couldn't discuss the hypothetical zone. He also stated that there would be no retail space, only offices in the building, that the building would appear to be only 2 stories from the Interstate, Discussion followed concerning the transition from 5.6 stories in Lionshead. The scale and mass of the building were a concern to many. Steve Isom,,,the architect, explained the site plan including the acceleration /deceleration lanes,, -,and the fact that they were based on highway codes, He added that these were the first being built on the Frontage Road, and that even the parking structures did not have them. He added that he felt that the scale was correct in light of the Mark, Simba Run, - Breakaway West and Glen Lyon office building, He stated that the building would be below the level of tree coverage, -and would appear to be 1-1/2 stories from the Interstate. Diane expressed concern about the bulk, She asked about snow removal and about turn- around space for cars entering the surface parking. She was concerned that the snow would be pushed into the Red Sandstone Creek. Isom explained that there were flat areas around the building that could be used for snow storage, and that the ramp was heated, Duane expressed the wish that the project would be presented under SDD He added that he would have liked to see a variety in the roof line even though it wasn't required, He felt that it contributed to the feeling of mass as it was being presented. Scott questioned the conditional use, and Dick answered that under the Heavy Service development standards the office could only be a conditional use, not a use by right. Dick also added that only business offices could located in the building, not pro- fessional offices because of the restrictions in the Heavy Service District. Dan stated that when the arterial business zone was being discussed, it was felt that 60% site coverage was adequate. He agreed with the staff as to the size and bulk of the building. Diana expressed concern that the building would appear too large next to whatever could be built on.the Voliter site because it was smaller. Isom replied that because of the size of the Voliter site,--anything built there would have to be two stories, Jim M, reminded them that site coverage could have been 75% in Heavy Service District. Bill Post spoke for the applicant and reminded the board that the proposed zone could not be considered. r PEC -3- 3/22/82 Jim Rea, lessee of the Texaco station at the site, expressed his concern that she is costs per square foot not be too expensive for potential. businesses to lease . Dick Ryan again emphasized that the surrounding buildings, i.e, sewer treatment plant, Glen Lyon office building and others were 1 or 2 stories, Peter P, quoted from the Heavy Service purpose section of the code relating to the fact that Council and PEC` may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences. Post felt that all related questions had been answered. Dick answered that the board had to decide what was best for Vail. Eric Monson and Andy Norris supported the building, with Andy suggesting that there be caution to insure that the surrounding properties did not automatically feel that they could also have the same density, Elliot Alport felt that the 1.04 FAR was common in the core areas and could be handled sensitively, Duane moved and Jim V seconded to approve the request for a conditional use to con- struct an office building in a Heavy Service Zone District at the existing Texaco site on the South Frontage Road per the staff memo dated March 15, 1982. The vote was 4.2 in favor with Dan and Diane voting against it, and Jim M abstaining, 4,, Request for an amedment to Special Development District ,g,ro§:s_ I troor area a_..ow - ` wi i n t e en: Lyo n' Office Ku" to increase the allowable in4. pp Mant'Andy Norris Peter Jamar explained the memo and added that the percentage of site coverage was not being changed, but that the increase was within the existing building, • After discussion, Scott moved and Will seconded to approve the request to increase the allowable gross floor area within the Glen Lyon office building, The vote was 6 -0 with Jim V abstaining, This item was to go to the Council April 6. 5, Re u�est for a.rezonin ,of lots 1 through 5 Cliffside subdivision from Residential is7 _tiilc't to ing- e -Fami_y District. Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl mourns, T 'chard Brown, Peter Patten explained the previous action leading up to this request. The applicants were not at the meeting, and Peter described various efforts to get in touch with their attorney to no avail, Since there were in the audience several people interested in the outcome'of the proposal, it was decided to go:ahead with the hearing. Peter P, explained that the staff was in favor of the request only if the condition on the memo were included. The staff's reasons were the steepness of the sites, the size of the lots, and the fact that when The Ridge was being developed, one restriction placed on The Ridge was that the homes be pulled back from the ridge so that they did not sit on top of it, The discussion that followed concerned access problems and what restrictions could be placed on the development -df lots 4 and 5, Craig Snowdon; - architect representing • PEC -4a 3/22/82 the Ridge at Vail owners,showed a survey study and sections which showed various grades and explained the difficulty with keeping within the Town requirement of an 8% grade on the roads, He added that the owners of the Ridge were not concerned with square footage requested, but were very concerned with access, Various solutions were discussed. Will questioned whether the Planning Commission could impose restrictions on someone's land on a rezoning. Dick answered'that they waul,d have to amend the zoning in order to add restrictions, Duane moved to approve the request to rezone Cliffside Subdivision, lots 1 -5 from existing Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential with the following restriction: That no structure,A mprovement or increased grade occur at a height greater than the existing elevation at any point on the back property line which is the common property line with The Ridge at Vail subdivision, Will seconded and the vote was 5 -0 in favor with Dan and Jim Morgan abstaining, l�.J • 10 itW6 )R.1101 oil) 6 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: March 16, 1982 SUBJECT: Request to rezone Cliffside Subdivision, Lots 1 -5, from existing Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl R. Burns, Richard N. Brown BACKGROUND On December 14, 1981 the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended unani- mously to Town Council that Cliffside Subdivision, Lots 1 -5, be rezoned to Single Family Residential. There was concern from several commissioners that views from The Ridge at Vail Townhomes not be blocked by development on lots 4 and 5 of Cliff - side. However, the Planning. Commission generally felt that this view question could be handled at the Design Review Board level. On January 5, 1982 the Town Council considered on first reading Ordinance #1, Series of 1982- -the ordinance to rezone Cliffside. Craig Snowdon, project architect for The Ridge at Vail townhomes spoke at the meeting about his concern.that the development on lots 4 and 5 of Cliffside take place down the hill enough so that views from the townhomes would not be affected, especially since the single family district allowed the structures to be sited with more flexibility. The Council passed the ordinance unanimously with the direction to staff to include language regarding the protection of views from the townhomes. After the January 5 meeting of Council, it was discovered that the applicants had given incorrect information regarding the owner and address of the adjacent property, thus insufficient public notice had taken place. Public notice was going to be waived by The Ridge at Vail representatives if a mutually agreeable solution to the view issue could be arrived at. Craig Snowdon then conducted a view analysis using possible sites for structures under both RC and SFR zoning. it was discovered at this point that very little thought went into the design of the subdivision with regard to access for both lots 4 and 5. The study showed that to meet 8% driveway grade restrictions that the garage structures would be very high on the ridge and seriously affect almost every view from the townhome units. At this point it was decided that the matter should go back through the process so that correct public notice could be given and so that the view question could be more completely considered by the Planning Commission. Enclosed is the previous memorandum with the recommendation deleted. The new re- commendation is as follows: Cliffside Rezone -2- 3/16/82 RECOMMENDATION The Staff has carefully considered the view analysis completed by Mr. Snowdon. We feel for two reasons that the results of that study dictate an alternative access to lots 4 and 5 is a necessity. First, when The Ridge at Vail was going through approval processes in Eagle County the Town Staff recommended that the units be pulled back off the top of the ridge so that they "peek" over the ridge, not set on top of it. Sound land use and site planning principles always dictate the structures should not impose.upon ridge -tops so.that they protrude above them. Aesthetically., this is unpleasing and indicates little sensitivity to developing with constraints of topography. Our recommendation was included in the approvals for The Ridge, and the plan was accordingly adjusted. In a similar light, we would not want structures constructed.on lots 4 and 5 to protrude upon this very same ridgeline. Due to the existing elevation of the cul -de -sac by which access to lots 4 and 5 must come off of, the protusion upon the ridgeline by garage structures is almost inevitable, according to the view study. Secondly, the views from the units at The Ridge should be protected. These are existing units sited solely to take advantage of the spectacular views of the valley and the Gore Range. The intrusion upon these views by the garage structures which could be built on the top of lots 4 and-5, if access is from the top, would be inevitable. It would not be fair to the present and future owners of these units to allow such degradation-of the views which the project has tried to hard to design fox. Thus, the Staff recommends that the rezoning for Cliffside, lots 1-5 be approved with the following condition: 1. All improvements on lots 4 and 5 be limited to locating on the lower portion of the 1ots.so that no structure protrudes into the views of The Ridge at Vail townhomes. • • i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: December 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Cliffside Subdivision, lots 1 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 ail. There were no other similar subdivisions in the surrounding area of Cliffside. T'he.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 -S and G -6) and the GY lot (zoned for 30 units). To the immediate west, across Lionsridge Loop and on top of the ridge is Ridgecrost,'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 I through S are non -- conforming in terms of minimum lot size for RC, as they will be in 'Single Family (but to a lesner extent) . The enclosed chart. compnring RC to SK, combined with the table on statistics for lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, and S will help to understand the situation. The main differences are throe: 1, SRI allows approxim.atoly an avorago increase in GRFA of 647 sq ft per lot.. lei lli S,1,UG —.�— s DIFFERENCE IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL CLUS`T`ER AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Min. Lot Size .15,000 sq ft area 12,500 buildable area 8,000 sq ft min. buildable Setbacks Front -20 ft, Front -20 ft, Sides and Rear, 15 ft Sides and Rear, 15 ft Height Flat roof -301, sloped -33' Flat roof- 301,sl.opod- 33' Density Control 25% of buildable area 25% of 1st 12,500 sq ft site area, +100 over 12,500 Site Coverage 25% of site 20% of site Landscaping Minimum 60% of site Minimum 60% of site i Parking 2 spaces /unit, no front 2 spaces /unit setback parking, I covered space unit if required by DRB per Slope restrictions' No building on 40, or more No slope-restrictions slopes, 400 or more slope relating to GRFA or unit areas subtracted from allowable siting units and GRFA J � 0 0 Cliftside -2- 12/9/61 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 an an average slope of 30% or more, the garage to be located without a front setback requirement. • �I L1s 1 � o m o � D J a V 0. Q. b p UI_ rAI_Gl1 ul TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 15, 1982 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit request to construct an office building in a Heavy Service Zone District at the existing Texaco site on the South Frontage Road., west of Vail Lionshead. Applicant: M & W Venture BACKGROUND This property has been the catalyst force for the proposed Arterial Business District, The owners wish to build an office building on the property this building season. They feel that this application now needs to be made under the existing heavy service district because the Arterial Business District has not yet been adopted, and they need Town approval, soon if construction is to occur this year. The purpose section of the Heavy Service Zone District reads: "The heavy service district is intended to provide sites for automotive - oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts, Because of the nature of the uses permitted and .their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating automotive and truck traffic, all uses in the heavy service district are subject to the conditional use permit procedure. In giTanting a conditional use permit, the planning commission or the town council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences." One of the conditional uses listed is business offices. THE PROPOSAL The proposal entails three levels of office space with two levels of underground parking. 40,698 gross square feet are proposed with the following statistics: Total Lot Size: 39,204 square feet or .9 acre Total Square Feet of Building: 40,698 square feet or 1.04 Floor Area Ratio Building Coverage: 14,560 square feet or 37% Impervious Materials Coverage: 7,250 square feet or 18% Landscaping: 17,719 square feet or 45% Parking Required (approximate): 109 spaces Parking Proposed: 134 spaces (124 underground) Height Proposed: 38 feet - maximum in Heavy Service District r� • • Texaco Office -2- 3/15/82 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: Consideration�of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. One of the Staff's current objectives is to create a new zone district for this site and the surrounding area to allow these sites to redevelop into aesthetically pleasing office and commercial properties while allowing the "public and semi- public uses " existing to locate there as well. We feel that this district should be responsive to community needs with regard to not only the uses which locate there but also to the desired density and scale of development which is appropriate for the location. Although this proposal comes.through the approval process under the Heavy Service District, the plans for, the new Arterial Business District should not be ignored. There has taken .place a considerable amount of study and discussion concerning the new district and what this area should be in the future. The development objectives to judge this project, then, should generally follow the objectives desired in the Arterial Business District. One of the development standards being very carefully considered for the new district is the amount of square footage which could be constructed in the new district. The staff will propose a Floor Area Ratio .(FAR) for the new district which will limit each site to a certain.maximum amount of floor area. The exact number has not yet been determined, but there is no question that we feel that a FAR of 1.04 (as proposed) is too high. If each site in the arterial business zone were allowed 1.04 FAR, the total square footage possible would be 457,552 square feet. This amount of square footage is very high and would simply not be in the best interest of the community. The Staff feels that limiting density in an overall sense is an extremely important development objective for the Town, and we don't feel that this proposal fits in with that objective. The use of the site for business offices is appropriate. There is a need for good office space in the Town, and this close -in area is well- suited for offices. The staff considers that the heavy service district was not originally written to deal with office buildings. The first sentence of the purpose section states that the district's intention is to provide sites for automotive - oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. Offices are appropriate and in many cases permitted uses in all other commercial districts, Thus, the heavy service distract has made provisions for more restrictive standards than those listed (which are very non-restrictive). The Staff's point is that the use is fine in the proposed location, but the scale and mass of the building is too great, LI • • Texaco Office 3- 3/15/82 The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans ortation facilities, utilities, schools parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilstv6s and, public facilities needs Upon construction of several of these sites as office and commercial, increased bus service may be required to adequately serve the area. Also, the staff feels . there should be an extensive effort by all developers along Red Sandstone Creek to upgrade and improve the creek bank with landscaping and other park facilities to make this an attractive physical feature of the area. Effects upon traffic with particular reference to congestion automotive and edestii,,air safety, and convenience, traffic flow7 and control, access, maneuverabili and removdl,,, o£ snow from, the street and par ing areas . Another major concern.about the redevelopment of this area is the increased traffic the new uses will generate. This area is currently not without some traffic congestion at times due to the VA service yard, Glen Lyon office building and the two service stations. The Staff expresses its.concern over a 40,000 square foot office building being added to the area with regard to the traffic situation. The proposal does include acceleration and deceleration lanes, but they do not appear to be of sufficient lengths The location of the surface parking and ramp down to the underground parking appears that it would work. However, the 10 space surface parking lot doesn't meet interior or perimeter landscaping require- ments and does not provide a back�in area for the two northerly spaces to turn around. The snow storage area may be inadequate, as well. Effect H2on the character of the area in which the 2roposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. As mentioned in an earlier section of this report, the staff feels the scale and bulk of the proposal is too much. The office building's scale would simply overwhelm the other structures in the vicinity (i.e. Voliter Nursery, Glen Lyon Office Building, Chevron and the sewer treatment plant). The staff also feels the elevations proposed do not fit in with Vail's general architectural character. The building's appearance contains little variety for its large mass, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems a l#able to the 2r22osed use, T' The envirnonmentai impact report concerning the impact report is required by Chapter 1856. No E,I,R has been required, ,,'S'rAFF RECOMMENDATION ed uses if an environmental The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be denied based on the following findings: That the proposed use would not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional -use criteria detailed above. Texaco Office -4- 3/15/82 The staff's opinion is specifically in regard to the fourth factor - -scale and bulk of the building and the third factor relating to traffic. We feel that the building proposed attempts to do too much with the site. The square footage proposed is not in keeping with the objective of limiting densities within the Gore Valley. The additional traffic generated by this size office building may overwhelm the area and preclude other properties from reasonable redevelopment. Although the proposal is a good one with regard.to the significant percentage of underground parking provided and the percentage of site proposed to be land- scaped, we feel strongly that the.proposal should be significantly scaled down to be more compatible with.density and scale of building objectives and traffic considerations. I 7-A • C7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 17, 1982 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to rezone a part of Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision from residienti.al cluster to low density multiple - family. Applicant: Richard M. Torrisi SUMMARY The applicant wishes to upzone the property from Residential Cluter (RC), which would allow one unit on the lot, to Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF), which would allow two units on the lot. DESCRIPTION OF LOT AND SURROUNDING AREA The developable area on this lot is severely constrained by easements and flood - plain. There is a 20 foot parking easement at the front of the lot. On the west side of the lot a pedestrian easement encroaches 5 feet into the lot. Two feet of the eastern end of the Flussheim building lies in the lot. More than a third of the southern end of the lot is occupied by a pedestrian and utility easement. An existing sewer.Line is contained in this easement. Approximately 2,200 square feet.-of this 14,500 square foot lot is taken up by the Gore Creek £loodplain. The eastern portion of this lot contains another utility easement. An abandoned foundation sits on top of the sewer easement. Useable lot area for development is approximately 2,800 square feet. High density projects exist to the east and west of the lot. Duplex lots appear to the south on the other side of Gore Creek, Interlochen condominiums, with 39 units, is to the east of the lot. To the west is Flussheim condominiums, with 10 units. The frontage road and Interstate 70 are to the north. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The following table compares some of the development statistics for this lot under current zoning and requested zoning: Current Requested Zoning Zoning Zone RC LDMF Units Allowed on Lot 1 2 Square Feet of Structure 3,067 3,681 Setbacks Front 20' 20' Sides 15' 20' Height 33, 38' • Lot 2, B1k 5, Interm. -2- 3/17/82 r Under the requested zoning, the building envelope would be smaller than under the current zoning bacause of the more restrictive side setback requirements in the LDMF zone. Under the requested LDMF zone the building envelope is 2803 square feet. Under the current zone the building envelope is 3,882 square feet. The current zoning requires two on -site parking stalls; if a duplex were built four stalls would be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the upzoning request because of the physical limitations of the lot and because such a rezoning would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Town, which discourage overcrowding of the land with structures. Two units are not suited for this site. The LDMF zone would allow 617 additional sq, feet of GRFA and would require two additional parking stalls over and above what would be allowed under the RC zone. Given the easements and setback requirements the upzoning would overcrowd the lot. In addition the requested upzoning is inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town. In 1977 the Town Council adopted a growth management policy which substantially downzoned several areas in Vail. In the last few years the Town has also been purchasing land for open space which has removed hundreds of potential units from the market. Also, the zoning code is intended to achieve several purposes, one of °th6m is to "prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures." An increase of density on this lot would be inconsistent with the development goals and objectives of the community. We realize that the lot is surrounded on two sides with higher density units. But this lot is so severely constrained by its small size, small building envelope, setbacks, easements, floodplain and parking requirements that the surrounding high density does not justify the rezoning of the lot. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 16, 1982 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Special Development District 4- Cascade Village /Glen Lyon. Applicant: Andy Norris THE REQUEST Andy Norris is requesting an amendment to Section.18.46.050 of Special Development District 4 to allow an increase in floor area for use as professional and business office space in development area D. Specifically, the request is to increase the allowable square footage for use as office space within the Glen Lyon Office Building by approximately 3000 square feet. The space is currently being utilized as storage space. BACKGROUND At the time SDD4 was adopted in 1977, a maximum of 10,000 square feet was designated to be allowed for use as office space within the project. In 1980 the Glen Lyon Office Building was constructed at a gross area of 13,000 square feet, 10,000 of which is currently utilized as office space. The applicant wishes to convert approximately 3,000 square feet of storage area to office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the use of the 31000 square feet as office space. The limit of 10,000 square feet initially applied to the site seems somewhat arbitrary, and the site is able to accommodate the additional use of space as office. The area of the site is 75,794 square feet. Thus, the floor area ratio proposed is 17 %, a figure which the staff feels is acceptable. The building including the additional space to be used as office, is required to have 43 parking spaces and one loading space, which is well below the 58 parking spaces and 2 loading spaces which currently exist. Therefore., the site can handle the additional parking and loading requirements of the proposal, Concerning the exterior design of the building, there will be no modification other than the addition of one small window. In summary, the staff believes that the conversion of the space currently designated as storage to office use will not have any negative impacts upon the site or adjacent properties and should be approved. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 12, 1982 2:30 p,m, Site Inspection 3:00 p.m. 1, Approval of minutes of meeting of March 22. 2. Request for a rear setback variance of 7.5 feet to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on lot 17, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Richard Lloyds 3. Request to amend Section 18.36.030 of the Vail Municipal Code to include as a conditional use in the Public Use District a helipad for emergency and /or community use. Applicant: Town of Vail r-I �-A • s 0 u • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 12, 1982 PRESENT STAFF Duane Piper PIeter Jamar Will Trout Peter Patten Dan Corcoran Dick Ryan Jim Vie1e Betsy Rosolack Scott Edwards Diana Donovan COUNCIL REP -,:-ABSE -NT Jim Morgan Hermann Staufer The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m, by Dan Corcoran, chairman. 1, Approval of minutes of meeting of March 22. Dan noted that in item no, 3, Dan and Diana voted against this measure, Scott Edwards stated that he made the motion in item No, 4. Jim moved and Scott seconded to approve the minutes with the noted changes. The vote was 5,0 in favor. 2. Retest for`a�. rear set-,back variance of 7,, 5 feet to allow the construction of -a spin le' '1 dw' on•ot�7 V-aT ,1a1 e 3rd F, in , ��ant:_, ,c ar Ll ands Peter Jamar showed the plot plan and reviewed the memo,, pointing out that the members had just visited the site. He suggested that perhaps one condition which could be 'a part of approval would be not to allow any further encroachment to the front of the lot, Gordon Pierce, - architect representing Mr. and Mrs. Lloyds, explained that the lot had many restrictions with the avalanche hazard on the east and the setbacks, He added that one reason for asking for the variance was to enable the house to be shifted slightly, He emphasized that there would be an abundance of planting and existing trees to screen the house from the street. The comments from the sta corridor for the property should be made toward the the rear setback variance staff memo and as per the abstaining, Ff were favorable, in light of the preservation of the view to the west with agreement that no further encroachment front of the lot. Will moved and Duane seconded to approve of 7.5 feet for lot 17, -Vail Valley 3rd Filing as. per the drawings submitted, The vote was 5 -0 in favor with Dan 3. Re guest to amend Section 18.36.030 of the Vail Munici al Code to include as a,con ittona use in —the ,Pu is se District a heli a for timer enc and/or community use. App- icant: Town of Vail Dick Ryan explained that there was pressure on the police and the fire departments when a helicopter had to land in an emergency. He explained that the amendment was the first step. Later the staff would come back with recommendations on specific sites, Hermann Staufer felt that the helipad should be for emergencies only, PEC 4/12/82 Peter Jamar stated that the area west of the post office seemed suitable because it was close to the hospital, He added that the Highway Department would let the town use it on a one year trial basis and for emergency use only. Jim Vieie moved and Will seconded to recommend to the Council an amendment to Section 18,36,030 of the Vail Municipal Code to include as a conditonal use in the Public Use District a helipad for emergency and /or community use. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Diane moved and Dan seconded to adjourn the meeting at 3:29 p,m. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 13, 1982 SUBJECT: Request for two revisions to a Public Use District for the Applicant: Town of Vail RAr.KnPniiNn an approved conditional use permit in proposed Town of Vail Library. The proposed Town of Vail library was given unanimous approval under the conditional use permit process in a PUD zone District on November 24, 1980. Public buildings and grounds are a conditional use in the PUD zone. The development standards and uses in such a process are set upon approval of a specific plan. Thus, revisions to the approved plan require new approval by the PEC before implementation. Included for your reference is the previous memo from Community Development to PEC. THE REQUEST There are two requests for revisions to the plan. First, the use of the space on the lower level west end of the building is now proposed to be the teen center, originally approved as three employee apartments. A major amenity to the library and the Dobson Ice Arena will be the new plaza planned in between these two structures. Currently, the teen center occupies an area which is planned to be the plaza, and it is necessary for the building to be removed. To replace this much needed facility, it is requested that it be put into the area originally planned for employee housing. The Town feels that the teen center is an important facility to retain and, at this time, this request represents the most viable solution. At a later date, it is planned to construct a new teen center at which time this space can be converted to employee dwelling units. The second request is to relocate the library building itself a distance of 4' directly east. This is necessitated due-to the feeling of saving several large trees is very important for the site. Thus, moving the library east will allow for an enjoyable wooded site as well as more area for utilities on the west side. Also, one of the problems which has been encountered in planning the library has been the drainage. The area presents some difficult drainage situations, and by moving the structure as proposed, the drainage is improved. • Library -2- 4/13/82 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The request does not change this factor from the previous memo - -refer to memo of 11/21/80. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. As stated above, the revision to the building location will allow a more viable utility and pedestrian area. The library is obviously a much needed public facility, as is the teen center. Effect The revision will improve the pedestrian safety and convenience in the area as well as improve traffic flow and control. • 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. As the site has already been approved for a public facility use, the teen center fits in well with that regard. The scale and bulk of the building are not changing from previously approved plans. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. � The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. TM No E.I.R. is required. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of t-he 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 in injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • Library -3- 4/13/82 That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Sthis ordinance. We feel the teen center should not be lost and that the proposed location is a good one. There is a need for employee housing, obviously, but the removal of these units will be temporary (until a new teen center can be constructed). The relocation of the library will provide a more viable utility and pedestrian area which is definitely a benefit for this entire new municipal project. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Envirorjm(.,nt-al Co lw ii_ssion - 0 FROM: Department of Community Development � 11"P., i DATE: November 21, 1980 RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Construction of a library building South of the John Dobson Ice Arena. DESCRIPTION OF USE: Proposed is a library building containing 16,170 square feet of library uses and three employee housing units. The library design was selected by Town Council last January, and the Council, Town Librarian and architect: have been refining interior plans and exterior materials for the past few months. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Upon review of Section 18.60.060 of the Zoning Regulations, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use request based on the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use of develo ment objectives of the Town: The site where the library is proposed was one of the three or four areas studied for this use a couple of year ago. At that time, it was determined the site across from the Dobson arena was the best location., The library use will be on one level with the employee housing units at the lower level to the west. The effect of the use on li ht and air, distribution of-population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and ublic facilities needs. There should be no effect on these factors. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, includin the scale and bulk of the pr2posed use in relation to surrounding uses; The library building is a low profile structure that will look like a landscaped area from the north. Effect u on traffic with 2 articular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabilit , and removal of snow from the street and 2arking areas: Parking for the staff of the library and employee housing units will be provided east of the Dobson Arena. People who will use the library have the opportunity to use the bus service that has a bus stop directly in front of the library, walk to the library or park at the new Lionshead Parking Center. r. , .PLC -- Library 2 -- 11- 21--80 FINDINGS AND RNC:OMME'NDAT "CONS: The Community Development Department recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approvod based upon the factors stated above. The building does fit into the environment surrounding the site. In addition, this site has been determined as the future library site for flail. I� Pi MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 8,'1982 RE: Request for a rear setback variance of 7.5 feet on Lot 17_, "Vail Valley Third Filing. Applicant: Richard Lloyds DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The required setback for lots within the Primary /Secondary zone district is fifteen feet, The applicant wishes to encroach into the setback with a portion of the proposed single family dwelling. (See attached site plan.) The applicant's reasoning for the variance request is to "permit sufficient flexibility to better site the house among the trees, permit a better view from the house; -- permit more planting between the road, driveway and house, . as well as permit a better view corridor for the neighboring property to the west (lot 18)" (see attached diagram). CRITERIA AND FIRYINGS Upon _review of Criteria and Findin s�.,Section 18,62.060 of�the Municipal Code, th- eDe artmIewt of Commuftlt ,Devei o ment recommends approval of the requested variaance,N,b s u on tt h�e fo -1 owing factors: ConsWe'ration of Factors The relationshi pofthe requested variance to other existin2 or potential uses and structures in th e vicinrty. The lot upon which the variance is requested is located at the end of Sunburst Drive on the south side of the street, The lots to the north of the street are occupied by existing Primary /Secondary duplexes and single family residences, The land to the east and south of the lot are National Forest lands and the lot to the west is a vacant Primary /Secondary lot. The variance requested would have a positive effect upon adjacent properties in a number of ways, Due to constraints,--,,the placement of a structure is quite restricted to the south- western corner of the property, The eastern portion of the lot is within both high and moderate hazard avalanche zones, and the lot is extremely narrow, being • 108` at the widest point and only 45' at the narrowest, = averaging about 60` Lloyds -2- in width over the 310 foot length. The actual buildable area of the 19:,641 square foot lot is 4,965 square feet. Siting the house to the rear of the property • permits the possibility of leaving more of the existing vegetation between the house and roadway (which is heavily used for access by bikers using the golf course bike path which begins at the end of the cul -de "sac at the east end of the property) and preserving the ability of the owner of the adjacent lot to site a building so as to provide excellent views of the Gore Range without destroying the views from the existing duplex to the west of that lot. The adjacent National Forest property to the rear will not be negatively impacted, and the staff has received a letter from the Forest Service stating that they have no objections to the granting of a variance, ,The degree `which relief frog` the strict ar literal- interpretation and enforce- m nt o _b_cT ied re - anon is necessary\, to ar 1eve com atibiI it an uni ormi of`treatment4m� sites i,n the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this fff ew ut r-ant`:oT\s ecia rigillege, The purpose section of the zoning code states that the zoning regulations are intended to achieve specific purposes. Among these purposes are to "encourage a harmonious, - convenient, workable relationship among land uses" and "to safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town." The staff believes that by preserving the neighbors` views and allowing more area for landscape screening along a heavily used public way,;-.,the request is in compliance with the objectives of the zoning code. The property does have some physical building constraints (configuation of the lot and avalanche hazards) not common to other properties within the area which make it a difficult lot upon which to build without encroaching into potential views from the adjacent property, The granting of the variance would result in a workable relationship between properties. �h - effec, god' -t��re ue yariance on li ht and air, distribution of population, trans " atT i�` rt l �ira�f�ac�i' it es, = ubl�\! ci ties and uti ities, and pub i cis -et, r. There will be no negative impacts upon the above. Such other factors` aid criteria, as 'the commission deems_ aRpl icable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The. P•li3riinironmental ' ammissiod shall make the following findings T- z-�- -, .t �. bef ore. grari na�varrance 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. • Lloyds ,.3- That the variance is warranted for the following reason There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, STRF F,-RtCOMMENDP4 iOM The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested setback variance, The preservation of the views from the adjacent site, and the ability to preserve existing trees between the house and the street provide positive qualities in the development of the site, and the staff can see no negative impacts which would result from the granting of the setback variance, Although a structure of this size could be constructed upon the site within the required setbacks4��,we feel that the flexibility provided by granting the rear setback variance is beneficial to the adjacent properties and the surrounding area, 0 • yy�R : ,� • ,z � r K' ar tru '}'a,+' - Cam" � "V � 4 s,r, f �� "� � fy. �.. `; '•� � : t,� >< Z a '"s" j s� '�3 ' `"' ''a y{t •.a` y � CA � ; O� �. - t l -,},�'�� e :'� r� s' �' -- 1 "k.- !, v1 _a #i• ? f .rrc� � r -5 -^ �� ^t .. ".�'��% {,� �t i:�}:S. r � It �E r6'� y� � '' Ci.F ��^:iiC � r � :s. � s��- •1�� •%s y'is � - L~ � � �' ,y" � � , tr Y1 a., ��.' , j � a ! Y�.'!� ' �' � �'' • _ a�� ` 3 � .e. -�� {z A !'' R. � �'i} : �i. )�6f iY �? _,u.*yt.m c s r� F` r • - -Y� i *Y'F"�tit`�"r Ftin��v{ � f�vM'N -_ �,�r.,qr r� �3''`�' C� ':1 ?i. '' �,�y"'+•�jy"�" t ♦ 2f �� TFh Y.•yt.� -0 A- 7 "YA 'i`'rij 1 wS °J {`•.` x's O - .,c.- wj+•�' Y ••'° V�+{}.�^`- p�,(yi�y {� 't 4 ^. '�� +.Y� 4 „ L AIY� ft�1 #� !Yr -�.• ✓� r. X �¢ dJ'i 'a. � � M ''�� i T �� f �_ �'i- .�_il�^r'�� Cr '.+. � �- If r �. •.�a� -.: 's, - #�j � i'S+✓'t ' � �, � • r ��f � 1 �;i i TS`d r s '. :,4 ':� - ''�. - - r �, '14 -s. r� °" • .mss .a. ►s\ -rr. �'� - f_y,F�4-` r .l. '+,-� 4 t a s:. it ]S�'rS ..�`4 ^.` 'y // r t w.• .4y..s� F t _ '.w�„r•- "# ,aS- 'i -, - r a# - �A• y ^.rT ;�. ,+ r ,�i ' >�,-"' r} � fi ;r'y .a'± ,. ,_'- s �r _ I'� J � �,� •-tom', �' ~ -fr -a fit.. ��Q. ' ! tr Y •S a�.Ilk iN f 1��> �. 4 -< S 1r.F N� -,. � sir.. A: 13 - if '1f' 7' • -. +�s� � as„�E �� y� �r fa .•,,y a s f 1� A r�, a* �' ��ft� �` �,y�' r �•''cr, u ., � Si r h,({�� i.f h � w ") �, � s' .}"B• f itJ i.Y'L Y S # � ' _t.. - _ � �. 'r r Yr., _r�u -f r 'tic\•„ to I� F_C - ,1 y` `� Z#�, �• e 7 t+.y A 1.1. r :a?if F.rl •- q<< qj r v n.n � �t _'� t, ''y,� -•'s'' t - 'fir r't- + >x � �.ti. - a tY••�k y'. ,5� ! � �s- a +ti + .vf"�.y Ci.•� ,. s � "� ir_ � 4•y��.r � � ..1�'y a�„ 3• ;1r'`, r .`` � '� r� � .tr'y � r� '1.:,n'� z `y x � ?� x�! x� �- r .4� �.W � _r 4. r ��x� n ��r !�.•.a; *F^C'r.. ,r`9 �.T-�xw nv h;.'.,2A y,y .�i��"^'�� - '•yrr�Y r y".�i r r' Y - �. s�� - w �,� r'\r p zc�• � `�F''�r � i 9j. '- a �� .{,,, w . S �' v" ' $' r •y�.�ay.,.4 sl i�.. ; rs!.'�r y��..[%.Y' !�'3�akn,: ]�i.�.". ur .'r�`� ..n \?'¢ $'�t"d�� r V.� �C �`ia..,r�?'.`w- L„•"/�h -ate "lf .s. s z vy "f ! 11 L � lF I J SCL , VIA- 4 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 5,,-1 982 SUBJECT: Amendment to the zoning code to include as a conditional use in the Public Use District, a heli -pad for emergency and or community use, Applicant: Town of Vail BAC KGRO WD In the past, helicopters have landed in various areas of the town basically with no official approval or thought put into the appropriate location for such a use. This has elicited several complaints from surrounding property owners concerning adverse effects of the landing of a helicopter. This request is to include in the zoning code provisions for the application for a conditional use permit in the Public Use District for a heliwpad for emergency use and for community use. This would allow helicopters to have designated areas to land after conditional use approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. RECOMMENDATJ'ON The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning code to allow as a. conditional use in the Public Use District a helix -pad for emergency and community use. We feel that this amendment to the zoning code is the first step toward provision of suitable locations for he'li- pad use. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 26, 1982 2:30 p.m. Site visit of Library 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of April 12 meeting. 2. Request for 2 variances of the hazard regulations to build a duplex with a 50/50 ratio of floor area on each of lots 3 and 26, highland Meadows Filing 2. Applicants: Robin and Lori Roberts. 3. Request for two revisions to a previously approved conditional use permit plan for the Town of Vail Library. One change is in use of the basement level on the west side from 3 employee units to a teen center. The other change is to relocate the building site slightly toward the west. Applicant: Town of Vail. 4. Public hearing and consideration of revisions to the view corridors and focal points in Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail. 5. Request for condominium conversion on lot 42, Vail Village West Filing #1 for 3 units. Applicant: Dennis Shimon. Published in the Vail Trail April 23, 1982. • • C7 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 26,.,-1982 PRESENT Will Trout Duane Piper Dan Corcoran Jim Viele Diana Donovan ABSENT Jim Morgan Scott Edwards Dan Corcoran., chairman, called the meeting to order, 1. Approval of minutes of April 12 meeting, STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack Dan mentioned that he did not second to adjourn the meeting of 4112. No one else could remember just who did. Duane moved and Jim V seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5.0 in favor 2, Peter P. reviewed the memo and explained that the staff could find no real relationship between the slope of a site and the ratio of floor areas between units, Therefore, since the design of the proposed units were not "mirror image," the staff recommended approval of the requested variances as long as the design of the second unit upon each lot would remain substantially different in design from that of the first unit upon each lot. Will Trout moved and Jim V seconded to approve the request with the design contingency described by the memo and by Peter. The vote was 4-0 in Favor with Dan abstaining. 3, Re ue for two revisions to an approved conditonal use permit in a Public Use. s E t for t.T o7oi)o ed, Town of ai La rare, po icant: Town of Vail Peter Patten described the memo and Steve Patterson answered questions of the commission and audience, The concerns were sufficient drainage, and retaining the teen center. Diana asked if any other sites had been considered for the teen center Viand Steve answered that temporarily, the teen center would be housed in the old town shops. He added that knock -out panels which could change into additional windows, - -and stubbed plumbing would be included in the teen center area of the library to make it easier and less expensive to convert this to employee housing when the teen center is relocated. Pat Kenney, representing the 12 families in the Lionshead Lodge, expressed the concern over having the teen center on the west side, -the noise generated by them; ;the number of teens using the center, and the fact that he hadn't seen PEC 4/26/82 a2- any information relating to a teen center published prior to the bond election, He felt that perhaps the Town should explore moving the center to another site, . Will was concerned about the noise on the west side, Duane questioned the cost to the Town to first make the space into a teen center,. -and then change back into employee housing, Steve said the Town hadn't figured the cost, Duane asked if any space outside were to be used by the teens, and Steve answered that there would be summer use on a patio.about 60 square feet large, -and Pam Hopkins, architect:= stated that the patio was also designed for counseling , Duane asked if soundproofing would be added,.and Steve replied it would be. Duane asked if perhaps there could be an entrance for the teens through the north side to help reduce the noise on the west side, It was explained that this had been considered;.but the mechanical room was in the way, and to have the entrance through the library would mean that the teen center would have to close when the library closed, Will pointed out that there have been some very g and libraries working together,:but that this did He added that 3 surfaces were being created which noise and felt that the teens should enter on the the west side, He referred to opposition to the Frank Cicero dated April 21,1982 to the town, and experiences with teen centers not apply to the outside spaces. made it difficult to curb the north and not be allowed on teen center in a, letter from Peter Patten read from the information printed in the Vail Trail before the election in which the teen center is mentioned. Duane felt that the teen center and library could be a positive mix,-but wished • that the teens didn't have to enter on the west side, Jim V, echoed Duane and felt that it would be nice if the teens could enter at the main entry. Diana stated that in the many times she goes by the teen center each day, it appeared to be one of the quietest buildings in town because teens felt. that it was not cool to use a teen centerk, that it was mostly used by pre - teens, She expressed disappointment that the town was shirking its duty in providing employee housing. Steve Patterson mentioned that the number of teens would be limited because of the occupancy load requirements, and it was his feeling that there would be less noise with a teen center than with employee housing with fewer entrances and limited hours. Ron Byrne from the audience agreed with the combination of uses, but wanted to know if the town had received any estimates on moving the building, Steve answered that it would cost from $40j000 to $60,000 to relocate the building, and that it could not be included in the capital improvements for the next 3 years. Duane moved and Diane seconded to approve the two revisions to the conditional use permit for the proposed town of Vail library as stated in the staff memo with the addition of a 3 year time limit placed on the use of the said space as a teen center. The vote was 3r1 in favor with.Will voting against and Dan abstaining, • PEC 4/26/82 Peter Patten read the proposed new wording, Dan felt that there was a direct contradiction in paragraph 3, After discussion of the new wording, -it was felt that the staff had answered the concerns of the PEC, -but that the PEC wanted one of the town attorneys to work on the wording land then bring the revisions back to the PEC, Will moved and Duane seconded to table the item until the staff could get written directions from the attorney. The vote was 5�0 in favor. More discussion followed concerning when it should be tabled to,, -and it was decided to have a meeting on Monday, May 3 at 3:00 p.m, 5. Re uest tT7, wndominiuur conversion on 1ot42;�-Vai1 Village West Filing #1 for 3 Krt s', Pp�icant: "'Dennis Shimon. Dan said that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting postponement until the May 10th meeting, Will moved and Diana seconded to table until the meeting of May 10, The vote in favor was 570. Duane moved and Will seconded to adjourn the meeting, is • 4. Public heari,n and,consideration of revisions to the view corridors and IS focalvo ' nts i rr Va fl N i I a ge, App i cant : Town of Vail Peter Patten read the proposed new wording, Dan felt that there was a direct contradiction in paragraph 3, After discussion of the new wording, -it was felt that the staff had answered the concerns of the PEC, -but that the PEC wanted one of the town attorneys to work on the wording land then bring the revisions back to the PEC, Will moved and Duane seconded to table the item until the staff could get written directions from the attorney. The vote was 5�0 in favor. More discussion followed concerning when it should be tabled to,, -and it was decided to have a meeting on Monday, May 3 at 3:00 p.m, 5. Re uest tT7, wndominiuur conversion on 1ot42;�-Vai1 Village West Filing #1 for 3 Krt s', Pp�icant: "'Dennis Shimon. Dan said that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting postponement until the May 10th meeting, Will moved and Diana seconded to table until the meeting of May 10, The vote in favor was 570. Duane moved and Will seconded to adjourn the meeting, is • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 14,:1982 SUBJECT: Request for variances for lot 3 and lot 26;- Highland Meadows Filing 2 to allow the construction of two dwelling units each of equal floor area, on each lot instead of limiting the floor area of the secondary unit on each lot to 40% of the maximum GRFA allowable as required by the hazard regulations of the zoning code; Section 18.69.050.J. Applicants: Tri- Mark, Lori and Robin Roberts DESCRIPTION.4F VARIANCE REQUtSTED: The applicants request to build a duplex upon each lot in which the floor areas of each unit are the same (50/50) rather than a Primary /Secondary (60/40) which is required by the hazard regulations of the zoning code, The.hazard regulations state that as one of the restrictions on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty . percent in a Two Family Residential Zone District,,the secondary unit shall not exceed 40 percent of the allowable total GRFA and shall not be substantially similar in design to the primary unit. Both of the subject lots are in excess of 30% and are subject to this provision. The applicants request a variance from this provision to enable them to build straight duplexes (50/50) upon each site. The reasoning for the establishment of Primary /Secondary Zoning was to encourage one smaller possible employee dwelling unit and eliminate inirror.image duplexes having similar designs for each unit, The staff can find no real relationship between the slope of a site and the ratio of floor areas between units, The footprint of the building would be the same regardless of the ratio between units, The designs of the proposed units are not "mirror image." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon` review of Criteria and Fin -din s - Section 18,62-,060 of the Munici al Code theT De artment of Communi. Deveio Sent recommen s.approval of the_requested varia,nce all ,Qwiny_ factors: Consideration of�,factors The re]ationsj of there uest Ad variance, to other,, existing or potential . ,uses and structures 3n It vieinit , There will be no negative impacts upon adjacent properties, uses, or structures, Lots 3 & 26, High Mead -2- . The' d to "ct relief from: the strict ar. l iteral�, inter retation and enforcement o a re I at7�n s neeesSarT to�: ach;� e com t7 Gi 1 i �y�and uniformity o- treatm nt ama tes J n. t e vlcinitY o \attai rithe objectives —0-F -E is TM e witFrou . ra o pecia� pr�v�`e The granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of a special privilege or be contrary to any objectives of the zoning ordinance. The staff cannot find any clear objective in the provision in question and will be amending the zoning code to eliminate this provision. The,effect•of. the requested variance on light and air, distribution•of population trans ortation and,: traffi,(;, T aci 1At� ies pub is facil ities and utiI ities, and pub i c safety. .�'. �.. No impact. Suth other faQtorss and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed �'rINDINGS The. Rlannin .anal EnvirohmentAl\Commission shall make the following findings eT ore, granting variance:: �m That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,•or welfare;.-or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for the following reason: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • SST hEC,QMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the requested variances. There appears to be no apparent reason to require a 60 -40 floor area split on the steeper lots. The design of the second unit upon each lot, however, should remain substantially different in design from that of the first unit upon each lot. If there is agreement on granting these variances, the staff will amend the zoning code to remove the section. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 15, 1982 SUBJECT: Revision to the view section of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan - Design Considerations BACKGROUND The revisions to this section of the Urban Design Guide Plan first came before the Planning and Environmental Commission in November of 1981. The stafi=.presented a proposal at that time which included a two - classification system (major and minor) as well as a photographic documentation of significant view corridors in the Vail Village area. The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that consultation with the Town Council was necessary so that a unified direction could be achieved on this issue. In January at a joint meeting between the PEC and Council, the general feedback indicated concerns with the staff. proposal concerning the difficulty of making the major /minor distinction as well as the attempt to designate all • view corridors with photographs. Since that time, the staff explored legal ramifications of various alternatives for view corridor designation and alteration and presented three options at the April 13 joint meeting with PEG and Council. The general conclusion at that meeting was that the view corridors should have only one classification with criteria for altering each view corridor. PROPOSAL Thus, the staff proposes that the views section of the UDGP read as follows: SECTION G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS 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. r] Views -2- 4/15/82 The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated on the View Corridor Maps (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan) and is photographically documented (photos on file in the Community Development Department). The view corridors depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered exhaustive, there are obviously many other important views too numerous to map. When evaluating a development proposal, first priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views from pedestrian areas generally, whether designated or not. Encroachment into a view corridor may be acceptable upon demonstration that the overall quality of the view is not reduced. Emphasis for constructed improvements should be to frame and enhance the view in an attempt to preserve it. Proposals to protrude directly into a view with a structure or other improvement shall be denied approval. Views of focal points as designated on the view corridor map should be preserved. To demonstrate the impact on views, all submittals should include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch -ups, models, or other simulation techniques. A means of demon- strating in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required by the zoning administrator. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends the above wording as best repre- senting the desires of PEC and Council. We feel that this proposal will require evaluation of the impact on views of a development proposal on a case -by -case basis. The criteria for evaluation should provide a limited amount of direction for an applicant for him to get an idea of whether or not he has a reasonable proposal. Also, this proposal leaves open -ended the number of view corridors as well as requiring on -site examination of view impact by the staff, PEC and Council. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . 0 May 10,-1982 2 :15 Site Inspection 3:00 p.m, 1. Request for a variance from section 18,58,020 in order to build a 13 foot high avalanche wall on lot ll, Bighorn 2nd Addition. Applicant: James C, Shannon 2, Request for a condition use permit in order to install a game parlor at 2161 North Frontage Road, space #6, West Vail Mall, Applicant: Gary MitchellJGame City, -Inc, 3, Request for a conditional use..permit to operate a real estate office . in a heavy service zone district at the Voliter Nursery, 1031 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: Robert Voliter 4. Request for an amendment to the Vail Municipal Code, Section 18,52,100 Parking Requirements to increase the required parking for professional • and business offices, Applicant: Town of Vail 5. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning zode to add a new zone district called Arterial Business for an area west of Vail Lionshead including Vail Associates' west day parking lot., Vail Associates` shop and yard area, -Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation site, -old Town shop site, Chevron site,_�Holy Cross Electric's yard site, Texaco site, Voliter Nursery site and the Glen Lyon office building site, Applicant: Town of Vail 6. Request for condominium conversion on lot 42, Vail Village West Filing #1 for 3 units, Applicant: Dennis Shimon Published in the Vail Trail May 7, 1982 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 10, 1982 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Edwards Jim Sayre Will Trout Peter Patten Diane Donovan Peter Jamar Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Dan Corcoran COUNCIL REP Jim Morgan Chuck Anderson ABSENT Jim Viele Dan Corcoran,- chairman, called the meeting to order and asked for a motion to approve the minutes of April 26. Duane Piper moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve them with a vote of 5-0 (Jim M. hadn't yet arrived). 1, Request for a variance from section 18,58,020 in order to build a 13 foot hidh avalanc a mva on of i orn 2nd Addition. App icant: Shannon Vail Ventures, td Peter Jamar reviewed the memo and Ron Frickel,- engineer for the applicant, explained i the criteria for the wall. He explained that the greater the angle of the wall, the higher the wall..must be. Susan Kitler, owner of lots 8, 9 and 10 voiced her objections to the wall and some concerns, She asked about the landscaping of the wall, and also asked if the wall would be diverting the avalanche to the adjoining lots, She asked that there be an independent study made. Frickel answered that the Mears report did not answer this question. He added that in the report the.avalanche appeared to follow a certain line, but that there was no way to predict this. Jim Shannon,--applicant, answered landscaping questions, stating the intention to plant 4" aspen on the exterior of the wall, and 2 -3" aspen on the interior. He added that the terracing would be only visible from the back side of the building. The walls of railroad ties would be 5' high, and the concrete wall on the ends would be higher. Peter Patten explained that one problem was that there was no comprehensive study made'of the entire ava -lanche.path, that it was uncertain how this lot fit into the avalanche zone as a whole. The PEC members were concerned about the influence the wall might have on the adjoining lots if there were an avalanche, Duane suggested that the building might be shorter,.thus requiring a shorter wall. After more dis- cussion,,the PEC members decided more study of the influence on the adjoining lots was needed and required the applicant to submit a study showing where the runout of the snow would go from this wall, The applicant asked to have the item tabled until the meeting of May 24, Will Trout moved and Edwards seconded to table the is request until the meeting of May 24 as per the applicant's request. The vote was 6°,b in favor of tabling, • • C, 2. Reg pest fps'' ,and Tie' L i tt4 e \ I_,ower , S�.�T PEC 5/10/82 -2- rm4t`in order to install a ame parlor at 'Wes aV i dial etween� Rags to Riches_ li ' t: Gave City, -Inc, Jim Sayre explained the situation adding that the staff had three conditions of approval. He added that he had called lease holders in the area and received neutral comments. Gary Miitchell,_owner and applicant, added that he had visited people in the mall and received favorable comment, He stated that the arcade would have a full time permanent manager and would allow no smoking, drinking or food in the arcade. Mrs, A1len,:a West Vail resident voiced her objection to the arcade, stating that it could have no possible benefit, and that she had considered asking Safeway to remove their amusement machines. She added that her children were constantly scrounging for quarters, she didn't see how the arcade could be continu- ously policed, She felt that an arcade could be in the town core for the tourist children, but should not be in West Vail where it would appeal to the local children. Larry Kalusin of The Great San Francisco Seafood Company supported the arcade as long as there would be full time supervision, He stated that the Avon arcade was not supervised and objected to the lack of supervision. Gary Mitchell, applicant,;,-answering Mrs. Allen, stated that he had teen agers and felt that their supervision was his responsibility. He felt that the environ- ment of the arcade would be similar to the local movie theater. Mrs. Allen answered that she had talked to the local police chief and that he had stated that arcades do attract drugs and drug pushers. After more discussion, the commission members were polled as to their feelings, Piper pointed out that the arcade was in accordance with the ordinance which had gone through months of discussion and public hearings, -and unless the arcade didn't meet the criteria,�he was for it, and approved of the 1 year time period. Trout was against the ordinance, but said that the applicant's request was i,n order. Donovan said that she had talked to Rags to Riches and that they were concerned about the noise,.that they stated they were sometimes bothered by the noise from The Great San Francisco Seafood Company. She added that she wasn't sure Whether this was good for the neighborhood,: though she did feel it would be alright for tourists. Morgan's feelings were that there had already been enough study done, that the PEC could not anticipate problems, but could deal with them when they arose. Corcoran stated that existing ordinances dealt with drugs, liquor and noise and that the one year time period would allow the PEC to reconsider in one year, Scott Edwards abstained from comment because he had an interest in the arcade. Peter Patten reminded the citizens that the arcade ordinance had been under discussion since last November and that the staff had concerns, too, The reason for the one year limitation is that the arcade is in an area not as much oriented to tourists,.but that it may prove to be a good neighbor, PEC 5/10/82 -3w Diana asked about the hours;- -and Mitchell responded that they were thinking of 11 to ll +' -but would fashion the hours to the demand, Patten asked why the office space was so large and reminded Mitchell that the office could not be . used for any other use other than an office for the arcade, Duane Piper moved and Jim Morgan seconded to approve the request for conditional use to install a major arcade in space #6 of the West Vail Mall as presented in the staff memo dated May 5j-�-1982 with the three conditions therein, The vote was 3 -2 in favor with Corcoran, Morgan and Piper for, Donovan and Trout against, and Edwards abstaining. Donovan and Trout felt that the arcade was not in the best interest of Vail. 3. Rew t`\f cr �ohditibnal use, permii\t \to operate a real estate office out of the, eki,st�.ng�fol:iter �iuY'sery lbcat,j7p. A icant: Bob Voliter Peter Patten reviewed the memo, and discussion centered on the fact that there seemed to be no negative impacts. Dan stressed that if, at a later date, there may be a wish to expand, the applicant would have to return with another request. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request. The vote was 5 -O.in favor, (Edwards had left the room.) 4. -. Re uest for an�aendwent to the, Vaij, �Munici al Code, Section 18. 52.100 �a"r rn .'Re i eme is o increase the recauir d pa� r�, in for roffes�sional an,d mess offioepcant:'r�own,oi �[a�" Peter Patten requested that this item be tabled until May 24. Trout moved and Piper seconded to table. The vote was 54 in favor of tabling. (Edwards out of room.) 5, Proposed. A �etijjJ ,siness Zone (Jim Morgan-was one of the applicants, and therefore did not participate as a PEC member,) Peter Patten reviewed the memo and went over the 6 major changes, Then the members reviewed the changes proposed by the staff. Patten suggested that 18.27,070 Height be changed to read: "10% of the roof may be fiat to allow for a transition of roof lines, eliminating any reference to the Design Review Board;�and setting a definite percentage of flat roof allowed. Patten pointed out'that the businesses that-would-,be high traffic generators were placed under Conditional Use, Al Williams, --one of the applicants stated that he wanted to see under Permitted Usesj, those businesses that would augment business offices:' Bob Voliter, another applicant, stated that the setback require- ments listdd were too stringent for his property, -which was long and narrow. Other concerns of Voliter were the fact that signs would not be allowed facing toward I -70; -that the view corridors be addressed, why retail was not allowed on the 2nd floor, and why the housing was limited to employees, Patten stated that retail was limited to 1st floor to help ensure its success, and to make sure that there was not too much retail square footage which..would make the zone more of a shopping mall. Corcoran answered the sign question is by stating that this area was being treated in the same way the rest of Vail was treated in the sign code. He added that various proceedings could be taken to get variances in signs and setbacks, Steve Isom, - architect for Williams and Morgan, stated that he wished Vail Associates and Holy Cross had sent representatives ;to the meeting. -4- PEC 5/10/82 Will Trout stated that he supported higher FAA R. than .75,. He added that in some of the original discussions, there was taik of .having a high relative density to support a lower rent area, -,and he did not understand the changes made in the ordinances —such as removing some uses.fi.rst listed and lowering the density. He added that he still wanted to see interior pedestrian ways within the property lines and mentioned some examples in other parts of the country. He said that this would increase the value of the property and would increase the commercial frontage. Patten reminded Trout that the ordinance required the Plannning and Environmental Commission to adopt a general circulation and access plan, Corcoran felt that the issue of pedestrian ways was addressed within the ordinance requirements. Piper felt that the ordinance could be gore. stringent so that bike and pedestrian paths would be required rather than proposed, Morgan expressed the concern that the plan not be cast in cement, but rather leave some flexibility as to where to place the buildings, Discussion followed concerning the location of a bike path. Donovan suggested that the employee housing be required. Patten said that it could be done, Much discussion on this topic fowl owed. Patten added that a couple years ago . -the issue of requiring a certain % of employee housing was considered, and the Town Council decided to use the informal bargaining.procedure instead. Donovan also felt that the traffic generators should be labeled as such for future PEC members and placed under Conditional Use. ^ Edwards felt that the Glen Lyon Office Building should not be included in the district,�because the building could then be torn down and another, larger building put in its place. Also, this would be up zoning, • The commission then went through the lists of permitted, conditional and accessory uses and made many changes. The question of requiring employee housing came up again, some feeling that if employee housing were required, other housing must be required, and others feeling that incentives could be given to build employee housing. Donovan felt employee housing should be required;;Piper felt that employee housing should not be required, A vote was taken to see.how each of the 5 members felt. It ended in a tie with Trout undecided, Duane and Scott against, and Corcoran and Donovan in favor, It was decided to include this in the report to Town Council, Scott Edwards moved and Will Trout seconded to send to the Town Council the commission's recommendations on the proposed Arterial Business zone district as amended by the staff and pointing out that the Commission was divied on the employee requirement issue, The vote was 3.2 in favor with Dan Corcoran and Diana voting against, They felt that employee housing should be required in this district. (dim Morgan abstained.) 6, ��es�t for- condom Applicant: ennis um,conversion on lot 42 Vail Village West i mon Peter Patten explained that the applicant Donovan moved;:,Trout seconded to table as 6,0 in favor of tabling to dune 14. 0 The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p,m. requested to table to dune 14. per applicant's request, The vote was MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed Arterial Business Zone BACKGROUND: The Town Council has sent back to the Planning and Environmental Commission the proposed Arterial Business zone district for further review and recommendation. At the Town Council meeting on March 16, 1982, the Council determined that there were 6 areas that needed further study. The planning staff went on to review the six areas, and at a joint meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council on April 13, these issues and others were discussed. At the Council meeting on April 20, the Council determined that the Arterial Business zone would be sent back to the Planning Commission. The areas noted below are major changes to the proposed Arterial Business zone that Planning Commission recommended to Town Council in February. 1. To add floor area ratio to the new zone.. A concern of the staff., Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council was how many square feet of structure could be potentially constructed on each site. • 2. To reduce the permitted and conditional uses that are high traffic generators. To permit retail uses on only the first floor of the building and reduce the limit of 15,000 square feet for one retail business to 8,000 square feet of floor area. The zone district should primarily be for office uses. 3. To change the setbacks to allow for greater distance between structures and increase the front setback. 4. To allow for a part of the roof to be flat where there is a transition of roof lines. 5. To increase from 20 percent to 25 percent the total site area to be landscaped. 6. To note that parking be based upon gross floor area of the building for all uses except parking. The area.under consideration for rezoning includes the following properties. In- cluded is the west day lot because Vail Associates submitted a petition.for this land. The staff is not recommending that the west day lot be included as part of the new zone district. Included as part of the information is the calculation on floor area ratios for each property. • Arterial Bus':- 5/5/82 -2- APPROX. APPROX. .75 FAR PROPERTY SITE SITE SQ.F'T. ACRES SQ FT V.A. Service Yard 3.2 139,392 ;J04,544 Holy Cross 1.4 60,984 45,738 Texaco .9 39,204 29,403 Voliter 1.0 43,560 32,670 Glen Lyon Office 1.7 74,052 55,539 Chevron .9 39,204 29,403 Old Town Shops 1.0 43,560 32,670 Sub - totals 10.1 439,956 329,967 West Day lot 2.6 113,246 84,934 0 TOTALS 12.7 553,202 414,901 THE PROPOSAL Proposed is a new zoning district for the Town of Vail which would recognize an area where office type uses could be developed within the community. After our recent experience with the Texaco site, the staff considers that the current Heavy Service district is not an appropriate zone for the area. If you look at the standards and criteria under the zone district, it becomes evident that it is not appropriate because of the fact that most of the uses are industrial type uses and that the office use is quire limited to business offices but not professional offices. Therefore, the staff is recommending that we continue with the process of establishing a new zone district for this area which will, in the long run, substantially up- grade and enhance one of the major entry ways in through Vail. It is important to realize that the new zone district is to establish an area where office type uses can take place and limited commercial may take place. In addition, the standards that are being proposed for this area should allow for buildings, landscaping, and parking to be done in a way that will enhance and not detract from the quality that Vail currently has and continues to strive for in the future. This is a.draft of the proposed ordinance which contains changes recommended.by the Community Development Department. The changes are noted by capitals and brackets so that you will have an understanding of the orginal ordinance that the Planning Commission dealt with in February and of the changes that are being recommended by the Community Development Department. • ORDINANCE' #5 ( Series of 1982 ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 18.27 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL'S ZONING CODE AS CONTAINED IN TITLE 18 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR AN ARTERIAL BUSINESS.DISTRICT INCLUDING PURPOSE, REQUIRE- MENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, ACCESSORY USES, LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS, SETBACKS, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, DENSITY CONTROL, COVERAGE, [FLOOR AREA RATI0,1 LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT, PARKING AND LOADING, LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, RESTRICT TION ON SALE, LEASE OR RENT OF DWELLING UNITS AND THE APPLICABLE SIGN CODE; AND, SETTING FORTH DE- TAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development and the Planning and Environmental Commission have been studying the applicability of current zoning regulations on businesses along • major arterials; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that an additional. zoning district relative to businesses along arterials should be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission have reviewed the proposed new zoning district and have recommended its approval to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to adopt a new arterial business zone district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 18 "Zoning" of the Vail Municipal Code is amended by the-addition of a new Chapter 18.27 entitled "Arterial Business District" to read as follows. 18.27.010 PURPOSE The Arterial Business Distract is :intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town n n A TTnnnr T'ncrl n '17n1 "1 i AT ni- c ca n A .r ■Y III tII+ i"I _ d i18.27.015 REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION AND ACCESS .FLAN A. Prior to any Design Review Board approval for a building in the Arterial Business District or enlargement of an existing Arterial Business 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; 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. Such additional information as the Planning and Environ- mental Commission and Town Council deem necessary to • guide development within the proposed District. 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 to the plan adopted by the Planning and Environmental Com- mission. D. The general circulation and access plan can be amended by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing. E. Before a building permit is issued on any building, design guidelines for street or parking lot lights, pavement treat- ment and benches, must be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department. 18.27.020 PERMITTED USES The following uses shall be permitted in the Arterial Business District: A. Professional offices, business offices, and studios; Cs,0ooJ C. Retail stores and establishments with a limit of _16,099 square foot floor area for one retail its i ness' *' use * 4,ad -i-�i e Wi g: WITH RETAIL USES ONLY PERMITTED ON THfl FIRST FLOOR, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: • • • -;3_ M ■ i q . i w ■ ftAtionery stores Yardftge r v r steres ileasaf.rs�iLR ��.�: D. Personal services and repair shops, including the - following: Barbershops Beauty shops Business nd e g s�lee laaundples She 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 Dee wt_ 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 Arterial Business 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 D Cl NKS ANp E N GIAL INSTIT TIM S] E,jer -- F. Peter G. Any use permitted by Section 18.27.020 which is not conducted entirely within a building • • r i 4 -- J. Outside car wash K. Ledges L. Meeting Poems and eanvent�en M. Public and private health facilities N. '-�- 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 Arterial Business 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 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 Arterial Business District, setbacks shall be as follows: Front: South Frontage Road -- 10 feet West Lionshead Circle --- 20 feet Forest Road -- 20 feet Side : ).)40-feet 5 where building height is less than 20 feet. G201-3&- feet where building height is over 20 feet Rear: 10 feet There will. be no setback required for underground parking, 5, 18.27.070 HEIGHT Up to 70% of the building (building coverage area) shall not exceed 40 feet, and up to 300 of the building (building coverage area) shall not exceed 32 feet. Minimum slope of the roof shall be 3 feet in 12 feet. [A-SMALL PERCEN- TAGE OF THE ROOF MAY BE FLAT TO ALLOW FOR A TRANSITION OF ROOF LINES. THIS WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.] 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 dwelling 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. 18.27.100 [FLOOR AREA RATIO [NOT MORE THAN ..75 FAR SHALL BE PERMITTED ON ANY SITE OR LOT. UP TO, .5 FAR WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY COVERED PARKING. ALL FAR ABOVE .5 WILL REQUIRE COVERED OR ENCLOSED PARKING EQUAL TO Ta FAR. FAR IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL GROSS FLOOR ARE THE . °ENCLOSING _WALLS OF A__ STRUCTURE BY THE TOTAL SITE AREA OF THE PROPERTY. 18.27.110 LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT At least 4 percent of the total site shall be landscaped, plus the areaa 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. 18.27.120 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. [PARKING WILL BE BASED UPON THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS TYPE USES. NO DRIVES, PARKING OR LOADING IS PERMITTED IN..THE FRONT SETBACK EXCEPT FOR 18.27.130 LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY THE INGRESS AND EGRESS DRIVE.] 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. 18.27.140 RESTRICTIONS ON SOLE, LEASE OR RENT OF DWELLING UNITS IN COMMERCIAL CORE 4 1. The applicant submitting for renting of units in the Arterial Business 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 � 1 . 0 • 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. 2. Sale Units would be restricted by Town Council similar to the Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. The specific restriction must be approved by Town Council. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 2nd day of March, is 1982, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 16th day of March, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published once in full this 2nd,day of March, 1982. 0 • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 4, 1982 RE: Request for conditional use permit to operate a real estate office out of the existing Voliter Nursery location, Applicant: Bob Voliter DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Bob Voliter wishes to operate the Colorado - Hawaii real estate business from his existing office structure on the Voliter Nursery site. Since it is located in the heavy service zone district, business offices are required to obtain a conditional use permit to operate. The real estate office would be located on the lower floor of the western -most structure on the property. Parking areas are located to the south and west of the building. Plans are to expand the real estate operation to the entire lower floor of the building (the nursery offices are now located in the same location) in the summer of 1983. CRITE1�1k.AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18,600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration, of -Factors: Relationship and im act,of, the,use on development objectives of the town. There is no effect upon the development objectives of the town, TbE effect of the use on 1 Taci IJ t4et �uti Ti ties sc o faci itie d public facil t and air, distribution of o ulation, transportation S, parks and recreation facilities, -and of er public ties needs. No effect on these factors are foreseen, Effect ,u on traffia with particular reference to con estion automotive an pedestrian sa a coZ�roaF_g i,ence t�ra is f ow,and control,, .access, maneuvera i it and removal of nsof t street and arkin areas, There is ample parking (11 spaces immediately adjacent to the building and more to the east) to handle the additional parking needs of this business, The small amount of additional traffic generation in the general area should not be significant. Voliter real estate 5/4/82 -2- Effect u on the character of -the area,,i'n which..thproposed use, is to be located i u t 7n e Ica 11".i '!c 7 the propo s`use in, relation to surroun in uses. Business offices are quite compatible with the area with regard to the proposed Arterial Business District and the existing Glen Lyon office building located across the frontage road, No exterior changes are being proposed on the building. Such' o �,Factors� and (Xi `teri a, as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use ,' � The �,r�vi\ronme - l im a�ct.-repor�t conce,ming the aro used use¢, if an environmental brt i s ` `rid by peer lam, Sb. ' No EIR required STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit for Colorado - Hawaii Real Estate 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, Tha'ti the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. . That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. We can foresee no negative impacts with this proposal. yt MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 5,:1982 SUBJECT: Conditional use application to install a major arcade in West Vail Mall in between Rags to Riches and The Little Flower Shop, Applicant: Game City, Inc, DtSCRIPt0N OF PROPOSED USE Game City, Inc „,,represented by Gary Mitchell of Colorado Springs; - wishes to establish a major arcade,,called "Vail Family Arcade" in the West Vail Mall, Game City wishes to house thirty -three amusement devices in the space. CRITERIA ,A-ND ,FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18,600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval, with three stipulations,.,of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Cons i derat,tco bf Factors: Re1,ati onsh i and., i m act\ oi= the use on development objectives of the town, If the arcade is managed properly, the use will not contradict the development objectives of the town, which call for the "harmonious development of the town" and enhance "its established character as a resort." She effect of the use on light, air, of o elation transportation �i itie utilities sc ools arks and recreation fact hies an of er pul A f� ies and public facilities needs, The arcade will not substantially influence the above. Effect: upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and Redestrian,safety and convenience tra fic flow and control, access, maneuverabili and removal of sn w(from the street and parking areas. The arcade should not substantially increase the demand for parking in the West Vail Mall. Effect upon the, oharacter of the area in which the proposed use is to be o af�d i nal ud i n .the seal e, and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses, The arcade, located in the pedestrian portion of the West Vail Mall, is surrounded by commercial uses, To the west is Rangs to Riches, -The San Francisco Seafood Shop, The Vail Athlete, and Bill Bullocks, To the east is The Little Flower Game City -2- Shop and the liquor store. The shops which face the pedestian mall on the south side are Rocky Mountain Hair and the music shop, - There could be a potential conflict among these uses and the arcade. Much of the success or failure of the arcade depends on the effectiveness of the management of Game City, Inc, The management should take steps to ensure that their clientele is well supervised, that the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the peace of the mall, and that littering and vandalism do not take place as a result of the arcade. Such ath r<_fac �ar5d.c5�i�ter ,ria5a�� %t�he,:Larn ission deems applicable to the proposed use. The-e' nvi-r.g*enta1- m '. repo q• concer ' nc_ 7m �o t` -s 5equ'7 � ch 2 erg .56. Not applicable, used use, if.an environmental STAFF RFCOMMFNDATT -ION The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which ft would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, . or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The staff recommends approval of the conditional use with three stipulations, including noise control, proper management, and that the conditional use permit be granted for a period not to exceed one year from the date when the conditional use is granted. For this is the first large arcade in Vail, and the Town needs some means of revoking the conditonal use permit if serious problems develop. If the arcade does prove to be a good neighbor to surrounding stores and an asset to the Town of Vail, the renewal of the conditonal use permit should be reviewed in a favorable light. Thus, the staff recommends that. the following stipulations be placed upon the conditional use permit: 1. That the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the peace of the West Vail Mall. The applicant should keep all the noise volume controls on the machines at a low level. 2. That the arcade will be properly managed. The management should not allow loitering, littering, vandalism or disorderly conduct on or in the immediate vicinity of the arcade by the clientele of the arcade. 3. The conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to exceed one year from the time the conditional use is granted. The applicant should return to the Planning Commission in the month of May, 1983 for review of their conditional use. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 24, 1982 1:00 Site visits 2 :00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of May 10; 1982 2. Request to install a game parlor on the basement level of the Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates, 3. Request for rezoning of lot 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing to change from Primary /Secondary to Special Development District with an underlying zone of High Density Multi - Family, Applicant: Ron Byrne 4. Request for an amendment to the town municipal code, section 18.69.040(A) to allow uninhabited structures to be constructed in red .(high) hazard avalanche areas. Applicant: Thomas LeRo 5. Request for a name change for the Pitkin Creek Townhouses, Applicant: Pitkin Creek Townhouse Association. 6• Request for an amendment to the municipal code to remove a portion of item J of Section 18,69.050 Special Restrictions for developments on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking is in excess of thirty percent in single - family residential, two - family residentia1;�and two - family primary /secondary residential zones. The portion to be removed requires that developments falling under this section be restricted to that one of the units shall not exceed 40 percent of the allowable GRFA, Applicant: Town of Vail. -7 Request for revisions to Section 18.52 Parking and Loading. Applicant: Town of Vail Published in the Vail Trail May 21., -1982. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 May 24, 1982 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Dan Corcoran Jim Viele Duane Piper Jim Morgan ABSENT Will Trout Scott Edwards Peter Patten Jim Sayre Betsy Rosol ack Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith C'.011NMI RFR Gail Wahrlich The meeting was called to order by Dan Corcoran, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of May -10, 1982. Diana Donovan moved and seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5-,0 in favor. 2. Request to install a game parlor on the basement level of the Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates. Jim Sayre explained the memo pointing out the the conditions at the end of the memo were the same as those required for the arcade request for the West_. Vail Mall approved on May 10, 1982. Paul Golden of Vail Associates stated that VA wanted to have the arcade as an amenity to the Gondola rides in the summer. He added that the space would return to locker space for day skiers in the winter. He also felt that VA wanted to put 16 rather than 12 amusement devices into the space. It was decided to change the wording of the first condition to read: "The noise level of—the amusement devices should.be incompliance with the Town of Vail noise ordinance." With that correction, Duane Piper moved and Morgan seconded to approve the request for a conditional use application to install a major arcade in the basement of the Gondola II Building in Lionshead with the three conditions on the memo including the change in wording stated above and concerning 16 machines. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 3. Request for rezoning of lot 1, Vail Village 2nd Filinq to change from Primary/Secondary to Special Development District with underlying zone of High Density Multi - Family. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne Peter Jamar explained the memo and showed the lot on a map. He explained that the staff felt that it was in the town's best interest to deny the request to rezone to a greater.density. He added that a Special Development District had to have a buffer zone around it, and that this project showed the deck on one side to be within 4 feet of the adjacent structure. PEC -2- 5/24/82 Byrne showed a few slides of the neighborhood. Larry,:Eskwi.th..stated that . coming to PEC with a specific building was inappropriate, since the question was one of rezoning or not. Byrne objected and asked why he hadn't been told this at the previous meeting during which.time he had followed the same procedure of showing a specific building to place on the property in question. Larry Eskwith replied that Byrne hadn't been informed because he (Eskwith) wasn't at the meeting. Dick .Ryan pointed out that the problem has two parts. 1) is it appropriate to rezone, and 2) is it appropriate to approve the Special Development District? Byrne responded that the square footage that the Town allows was not, in his opinion, adequate for the site. Larry Eskwith replied that the key question was density. After more explanations, Byrne asked to table his request until t e June 14, 1982 meeting. Morgan moved and Viele seconded to table the item until June 14. The vote to table was 4 -1 (Donovan against). Donovan reminded the members that there were persons in the audience from out of state who had come expressly for this meeting. Corcoran asked them to speak, and Mr. Douglas, who owns a residence on West Meadow Drive spoke in opposition to the rezoning, agreeing with the PEC members that what could follow was more requests to rezone to higher density from neighbors. 4. Request for an amendment to the town municipal code, Section 18.69.040 to allow uninhabited structures to Ue constructed in red hig hazard avalanche areas. Applicant: Thomas LeRoy _ . Jim Sayre-. presented the staff memo pointing to an excerpt of a letter from Arthur Mears regarding the adjacent lot, 22, oit page 2 of the memo, iii whicii Mr. Mears stated, "..it is very important for the Town of Vail to ensure that no resi- dential construction be done in the high hazard zone..." Sayre also added that the PEC members had received that day a report on the avaianche.entitled, "Vail Meadows Avalanche ,Dynamics Study" by Arthur Mears in which it is suggested that the effect of avalanche impact on the water tank should be analyzed. • LeRoy read a letter explaining his position and his displeasure at receiving the staff memo as late as Friday. He then read parts of the avalanche study and explained to the PEC that Upper Eagle Valley workers were on lot 22 on a daily basis attending to the water tank, and that they assured him that it was difficult to keep it 75% full because of valve failures, etc. Mark Cadmus spoke as a friend who voiced approval of the amendment. Donovan wanted to know more about the streams. in the vicinity, and asked LeRoy whether or not he had planned to put a workshop into the garage. LeRoy answered that he would give to the Town of Vail a letter assuring them that he would not putt in a workshop. Larry Eskwith explained that the water tank had been built in 1974, and the hazard ordinances were not written until 1978, indicating that it was a pre - existing legal non - conforming use. Patten felt that the issue was not the water tank, nor specifically LeRoy's lot, but rather the amendment of the zoning code. He added that if the PEC allowed the amendment to the code, they would also be allowing people to build decks, storage, etc. and could create activity in the red (high) avalanche zone. PEC -3- 5/24/82 Morgan suggested that the request for the garage would be better dealt with as a variance rather than as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Corcoran, Piper and Viele agreed that they could not support an amendment, but could possibly consider a variance. Viele added that it was his experience that lines drawn to indicate an avalanche path were not precise as were the li.nes.indicating a flood plain. Eskwith explained that LeRoy could apply for a variance, and that the PEC couldn't consider a variance at this meeting, for there were different standards to be applied, and the staff should study a_.variance before the PEC ruled on it. LeRoy asked to withdraw his request to amend the zoning code. He indicated that he would apply for a variance for the meeting of dune 14. 5. Request for a name change for the Pitkin Creek Townhouses. Applicant: Pitkin Creek Townhouse Association. Patten read she members a letter requesting to change the name of Pitkin .Creek Townhouses to The Falls at Vail Townhouses. Donovan moved and Piper seconded to permit the change in name. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of the change. 6. Request to remove from the zoning code requirement for primary /secondary if a single family or duplex unit is on a steep slope. Applicant: Town of Vail • Peter Patten explained that the staff could see no reason for the requirement and said that the staff recommended that it should be removed from the zoning code. Piper pointed out that since a steep slope is% highly visible, that that may have been the reason the requirement had been included, but that there was si:ill the DRB to police the appearance of buildings. Piper moved and Viele seconded to recommend to Town Council that the zoning code be amended to remove the following wording f rom.18.69.050 (J): "On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the uniLs shall not exceed 40 percent of the allowable total gross floor area (GRFA) and shall riot be substantially similar in design to the primary unit." The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 7. Request for revisions to Section 18.52 Parking and Loadinq of the zoning code. Applicant: Town of Vail Patten explained the changes on the marked pages of the zoning code. After much discussion and concern about amount of parking required, slopes of driveways, and types of uses for commercial buildings, it was decided to table this item. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to table to an indefinite future date. The; vote was 5 -0 in favor. Corcoran requested the staff to ask Larry Eskwith to be at PEC meetings, and i-c was suggested that those items which might involve Larry be grouped together, possibly at the beginning of the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 18;.1982 SUBJECT: Amendment to the zoning code to disallow the review of an application by the Design Review Board or the Planning and Environmental Commission if the application is substantially similar to one reviewed within the previous year, Applicant: Town of Vail R`ROPOSAL : Proposed is a new section 18,66:190 under the Administration chapter which would read: 18.66.190 Similar Applications Disallowed If an application is filed for review or approval to either the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council,.and this application is substantially similar to an application filed for review or approval to any one of these boards within the previous calendar year, the zoning administrator shall deny the right to apply for such review or approval. Substantially similar shall mean that the basic issue (or issues) involved for review or approval is the same as in a previous application, REASONS ,FOR THE` AMENDMENT We feel the change is needed because this wording would eliminate wasted time for our review boards when an applicant keeps coming back with basically or exactly the same application. This happens for a number of reasons: 1, The applicant realizes there may be a changeover of personnel on a board which may be to his benefit,�so he re- applies. 2. The applicant gets outside advice after he's gone through the process that he should submit again with additional arguments. 3, The applicant "badgers" the board with an application several times, hoping that they'll wear down and give approval. � RECOMMEN DATI,ON The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this amendment, We feel that it will save both staff and review board time and energy by eliminating these repetitive applications, 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Jamar DATE: May 19,1982 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Lot 1, Vail Village 2nd. Filing from Two- Family Residential District to High Density Multiple Family District and Special Development District. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne This application is exactly the same as the application presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on March 8, 1982. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request by a vote of 5-1 at that time. The request was then heard by the Town Council at their March 16 meeting and was denied unanimously. At both the Council meeting and the Planning Commission hearing, several citizens spoke in opposition to the request. In addition, several letters have been received from adjacent property owners since that hearing reiterating their opposition to the rezoning and special development district application, The staff report from the previous application is attached, and the staff again recommends denial of the request based upon the factors contained within the memo. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 19,j--1982 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing from Two Family Residential District to Special Development District with an underlying High Density Multiple Family Zone District. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The request basically deals with 2 issues: 1) The applicant requests the rezoning of lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing from its current duplex zoning to High Density Multiple Family zoning and 2) The applicant requests the for- mation of a Special Development District. The reason for the overlying Special Development District would be to adopt a specific number of units, a specific maximum square footage and overall site and building design. 1) The Rezoning Request The current zoning of the lot as Two Family Residential would allow 2 units with a maximum Gross Residential Floor Area of 4576 square feet. A rezoning to HDMF would permit 12 units with a maximum GRFA of 13,558 square feet. However, the applicant proposes, by the creation of the Special Development District, to construct and limit development upon the site to 5 units of 11,590 square feet GRFA. The size of the lot is 22,598 square feet. The lot is currently occupied by a duplex and contiguous to other duplex sites to the west and to the south across Gore Creek. The lot to the east is occupied by Ipanema Condominiums (9 units) and located across Meadow Drive to the north is the Holiday Inn. The reason for requesting the rezoning is stated by the applicant to be the need for a zoning designation for his lot which enables site improvements that relate to the scale and density of adjacent development (existing or potential). The applicant feels that a site improvement limited to the restrictions of the present zoning of the lot "will not permit a project that is an appropriate permanent statement within the context of its setting nor representational of sensitive consideration as evidenced elsewhere within the community." The main argument presented by the applicant is that a transition is needed from Ipanema, which is a five level structure located to the east of the lot, to the low density duplex lots. The applicant proposes a five -unit condominium complex with a height of 48 feet on the east end of the structure and 33 feet on the west to make this transition. A complete set of proposed plans is contained within the enclosed document. r� • lot 1, VV2 -2- 5/-19/82 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested rezoning application. We believe that there are no reasons why the Planning and Environmental Commission should allocate an increased density to the property. We feel there are several reasons why the application should be denied. 3 The Zoning Ordinance states that it is intended to achieve specific purposes, one of which is to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. With the realization that increased densities do have impacts upon the quality of community services, facilities, and the - environ- ment, ranging from the number of fireplaces allowed to providing public transportation, the Town of Vail has had an active policy of attempting to reduce the population density within the Gore Valley. The control of density has taken the form of zoning regulations and also through the purchase of private land within the Valley by the Town of Vail. A major goal of the land purchases has been to reduce the ultimate amount of growth that can occur within the Gore Valley, and consequently the burden upon services to be provided to the citizens of the community. The only instances of increasing the density allowed upon a piece of property within the Town has been for the purpose of providing employee housing, a very real need for the community as a whole, It is the staff's opinion that the rezoning would allow an increase in density which is not consistent with the development goals and objectives of the community nor in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vail. The.use of the site currently as a two - family residential dweling'results in a workable relationship among land uses within the area. We feel that the applicant's desire to replace the.existing structure with a building of increased quality can be accomplished within the framework of the existing Two Family district. Z) The Special Development District Application In addition to the base zoning of High Density Multi- Family, the applicant requests that a Special Development District be designated for the lot to adopt a specific plan for development. The zoning code states that the purpose of a special develT ment district is "to encourage flexibility in development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character, and quality of new development, to facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." As mentioned before, the proposed plan consists of a 5 unit condominium complex with a maximum GRFA of 11,590 square feet and a maximum height of 48 feet on the east end stepping down to 33 feet on the west end. The project also includes a plaza and pavilion along West Meadow Drive. The parking for the project is proposed to be within an underground parking garage beneath the structure. • 0 t Lot 1 , VV2 -3- 5/19/82 STATISTICS FOR THE PROPOSAL Lot size: 22,598 sq ft Zoning Requested: SgalnveoeFm with an overlying Special STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the Special Development District application. Although the development standards for a Special Development District are to be determined by the PEC and Town Council as a part of the approved plan, there are several zoning items which concern the staff. In the adoption of a SDD, there has usually been an underlying zone district by which development standards have been set, in this case the High Density Multiple Family Zone District. The proposal generally meets the standards for HDMF. However, several overall development regulations defined within the Zoning Code have been ignored. The chart above points out that Town standards regarding deck setbacks and stream setbacks have not been complied with. We feel that these are require- ments that should not be'negotiable because of the obvious impacts of each. Zoning Requirements Re uired /A13owed ..� �- HDMF Require Allowed SDD Pro ased Setbacks: Building 15' 20' 20' Stream 30' 30'(Spraddle Creek) 50' 50'(Gore Creek) 75' Deck 7,5' 10' 4' He�}�t: 33` 48' 48' Densit GRFA 4576 sq ft 60% (13,558 sq ft) 51% (11,590 sq ft) Units 2 12 5 Site Coverage: 0 q ft) 55% (12,428 sq ft) 20/ (4519 s 39% (8820 sq ft) Landscaping 0 fi5/ (14 b�88 s q ft) 30% (6779 sq ft) 38% (8715 sq ft) Parkin 4 10 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the Special Development District application. Although the development standards for a Special Development District are to be determined by the PEC and Town Council as a part of the approved plan, there are several zoning items which concern the staff. In the adoption of a SDD, there has usually been an underlying zone district by which development standards have been set, in this case the High Density Multiple Family Zone District. The proposal generally meets the standards for HDMF. However, several overall development regulations defined within the Zoning Code have been ignored. The chart above points out that Town standards regarding deck setbacks and stream setbacks have not been complied with. We feel that these are require- ments that should not be'negotiable because of the obvious impacts of each. .� n lot 1, VV2 -4- 5/1-9/82 Secondly, the intent of a SDD is to "encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use" and to "preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The staff feels that the amount of site coverage upon the lot with building (8820 sq ft) and decks and patios (5935 sq ft) has done little to preserve the quality of a lot which is bounded on two sides by natural streams. The amount of pavement, the formalized landscaping plan along Meadow Drive, and the rock fountain proposed for Spraddle Creek do not seem to be appropriate. The design standards fo.r SDD's state that a buffer zone shall be provided in any SDD that is adjacent to a low - density residential use district. The buffer zone is to be kept free of buildings or structures and landscaped to minimize adverse effects upon the surrounding area. There has been no attempt at such a buffer zone and, in fact, the proposed structures upon the property come within 4' of the adjacent property to the west. In general, the staff believes that the plan has not beeen sensitive to the physical attributes of the site, has neglected to address the requirement of a buffer zone between adjacent properties, and has neglected to follow general zoning requirements. we feel that the proposal is not in the best interests of the.health, safety, -and welfare of the citizens of the community, it 0 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 6, 1982 SUBJECT: Application for a variance to construct an avalanche diversion wall on Lot 11, Bighorn Second Filing which exceeds the maximum allowable height of six feet for any walls constructed upon a site. Applicant: Shannon Vail Ventures, Ltd. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Lot 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Filing is subject to snow avalanche hazard. A report conducted by Arthur Mears concludes that any design avalanche (those which have been defined as having a return period of .25 to 100 years) will cross lot 11 and stop at the northern edge of the property. The calculations of .potential impact pressures indicate that the pressure distribution can be classified within the "blue hazard" or "moderate hazard" avalanche area. This means that avalanches in the study area are expected to produce a total pressure less than six hundred pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow. The town has indicated that in order to construct any structure within the moderate hazard zone, proper mitigating measures must be taken. Art Mears has recommended in his report that any building upon lot 11 should be protected with a designed reinforced uphill wall such that it will be able to withstand the design loads. A wall corresponding to the recommen dation of .the study has been designed fo.r.lot 11 by a registered professional engineer, and at its highest point is 13 feet high. Section 18.58.020 C. of the zoning code states that walls shall not exceed three feet within any front setback or six feet in height on any other portion of a site. The applicant requests a variance from this provision in order to allow the construction of the avalanche deflection wail which is necessary in order to construct a building upon the lot. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS on review of Criteria and Findin e Department of Community Develo sed upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the re an structures in the vicin Section 18.62.060 of the Munici t recommends approval of the re ?sted variance to other existing or al code, uested variance al us Lot 11 is situated at the end of a cul de sac. The lot to the east of the property (lot 12) has a duplex constructed upon it, and the lot to the west (lot 10) is currently vacant, but has the development potential of a single family dwelling. The area behind the lot is Forest Service property. Lot 11 is 84,847 square feet and is allowed a duplex. The construction of the proposed wall is necessary for any building to be completed upon the lot. The proposed wall (see attached site plan) has been placed directly behind the proposed structure and extends to a distance of 30 feet Lot 11, Bighorn 2nd -2- beyond the rear wall of the building. The interior portion of the wall is terraced to allow landscaping, and the applicant proposes to landscape the area exterior . to the wall as well. The site currently is very dense with aspen, as are the adjacent sites. The major impact of the wall is one of .visual quality, and the preservation of existing trees dur.inq construction and the replanting of trees to screen the wall after constructionshould"Ieassen the visual impact. The staff has received a letter from the owner of lot 12 objecting to the variance. • • The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. _...._.__..___. Two objectives of the zoning .code are: 1. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow and other dangerous conditions; and 2. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. The staff feels that relief from the strict interpretation of the regulation specifying a maximum wall height is necessary to secure the safety of the building which is to be constructed upon lot 11. The construction of the wall and the landscape treatment of the site can be done in such a way as to minimize the visual impact of the wall. In this case, safety of the future occupants of the building. rust take first priority. The wall is necessary for the safety of the occupants of the building. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planninq 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, Lot 11, Bighorn 2nd --3- safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. At the time the project is reviewed by the Design Review Board, the visual impact of the wall should be studied and proper screening with landscape materials should be required,in order to reasonably attempt to minimize any visual impacts. • • rr 2T-s T r' .�•�'gx�!F- ,,y.;,� "ems � ol • • 6-7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 19,-1982 SUBJECT: Removing from zoning code a single family or duplex Applicant: Town of Vail BACKGROUND requirement for primary /secondary if unit is on a steep slope, The hazard regulations contain a section relating to special restrictions and extra information required for single family and duplex development on steep slopes (Section 18.69,050), One of these requirements under paragraph (J) is that duplexes must then be primary /secondary (i.e. one of the units cannot exceed 40% of the total GRFA allowable) , The staff has recently processed, and the PEC approved, a variance to this require- ment. In looking at the requirement, we see no reason for it, We feel there is no valid relationship between distribution of floor area and special restrictions and considerations for steeply sloping sites, T L�AL The staff feels that this requirement should be removed from the zoning code. Requirements of this nature which have no rational, logical bases for their existence need to be eliminated from our regulations. RECOMMENDATION We recommend approval of the amendment to the zoning code to remove the following wording from 18,69,050 (J): "On any site containing two dwelling.units, one of the units shall not exceed 40 percent of the allowable total gross floor area (GRFA) and shall not be substantially similar in design to the primary unit. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 17, 1982 RE: Request to amend the zoning code to allow the construction of uninhabited structures, such as garages,, -water tanks and mechanical pump stations,.in high (red) avalanche hazard zones, Applicant: Thomas Leroy >'HE, f EOUEST Mr, Leroy wishes to build a garage its a high hazard avalanche zone on his lot, located at 5042 Snowshoe Lane (lot 21, -Vail Meadows subdivision), There are at least two reasons for this request: 1) The location of the proposed garage.is where the applicant now parks his cars, 2) To build the garage on the other side of the lot, which is within the moderate avalanche zone, would disturb the natural topography of the lot and would require the relocation of utilities- - a more expensive alternative. (See attached map.) The applicant wishes to amend Section 18.69.040, Paragraph A, of the hazard regulations. The section now reads "No structure shall be built in any floodplain or red avalanche area,.. The term Istructure" as used in this section does not include • recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use,.'not including residential use," Mr. Leroy wishes to amend the code to read,- "The term 'structure' as used in this section doffs not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use,�um nhabited structures such as garages,-water tanks and mechanical pump st4ibns, not inc uding in abited residential use." Emphasis added, S1JR`ROUNDJN S AND S ANJT 111ALANGHE HAZARD Mr, Leroy's lot can be roughly divided into thirds in terms of avalanche hazards: The residence is located to the east of the avalanche run -out in the zone of possible avalanche influence; the proposed location of the garage lies in the high hazard zone on the westerly portion of the lot; the northern portion is in the moderate zone. The design.of Stan Cole's house of lot 25 included avalanche mitigation measures. Lot 22 is vacant and will never be developed due to the high hazard zone, �AME�VDME ' - VAR�AIVC SAND THE PURPOSES OF THE ZONING CODE In his letter of application, Mr, Leroy states that a variance rather than an amendment to the zoning code would be more appropriate in this case. The staff disagrees, To allow construction of other than summer,.-oriented, recreational uses in a high hazard zone would create a far - reaching and dangerous precedent. Leroy -2- 5/17/82 Also,•to allow the construction of garages, even through a variance procedure, would be contrary to the fundamental purpose of the zoning code: "These regula- tions are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, - =safety, morals and general welfare of the town,..." To protect the health and safety of the citizens of Vail is one of the basic premises of the zoning code, THE DANGER: AVALANCHE There is no question that the construction of a garage in the high hazard zone on lot 21 would create a dangerous precedent, The avalanche hazards on this lot have been assessed. When Mr. Leroy first came to the town to build his existing house, he wanted to place it within the high hazard zone. Arthur Mears, an avalanche consultant who has completed numerous studies of avalanche hazards in Vail, wrote to Jim Rubin, a past planner in Community Development,.- expressing his concerns about development in this avalanche run -out. Portions of this letter,' dated March 9, - '1979,.,are reproduced below, Once again I would like to reemphasize that high hazard zones in the Town of Vail are di stinguised from moderate hazard zones in terms of avalanche pressures and avalanche return periods, Thus the frequency of avalanches in the higFi Tiazard zone is considered to be too great to permit residential construction regardless of the details of the structural design. Remember, the persons one wishes to protect may not be inside the safely - designed structure when the design avalanche occurs, The moderate hazard zone is different in that the avalanche frequency is less (the return period is longer), thus the probability of encounter with an avalanche while outside the specially • designed.structure is considered to be negligible, Personally, I feel it is very important for the Town of Vail to ensure that no residential construc- tion be done in the high hazard zone,- This could establish a dangerous precedent. How.,,for example, could the Town of Vail restrict any future construction in the high hazard zone, regardless of location ?." . In closing, I would - like to once again state that I strongly disagree with the idea of granting a variance for construction in the high hazard zone for the reasons stated above. The central issue is whether to allow the construction of a structure which would be used in the winter in a high hazard zone. One of the purposes of the high hazard zone is to keep people away from these dangerous avalanche areas. To grant this amendment would defeat the purposes of the hazard regulations, ,,-STAFF R CbMMENDXTION The staff strongly recommends denial of the proposed amendment, To approve'the amendment would defeat the purposes of the zoning code and the hazard regulations and would treat a dangerous precedent. A more agreeable proposal would be to build the garage on the other side of lot 21, in the moderate hazard zone,with -the nece -s mi ti Wkn measures. • O l i29 � 1 28 1 \ ' 27 `\ 32 26 r-� 31 \ \ 20 i 30 MODERATE y3 HAZARD 5% 25 �j !9 24 H1G �s «� 9ES0 HAZA 2 23 22 �. vP 5 ° °'CPC) � ,tQN 76138 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 14, 1982 12:45 pm Site inspection 1:15 pm Preliminary review of applications for exterior alterations and modifications in Commercial Core I and TI. Determined will-be whether each project has a major or minor impact and the appropriate review period for each project. CCI Entry and facade remodeling for Bridge Street Real Estate and Investment Company, Liquor Store Building. Entry reorganized on the Covered Bridge Building. Enclose north deck of Cyrano's. Enclose sunken patio south of bar to enlarge bar of Hong Kong Cafe. Enclose one -half of pool with air - supported structure for winter -time enclosure over Lodge at Vail swimming pool Expand second floor office of Christy Sports. Exterior seating for Le Petite Cafe at One Vail Place. CCII Exterior seating for Le Petite Cafe at Lionshead Gondola Building. Extend shop fronts toward Lions Pride Court and add awnings at Lions Pride Building. Change one enclosed parking garage to a ski repair shop on second story garage of Village Center Shops 2:00 pm 1. Request for a variance to construct a garage in a red hazard avalanche zone on Lot 21, Vail. Meadows Filing #1. Applicant: Thomas LeRoy 2. Request for rezoning of Lot 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Residential Primary /Secondary to Special Development District with an underlying zone of High Density Multi - Family to allow five dwelling units. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne 3. Request for a condominium conversion for a 3 unit building on lot 42, Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: Dennis Shimon 4. Request for two side setback variances to allow the construction of a residence on lot 12, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Gottfired Angleitner 5. Request for a front setback variance to allow the construction of an addition on lot 11, Matterhorn Village Filing No. 1. Applicant: James R. Williams. 6. Request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the east end of the existing bus barn located at the Town shops, in a PUD zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. Request for approval of the general circulation and access plan for . y • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 14, 1982 PRESENT STAFF Scott Edwards Peter Patten Will Trout Dick Ryan Dan Corcoran Jim Sayre Diane Donovan Larry Eskwith later Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper COUNCIL REP ABSENT Chuck Anderson Jim Viele Jim Morgan Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 2:15 after a site visit and after reviewing applications for exterior alterations and modifications in Commercial Core I and II. Donovan. =ved and Trout seconded to approve the minutes of May 24, 1982. The vote was 3 -0 in favor with Edwards abstaining. 1. Request for a variance to construct a garage in a red hazard avalanch on Lot 21, Vail Meadows Filing #1. Applicant: Thomas LeRoy Peter Patten explained the memo and showed the site plan. He explained that the staff would first address the avalanche problem, then the setback variance. He stated that the house did receive a setback variance when it was built, and since the staff were not avalanche experts, they were referring to the Mears study. He read the portion of Mears' letter that stressed that it was important for the Town of Vail to ensure that no residential construction be done in the high hazard zone. LeRoy referred to the site plan and explained that he was told that the line showing the edge of the high hazard area could be plus or minus 25 feet, and that perhaps all of his lot was high hazard or perhaps all of it was medium hazard. He showed photos of the accumulation of snow on his lot stating that he could not build steps because he could not maintain them in the winter time. He added that he would bury the garage into the ground on the uphill side adding that if he placed the garage where it was originally planned to go, there would be disturbance by runoff. Edwards felt that the applicant should have a more detailed study made to ensure that the garage would be only in the moderate hazard zone, because it did seem that the stream was a hardship if the garage had to be placed where originally planned. I PEC 10- 6/14/82 Trout questioned the size of the garage and LeRoy stated that he wanted to park 4 cars in the garage, two deep. Donovan felt that she couldn't approve a garage in a red hazard zone, and wanted to be certain just where the line between the two zones lay. She felt that the stream was a physical hardship. LeRoy answered that he felt that the entire front of his lot Was in the high hazard zone. Corcoran stated that the line as it exists on the avalanche study was not absolute, but that the Commission must work with that. Ryan added that if the applicant believes that the high hazard zone was not on his lot, he should have a detailed study made. Ryan added that Mears felt strongly that the Town of Vail should keep structures out of the high hazard avalanche zones. Trout asked Eskwith whether or not the Town would be liable if they.were to grant a variance. Eskwith answered that there was a chance that the Town could be found liable. LeRoy said that he was willing to take full responsibility against physical and financial damage. After more discussion of responsibility, Donovan moved and Corcoran seconded to deny the request for a variance as per the staff memo dated June 10, 1982. The vote was 4 -0 to deny the variance. LeRoy mentioned that in the same letter, Mears stated that the TOV should look into moving the water tank. Eskwith answered that the water tank was a separate issue, and that at the moment, the commission was dealing with the variance request. The setback variance was then considered, Peter Patten explaining that the PEC must consider both, in case LeRoy should appeal the decisions, so that the Council would have some background upon which to base their decisions. Corcoran moved and Edwards seconded to deny the setback variance request per the staff memo dated June 10, 1982. The vote was 2 -1 with Trout against denial, and Donovan abstaining because she felt she couldn't vote without knowing whether or not there might be a physical hardship nor knowing whether or not the avalanche hazard zone would affect it. 2. Request for rezoning of Lot 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Residential Primar Secondary to Special Development District with an underlying zone of High Dens Multi-Family to allow five dweeling units. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne Peter Patten explained that the was the same application that had been submitted on March 8 and which the PEC denied by a vote of 5 -1 and which was then appealed to the Council and was defeated unanimously. Byrne explained that at the last meeting an argument ensued with regard to the presentation. Eskwith felt that it was better to present both the rezoning request for SDD and the HDMF at the same time. He explained to Byrne that the zoning laws had been amended to that the SDD areas were limited in use and density and to the zoning district in which they were located. Byrne showed slides and added that his immediate neighbors did not object to the rezoning. He said that • • i i PEC -3- 6/14/82 he had found several cases of upzoning in the area. He added that there was a real difference in the architectural scale in the area of his lot. He stated that the project was very flexible.and would_ work directly with the staff in. any different solution. He gave statistics concerning the mass, height and densities of the surrounding properties and also listed dates of upzonings of those projects. He felt that Gore Creek would be a more logical buffer between zones and that the duplex was not the most appropriate.building for his site. /it.was explained to Byrne that he must provide.a buffer zone between his project and the duplexes to the west. Byrne said that he was willing to change the design to allow for more open land to the west, but felt the planners' responsibility was to help plan. He repeated the remark that many properties had been changed in zoning to allow greater density, height and massing. Ryan stated that that was the exact reason that in 1977 the Town of Vail went through downzoning, and then two years ago changed the definition of height._. The track record for the past few years was that the Town has not allowed up zoning and there were new height regulations since the building Ipanema. Morgan Douglas, nearby property owner, explained that his was a single family home with a guest apartment, not 3 units as described by Byrne. He added his objection to the rezoning. Ben Botel of the Alphorn said that there had been. 19 letters to the PEC protesting the rezoning. He also stressed that the Alphorn had spent $50,000 on landscaping and were proud of their building. Frank Havrel of the Alphorn stressed that the project interfered with their view, and that if the lot next to it were built to the same height, it, too would interfere with their view. Edwards stated that he was on the PEC to try to change indiscriminate upzoning. He added that he had difficulty seeing why there was a need for a transition from Ipanema. He stated that he would rather see it stay duplex, but possibly give a variance in height to make that transition. Trout said that he was sympathetic to the property aesthetically, though he would vote against 5 units, but possibly for 3 -1/2 units because he felt that the transition made sense. Corcoran felt that the issue of Ipanema should be disregarded totally. Donovan felt that the increase in units was insignificant in relation to the size of the project. With regard to safety, the project would increase traffic on an already busy road. The project would violate section 18.58.300, violates the general purpose of the zoning, (18.02.020 B5, maintaining community quality), and she added that people buy property with a clear idea of the existing zoning, and expect that zoning to remain. Donovan also added that the use was not appropriate and that there would be less open space. Corcoran stated that he did not feel that the community needed 5 units nor more height. Corcoran moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request to rezone to Sdd for the reasons stated and as per the staff.memos dated 5/19/82 and 3/4/82. The vote was 3--1 with Trout voting against denial. The applicant was reminded that he had 10 days with which to appeal the decision to Town Council. 'a • 0 :EC -4- 6/14/82 3. Request for a condominium conversion for a 3 unit building on lot 42, Vail Village West, Filing #1. Applicant: Dennis Shimon Corcoran stated thatIthe applicant had requested to table this'!item. Donovan moved and Edwards seconded to table as per applicant's request. Vote was 4 -0 in favor. At this point-, Edwards left the meeting and Piper entered. 4. Request for two side setback variances to allow the construction of a residence on Lot 12, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner Jim Sayre explained that this was a third presentation for this lot, and showed the different presentations. He said the staff felt that this one was much improved and recommended approval. The driveway had been changed to the front, and the setback request was for 4.5 feet on the east and 5 feet on the west Al Johnson, the architect, showed plans and stated that he was willing to satisfy staff concerns regarding the design. He added that he had talked with Fischer, property owner to the east, three times and offered to change the building, but Fischer was opposed to the building. He assured the staff that there would not be any other variance requests. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the setback variance requests as per the staff memo dated 6/1/82. The vote was 4--0 in favor. 5. Request for a front setback variance to allow the construction of an addition on lot 11, Matterhorn Village, Viling No. 1. Applicant: James R. Williams Peter Patten explained that the encroachment would-be for 3 feet in the front of the lot, and that the staff felt that a design solution could be accomplished within the setbacks with minor design changes. Williams showed his site plans and elevations and stated that he did not want to push the garage farther back as that would change the doors and would entail digging further into.the bank. Duane felt that the addition could be accomplished with other solutions. Trout agreed. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request for a front setback variance as per the staff memo dated June 10, 1982. The vote was 4 -0 to deny. Patten offered the staff's help to Mr. Williams in redesigning his addition. 6. Request for a existing `;bus: Applicant: T conditional barn located own of Vail use permit to construct an addition to the east end at the town shops in a PUD zone district. Patten showed elevations and floor plans and explained that the building was planned originally to add on as shown on the drawings. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to approve the conditional use permit as per the staff memo dated 5/17/82. The vote was 3 -0 with Corcoran abstaining. PEC - #/14/82 7. Request for approval of the general circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business District. Applicants: Property owners in the proposed district. Corcoran stated that the applicant requested to table this item until June 28. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to table as per applicant's request. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of tabling. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. • • box 100 department of community development nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 July 1, 1982 TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Department of Community Development RE: Rezoning Request for Lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing from Two - family Residential District to Hi g�i Density Multiple Tami l 1i strict a Special and leye opn1eYlt�77 str cipT cant:an . rne%�a� o a�i • Attached is Ordinance #18. This Ordinance is exactly the same as Ordinance #7 of 1982 which was defeated unanimously at the Council meeting on March 16, 1982. The applicant is again presenting the same proposal for an upzoning on the lot to the West of Ipanema. The Planning and Environmental Commission has again reviewed the request and has again recommended denial of the request by a vote of 3 -1. There are approximately 20 letters on file from adjacent property owners who are in opposition to the request. C 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1982 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request for Lot 1 , Vail Village 2nd Fil ing frrom Two - family Residential District to High Density Multiple Family. District and for a Special Development District. Applicant: Ron J. Byrne Since the meeting on May 24, 1982, the Community Development staff, town attorney and applicant have discussed the presentation before the Planning and Environmental Commission. It was decided that the applicant can make the presentation for a rezoning and special development request at the same time. Also the Planning and Environmental.Commission motion to approve or deny the request should contain both parts of the request. • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1982 SUBJECT: Request for a variance to construct a garage in the red hazard avalanche zone and a request for a second variance--a setback variance of 10 feet on the west side of lot 21, Vail Meadows Filing 1, to build the garage. Applicant: Thomas.LeRoy DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE R£gUESTED Mr. LeRoy wishes to build a structure, a garage, in a red hazard avalanche area. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 18't69.040 of the hazard regulations: "No structure shall be built in any floodplain, or red avalanche hazard area." The applicant wishes to place this garage five feet away from the western boundary of lot 21; thus a 10 foot side setback variance is requested.from Section 18.12.060 which requires a setback of 15 feet. 0 PROCEDURE The Planning and Environmental Commission:should first consider and act upon the request to build in the high hazard zone. If the commission does grant the variance from the hazard regulations, they can proceed to consider the setback variance. The two variance applications should be viewed as separate issues. The setback variance is addressed in Part II of the memo. I. AVALANCHE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested avalanche variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing residence is located to the east of the avalanche run -out on lot 21. The high hazard avalanche area is to the south and east. A triangular area of moderate hazard lies in the northern portion of the lot, adjacent to Snowshoe Lane. Lot 21, Vail Meadows #1 The applicant does not need to build a garage in the high hazard zone. A less dangerous alternative exists: Locate the garage to the east within the moderate hazard zone. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and inforce ment of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformi of treatment amon sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special rivile e. To grant the avalanche variance would be a grant of special privilege, it would not result in a uniformity of treatment of sites in the vicinity, and would contradict the objectives of the hazard regulations. It must be emphasized that this is a request to build in a red hazard zone, where the frequency of avalanches is greater than in the moderate hazard zone. The residence across the street is in the moderate hazard zone. Other residences and structures in Bighorn which have been built since the hazard regulations have been passed have been built in the moderate - -not high -- avalanche zones. Also, the purpose of the hazard regulations is to "protect the public health, safety and welfare." To grant this variance would defeat the purposes of the hazard regulations. The effect of the re uested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, eublic facilities and utilities, and and publ is safety. The key phrase here is "public safety." To grant constitute a dangerous and far - reaching precedent. red hazard zone would encourage human activity in Listen to the words of Arthur Mears in the letter construction in this avalanche run -out: the avalanche variance would To place the garage in the a dangerous area in the winter. of March, 1979, concerning Once again I would like to reemphasize that high hazard zones in the Town of,Vaii are distinguised from moderate hazard zones in terms of avalanche pressures and avalanche return periods, Thus the frequency of avalanches in the higFiTazard zone is considered to be too great to permit residential construction regardless of the details of the structural design, Remember-, the persons one wishes to protect may not be inside the safely - designed structure when the design avalanche occurs, The moderate hazard zone is different in that the avalanche frequency is less (the - return period is longer), thus the probability of encounter with an avalanche while outside the specially designed.structure is considered to be negligible. Personally, I feel it is ver im ortant for the Town of Vail to ensure that no residential construc- tion be done in the high hazard zone,. Tl How_.,for example. could the Town of Vail h hazard zone ess of location? a_ dangerous precedent. e construction µ sing. I would a variance for construction in the hi 4h hazard zone for the reasons stated above. (Emphasis added) �� Lot 21, Vail Meadows #1 -3- Physical Hardship and Public Health, Safety and Welfare Among the findings that the Planning Commission makes before granting a variance is that the applicant has demonstrated a physical hardship and the granting of the variance "will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially unjurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity." A physical hardship has not been demonstrated. The applicant may simply relocate the proposed garage in the moderate hazard portion of the lot, thus eliminating the need for a variance from the hazard regulations. Also, to locate the garage in the high hazard zone would be detrimental to the public safety and would be materially injurious to property. 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. t STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the avalanche variance. The strict interpretation of the hazard regulations will not result .in.unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the regulations. There are no extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The applicant has not demonstrated physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances. A hazard ordinance variance can be avoided by moving the location of the proposed garage to the moderate zone. Other garages near the site are built in the moderate hazard zone. To grant the variance would constitute a danger to the public safety. Remember the language of Arthur Mears, "How, for example, could the Town of Vail restrict any future construction in the high hazard zone, regardless of location ?...I strongly disagree with the idea of granting a variance for construction in the high hazard zone..." Mr. Mears' letter speaks for itself. Human activity of any sort should be discouraged in red avalanche zones during the winter. The construction of garages, whether structurally protected from a design avalanche or not, in moderate hazard zones is another issue. C3 Lot 21, Vail Meadows #1 -4- II. AVALANCHE VARIANCE REQUEST The applicant wishes to construct a garage to within 5 feet of his westerly property line. Mr. Leroy has several reasons why he feels that the setback variance should be granted: 1. The area he wants to build the garage in is now an existing parking area he has "found it to be the only location that affords the least difficult access to our property." 2. They have designed the garage "to set into the existing slope in order to decrease the slope of the driveway." And if he were "to set the garage (within) the required setback that it would literally have to be dug into the hillside." Mr. Leroy argues that his excavation and overall costs would then increase and that "it would not be appealing, would be difficult to make easy access to our home and it would make drifting snow removal much more difficult." 3. The lot to the west, Lot 22, is "not buildable due to the fact it is completly covered in high hazard avalanche zone." Thus, the garage won't crowd any other existing buildings. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Mr. Leroy has outlined and emphasized in written and oral form to the staff and Planning Commission that the water tank poses a threat to his property. If so, the proposed location of this garage is not in a positive relationship to that hazard. nce The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title rihout rant of s ecial -Privilege. It is interesting to note that Mr. Leroy has been in violation of his approved DRB and building permit plans for almost three years now. When approved, he proposed a driveway up into the lot with the parking area less than 25 feet from his front door. Enclosed is a signed and notarized agreement between the Town and Mr. Leroy stating that he will construct the driveway and plant conifers (see DRB approval) to screen his cars. He has chosen to do nothing but construct an illegal parking area where he now parks - -and then use this as one of the argu- ments for approval of a setback variance. He also argues that if he had to put the garage within the setbacks it would "literally have to be dug into the hillside." Mr. Leroy has proven this not to be true according to his approved site plan presented to the Town in 1977. In fact, he has shown with this originally approved plan a way to get onto the site with a 1% difference in grade than he is now proposing and in the same method a way to solve his problem of carrying groceries, etc. a long distance to his house. Lot 21, Vail Meadow #1 -5- Thus, Mr. Leroy has previously shown how it is possible to access his site and park within close proximity to the house within his required setbacks. For this reason, we feel that he has shown there are viable alternatives to the granting of a setback variance. Otherwise, this would clearly be a grant of special privilege.. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popul.ation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and pu is safety. Refer to part I of the memo for comments on public safety. 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 the following reason: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposed setback variance. Mr. Leroy is almost three years in violation of an agreement with the town saying he would construct his driveway and landscaping as originally approved. He has shown and agreed to build a drive and parking area within his setbacks. We feel he should uphold his previous.agreement and construct it as approved. He, himself, has demonstrated an alternative to his proposal which works within the confines of the zoning regulations. • • �J VD! box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 Tom Leroi Box 952 Vail, Colorado 51657 Dear Mr.' Leroi: department of community development January S, 1979 A Conditional Certificate of Occupancy has been issued on your duplex with -the understanding that the paving of your driveway and landscaping be completed by July 1, 1979. If those .items are not completed the Town of Vail Building Offical may cause them to be completed at your expense. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If there are any further questions please contact me. I have read and understand I' Conditional Certificate of Occupancy. Mark W. Marchus Chief Building Official DATE SEAL I -L_L ltiv, / DATE� ,Subscribed and sworn to before me this r3 day of 1979. NOTARY PU�:3LIC — September 1, 1977 }'RLSItiT: Dill Ruoff • Lou Parker r Ron ''odd Abe Shapiro S'�BJECT : Leroy Residence - Lot 21, Vail Meadows lst Filing `ION TAKEN BY BOARD: MOTION: IJ �(J SECONDED BY: VOTE: FOR: AGAINST: ABSTENTION APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: SUMMARY: t MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 1, 1982 RE: Request for two side setback variances to construct a single family residence on lot 12, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This is the third time the applicant has appeared before the Planning Commission for-setback variances. A summary of the requests presented in terms of number of feet to the lot line, appear below: Required October 12 October 26 June 14 Setback Request -Request Request. East Side 15' 10' 3' 10.5' West Side 15' 5' 10.0' Front Side 20' 12' • Thus the applicant is requesting a 4.5 foot variance on the east and a 5 foot variance on the west from the 15 foot side setback requirement. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS _U_ one review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the re nested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing- or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The current request is an improvement over the past applications. The house is now sited squarely in the buildable portion of the lot. The driveway is located at the front instead of the side of the lot. There is approximately 36 feet between the proposed Angleitner residence and the Fischer residence to the east. Approximately 15' separate the proposed residence & the Marion home to the west. (The Marion residence is 6' from the lot line.) Fourteen feet is the minimal fire separation between buildings. The property owners to the east, Irving and Thelma Fischer, have enunciated strong objections to the current and past applications for setback variances. (see enclosed letter.) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to- achieve compabiiity and - -- uniformity of treatment among sites_ in the vicinity or-to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Angieitner -2- 5/1/82 The irregular pie shape of the lot, and the easement which passes through the 18 center of the lot combine to create a physical hardship on this lot. Due to the physical constraints upon development on this difficult lot, to approve this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applic_a_ble_-to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Plannino 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 would deprive the applicant of privileges in the same district. RECOMMENDATION enforcement of the specified regulation enjoyed by the owners of other properties The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the current variance request. The residence is now sited within the buildable portion of the lot. The Fire Department has also informed us that there is an adequate fire separation between buildings. The driveway and garage are now located in the front of the lot,-:thus allowing the residence to be sited within an acceptable building envelope. EEK] e C5 e" Q,P 0 :0 May 12, 1982 2 THE PLANNING COMMISSION, Town of Vail., Forth Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81658 DEAR MEMBERS, on behalf of the owner, Gottfried Angleitner, I am requesting a variance from the town of Vail setback ordinance (no. 18.13.060) in order to allow the development of lot 12, Vail Village West Second Filing. The north three fourths of the lot are inaccessible and not usable due to an existing sewer easement and its required setback. We have been refused relief from the sewer easement restrictions. The combination of the sewer easement, the Town of Vail setbacks and the odd shape of the lot makes it impossible to site the single family house (even though the . house is approximately 11% under the allowable gross square footage) without setback variance as described below. There are no variances required for front and rear yard setbacks. The setback variances required are as follows: MIN. SETBACK MAX. SETBACK AVERAGE SETBACK NOTES East Side Yard 1016" 2116" 15'6" 1. West Side Yard 10' 14' 12' 2. 1. Neighbor (Mr. Fischer) undecided in his opinion of plan. . 2. Neighbor (Mr. Marion) agrees to Plan and has submitted a letter to City Hall stating his approval. We have improved upon the design.since our previous submittal in the following ways: 1. Located the driveway and front entrance on the front of the lot rather than the side. 2. Re- designed the entire house to closely adapt to the odd shape of the lot. 3. Respected the neighbors privacy by not locating windows facing their houses. f „ � The Planning Commission Vail, Colorado 81658 Page 2 4. have stayed within the town of Vail fire separations between buildings (14') as related by Steve Patterson. DISTANCE BETWEEN HOUSES YFTf_'P11O12 MTM TITQTANTr'F MAV nTQTATTrV AVT DAM 1'ITQTA?%1r ' Mr. Mr. Fischer Marion (East) (West) 3710" 5310" 45'0" 1516" 20'0" 17'9" 5. Have retained all existing landscaping and will add more along both sides of the house to visually separate it from neighbors. 6. Have averaged out the angled setbacks in that for each square foot. -that is over the setback lane there is more square feet that is behind the line. This will visually average out the mass of the building such that it will appear to be behind the line. I have made two trips from Illinois to review these changes with staff. They have been very helpful and I personally believe this has their • support. We have made every attempt to design the smallest house that could fit on this lot consistent with the owners program. The construction documents are entirely done and the owner is anxious to begin construction this summer. U Thank you for your consideration. VA A1Yen _. Johnson, A.I.A. Presi ent AWJ:nf Colorado Architectural License 4302393 I STATE' OF COLORADO ) ss CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER ) IRVING & THELMA FISCHER, of lawful age, being first duly sworn., upon Oath depose and state; We are the owners of Lot 11, Vail Village West, Filing #2 known as, and numbered 1753 Shasta Place, in the town of Vail, State of Colorado, By this Affidavit we go on record as opposing the granting of a variance to Gottfried Angleitn.er, or any other party, from the side and setbacks requirements to allow the construction of a single family home or other building on Lot 12, Vail Village West, riling #2, known as 1753 Shasta. The granting of any variance from the present zoning and building code will Materially increase the fore hazard to our property, create parking and traffic problems, and substantially depreciate our property by over use and over crowding of the area, 41 Ir ing Fischer n LJ MEMORANDUM FROM: Community Development Department TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: June 10, 1982 RE: Request for front setback variances an existing residence located on lot Applicant: James R. Williams DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED to construct an addition to 11A, Matterhorn Village. The request is to allow a three foot encroachment into the 20 foot front setback to add a garage on the lower level of the existing house. Also, the deck proposed would encroach three feet more than the ten feet (or halfway into the setback) allowed in the same area. The applicant feels that the variance should be granted because he needs the extra space for much - needed additional living areas and storage space for his family of six. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS on review of Criteria and Findin e Department of Community Develo variance based upon the foilow Consideration of Factors Section 18. 62.060_ of the Municipal C t recommends denial of the requested The relationshi of the requested variance to other existin or potential uses an structures in the vicinity. The only existing house in the directly surrounding area is the Clem residence to the north of this house. They have written a letter expressing their endorsement of the proposal. Potential residences on the surrounding lots would not be negatively affected. The degree. to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and en- forcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and unjformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff feels the granting of the variance would be a special privilege in that it is obvious that there are alternative designs for Mr. William's addition which would produce essentially the same spaces within his setbacks. The encroach- ments are only three feet, and the reason the addition encroaches is due to the fact that proposal extends the front facade of the house to the west on a straight line, while the configuration of the westerly lot line is curved. The applicant wishes a 25` deep garage which pushes the garage into the setback. • A 22 foot garage would allow the proposal to conform to front setback requirements. 11A Matterhorn -2- 6/10/82 The staff is not against Mr. Williams' addition to the house: _We feel it is a positive improvement for the site. However, we cannot recommend approval of a variance when there has been no effort to design the addition with the setbacks in mind. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population transportation and traffic facilities public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No effects on these factors are foreseen. Other factors: Mr. Williams has the additional GRFA for his proposal available: Existing house a 1815 sq ft Proposed addition 651.5 sq ft Total proposed - 2466.5 sq ft Total allowable = 2482 sq ft The lot size is .228 acre in Primary /Secondary zone District. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems_ applicable to the •proposed variance. FINDINGS Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted.for the following reason: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the variance because • the objectives of .the applicant can be accomplished on the site within the required setbacks. 0 Town of Vail Building Planning Commission Vail, CO 81658 PO Box 3757 1718 Geneva Drive Matterhorn Vail, CO 81658 Reference: Variance request by James R. Williams, 1722 Geneva Drive, Matterhorn, Vail. We are Mr. Williams immediate neighbor to the north and would be the most affected by the improvement to his property. We are in favor of the.Town of Vail granting._the variance. It will up -grade the appearance of the neighborhood and Vail should only want that to occur. Mr. Williams and family are also-in need of more living space and a garage will enhance their auto parking situation. The residence is situated on a dead -end street and the variance will not impede any traffic or space needed for other construction. Request approval. r Respectfully Property Owners 1718 Geneva Drive rt r U • �1 MEMORANDUM TO: ` Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 17, ,l 982 RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit to contruct an addition to the bus barn located at the town shops. Applicant: Town of Mail The town of Vail is proposing the construction of a 10,500 square foot (84 x 125) addition to the existing bus storage facility. The addition is necessary for the storage of 20 additional buses which will be purchased in the near future. Use of the facility will be solely for the housing of the new buses. All exterior siding, ,-doors,;:'and roofing will match the existing building, The increase in size is to accommodate the larger (35 ft) buses that the town is buying. CRI=TERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18,500, -the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: 1. Cons ideratioo of Factors,: ,Relationship ,a-nd im act of the use on development objectives of the town, One of the key elements and objectives of the town is to provide the highest level of quality bus service possible. We feel we have achieved this over the recent years and wish to maintain the level of service and convenience, To accomplish th i s.,,'-more buses. are needed and, - concurrently,; more storage for the buses. The Ofect of\ the,.use on li ht and air, distribution of population. transportation a 0 ittes�i"util Sties Esc ool 'parks an recreation faci ities and other ublic �aail l iae'i a� i � 40 �-i f needs , The project is proposed to expand transportation facilities. The storage is needed to accommodate the buses which are required to serve a growing area. ,Effe 'q��Vonn traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestr^i�n _safety, a : convenience traffic f ow an control access maneuverabilit a o :" snow -,from. t e street and ar in areas, The town shops are well designed for ingress /egress for these buses and traffic patterns should not be adversely affected. Effect�:,u on the- character of. the area in which the proposed use is to be located, fr�CTUM rk scale. i d bul of t e proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The addition is designed to match the architectural character of the existing facilities, Such other-. f envir0n"Men ronm6nt1 Bus Barn -2- tars` and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the No EIR required. RECOMMENDATION Im aRt�`ro ar:t concern�n the ~proposed uses. if an ct 'report 4s. QUi, ed�.v Ater 1'8'. 56, The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. We foresee this addition as having only positive effects upon the provision of quality public transportation for the town. PLANNO AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 June 28, 1982 Holiday Inn Homestake Room 1:30 pm Site visits 3:00 pm 1. Approval of minutes of June 14, 1982. 2. Request for two setback variances to allow the construction of a garage on lot 10, block C, Vail das Schone Filing #1. Applicants: Alex and Mary Ann Gordon. 3. Request for an exterior alteration and modification for the Vail Lionshead Gondola Building to allow exterior seating for Le Petit Cafe. Applicant: Elliot Al port. 4. Request for exterior alteration and modification for One Vail Place to allow exterior seating on.the east side of the building for Petit Cafe. Applicant: Elliot Alport 5. Request for approval of the general circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business District. Applicants: Property owners in the proposed district. 6. Request for several amendments to the Vail Municipal Code redefining the term "family," adding definitions of "hostel" and "rooming house" and providing that no single family or two- family dwelling shall be used in whole or in part for short term rental as accommodation units, a rooming house or a hostel. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. Request for amendments to the parking chapter of the Vail Municipal Code to clarify wording, revise certain parking requirements and to amend the definition of Floor Area and to include a new parking requirement for employee housing projects. Applicant: Town of Vail 8. Appeal of an administrative interpretation concerning the Lodge Room Conversion ordinance. Applicant: Jay K. Peterson Published in the Vail Trail June 25, 1982. s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 28, 1982 • PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Scott. Edwards Peter Jamar Will Trout Jim Sayre Dan Corcoran Larry Eskwith Duane Piper Dick Ryan Jim Morgan Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ABSENT Chuck Anderson Diana Donovan Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3 :00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of June 14, 1982. Dan corrected two items in the minutes: Misspelling of "not" on page 3 and the fact that Diana seconded to deny the Williams setback request on page 4. With these corrections, Edwards moved and Morgan seconded to approve the minutes. 2. Request for two setback variances to allow the construction of a garage on lot 10, Block C, Vail das Sc one Filing #1. Applicants: Atex-'and.Mar Ann Gordon • Peter Jamar presented the request explaining that the staff recommended approval based upon the findings and the feeling that the garage would improve the quality of the site and neighborhood by enclosing the parked vehicles. Edwards suggested that perhaps the Design Review Board look at the height of the garage as it related to the neighbor's garage. Edwards moved and Trout seconded to approve the request for the setback variances per the staff memo dated June 22, 1982 with the note to the DRB to consider the height of the garage. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 3. Request for an exterior alteration and modification for the Vail Lionshead Gondola Building to allow exterior seating for Le Petit Cafe. Applicant: Elliot Alport. n Peter Jamar presented the memo, adding that at the next meeting there would be a request to remove outdoor dining from the Urban Design Guide Plan process because the Town was trying to encourage outdoor dining, and this would facilitate outdoor dining. There was discussion about leaving in the word. "remove" in the requirements for outdoor dining, so that one would have to go through the UDGP in order to remove outdoor dining. Peter explained that the staff recommended approval of the request for the reasons stated in the memo. Viele moved and Morgan seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated June 23, 1982. The vote was 5 -0 with Trout abstaining. PEC 6/28/82 -2- 4. Request for exterior alteration and modification for One Vail Place- to allow exterior seating on the east side of the building for Petit Cafe. Applicant: Elliot Alport Peter Jamar said that the staff was requesting that the item be tabled because of lack of information. Jack Curtin.representing One Vail Place condo association and Mrs. Hill, stated that the restaurant was already using the outdoor space, and that the space was not well defined, so that the tables were being moved onto other property and into the fire lane. He requested that there be strong demarcation for the dining area. Trout requested that the item not be tabled, and Jamar replied that he did not receive part of the necessary information until Friday of the previous week, and that therefore the staff had not had time to prepare. a memo on it. Elliot Alport replied that everything else in the application was timely, with the exception of the letter from VA. After more discussion, Piper moved to table until July 12, and Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was 2 -3 with Viele, Morgan and Edwards voting against tabling. After more discussion, Larry Eskwith pointed out that because VA had certain easements reserved to them, there was no way a decision could be made by the staff or the commission without knowing what those easements were. Dick Ryan emphasized that the item should be tabled. Edwards moved and Corcoran seconded to table the item so that the staff could study the issues. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of tabling with Trout abstaining. 5. Request for approval of the general circulation and.access plan for the Arterial Business District. Applicants: Property owners in the proposed district. Dick Ryan explained that one of the requirements of.the new Arterial Business District was a general circulation and access plan to be used as a guide for the subsequent development of the.area. He pointed out one change in the Texaco site, and that was that the entrance had been moved to the opposite end of the property. Neil Clark of I -Plan showed the site plan and showed the Texaco entrance on the west side. He pointed out that most of the exits were evenly spaced along the Frontage Road. Trout stated that he had suggested planning interior pedestrian pathways, and did not see any on the plans. Ryan answered that he felt that street side sidewalks were needed along the frontage road. Clark added that each owner would have to show a pedestrian connection to the properties on either side of him. Deceleration lanes, connecting bridges and bike paths were discussed. Bob Voliter wanted to know all the costs. After more discussion, Piper moved and Viele seconded to approve with the one access change the general circulation and access plan as per the staff memo dated June 23, 1982. The vote was 4 in favor, 0 against, with Viele and Morgan abstaining. 0 . PEC 6/28/82 -3- 6. Request for several amendments to the Vail Municipal Code__ redefining the providing that no single family ns of "hostel" and "rooming_house" and term "family, adding definitio or two-family dwelling shall be used in whole or in part for short term rental as accommodation units, a rooming house or a hostel. Apolicant: Town of Vail Jim Sayre presented the memo and explained the staff'.s.reasoning for the number of people allowed per dwelling unit. Discussion centered around short term vs long term rental, legalities, and whether to have the ordinance directed only at rentals. Ryan asked to table the item until July 12. Piper moved and Trout seconded to table the amendment request until July 12 as per applicant's request. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling. 7. Request for amendments to the parking chapter of the Vail Municipal Code to clarify wording, revise certain parking requirements and to amend the definition of Floor Area and to include a new parking requirement for employee housing projects. Applicant: Town of Vail Ryan requested to table this item. Viele and Morgan moved and Edwards seconded to table per the applicant's request to July 12. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling. 8. Appeal of an administrative interpretation concerning the Lodge Room Conversion ordinance. Applicant: Jay K. Peterson Ryan presented the memo, and Jay Peterson explained that he and Peter Patten had listened to all of the tapes of the council when the ordinance had been discussed. Peterson felt that all references in the ordinance were to do with lodge roams,. not condos. Ryan disagreed. Discussion followed concerning whether or not a lodge ... unit contained kitchens. It was explained that a lodge unit did not contain a kitchen, and was synonymous with "accommodation unit." Jay felt that the ordinance should apply only to lodge rooms because the ordinance wasn't clear and because the Town has been concerned with helping lodge owners, and this interpretation would make it possible for the Inn at West Vail to stay in business by condomin,imi.zing their accommodation units, which are difficult to rent. He added that he could see no adverse consequences.for. the Town. Edwards agreed. Larry Eskwith pointed out that the ordinance dealt with the question ambiguously and could be interpreted either way. Chuck Anderson felt that there has been serious concern about the lack of lodge rooms, and that maybe this would be an incentive, and that it was important not to have an ordinance in opposition to this concern. Edwards moved and Trout seconded to interpret the paragraph referred in the memo dated June 24, 1982 to apply to accommodation units only. The vote was 5 -0 in favor with Corcoran abstaining. Trout was appointed to the DRB for July, August and September. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm. J • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 22, 1982 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.04.110, definition of Family, to add Sections 18.04.185 and 18.04.285 which would define hostel and rooming house, and to add Section 18.58.310 which prohibits accommodation units, rooming houses and hostels in single and two family dwellings. Applicant: Town of Vail BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM At the present time, the definition of family reads,,. "Family means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit, or a group of not more than four unrelated persons living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit." This is a very conventional definition. A majority of municipalities through the state and nation are using similar definitions. It is designed to protect low density, family - oriented neighborhoods where, in the words of Justice . Douglas, "Yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles [are] restricted." When applied to Vail, however, this definition is unrealistic and impossible to enforce. Short term rental agencies are routinely booking more than four unrelated persons into short term rental units. Employees often violate the ordinance in order to reduce the burden of rent. For years Vail, and other resort towns around the nation, have lived with this unrealistic definition without a problem. But problems have arisin in Vail. Last year complaints were received from a neighbor that a duplex was housing thirty to forty people on a short term basis. The neighbor complained of parking and noise problems. Vail needs an ordinance which is realistic and enforceable in order to stop such abuses. THE PROPOSAL I. FAMILY The request is to change the zoning code so that density per dwelling unit will be limited to a family unit or a group of unrelated persons not to exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two with a maximum of ten persons per unit. The two per bedroom plus two figure is the result of a survey of short and long term rental units. The survey indicated . that the base occupancy of rental units does not normally exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two in the living room. Also, there are very few dwelling units which have more than five bedrooms - -thus the limit of ten persons per unit. • DefinitioW Family 6/22/82 -2- A bedroom is defined in the Uniform Building Code as an area not less than 70 square feet, which has egress, natural light and ventilation. II. ROOMING HOUSE AND HOSTEL. One of the issues which arose from the discussions of family is whether the Town of Vail should protect the residential character of the single and two- family zone districts. One of the items mentioned in the joint Planning Commission -Town Council meeting of March 26, 1982 was that language should be incorporated into the code which would prohibit renting out bedrooms to different groups of people within a dwelling unit, particiularly in the low density residential zones. The language prohibiting rooming houses and hostels in single family and duplex units are intended.to fulfill this request. III. PARKING AND ENFORCEMENT Two final issues arose during discussions about family: Parking and the enforcement of the revised regulations. The Department of Community Development will seek the cooperation of the short term rental agencies and the Vail Resort, Association to inform Vail's guests of the proposed regulation. The rental agencies will be informed that if the Town staff discovers a violation, the code will be enforced. Also, the Department will ask the rental agencies to inform their customers to bring as few automobiles as possible to Vail during their vacations and tell them how many autos the • site can handle (i.e. "you cannot bring more than two cars in your party during your stay "). STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends a revision of the current definition of family, which includes a family related by blood or marriage or a group of not more than.four unrelated persons, as well.as recommending new definitions for Hotel and Rooming House as follows: 18.04.110 Family Family means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit, or a group of unrelated persons not to exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two persons with a maximum of ten persons per dwelling unit. • j Definition ceamily 5/22/82 -3- The language defining hostel and rooming house appears below: 18.04.185 Hostel Hostel shall be deemed to be a facility intended for short term rental with features including simple dorm or sleeping rooms for cooking, meeting, recreational and educational use. 18.04.285 Roomina House Rooming house shall be deemed to be a.fac!lity..i_ntended to.prov.ide minimum housing accommodations arranged primarily for sleeping, and which may include a private bath, but shall not include any kitchen equipment such as refrigerator, sink or cooking device. The language prohibiting hostels and rooming houses in single family and duplex dwellings would be placed in the supplemental regulations: 18.58.310 No single or two - family dwelling shall be used in whole or in part for short term rental as accommodation units, rooming house, or hostel. . This language is more realistic than the current definition. The language pro- hibiting rooming houses and hostels in single family and duplex Units would protect residential areas from the abuses that Vail experienced last summer. We feel that this will!be an equitable solution to the existing problem. :7 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/ Peter Patten DATE: June 24, 1982 SUBJECT: Appeal of.an administrative interpretation of a part of Ordinance 24, Series of 1980 regarding converting lodge and accommodation units into condominium units. Applicant: Jay Peterson In July of 1980, Ordinance 24 was passed which regulated the conversion of lodge and accommodation units to condominiums. At the same time the time sharing ordinances were passed regulating new projects and proposed conversions to time sharing. Ordinance 24 provides for requirements and restrictions for lodge room conversions including restricting owner's use to 2 weeks in both winter and summer as well as continuing all hotel - type services and facilities after condominization. The intent of the ordinance was to not make illegal such conversions, but allow them if the use of the building (or specifically the unit) remained essentially the same, that is, a lodge open to the general public at almost any time. THE CASE AT HAND The specific problem we're dealing with has to do with Section 17.040.075(A) where it reads: "Any applicant seeking to convert a lodge, building or structure containing accommodation units, in whole or in part, to condo- miniums shall comply with the requirements of this Section. The requirements herein contained shall not apply to conversion of, two units or less." Jay Peterson represents the Craddock Company which owns the Inn at West Vail. They wish to convert 19 top floor units with kitchens to individual condominium ownership. They feel that they need to raise this revenue because of the low occupancy they're experiencing at the Inn at West Vail. These 19 units have been used as rentals available to tourists since their inception. The conflict comes in relation to the above paragraph where it says that anyone wishing to convert a lodge, building or structure containing accommodation units, in whole or in part.....shall comply. The Craddock proposal wishes to convert a part of a building which contains accommodation units in another.part. Thus, the staff feels that the converted units fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinance and the 14 day restriction, etc. applies in this case. 0 Conversion of Lodge its 6/24/82 -2- i 0 46 Jay Peterson argues that this ordinance strictly applies to lodge rooms, that is, accommodation units (defined as units without kitchens) and that it was not the intent of the ordinance to regulate rooms with kitchens (defined as dwelling units in the zoning code). Jay argues that the "in whole or in part" was meant to apply to a case in reversal of his where because a building contained some condos and some accommodation.units that the accommodation units could not be converted without restriction. The central question boils down to: Was it the intent of the ordinance to regulate the conversion of type of use (open to general tourist market vs closed to them) whether the unit proposed to be converted had a kitchen or not? The staff has done two things to find out what the true intent was when the ordinance was passed. First, I've spoken with Larry Rider (who drafted the ordinance), Rich Caplan and Jim Rubin. Secondly, I've listened to the tapes of the Council meetings for first and second readings of the ordinance. It should be noted that in the tapes of the meetings and in the ordinance itself, the question of kitchen or no kitchen never came up or was included. Thus, nobody ever directly addressed the question at hand in a direct fashion, to the best of my knowledge. However, all of those I spoke with (listed above) said the intent was to regulate use of lodges. The tapes of the meeting, in several instances, back this up: Dr. Steinbert: (...the purpose is to) "maintain as lodge units for tourists - -not as a year -round condominium." ...."avoid full time condomminium" Jim Rubin (..the ordinance is) "not converting the uses of the Lodge" (but to) "make sure a. Lodge remains used as a Lodge." There was much discussion at first reading regarding.having rooms available to the general public on a "drive off the highway" type basis.. There was disa- greement in Council as to the severity of this problem or potential problem. The staff's conclusion is that regard to kitchen facilities:. "..requirements and restrictio! implying that a lodge unit was of rooms used as a lodge rooms the ordinance intended that. • the ordinance was intended to.regulate use without The title paragraph of the ordinance states is for converting lodge and accommodation units .." different from an accommodation unit. The conversion should be controlled and it is our belief that • MEMORANDUM • 40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commisssion FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: dune 23, 1982 SUBJECT: Request to add outdoor patio area at le Petit Cafe, Lionshead Gondola Building APPLICANT: Elliot Alport I. PROPOSAL The proposal is to utilize an area of approximately 300 square feet under an awning in front of le Petit Cafe located in the Lionshead Gondola Building for the purpose of outdoor dining. The awning has been previously approved by the Design Review Board. This review is to determine whether the use of the area under the awning is in compliance with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. II. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010 The Commercial Core 2 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multi- ple dwelling, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified develop - ment. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design considerations is.intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the CC2 zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Vail Lionshead Design Guidelines state that "functional decks or patios, primarily for dining, are strong street life elements in Lionshead and are highly encouraged." The use of the area in front of le Petit Cafe will enhance the street life along the mall and will be in conformance with the Design Guidelines.. IV. LIONSHEAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Decks and Patios: The Lionshead Design Considerations state that dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street by bringing people out onto the street. Successful decks and patios in Lionshead have been found to have several common characteristics. These characteristics are direct sunlight several • 0 C7 0 hours a day, protection from wind, an above the pedestrian walk, a physical walk of 2 to 6 feet, and an overhang le s ite LH 6/23/82 -2- elevation change of 2 to 3 feet separation from the pedestrian giving pedestrian scale and shelter. The Petite Cafe proposal contains several of the elements that make an outdoor dining area successful. While the proposed seating area does not receive much direct sunlight and will have an awning overhead, the site does receive direct sun during the early morning breakfast hours, and the tables on the east side of the area should receive direct sunlight. The site is fairly well protected from wind due to the configuration of the Gondola Building. The seating area, due.to a grade change in the mall and the slight rise in elevation of the patio, will have views into the pedestrian walk and will also have a:.physical separation from the pedestrian walk in the form of movable planters. The awning will serve as an overhang to give both pedestrian scale and shelter to the patio. A second part of this proposal, to be reviewed at an upcoming meeting, is to enclose this patio area with glass during the winter months to enable using the patio area throughout the entire year. V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS This proposal meets all Town of Vail zoning regulations. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested outdoor dining area. We feel that the proposal..meets the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guidelines and will be an asset to the Lionshead area. We strongly encourage the development of the second part of the proposal which is to enclose this area during winter months to enable use of the patio . throughout the year and thus add life to the mall in winter as well as in summer. MEMORANDUM is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 23, 1982 SUBJECT: Request for approval of the General Circulation and Access P:l'an.. for the Arterial Business District. Applicants: Property Owners in the Arterial Business District BACKGROUND As you'll recall, one of the requirements of the new Arterial Business District is a general circulation and access plan to 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 to the plan adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission." Thus, we are attempting to plan the area's circulation and ingress /egress to sites at this time, so the area is developed as a unified, coherent district, rather than a piecemeal "look at it when it's developed" approach. THE PLAN • The major objectives of the general circulation and access plan are as follows: 1) Provide pedestrian /bicycle paths on both sides of the South Frontage Road as an ideal scheme. These paths would be completed as each parcel redevelops. 2) Provide a pedestrian bridge between the Texaco and Holy Cross sites at the time both are developed. 3) Limit the number of ingress /egress points to each parcel from the South Frontage Road or from.other roads so as not to "strip commercial" the area and to reduce traffic congestion and confusion. 4) Attempt to align ingress /egress drives on opposite sides of South Frontage Road. 5) if ingress /egress drives cannot be aligned, then separate them as much as possible. 6) Provide pedestrian /bicycle links to Cascade Village and Lionshead. 7) Generally plan a circulation pattern which is simple and safe for those on a bicycle, in an automobile or motorcycle or as.a pedestrian. C� RECOMMENDATION The Department and access plan approval. • rI i Circulation/Ioss 6/23/82 -2- of Community Development feels that the general circulation proposed meets the above objectives, and we recommend 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 22, 1982 SUBJECT: Request for a front and side setback variance to allow the construction of a garage upon lot 10, Block C, Vail das Schone Filing #1. Applicants: Alex and Mary Ann Gordon DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants request a front setback variance of 17 feet from the required 20 foot front setback and a 9 foot variance from the required 15 foot side setback as required by the Primary /Secondary Residential zone District to enable them to construct a two car garage upon their lot which at this time is occupied by a single family home. The proposed garage would sit 3 feet from the front lot line adjacent to Arosa Drive and six feet from the side lot line which is adjacent to a lot owned and occupied by Gary and Helen Anne Stevens (see attached site plan). Lot 10 is 13,840 square feet in area.and allows the construction of a single family home. The dwelling which exists was constructed while the lot was a part of Eagle County. The area of the site upon which the house sits is basically the most buildable portion of the lot, due to a steep ravine located upon the north side. The house conforms to Town of Vail setback requirements except for the southwest corner which is located 13 feet from the side property line rather than the 15 feet required by TOV zoning. The building did, however, conform to Eagle County's required side setback of 121 feet when it was built. The area which is currently proposed as a garage is utilized at this time as a parking area. The applicants feel that it would be beneficial to the appearance of the site as well as to the neighborhood to enclose the area and have enclosed parking for two cars. The site coverage allowed upon the lot is 2768 square feet, and with the addition of the garage, the total site coverage by buildings would be 1460 square feet which is well below the allowable. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends_agproval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationshi of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinit Gordon 022/82 -2- The requested variance should not have any negative impacts upon any existing orlpatenit:ial uses or structures in the vicinity. The proposed garage, while located only three feet off the front property line would sit 15 feet off the edge of the pavement due to the 12 foot distance between the edge of Arosa Drive and the front property line. The house to the south is situated such that the garage should have no negative impacts upon it. The owners of this house, the Stevens, have written a letter in support of the side and front setback variances. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and en-. forcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uni—f—ormity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The granting of the variance is warranted for several reasons. Due to physical constraints upon the site (the steepness and location of existing house), it would be difficult to site a garage upon the lot without infringing upon the required setbacks. The facts that the parking which is currently unenclosed will be enclosed and that the structure will not have any negative impacts upon surrounding uses or structures is reason to grant relief from the strict interpretation of the setback requirements. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution Opopulation transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have no negative impacts upon the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance_ That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in.the same district. 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. • • . Gordon 6/22/82 -3- That the variance is warranted for the following reason: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsis- tent with the objectives of this title. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the requested variance. The construction of the garage will aesthetically improve the quality of the site and neighborhood by enclosing parked vehicles. There is sufficient area between the garage and roadway so as not to impact traffic, or snow removal, and the siting is such that it will not impact the adjacent property owner. At the time the project is reviewed by the Design Review Board, the landscaping should be reviewed in order to insure proper screening of the garage from the road and adjacent lot. • ri r � Jy • i Y f i 0 L All a /rn 2t] Ir h � X3 I; k Lm .1 vi a -- r ti•� ._ ate.. IZI 0 L All a /rn 2t] Ir h � X3 I; k Lm .1 vi