Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - Junei' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INDEX JANUARY THRU JULY 1983 JANUARY l0 APPOINT DRB MEMBER NEW CHAIRMAN (CORCORAN REELECTED) LIONSHEAD GONDOLA BLDG employee lockers POTATO PATCH lot 18, BARTLIT/IRISH setback variance VAIL COMMONS drive through bank -Facility ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT reconsideration of circulation and access p1 an JANUARY 2~# ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, " SDD 4 GLEN LYON OFFICE BUILDING setback and GRFA request VAIL VILLAGE 71th, LOT 17, STRAUCH appeal of an administrative decision FEBRUARY 14 BIGHORN 5TH, Lot 1, Blk 7, KLAWTTER, height variance CORE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS DISCUSSION AMEND VIEWS OUTSIDE CORES FEBRUARY 2$ URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN VIEWS CHANGE SUBMITTAL DEADLINES FOR CCII CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS IN CORES MARCH 74 LOT 15, VAIL VALLEY 3rd, HELIOSCOPE enclose carport VEHICLE CONGESTION IN VILLAGE APRIL 11 BIGHORN 5th, Lot 7, blk 7, DAVID ROGERS GALLERY BUILDING fioodplain modify FLOOD INSURANCE modify HAZARD REGS APRIL 25 BUFFEHR CREEK lot 15, GUERRIERO, side setback variance AMEND CONDITIONAL USE FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION RELAY EQUIPMENT .µ., TREETOPS REZONE TO CC I I ~~.~ ~ f~U ~ l' ~ BALDWIN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW INTERIOR EXPANSION FOR NON-CONFORMING MAY 9 VAIL TRAILS CHALET, ZIMMERMAN, setback variance AMBULENCE GARAGE, VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ~ _.;- -- INTERMOUNTAIN, LOT 1, BLOCK b, REZONE ;r`~.~~-~-.a' f~ 5,~~"z ~ DESIGN REVIEW ~. MAY 23 -INTERMOUNTAIN LOT 7, BLK 6, REZONE BAULDAF CABIN request for historical buidling VAIL VILLAGE 8th, LOT 1, BLK 1, TUSCHMAN, side setback variance VAIL FAMILY ARCADE West Vail Mall renew license INTERMOUNTAIN LOT 7 BLK 9, BARNES/MAUER side setback variance DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT JUNE 13 TREETOPS REZONE ~~~~~~~~~ ~~!~ ~ DAY CARE AT BUFFEHR CREEK RADIO ANTENNAE ON CHAMONIX CORNERS BLDG LODGE to increase no. of accom units. VAIL DAS SCHONE #l, LOT 11, BLK E, TURNBULL, COMMERCIAL STORAGE AMENDMENT BAULDAF CABIN CONDITIONAL USE SDD 6, ADD OUTSIDE VENDING BUFFEHR CREEK, LOTS 15 & 1~, MINOR SUB PRELIM REVIEW OF EXT MODIFICATION: Lodge at,.,.,]lail, McBride Bldg, A&D Bldg, Plaza Lodge, Lifthouse Lodge, Lionshead Arcade, Village Center, Sweet Basil and Blu's JUNE 27 LODGE OF VAIL, increase acco units INTERMOUNTAIN LOT 7 BLK 9, BARNES/MAUER side setback variance BRLDWIN AMENDMENT WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IN GORE CREEK INN AT WEST VAIL game parlour VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB condo conversion JULY 11 DAY CARE .AT Bt1FFEHR CREEK LODGE AT VAIL, increase acco units BALDWIN AMEND WATER. COLLECTION SYSTEM IN GORE CREEK VAIL VILLAGE INN, popcorn wagon REQUESTS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION FOR: PLAZA LODGE-CHRISTY SPORTS MCBRIDE BLDG GORSUCH SWEET BASIL AND BLU'S, GORE CREEK PLAZA BLDG JULY 25 -- TREETOPS CONDO REZONE LODGE AT VAIL ACCO UNITS BIGHORN 3rd, LOT 5, BLK 3; side setback variance ~-- GETTY OIL SITE ~ ~~-~~ EXT ALTERATIONS FOR GORE CREEK PLAZA, LIFT}~OUSE:LODGE, VILLAGE CENTER LO~~AT VAIL two restaurants CONDO CONVERSION AMENDMENT -~ AUGUST ~2 BLU`5 BEANERY, enclose deck SDD#4 ski trail INDEx PEC 1983 AMEND TQ REMOVE ACCO QN~TS FROM QCNSITY CONTROLS IN CCi AND ~A VORLAUFER #306, remodel POTATO PATCW, BOSSOW, enclosed swimming pool TEXAS TOWNHOUSES, 4A and 4B setback variance VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL, expand playground LOTS 25 and 26 BIGHORN TERRACE, vacate a lot line SEPTEMBER 12, 1983 LIONSWEAD RRCADE addition =:- SKI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT, add as a new zone district ~~f~ ~ ~" ~ ~ z ~ GOLDEN PEAK discussion of redevelopment LOT 21, BLK 9, INTERMOUNTAIN, appeal Design Review decision }IELTPADS, amend to have as conditional use INN AT WEST VAIL MAJOR ARCADE DESTGN REVTEW CHAPTER OF CODE, amend SEPTEMBER 26, 1983 •-- SKI BASE/RECRERTION DISTRICT, add as a new zone district ~~~~~' GOLDEN PEAK, discussion of redevelopment VILLAGE CENTER add new retail and remodel LOTS 27 & 28, BLOK A, VAIL DAS SCHONE #1 realign lot line ~-- LOT 1, BLK 1,BIGNORN 1st ADD change to 2 single family lots TYROLEAN CONDOS, #2, enclose deck CONCERT HALL PLAZA, storage units AMEND EXT ALT TO ALLOW TWOSE UNDER 100 SQ FT ANY TIME OF YEAR SDD6 OCTOBER lO, 1983 LIONSHEAD ARCADE addition LODGE AT VAIL add new wing and modify parking lot and storage LOT 4, BLK 3, INTERMOUNTAIN. setback variance LOT 10, BLK 1,VAIL VILLAGE 13th, request to not pave driveway LOT 40, BLK 7, VAIL VILLAGE 1st, front setback variance STARTER SHACK AT GOLF COURSE r OCTOBER 24, 1983 SDD6 LODGE AT VAIL (see 10/10) CONCERT HALL PLAZA, storage units --- GETTY OIL SITE, rezone request :; SDD#11 request to delete the proposed ice rink/plaza building and walks, etc. ~"'`~~~ VOLITER NURERY GARAGE car wash ~~}V LOT 6, BLK 6, INTERMOUNTAIN parking NOVEMBER 14 CONCERT HALL PLAZA storage ~-withdrawn --~ TRACT F, VRIL VILLAG 5th, TRACT B, VIL VILLAGE 7th rezone and impose SKI BASE/ RECREATION DISTRICT GONDOLA BUILDING, radio headset rental #11, BIGHORN TERRACE, side setback variance APOLLO LODGE, setback variance ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, request to include automotive repair services and garages NOVEMBER 28, 1983 -' GETTY OIL SITE rezone ~. SDD6 ~- ~~ ~-~ _c~.-0 ~..~ APOLLO LODGE, setback variance LOT 26, VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2 front setback variance DECEMBER i2 APPOINT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD LOT 1, BLK 9, BIGHORN 3rd VAIL EAST TOWNHOMES, rezone ---- CLIF'FSIDF SUB, request to rezone GOLDEN PEAK, modify the fioodplain ONE VAIL PLACE, headset rental PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS T0: LANDMARK CONDOS CONCERT HALL PLAZA TREETOPS CONDOS CHAIR #8, RED LION INN. CYRANO'S VALENTINO'S VILLAGE CENTER i~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 10 , 1983 2:00 pm Site Inspections 3:00 pm Public Ffearing 1. Appointment of member to DRB for 3 months. 2. Election of new chayrman to take offa.ce February 14, s. Approval of minutes of December 13, 4. Request for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core II in order to construct employee locker space- acid pu~,l is locker facilities in the loading dock area of the Vail Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 5. Request for setback variance to encroach 10 feet into the 15 foot rear setback adjoining Forest Service property in order to build a two family residence on lot 18, block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1. • Applicants: Dave Irish and Fred Bartlit s. Request fora conditional use permit in order to construct a drive-through bank facility in the CC3 zone district and a request to amend an approved site plan to allow the drive-in teller facility and to revise the parking plan for the Vail Commons development at Vail dos Schane, Filing 4. Applicant: Vail Commons, Ltd. c. Request for reconsideration of the general circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business District. Applicants: Property owners in the proposed Arterial Business District. Published in the Vail Trail January 7, 1983. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • January 10, 1983 PRESENT Will Trout Diana Donovan Jim Viele Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Gordon Pierce Jim Morgan (later) 1. Appointment of member to DRB for 3 months. STAFF PRESENT Peter Jamar Peter Patten Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele volunteered to attend DRB January, February and March, and Gordon Pierce said that he would attend DRB April, May and ,lone. 2. Election of new chairman to take office February 14. Dan Corcoran was re-elected chairman, and Duane Piper re-elected vice-chairman. L~ • 3. Approval of minutes of December 13, 1982. Will Trout had two corrections to make to the minutes. Donavan moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes with the corrections as noted. The vote was 6-0, in favor. 4. Request far exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core II in order to construct employee locker space and public locker facilities in the loading dock area of the Vail Lionshead Gondola Building. RppTicant: Vail Assoc., Tnc. Peter Jamar explained the request and added that since there really was no exterior alteration, the Lionshead Urban Design Considerations and Design Guidelines did not apply. He referred the board members to the letter from Bob Parker suggesting that sections 18.24.065 and 18.26.045 be amended to exempt construction in interior ardas only from the PEC review process, Jamar explained that the staff would be reviewing this procedure. Shawn Primer of VA told of trash changes. Vie1e moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated December 30, 1982. The vote was 5-0 in favor. (Pierce left temporarily.) 5. Request for setback variance to encroach 10 feet into the 15 foot rear setback ad~oininq Forest Service property in order to build a two family residence od lot 18, block 1, Potato Patch Filing 1. Applicants: Dave Irish and Fred 8artlit Peter Jamar reminded the board that there had been a similar request at their last meeting, but asking for an encroachment of 14 feet rather than 10. Jamar explained that the house had been moved to the north, He added that one condition the staff would like to add would be that the applicant build a snow fence along the Forest Service property line. Tom Briner, archtect for the applicants, was in the audience. PEC -2- 1/10/83 Trout stated that he was even more enthusiastic about the proposed project this time than he was last. Donovan said that if the purpose was to protect the neighbor, she would like to see more trees planted between this project and the Wilson house. Viele favored the project. Corcoran agreed with Donovan that specific attention be paid to the landscaping next to the Wilson's. (Patten arrived.) Donovan moved and Trout seconded to approve the request for the i0 foot rear setback variance per the staff memo dated January 10, 1983 with the condition that ~. snow fence be placed along the Forest Service property line and also that DRB be instructed to look into extra planting on the Wilson side of the property. The vote was 5-0 in favor of approval. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a drive-through bank facility in the CC3 zone district and a request to amend an approved site plan to allow the drive-in teller facility and to revise the parking plan for the Vail Commons development at Vail dos Schone, Filing 4. Applicant: Vail Commons, Ltd. Peter Patten explained the two different requests and Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, requested that the board consider the conditional use permit first. Patten showed the site plan and explained that the drive-through facility was on the northeast corner of the site with 3 stations. Pierce returned.} Signing was discussed. Peterson felt that the drive-.in bank helped rather than hindered the project, as much traffic at banks was five-minute. Gary Swetish, architect, added that they may use a gate, but hadn't decided. • Piper moved and Pierce seconded to approve the conditional use per the staff memo dated 1/5/83. The vote was 5-0-1 with Viele abstaining. Next the site plan amendment was considered. Patten showed the site plan changes and explained the added parking spaces. Peterson said that the owners of the Vail Commons project awned 52% of the Vail Das Schone shopping center where part of the parking for the Vail Commons was to take place. Patten added that there two .. conditions for approval. (Morgan arrived.} One was that the applicant pay for the cost to construct a bike path on the south side of both the Vail Commons area and the Vail dos Schone parcel. A second condition was that a deed restriction be filed for an off-site and joint parking facility agrement for the Vail dos Schone property. Jay Peterson objected to the condition of paying for the bike path. He stated that Vail Commons already had approval from the County, and shouldn't have to pay for the bike path which he felt was an added burden and unfair. Corcoran painted out that Simba Run and Valli Ni had to pay for the bike paths in front of their properties. Peterson answered that that had been a part of their original SDD approval, but V.C. already had received approval from the County. Trout asked if there were any properties that had been approved along the N_°Frohtage,~~Road that had not been asked to install a bike path, and Patten answered, "No," stating Simba Run and Valli-Hi were the only ones. .- Pierce asked hvw the bike paths were funded, and Patten replied that they were funded through recreation fees and general open space capital improvement funds. Patten PEC -3- 1 /10/83 asked Peterson if the bus shelter was still part of the plan, and Peterson replied that it was. Patten suggested that one requirement already was, under the .County, that 'the applicant put in a bus~~shelter on Chamonix Road along with an access from the shelter to the Vail Commons area. Peterson replied that Vail Commons would gra-de the bike path, ,put in employee.hausing and the bus shleter. The phasing of the project was discussed. Corcoran was concerned that there might be a utility easement in front of the property that would prohibit construction of the bike path. Peterson replied that the Town could build on top of utilities, but would have to replace the paving if it were damaged. More discussion followed concerning grading, landscaping and paving of the bike path. Piper moved and Viele seconded to approve memo with one condition being to provide of construction, and the other condition meet wfith•-the Vail dos Schane property as Vail Municipal Code. the amended site plan as per the staff an easement and rough grading at the time be to file a joint parking facility agree- required by Section 18.52.060 of tf~e The vote was 7--0, unanimously in favor. 7. Request for reconsideration of the general circulation and access plan far the Arterial Business District.. Applicants: Property owners in the proposed Arterial Business District. Patten explained that the State Highway Department had the final jurisdiction in acceleration and deceleration lanes, and that a meeting had been scheduled for Thursday with them. He added that the staff had received different answers from different persons in the Highway Department and was trying to resolve this, with the result that the staff wished to table this item until the January 24 meeting. More discussion followed, and Vie1e moved and Donovan seconded to table this item until the meeting of January 24, 1983. The vote was 6-0-1 with Morgan abstaining. Dick Ryan announced that there would be a joint meeting on January 25 with the Council that would last from 12:00 noon until 5:00 pm. MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONA4ENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEZ,OPMENT DATE: i7anuary 5, 1983 SUB,TECT: Request for rear setback varianne for a new duplex on lot 18, block 1, Fatato Patch 1st Filing APPLICANTS: David Irish and Fred Bartlit DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This is a follow-up application from the one denied on November 22, 1982 by a 3-2 vote. The applicants now wish to locate the house five feet from the rear property line, instead of the one foot previously applied for. Also, the house is now proposed to be 27 feet from the edge of pavement of Potato Patch Drive, five feet further back than previously proposed. The applicants feel that this latest proposal meets the concerns expressed previously by the PEC in November. Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity'. . The proposed placement of the house is positive. far the Wilson residence located to the northwest on lot l7. This location allows for retention of the Wilson's views of the ski slopes as well as for a substantial buffer zone between the houses consisting of large aspens. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob-jectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff feels this would not be a grant of special privilege in that the lot is an unusually difficult one dine to its triangular shape and also because it is adjacent to National Forest Service land. Locating the duplex [nl~~hltl '~f1e SE~br~C~CS produces a negative effect upon people walking or driving along Potato Patch Drive due to the proximity to the road. It is more desirable to push the house away from the road to relieve the undesirable feeling of closeness of the structure. There are no negative impacts from the variance,~as~the rear property line is common with the National Forest Service boundary. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There would be no negative effects on these factors if the variance were granted. i• Irish/Bartli~ -2- 1/5/83 J Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FTND2IVGS 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 follawing 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. STAFF ~tECOMMENDATY0IV Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: . The staff feels there are unique circumstances involved here due to the size and Shape of the parcel. The proposed location for the house reduces the negative impacts of constructing the house too close to the road and hindering the views from the Wilson house .on lot 17. • MEMORANDUM • • is T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 5, 1983 SUBJECT: A conditional use permit request for an amendment to an approved 13, Series of 19$1 to construct Applicant: Vail Commons, Ltd. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE for a drive-up bank facility and a request site plan as per procedures in Ordinance Phase I of the Vail Commons project. Vail Commons is a major new shopping, office and residential project proposal approved by Eagle County in the fall of 1980. Upon the annexation of West Vail several months later, the Town accepted the County approval and set up procedures for amendments to these County-approved plans. We also later adopted the new Commercial Core 3 Zone District for the West Vail commercial area in which drive-up facilities are a conditional use. The drive-up facility is proposed to be located in the northeast corner of the parking lot with its own one-way access lane located to the east of the parking lot. After using the drive-up bank facility, the vehicle would make its way out of the lot in a similar manner as other cars parking in the main lot. Proposed is three drive- up teller stations underneath a sod roof structure to make it less visible from surrounding properties. The second request is to amend the site plan by altering the parking lot design, reducing by 37 spaces the parking available on the Vail Commons site. But also proposed is to restripe the adjacent parking lot to the west (owned by the same developer) according to Town of Vail regulations, thus increasing parking capacity there by 15 spaces. These 15 spaces are added to an existing excess of 17 spaces on the Uail Das Schane site totaling 32 spaces, the number short on the Vail Commons property according to TOU regulations, We will treat these requests separately, first addressing the conditional use permit request. PART T CONDITIONAL US£ PERMIT Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The proposal has no effect upon the overall development Objectives of the Town. 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. No significant effects upon these factors would occur if the permit were approved. r Vail Commons -2- 1/5/83 Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedes~ trian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control; access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. This is the critical factor relating to the proposal. Originally proposed was merely locating the facility in the corner of the parking lot, without a single lane access for the teller stations. The staff felt that this would produce traffic congestion in the large parking lot. The single purpose access lane now proposed should reduce congestion measurably by separating the access to this function only. As one leaves the drive,up station the traffic congestion in the lot should not be significant with the exception of peak periods when the lot is full or near full. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposal to do a sod roof structure will greatly minimize the impact of the facility on the surrounding properties, especially the residents of the Vail Heights project to the north. 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. No EIR is required. FINDINGS 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 feel that the one~way access lane will aid traffic flow in the parking lot as it relates to the drive~up stations, and thus, the facility should not create problems of congestion in the lot. The design of the facility has been sensitive from adjacent properties' perspectives, and this facility will not have a detrimental effect upon the high quality character of the remainder of the project. I~ .~ • Vail Commons -3- 1/5/83 PART II SITE PLAN AMENDMENT The second request amends the parking lot design of the Vail Commons project as well as the Vail Das Schone parking Tot. County regulations regiored tf~e project to have 347 parking spaces. A parking design for this figure was approved by Eagle County and accepted by the Town upon annexation. That design provided little room for interior landscaping and contained a poor circulation pattern. Under the recently revised Town parking regulations the project is required 342 spaces. The proposal now is fora revised and much improved circulation pattern and a great deal more interior landscaping. The following statistics reflect the difference, in the County--approved plan and the proposed one: Size of Total Lot = 87,000 sq ft Interior Landscaping in'Cour~ty P1 an = 6,224 sq ft or 7.1 % of total parking lot area Interior Landscaping in Proposed Plan = 11,710 sq ft or 13,4% of total " Interior Landscaping Minimum Requirement in Town of Vail regulations ~ 10% Thus, the interior landscaped area (which can double as snow storage to some .extent) is greatly increased with the new proposal and will be a positive impact on the aesthetics of the parking lot and .overall project. The redesign of the two parking lots allows the applicant to utilize the new compact car space allotment of 25% of the total number of spaces. Moreover, the Vail Das Schone lot can gain spaces upon re-striping by going from existing 10 x 20 foot size spaces to the 9' x 18' requirement under the Town. The parking Tots for these projects are very related, and indeed..:many people wishing to go to the Vail Commons site may have business in one of the retail facilities existing to the west of Vail Commons and, thus, wish to park in the Vail Das Schone lot. The bottom line figure remains at the required 342 spaces under Town of Vail regulations, so the proposal does not really represent a request for a variance from the total requirement. In light of the above factors, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Eagle County approved site plan for Vail Commons. Two conditions-of aonrova7~aQpTy: 1. The applicant must work with the Town staff and pays for the cost to construct a bicycle/pedestrian path on the south side of both the Vail Commons parcel and the Vail Das Schone parcel. The path must be completed in conjunction with the Town's bike path construction in this area, .'_ A deed restriction must be filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder after a!~provaT by the Town for the Vail Das Schone property which is an of~F-site and ,joint parking facility agreement as required by Section 15.52,06' of the Vail A9unicipaT Code. s c T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department oi' Community Development DATE: December 30, 1982 SUBJECT: Application to expand the floor area of the Gondola II Building in Lionshead to accommodate locker areas for employees and guests. Applicant: Vail Associates I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Vail Associates wishes to expand locker storage for guests by approximately 233 square feet and expand locker storage for employees by approximately 4O0 square feet. Both expansions will take place within the garage on the western side of the Gondola Building. The guest storage will be constructed upon the existing loading dock and the employee lockers will take the place of trash storage. Both expansions will not be visible to any major public street or pedestrian area. Section 1$.26.045 of the Commercial Core II zone district calls for Planning Commission review of the Gondola Building storage project. Paragraph A states, °The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or the replacement of an existing building shai1 be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission....." II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CO~IMERCTAL CORE TI This section reads: The Commercial Core II district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core IT 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 will not alter the planes of the Gondola Building or influence light, air or open space. The application meets the purposes of the Commercial Core IT zone district. III. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS The service courtyard of the Sunbird Lodge and the Gondola Building is not mentioned in the Vail Lionshead Urban !)esign Guide Plan. • Gondola II 12/30/82 IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS i 1. Architectural Style The Design Considerations state that the "challenge in Lionshead is to develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale within a contem- porary architectural expression." The application will not alter the "architectural expression" of the Gondola Building. 2. The second design consideration encourages "a series of connected plazas... occasionally linked by a mall..,." The application does not disrupt this pattern. 3. The Guidelines also encourage "a sense of pedestrian scale...." The application will not alter pedestrian scale. 4. The fourth criteria states that the service/delivery and parking corridors in Lionshead should be preserved. The application does not alter these items. V. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The proposal will not a7 ter height and massing, roofs, facades, decks or patios, accent elements or landscaping. VI. TONING C.OMSIDERATIONS' In Commercial Core IT a parking fee t~rou1d normally be assessed for the guest locker storage. However counting the north and west day lots, Vail Associates has 3?_0 spaces available to them.:-which is we11 above the required parking nor the Gondola II 6ui1dincT. F'or this reason a parkins fee will not be assessed for this expansion However, if Vail Associates chooses at some time in the future to se11 the north or west day lots to a party who wishes to develop the lots a parking fee will then be assessed for the Gondola Building. VII STAFF RECO~ih1ENDRTIOP~ The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the storage pro.iect. The application will not be visible from a major pedestrian ma11 or street. Since the proiect will not be visible none of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations or Design Guidelines apply. i• r • Vail Associa#es, Inc, December 14, 1982 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $1657 Gentlemen: It is Vail Associates, Tnc. request that the Planning and Environmental Commission reconsider the need to review requests only for additions to the interior of buildings. Since the Town Council now allows interior construction any tune during the year, there seems to be no reason for review of interior additions. For Commercial Core I and IT any increase or decrease of floor area requires review twice a year. We would suggest amending section 1.8.24.065 and 1$.26.045 to a11ow construction in interior areas any time of the year without the review. Sincerely, VAIL ASSO TES, IN . ~.. _ ` ~....+ Robert W. Parker Senior Vice President RWP/kl Bax 7. Vail, Colorado 81658, 303/476-56D1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 24, 1983 2:00 pm Site inspections 2:30 pm Discussion of variances by Larry Eskwith 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of January T0, 1983. 2. Request for re~ansideration of the general circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business District. Applicants: Property owners in the proposed Arterial Business District. 3. A request for two amendments to Special Development District No. 4 in which the Glen Lyon Office building is located. The first request is to change the front setback from 20 feet to l5 feet. The second request is to amend the allowable square footage of the G1 en Lyon office building. Application is in accordance with Section 18.46.030 (E} of the Vail Municipal Code. 4. Appeal of an administrative decision regarding lot 17, Tract E, Vail. Village lath Filing. Apellant: Jan Strauch ~ , PLRNNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 24, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Wi71 Trout Peter Patten Diana Donovan Peter Jamar Dan Corcoran Larry Esk.with Jim Vie1e Jim Sayre: Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Gordon Pierce ABSENT COUNCIL REP Jim Morgan Ron Todd 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 10, 1983. Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was b-O in favor. 2. Request for reconsideration of the general circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business District.- Applicants: Property owners in the proposed Arterial Business District. peter Patten described meetings with the State from JHK in regard to planning the circulation funding for the plan, Peter suggested perhaps to a formula, or attaching some figure to each regommeridations on funding. hlighway Department and the report and access plan. Concerning the assessing each property owner according building permit. He asked for Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney:; asked if the commission would meet with him in executive session to discuss possible means of funding for the circulation and access plan. A1'~Williams, one of the owners of the Texaco site, encouraged the board to find a~solution to the funding, stating that he and Morgan needed guidelines so that they could go ahead and apply to DRB with their building plans for the M and W building. Trout moved and Donovan seconded that the board go into executive session. After executive session, Trout stated that he did not feel the developer should pay far the improvements, as the developers would then be paying double. Donovan supported having the developers pay for part of the b~:%ke paths, for the new businesses would~be creating some traffic, plus the fact that the bike paths were adjacent to the businesses. Perhaps have each developer grade and have ready for paving the bike path. Viele asked how the bike path was connected to the Lionshead area and was told that it would tie into the roads in Lionshead, according to the master bike plan it would eventually tie into a bike path south of the Mark. Discussion followed regarding widening the road from the intersection at West Lionshead Circle to ~~ the Holy Cross access point. PEC 1/24/83 -2- • Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the general circulation and access plan for the Arterial Business District with the condition that funding to implement • the bike path, bridge and pedestrian crosswalks be worked out within a period of 60 days from that da_y (January 24, 1983) and that the road not be narrowed down between the intersection with West Lionshead Circle and the FIo1.y Cross access point,: and that no building permits be issued prior to the resolution of the funding plan. Jim Sayre asked if a building permit could be issued after the 60 days if no funding plan had been worked out, and Piper said, "No." Al Williams asked if DRB could process his application in the meantime, and was told that he could continue up to the building permit. Andy Norris asked about the location of the bike path near the Glen Lyon Office building. The vote was 5-0-1 in favor of the plan with Pierce abstaining. 3. A request for two amendments to Special Development District No. 4 in which the Glen Lyon Office Building is Tocated. The first request is to change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The second request is to amend the allowable square footage of the Glen Lyon Office Building. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership peter Jamar explained the memo, adding that the berm should be higher than shown an the site plan, that I~he DRB should review the ability of the berm to screen the _ _ _ parking as required, and that there were two conditions of approval, one that the bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided~in accordance with • the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District, and the second condition was that the applicant shai7 agree to sharing in the cast of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. Jamar added that the financing would have to be worked out on the second condition, since Valiter and the M&W office building would also benefit from the hydrant. Gordan Pierce, architect for the applicant, showed a model and explained the roofs, setbacks and masses. Patten explained that this was an amendment to an SDD, that the SDD allowed 60% of the building to have 15 foot setbacks, but this building would only have 15 foot setbacks across 7% of the building. One concern was'~that the DRB require large sized trees between the building and the road. Trout asked about the Glen Lyon Office Building applying to be in the Arterial Business District. Patten said there was no real urgency, but that this would be worked out with Andy Norris. staff memodbut cond~~ednh #1 rwoul d~bef oeWQetbaalc and, square ._foo~age__per__.the rded_t.o___ncl.,gd~__the fait that. the funding would be worked out within a period of 60 dates.. Andy Norris, one owner of the glen Lyon Office Building, said that he had no problem with funding of the bike path, but was concerned about the left and night turn lanes, and felt that unless the funding were worked out, that this part may never get done. • PAC 7/24/83 -3- Patten stated that Norris solely would not have to pay for the bike path because it was part of the whole district. There was no second to the motion. Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the two amendments per the staff memo dated January 20, 1983 with the two cond itions and that condition #1 would include the fact that the funding would be worked out w~itnin a period of 60 days and no building permit would be issued until the funding was worked out. The vote was 3-0 in favor with 3 abstentions--Corcoran, Vie1e and Pierce. 4. Appeal of an administrative decision regarding lot 17, Tract ~, Vail Village 11th Filing. Appellant: Jan Strauch Peter Jamar explained the happenings up to this date. Jan Strauch said he agreed with the sequence of events, but stated that the deck was under 6 feet of snow, and couldn't correct the error practically. He added that it wasn't until October that he had obtained the correct size of metal chimney, and then it was too cold to paint it. He then mentioned some problems he was having converting his fire- place to a gas burning fireplace. Trout pointed out that there was no spark arrestor in the flue of the wood burning stove. Strauch asked what that was, and Trout explained, adding that this should be installed immediately. Donovan stated that Strauch had intentionally built the deck into the setback area. She felt that one chimney should be made inoperable now, and the deck should be morrected to be in compliance with the code at this time. Pierce's feelings were to install the spark arrestor immediately, wait 6 months to paint the chimney, but that the deck could be done now. He said a couple of hours of shoveling would clear the deck. Piper asked if there was a foundation, and more discussion revealed that the foundation was inadequate, and that concrete piers would have to be poured. Steve Patterson, building official, said that he nod marked the two sets of plans that had been submitted fora building permit ~, with the statement that a proper foundation would have to be constructed. He added that the deck could be cut and pilings put in at a later date without tearing the whole deck apart. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to modify the administrative decision as follows: 1. That they require immediate conversion to gas -of the~wood burd,ing fireplace, 2. That the painting of the chimney and assorted sheet metal be done by June T, 3. Rnd that June 1, 1983 also gas the date set to have the deck correction completed. The vote was 3-3 (Corcoran, Donovan and Trout against} The motion failed. PkC 1/24/83 -4- After more discussion, Trout moved to approve the staff recommendation with the exception of painting the flue and installation of the concrete foundation, and these could be done June 15, There was no second. U More discussion followed, and Corcoran moved and Viele seconded to reconsider the original motion. The vote was 4-2 to reconsider with nonovan and Trout against. Vie1e moved and Pierce seconded that the administrative decision be modified to require conformance with respect to.the fireplace that was being changed to gas burning, and that the spark arrestor be installed, both of which were to be done within 10 days, and that the deck and painting be done by dune 1, 1983. The vote was 4-2 with Donovan and Trout voting against. The motion passed,. Corcoran stated that the only reason he was willing to change his vote was because he felt it was mare practical for the appearance of the neighborhood. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45. n U s MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend Development Area D of Special Development District #4 to 1} change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and 2} to change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership BACKGROUND In 1976 Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, was formed. Development area D of this SDD is the Glen Lyon Office. Building. The maximum allowable square footage for the office building was set at that time at 10,000 square feet. The building was constructed in 1979-80 at a gross area of approximately 13,000 square feet. In March 1982 the Planning and Enviromental Commission and Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed the space of approximately 3,000 square feet within the building built as storage to be utilized also as office space. The current request is tv expand the office building to approximately 25,000 square feet. Two sections of the proposed addition, each approximately • 25 feet in length, are proposed to be located 15 feet away from the north property line, and thus the need to amend the required 20 foot setback under the SDD require- ments. In March 1982 the PEC and Council adopted the Arterial Business lone District for the area in which the Glen Lyon office building is located. Technically, the property is still within the Special Development District. However, the staff believes that it is reasonable to review the proposed amendments with regard to the standards of the Arterial Business District {ABD). THE REQUEST The first request is to amend the allowable square footage of building upon the lot. The current limit set by the SDD is 13,000 square feet, and the ABD zoning wo;~ld allow 56,85 square feet. The proposal is to allow approximately 25,000 square feet of gross area and 18,750 net floor area. This would be an addition of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc. The major factors affected by the additional square footage are the number and place- ment of the additional required parking spaces. A net floor area of 18,750 square feet requires 75 parking spaces. The applicants can achieve the parking requirement by adding 17 spaces to the east of the existing parking since the current parking provided is in excess of the requirements. One loading berth will also be provided. GLEN LYON OFFICE -2- 1/20/83 One requirement of the SDD is that 50% of the parking must be hidden from public . view within a landscaped berm. The applicant proposes to comply with this require- ment. The second request is to change the setback required by SDD along the north property line from 20 feet to i5 feet. The applicant feels that this would permit some flexibility in breaking up the length of the building. Only two portions of the building, each about 25 feet in length, would project to the new l5 foot setback, and the remainder of the addition would be located about 18 feet off of the property line. The ABD requires a front setback of 15 feet for 60% of the frontage and 20 feet far 4O% of the frontage. Only 7% of the proposed frontage (including the existing structure) would have a 15 foot setback, 19.5% of the frontage would have an 18 foot setback, and 9% would have a 25 foot setback. The remaining 64.5% of the frontage is not adjacent to the building. Th.e staff believes that revising the front setback requirement is consistent with the Arterial Business Zone District requirements and that the change permits a design for the addition which will certainly enhance the appearance. of the building. There should be na negative impacts that will result from the change. The building will be located 55 feet away from the edge of the pavement of the South Frontage Road. An additional aspect of the prop6sal which should be reviewed in relation to the ABD standards is the roof pitch. The ABD requires that the minimum slope of the roof shall be three feet in 12 feet with an allowance of lO% of the roof area . allowed to be flat fora transition of roof lines. The applicants propose adding a covered entry with a 6/12 roof pitch to a portion of the existing. part of the building and a 6/12 roof pitch on the north side of the addition, leaving the Gore. Creek side with a flat roof. Considering that the existing portion of the building is flat roofed, the staff feels that the applicants have done a good job trying to improve the appearance of the building with the sloped portion of the roof. The SDD has no requirement regarding roof pitch. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS, As you'll recall, a circulation and access plan was to be required for the Arterial Business District. A memo regarding the plan is contained within this packet, and the item will be considered at Monday's meeting. The applicants are willing to comply with this plan, and improvements consistent with the circulation and access plan are indicated on the site plan;for the office building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The DCD staff recommends approval of the requested amendments. The changes are generally consistent with the requirements of the Arterial Business District which governs the development of the adjacent properties. The following conditions should be a part of the approval: .• GLEN LYON OF~TC~ -3- 1/20/83 1. The bike path, right turn, and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District; 2. The applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail dire Department. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 2O, 1983 SUBJECT: Arterial Business District Circulation and Rccess Plan Attached pi ease find a copy of JHK's report on the circulation and access plan for this area. We have drawn up the proposed Circulation and Access Plan according to this study's recommendations and from the input from Ed Gebhardt of the State Highway Department. The plan will be presented to you in a graphic form at the meeting. We feel the plan as proposed will adequately achieve the goals of keeping through traffic flowing smoothly as well as reducing and consolidating the access points to the various properties in the district. We recommend approval of the Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan. The plan will be submitted to the State Highway Department for their approval. U r Town of Vail Arterial Business District General Circulation and Access Plan Prepared by: JHK and Associates 2429 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 J ~~ & associates ~~ & associates TNTRODUCTION Through a recent ordinance the Town Council has created an "Arterial Business District" along the south frontage road of I70 from about 300 feet east of West Lionshead Circle across Red Sandstone Creek to about 760 feet west of Red Sand- stone Creek. The total length of frontage road adjacent to the boundaries of the new district is about 2,100 feet. Through ordinance #5 (Series of 1982} the Town Council established a requirment of the new district that states a general circulation and access plan must be adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This report is intended to recommend general design criteria for use in this first Arterial Business District. This report will be site specific to the West Vail Arterial Commercial District as described above. • At a recent Town Meeting, Council asked several questions that cai11 be addressed in this report. Those questions, as we understand them, are as follows: 1. Should the Town of Vail require speed change lanes at points of ingress and egress in this business district? 2. Should the Town of Vail strive to line up points of access on either side of the frontage road? 3. Ts there a need for a bike/pedestrian overpass near the intersection of the frontage road with West Lionheads Circle? CURRRNT CONDITION This section of I70 South Frontage Road is two lanes with narrow paved shoulders in some areas; there is a 100 foot right- ZS ofWway. The posted speed limit is MPH; at present there is over 13 vehicle access points on the frontage road within the ~hk & associates business district and no facilities for pedestrians or bikes. A recenttxaffic count east of the district near the Town Hall indicates an ADT figure of approximately S,OOOvehicles/day. (This figure wall be verified the week of August 2nd with a traffic count near West Lionshead Circle.} The importance of this arterial to the Town of Vail Transportation System cannot be overstated. The vehicle carrying capacity of the roadway as well as the person carrying capacity of the corridor should be protected and enchanted where possible. TRIP GENERATION Several assumptions were made for this analysis. They are as follows: 1. The large property serving as Vail Associates equipment storage will not redevelop in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it will not contribute to the vehicle trip generation rates in this analysis. 2. Floor Area Ratio will be limited to .75 x total site area as stated in the enabling ordinance. 3. The mix of office space to retail space wi11 be based on a 9:1 ratio. As stated in the ordinance creating the district - "Retail stores and establishments (wall be} generally accessory and/or supportive of office uses..," The development potential of the district (not including the V.A. Service Yard) is shown in Table 1. Using the assumptions above, some 202,404 sq. feet of office space could develop in the near future with 22,044 sq. feet of supporting retail. This is the development allowed under ordinance #5. -2- ~hk & associates Table 1 Office and Retail Development Assumptions* TOTAL F.A.R. OFFTCE PROPERTY SITE .75 SQ. FT. SCE. FT. (900) 1. Holy Cross 60,984 45,738 41,165 2. Texaco 39,204 29,403 26,463 3. Voliter 43,560 32,670 29,403 4. Glen Lyon 74,052 55,539 49,986 Office 5. Chevron 39,204 29,403 26,463 6. Old Town 43,560 32,670 29,403 Shops Total RETAIL SQ. FT. ~10~) 4,573 2,940 3,267 5,553 2,940 3,267 22,543 * Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that far 5 years or longer the V.A. Service Yard will not redevelop. 300,564 225,423 202,880 -3- ~ hk B: associates 1n some cases site conditions will not allow full development. As an example, the Texaco property would allow 29,403 sq. feet of development. There is, however, a plan under consideration showing 22,000 sq. feet. Trip generation for this district was again developed excluding the V.A. Service Yard. {It should be noted that the development potential of this site is large compared to the total district. This one property is over 310 of the total Arterial Business District.) Table 2 presents a list of each property and its associated number of vehicle trips should that property completely develop. On an average weekday a total of 3,477 trips could be generated in this one business district. As stated before, there are about 5,000 vehicle trips per day using the south frontage road in the area of Town Hall. There is little question that potential development in this district could have a significant impact. More importantly, all of these trips will be turning either left or right in the space of about 2,100 feet; and peak hour office generated trips occur during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. INGRESS AND EGRESS To maintain the traffic carrying capacity of this section of roadway the following design criteria are recommended: A. Whenever, possible, driveways on either side of the roadway should be constructed to line up with each other. Using this standax`d,driveways would be located as follows: -4- 3hk & associates ~J PROPERTY ].. Holy Cross 2. Texaco 3. Voliter 4. Glen Lyon Office 5. Chevron 6. Old Tawn Shops Subtotal Trips Total Trips Table 2 Potential Development (.75 F,A.R.) and Ave rage Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends OFFICE OFFICE RETAIL SQ. FT. TRIPS* SQ. FT. (900) (100} 41,165 26,463 29,403 49.986 26,463 29,403 4,573 2,940 3,267 5,553 2,940 3,267 3,477 RETAIL TRIPS** 225 145 1f~~~0 277 145 16~° 2:,112 * Note: Trip generation rate -- 11.0 Trip Ends/].000 gross sq. feet. ** Note: Trip generation rate - 50.Otrip Ends/1000 gross sq. feet. 480 308 343 583 308 343 2,365 -5- ~hk associates 1. V.A. Service Yard/West Lionshead Circle; 2, V.A. Service Yard/Forest; 3. Common Drive - Holy Cross and Vail Associates properties/Chevron and Town of Vail properties; 4. Common Drive - Texaco and Voliter properties/ Glen Lyon Office property. At such time as the Vail Associates property redevelops, the driveway at Forest could be closed. B. At such time as the property redevelops, the driveways should be constructed with left-turn lanes, as well as, speed change lanes on either side of the frontage road. C. Design of the driveways should conform to the standards set forth in The State Highway Access Code, August 31, 1981. In reviewing the Business District with Dave Campbell of • the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town of Vail were discussed. A11 frontage roads are given the lowest access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the greatest flexibility in applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows: 1, Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of Highways. 2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10 of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage Road from Category Five to Category Four. Tn either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access code for specifications of driveway design. -5- ~~ & associates BIKE/PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION The south side of the frontage road as weal as the future path along the creek are the best locations for bike/ pedestrian movement through this district. For several reasons, circulation on the north side of the frontage road should be limited to local access between buildings and to and from crosswalks. This study recommends that the Town locate crosswalks only at the four driveway intersections. A bike/pedestrian bridge is needed across Red Sandstone Creek. First priority would be on the south side of the frontage road. When the Vail Associates property redevelops, the question of a bike/pedestrian overpass at West Lionshead Circle should be addressed. When grade separations for pedestrians and bikes are used, it is usually necessary to direct people to the facility to discourage crossing the highway at grade. Grade separations should not be considered as traffic control devices, but as a supplemental technique. Some of the factors to consider in analyzing the need far bike/pedestrian separation structures for highways include: 1. Are there other reasonable crossing alternatives? 2. Are the traffic volume and pedestrian volume levels in excess of those required by MUTCD to warrant installation of a pedestrian or school signal? n LJ -7- • • ~ ~11 & associates 3. Are there no traffic signals, stop sign control, or other grade-separated crossing within 600 feet of the proposed location? 4. Are pedestrian accident problems evident on the street under consideration? 5. Zs vehicular traffic speed such that it poses significant hazard to pedestrians? 6. Zs there no way to prevent pedestrians from crossing at grade? 7. Have organized groups expressed a high degree of interest for the separation? 8. From a decision standpoint, is it practical to construct the separation within existing physical conditions? The factors to be considered in this determination include cost, security, vandalism, aesthetics, possible conflict with utilities, and terrain conditions. CONCLUSION Through the use of a Planning and Environmental Commission adopted circulation and access plan, the vehicle carrying capacity and safety of the I70 South Frontage Road can be insured. Design criteria for this district will establish standards that can be fairly and equally applied to all redevelopment. It is hoped that this report will assist in that effort. -8-- • ~~~ & associates References 1. "The State Highway Access Code," adopted by the Colorado State Highway Commission. July 16, 1981. 2. "Trip Generation," an ITE Informational Report, 1976. 3. Town of Vail Ordinance #5 (series of 1982, June 1, 1982). 4. "West Vail Arterial Commercial District," Development Plan, Drawing No. Five. 5. Telephone Conversation with Dave Campbell, Colorado Department of Highways, Safety Engineer, July 30, 1982. • -9- ry i ! MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Peter Jamar/Department of Community Development DATE: January T9, 1983 SUBJECT: Appeal of an administrative decision in accordance with Section 18.66.030 by Jan Strauch for lot 17, Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing Mr. Strauch is appealing an administrative decision requiring him to remedy the i11ega1 situations contained in the attached letter by January 24. Mr. Strauch requests that these violations be allowed to remain until June, 1983. He was first notified of these violations in June, 1982. His appeal wi17 be heard at the January 24 ~'EC meeting. On January 18, Mr. Strauch appeared before Coucil during citizen participation and requested an extension for the deck correction until June T, 1983. He stated he would comply with the other items by the January 24, 1983 deadline, Town .Council's recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission is to extend the date of completion on a71 items until June T, 1983, a • y ., , ~ i ~ _i l Lyy ` l f ~ j k *.. i~ ~~ ~a~~l~ o 75 south frontage rd. ~~ ---- _- ~ '"..°."_ vail, Colorado 81657 E (303) 476-7x00 ~.,.W......,y..W:....~....~~.....~ January 10, 1983 Jan Strauch Overland & Express Company 188 E. Gore Creek Dr. Vail,•Colorado 81657 departrnsnt of comme~ity development ' Dear Mr. Strauch: ~~ On. December 1, 1982 the Vail Design Review award voted to approve your deck redesign which consisted of modifying the existing deck which was constructed partially within a setback: It is my understanding that _ Steve Patterson contacted you an December 2, 1982 and informed you of the drawings and information needed in a~°der to apply for a building permit. As you and I discussed on several occasions,the existence of the deck and the setback encroachment are in violation of Town of Vail ordinances. I believe that the Town has been more than fair by allowing the situation to exist for more than b months while you have sought a solution to the problem. However, now that all the necessary approvals and decisions have been made and a building permit has been issued for the deck modification we expect you to expedite the work needed to comply with the law. This does not only include the deck modification but a1 so the elimination (or conversion to gas as you have mentioned)of your fireplace now that you have illegally installed a second wood burning devir.e and also the painting of the flue which was installed in conjunction with the wood burning stove. Bath of these items have also been pending since June and we had hoped that You would act in good faith to remedy both situations. Gary Murrain of our office spoke to you several months ago and explained what steps were needed in order to modify/eliminate the fireplace. Each one of the above mentioned violatio~ls of the Town of Vail Municipal Code are subject to passible fine and/or pena'!ty of not mare than X499.00 or not more than 90 days fail sentence, or bath, for each and every day that such violation continues and each day of violation constitutes a separate violation. Each one of t#~ese violations has existed mare than 180 days. I i ~ + I Page 2 Our staff chose not to file any complaint in the town municipal cour.~~ because we assumed that the problems could be solved in a cooperative "-. spirit. in summary, I feel that we have been more than cooperative in worE<ing with you on these problems. Pursuant to section 18.6b.02OF3 of the 'own of Vail Municipal Code (copy enclosed} this letter serves as notice requiring you .to remedy all illegal situations (the deck, fireplace, and flue} by January 24, 1983. Failure to comply with this natice will result in the appropriate action being taken in accordance with the laws of the 1'oti,rn of Vail . If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ~.~ . Pett~~' Jarnar + Town Planner P~:df Encl . LJ y f 5 • j ZONING ' 18.56.120 Amendment-Fee. 1$-56.I30 Amendr~r~nt-~ticaring. 18.66:140 Amendment-1'1ar~nirg can~missipn recommendation: .. "~ ~` ~ 18.55.150 Amendment-Dearing by town council. \ 1$.5b.160 Arncr~drnertt-Aciipn by town ccruncrl. - 1$.56.170 Certificates of zoning compliance. ' ~ 18.55.1 80 Zoning clranges-Town of Varl property, ' l 23.56,010 Aclministratpr-Appointment. . ~` The town manager shall appoint a zoning administrator who shall, adrrrinister and enforce this title. The position of zoning administrator may be combined with another position of the town. (Ord. 8(!973) § 21.180.) 1$.56,020 Administrator-Duties. ~-.u . . ""`""'I'1~e" '~dr~i~'~rlm~tis~or = ~sha4t~~5'~^respflnsible for such duties as prescribed in this title, and shat] be responsible for enforcement of the zoning regu]ations. The zoning administrator and Eris duties shall hays the right to enter on any site or to enter any structure for the purpose of investigation or inspection related to any provision of this title, provided that the right of entry shall be exercised only at reasonable hours and that in no case shall any structure be entered in the absence of the owner or tenant without the written order Of ~ court of Competent jurisdiction. B. The zoning administrator tray serve notice indicating the - nature of any violation, ar requiring the ren3oval of any structure or use in violation of this title, on the owner or his authorized agent, or a tenant, or an any other person who comrt~its or participates in any violation of this title. The zoning administrator may call upon the town attorney to institute necessary Iegat proceedings to enforce the provisions of this title, arYd the town attorney is authorized to institute: ap}}roj~riate actions to that end. The zoning administrator raray call upon the chief of police and ltis authorized ar;ertlS io ~YSSiSt in the enforcement of this title. lord. 8(19731 ~ ~ ] .10~. (Vail t-5-82} - ~8$ • • Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1983 2:15 pm Site inspection 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 24, 1983. 2. Request for a height variance for a duplex which extends 2.2 feet above the height limit of 33 feet on lot 1, block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Wolfram Klawiter 3. Discussion of core construction problems. 4. Request for an amendment to Section G Views and Focal Points of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan----Design Considerations to include language which protects views whose deterioration could be caused by development outside of the Commercial Core i Zone District. Applicant: Town of Vail r~ L Published in the Vail Trail February 11, 1983. t • n U Planning and Environmental commission February 14, 1983 PRESENT Will Trout Diana Donovan Dan Corcoran Jim Uiele Duane Piper Jim Morgan ABSENT Gordon pierce i. Approval of minutes of meeting of January 24, 1983. STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Peter Jamar Larry Eskwith Dick Ryan Betsy Roso1 ack Donovan corrected the last sentence in the second to the last paragraph to read: "Perhaps have each developer grade and have ready for paving the bike path adjacent to his property." Donavan moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. Vote was b-0. 2. Request for a height variance for a duplex which extends 2.2 feet above the height limit of 33 feet on lot T, block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Wolfram Klawiter Peter Jamar explained the situation, adding that the structure was built .7 below existing grade, making the variance request one for ~.9' rather than for 2.2 feet as originally believed. He showed improvement surveys and elevations and explained that the improvement survey that had bP~n submitted to the Town had been altered to show a different slab elevation than actually existed. In checking with the surveyor, it was found that the finished grade of the structure was actually lower than existing grade, and thus the need for: the increase in the amount of the variance. Dave Green, representing Klawiter, stated that Klawiter recognized that he had made an error in height, but had no financial gain to make in the error. He said that the neighbors gave favorable replies to a letter, and the DRB members were also in agreement. Fred Ammer, a neighbor, said that he had no objection to the extra height. Scott Edwards, another neighbor, felt the same and added that he did not feel cutting the top off of the house was a viable solution. Donovan felt that this was a difficult situation because although the neighbors did not have any objections, it was possible that ~~ranting the variance would be precedent setting. She added that variances were to be granted only upon the findings in the coning code. Vieie asked Eskwith if this could be considered ari unnecessary physical hardship, and Eskwith answered that deciding to grant the variance was a balancing act, and that perhaps the board would consider this hardship self created. He added that hardship was not the only criteria to consider. PEC -2- 2/14/$3 VieTe felt the reaction of the neighbors was important, since the code was written to give protection to neighbors. He was in favor of the variance, since the cure of modifying the roof Tine was worse than the i71, Piper asked for an explanation of the height differences. Green explained that the lot was filled to have adequate drainage, and Klawiter took the existing grade to be the grade after fill. Klawiter stated that he had made an error in the distance from the slab to the ridge of 2.2' in framing, Jamar added that the slab was not placed ypon fill but was in fact .7 feet below the existing grade, making the error 2.9 feet because the height is measured to whichever grade is mare restrictive, Piper felt that the neighbors' input was important and agreed with the DRB that the existing building was better than taking chunks off of the top. Piper moved to grant the request far a variance to subject property and his findings were: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance was warranted for the reason that 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. Morgan asked if the house was restricted to part of the lot because of the avalanche path, and Klawiter answered that i.t was. harry Eskwith explained that Piper needed to make the additional finding that the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, etc. Piper withdrew his motion. Morgan moved and Viele seconded to grant the variance of 2.9 feet in height with the following findings: • That the granting of the variance would 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 was warranted for the fallowing reasons: There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone and 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 distr".ict. The vote was 4 in favor, 1 against (Donovan) and 1.abstentio,n {Corcoran.}, Dick Ryan arrived. 3. Discussion of core construction problems, Dick Ryan stated that the Town Couh~il would like the Planning. and Environmental Commission review of currentlpo1icies and various recommendations. He added that the Council would like to receive the recommendations by March 15. PEC -3- 2/14/83 s Lee Caroselli stated that she was speaking far her shop and for George Knox and far John Kaemmer. Her complaint was that the contractors park their vehicles • in front of the shops and block visibility from the tourists. She suggested that contractors be restricted to 20 or 30 minutes during the tourist season, then during the off season be allowed to come and go freely, She added that she needed to have something done now, not wait until March 15. Keith Caroselli added that a garbage truck had been parked in front of their shop for 4 days with an all day parking pass. Rick Bost, traffic core controller from the police department, stated that the con- tractors were not going to and from their trucks, merely parking them in the morning and returning to them at the end of the day. Because of this, the delivery people had no p1 ace to park, and so parked in the fire lanes. One of his jobs was to see that no one parked in the fire lane. He stated that contractors were using their permit for different vehicles, rather than one vehicle--switching the permit from vehicle to vehicle. Concern was expressed that the contractors were not following the ordinance which stated that they aou1d park on the site. Trout stated that all day every day trucks, cars, and snow plows were on Bridge Street. He added that no matter what the solution, someone would be paying a price. Trout felt that maybe the Bridge Street residents and shop owners should work toward solving the problem. Donovan felt that it was impossible to get cars out of the Village core. She felt that all possible restrictions should be lifted during Apri;3May, September and October, and have some kind of guarantee that the work would be done by the start . of the tourist season, or the buildings could sit empty. Perhaps limit the number of times plans could be changed. Viele mentioned that in Vail;: at least construction was occurring as opposed to Aspen. His suggestions included: Making the contractors submit~a wr:i~tteh construction schedule, having financial rewards and penalties, i.e. completion bonds with liqui- dating damages at the end of the project. He reiterated others' suggestions to loosen the parking and delivery regulations during the off season--felt that it was not a necessity to park all day at the site, and added that contractors could be encouraged to work double shifts, etc. with such work that did not have any impact an the neighbors--that this might shorten the total length of the construction time. Piper remarked that he wished more people from the village would have come to express their observations. He agreed with Danovan's suggestion to have contractors start earlier in the off season. One suggestion was to make only Taadin~ passes available. Piper felt that it was most important to be aware of what the tourist observes. Morgan felt the problem was an enforcement one. He added that there are some needs, i.e., electricians and plumbers, but many other trucks did not need to be in the core. He also felt the need far completion certificates, maybe also tie this in with the parking fee the town charged for additional square footage and restaurant seats. He did not feel there should be a paint system. Morgan also did not feel that noise could be eliminated during certain times of the day. Corcoran was concerned that if parking for contractors were eliminated, where would they park if the structure were full? He wandered if limiting the number of building permits in the core was Tega1. He wished for more public input. PEC -4- 2/14/83 Barbara Felker wandered why construction vehicles weren't made to follow Ordinance #4. She a1 so stated that allowing winter construction had opened a can of worms. Steve Patterson stated that it was not necessarily the big jobs that were causing problems, but the many remodeling of shops as in the Red Lion. Ue added that every job had submitted a time schedule, and for the most part, every job had finished in time. Ue added that at first one vehicle per job site was allowed, but now 1 vehicle per permit was given, with the result that there were 7 vehicles at the Red Lion. This past summer loading and parking zones were re- arranged. Only the Casino had not met their schedule. He added that extended hours. were given far~dan-noise. work, while the other hours were 7:00 to 7:00. The department encouraged the e~xtdnded hours, and then Patterson said that there were not enough loading zones. Lee said that if there were not enough loading zones, that was even more reason not to extend a permit for all day long. (Piper left.) Patterson stated that he would make an effort to talk to the particular jobs. The ~ore~ rover stated that the parking structure was rarely fu11 during the week days, and that possibly the overflow bus parking lot could be used. Donovan felt contractors should not be allowed to park in loading zone, and maybe the problem of where to a11aw parking could be part af~a condition of zoning. 4. Request for an amendment to Section G, Views and Focal Points of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations Town of Vail The staff requested that this be tabled until February 28. Donovan moved and Trout seconded to table as requested. The vote was 5-0 in favor. • +n - - MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Department FROM: Department of Community Development DATE; February 7, 1983 SUBUECT: Request for a 2;2'' height variance upon lot 1, block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Wolfram Klawiter DESCRIPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests a 2.2'foot height variance from the required 33 foot maximum height allowed in the Residential Primary/Secondary zone district. The applicant states that the reason for requesting the :variance is that an error was made in the construction of the building which resulted in the roof ridge being 2.2' higher than approved. The ridge height is 35.2 feet. CRTTERIR RND FINDTNGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18,62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors . The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The duplex is currently under construction and is adjacent to Bighorn Park on the west side and a duplex on the east side. There is no significant negative impact of the increased height upon the adjacent properties and a letter has been received by the owner of one half of the duplex to the east stating that he has no objections to the requested variance. Many other property owners within the area have also stated that they have no objection to the variance request. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. One of the objectives of the zoning code is "to provide for adequate light and air" and another is "to encourage a harmonious convenient workable relationship among land uses." The development standards within each zone district are meant to be a means by which certain standards regarding the location and bulk of buildings are established to carry out these objectives and to promote harmonious and coordinated development within each area of the Town. The granting of the variance to enable the applicant to exceed the allowable height limitation within the zone district would constiture the granting of a special privilege and would not be consistent with the objectives of'the zone code. .] Klawiter -2- 2/7/83 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu- lotion, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No significant impact. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare, or materially Injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one ar 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 Deve1apment recommends denial of the requested variance. Although the 2.2 foot increase in the roof ridge height does not result in any significant impacts upon adjacent properties or the community, any practical difficulty or physical hardship was created by the applicant and is not sufficient reason to grant a variance. • .~~. J. box 25: - , _.....~ _ 'J~.il, Ca . '. ::~,ct jJail ? ~>:. .:.ZCe & Proper - .. =.ers . I Walf ran, _~l~~witer } hav= ., .. ., .__.~ a home ~~;n t _.Y ^;rner of ~;~~.:~iper and ideadow Dr. I have ~ , w~.e an error in the foundation w~ach makes the building 2ft tin. aver the bight restriction of 33ft. Sa Z am trying to get a variance from t:~e ±own of Vail to al~.ow the extra highx° Tf you do NO • T o~.~ect to the extra ~~ height PLEASE sign belowr THANK YaLf . ~~~ -,{~ _- ..1. ] ~ ~ - ,e.~~, , ~t ~~ ~ (~ .~~ rd~~ S _,,.. .J I 1 ~ ' ~ .MCP ?~ .~',C~1~ ~~f ~~i,~..,,2,~` CCc~ !/,ll~,~~ .~' ~ ~ .~, =1~, ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~. ~~_~~~ ~ ~~ -~..- ~~ / ` 1. .r~~~! ~. i E -'~ l .0 ~ ~' r~' t Wolf'rar,'t Klawiter . ~ ~+i6%:-~eadow fir. . P,0. box 255 E~,s , Vai1,Co. To East Vail Residence & Property Owners: ' 4'~ . I (Wolfram Klawiter) have build a home on the corner pf ~una.per and Meadow Dr. Z have made an error in the foundation which makes-the building 2ft din. over the bight restriction pf 33ft. Sp I am trying tp get a variance from the town of Vail to a1.Iow the extra highy' If you do NOT op~ect to the extra heigY~-~ Pi,EASE sign below THANK YOU. ~incerly G~eatful Walfram Klawiter . ~~ _ / :~GGvy, ('e,~, • - p~e.~,c.- Gss ~ ue.. - , c,s n,c~~ ~'~~ ~.;~~,~Y, ~ ~~ ~3 f `F~ mss, .. ~ C~~'~~„ ~~~/~' ti? cJ !1 ~ ~~° r ~ /~ ~ 11 Ad a +To !~ ly~~C ~T~ ,-~ . ~l~Lti.:LK.- `~ •f/~ i ~ ._I-~~ t.ys-G~ [~-~"~ k_}~i~. ~A^ '~ L~~~"~.~,`' "'~C.LLI~. ~ ~c ,~, ~` ~~"~~"k.k- ~~~~~, '~~~ J~ !/ 1 ~~a-d..-t:.1 /~~ . -- i ~ f., (' -~' t..LG~7(JY~/ ~.-~~ ~ ~~ ~-~:.~ ,~ ~ -tea ~ , '• ~~' r ~ r~~ ~ o ~J~ C77p ~- ~~ ~ ~k" ~ lc~iJc ~11~ ~~ s ~z' 7~== ~C. ~- ~ f ~'l / /~'( ~~ ~ LG 1`~.-_ (iOD~~ ~ ~liS JUr/ ~ ~ 1 ~~w~~ ~ `r~C.. ~~rr ,~, • V C' `~ - ~u f ~~s~~~.. .' L` ~r' /( { w / ~ V p.0. ?~:;x 255 i;~.st Vail, Co. To ~a.st Vail Residence & Property Ori;Eers: T {Wolfram Klawiter) have build a home on the corner of juniper and Meadow Dr. I have made an error in the foundation which makes the building 2ft tin. over the bight restriction of 33ft. So I am trying to get a variance from the town of Vail. to allow the extra high. If you do NOT op,ject to the extra height PLEASE sign, below ,: THANK XOU. Sineerly Geeatful Wolfram Klaw~.ter ~~ r " ss ~ ~~ ~.~-, ~.s -~~~- ~~~~~ ~~jh~y, .~ ham ~ p~~~~s~ r,1' ~ ~~ ti..~•!"L t-er ``~ [ J J~/ ~ L. •~ ~ ~ ~~ r ^ f. !j r /1 .; s: ~ +J G C' L ~ f ~ r~ i •/'7 . 1 ~~ -~~ ~ ~~ -~.~ J .. AJ' .. • r } n ~ ` ) I ,,. ,1> ~ ~ i (r ,~ .i? x-~/l-d7~t V~ ~T ~' ~; /~ 4~:~-L~v~f''/ ,(~csrik(/ G" r7"t-a' .~L~n .L Zr.~.ii~ ~~~~'='~. ~'~ L r.r A _ i ~'L.~~~-- ~ L'":L.} L•~/ G.-7~v~ 'y`,it.-~y7 L~-Y/L2 ~ ~~I~[/-iVt./~ / ~ A,( /~-~"7:.-r--i~ /~rt'^~, `i/s1 a?'7i'2~~'~ .iY~y !!i "" /~'Y~'--1-'lr ~>.v~~ 27~.yy ~t~a~ , ~ ~~7-»~2/sr~i . ~!'I.c_ 1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ r~ ~ . ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ . ~ -tee , ~, z ~~ i/ ,, ~~G) , / f //' ~., / i --~`~ Gt vim. / ~/ / -~L ~~ y `~/re~ dam`'>i~~' ~`i C _ c~ i ~~ C-' _ O ~, MEMORANknUM February 10, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/Dick Ryan SUBJECT: Discussion of construction in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead On January 25th the Town Council discussed their concern for construction in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. The Council requested that the Planning and Environmental Commission review current policies and recommend any changes to the Town Council. Town Council statement regarding construction in Vail Village and Vail LionsHead was: "Construction in the core areas is a problem in the summer, we would like to control this and to recognize personal property rights." Enclosed are a copy of Ordinance 17 of the series of 1980, a memorandum on alternatives that was discussed at a joint meeting on September 2i, 1982, and new policies for interior construction during this winter season. I am sure many alternatives will be discussed in the next month. The goal is to present recommended changes to Town Council by March 15th. Major projects that have received approval and have not been constructed are: Vail Village 1. Ore House 2. S1 fifer Building 3. Cyrano's 4. Hong Kong Cafe 5. New restaurant at The Lode at Vail Vail LionsHead 1. Lazier project by Uai1 2T i + 4j~lF~l1V .~lYl.lss I~~~- ~ r'] AN oRr~T~I~NCE srTTI AN L~I~~Ii,NI) ~1la;NT TU 'f.`l1 . BUILDING COllE, ].~1'I PROVIDING rOR P?~UT FENCING, TIME IiLST FOR PAi~fCTI~IG, STDIIA AND RIs"STRTCTIONS 0 PUBLIC ~~'AYS APPLIC CONSTRUCTION S I TI,S QUTRED BY THE DESIG BOARD IN VAIL VILE VAIL LIONSHEAD COR TN GLOSS PROXIi~ITY - CORE AREA. ~YHEREAS, the' Town of Vail Building Code, 1979 Edition, and ~11THEREAS, it is the opinion of public health, safety and welfare said code to provide for certain building construction sites as r ~ FOII,'I.'II >~ rr x r~or~r~ I~.'D I'f' I ON ,7.'TVJ I cr~~ ~ oNS L Ur MATERIALS rJ S I~~ OF [3LE TO AS RE- RLVIEYd ~E AMID AREAS OR I`0 EITHER adopted by reference the Uniform the~Town Council that the would be served by amending onstruction standards for uired by the Design Review Board; . NO~V, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOC~N OF VAIL, COLORADO THA Section 1. The fallowing~amc~ndment is made tq the Uniform iuilding Code, 1979 Edition. - • A. Section 1718 Specia~ Construction requirem~:nts . is amended by the addition of su paragraph e to read as follows: e. Additional requirements for building ' construction s tes in Vail Village and • Vail Lionshead~Care Areas or in close proximity to e Cher core area. - 1) ,The Design Review Board illa,y provide • that exter- or construction .work to be • done on an constructi.an site ~n~.iy be done the 3' ~.r--round so l.ot~i; .~s a protecti.vc~ :f once is erected around +hn•h nnrri r~ of trt~ r.nn~trtt.c'.LiC)11 Slt~ E s 2 ) `I'lrc, i t;nc, i n", k'('4f l.l]_I'E:[1 J El ( t ~ :~ i,r~ve skz~7..1. i rc}rtrt i rr: ~~,i~prov~r. 1. c, f: 1, I;f:• Uc~sign Rc:vi.c;w f;r~;ri•r! cz.nel the 13rti_.lci:irr#~; U1'ficia.l. in rc:gax•cI 1.{:r dnsig~i, :i Deaf i r;ir , and cons~ruc•~:i.r~rl px•~ior. Lei tine i:~:;uance of a build.-n,; permit. t,lt~~rc:t~c~.r•e. 3} Amaxi.~aum cal' one job vehicJ.c: sha11 be allowed at the const;~•ucl:ion site at aI1 times between the hours of 7 A.A4. and 6 P.P,4, unles~a r~od:ii'ied by the Town o1' Vail Buil:din~; O.F:i'icia~.. The locat~.on of such vehicl.c shall be appraved a.n writing by the Town Building Official. 4} Delivery vehicles for construction supplies shall be allowed a maximum of thirty (30) minutes delivery time to the job site. All delivery vehicles must comply with any other time requirements set forth by the Town of Vail • Ordinance. 5} If any public way, road, easement or area is to be blocked during construction for any reason what- • soever, the Town. of Vail Police and Fire Department shall be • - given written notice thereof no • more than 24 ,hours prior to the blockage. 6) A11 building materials at the job site shall be stored entirely within a structure. Provided if said materials can not be stored inside, they shall be stored inside the fenced area. Adequate trash facilities shall also be located inside the fenced area. ?) No building permits will be issued for worm in Commercial Caro T or Commercial Core II unless a construction time schedule is received and approved by the Building Official, ., _~ € f i!'ri t lt~€ IIS'~' ~~~ , ~ l ~~~I f' r l3. ) is1f-t~'t7c•v€!i ~i ';~,r'(~'c,i. ~ `; I [[f'i'f~l Ili , Gv<r.'ti::a';€~~, ~;t'itlc'.It7u]' ;€.i i~~y, c~x• Z~f;c!c•:;(,r'i.cr~ ;tit•crtl i.; t,f~ i,~~ ~t:f. ~.c~rc:cl , cl '€ :,rttpi;c~d , t~ i f~<~.;:4'ci. r~x' in (~.c:t;~1'r~rr•cl wi.~:h , I.f-c ~t jai, l i.c;a~t for the r~cr i 1 r1i.n~; .p c;rrt.i G ~~}t..}. L 1 5t~bmit to i.lrr~ Design Iteva.c;cv board :i'c.~r. a. t,s apprav~~.l Gr, p7.an for ternpcr~,x•,y replacement facili~:ic~s. 9. ) i;pon cor~r~letion of construction the Town of Vail riiht-oi--way shall he restored to proper condition as rc,q.uired by the Town of Vail. Director of Public Works, Section 2, if any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, J or phrase of this ordi.nance,. is. for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the 'm'own Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsect~:ons, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The amendment of any provision of the Vail • I~iunicipal Code as provided in the Ox•dinance shall not affect any right which has accured, any duty imposed, and violation that occur prior .to the effective date hereof, any- prosecution commenced, nor any othex• action and proceedinb as commenced under or by virture of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or other ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated Y~erein. Section 4, 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 V~iil and the inhabitants thcx•eof. 1NTF~ODUCIJD, RIJAD (7N FXRST I`PIIDTNG, APPI3,OVED, l1N?~ QI~,UEREI~ • PI'BIaISIIED ONCE TN.IiDLI~, this nth cia~l of ;Iirx.Y, 1~Sp, and a public; • 1~.~ - MEMORAfdDUM T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE : September 1 G, 1982 SUBJECT: Construction in the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead general area This past year the Community Development Department has received several questions and concerns regarding construction in the Vail Village area and the Vail Lionshead area. Some people have expressed that they would like to see more controls and reduction of the amount of construction that would take place in both areas, while others have expressed that they would like to be able to have construction on a year round basis. Below are some of the concerns that have been expressed Department. Attached is Ordinance #17 of the Series of by the Town Council to regulate construction within the Lionshead area. The major question before the Town Coui da you consider that Ordinance #17 of 1950 is adequate, changes such as i;hose 1 fisted below? to the Community Development 1980 that was approved Vail Village and Vail ncil and the PEC is, or would you suggest 1. One suggestion is to define a major project and a minor project, •and that only x amount of majors and y amount of minors can take place duing any one year in the Vail Village and Vail LionsHead areas, If this is determined to be desirable by the Town Council and Planning Commission, there would probably have to be a system where you would determine which major and which minor projects would be allowed to be constructed during that year. Two systems that have been used throughout the country are: a) to set up a point system whereby the Planning and Environmental Commission would determine the most beneficial project on a point by point basis; b) would be to have a lottery, where you would put all major projects in a hat, and all minor projects in a hat, and then pick the number of projects determined to be appropriate for both areas. 2. A concern of the staff is having projects started early after the ski season has concluded. It is probably more desirable to require that the contractor must take out a building permit for any major projects if that designation is determined within the Vail Village and Vail LionsHead area by April 10 and that construction and site work must start by the end of April. Small projects t at require only a few wee s o construction would not -~ be required to follow the above schedule. 3. Another aspect that-needs to be reviewed would be how many projects ~n one defined area should take place during one year? There could have been cases this last building season whereby he could have two projects taking place directly across the street from each other. The impacts are: the amount of construction taking place in one area, and the construction fences :'~ coming out of the right-of~-way and making the streets a great deal narrower in one location. Does the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission want the staff to look at a way to insure that we don`t have projects taking place directly across from each other during the high summer season. 4. During the last few months there has been some discussion about the need tr1 harp cnrrla tSInP of f111arantPP that nnrA ~ nrnirart ctartc it ix~ni~lr! hr~ 5. During this last building season, merchants and some tourists have complained . regarding power tools at the site operating during the hunch time period. Some people consider this very disruptive to the commercial activity taking place and the ambiance taking place in the Village, specifically during lunch time. Do you want the staff to look at ways to insure there would be no power tool work during the restrictive times for allowing vehicles in and vehicles out and during lunch times? 6. During the winter season only repair work is permitted. Daes the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission want to see projects under construction during the winter? The staff would like to know if you have other comments and concerns that the staff should work on regarding construction in the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead area. If you have other comments and concerns, we would like them brought up at this meeting so that we can review and study what the impacts of potential changes might be on the Town of Vail. If the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission desire to make changes in the ordinance, we will do the work to complete those changes and have them before the Town Council this winter to be in place for the 1983 building season. n r~ ~. I~ ~ ~..~'~' ~aw~ of Vail T5 south frontage road vaif, Colorado 81657 (3p3) 476-700p MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER i3, 1982 -- REVISED dANURRY 17, 1983 RE: WINTER CONSTRUCTION IN VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIDNSFiEAD Yesterday, the Town Council amended the policy regarding construction in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. The new policy is to permit interior . construction during the ski season from November 24 through April 11, The only exception is outside repair and maintenance on a structure during the ski season. Below would be the rules for construction in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead: 1. No storage of materials or equipment outside the building. 2. All work must be conducted within the building. 3. Parking is restricted to the loading zones within Vail Village or legal parking areas on the site where construction is taking place. 4. Deliveries are restricted to between: l0 °a .m._and 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. A1.1 deliveries before 8:30 a.m. are by permission of the Building Division of the Community Deve lopment Department. 5. Working days and hours are Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. No interior construction or deliveries on weekends. 6. Parking restriction in Vail Village will follow the normal rules far winter access and control in the core. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 28, T983 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Request for an amendment to Section G, Views and Focal Points of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations to include language which protects views whose deterioration could be caused by development outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District. Applicant: Town of Veil 2. Request for a one-time only amendment to Section 18.26.045 (A)5 concerning submittal deadlines for Commercial Core 2 (Vail Lionshead). The amendment would allow exterior alterations or modifications to be submitted far approval from the effective date of the amendment until April 25, 1983. Procedures will follow those outlined in Section 18,66.160. Applicant: Town of Vail 3. Further discussion of controls for construction in Vaii Village and Vail Lionshead. • Published in the Vaii Trail February 25, 1983. Planning and Environmental Commission February 2S, 1983 PRESENT. Will Trout Jim Morgan Diana Donovan Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Gordon Pierce Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Ran Todd Donovan moved and Morgan seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 14 as presented. The vote was 5-0 in favor. with Pierce abstaining. 1. Request for an amendment to Section G., Views and Focal Points of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations to include language which protects views whose deterioration could be caused by development outside of the Commercial Cope I Zone District. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten stated that the staff was requesting to table this item one more time to enable more study. He asked to table it until March 14. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to table Item 1 until March 14. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Viele arrived. • 2. Request fora one-time only amendment to Section 18.26.045 (A )5 concerning submittal deadlines for Commercial Care 2 (Vail Lionshead). The amendment would allow exterior alterations or modifications to be submitted for approval from the effective date of the amendment until April 25, 1983. Procedures wi1T follow those outlined in Section 18.65.160. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten felt that this request was appropriate for this year only and only if the remaining steps for the Lionshead Improvement District were approved. He stated that it was an advantage for private enterprise to da their construction at the same time that the public work would be done, Morgan asked if the TOV were prepared to notify the property owners, Patten replied that they were. Piper asked if the spring submittals were usually for summer construction, and Patten said that that was true, but that this ordinance was to help the mall. Corcoran was concerned that if the same procedures were followed regarding preliminary and public hearings the work might not get done this summer. Patten stated that the staff would try to have the preliminary review as soon as possible, and to get thru the review .phase by the end of May. He added that he would write the ordinance that night, and get it to Council the next night. Morgan asked if the Town could mandate that people da construction at certain times. Viele questioned the practical aspects--that one would have to be fairly far along in the design phase in order to comply. Pierce wondered if any major items were going to be done that the staff knew of. Patten replied that there had been some discussion on some that would have a major impact. He added that the date could be extended if there were problems with the smaller projects PEC 2/28/83 2 . Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve the request as per the memo dated February 24, 1983 with the stipulation that the properly owners be notified. The vote was 7-0 in favor, 3. Further discussion of controls for construction in Vail UilTage and Vail ~ionshead. Pierce wondered what was wrong with the present regulations. ~e claimed that it was difficult to fast track knowing what contractors go trough, especially with larger projects. Piper felt that the tourist season lasted until the first of October. Viele felt that it was a good idea to encourage an early start and to encourage the noxious type of construction when it would have the least impact on the Town. He added that it was not necessary to have a large number of vehicles parked at the site all day, but that the general contractor should limit the number of vehicles so that the delivery trucks could get in and out quickly. Viele also felt that fencing was actually an efficient tool in getting the job done. He added that he did not feel that there should be a terrific relaxation of the rules. One problem he did mention, was that it~.would help if there were a place for storage of materials--perhaps find a staging area charter bus lot?). Piper was concerned about problems with insurance or liabilities if there were no fencing. • Donovan felt it would be helpful to differentiate between minor and major projects, possibly Tift restrictions on the minor ones so that they could get done quickly. She added that the major problem was the number of vehicles in the core--perhaps have a person in the care on foot who would keep in touch with Check Point Charlie and not allow any more vehicles in if aTT parking and loading spaces were full. Morgan felt that the problem was more of an enforcement one -maybe screen through the building department as to what parking is needed--maybe stricter permit regula- tions. On larger jobs he felt there was a greater need for trucks on the job. Maybe when the contractor and building department went through the scheduling, parking needs could be reviewed.. Maybe enlarge on-site parking. Trout felt that all of these things were a step in the right direction, but only that. He felt that the first issue was merchant delivery--if add up construction and delivery vehicles, no parking left--also noise hadn't been addressed, Trout suggested having a depot and possibly using golf carts ar rickshaws for delivery. Morgan stated that another problem in the core was repair people--that it was difficult for them to get in and out in half an hour. He repeated his feeling that enforcement was the main problem. Corcoran agreed that construction fencing should go up immediately. He felt that Ordinance 17 addressed the vehicles very well and he felt that the building department could coordinate-he agreed with Diana regarding the coordination between Check Point Charlie and the core rover. pe also felt that the tourist season lasted until Oct, 15, Pierce expressed the wish that there had been more input from the shop owners, He also felt that PEC 2/28/83 -3- spring construction could continue until late:in June. Dave green, chairman of Planning and Zoning for the local homebuilders' association, stated that it was their position that it was almost impossible to ban all construction vehicles from the construction sites. We added that with remodeling, vehicles were needed even more. He wondered if the construction fences could be extended further so that more vehicles could be parked behind them. He felt that if con- struction vehicles were banned, all of the other vehicles should also be banned. Karen Scheidegger, of Scheidegger Plumbing, stated that it was mare and more difficult to do repair in the core, that they had to go in and out of the core all of the time. She added that it was difficult to get a permit except for an emergency. Steve Patterson, building official, agreed with Dave that all vehicles should be treated the same. He added that there was some flexibility shown. He explained that the fencing could not be extended further and still allow room fora right of way for fire lanes. He felt that there was not enough room in the core area, so that many times a contractor could not park in front of his own project. He stressed that scheduling does not state times for certain trades to work, making it impossible to tell when certain vehicles should have priority. Morgan felt that Patterson could make stronger~.decisions and take more control by deciding the need. Patterson replied that one example of a problem was that many trades have to came in 3 or 4 times and that it was difficult to limit each contractor. Morgan said that the ordinance states "one vehicle per permit" except at the building official's discretion. He felt that Patterson could put pressure on contractors to coordinate their jobs. Patterson felt that communicateon between the contractors and the merchants was important along with a little courtesy. Trout wondered why the discussion was about construction vehicles only. He felt that the problem was more complex than that. Corcoran felt the coordination between the core rover and Check Point Charlie was important. Patten wanted input on the suggestion that only repair work be allowed in the winter. Morgan felt that it would be unfair not to allow remodeling of shops during the winter. Donovan stated that it came down to major and minor again. She felt that it was detrimental to the care to have obviously empty spaces in the winter, She felt that the windows should at least made to look as though the shops were open, Maybe allow construction that did not require vehicles. Viele and Corcoran agreed that it was more detrimental to leave construction unfinished. Piper felt that internal construction should be allowed through the winter months because of the economic hardship to the leaseholders of the spaces. Pierce felt that how a project appeared was most important, and gave an example the exterior work done on the Casino Building to give it an acceptable appearance even when it was unoccupied. After more discussion, Corcoran asked Patten if he could see the summary of the discussion before it was submitted to the Council. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department D a 24 19$3 ATE: Febru ry , SUBJECT: An amendment applicable only in Spring 1983 to allow applications for exterior modifiication and alteration in Vail LionsHead to be submitted earlier than the usual deadline. The staff :is hopeful that remaining steps for the LionsHead Improvement District will be taken and that the project will go forward as planned. If so, mall con= struction is planned to begin-in late April or early May, We feel that the normal spring deadline for submittals far exterior construction (fourth Monday in May) for LionsHead should be moved up this spring to coordinate those projects more with the overall mall construction. This would allow us to receive applications much earlier and have them through the Town's approval processes so that construction can occur 'in conjunction with the Town's work, Thus, we would recommend that the PEC recommend to Council the following amendment to Section 18.2b.045(A)5: 5. Applications for this subsection A shall be submitted, for 1983 only, after the effective date of the ordinance revising these submittal deadlines until April 25, T983 and on the fourth Monday in Wovember, The Planning and..... MEMORRNDUM February 24, 1983 T0: Planning and environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Construction in Vail Village and Vail LionsHead Some of the suggestions of the Planning and Environmental Commission and public regarding construction in Vail Village and Vail LionsHead are noted below. First, to update the Planning and Environmental Commission on the parking problem noted at our last meeting, Town Council told the staff not to permit any all day parking passes starting this past Monday. This should take care of some of the parking problems in loading zones. 1. Lift all restrictions on fences beginning immediately after the ski season through May, and from mid-September through November 15. Lift restrictions (during the week days only)on vehicles for the same periods. A concern of the staff is that we da have same tourists in Vail during that time, and what image do we want to display? Second, by allowing unlimited numbers of vehicles in Vail Village, service and delivery vehicles and emergency VehiCleS may have difficulty in getting up and down streets. • 2. Require that construction starts the day after ski season on maJor protects. Major projects in Vail Village are: a. Ore House b. Slifier Building c. Cyrano's d. Hong Kong Cafe e. Lodge at Vail Restaurant 3. Permit only repair work during the winter season, This has been the policy in previous winters. 4. Require good pre-construction planning of a project, Currently required is a construction schedule before a building permit is issued. Almost all projects were completed close to schedule except for the Casino Building. 5. Bond projects to insure they will be completed on time. Staff is reviewing this with the Town attorney. 6. Receive comments from property and shop owners in the Village. Far the next meeting of Planning and Environmental Commission we will place articles in the paper at request public comments at the meeting, ~J Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1983 2:00 pm Site Inspections 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 28, 1983. 2. Request for site coverage variance to enclose a carport on lot 15, Vail Va17ey 3rd Filing. Applicant: Helioscope lV.V. 3. Request for an amendment to Section G, Views and Focal Points of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations to include language which protects views whose deterioration could be caused by development outside of the Commerical Core I zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. DiSCUSSiOn of summary statement on PEC's recommendations to Council regarding vehicle congestion in Vail Village. • Published in the Vail Trail March 11, 1983 r • r 1 LJ Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1983 PRESENT Jim Viele Gordon Pierce Duane Piper Dan Corcoran Diana Donovan Jim Morgan Will Trout STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack Dick Ryan Dan Corcoran, chairman, coiled the meeting to order at 3:00 pm, 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 28, 1983, Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes and the vote was 7-0 in favor. 2. Reguest for site coverage variance to enclose a carport on lot i5, Vail Valley 3rd Firing. Applicant: Helioscope N,V. Peter Jamar explained that the carports were currently enclosed on three sides, and so the impact upon adjacent properties would be to screen from view the vehicles and related items within the carports. He added that the applicant wanted to enclose the carports for security reasons as well. Kit Cowperthwaite, representing the property owner, added that the carports were sometimes used as a place for others to place their trash. Tam Whitehead stated that the owner was very concerned about security for autos, Trout asked if garages had been shown on the original submittal, and Jamar answered they hadn't. Donovan felt that two enclosed garages would make the dwelling look even larger, though she didn't object to one being enclosed. Vie1e was in favor of the approval, Pierce felt that garage doors should be put on and asked if doors were required. Jamar answered that garages were not required excepting on sites with 30% or greater slope when one parking space must be enclosed, and on sites of less than 15,000 sq ft where an employee apartment was permitted. Corcoran felt strongly against granting a site coverage variance after the fact. In this case he agreed that the coverage was there whether or not there were doors, and suggested that perhaps airdefinition of a carport was needed, Morgan stated that under the UBC a carport was 50% open, and also expressed his concern that with the addition of doors, the building code regarding fire stops be followed. Jamar assured him that this was to go back to the building department during the permit period. Viele moved to approve the request and ~~u~..~€GO.D.d__~. ~~a,.__.~h.~_~ote_wa.s _6, w1 in favor, Donovan_abstajning. Donovan felt that she could not vote for additional site coverage. with the history of this house in mind. _ , PEC 3/14/83 -2- ' More discussion followed,~and Corcoran polled the board to see if they were in favor of requiring one garage per dwelling unit. Pierce, Piper, and Vie1e were • in favor, with Donovan adding that perhaps there could be a stipulation that no variance in site coverages would be permitted after a certain date. Morgan and Corcoran suggested using incentives, rather than requiring garages. 3. Request for an amendment to Section G, Views and Focal Paints of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations to include language which proptects views whose deterioration could be caused by development outside of the Commercial Gore I zone district. Applicant: Town of ?ail Dick Ryan ~~rrived. Bob Parker of Vail ~.ssociates who awn a parcel affected by this amendment, stated that VA did oppose the inclusion of the language which pertained to their parcel. He added that he believed that this was the only parcel of real value out of all the view corridors that hadn't been developed. He added that this view could only be seen by persons walking east on Hanson Ranch Road. He also stated that the present site was an eyesore, that the amendment would render the site unsuitable for development, and would deprive VA from developing and improving the site. Parker added that VA had an agreement with of parking spaces for perpetuity, and also who work at the Village ticket offices. H~ with the Town to gain the highest and best delivery center which had been proposed in be denied. the Christiania to provide "x" number there were about 15 spaces for VA employees added that VA was willing to work use, maybe combining parking with a the past. He asked that this request . Corcoran questioned changing the warding. He felt that if the view corridors were valid, they were valid over the entire Village. But, he added that the location of the road should first be resolved before putting further restrictions on the prop- erty. Ryan stated that when looking at the view corridors, the staff looked at significant views in the Vail Village area and felt that the impact of this view was so critical to the Town that it should be included even though the location of the road hadn't been resolved. Pierce asked Parker what VA's plans were for the property. Parker replied that VA had done some preliminary concepts that demonstrated the value of the property if the street right-of--way were abandoned, but did not have detailed plans. He repeated that with the restriction of the view corridor, the placement of a building on the site was economically enviable. Pierce stated that he would like to see the road question settled. Piper asked if the parking spaces provided for the Christiania were to remain forever, and Parker answered that in the deed to the Christiania from VA, VA agreed to provide 27 parking spaces as long as the Christiania functions as a lodge. Piper asked about zoning, and Patten replied that it was zoned PA; but added that in doing research on the property, the staff could not find a plat which showed the existing situation, and that the staff could not learn the size or exactly determine the development rights. L~ PEC 3/14/83 -3- Parker stated that since the property had been used for 17 continuous years with the street right-of-way in its present position, it should be considered . the permanent location. Me added that in terms of zoning, PA would allow lodging and shops, perhaps with 2 levels of parking underneath. Piper stated that he would like to see the Town and VA have time to negotiate without the Town wielding a club, and to find a solution to parking spaces and to a staging area. Viele agreed and added that to some degree he agreed with Parker that VA had the right to develop the property. Donovan felt that the view corridors should definitely be preserved, and added that overlays showed that the property could be developed, and if the Town did not do something today, that VA might put a 4 story building on the property. Parker stated that VA was committed not to do anything until a71 possibilities were exhausted with regard to negotiating with the Town. Rich Caplan, Town manager, apologized for Larry Eskwith's absence,{stating that Eskwith's wife was having a baby) and reminded the PEC that that they must make the best decision from a planning standpoint, and if the PEC desired to wait on a decision, that they should set a date fora decision. He also felt that the view was important and needed to be protected, that economic feasibility was not an issue, and although negotiations were going on in good faith, the issue was best dealt with on the Town Council level, and the Council should not put the PEC in a position of negotiation. Rather, Caplan felt that the PEC should give their comments to the Council as to what they felt was the right use of the property. Discussion followed concerning previous plans for the property by the Christiania, and Caplan stated that development of the property was a.possibility.and therefore it was important to come to a decision regarding the view corridor, Trout felt that a view corridor from a vehicular intersection should not be supported. Viele stated that.from a planning standpoint, the area is an eyesore, and he would rather see quality building, Donovan felt that a four story building could still be constructed with the view corridor enforced, and added that to pass this amendment would be to protect the Town and force the developer to come up with a better solution. She felt that to leave the road right-of=way where it was would be a fair exchange for approving the amendment. She wandered if the Town might put a mini transportation center in that location. Caplan answered that the Town would not do this in the short term, but it was a concept that might be developed, and that that it could be a cooperative venture, Corcoran's feelings were that he did not want to place more restrictions on property until the two parties were in agreement. Parker stated that if the PEC would place a date for reconsideration of the matter while negotiations with the Town continued, he would go along with that., Piper suggested that this be brought back to the PEC ih 6 months if no negotiations were completed in that time and recommended not to change the wording. Caplan felt that negotiations would be complete within 90 days. PEC 3/14/83 -4- Donavan suggested that the PEC give the negotiations until July, and then send the amendment to the Council with the stipulation that no building plans be accepted until 30 days after the amendment is considered by the Council. It was pointed out by staff that not accepting building plans was probably legally indefensible. Pier moved and Trout seconded that the document go to the Council as recommended with the deletion of the words "no matter what zone district the proposed encroachment may be located in" and the PEC be kept abreast of the negotiations and be told about the status in 90 days from that day, The vote was 6Ti with Donovan voting against because she felt that this was either a view corridor or it wasn't whether or not it was built upon. 4. Discussion of summary statement on PEC's recommendations to Council regarding vehicle congestion in Vail Village. The members discussed the statements and made corrections to Problem B, and to Solutions E and F. Corcoran moved and Pierce seconded to send the lists as corrected. The vote, was 6-1 in favor with Trout voting against because he felt the solutions were not strong enough to deal with the problems. • • n ~J T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1983 SUBJECT: Proposed revised wording to the view section of the Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations As you'll recall, last fall we had a number of public hearings concerning the view corridor revisions, In November you recommended to Gounci1 the adoption of nine view corridors and one focal paint. In December we came back to you, as per your request, with a revision to wording of the view section which provided for the protection of the views even though potential development underneath those views was located in a district other than CCI. On December 13 the PEC tabled the language revision in order to allow Vail Associates time to study the impacts upon their parcel zoned PA located east of Vail Village. They have completed their studies and indications are that they are not in favor of the view corridor designation as proposed. The matter is now coming back for the PEC's final recommendation to Council. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the view corridors and the language revisions as proposed. We feel that all the views proposed are very important to the community and should be preserved. Attached please find the November 1T and December 10 memorandums relating to the amendment. • F r MEMORANDUM T0: Plannin and Environmental Commission 9 FROM: Department of Community Development DRTE: December 10, 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed revised wording to the view section of the Urban Urban Design Guide Plan--Design Considerations 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. The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated on the View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan) and photo- graphically documented (photos on file in the Community Development Department). Wowever, 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, whether designated or not. The views designated to `be' preserved originate from either ma 'or pedestrian areas or public plazas. They are views of the ski mountain, the Gore ~ange, Red Sandstone Peak or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower which were selected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points to help the guests determine their location. And, of course, looking east from the Vail Village area one views the dramatic Gore Range providing some of the most beautiful scenic views anywhere. The official photographs of the view corridors and focal points contain the area to be protected. No encroachment will be allowed, no matter what zone district the prn.~osP~ pnrrnacfj~i nt may 6e 1oc~ted in. above the tob of the black and white_i.ine on the nho~oarauhs. Minor modifications to the roofs of structures (i.e. a new flue} located above the line may be permitted if appropriate approvals from the Community Development Department are obtained. To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the form of sketches, photographic overlays, photo- graphic touch-ups, models, or other simulation techniques. A means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required by the zoning adminis- trator. As circumstances affecting views change, such as re zonings, variances in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised. ~ ~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE : November l 1 , 1982 SUB,]ECT: Listing and verbal description of proposed view corridors and focal points as per Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation. N0. DESCRIPTION 1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center. 2 This is a significant view because it allows one to see the ski slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the ticket and lift facilities in the Village. 3 View number 3 allows one to view the Gold Peak ski slope area from the top of the steps connecting Wa11 Street and the Village Plaza. 4 This is a view of the Gore Range from an area just south of the Village Plaza where it meets Hill Street. The viewer .can see the Gore Range as he walks east on mill Street. 5 This is a view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of the Mill Creek Bridge. 6 This view is actually the third in a series with views 4 and S the first two. It is from Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range. 7 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from Core Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view. 8 View number $ is a striking view of Red Sandstone Peak from near the Popcorn Wagon location on the Village Plaza (southeast corner}. 9 View number 9 is taken from the southeast side of the circular landscaped garden in the Village Plaza looking toward the southwest at the ski slopes nearest the Lodge at Vail. FOCAL POINT 1 The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view taken from the dill Creek Bridge on Hanson Ranch Road. :] MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a site coverage variance on lot 15, Vail Valley 3rd Filing in order to enclose two carports. Applicant: Helioscope N.V. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The proposal is to enclose two two-car unenclosed carports of a total of 984 square feet which are attached to a single family residence located near the end of Sunburst Drive. The enclosure of the carports requires a site coverage variance of 896 square feet since 88 square feet of allowable site coverage remain on the lot currently. The lot is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential and is occupied by a single family home built at the maximum GRFA allowed. The applicant desires to enclose the carports for use as garages for security, to enhance the appearance of the structure, and to enhance the appearance of the Neighborhood, The applicant has submitted several letters from surrounding owners in support of the variance request. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 78.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Due to the fact that the carports are currently enclosed on three sides, the impact upon adjacent properties will be to screen from view the vehicles and related items within the carports that are now visible. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among .sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. It has been a goal of the Town to encourage enclosed garages in order to enhance the appearance of the Tawn. Several setback and site coverage variances r~ U PEC 3/9/83 Lot 15, V Valley 3rd have been granted recently in order to help achieve this goal. The granting of the variance would be consistent with these objectives and would not constitute the grant of a 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. The impact will be a positive one for the area, Aesthetically, the enclosure of the carports into garages is an enhancement to the house and neighborhood. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings. before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or mare 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. Enclosing the carports is consistent with the goal of screening automobiles and related accessories from view. The result of the granting of the variance will be a positive one for the neighborhood and is consistent with variances that have been granted in the past. • .~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 11, 1983 2:00 Site Inspections 3:00 Public Hearing ', 1. Approval of minutes of March 14 meeting. 2. Request for a side setback variance in order to build an addition on lot 7, block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicants: David & Deanne Rogers 3. Request to modify the floodplain on lot A, block 5, Vail Village 1st Addition in order to remodel the Gallery Building. Applicant: Ron'Riley 4. Request to amend Chapter 18.59, Wazard Regulations, of the Vail Municipal Cade in order to comply with the minimum Federal standards of Section 1367 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1958. Applicant: Town of Va i 1 Published in the Vail Trail April 8, 1983. i~ • C: • Planning and Environmental Commission April l7, 1983 PRESENT Will Trout Duane Piper Diana Donovan Dan Corcoran Jim Morgan Gordon Pierce STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Jim Viele 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of March 14. Diana corrected the minutes changing the vote on lot 15, Vail Valley 3rd Filing to show that she abstained, Dan changed the word "would" to "might° on the 12th line on page 3. Will changed the word "way" to "intersection" an page 3, paragraph 8, sine 1. Donovan moved to approved the minutes as corrected, and Piper seconded the motion. The vote was b-0 in favor. 2. Request for a side setback variance in order to build an addition on lat 7, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicants.: David & Duanne Rogers Peter Jamar described the request and added that although there were some physical constraints, there was a way to get into the entry without granting a variance. Duanne Rogers, one of the applicants, stated that the applicants were limited by the design of the house, and that Kathy Warren, the architect, designed the airlock and felt that.it should have a rectangular shape. Mrs. Rogers added that the neighbors were in favor of the addition. Will asked for additional sketches which Mrs. Rogers showed that would require an 8 foot addition, rather than a 7Q foot one. Trout said that he would tend to favor an 8 foot addition. Donavan felt that some variance was warrented, but felt it should be the smallest possible. Piper felt that the addition was a definite improvement over the present condition, but also felt more comfortable with a lesser degree of encroachment than that which was requested. Morgan was in favor of the variance as requested. Mrs. Rogers feat that a ten foot addition was necessary in order to have enough room between the fireplace and the wall. Pierce felt that the roof sine could fallow the present line whether or not there was something underneath. Me felt that there was a definite hardship, but was not sure if the variance should be for an 8 foot or a ten foot addition. Jamar answered questions of the roof overhang and deck encroachments. Piper felt that the board was being arbitrary in trying to decide how much of a variance to approve. Donovan stated that the guide lines for approval of variances was to give them to the degree necessary, not more than enough. PEC 4/11/83 Morgan moved to approved the variance as requested, but there was no second to his motion. Trout moved to approve~ry a three foot setback variance which would allow for an 8 foot entry, Pierce seconded. The vote was 4 in favor, 1 against (Morgan, who felt that this was being arbitrary) and Corcoran abstained. The motion passed. 3. Request to modify the floodplain an lot A, block 5, Vail Village 1st Addition in order to remodel the Gallery Building. Applicant: Ran Riley Peter Patten showed a site plan and explained where the earth berm would be placed along Gore Creek. Corcoran wanter to knew if Mi1T Creek had been considered as well, and Bob Ruder, representing Riley, stated that when he talked to Hydro-Triad, he was told that when Mi17 Creek flooded, it ran into an undersized culvert behind the Red Lion, and then went down lore Creek Drive, and so Mill Creek did not impact the Ga]lery Building as far as flood plains were concerned, Ran Riley explained that there were almost no impact upon Gore Creek by the 6 inch berm. Ruder added that the engineers sectioned the creek every 10 to 20 feet from East Vail to Intermountain when they examined it for flooding: Trout wanted to know if the Town staff had reviewed the study. Patten reminded him. that the Tawn did not employ a hyro engineer, The rock wall was discussed, and Ruder stated that Riley has agreed to landscape the TOV property as part of the approval process in DRB, but that the wall had been added after the fact. Patten added that there was same question as to whether or . not the TOV had agreed to dd the rock wall or part of the rock wall. Pierce stated that he would Tike to take the plan one step further and place a hard surface under the picnic table and between the picnic table and the steps. He felt that the TOV should build the waT7 as well, for the corner was an important one and needed to be cleaned up. Trout moved and Pierce seconded to approved the modification to the floodplain as presented. The vote was 5 in favor, 0 against with Corcoran abstaining. 4. Request to amend Chapter 18.9, Hazard Regulations, of the Vail Municipal Code in order to comply with the minimum Federal standards of Section 1361. of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Applicant: Town of Vail dim Sayre explained the memo and his research on the subject. He said that the amendment was two-part: to adapt a new set of maps and to adopt regulatory measures. Sayre went over the lengthy memn and explained that ,in order to.meet minimum Federal floodplain requirements, the TOV must adopt the Federal study to the point of annexation, and the Hydro-Triad study for the West Vail area. Also, to meet the minimum Federal requirements, the TOV must also adopt regulations concerning the substantial improve- ment$ of structures .in the floodplain, Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to recommend to Cauncil~ the amendments per the staff memo dated 4/4/83. The vote was 6-0 in favor, MEMORANDUM T0: Punning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 5, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 7, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision, Fifth Addition Applicants: David and Deanne Rogers DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants. request a five foot setback variance from the required 15 foot side setback in order to construct an addition to a building on Lot 7, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision, Fifth Addition. The proposed construction would consist of an airlock entry and storage area of approximately i30 square feet and would encroach into the required 15 foot side setback by 5 feet, resulting in a distance between the building and property line of ten feet. A parch is proposed to be attached to the new entry. However, no variance is required far the porch, since open decks and porches are allowed to encroach halfway into a required setback (see attached site plan}~ The applicants request the variance for the following reasons: • i. Configuation of lot and existing design of house limit practicalit of alterna-- Y tives for porch/entry addition. 2. Exposure of present entry system to North presents a practical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship due to formation of ice on stairways and landing in spire of constant attention to snow removal. 3. Proposed addition would enhance the visual appeal of existing house and would make it mare compatible with the neighborhood and this area of Vail. 4. Adjacent neighbors have indicated their support for the proposed addition as indicated by enclosed letters." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ~1pon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18..62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses . and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance will basically im.pa_ct the property located to the west of -2- lot 7, b1k 7 Bighorn 4/5/83 tkre proposed construction. The distance from the common property line to the addition would be 10 feet rather than the 15 feet provided by the setback requirements. The degree to which relief from the str.iet or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The granting of the variance is not necessary in order to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of the zoning code. The lot and zoning requirements possess some constraints to constructing an:addition of the configuation and size preferred by the applicant. Wowever, it is the staff`s position that an alternative design could be accomplished within the physical constraints of the lot and the setback requirements. The granting of the variance fora specific design would constitute 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. The significant impact would be to encroach into the required side setback area. Setbacks are a method of preserving light and air between buildings. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. -3- lot 7, blk 7 Bighorn 4/5/83 i• The strict or literal interpretation and would deprive the applicant of privileges in the same district. enforcement of ohe specified regulation enjoyed by the owners of other properties C~ STAFF ~RECOMMENDRTIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested side setback variance, ~Je recognize the applicants' desires to construct an airlock type entry and in fact encourage airlock entrys by excluding from GRFA calculation 25 square feet if utilized as an airlock. However, in this case an addition can be constructed totally within the required setbacks, and no physical hardship or practical difficulty exists which would warrant the granting of the variance, I• ~• i S~~P SLopg Jr .g•g~ r / ~~ `1 r ~ ~ ~2 ~ l '~ ~`~ - r ;~ / y ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Lh ~ r~~ ~ •~a~g ~u ~ ~ 11 ! 1~21Q1S O/~L ~ S 11 ~ ~ f'~z ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ to ~~, ~?" °O• ofo ~ ~ ~~ zN d-~ ~~a - ~~~ - -1rv~1 ~.~ -~~ tZ89T "5"L .oPc~xa - u~xoaxQ~ a~u _ , , :-_ ~- ~ ~: - •pa~ou sa Ada ~uau~asea ,Cua ~o ugly sa aau~P~n _Xa ° sastmazd ~ca'csitoCpu ,{ur. uo ou a1~, axa~Z z$x~a `urn ~tl~eaiau< ~ stco¢ 7a;,uuA~ ~C~~ L~~ P 1 ~LaS~1ua ajy~d pati'€~a~a ~•~pce a s~4~ uo La~~ pia:~nnc>ddwL a.in~n. r;ittT~ a e, 1 ~ < ¢7~2 Meadow Zane Vail, Co. 8167 S~iarch 14, 1y83 Dear Tawas of Vaal. We live at ~79~ i4leadow Lane, next to the David Rogers residence. We have been shown their plans for a new entrance area, and think that the addition will enhance their property. We realize that the front corner of the addition will overlap the t'ifteen foot praperty line setback by five feet. VVe do not object to the extra five feet. We approve the addition to the Rogers residence. sincerely, t =. •s ~. Thomas H. Baile~ri 1 ~r~ ~~`/ ll~~~~ ~ Jeanne Bailey • Alvin R, B. Knoblock, Inc. Gordon;MacGregor, G.R.I. Scott Tagg Ridler Bridge Street Real Estate and Xnvestrnent Coin.pany 286 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 303-476-2212. Denver 629-7214 March 11, 1983 i• John l~. Nilsson, Inc. - . Todd M. Keleske, Inc. Design and Review Soard - The Town of Vail Municipal Building 75 South f=rontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Gear Sirs, Let it be known that I, the undersigned, have perused the home addition plans of Mr. and Mrs. David Rogers, located :at 4302-Meadow. Lane. I totally approve oi: the afore-mentioned and believe it will be an asset to our neighborhood. ' Very tru yours, dd Nf. Keleske 4340 Pieadow Lane Vail, Colorado 81657 i• Professional Real Estate-Brokers for Vail and lf3eaverCreek . MENlORAN DUM FROM: Department of Community Development TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: Rpril 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for floodplain modification far the remodel of the Gallery Building. Applicant: Ron Riley BACKGROUND Last summer the PEC approved a proposal to remodel and add a .condominium to the Gallery Building. In conjunction with that proposal it was discovered that part of the building lies within the 100-year floodplain. The zoning code allows alteration of the floodplain under certain criteria. The applicable section reads as follows: 18.6q.040 E. The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the floodplain by fi11, construction, channelization, grading, ar other similar changes, to submit far review an environmental impact statement in accordance • with 18.56 to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. {Ord 12, 1978) PROPOSAL The applicant proposes an earth berm to the east and north of the building on Town property for protection against flooding. The elevations of the proposed berm meet the required specifications according to Hydro-Triad, Ltd. The staff feels that the earth berm and associated landscaping is the best alternative to solve the problem. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Please find attached Hydra-Triad's report addressing the criteria in 18.69.040(E). RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request to a1 ter the floodplain. In cases such as this, we must rely upon the experts (i.e. the hydrologic engineers) with regard to the impacts of the proposal. They have reported that negligible impacts would result. We feel that aesthetically the proposal represents the best solution. 3 March, 1983 Nir. Dick Ryan Director of Community Development Town of Vail, City Nall P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81656 RL: Floodplain Analysis Gallery Building, Environmental Impact Statement Dear Nfr. Ryan: At the request of the Town of Vail and in accordance with Zoning Ordinance 18.69.440E, Nydro-Triad, Ltd. has prepared an "Environmental Irrrpact Statement" for construction activities at the Gallery Building, located in Vail, Colorado. A portion of the construction will take place within the 140-year floodplain boundary identified for Gore Creek. Construction activities will consist of remodeling a portion of the building and constructing protective measures to provide protection of the building against flooding. A floodplain analysis has previously been performed for this site, by Hydro-Triad, Ltd., dated Aiay 13, 1982. Several alternatives were developed to protect the building against flooding from the 100-year flood. Loch alternative consisted of providing a barrier against flooding along Gore Creek for the length of the Gallery Building. Site specific surveyed cross sections were obtained and water surface profiles upstream of the Bridge Street covered bridge were calculated. Far a worst case scenario which consists of a vertical wall placed on the Gore Creek bank, the additional rise in water surface elevations will range from; a minimum of 0 feet at the Bridge Street bridge to a maximum of 0.17 feet (2 inches) at a point 150 feet upstream of Bridge Street. Increases of these small magnitudes will have negligible affects on the upstream floodplain boundaries. • ~~ ~ y ; `~ ; ,: ~.=~. . ~.. E - ,~' E ^ •~.. LAKE',NQ~C. ~,0~ RA.~G 8^?28 P~ur~~~ 3~~~. ~~?-', ~'~~ m • Mr. Dick Ryan 3 March, 1983 Page two Construction of a "flood barrier" will not affect the drainage basin characteristics and therefore will not increase the discharge in Gore Creek. An increase in flow velocity will likely occur for a distance of approximately 150 feet upstream of Bridge Street. The maximum increase will however be slight, on the order of 0.3 feet per second which is an increase of approximately 4 percent. Based on these analyses, we feel that the construction activities, as identified in the previous floodplain analyses, will not adversely affect the adjacent properties. If you have an_y questions, please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, • RLH/RJI~/1 a -E3 -TRIAD, LTD. Ronald L. Halley, Jr., P.L. Preside t c Robert Jay is Senior Water Resource Engineer C7 THIS IS A LIST OF THE SPEED CALL NDMBERS CEJRRENTLY IN THE PHONE SYSTEM 410 VA 411 Dan McGrew's House 412 Vail Mtn. Med. ~3 Shel1ey's . 4 Vail Va11ey Medical 415 Eagle Valley Comminications Corp. 416 Lincoln National 417 Dorothy's House 418 Cath~e's House 419 Karen's Husband's Work Number 420 Karen Morter's House 421 1st Bank of Vail 422 Insurance Agency of Denver Colorado 423 Vail National Bank 424 KVMT 425 Vail Trail 42b Ea gel Valley Engineering 427 VA--Beaver Creek 428-429 Andy Norris 430 Jay Peterson 431 Briner/Scott Architects 432 Baldwin Assoc. Architects • C • MEMORANDUM . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 4, 1983 SUBJECT: Revision of the floodplain regulations in Chapter 18,69 and floodplain maps in order to meet the requirements of the Federal Insurance Program. SUMMARY In order for local property owners to be eligible for Federally subsidized flood in- surance the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requiring local governments to adopt Federally authored floodplain maps, studies and specified regulatory manage- ment measures. The Town of Vail must adapt a new set of floodplain maps and must revise the hazard chapter in order for property owners to remain eligible for flood insurance. Details concerning the Federal Insurance Program, the differences between the Federal floodplain study and our current, Hydro-Triad study, and an explanation • of the revised regulations follow. I. INTRODUCTION. THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM The National Flood Insurance program enables property owners to buy flood insurance at reasonable costs. Tn return, the Federal Government requires communities to enact floodplain management measures. A local government enters the Insurance Program in two phases: Phase One is the "Emergency Program" and Phase Two is the "Regular Program." Vail has been in the Emergency Program since 1976. Entrance into the Emergency Program enabled property owners to purchase Federally subsidized flood insurance. Vail is now poised to enter the Regular Program, which requires adoption of Federal flood maps and revised . regulations, but yet allows the property owners to purchase more comprehensive Fed Insur. Program -2- 4/4/83 insurance. Vail will be dropped from the Insurance Program unless Federal regulations . are met. The premiums charged a property owner are assessed according to a structure`s lowest floor elevation in relation to the elevation of the "base flood." The base flood is often called the "One Hundred Year Flood," or, more specifically, a flood having a one percent chance of occuring in any given year. The Federal floodplain maps, called "Flood Insurance Rate Maps" (FIRM), outline the base flood and call it the "A" zone. The "A" zone is further refined into numbered zones (Al, A2, A3,...A30) that reflect the degree of flood hazard for a particular area. The FIRMs also list a zone "B" which designates areas of 500-year flood and zone "C," areas of minimal flooding. The Federal regulations deal with only the 100-year, or base flood. II. A COMPARISON OF STUDIES, TH£ FED£RA~ STODY AND HYDRO-TRIAD Vail is a fortunate community in terms of natural hazard regulation, far it now has two floodplain studies. The first study, completed by Hydro-Triad in 1975, became the technical basis of the Town's current maps and regulations. The Federal study was completed in 1980. A comparison of the two studies reveals that the base flood elevations and boundaries are amazingly similar--the base flood elevations in each study usually illustrate a difference of no more than a half-foot at any given point along Gore Creek. (See Table I). But there are important differences in the studies: The Federal study is based on more current topography (some of the cross-sections of Gore Creek, including bridges and culverts, have changed between T975 and 1980); the sub-basin creeks {Bighorn, Pitkin, Mill Creek...) have been included in the Federal study; and the Federal study has used a more sophisticated computer program than the one Hydro-Triad used eight years ago. The Federal study is thus a more complete and current study than that of Hydro- Fed.Insur.Program -3- 4/4/83 Triad. But the Federal study does have a major drawback: the study does not include . the West Vail area. Tt ends at the 1980 Vail corporate boundaries. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is at this time unwilling to complete their study for the West Vail area. Thus the Town, in order to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program, must adopt two sets of floodplain maps and studies, O,ne, the Hydro-Triad study, for the recently annexed West Vail area, and the Federal study for the rest of the Town. The Federal maps have one other major drawback: They list a profusion of terms which describe a relatively simple concept: the 100-year base flood, The Federal maps list Al-A30, A0, AH and Zone B flooding of less than 18 inches--all describing zones covered by the base flood. Hydro-Triad simply calls the base flood area "floodplain." The proposed revisions incorporate all the above terms as "flood hazard zone." The "flood hazard zone" is simply another name for what the Town has been regulating since 1977--the floodplain. III. A COMPARISON OF REGULATIONS, FEDERAL AND LOCAL The Town of Vail now prohibits the construction of any structure, with the exception of recreational structures, within the floodplain. Congress, in the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, outlined various minimum floodplain management regulations local government had to adopt in order to enter the~;Regular Insurance Program. These regulations allowed structures to be built in the floodplain under certain conditions. In this sense, Vail's current floodplain regulations meet and exceed Federal requirements. However, Federal regulations do set forth requirements pertaining to structures which are currently standing within a floodplain. The Federal regulations state Fed Insur Program -4- x/4/$3 • that if these structures are "substantially improved" their lowest floor elevation must be raised above the base flood elevation. {See definition p. 5-6.) There are approximately seven buildings in Vail which are currently standing,, at least in part, in the floodplain. Language concerning the adoption of the new Federal floodplain study and substantial improvements of structures currently standing within the floodplain will be the focus of the proposed amendment of the hazard regulations. The final Federal requirement has to do with variances given in the floodplain. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has asked the Town to add some language • stating that no variances shall be given to build in the floodplain which would result in increasing the elevation of flood waters. This requirement will fit well with existing Section 18.69.040(E), which reads: E. The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the floodplain by fill, construction, channelization, grading, or other similar changes, to submit far review an environmental impact statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work wi11 not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. U Fed Insur Program -5- 9/4/83 IV. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The intent of the proposed floodplain amendments is to retain the content and method of Vai1's current floodp1ain management techniques, but yet add requirements for the adoption of the Federal study and substantial improvement in order to meet Federal requirements.. The central theme of floodplain management--to prohibit construction in the floadplain--will remain precisely the same as it has since the hazard chapter was first introduced in Vail. The proposed amendments add a number of definitions to the definitions already in the hazard chapter and add two sections concerning substantial improvement and designation of the two sets of maps,. DEFINITION C~IA~EOES "Floodplain" has to be redefined to cover the profusion of names for the base flood, and definitions of Flood Insurance Study and substantial, improvement added. These definitions wi11 read as follows: (1} 18.69,020(c} wi11 read: Flood hazard zone means that area covered by the base flood. The base flood area is any numbered A, A0, AH, or area of 100-year shallow flooding indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, associated work maps, and Flood Insurance Study. The flood hazard zone is also any area indicated as floodplain as defined by the Oore Creek Flood Plain Information Report, 7975, as designated in Section 18.69.040. (2) 7$.69.020(f} wi11 read: Flood insurance Study means the official report provided by the Federal Emer- gency Management Rgency that includes flood profiles and water surface elevation of the base flood. Fed Insur Program -b- 4/4/83 (3} 18.69.020 (g) will read: - .-- Substantial improvement means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure. Market value shall be determined by a qualified assessor designated by the zoning administrator, The market value of a structure is determined either: (1} before the improvement or repair is started, or (2} if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wail, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improve- ment of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions. SECTION C~EANGES The central section of the hazard chapter is 18.69.040, which restricts development in fioodplains, red hazard avalanche areas, and areas of 40/ slope. This section is revised in order to incorporate the new name~for flaodplain. Phis section wiT7~~ read as foilows: Fed Insur Program ,~:._. 4/4/83 18.69.040 Development restricted No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent or greater except in single-family residential, two-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. The term "structure" as used in this section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. A section should be added which outlines which study applies to a particular stretch of Gore Creek. The Federal study applies to the area enclosed by the Vail corporate boundaries as of 1980, the Hydro-Triad applies to the West Vail annexation. This section will read as follows: 18.69.045 Designation of flood hazard zones and flood hazard studies There are two sets of flood hazard maps and studies designated and adopted for the Town of Vail. They are: A. A11 areas designated as flood hazard zones in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Work Maps, as well as the Flood Insurance Study dated November 2, 1982, are hereby designated and adopted for the areas encom- passed by the Town of Vail as of December 1, 1980. B. The Gore Creek Fioodplain Information, 1975 study and accompanying maps are hereby adapted and designated for an area described in the West Vail annexation plat, dated December 18, 1980. Rnother section should be created for the substantial improvement of structures standing in the floodplain. The Federal government requires that these structures by anchored so they do not float away during a flood, and that the lowest floor elevation be elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation. This section • will read: Fed Tnsur Program -8- 4/4/83 18.67.047 Procedures for the substantial improvement of legal nonconforming structures located, in part ar in whole, in the floodplain. Structures which are substantially improved must be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement during a base flood event; substantially improved structures must also elevate the lowest floor elevation, including basement, to one foot or above the base flood elevation. Applications for the substantial improvement for structures shall include the following: (1) Engineering drawings and specifications sufficient to illustrate that the proposed structure will be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement during a base flood event. Such drawings shall bear the stamp of a registered, professional engineer. (2) Floor plans and elevations illustrating that the lowest floor elevation, including basement, of the structure shall<<.be elevated to one foot or above the base flood elevation. (3) Before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for a substantially improved structure, an improvement location certificate shall be obtained illustrating structure location in relation to property boundaries, building dimensions, all utility service lines as built, easements, lowest floor elevation, and roof ridge elevation. The improvement location certificate shall bear the stamp of a registered, professional surveyor. • Fed Tnsur Program -g- 4/4/83 The final change is to prevent variances to be given far structures to be built i in the floodplain which would raise the base flood elevation, This can be accomplished be revising Section 18.69.060 of the hazard chapter, "Right of Appeal." The complete section shall read: 18.69.060 Right of appeal Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny an interested person his rights to appear the decision of the zoning administrator in accor- dance with Section 18.66.030 or to seek a variance from the requirements of this chapter, except in the case where a proposed structure or fiTT will raise the base flood elevation during a 100-year flood. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.62. (Change is underlined.} I• The rest of the hazard chapter will remain unchanged. i• -7 0- . ~ TABLE I f_____.__._ _._ .._-._..__......_..~.._.____.._.....---------•___.~--___----__ ~ { DIFfiERENCI TN WATIaR ' GROSS SECTIONS j WAT1;R SURFACE ELEVA'TIOI~S ~ SURFACE ELEVATIONS j ~~ ~ ~ F ' H.T. 3 ~ F1A Ii.T ~ F1A 1 A e~ C i1 °C s ~ E A 3 18 I 7,993.9 ~ 7,993.7 ~ -0.2 ' B . i 18.4 8,002.7 }} 8.002,7 ~ 0.0 4 ~ -0 F 18.6 8,025.9 I 8,025.5 . -0 3 ~ G 18.7 8,034.7 8,034.4 ~ . 0 4 ~ L 18.9.1 8,065.1 ~ 8,Q64.7 ? ~ . = Q ~ N 18.9.3 3 8 E}76.3 ~ ~ ~ 9 8,077.2 3 ' 078 8 • • -0.6 r p lg 20 8,478. 079.7 ~ ~ 8 . , $,079.3 -0.4 ~ p S ~ 2~ , ~ 8,100.2 8,100.1 -0.1 ~ V i 23.1 - ~ - 8 124. ~ - = , _,. 8~,124,~3 -., ~. -.. - -- .- -~ p ._ i 9 ~ {~ W ~ r23, 3 ~ 8,130.5 ~ ~ 31.4 8,1 . 1 0 y I 25 ~ 8,140.7 - -. - 8 140.8 ~, ..... . .... _ .- ~ 9 ~ AA - ~ _'- { 29 8,148.5 8,153.5 • 3 F 2 AE 35 8,157.8 8 160.1 . j 2 0 AF ~ 37 8,162.0 ~' . 4 ~ i AG 38 $ 162.4 8,163.8 . 6 ~ 0 AJ 40.1 8,171.1 8,171.7 _8..._1 Zb • Z _ . -~ _ ..z . 4 AM 42.2 ` ! _ ~r~ - - 81183.7 _ - _ 8~ 1$37 ~ ~ E - - ~ ~0 4~ AP _ ~ 42.7~T 8,203.8 8,203.4 . 2 ~ 0 AR 44 $,213.$ 8,214.0 . 4 0 0 AT 45.2 8,224.6 8,224.6 . © 9 ~ AW 46 47 8,236.7 244.8 8 8,237.6 8,245.8 • 1.0 ~ AX BA' 49.2 , 8,259.5 8,259,6 ~ 0.1 ~ 0 2 BB ' 49.3 8,264.3 ! 8,264.-5 . ~ 1 BE 49.5 _ _ _. 8, 281.1 - .-, - - '_ '_ .... 8,-28 ,.~ _. _ - - - - ~- - -0 2 BI BK 49.7 8 ~ 4 9 i 8, 295.4 8 304.1 ' 8, 295.2 8 304.4 ,,,_ ,r - ~ .~ . - ,_ 0.3 _ - -~ - - BL . _ 49.8.1 ~ _ z..~ - ~ ~ _ 8,315.0 . _ 8,315.2 o . 2 1 ~ 0 BM 9.9 4 8, 32©. 4 _ _ ,- - 8~ 20.5 .- - . ~~ ~ - - _.., 1 i BO _ ~.-49.9.2- $,333.9 ~ 8,335.0 ~ . 3 -0 BS 51.2 8,365.7 8,365.4 . 1 -0 BV ~ 52 8,388.6 8 393 8 8,388.5 8,393.0 ,. . -0.8... BW BZ 54 56.1 . , ~ 8,426.8 8,425.5 -0.3.. CC 58.1 8,437.5 8,438.8 1.3 .., CD 58.2 ~ 8,451.6 8,451.4 3 0 CE 60 8,466.9 8,467.2 . C I 6 2.3 8 503.6 I g , ~ 03.7 ., ..-- ---- -- --- 0,x'1` ..- _' t CL _ ~ 64 - - _ _ _ 1 ,~ 8, 540.2 - - ~ ~ ._...~ -. ..._ ~ - -, .•; ;x 3 _ i i 'f i :, .....-_.._s_... ,. ,. ,, ' April 17, 1983 . Inventory of Buildings Within the 100-year flood. Informal Survey ~ ~) 1. Heather of Vail, partially within 100-year, partially within 500-year flood. Stream meander, situation complex. 2. Cedar paint Townhouses - partially within 100-year, partially within 500-year flood. Stream meander, situation complex. 3. Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision, 4166 Columbine. Lowest floor elevation in f1oodplain. 4. Northern tip of Creekside Building. 5. Village Center "B" Building - very close? 6. Tip of southern end of Talisman Lodge 7, part of eastern building of Pta~°migan Townhouses 8. Gallery Building trash enclosure 9. Al Stevens residence, West Vail i• i• Planning and Environmental Commission April 25, 1983 1:00 pm Site Inspections 2:00 pm public Mearing 1. Approval of minutes of April 11 meeting. 2. Request fora side setback variance in order to build an addition on an existing residence on lot 15, Resubdivision of Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Randy Guerriero 3, Request to amend Section 18.26.030 Conditional Uses, to allow the necessary hardware for the relay of the radio and television signal to the primary transmitter site as a conditional use. Applicant: R. ~ L. Communications 4. A request to rezone lot 6, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing (Treetops Condos} from the High Density Multiple Family zone district to the Commercial Core II zone district to allow a loading space within the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association 5. Request to amend Section 18.64 Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, to include language which will allow for interior expansion of pre-existing legal non-conforming uses far additional GRFA. Applicant: Richard S. Baldwin • Planning and Environmental Commission April 25, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Peter Patten Diana Donovan Peter Jamar Gordon Pierce Jim Sayre Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Wi71 Trout Jim Vie7e COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE C] ABSENT Chuck Anderson Jim Morgan . The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm by Dan Corcoran, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of April 11 meeting. Donavan moved, Trout seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6-0 in i:avor. 2. Request for a side setback variance in order to build an addition on an existing residence on lot 15, Resubdivisian of Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Randy Guerrieri Peter Patten showed site plans and preliminary elevations. He explained the memo and the fact that the staff was recommending denial because they could see no reason to make an existing non-conforming situation even more sa when no valid hardship had been demonstrated and because there was room to add on to the unit without getting Into the side setback. Randy Guerriero showed subdivision maps and photos to emphasize the number of his neighbors who were near the lot line, and thus his feeling that the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, He explained that he wanted to add on to the front, not the back of the residence, that the angle of the lot line was an exception or extraordinary circumstance, and added that the property owner to the west could add on and the result would still be 30 feet between buildings. Pierce suggested that Guerriero change the shape of his .addition, to more respect the setback on the site and then ask for less of a variance. Guerriero felt that the building would look chopped up. Pierce said that he would feel r~ore comfortable with the request if it did not go to the property line, Viele agreed with Pierce, as did Piper. Donovan was reluctant to approve an~addition to a nonconforming building that made it more nonconforming. Trout.fe7t that the addition would be difficult to accom- lish within the setbacks, but the stairway could be moved, and the result would be a~~request for less of a variance. Corcoran read the names of the adjacent property owners who had written letters of approval of the addition. He added that in his opinion, Guerriero already enjoyed the privileges of the owners oi' other properties in the same district, because he was existing in violation of the setback rules, as we71, and~that he could add on to his residence and ,still stay within the setbacks. PEC 4/25/83 -2- Pierce suggested changing the property line between Guerriero and the property to the west to eliminate the angle of the lot line and accommodate his addition, Piper moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request for the variance stating the finding that the granting of 'the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege, The vote was 5-T in favor with Trout against the denial. Trout did not feel the grounds for denial were proper. 3. Request to amend Section 18,26.030 Conditional Uses., to allow the necessary hardware for 'the relay of the radio and television signal to the primary transmitter site as a conditional use, Applicant: R & L`Communications Peter Jamar described the request. The discussion which followed revealed that the members' main concerns with the amendment were the aesthetics and appearance of the relay facilities itself. They were reminded that this would be the concern of any specific conditional use request. Bob Dorf, one of the applicants, explained that a tower ar possibly a dish was necessary in order to bounce radio signals from Potato Patch to Vail Mountain. He was reminded that the actual relay facilities would have to come before the PEC fora conditional use request, Viele moved and Piper seconded to recommend to Town Council the amendment to Section 18.26.030 Conditional Uses, to ihclude radio and television signal relay transmission facilities as a conditional use in the Commercial Core IiI zone district. The vote was 6-0 in favor, 4. A request to rezone lot 6, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing (Treetops Condos) from the Nigh Densii:y Multiple Family zone district to the Commercial Core II zone district and to a11ow a loading space within the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association Peter Jamar showed the board the Lionshead zoning map indicating where Treetops was located. He showed the proposed site plan explaining that if the rezoning were approved, Treetops would have to come back through the PEC with an application far Exterior Alteration for CCTI. Jamar stated that the staff was recommending tabling for 60 days for further study during which time the applicant would conduct a study addressing traffic and circulation problems. Jamar showed a tide lapse film of the area taken during 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon of the Monday of President's weekend. Ne stressed that the staff needed to know how the commercial space in Treetops would affect this area in terms of traffic and circulation, as this is already the mast congested area in town. Peter Looms, architect for the project, stated that the purpose was to improve Treetops. He felt that the addition would not add problems to the area, adding that parking was by permit only. Ted Strauss, president of Treetops, stated that there were rarely any cars parked on the top parking level, even in the busy day shown in the time lapse film, He added that storing the snow in that area had caused Treetops $20-30,000 in costs to repair sewer lines. Pierce felt it would be best not to have loading right where pedestrians would a cross, but perhaps have this on the west side. Strauss pointed out that the Lionshead Lodge had their trash storage in this same area, Viele asked about TOV plans for pedestrians in the area between the Village and Lionshead, and Jamar replied that there really hadn't been any study done, although it had been considered during the work done on the Urban Design Guide Plans. Jamar explained this was a desirable connection to have to link the Villages. PEC 4/25/83 -3- Viele was concerned about traffic and circulation problems. Jamar said that when • the rezoning did take place, Treetops would have to present a specific development plan with specific numbers, site plan, etc „ so the project would be locked into a specific plan, and that Treetops would have to come back and ask for any changes in the future. Corcoran added that they could come in under Exterior Alterations. Piper stated that the film showed much pedestrian traffic coming from the Village which surprised him. He felt that the Treetops addition would make a stronger tie to the Village and was an improvement. Donovan felt that the location was a good one for commercial activity after seeing the traffic pattern in the film. She felt that the building should be law and appear to be tied into the present Treetops condo building and into Lionshead, She-felt that the type of retail space should be restricted so that shops that encourage auto traffic such as liquor or ski repair would not be allowed in the space. Donovan felt that it was time the TOV did something for the pedestrians walking between the ice rink and Lionshead.. Trout felt that the addition was goad and echoed the Gage Davis (Urban Design Plan) study. He felt the plan was a positive one. Corcoran asked about tabling the plan to a specific date, and Jamar cautioned the applicant that the plan would have to come before the PEC under Exterior Alterations in CCII, The next appli.catian date for this is May 23, the~one after that is November 28. Jamar said that the staff would like to have 15 days in which to review the proposal after it had been submitted to the staff. Strauss requested to table until June 13. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to table the request to rezone until June 13 . as per the applicant's request. The vote to table was 6-0. 5. Request to amend Section 18.64 Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, to include language which will allow for interior expansion of pre-existing legal non-conforming uses for additional GRFA. Applicant: ;Richard S. Baldwin Peter Patten explained that the amendment would essentially allow additions to any building which meets the proposed criteria, but only applied to those buildings which were currently non-conforming. with respect to GRFA. He reviewed the memo which explained the reasons for the request- said that the staff felt that although the impact on the neighbors might not. be great,-the overall impact could be great. Rick Baldwin said that it seemed the staff was implying a fear of creating inequities when inequities already existed. He added that any new construction would have to came before the Town, and that this amendment would not prevent others from applying fora variance. Baldwin stressed that he felt it was the number of units which controlled density, not GRFA,. He added that there were problems with the GRFA method of controlling density. Trout questioned GRFA also, since there were a number of ordinances which controlled in other ways. Donovan felt that controlling numbers of units did not control density in a resort area, and supported GRFA as a control of density, Piper asked if one could change a garage into GRFA under the proposed amendment, and Patten replied that it could be done,•but that many other criteria would also have to be met. PFC 4/25/83 -4- Baldwin felt that once the to use the interior space. and sewage with more people of expanding non-conforming real increase in density by • building was in place, the owner should be allowed Donovan stated that there would be impacts on traffic using the space. Viele was concerned with the theory uses, but could not see any detrimental effect nor any allowing an expansion of existing nonconforming structures. Pierce mentioned that he, being an "old timer," had seen many methods used in the Town to control density, and felt that GRFA, while probably .the worst system, was the best anyone had come up With, H~ added that he did not feel that someone who had been here a number of years should have more privileges than a newcomer, though perhaps it could be taken on a case by case basis. Pierce suggested perhaps giving a ceiling of 5% of GRFA and setting a time limit. He felt that use of space be]ow grade would be good. Trout was concerned about not eliminating parking. Patten reminded him that there were parking requirements, anyway. Corcoran felt that if someone were allowed to use their garage for living space, they would be quite likely to come back and ask fora variance so that they could add a garage, De.~felt more in sympathy with the amendment if it applied only to low density residential zones, but felt that a variance should be asked for in each case. Corcoran added that he was in. favor of a total rethinking of GRFR in residential zones Chuck Anderson stated that concern was with renovation of the physical plant, that the Town was at a point in history when renovation should be encouraged, and he felt that the issue of GRFA vs bulk should be addressed. Trout suggested the request 'be tabled and a work session scheduled, Baldwin felt that if GRFA were to re-evaluated, he was willing to table his request. The members were polled and Trout was sympathetic with modifications, Donovan could maybe ,support with time limits, only residential zones included, and with some trade-offs. Piper felt the amendment and the GRFA question needed additional work, that there was a problem with the way it was presented, but felt that it was a positive step. He did not want to throw out GRFA entirely. Donovan-added that she might be able to support it if it were to apply only to buildings built before 1970 or so. Vie1e supported the request, but was sympathetic to Duane's concern of garage conversions, De felt that the intent was good. Pierce tended to agree with. Duane and felt he could not vote for the amendment in its present format, Corcoran felt the same way and added that the PEC and Council should address this issue. Baldwin requested tabling until June 27, Trout moved and Donovan seconded to table to June 27 as per the applicant's request. The vote to table was b-0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 pm. • MEMORANDUM ~, TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 12, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance in order to include radio and television signal relay transmission facilities as a conditional use in the Commercial Core III zone district. Applicant: R, & L Communications, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST R & L Communications, Inc. requests an amendment to the Commercial Core III zone district in order to include as a conditional use signal relay transmission facilities for radio and television broadcasting studios, which are a permitted use within the district. This change would then require that any specific proposal far transmission facilities would go through a conditional use review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the • requested amendment. According to experts in the broadcasting industry, it is necessary for FM radio broadcasting studios to have signal relay antennae immediately adjacent to the broadcast studio. A conditional use review will assure that the installation of this necessary equipment will be done in the most aesthetically pleasing and unobtrusive manner as possible. • MEMORANDUM . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 13, 1983 SUBJECT: Side setback variance request to construct an addition to a residence on lot 15, Resubdivisian of Buffehr Creek, Applicant: Randy Guerriero DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant owns a non-conforming structure (with respect to setbacks) in Buffehr Creek and wishes to construct an addition to the front {south} side of the house. Below are the applicable numbers for the existing, required and the proposed setback situation: EXTSTTNG REQUIREp PROPOSED Building setback 7.5' 15' 4` Steps setback O' 7.5' O' Zone District - Primary/5ecandary Existing No. of Units - 3 {legal non-conforming} Total lot size - 15,246 sq ft Total GRFA allowed _ 3774 sq ft Total GRFA existing - 3108 sq f t Total GRFA proposed _ 3333 sq ft The applicant wishes to construct a living room addition to the second level of the house, He also proposes a zero setback for a stairway to the west of the addition which currently appears to be partially on adjacent lot 15 (over the property sine}. He submits the following reasons for granting the variance: "1. The existing structures in the vicinity do NOT, for the most part, conform to the 15 foot setback requirement {see maps). Applicant would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same neighborhood. 2, Rdjacent property owners have no objections to this setback variance (see letters}. 3. The practical difficulties of placing this addition on any other part of the buildable lot would be monumental due •to the existing floor plan of the house and the proposed carport would not be accessible from anywhere else on the lot (see plat maps}, 4. Due to the shape and topography of the site, an addition of this nature would be impossible at any other placement {see map) and refer to on- site inspections. 5. Due to the angle of the property, line expansion of adjacent property would still keep acceptable distances between structures," lot 15, Buffehr -2- 4/13/83 • • CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62,060 of the Municipal Code, The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There would be no significant impacts upon adjacent properties by granting the variance. However, allowing the building to be 4 feet from the property line could negatively impact the adjacent duplex lot (which has only one unit on the far western side of the lot) if the second unit were added. The applicant argues that the variance should be granted because other property owners in the vicinity have less than 15 foot setbacks. This is true to a minor degree (most adjacent properties are at least 15 feet from the "common" lot line), but the obvious reason for the less than 15 foot setbacks is that the buildings were developed under less restrictive Fagle County regulations & later annexed. Upon that annexation, the staff studied zoning alternatives for the area and felt strongly that we should impose the Town's existing districts and not simply duplicate the County's zoning, We felt our regulations would cause improvements in site development standards over the County's, although realizing the risk of creating a number of non-conforming situations. 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 treatrrient amonq~s~tes in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this tit1e~without grant of special privilege, The existing unit is non..conforming with regard to setbacks as one can see from the table on page 1. The applicant wishes to make this non-conforming situation more nonconforming with respect to the building setback, The staff can identify no hardship whatsoever with the lot (there is room to add on to the northeast and the southeast areas of the building). The use proposed for the addition is not one specifically encouraged (i.e, airlock or garage) by the zoning code. The staff concludes the granting of the variance would be a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on 1i ht and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubic facilities and utilities, and public safety. No effect on these factors would result, Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: lot 15, 8uffehr -~- 4/13/83 The Plannin~..and Envi.ronmental.;Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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 wau1d 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 denial of the requested variance. We see no reason to make an existing non-conforming situation even more so when no valid hardship has been demonstrated. Also, there is room to add on to the unit without getting into the .side setback. MEMORANDUM T0: P~ianning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Department of Community Development DATE : Apri 1 13, 1983 SUBJECT: Application to rezone Lot 6, Vail Lionshead First Filing from High Density Multiple-Family zone district to Commercial Core II zone district and to receive an exemption from the loading requirements in order to allow a loading space with the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association DESCRIpTTON OF THE PROPOSAL The request is to rezone the lot upon which the Treetops Condominiums are located. The basic reason that Treetops has initiated this proposal is to alleviate various functional and maintenance problems associated with the existing parking structure on the site, Their desire is to rezone the property in order to permit the addition of commercial space on top of the existing structure, thereby eliminating the drainage and ice build-up problems which are currently experienced during the winter months. The Treetops Association also sees as a result of the rezoning proposal an opportunity to provide a structure housing approximately 8000.: square feet of retail commercial space and a landscaped pedestrian walkway plaza area which would "promote greatly enhanced pedestrian and traffic circulation in the East Ma71 area, enhance the . community quality and economic value of its environs by the creation of a vigorous and active retail establishment and its attractive environs, enhance the effectiveness of the Lionshead Improvement District (when implemented) by means of the defined corridor connector to East Lionshead Gircle, and greatly enhance the appearance of the site by the creation of the landscaped pedestrian accessway and the effective screening of existing unsightly structures." The Association sees the rezoning to allow the addition of the commercial space as a vehicle to accomplish these goals. In addition to the retail commercial space, the addition would include a small manager's office for Treetops, a laundry area for Treetops owners and guests, storage area, trash disposal, and mechanical equipment for the buildings. CURRENT ZONTNG AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS The lot upon which the Treetops condominiums exist is zoned High Density Multipie- Family zone district and contains 39,050 square feet. The lot to the west is occupied by Lionshead Center which consists of Condominium units and ground level commercial retail space. Lionshead Center is zoned Commercial Core II. The lot adjacent on the east of Treetops is occupied by the Lodge at Lionshead and consists of condominiums, The Lodge at Lionshead is zoned High Density Multiple-Family. The following table compares Treetops development statistics according to existing conditions, the HDMF zone district (current zoning), • ti Treetops -2- 4/13/83 TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS . Existing Allowed under Allowed Under HDME CCII Density (units} 26 condo units 22 22 GREA COMMERCIAL SQ FT HEIGHT COVERAGE LANDSCAPING PARKTNG LOADING SETBACKS 36,369 sq ft 0 63' 15,952 {40.8%) 23,098 50 0 8' (north) 7' {east) 15' (west) l0' (south} 23,430 2,343 (as accessory to a Lodge} 48' 21,477 {55%) 11,715 {30%) 52 required 1 20' {all sides) 31 ,240 sq ft unlimited 38' 27,335 (70%) 7,870 (20%) 52 required 7 10' (all sides) • The Commercial Core TT zone district states thata~r?y enlargment of the CC II zone district boundaries must be accompanied by the adoption of a development plan for the proposed district. The proposed site plan for the Treetops commercial expansion and plaza are the development plan. (see attached) In terms of the development statistics shown in the above table, it should be noted that several aspects of the current development upon the Treetops site are noncon- forming in relation to the HDMF zoning, Since the proposed commercial structure is proposed to be placed on top of the existing parking. structure, no site development statistics are changed other than the 38' height of the new structure and the addi- tional 8,000 square feet of commercial space. Both meet the regulations and require- ments of the proposed CCIT zoning. The 10' setback requirement of the CCII district would be met with the construction of the new building. PARKTNG AND LOADING The addition of 8,000 square feet of commercial space would require 27 additional parking spaces. The manager`s office would require one additional space. Therefore, if approved, Treetops will have to contribute to the Town parking fund a fee which corresponds to this requirement. The 50 spaces which exist now will remain to accommodate the parking for the existing condominiums. Treetops -3- 4/13/83 The addition of the commercial space will require the addition of one loading space. • The zoning code states that the location of loading spaces may not be located within any required front setbacks unless an exemption is granted by the Town Council for the following reasons: 1, That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at Targe; 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is oat conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town; 3. That the exemption will oat be detrimental to adjacent properties or improve-. ments in the vicinity of the area to be exempted; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist far provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilites shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting an exemption from this requirement. They wish to locate the required loading space within the required 10 foot setback for the following reasons: • "Because of the configuration of the site, it is not possible to locate the required loading space without a corner encroachment into the front setback. It is felt that the value of the loading space far outweighs this encroachment. Further: 1. The exemption is in the interest of the area and the town at large; 2. The exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefits; 3. The exemption wii7 not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements; 4. The proposed loading facility will provide for an adequate system for distribution and pick up of goods." STAFF RECON~f~ENQATTON The Treetops proposal contains many positive aspects both in terms of a71eviating their own problems and several community concerns. Obviously the project is a benefit to Treetops in terms of the functional problems of the parking structure. Tn terms of community benefits the following aspects of the proposal are positive: 1. The entrance into Lionshead from the Village to the east is curently con- fusing, undefined, and at times an unsafe experience. Confrontation with cars, vehicles loading and unloading,and with buses leaving the East E~ionshead entry is almost inevitable. The provision of an attractively landscaped, well defined walkway along the edge of the proposed commercial structure could solve some of this conflict between the pedestrian and vehicles and . provide a clear pathway whereby the pedestrian can enter l.ionshead; Treetops -4- 4/13/83 2, The area as it exists today is not as aesthetically p1 easing as it might be. The additional structure upon the site would eliminate the open unehclosed parking which exists on the top level by providing attractive retail space and providing a landscaped plaza/walkway along the street edge; 3, The commercial expansion could help to reduce the scale of Lionshead to a more pedestrian scale and create both an interesting entry for those coming into Lionshead and to pedestrians starting on their way to the Village; and 4. The project would create an increased area for both the bus lane and for loading vehicles in East Lionshead Circle, The proposal also carries some negative aspects: T. The East Lionshead entry is the most congested point from an operations standpoint within the Town of Vail. The area consists of heavy pedestrian traffic, bus traffic, truck loading and unloading, lodge shuttle bus drop off and pick-up, and automobile traffic, ATl of these activities interface in a rather confined area. The proposal would create an additional crosswalk within this area, require additional service vehicles and loading vehicles to pass through the area, will encourage more automobile and pedestrian traffic within the area, and generally result in an increase in the intensity of use of the area. The impacts from the proposal upon-the currently congested area are not fully known. . 2. The area within the proposal designed as the walkway/plaza area is currently utilized by the Town for a snow storage area. The area is Town of Vail property and a solution to dear with snow removal does not seem to be apparent in conjunction with the proposal, With the above factors in mind, the pepartment of Community Development recommends that the proposal be tabled for a period of sixty days. During this time period,. it is requested that the applicant conduct a study, which addresses the traffic and circulation problems stated above, Without knowing the implications of the proposal with regard to the problems currently experienced with the East Lionshead entry, we cannot adequately evaluate the proposal. The study should be conducted by a transportation specialist mutually selected by the applicant and the Town and should specifically address the following areas of concern: A. The probable or projected increase of both pedestrian and vehiclular traffic from the addition and the relationship of the expected increase upon the present circulation pattern from the point where Lionshead Circle intersects with the frontage road to the access points of the Treetops parking structure, including the East Lionshead Entry bus turnaround and loading area; B. The projected or probable effects upon the existing circulation pattern by the proposed crosswalk location at the east end of the Lionshead Auxilliary Building; and • Treetops -5T 4/13/83 C. Anana1ysis of alternative solutions to mitigate any adverse impacts upon the current vehicular and pedestrian circulation caused by the Treetops proposal. In conjunction with this study a method of solving the snow storage problem should be investigated. In summary, the Treetops proposal possesses some very positive aspects, but also poses some potential problems in an already congested area, Without further study, it is difficult to make an intelligent recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission, • e _...~" , ` - li S I'~ ~ Y• w ~ - ~ y i ,. ryj ' ~N ~ ~ Is~~ ~ fr!" ,g~,'.tJ ~ s ~ i '' ~ S -: ~ f ~ r.'~. (.:..: ~ t . _ ~~ ~~~ {. r`""'j'-"; ITT?, ;1?ti':'~';~ ' ' 'li;l ~ ~~y~ ~y 4fii t4l'j ~ is~ L,+~, i4 y4~t~~1 1!,1,4~'~,~~ 4 ~ ~4;' ~ ,4ys! yet ,i~ ~~frii4 .~. j ,tfl ';~ ,',~ ~:~ '' ,~,~~~ ~~ .: 1. i' ~ -~ilirS psi y'„ j•.{x•wn 1 }t ~it~r~~ l ~ r i l1• '. ,,~ ~l ~~~, .. - `~'~~ ~ ~'~' ~ '~ 11+ ~~'~l `" ~ f "' ' flfy,f~l '~ ly~',~''/' y, / ~' ~ l ~ . ~l _•~''~°. ~' ,'~ ~#,~ `hr ,7~i ~. .. '~t!,'4 jet±.I / ~~ f , ,) ~: f ,-. ~. ~' j ~ ;, rK x i ~ tt f° .'P ..;i' J~-- ~ ~- .r--°" ~" ry ~_~F !ice ~~.- f„ , _.:~_'. ' . .~ -. .. i t i Planning and Environmental Commission May 9, 1983 1:00 pm Site Uisits 2:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 25. 2, A request for setback variances and for a variance to Section 18.6A~.050, improvements to nonconforming structures in order to enlarge an existing balcony, construct a bay window, add an air lock entry, and to construct a stare planter, deck and stairway .on Unit..1 , Va.i.l Trails ~Chal~et. Ap.pl icants: Mr. & Mrs.J.D. Zimmerman 3. Request for a conditional use permit in a Medium Density Multi- Family zone district to construct a facility -For the Eagle County Emergency Services at the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Eagle County Emergency Services Hospital District 4. Request for rezoning from Residential Primary/Secondary (R P/S) to High Density Multi-Family (HOME) on Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Intermountain to convert the existing structure to four employee housing units. Also requested is a parking variance, Rpplicants: Charles Ogilby and Tim Garton 5. A request to amend Chapter 18x54, Design Review, of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail • ` Planning and Environmental Commission May 9, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Peter Patten Peter Jamar Diana Donovan dim Sayre JimMorgan. ~. Gordon Pierce Betsy Rosolack WiTI Trout COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Jim Viele Chuck Anderson ABSENr Duane Piper 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 25, Diana made a correction to page 1, in the third paragraph to add: °to a non- conforming building" to her statement. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes as corrected, The vote was 6~»O in favor, 2. A request for setback variances and fora variance to Section 18,b4.O50, Improvements to Nonconforming Structures, in order to enlarge an existing balcony, construct a ba.y window, add an air lock entry, and to construct a stone planter, deck and stairway on Unit 1, Vail Trails Chalet. . Applicants: Mr, & Mrs, d,D, Zimmerman Peter Jamar showed the site plan and explained the variances requested. Roger Booker of Baldwin Associates, representing the Zimmermann stated that the bay window would be best where requested from a functional and architectural view point. He added that the units which were not on the end of the building would be able to place a bay window in any location, Booker a1 so reminded the board that the townhouses were built 12 years before the 1978 ordinances were passed, and that at the time of construction, there were no setbacks required. Booker pointed out that the bay window could hide the electric meters by putting them in a closet. Pierce suggested that this review could become a classic for the Town of Vail. He added that the staff did the review appropriately, denying as per a strict interpretation of the zoning code, and still were flexible in allowing the applicant to retain a deck on TOV property, die said that if the applicant were asking for a variance in terms of additional GRFA, it would be easier to turn down, but the applicant was asking for minor things which would be a great improvement. Pierce added that the the joint Council/PEC meeting, the Council looked favorably on improve- ment projects. F!e felt the impacts of this project were minor. Morgan felt that the airlock and the setback requests were no problem and had nothing against the request. He asked~if the building were constructed when there were no setbacks, and Corcoran answered that he didn't think so ., Viele felt that the project was a substantial improvement to the town, that it did not hurt anyone, and that it was designed to protect the neighbors, so he was in favor. PEC 5/9/83 -2- Donovan didn't quite agree with the others, though she felt that same variance should be given, but felt that the applicants asked for too much. She felt that a face lift could be achieved without a variance. She had no problem granting the airlock, no problem with the bay window, since it faced a green area, but did not feel the deck to the back of the building should be added because the building already crowded the road and there would be a feeling of more congestion. Trout felt that the proposal was good, that. it contributed to the community, the land owner and the neighborhood, and was consistent with the. TOV goals. Corcoran said that he must abstain, but reminded the board and the applicant that the staff interpreted the ordinance as it exists. Baldwin asked if it were possible to clean up the variance procedure for non- conforming uses, and Corcoran said the staff was considering this. Mrs. Zimmerman, ane of the applicants, said that the unit had been in the family since 196b. She felt the area was a key focal point for the community and that the improvements would be an advantage to the town as a whole as well as to the applicants. Pierce moved and Morgan seconded to grant the variance on all four items, Fierce suggested that the applicant plant trees, and Mrs, Zimmerman agreed. Pierce stated that the granting of the variance would 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 would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, anal the variance was warrented because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code. Morgan felt 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 (and gave the Garden of the Gods as an example). The vote was 4 in favor, '1 against {Donovan) and Corcoran absiaininq. Donovan felt that more variance was given than was necessary, 3. Request; for a conditional use permit in a Medium Density Multi-Fami1~ zone. district to construct a facility for the Eagle County Emergency Services at the Vail Valley Medical Center, Applicant: Eagle County Emergency Services Hospital District, Peter Patten showed the site plan and floor plans, explaining the uses proposed for the various spaces. He explained that in a MDMF zone, public facilities are a conditional use. Patten added that 6 more parking spaces would be required, but that there was an existing deficiency in parking ;spaces.for.the hospital of 704 spaces. He said the staff recommended approval of the request with the condition that s,ix additional on-site parking spaces be found on the site. • TOV 5/9/83 -3- Jay Peterson, representing the hospital, stated that he felt that there was no parking problem, and pointed to an area adjacent to the parking lot that was leased to the TOV Recreation Department which, if not leased, could provide more parking spaces. Corcoran referred to a new site plan showing a blocking off of the existing westerly lane of the parking lot which would add 18 more spaces and asked if the entrances :into the parking lot to the west would be permanently blocked. Gary Swetish, representing Briner/Scott Architects, answered that boulders would be placed to block the entrances, Donovan was concerned about having enough parking spaces to park the hospital ambulances which were now parked in the area to be covered with the new building. She also wanted to know if the classroom would have any other uses. Tim Cochran of the ambulance staff answered that CMC would also use it for their First Aid classes and health c7 asses and that there would probably be 25-30 people in each class, Donavan repeated her concern about parking, Lyn Morgan of the amublance district stated that fewer people used the parking lot in the evening when the classes would be held, than in the daytime, Patten read a letter from the hospital board giving approval of the new construction. Donovan asked if the new construction had been approved by the State Hospital board, and Swetish answered that the board's approval wasn't needed, since the building was not attached to the hospital. Viele expressed concern about the amount of parking, as did Jim Morgan, who felt the meeting roam would generate more .parking problems. Lyn Morgan stated that normally there would only be two persons on duty at any one time. Jim Morgan felt that asking for only 6 parking spaces was unrealistic. Peterson sugges- ted perhaps the hospital could have some type of control during the peak hours. Pierce felt that it would be difficult to ask the hospital to monitor the parking, and suggested asking the applicant to come back with more study on parking. Corcoran also felt that parking was an issue, Fred Green, one of the members of the board of directors of the hospital, suggested perhaps requiring hospital employees park in the parking structure. Jay felt that that solution would merely clear the lot for more skiers to park, and added that it would be expensive to patrol. Donovan stated that the lot was close to full when the PEC went over on their site visit. She suggested that perhaps the hospital not enter into a long term lease with the TOV for the extra parking area near the ice arena. Patten said that the staff wanted to review the parking lot design with the architect, for he believed the hospital did not build the parking lot as it had been approved, and more landscaping was needed. Corcoran suggested that the DRB could request landscaping. Patten explained that the staff hadn't had time to review the new site plan, and that the applicant gave no details for the use of the classroom. He felt that the staff could work with the applicant to get extra parking spaces, Trout moved to approve the request as submitted per the staff memo dated May 5, 1983 including 18 spaces subject to TOV review. Viele seconded. The vote was 5 in favor, 1 against (Donovan felt the lease with .the TOV Recreation Dept should be left open). 4. Request for rezoning from RP/S to HDMF on Tot 1, Block 6, Intermountain to convert the existing structure to four employee housing units. Applicants: Charles Ogilby and Tim Garton Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, requested to table to May 23. Vieie moved and Donovan seconded to~tab1e until May 23, The vote was 6-0 in favor. P£C 5/9/83 -4- 5. A request to amend Chapter 18,54, Design Review, of the Vaii Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail After much discussion and many changes, this item was continued until May 23. Vie1e moved and Trout seconded~to continue to .May,23. The vote was unanimous. The board was asked to bring written comments to the next meeting. Before adjournment, the chairman, Dan Corcoran asked Betsy to look up the various terms of PEC members on DRB. He also requested members to state findings when making a motion, and asked members to please keep their side discussions down during the meeting, as their voices came over the microphones, and because it made it difficult to hear the persons speaking from the audience. • MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 5, 1983 SUBJECT: A request for variances in order to enlarge an existing balcony, construct a bay window, add an airlock entry, and construct a deck and stairway within setbacks on a part of Block 4, Vail Village First Filing (Vail Trails Chalet}, Applicants: Mr, and Mrs. J.D. Zimmerman DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants request the following variances (see attached site plan): 1. A variance to allow an air lock entry to be constructed a distance of five feet from the front property line rather than the required 20 feet. Thus, a l5 foot setback variance is requested for the air lock construction. 2, A variance to allow an enlargement of an existing balcony on the West elevation over the proposed air lock entry. The enlargement an the southern end of the balcony would be located a distance of four feet from the property line, The enlargement on the north end of the balcony would be located a distance of 4-1 /2 feet from the property line. For this balcony enlargement, variances of T1 feet and 11-1 /2 feet are required since balconies are allowed only to project • five feet into the required setback. 3. A variance to allow a five foot setback encroachment for an addition of a bay window on the north side of the structure. Bay windows are allowed to encroach three feet into the required setback. The request is for an eight foot encroach- ment, thus the five foot variance request. The zoning ordinance also only allows this three foot encroachment provided that the total area of the projection does not exceed more than one tenth the area of the wall surface from which it projects or extends. The requested bay window projection amounts to approximately 29% of the area of the north wall. A variance from this requirement is also requested. ~. A variance to allow the addition of a deck and stairway to be located within four feet of the west property line. This construction would require a six foot setback variance since decks and stairways may project halfway ar ten feet into the required setback, and these are proposed to project 16 feet into the setback, The variances are requested to allow the owners of Unit 1 at the Vaii Trails Chalet to remodel the existing structure. The structure is currently non-conforming in relation to setback requirements as noted on the site p1 an C zimmerman 5/5/83 -2- CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18,62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of requested variance #1 and denial of requested variances #2, #3, and #4 based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Since the requested variances all are adjacent to either stream tract or road right- of-way, there would be no significant negative impacts upon other uses or structures within the vicinity. 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 attar the ob;~ectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff is recommending approva7.of the request for the airlock entry for the zoning encourages the use of this type of entry, and similar requests have been granted in the past, The remaining variances would constitute the grant of a special .privilege. If the intent of the applicants is to upgrade the, structure, they could certainly achieve that objective without increasing the degree of nonconformity which already exists, 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 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. codel Zimmerman 5/5/83 -3- 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. STRFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Oommunity Development Department staff recommends approval of the request for the air lock entry, as it is an objective of the zoning code to promote the use of this type of entry. It would be difficult for the applicant to construct this entry without encroaching upon a setback. The staff recommends denial of requested variances fvr the bay window construction, balcony enlargement and deck and stairway addition. It is our position that improvements to the structure can be made within the setbacks required by the zoning ordinance. The zoning code specifically states that non-conforming structures may be.en.larged only provided that the enlargement fully conforms with setbacks. In this case, the enlargement does not comply with the required setbacks, and the granting of the variances would constitute a special privilege, The Town is allowing the applicant to upgrade the portion of the deck which now encroaches onto Town of Vail property and totally covers the setback area on the west side of the structure, decks, etc. The structure is currently non-conforming in relation to setback requirements as noted on the site plan, as well as encroaching upon Town of Vail property. ~~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ s. , ~ .,T~ ..~" rs~ h:: ~ 1L J;~ ` o :~~~ ~ re - ~ ~ / .:~ ~:; - - ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~LLoYY~' ,~ ~IIJG} ,FNT ~2 A~ckS ~' sees ,1, ` ` 7 ~ f~~ l '~ _- ' ~ ~ ~ I f'i~r-r Mr.`Eatil~ .~ k C~~N ~' CCN~FZ ~ ` ~ - •:i,• Y ~~ ~, ~ _ ~, act ~ ~ r-iC- : ti,=~~Y, - - ~ -- --- .. i.:::~ .:.::.:.::.:.:::::.::::.. {- f ---- .................... :~::::wvn;x...1 t _ i:. '~ 'siNG ~, - - - - - J~ ~ ----_ ~ , ~a _ _ _--,---- --- ~i+f I~ I~ ~a 1~,~ k lam, i i~~~ Ili ~i 1I 1 - ~ii 'i ~ i I i I i E fi i L -~ ~ `~~ E ~ ~; ~ i ,E . ~ r, ;i. ~~: y_ nr-a~ ~.~-~uf...tvPir~~ ~`oa p K _ h+~ ~` ~3 ~ :' i ----- _ ~ ~~ ~.~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,~~. ~NC-~G~7 ~Y y,~tlhlOnWS z,Mr~~~MAi~ ~MonE~ __ ~~7 ~~, u v~ ~~ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE : May 5, 1983 5UBJECT: Request for Conditional Use Permit for a facility for the Eagle County Emergency Services Hospital District for a number of different uses, located on the north side of the existing Medical Center. Applicant: Eagle County Emergency Services Hospital District (EGESHD~ DESGRIPTTOI~ OF PROPOSED USE A, The proposed facility will be two stories with approximately 2250 square feet per level, or 4500 square feet total. The facility will house five uses: First Floor 1. House existing ambulance vehicles now stored outside at location of proposed facility. 2. Storage of equipment of the Vail Mountain Rescue Group. Second F1 oor i. Classroom space for continuing education of ambulance, hospital, and rescue group personnel. 2. Duty quarters for on duty ambulance personnel on 24 hour shifts. 3. Offices for the Eagle County Emergency Services Hospital District. B. Operating Characteristics: 1. Ambulances wi1T operate on an on-call basis as they now do. 2. Equipment of the Vail Mountain Rescue Group will be taken and returned to the facility on an on-call basis. 3. The classroom will function as a teaching facility from no earlier than 8:00 a.m, until no later than 10:00 p.m. an an as necessary basis. 4. Duty quarters will house two on duty personnel for a 24 hour shift. 5. The offices will operate a normal $ to 5 business schedule. • Ambulance 5/5/83 -2- The new building would be located in the existing ambulance area--the northwest . corner of the building. Between the new building and the existing one the concrete roof structure would remain, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 1$.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use of development objectives of the Town. Improving emergency facilities far mare efficient operations is important to the community, but there really is no direct impact upon overall development or land use objectives of the Town, The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The building would satisfy a public facility need. The functions and uses of the new building would provide for much more efficient. operation of the ECESHD and, thus, benefit greatly the community from both a resident and a tourist standpoint. ~'ffect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneu- verability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Parking may be the problem here. A parking requirement analysis for the medical center and doctors' offices shows a deficiency of 706 spaces {204 required, 9$ existing) on the lot according to existing parking requirements. The zoning code stipulates that when a situation such as this exists, that parking is required for the new addition and the deficiency existing can remain as is, The addition will require 6 parking spaces for the upstairs uses. Thus, the applicants need to demonstrate that they can provide 6 more parking spaces on site, which they haven`t up to this date. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. No adverse effects upon the character of the area would result, as the proposed facility is very compatible with the existing uses as well as the scale and bulk existing on site. Moreover, with the exception of the storage of the Vail Mountain Rescue Group equipment all of the proposed uses far the facility are now existing at the Vail Valley Medical Center. The ambulances are stored, serviced, and dispatched from the location of the proposed facility; classroom • Ambulance 5/5/83 -3- space exists in the hospital; hospital and ambulance personnel have quarters . in the hosiital, and office space exists in the hospital. Storage of ambulance equipment exists in the hospital presently, and the addition of Vail Mountain Rescue Group equipment will only better enable the ambulance personnel and V,M.R.G. to work together when necessary and provide better and quicker response for the rescue group. 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. No EIR required. FINDING5 The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings and with the following conditio n 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 feel the proposed building houses uses which will be to the community's benefit and that the facility wi11 be very compatible with the neighborhood, We are concerned about the parking situation, however, and would make our approval conditional upon the following:. 1. Six on-site parking spaces meeting the standards of Section 18,52.080 of the zoning code be provided in excess of the existing parking on site. Planning and Environmental Commission May 23 , 7 983 1:30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 9. 2. Appointment of PEC member to DRB, 3. Request for rezoning from R P/S to HDMF on Lot 1, Block 6, Intermountain to convert the existing structure to 4 employee units, Applicants: Charles Ogilby and Tim Garton 4. Request for historical building for the "Baldauf Cabin" at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road, part of the Vail Mountain School campus. Applicant: Chuck Ogilby for Vail Mountain School 5. Request fora side setback variance in a Residential zone district in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing, 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle. Applicant: John S. Tuschman 6. Request for renewal of an existing one--year conditional use permit far the continuation of a major arcade in West Vail Mall, 2161 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Vail Family Arcade 7. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a residence on Lot 7, Block 9, Intermountain. Aiso a request for variances from Sections 18.52.080(A) to allow parking to be located partially within Town of Vail right-af-way and Section 18.52.100(I) to construct one less off-street parking space than required. Applicants: Charles Barnes and David Mauer 8. A request to amend Chapter 18.54, Design Review, of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail • ALRNNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, COMMISSION May- 23, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Peter Patten Diana Donovan Jim Sayre Jim Morgan Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper Will Trout Jim Viele ABSENT Gordon Pierce The meeting was called to..order at 3:00 pm by the chairman, Dan Corcoran, following site inspections. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 9, Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes as written. The vote was in favor, none against, with Piper abstaining. 2, Appointment of PEC member to DRS, Duane Piper was appointed to represent the PEC at the DRB meetings for June, July and August. 3, Request for rezoning from R P/S to HDMF on lot 1! Block 6, Intermountain to convert the existing structure to 4 employee units. Applicants: Charles Ogilby and Tim Garton Peter Patten showed a site plan and explained the information in the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that the project could not use a tax exempt bond process, and did not want to get locked in to a specific interest rate. He explained that interest rates fluctuate. He added that the GRFA was approximate, that it could be 200 square feet more, and would like the flexibility of approval of up to 3500 square feet. Also the applicant wanted the $85/square foot to be the average price because studios cost more per square foot than larger units. He added that units A & D were nicer units so could command more money. Peterson stressed that the total selling price would not change, Peterson stated that the membership to the tennis courts would 6e mandatory, and in three years the fee would increase to $15.00 and after that would be determined by the CPI. Chuck Ogilby discussed a possible financing arrangement whereby the mortgage. payments gradually increase for five years, and then level off, Patten explained that the staff had done research on prices in.Vail and $85/`sq ft was below the market rates now. He added that only Matterhorn was less. Morgan asked if the applicant wanted to change the proposed GRFA to 3500 sq ft, and Jay answered that that would be very close, and when the plans were finalized, they could fluctuate ~ 200 sq ft, but would be 3500 sq feet maximum. Ogilby agreed, Patten suggested that if the total GRFA were to be 3500, the maximum sales price would be $297,500, PEC 5/23/83 -2- Peterson suggested resar_icting the number of units allowed when rezoning. Morgan wanted to make the maximum GRFA 3500, and was concerned with the large parcel across . the road. He felt that with this precedent, they would want more density which would affect the neighborhood, Corcoran pointed out that there was no one there from the neighborhood to oppose the proposal, but that a larger project may have more respondents. Patten said that he did meet with owners who represented the Bellflower Condominiums who did have concerns about increased activity, and that he encouraged them to put their concerns in Tetter form {which they did not do), and also from one Westridge condo owner who also was not at the meeting. Uiele wondered if there were any way to prevent these condos from becoming rental units, and Jay answered that it would be best for the developer to build and sell, but if the units did not sell, the developer would like to be able to rent 1oEng term. Patten reminded the board that the proposal being considered concerned sales only. To Viele's questions concerning financing, Peterson replied that they would use normal financing, possibly with a graduating rate such as used at Pitkin Creek Park. Piper questioned zoning change to HDMF rather than SDD, and Patten replied that with an SDD there still had to be an underlying district, which would be HDMF. Piper was concerned about taking a zone and changing it. He was also concerned about the design of the structure. Patten stated that the site coverage and the height would remain the same if approved, but the design would be handled in DRB. Piper wondered if on-site parking had been studied, and Peterson replied that to do so the structure would have to be torn down and construction started again from the beginning. Piper did not like the idea of having to walk down a street to get to the off-site parking, and. wondered if there was room for a sidewalk. Peterson . replied that it would have to be along the right-of-way next to the road. Discussion continued about financing. Peterson explained that interest rates were not tied to the amount of down payment, and also explained that the points would probably be 22 to 3 points total. Donavan asked if Ogiiby had to pass on the interest rate that he received. Peterson explained that the construction loan floated with the prime, but that the long term financing did not, Donovan was also concerned with the sidewalk or pedestrian way, and wondered if there was a bike path in the area. Patten said-that there wasn't. Ogi1by stated that since the new bridge had been built to the east, there was less traffic on this end of Intermountain, and he felt that traffic was not going to be a problem, Donovan felt that the.~numben of condos should d~efinitely:be limited to 4 units and the GRFA should be limited to 3500 sq ft. 6~e a7 so stressed that whoever from PEC was to be on the DRB should make sure that the design was improved. Discussion then concerned which restrictions to use concerning who could purchase the units and it was finally decided that the buyers would follow the same restrictions as stated in the Pitkin Creek Park declarations. Trout expressed qualms about granting the variances since others in the neighborhood during the past year had wanted variances to have employee housing, and were turned down because of increase in density. He pointed out that the density would be doubled on this site. Jay replied that in this case the units were restricted to employee housing, PAC 5/23/83 -3- Corcoran pointed out that since the memo stated in #ll that the basic stipulations and restrictions concerning leasing would be the same as Pitkin Creek Park, the owners would not be able to rent out their units for more than a certain amount plus their costs. Corcoran repeated the concern fora pedestrian way., and felt that something should be worked out with the Town. Jay said the applicants would be willing to work with the Town. Morgan stated that he would rather have seen this proposal a~s an SDD. Peterson answered that there could be restrictions in the declarations, and that the declarations would have to be approved by the Tawn. Patten stated that he had an SDD type of statement which would be #12 in the list of conditions: "The site plan, floor plans, and all approved plans as submitted are hereby development plans, and any major changes to these must be approved by the PEC." Jim Viele~moved to approve the request for rezoning per the staff memo dated 5/19/83 with the following modifications: a. That the applicant be allowed to construct not more than 3250 square feet of GRFA and that the sale price average $85/square foot. b. That #5 be stricken. c. That #12 be added as stdted by Patten above. d. That the word "parking" be inserted before the word "maintenance" in item #9. The motion was seconded b_y Piper. The vote was 4 in favor, 2 against {Morgan and Trout, Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the request far parking variances to allow off-site parking and to allow the parking to be uncovered with the condition that a waTkwa_y be studied and constructed if possible. The vote was 4 in favor, T against (Trout) and Corcoran abstaining. 4. Request for historical building far the "Baldauf Cabin" at 3T 60 Katsos Ranch Road, part of the Vail Mountain SchoaT campus. Applicant.: CharT.es Obilby for Vail Mountain School Peter Patten explained that the Town had recently passed an ordinance providing for historical building status and that those. buildings so designated were exempt from following the Uniform Building Code for work done to preserve the buildings. He gave the history on the Baldauf cabin and felt that it did meet the criteria necessary for the designation. Piper was concerned about the safety. Ogilby answered that the local building department would have jurisdiction over the construction, Steve Patterson, building official, stated that the Mountain School was virtually rebuilding the building PEC 5/23/83 -~- and bringing the footings, floor, electricity, alarm systems etc. u to code. He added that the only thing not being changed was the front door which opened in rather than out. Corcoran asked if the Mountain School had been given their first conditional use approval based on a certain amount of square footage, and Patten explained that it was based on the number of students, but that the Mountain School had come back and asked for an open ended nu~ber of students and received permission far an unlimited number of students. Donovan moved and Trout seconded to approve the request for historical designation. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 5. Request fora side setback variance in a Residential zone district in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing, 1431 Eagle's Nest Circle. Applicant: John S, Tuschman Jim Sayre showed site plans and explained that the staff was recommending denial because there were other alternatives available to the applicant. Al Abplana1p, representing the applicant, repeated the reasons stated in the memo for requesting the variance. He added that the two lots, lot 1 and lot 2, were developed in conjunction with one another and the easement was to ensure each a view of the Qore Range. He gave other examples of variances granted. John Railton, of Trout Creek Collaborative, architects for the project, stated that his office had gone through the options listed in the memo. He discussed each alternative. Viele stated that the purpose of the side setback ordinance was to insure a mini- mum setback, and that he was in favor of this request because of the extraordinary circumstances. Piper agreed with the staff's philosophy and'~felt that the alterna- tives should be explored. He added, however, that with the nonbuildable area there seemed to be adequate separation and low impact, and he was in favor of the variance. Donovan felt that as long as there were alternative places where the addition could be constructed, and the fact that the easement was-not necessarily permanent, she was against the variance, Morgan wondered if the setback could be reduced if the addition were placed where requested, and Sayre answered that it would ,have to be along narrow room. Morgan said he could not see any benefit to placing the addition anywhere else. Corcoran pointed out that the board had turned down a side setback request in Bighorn which would have allowed a 1Q foot airlock, and the board accepted it after the size was reduced to an 8 foot airlock, showing that the board was concerned with degree of variance. Donovan pointed. out that there was the possibility that the lot with the easement would be sold and the use of the area where there was an easement changed as had occurred elsewhere in the same neighborhood. Abplanalp answered that in the deed no building "whatsoever" could be built in the easement. Larry Eskwith, Town attorney, stated that the easement could be abandoned because the easement holder or :his successor has control because it goes with the land. • t PEC 5/23/83 -5- Morgan asked which other variances had been granted in the immediate area, and Sayre answered that there had been two others which he did not research, but that the staff had tried to be consistent with the Bighorn airlock referred to by Corcoran. Morgan mentioned Seibert`sf~a~[~se remodel, and Patten repeated that part of the garage could be made into a bedroom, and a new garage built in front of it. Viele moved and Morgan seconded to approve the setback variance request stating that the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privy7ege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ,. or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance was warranted because there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site that did not apply generally to other properties. in the same zone. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Corcoran) and Trout abstained. The variance was granted. 6. Request for renewal of an existing one-.year conditional use permit for the continuation of a major arcade in West Vail Ma11, 216T North Frontage Road. AppTicant:~ Vail Family Arcade Jim Sayre explained the memo and read the conditions under which the renewal could be granted. Shockley, one of the owners stated that he felt the Town supported the arcade, that he probably had 75% local customers, and wished to remain in Vail. ate was questioned concerning the percentage of customers who were adults, to which he replied, "75%." Piper moved and Corcoran seconded to approve the renewal subject to the four conditions in the staff memo dated May T7, T983. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 7. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a residence on lot 7, block 9, Intermountain. Also a request for variances from Sections i8.52.080(A) to allow parking to be located partia1l.y within Tawn of Vail right-of-way and Section 18.52.100(I) to construct one less off-street parking space than requi-red. Applicants: Charles Barnes and David Mauer Jim Sayre explained the memo and showed site plans and elevations. Corcoran read a letter from Mike McGee of the Vail Fire Department in. which he stated that the Fire Department wasnotin favor of this variance, Dave Irwin, designer for the applicants, showed a rendered perspective which revealed the steepness of the lat. He explained how he arrived at the design which would have the least impact, in his mind, on the property, Ne added that since the Barnes' only owned one car, four parking spaces would be more than adequate, Sayre explained that any approval would be contingent upon the Town of Vail abandoning the easement, and that Trwin did have the approval of the utility companies, ~• PEC 5/23/$3 -6~ Trout was concerned with the method of construction, and Irwin explained the reasons he wanted to build as presented. Donovan felt the building did not belong on a steep lot, and Irwin said that he had kept the addition as small as possible, that he was using less GRFA than was allowable. Donovan felt that it would be too imposing to the neighbors. Irwin answered that that it was surrounded heavily with woods, and that the addition was an improvement to the property. Piper mentioned that they could not deny the number of units allowed in the zone district, but that the number would be partially determined by the parking limitations. He added that there may have to be a setback variance, but there should not be a parking variance. Viele agreed with Piper, Patten reminded the members that non-conforming parking could remain, but parking for the new addition must be satisfied, He said that there were two questions, 1,. Are there three non-conforming parking spaces? and 2, what are the merits of the overall program? Corcoran asked that assuming that there are three spaces, if the wall were rebuilt, would the three spaces still be legal nan-conforming? Sayre answered that the non-conforming spaces could be repaired or improved., so long as the discrepancy not increased. Viele stated that the burden of proof lay with the applicant. Dave Terrell, representing the Andersons who gown lot 8, stated that there would be visual blockage, and from lot 8 it appeared to be a massive structure because of the proximity of the project to lot 8. He was protesting especially the setback variance which was close to the more level and most logical part of lot 8 upon which to build. He added that any variance would seta precedent for further variances an that street, and that it would prevent the minimum setbacks the Town was trying to maintain. He added that it was the board's responsibility to protect absentee property owners, and that there would be a problem with snow removal. Irwin stated that he had considered all of these things, but that this was the worst (most steep) 1:ot he had ever seen, Discussion continued trying to find alternative methods of parking, Piper moved and Donovan seconded to den.v the request for a side setback variance and the parking variances because to do so would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same dfstrict, The vote was 5 in favor, 0 against, with Corcoran abstaining. $. A request to amend Chapter 18.54, Design Review, of the Vail Municipal.Code. Applicant: lawn of Vail Peter Patten stated that Peter Jamar had asked him to request to table this item. It was decided to have a special meeting on June 20 at 2:00 pm for only this item. Viele moved and Piper seconded to table as requested., The vote was 6-0 yin favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. r~ r ' MEMORANDUM ~. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Department of Community Development GATE: May 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to vary from the side setback requirement of the Primary/Secondary Residential district and a request to vary from sections 18.52.080 {A) and 18.52.100 (I) to allow parking for an addition to be located partially on Town right-of-way and to allow one Tess off-street parking stall than required. Applicant: Gharlis Barnes and David Mauer DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants wish to add a secondary unit to an existing single family residence on Snowberry Drive in Intermountain {Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain}. The slope of the site is approximately 40 percent, and access and parking for the dwelling units is a difficult and challenging task. Currently there are two parking stalls serving the single family residence, and they are located partially upon Town right-of-way and are very close to Snowberry Drive. The applicants wish to add a two-car garage onto the northern end of the current parking. {See attached drawing.} The proposed plan calls for variances concerning both a side setback and for parking. The request is to place the two-car garage six feet from the side property Tine; thus the variance request is for nine feet. There is no front setback variance request because the hazard regulations allow garages to be placed on the front setback if the slope of the tat is greater than 30 percent. A parking variance is required because five stalls are required by the parking requirements schedule {18.52.100(I} ) and only four are proposed. The "Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Tmprovements" chapter allows the current sta17s, which are nonconforming because they stand partially on the Town right-of-way, to remain; but the fifth required stall must be located within the lot lines. Two on-site stalls are proposed. Three are required in order to meet regulations. See attached sheets for the applicants' justification for the variances. The setback and parking variances will be handled separately. First, an analysis of the setback variance follows: I, CRITERIA RND FINDINGS - SETBACK VARIANCE Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 78,62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Mauer -2- 5/20/83 The construction of the garage on lot 7 will influence the development of the adjacent lot to the east, lot 8, The owners of lot 8, Jimmie C, and Shirley . J, Anderson of Carmel, Indiana, have written a letter opposing the variance. A portion of this letter is reproduced below: '"The primary building site on our lot (lot $) is the west portion of the lot as it affords a fiat building area with the least amount of trees to be removed. To allow a side setback variance for lot 7 to within 5 feet of lot 8 would greatly damage the value of our building site. We object to any side setback variance and earnestly request that the code of T5 feet be enforced." {See letter in its entirely, attached.) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibiTit.y and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. To grant this setback variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. Given the steepness of the lot and the present configuation of the structures on the site, a setback variance for the garage is justified. There are a few other viable alternatives to the proposed garage location. The slope of the lot does constitute a physical hardship. The effect of the requested variance on sight.and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and . public safety. The construction of the garage is a start in solving the off-street parking problem, Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -PARKING VARIANCE Upon review of Criteria and Finings, Section 18.52.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and Structures in the vicinity. The variance will influence the flow of traffic on Snowberry Driven With one less off street stall than required, the residents of lot 8 will be using the right-of-way for a parking lot. Also, the proposed configuration of the parking • Mauer -3- 5/2x/83 is inefficient, With two cars parked behind two cars in the garage, the residents will be constantly suff7ing automobiles and parking them on Snowberry Drive. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. To grant this off-street parking variance would constitute a special privilege. Snowberry Lane is only partially developed, If each residence along the street were to be granted the same privilege, the lane would be fined with cars, making snow plowing and emergency vehicle response difficult. The granting of the variance would also establish a poor precedent for Vail. As homes along Forest Road, Beaver Dam Road, Rockledge Road, and other streets on the southern slope of the Gore Valley develop and redevelop, parking should be removed from the right-of-way. Some of the homes along Forest Road are twenty years old and are ready for major alterations; and as remodeling takes place, every effort should be made to provide on-site parking. The same effort should be made in the West Vail area. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The variance, if granted to the applicant and applied to the rest of the residents and potential residents of Snowberry Lane, would be a detriment to public safety. As more and mnre people park along the street, emergency vehicle response is inhibited,,particularly during winter months. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems apalicable 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, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. • Mauer -4- 5/20/83 _ __ _ _ -~_ 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 RECOMMEfVDATTONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the setback variance and denial of the parking variance. Approval of the setback variance is warranted due to the slope of the lot and the configuration of the present structure. The parking variance should be denied because it would seta poor precedent for the Town. parking on the street in this area of town is a critical problem during the winter. There are some days when the snow plows have extreme difficulty in clearing snow (and sometimes . cannot) because of parked cars. Adequate parking must be provided on the site so there are no off site impacts on the streets of Vail. The variances are related in terms of the site planning for lot 8. Granting the setback variance would allow room for the required additional, on-site stall, perhaps a three-car garage. • __ ~ ~~ ~. 7} ' ~~' ~ . ._ i-"aS1"'4!^ ~ c~•-raven .~ ~ ~,_ _y...J-- t f ~ r ~ . r ~~~ a l ~ ri „~f,{SNCN 7 7,~. ry t g ~fgT~~ wd°v = r f J~, n pAA ! 4 Irr . ~ ~ A ~ HF TrOH l ~ / /, /f ,/ j ' t _ f ~ (;-: ~ - JACK r~'i~~ i J 1 ~+~. cararn~a ~~ u'rrc.lTY dr. ' ~ O ta'A`3'ALN ~$SMG ~ /f!r ~ s:. 1 STA /R ~ WfILKWA'l rf _ _..._ f `~~ \,~ ~~ ~ O ro'ASPL°`N ' ~~.~ 56r~BaGk Of b r t4 ~ \ ~. ~_ ~ ney~esr foa s.a~ ~` rS fNG~ _ I •3 ~ / ' ' ~,~ ~r ~ l~f j A i. 53 t ~ --.. srvawB~~~Y ~''~.. i .: ~ - . ~~ r•, , MEMORANDUM ' T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 12, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for historical building designation of the "Baldauf Cabin" located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road, a part of the Vail Mountain School campus. Applicant: Vail Mountain School THE REQUEST The Town Council recently passed an ordinance which provides that certain work for the preservation of a building or a structure may be done without conformance to the Uniform Building Code provided that the building has been designated as having special historical or architectural significance. The Vail Mountain School desires to restore the Baldauf Cabin and requests that the building be designated as an historical building. CRITERIA In determining whether to designate a building as architecturally or historically significant, the PEC considers the fallowing criteria: . A. The association of such building or structure which events have made it a significant contribution to the history of the Town of Vail or the surrounding area, the State of Colorado, or the United States. B. The connection of such property with persons significant in such history. C. Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction. D. The geographic importance of the property. E, The possibility of important discovery related to prehistory or history. INFORMATION REGARDING THE BAEDAUF CABIN The land where the cabin and the Mountain School are located was homesteaded by Charles Baldauf in 1902. Baldauf was employed by the Iron Mask Mine in Gilman, and he and several friends and neighbors built the log house during the following summers, eventually moving into the house in 1906, By the 1920's the Gore Valley had been completely homesteaded from Vail Pass to Dowd Junction. These homesteaders made their living by supplying the miners with produce, meat and ice. After a lettuce "boom" {which occurred during the Depression} faded, most of the homesteaders sold out to the sheepherders who had moved into Bauldaf Cabin 5/12/83 -2- the valley. The cabin was purchased in the 30's by Pat Senteros, and the Kiahtipes lived in it until it was abandoned during the late 19~0's, There are only five of the original 12 to 15 homestead cabins remaining in the Gore Valley. Only two of these, the Eliott Hause and the Baldauf Cabin, remain in their original condition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the designation of the Baldauf Cabin as an historical building, We believe that a sense of historic continuity is important to the community and that the preservation of the structure through utilization is extremely important. We feel that the structure does meet the criteria necessary for the designation since it is one of the very few remaining structures from the early days of settlement within the Gore Valley. • , ~ .~ MEMORANDUM TQ: Planning and Environmental Commission E'ROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Rezoning request from R P/S to HDMF and parking variances to allow four for-sale employee housing units on Lot 1, Block 6, Intermountain. Applicants: Chuck Ogilby and Tim Garton PART I: REZONING ,'. A. THE, REQUEST Requested is a rezoning of the parcel an which currently sits the Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club's indoor swimming pool building, The building has not been used for any purpose far several years, This parcel was zoned Residential Primary/Secondary upon West Vail annexation. Proposed are four employee housing units ranging from 478 to 1060 square feet of GRFA, and they would be sold at a proposed maximum price of $85 per sq ft. (see the following chart). LEVEL UNIT BEDROOMS APPROX.. GRFA APPROX. PRICE Lower D studio 478 sq ft $40,630 Upper A 2 830 70,550 Upper B 2 881 74,885 Upper C 2 1060 90,100 Total 3249 sq ft $276,165 The restrictions proposed are the same as the Pitkin Creek Park project. That is, the maximum resale price is tied to the increase in the consumer price index, purchasers must be employed residents with a maximum annual income ceiling (currently about $42,000/yr. at Pitkin Creek) and lease holders must be local residents as weal with leases no more than monthly costs. Financing would be the going market rate at the t_7 me of sale, Since the existing structure crowds the site {it covers over a third of the buildable area}, it is not possible to provide on-site parking for the residences. The proposed parking is about~300 feet to the east in a l6 square lot designed for the sole use of the patrons of the swim and tennis club {now defunct}, However, for loading and unloading convenience there would be a pull-off lane on the northeast corner of the property, just south of the bridge aver Gore Creek. Intermountain Rezone -2- 5/19/83 • This parking situation requires a variance from section 18.20.140 Parfcing and Loading in NDMF which requires 75% of the required parking be within the main building and hidden from public or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. Alsa needed is a variance from Section 18.52.060 Parking - off-site and joint facilities-- to allow an off-site parking agreement for parking which is required to be covered. For $10/month the owners and their guests would .receive use of the tennis courts owned by the Intermountain Swim and Tennis condominiums as well as grounds maintenance and snowploywing services. Below are some statistics relevant to the proposal: UNDER EXISTING UNDER DISTRICT WDMF PROPOSED Zone: R p/S HDMF HDMF Gross Lot Size: 12,440 sq ft 12,440 sq ft 12,440 sq ft Buildable Area: NA 9,040 sq ft 9,040 sq ft Number of Units 1 p1us.l empT. apt. 5 4 GRFA: 3110 sq ft 5,424 sq ft 3,249 sq ft . Parking: 4 - 2 covered 8 - 6 covered 8-~, off-site, 0 covered Site Coverage: 20% max, 26% ex. 50% max 26% Height: 33' max, 20' ex. 48' max 20' B. VAIL'S EMPLOYEE HOUSING SITUATION Due to the state of the national and regional economy in the past two years, our employee housing situation has changed significantly from the 1970 climate. Four years ago, when Valli-Hi and Pitkin Creek were just beginning to come on line, we were experiencing almost. a crisis in the provision of affordable housing far both seasonal and permanent residents, The early-mid seventies saw such a boom in development and an associated state of sky-rocketing prices tht there was very little which could be termed affordable far locals, either in rentals or for sale. This created an environment of dire need which resulted in the public and private sectors cooperating to produce the Valli-Hi rental and Pitkin Creek for-sale projects. The Valli-Hi project is now completed and has been serving its purpose, for the most part,~as providing affordable, wel'1 'located units for rent, These units have helped meet the very important needs of the more seasonal population in Vail. However, due to the glut of rental units and the price of rentals over the past year or so, Va11i-Hi has experienced less than full occupancies in that time period (expecially low are the summer months), ~- 1 Intermountain Rezone -3- 5/19/83 The Pitkin Creek Project (averaging $90/sq ft price) has been, from the very beginning, an overwhelming success in meeting the needs o~ the mare permanent residents with steady, moderate-level incomes. With 156 units total, the number of people who signed up far a unit was about 650. Granted, same of these might not have qualified for the mortgages, but there suddenly was a realization in the community of the tremendous de~and for employee (affordable) condominium units. Just as the rental units provide the role of housing seasonal employees, the condominiums actually make it possible far entry-level professionals and others holding important growth-oriented jobs to remain in Vail via "buying into" the community. If the opportunity to do so did not exist, chances are that many of these people would leave town for destinations where they could continue their careers and have the ability to purchase a hams. This would not be beneficial to the individual businesses which lost these employees or to the community as a whole. Currently, we find ourselves in a "renters market," much unlike the 1979 scenario. The causes behind the current situation are varied, but the glut of units for sale and the sheer number of second homes in town (many of which de end on rental income of off-set mortgage payments in today's tight economy are a major contributor. Currently, there have been a very large number of quite affordable rental units advertised in the local papers. This large number of units for sale has lowered real estate prices valiey- wide. However, it is evident with the interest shown in the affordable housing project "The Homestead" (at,cast units in Edwards) that there remains a large market (high demand) for condominiums at "affordable" prices. It appears there remain a large number of families and individuals in the local market who still (even with prices slightly faT1ing recently) cannot afford the open market unit, but would qualify fora slightly less expensive unit. C. SURRQUNDING USES AND DENSITIES The surrounding land uses are either residential or vacant parcels. The area contains densities which are generally similar to that proposed. Across Bell- flower Drive to the southeast is a large, vacant parcel zoned Residential Primary/Secondary which is likely to be subdivided into a number of duplex lots when developed. Across the same street to the south are the Westridge Condominiums--~ units on a parcel also about the same as the subject lot. Directly to the west are the Bellflower Condominiums, a development of four units on a parcel also about the same as lot 1, around 12,500 square feet. These residents will definitely be those most affected by the increased activity on lot 1. Patios and decks of these units are actually touching the common property line, and these units' "front yard" is the area to the south of the existing structure. There is an existing agreement between Ogi7by and Garton, owners of the pool building and the Belllflower Condominium Association which calls for retaining this area as open space, certain landscaping requirements, (to be done by Bellflower in exchange for use of the pool) and a fence to be maintained by Ogilby/carton. It is obvious this area is of great benefit to both parties as open space and, thus, parking should not be located on it. Tntermtn -4- 5/19/83 Directly across the creek to the northwest is a single family residence occupied by Ghuck Ogilby's family, but the house is surrounded to the north and west by the Tnterlochen Condominium project, Interlochen contains 39 units on 1.77 acres resulting in a density of 22 dwelling units per acre, To the north and east, across Kinnickinnick Road are the Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, This complex contains 24 units on about 5 acres for a density of 4.8 units/acre with two tennis courts, Thus, the area generally contains similar densities to that proposed in the various condominium developments. The request is to upzone by two units, but at the same time nearly meeting the maximum allowable GRFA in the Primary/ Secondary district, The property is fairly well buffered from parcels across the creek and will relate to a greater degree to developments to the west and south. STAFF RFCOMMFNDATION Over the past several years only a proposed use of employee housing has received up zoning for additional units. This, of course, is done due to the overall community benefit of such a housing provision and only if the proposal is compati- ble with its surroundings. The real questions to answer in these past cases and, in the case in front of use now, is: 1. Is this truly "affordable" housing which will serve its intended purpose? 2. If the answer to question number i is yes, then: Is the requested density increase appropriate for the neighborhood? The staff answer to both questions, in this case is yes. A consultation with two knowledgeable real estate agents has resulted in their agreeing that $85 per square foot is a quite reasonable price for these units with respect to square foot prices in the Town of Vail in general, With the exception of the Matterhorn area, all other neighborhoods in Vail are in a $90-100 per square foot range. Moreover, the size of the upper level two bedroom units with their associated prices make them quite viable and desirable living units with respect to the existing Vail market according to the real estate experts. The staff feels the rezoning will not have adverse impacts upon the neighborhood, The density proposed is quite compatible with those adjacent, and retaining the south lawn as open space will allow for "breathing room" for both the Bell- flower Condominium residents and the owners of the employee units. The parking off-site with provision of the drop-off space should not create negative impacts an the neighborhood (see variance evaluation below). In conclusion, we recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from R P/S to HDM~' for employee housing purposes with the following conditions: 7. Unit D be sold at a maximum price of $41,000 and be a minimum of 450 square feet. n Intermtn Rezone -5- 5/19/83 2. Unit B be sold at a maximum price of $76,000 and not be less than 880 square feet of GRFA. 3. Unit C be so]d at a maximum price of $91,.000 and not be less than 1055 square feet of GRFA. 4, Unit A be sold at a maximum price of $71,000 and not be less than 830 square feet of GRFA. 5. Financing of oat more than 12% on a 30 year mortgage be a part of each condominium sale. 6. A pull-off lane for vehicles is provided on the north side of the building for use for owners and tenants only. This purl-off/drop-off space sh-all be generally limited to 70 minutes per vehicle stop, and this shall be generally reflected in the condominium by-laws and/or declarations. 7. The existing footprint of the building on the site shall not be expanded except for appurtenant decks and balconies. 8. The open space on the south side of the building remain. 1~ a Ylc ~ ~ 9. Use of the tennis Courts and maintenance services for the project are provided initially for $l0/month for the first year after certificate of occupancy for each condominium, subject to reasonable rate increases in subsequent years. . 10. Parking is provided as noted below in the variance section of this memo. 17, The basic stipulations and restrictions concerning leasing, maximum resale prices, purchaser qualifications, etc. that are found currently in the Pitkin Creek Park Condominium covenants are farmuTated, adopted and enforced far 70 years from the date of the filing of said covenants. PART II: ` PARKING VARIANCES The proposal requires that parking variances be obtained for allowing all required parking to be uncovered as well as allowing such uncovered parking under an off- site parking agreement. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Finings, Section 18.52.OG0 of the Municipal Code, the department of Community Development recommends approval of the variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The reTai:ionship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and . structures in the vicinity. The parking Tot proposed to be utilized by the condominium owners and their guests Intermt Rezone -6- 5/19/83 • • is a lot specifically provided for patrons of the intermountain Swim and Tennis Club. This Tat contains i6 parking spaces and is physically separated from the other condominium owners' spaces to the west and north. Thus, the spaces are available (club memberships are now defunct} and can provide for more than adequate parking for the employee project. Some residents in adjacent developments have indicated that there exists a parking problem in the neighborhood. We feel that this project will not add to that problem with the drop-off space for convenience purposes and the readily available parking within 3a0 feet of the units. This is not an excessive distance to walk from one's car to the unit when compared with other multi-family projects in Vail with surface parking. As far a uncovered parking goes, there is very little of it in the neighborhood, and the surface parking lot proposed for utilization is existing (no asphalt is being added in the area as a result of the proposal). The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement ~a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The existing building on the lot, combined with the agreement for open space continuation on the south side of the building, create definite physical hardships for covered, on-site parking. The building existing was built specifically without on-site parking provisions in mind, and this is evident upon a site inspection. The parking proposal is not an overly onerous burden on the unit owners and is a quite workable solution considering on-site parking {much less covered parking) is Weigher prevalent in the neighborhood nor possible to develop on-site due to the existing physical hardships. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No negative impacts upon these factors would occur as explained previously in this memorandum. 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. • Intermtn Rezone -7- 5/19/83 a That the granting of the variance wi17 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, ar 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 ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsis- tent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or .extraordinary circunstances 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 RECOMMENDRTIQN The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the two requested parking variances. We feel these are reasonable variance requests of minor impact which are dictated by the physical hardships existing on the site. Utilization of the building for employee housing and utilizing the parking lot to the east for its parking are beneficial proposals for the Town. Neither the Va11i-Hi project nor the Ritkin Creek project provide any covered parking for their residents or tenants, and both of these projects require, in certain cases, similar distances between parking and unit location as the one proposed. While covered parking is encouraged in the West Uai1 area, when it is generally lacking, we feel in this case that the parking facility is existing, and using it for this purpose will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Thus, no special privilege would result from the granting of these variances. .7 ~• MEMORANDUM . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: May 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Request fora side setback variance in order to build a bedroom addition on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: John S. Tuschman DESCRTPTTON OF VARTANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a five foot variance from the required 15 foot setback requirement in order to build a bedroom addition to the east of the existing residence. The addition is approximately 120 square feet, which would be adjacent to the living room. The resulting setback would be ten feet. The addition would bring the Tuschman residence to its maximum GRFA. The applicant is requesting the variance for the following reasons: 1. "A downstairs bedroom is required far applicant's invalid mother, who cannot climb stairs. 2. A ten foot minimum width is needed for a small (10' x 12.6') bedroom, thus reducing the setback from 20.18 to 10.18 feet. • 3. The front elevation of the house will be enhanced by the addition, as same is presently too "boxy" in appearance, and the expanded elevation will be more in conformity with neighboring units. 4. This is the only location for the addition that will not block present views from the house, and same will obstruct no other neighbors' views. 5. Applicant owns a perpetual easement to the light and air over the land directly adjacent to the variance. 6. The adjacent home is set forward 33 feet from the applicant's home and will be 41 feet away at their closest points. Also this neighboring home is set back 18 feet from our contiguous lot line and is 2'9" inside its own side setback line--the two homes together thus will have 33 feet actual setbacks vs. 35'3" required (and the latter includes an additional 5'3" additional setback required by the height of the building next door)." (See attached statement.} Tuschman -2- 5/19/83 • CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Opan review of Criteria and Finings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department.of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the foilowi'ng factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant does own an easement for the "full and free Tight to the uninterrupted access, transmission and enjoyment of Tight and view over and across" Lot 2, which is adjacent to the proposed addition. The easement does not completely deny the possibility that further construction will take place on the adjacent property. There is GRFA left an Lot 2, and the easement agreement may be altered to allow an addition to the residence on Lot 2. In 1976 the Rlanning Commission did grant a setback variance on the north and west sides of the Tuschman lot. 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 vicin~t.y or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff has consistently maintained that if there is any way an applicant can exercise their development rights without resorting to a variance, then a variance should not be granted. In this case there are several areas on the lot where the bedroom can be built without a variance, or can be built with a variance of only one or two feet, These possibilities include: 1. Building the bedroom in the present garage and extending the garage nut towards the front of the lot, This would require a variance of approximately T8 inches. 2. Building the bedroom to the front (south) rather than the side (east) of the lot. 3. The addition could also be added to the second story of the house and other provisions (i,e. elevator} be made for the invalid mother. Since there are alternatives available, the granting of the variance for this specific design would constitute a grant of special privilege. Tusfchman -3- 5/19/83 • The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and. public safety. The significant impact would be to encroach into the required side setback area. Setbacks are a method of preserving light and air between buildings. 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 far one or .more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested side setback variance. Although the staff recognizes there are some special circumstances associated with the lot in terms of the view easement and past variances, there are alternatives which would allow the construction of the bedroom within, or closer toy the required setbacks. Since these possibilities do exist, no physical hardship or practical difficulties are present which would justify the granting of the variance, • i ~ ~1ATE~l~LNT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FRO?~1I REGULATION 18.13.060 Applicant requests a x.82 foot variance from the _li foot setback requirement at the rear of his home at 103: Eagle's Nest Circle in Vail, legally described as Zot 1, Black ~., Vail Village, Eighth Fi..~ing, making the setback 10.1.8 feet from the property .line. Such variance will not be a special privilege and will not be detrimental or injurious to other properties. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty and unnecessary physic~.1. hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the title for the following reasans: - ~~ dawnstairs bedroom is required far applicant's invalid mother, who cannot climb stairs, r ~,~.., ~,.,.:. - A ]_0 foot minimum width is needed;far a small (10°~ x.2.6') bedroom, thus reducing the setback from 20.18 to 1U.18 feet, The front elevation of the house will be enhanced by the addition, as same is presently -coo 'boxy" in a.~aX~ear- ance , and the expandeU. elevation wi.11 be rlore In eon- . fortuity with neighboring units, - This is the only location for the addition that will not block present views from the house, and same will obstruct no other neighbox's views.. ~:~'urther, there are e5;traordinary conditions app:l..a.cable to ~i,he si-ce tli~.t d o not a~~p:1.~T to o then ;ura~,ex~ties -~ Applicant owns a perpetual easement to the light and air over the land directly adjacent to the variance,; - The adjacent home is set forward 33' Pram the appli-- Cant's home and will be ~l' away at their closest po~,nts. Also this neighboring home is set back 18' from our contiguous lot line and is 2'g" inside it's awn side set-bask line - the two homes together thus will have 33 feet actual setbacks vs. 3S'3:"' required (and the latter includes an.. additional j'3" additional setback required by the height of the building next door) , -~`~ "~'~~ • John, . Tuschman Applicant __. __ _ .. _ _ _ ~ - -___ y: ,~. .~ i rr _~, 1 t ~ r _.. °-- ~- . I - -.~..""~.~ F. _. .... '.}` ~ ~ ~ rf !~~~ ..._ '_..~~ --- .... ..... } ` tit 1:+~'+ t. __ ,~ } r °-' .a r i I _ ~ ~-,- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ +' ~ .kip 1~c~` Ji rr r v n ~ ~~ r ~-;' ! '~ ~ ~ h ~ tin ci. }]~r} ~~~ it ~ /~ _ ~' e J. ; i'1. t7 L . ~ i ,.. . ~i'. ~ ~ l'a y ~,.~: ii `4 ~L 1, Q .. e I ~ vi1-- ...: ---- - ~ - ------ -~-- i---,~-` ~ ~ - --- '~ fi ~ ~-d1 `f 1. /~ ,iii 'CiL" ~ ~ ~ ~, y~4"'- _ ~~. irl ~ cu ~ a O •, ~ ~ VS n._.~ ~~ ~cv ~l ~ . 'r ~i J II i •,~ ~ ,. r' ~ 1 to 5~ it F v ~ ~,1 J ~f~.L ~ ~ ! I t.,o,~ mil, ~ '~_' 1 r i 5~ d,t i-; rl -~ 4 _~__~.~~'~~~) 't ~It ~.3~ `ii !I I ~ ~ II h) ~ ~ Jd. `' ~ lil ~ y~~ ~1 ~'~, ;~ ~ f~ ~ -. i~ l ~ x/11 -~ ~~ .~~ •,~, ~ \~ 4 'T ~~'~. ~ .~-'c'ar ~I 3~ ~ ~I '~ I ~~n . ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~, z ~~ 'Itin~ Y.' a i ~u \ I`1 i .+ 4 u • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE : May 17, 1983 SUSdECT: Final conditional use review of the Vail Family Arcade. Applicant: Vail Family Arcade DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONAL USE The Vail Family Arcade is returning to the Planning Commission for the annual review of their conditional use permit. Game City, Inc. received their conditional use permit from the PEC at their May 70, 1982 meeting with the conditional that the applicant return to the Planning Commission in one year. The applicant is returning at this time for a final conditional use permit. CRITERIA~AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18,60, the Department of Community Development recommends approval, with four stipulations, -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. 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," the effect of the use on light, air,- distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other publy~ facilities and public facilities needs. The arcade will not substantially influence the above. Effect. upon tra:ff~c with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of •snow f ram the street and parking areas. The arcade should not substantially increase the demand for parking in .the West Vail Nia11. Effect upon the e~haracter of the area ~in which the proposed use is to be 1 ocated, -- i nc1 ud i ng the scale. and bu~l k of the proposed use a n relation to surrounding uses, The arcade, located in the pedestrian portion of the West Uail Ma17, is surrounded by commercial uses. To the west is Rags- to Riches,-The San Francisco Seafood Shop, The Vail Athlete, and Bi11 Bullocks. To the east is The Litt]e Flower West Vail Arcade -2- 5/17/83 Shop and the liquor store. The shops which face the pedestrian mall on the south side are Rocky Mountain Hair and the music shop. The management should continue to ensure that their clientele is well supervised, and that the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb neighboring stores. The Department of Community Development and the Vail Police Department have received no complaints concerning the arcade. Some of the owners of the neighboring shops have also been contacted, and they have no complaints, Such other factor~s'~and criteria~as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. ~ '~ -. The envir~ninenta~.• ~mpac~ reporlr- concern~n~q the proposed use, if an environmental impa~Gt re~art~~i s req~'i redrF~ chapters 18.56. Not applicable, STAFF REGOMMENDAI~ ON The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of ~.~Ee 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 i~c would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar 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 permit with four stipulations, including noise control, continued supervision, a limitation on the number of amusement devices to be housed on the premises, and a requirement new owners or managers return for PEC review. These conditions are elaborated on the next page: • West Vail Rrcade -3- 5/17/83 Four stipulations should be placed upon the arcade: 1. That the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the peace of the West Vail Ma11. The applicant should keep a1T the noise volume controls on the machines at a low level. 2. The managment should continue to provide an in-room supervisor at a1T times during business hours. 3. The maximum number of amusement devices be limited to thirty, including pool and foosebaiT tables. 4. If at any time the arcade would change ownership and/or management, the new owners and/or management would be required to return to the Planning Commission for review of the conditional use permit. U . . VAIN. ~'Af+~It..Y Ai~GADE '~~.~.Erf I~+~~r^t!-, ~'T'r_~rrt~rtE? fiir~'~~d i~ TCl: i~ianr~ir~n acrd ~r~vir~rW~rrrter,t,~1 C~~mmissi~:~r, F Rf3M : Va i a. F any i 1 y Ar~cacie C,~~r~dF~~r, (~. Sh~~ckiey" Uwr,er^ SII~JF..:CT: ll~~+ A~~pl icat ic~r, AATF « AArw i i ~~, 1 X83 Ir, ar,sswer~ f;~E the C: ur'1iC~eY'~t icon e~f fact~'rr~s: The Vai. i Farris iy ArYcacle has arE excel iar~t resat irr,ship wi ~Gh a1 i cif ttre t~rrarrt~ ir, trle FiJ~+st Vai i M~:tl i ar,d has he],peC~ ir, tF~re: ckevelc~pmer,t ~f the t~+wrr thr~~.rr~h civic affairs" pr~c~m~_~ti~~r~s, ar,r3 firranciai srr~ppcr~t. T~-re arc.acfe aisc~ has heiper# irrcr~ea~,e the traffic try the Wept Vai i MG~i 1, which, ir,tr.rr^r, ham airJeci ir, triE1 ca"r..i~?~.rr~ert ~~~f ti-re r_~tFter 'lr~c~l busir,es~es. The Vai i ~ami iy Ar^cacie wi i 1 c~r,t ir,~.ie t~~ wcrr~k with tine Tc~wr, cif Vai i tc~ rrrair,tain it" s char,~cter ar,cf hiG~i~ star,cEarcls ~~ a r~esrw:~rt c~~mrn~rr,ityd Res~~ect i ve ~. y, `~. Va i i Fam i i y F~rcade 6~'+rdr~rti ~. Sht~,ckiey, ~lwrrer i i S F 3 f iY • i ~ 4 r t 1 i{ I i ' ~ i i~ ' 1 ~ ~ i t I 1 1 . 1 j' i ` -- ? ! -k~ --- `~~~~5\ \`~ yam' ~: _ t _ .. _ +q+~ 1 u --- \ 1 ~ _.._ # 1 ~~ ~ S ~ ~~~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ! 'S ~ . ~' ~ ii ~ ! ~ ~ .4 1i ! _ - ~ ` ~ ---- ~ ! f /~~. l i iy ~ GF4aW *~ ~ ~ ~ " ~4 ~ .II ~~ -- .._ __ ..w _._ .. ~r k~ ~ ~~ ~1 Ifs ~~ _-_ z I . Planning and 1~nvironmental Commission From : David I~ . I rwi n ~~ Date: April i1,i983 Variance Requested wetback Variance from 18.13.000 The request is to obtain nine feet out of the fifteen feet side ~~tlaack. Parking Variance .is variance from noncoriform~.ng chapter 1~i.6~,050:(D} 'fhe request is to keep the two existing off sreet parking spaces, Criteria A new stucture has been designed for the site The requirement for parking has increased to four spaces. ~ s~.te plan was done lay L=ogle Valley Zngineering to help determ~.ne the best possi3ail.ities for new paring. It has been determined tYiat the existing parking area is the best s~_te for creating four parking spaces, - `t'he slope of the lot has di~•ected the new structure to be placed just below the existing parking. Because of this an additional. twocar garage becomes feasible.in addz,t~.on to the two car off street pa.rk~_ng. . - Gue are trying to improve the safety factor of the e:~isting parking sztuat~.on.1n addition the existing staircase becomes very dangerous during tY~e wznter. Snowplows push the snow over the bank which ends up constantly covering the entire staircase. Tt becomes near imposs~.ble to keep the sta~.rs free of snow. 'fhe existing.park.ing area in adcli.ti.on to the ~;ar~~ge will afford:.a much safer entrance for ! both cars ~,~nd pedestrians, -- There will. be a much ~.mpraved apppearance over existing situ~~tion. The new park~.ng vri~.l cx•eate additional landscaping and less ~.mpact on the ~~oi.1. stability and drainage , -- The snt~.z•e area can only benefit from the new design. Utie have tried to create the least ~.~ripact on the environment and set .~ better Standar. d of construction for the ar•er~.. s T0: Planning and 6nviranmental Commission FROM: David L. Irwin DATF: April 11, 1983 Variance Requested The request is to obtain nine feet out of fifteen feet,~hich is the standard side setback required. This will leave a side setback of six feet. A two car garage has been designed as an extentian of the two car uncovered, off street parking area. It is the most practical site for the garage considering the slope of the lot and the existing parking. This garage will fulfill the requirement for parking. Criteria - There is a 12" pine tree that will be saved by keeping the garage further to the east. - dust about every home on Snowberry Drive has off-street parking or no proper parking because of the slope. We are trying to improve the off-street parking situation. - It should have no negative effect on the surrounding area. Only an improvement on the soil stability and drainage with the reconstruction of the existing retaining wall. Ft will produce a much safer parking area. L .r ~' 974 Hawthorne Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 May 11, 1983 Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attention: Mr. Jim Sayne Subject: Objections to variance requests for Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision Dear Sir: be the undersigned, owners of Lot 8, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, do hereby object to each and all variance requests made by Messrs. Barnes and Mauer for Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, as listed under Item #1 of the attached public notice. On April 1, 1978, we purchased Lot 8, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, for the purpose of building our retirement home and becoming year round residents of Vail. We have been coming to Vail since 1968 and plan our retirement sometime within the next three years. The pri~~iary building site on our lot (Lot 8) is the west portion of the lot as it affords a flat building area with the least amount of trees to be removed. To allow a side setback variance for Lot 7 to within 5 feet of Lot 8 would greatly damage the value of our building site. We object to any side setback variance and earnestly request that the code of 15 feet be enforced. Lots 7' and 8 are zoned single family or duplex. A single family unit now exists on Lot 7 and it appears another single family Unit is being proposed which should be in violation of the present zoning. If the present dwelling on Lot 7 is to become a duplex it should be done without depreciating the value of Lot 8 and giving a cluttered look to the area. Lot 7 is wider than Lot $ and we feel a competent architect can accomplish the wishes of the owners without infringing on the existing codes. . - `, • Planning & Environmental Commission Page 2 It also appears the garage to be built will be above the house and could create parking problems on a street that is a1 ready quite narrow. This could also present snow removal problems. We purchased our lot instead of a condo as we are looking fora certain amount of privacy and seclusion. We also voted to annex the Intermountain area to Vail in hopes that stronger building codes and restrictions would improve the area and give us the protection other Vail residents enjoy. The proposed building plans for Lot 7 appear to be overly ambitious for the space available, and certainly would not add to the natural setting we all value and are attempting tc~ maintain. We do not wish to prohibit Messrs. Barnes and Mauer from utilizing their property by creating a duplex, however we do ask the Planning and Environmental Commission to protect our rights, the value of our property and the overall appearance of the area by denying the requests far variance as set forth in the attached public notice under Item #1. Inasmuch as we will be unable to be present for requested a personal friend, Mr. David Tyrrell our interest if necessary. Accordingly a copy furnished to Mr. Tyrrell. Vet=y]truly yours, ? ~'~' ~`-~ Jimmie C. Anderson Shirley J. Anderson 974 Flawthorne Drive Carmel, Indiana 46032 Phone 317-846-2282 317269-4891 (work) JGA/sa Attachment cc: Mr. David Tyrrell the public hearing, we have of Tyrrell Realty, to represent of this letter is being -~ ~ " Planning and Environmental Commission J une T 3, 1983 9:00 am Site Inspections 10:00 am Public Hearing 1. A request to rezone Treetops Condominiums from the High Density Multiple Family (HOME) zone district to Commercial Core II zone district and a request for an exemption to allow a loading. space within the required front setback, Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association 2. Request fora conditional use permit far a day care facility on lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicants: Mike and Debbie Dawson 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to build an antennae on the tap of the Chamonix Corners building, part of Tract C, Vail das Schone Filing No. T Applicant: Rand L Communications, Inc. {KVMT-FM} Approximately 12:00 .noon Lunch {approximately 45 minutes} 4. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 78.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodation zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. 5. Request fora variance from Section 18.13.080{A} which restricts one unit in a Primary/Secondary zone to 40% of the allowable GRFA. The application eancerns lot 11, Black E, Vail das Schone Filing #T. Applicants: I.M., and T.K. Turnbull b. Request for an amendment to Section 18.2b.040 of the Vail Municipal Code, Conditional uses in CCII, in order to add: G. Commercial storage as long as it is basement lever, not having any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. Applicants: Bradley Quayle and Michael Arnett 7. Request for an amendment to a conditional use permit in order to allow the Vail Mountain School to use the Ba7dauf Cabin as a general purpose classroom and small meeting assembly room, Applicant: Vail Mountain School 8. Request to amend Special Development District No. 6, The Vail Village Inn complex, to add outside vending as a cond~tiona1 use. Applicant: Van Ewing 9. Request fora minor subdivision for Tats 15 and 16, Buffehr Creek. Applicants: Randy Guerriero and Angela Leighton • {Continued) ~k PEC page 2 6/7/83 1Q. Preliminary review of Exterior Modification proposals in CCI and CCII for the following buildings: 1. Lodge at Vail 2, McBride~Building -~ Gorsuch Ltd. 3. A & D Bu i7 ding ~. Plaza Lodge Building - Christy Sports 5. Lifthouse Lodge - Purcel1's 6. Lianshead Arcade 7. Village Center 8. Gore Creek Plaza Building - Sweet Basil and Blu's Beanery U ~.r-_ Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1983 • NT£MBER5 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Dick Ryan Diana Donovan Peter Patten Wi71 Trout Peter Jamar Jim Vie1e Jim Sayre Betsy Rosoiack ABSENT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Jim Morgan Gordon Pierce Chuck Anderson Duane piper The meeting was called to order at 70:00 am by Dan Corcoran, chairman. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the meeting of '. May 23, 1983. Corcoran corrected item #1 to read "The vote was 5 in favor" instead of 4. Donovan moved and Trout seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was 4-0 in favor. The applicant for #4, Lodge at Vail, requested to table until June 27. Trout moved and Viele seconded to table. The vote was 4--0 to table. 1. A request to rezone Treetops Condominiums from the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district~to Commercial Core II zone district and a request for an exemption to allow a loading space within the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association. Peter Jamar explained the memo and reminded the board that the original memo of April 13, 1983 contained the request, and that the PEC had tabled the re uest in __. ___~._ _order fo_r the applicant to investigate traffic and circulation impacts o~ the ,proposal an the already congested East Lionshead Circle area. The PEC had also asked the applicant to look at moving the loading zone out of the front setback and to look at the snow storage problem. Jamar showed a site plan he had received just before the meeting which the staff had not had time to study. The new plan showed a new location for a loading space and a snow storage area. Jamar read from the traffic study which stated that the impacts of the proposal could be alleviated by four listed items. He stated that there would be no guarantee that signs or agreements would stop the use of short term parking. He felt that a pedestrian connection between the proposed commercial development and the Lionshead parking structure portal would alleviate same of the pedestrian travel through the bus/truck area, as would the limiting of the types of uses allowed in the proposed building. Jamar also explained that the applicants suggested consolidating the east and westbound bus platform, but that the Transportation department gave reasons why this would not work. He mentioned the fact that the traffic study also showed that 42% of the traffic in the area was from autos, and until there was a solution to the private auto entering the area (such as a Checkpoint Charlie}, no additional problems should be created in the East Lionshead Circle area. He also said that the staff could not make a recommendation of approval without further study of the new p7 an. Ted Strauss, president of the Treetops Condominium Association, stated that at the last meeting, they were told to go back and have a traffic study made, they selected . a traffic engineer recommended by peter Tamar, and it was the engineer's opinion that the traffic pattern in the East Lionshead area would not change. PCC 6/13/83 -2- David beahy, traffic engineer with TDA showed a time lapse movie of the area, and pointed out three nodes, one was the private vans with permits to stop, another was the stopping of the buses, and the third was the traffic from autos, He added that it was a luxury to allow private automobiles to drive so close to the ski lift, and that this was not allowed in most ski areas. He felt that with the site improvements suggested .by Treetops, the area would be opened up, the buses could all use one platform, there would be additional curb space dedicated to transit use only, and he added that he saw this area as an extension of the mall, in which case the retail shops here would not generate mare trips. Mike McGee of the Vail Fire Department spoke next, explaining that the Fire Department was concerned about access to fight fires at Treetops. He said that the firemen could drive a truck onto the present top level of the parking structure, but if it were covered with a building, they would have a difficult time because the driveway to the west of the building was narrow with either a sharp turn or a steep drop which made it impossible to position a ladder truck. Skip Gordon, of the Town of Vail Transportation Department stated that at present 5 vans had permission to drop off or pick up passengers, and that one of :the stipulations was that each driver had to remain in his van. Skip stated that between 2,000 and 3,000 people were picked up ar dropped-off at this paint from 3:00 to 5:30 pm during the ski season which required 3 supervisors from his department. His feeling was that if there were more retail space at Fast Lionshead Circle there would be more private autos driving in the area, and that even with 3 supervisors it was impossible to keep the private autos out of the area. Curt Ufkes, Rssistant Police Chief, elaborated on Skip's comments and added that . this was one of the worst areas in the Town with respect to pedestrians and vehicles. Ufkes felt that there definitely needed to be a Checkpoint Charlie at the top of the street. He stated that the Police Department was in favor of the new retail space if a Checkpoint Charlie were first installed. We added that they hadn't found that people were using the Lionshead Parking Structure, and that if even one car parked.in~Lianshead C~rc1e, it could tie up traffic, and that the loading zone for trucks was avertax~d. Ufkes said that in addition to the 3 supervisors, there were 2 traffic controllers used in the area at the peak times, and sometimes another uniformed policeman, and still the people in autos wanted to park right in front of the busiest area. He did mention that off-street parking would be a solution for unloading and loading. Pete Burnett, Town of Vail street supervisor, was concerned about snow storage. We felt that the plan presented would increase the snow to be c1 eared away, and reduce the area in which to store snow. Me added that it was impossible to be able to state a certain time when he could remove the snow, and that the roads were reduced in width in the winter because of the snow. Viele asked if the snow was currently stored on public property, and Peter Jamar said that it was. Donovan wanted to know if it were feasible to cut a road to the east of the parking structure, and added that she felt a need to study the new site plan before making a decision. She felt that a Checkpoint Charlie was needed whether or not the Treetops Condominium proposal was accepted. Donovan asked if the Treetops had enough off-street parking, and Jamar responded that Treetops at present had 50 parking spaces, which was 2 spaces short of what was presently required. With the addition, 27 additional spaces were needed, and these could be paid for in lieu of • the actual spaces. Donovan felt that letting people buy space in the parking structure PEC 6/13/83 -3- . ~ . ' was in reality letting them off the hook, and that when the structure was full of skiers, there was no place to park. She repeated that she felt more study was needed. • Trout said that Strauss had referred to the spaces as "office space", and questioned that. Jamar replied that offices were not permitted on the ground floor in CCII zone district. Strauss said that they expected the space to be retail. Trout stated that most of the discussion was of the problem in the area right now, and suggested looking at the applicant's proposal which increased the curb space and drop-off area. He felt that they could not hold the applicant responsible for a problem that already exists, and wondered if the Town Council had reviewed or recommended a Checkpoint Charlie. Jamar answered that the Council had not budgeted money for one. Discussion followed concerning fire truck access to the building, and Dick Duran, Fire Chief, repeated Mike McCee`s concerns about turning radius; room to. maneuver and steep grades. Trout felt that restricted uses could be enforced Until Checkpoint Charlie is constr..ucted, and in the meantime, he felt the issue of the fire truck access should be solved. Dan Corcoran stated that the applicant could request tabling, could appeal to Council_ if turned down, or could ask for a vote. Strauss stated that he felt the need to proceed, and that Treetops did not ha•~xe the money to stall a Checkpoint Charlie. Trout felt he could not vote in favor of the project.with the fire truck access problem and encouraged the applicant to request to table. Strauss said he would request to table to address the fire safety problem, but protested that this meeting was to discuss traffic problem only, Strauss stated that he would like only three items to be addressed at the postponed meeting: Added fire access, retail space only, amd snow storage. Corcoran stated that the members who were absent may have additional concerns as well. Jamar reminded i;he board that the staff also was concerned about the loading area, since they had not had time to study the new site plan. Marka Moser, in the audie-~ce, reminded the board that when the parking structure was first built, several spaces were supposed to be reserved for drop-off parking, but that this had not materialized, and that if these spaces were reserved, part of the problem might be resolved. Strauss asked to table the item until the meeting of July 25. Trout moved to table. until July 25, with Viele seconding. The vote to table was 4-0 in favor. 2. Conditional use request fora private preschool to be located on lot 34 in Buffeter Creek Subdivision on Chamonix Lane. Applicants: Mike and De~bie Dawson. Dick Ryan presented the proposal, and explained that, although the facility was needed, the staff questioned the traffic impact and the lack of adequate parking, and felt these concerns had not been adequately addressed. John Perkins, architect for the applicant, stated that the day care facilities in PEC 6/13/83 -4- ' 4 r ` the Vail area had waiting lists, representing a real need. He explained the floor and site plans and stated that the building was designed especially for that property. Mike Dawson, one of the applicants, stated that they had been looking at property for 8-9 months, and found that commercial property was simply not feasible financially. Corcoran stated that the staff had received 8 letters of protest from neighbors, and a petition of protest containing 6a names. Dick Peterson, a neighbor, was concerned about the traffic on what he said were very narrow streets. He added that the bus was a detriment on such narrow streets, and also that he did not feel a day care should have the continued use of a neighborhood park, and that a day care facility would lower values of property in the area. Jim King, another neighbor, said that he was concerned about the noise because he worked very late at night, and the early arrival of children would bother him. He stated that there was not enough parking, anal some of the overflow would probably end up in his driveway. Brian McCartney, neighbor, was concerned about traffic flaw, especially in the winter when Buffehr Creek Road was slippery. Marko Moser, neighbor, felt the location with high traffic and streams was not a safe place for a school. Phoebe Peterson agreed with-the concerns of the others, as did Dave Pelkam. Wi71 Trout said that if he lived on the street, he would be concerned about it, also, for traffic doesn't just happen at certain hours. Donovan felt the situation was dangerous, though the need was apparent. She suggested that the applicant try to exchange the property for part of lot 40 which was to become a Town park. Viele was concerned with the problems, particularly the parking. Ryan said that the RBC School had about 1b-18 parking spaces which was not enough when special events were held. Viele asked if a site plan had been done for the Town park, and Ryan answered that one had not been done, but that there would be a neighborhood meeting to see what was wanted or needed in the park. Ryan said that he had discussed the exchange with the Town manager, but had not as yet received an answer, John Perkins stated that he would like to explore the idea of a land exchange, and wanted to know what the PEC felt about it, Dick Peterson reminded the PEC that when the T~V acquired the park, it was suggested not to have parking there so that there would not be another road cut from the frontage road. Brian McCartney said he did not feel the TOV should provide help to private citizens for their businesses, and Perkins responded that the Town has a history of helping other day care centers. He added that the applicant had not really asked the Town of Vail far anything, but the suggestion concerned an equal trade of land. He said that the school located on the frontage road could be a noise buffer from I-70. PEC 6/13/83 -5- Corcoran asked the neighbors in the audience if they would be in favor of the TOV trading part of lot 40 for lot 34 in order to place the day care center on part of lot 40. The response from all was that they were nat. More discussion followed concerning the exchange of properties, and then Perkins requested to table the request until July T1. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table the request until July 11. The vote was 3-0 with Corcoran abstaining. 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to build an antennae on the top of the Chamonix Corners buildnq, part of Tract C, Vaii das Schone FiT~inq #1. Applicant: Rand L Communications, Inc. (KVMT-FM) Peter Jamar explained that an antennae would be placed on the Chamonix Corners Building in West Vail to service the new studio for KVMT. Bob Dorf of KVMT answered questions. Trout suggested the antennae be painted, and Donovan suggested that the paint be flat in alight color. and that the facilities be removed from the top of the Vail Run building. Donovan moved and Trout seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated June 6, 1983 with the conditions that the equipment peri;aininq to KVMT be removed from the top of the Vail Run Building by January 1, lgg4t and that the antennae to be constructed on the Chamonix Corners building be painted with a dull paint. The vote was 4--0 in favor. . The Planning and Environmental Commission took a break to eat lunch, 4. Request for,an amendment to Sections 78.04.030, 18.22.090 and 18.24.130 in order.to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial Care Land the Public Accommodation zone districts. Applicant: E.odge Properties, Inc. Corcoran stated that he had a letter from the applicant with a request to table this item until the next meeting, Trout moved and Vie1e seconded to table, and the vote was 4-0 in favor of tabling. 5. Request for a variance from Section 18.73,080 (A) which restricts one unit in a Primary/Secondary zone to 40% of the allowable GRFA on Tot 11, Block E Vail das Schone Firing #7. Applicants: I.M. and T.K. Turnbull Jim Sayre explained the request and Susan Vaughn, representing the Turnbu1Ts, stated that the 60/40 rule was to prevent mirror images, but that the additions would help reduce the present mirror appearance of the duplex because the additions would have to be placed differently. The duplex could remain 50/50 and still change from ore •of mirror image. ,J ~{ , :. Reverend Thomas Kent Turnbull, one of . was important as well. Vaughn added and she did a review of the number of Secondary but are actually 50-50, and PEC 6/13/83 -ti- the applicants, added that the garage that she was a planner with Eagle County, homes ih the area that are zoned Primary/ that there were not many. Trout was sympathetic to the proposal, and was Donovan, but she felt strongly that duplex that existed before being zoned 60/40 should remain 50/50, but wanted to find a way to do it without granting a variance. She felt that this was a question that needed to be addressed. Viele felt that the additions to this property did move toward the intent of erasing the mirror image. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request for the variance for the reasons that the granting of the variance would 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 ould not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance was warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. The vote was 4-0 to approve the variance, 6. Request for an amendment to Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code, Conditional Uses in CCII, in order to add: .G. Commercial storage as l.onq it is basement level, not having any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or ma11 area. Applicants: Bradley Quayle and Michael Arnett Peter Patten explained that this amendment did not concern any specific property. Mike Arnett, one of the applicants, felt that there was a need for this use. Patten reminded the board that each conditional use applicant would first have to abide by two absolutes--the basement 1eve1, and having no exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. Donovan was concerned about having a definition for "commercial storage." Arnett said that building and fire codes contained definitions for commercial storage, Corcoran felt that concerns could be addressed on an individual basis, Viele moved and Trout seconded to approve the .request, The vote was 4-0 in favor. 7. Request for amend a conditional use permit ire order to allow the Vail Mountain School to use the Ba1dauf Cabin as a general purpose classroom and small meeting assembly room, Applicant: Vail Mountain School Peter Jamar stated that the applicant had met with Steve Patterson, and that they were actually doing more than was necessary to bring the building up to building code. Rick Baldwin, representing the Vail Mountain School explained that the cabin would probably be used first for music classes. Donovan moved and Vieie seconded to approve the request, The vote was 4-0 in favor. PEC 6/13/83 -7- Y, ; 8. Request to amend Special Development District ~Eo. 6, the Vail Village Inn complex, to add outside vending as a conditional use.. Applicant: Van Ewing Dick Ryan explained that if the amendment is approved by the Planning and Environ- mental Commission, and then_by the Town Council, the applicant will have to come back with a request for a conditional use permit for a specific use_ Hp added that the staff felt that a certain amount of vending added to the street life in Vail, and was in favor of it when it wasn't in conflict with other uses. Van Ewing said that he had the support of the surrounding shops. Trout said he had thought this was illegal. in the Town of Vail. Dick explained that this would be reviewed on a case by case basis. Diana wanted to know what controls the Town had over the other popcorn wagons, and Ryan replied that the agreement with the Town included control of trash, type of menus, etc. Donavan felt that a popcorn wagon would be good, but how could the town control vending of baked goods, ice cream, etc., and she felt that criteria should be listed. Ryan described how this was handled in the Boulder mall: Certain areas were set aside for certain types of vending with only one year leases. Donovan felt vending was a gold mine because the owner would not have to pay rent, and she would support the popcorn wagon, but not much else. Viele shared Donovan 's concern, and he anticipated an expansion of this type of conditional use into other districts besides SDD6. Ryan admitted that he had received 4 or 5 other requests for various types of vending including a Taw frequency radio station for skiers. Corcoran stated that under conditional use permits, only a few criteria had to be met, so if an applicant met the criteria, the PEC would have to grant the request. Van Ewing suggested changing his request to a specific use, and Trout wondered if there would be anything wrong with that, Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the request to have an outside popcorn vending wagon to conform in appearance with those existing in Vail. The vote was 4-D in favor of recommending this to Council . 9. Request fora minor subdivision for lots 15 and 16, Buffeter Creek. Applicants: Randy Guerriero and Angela Leighton Peter Patten explained that this was a minor subdivision and that there were two conditions of approval. Randy Guerriero, one of the applicants, stated that his plans did include cleaning up the parking lot, Patten added that he had a letter from a survey company which indicated that this was an equal trade off. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the request with the words, "the lot" in conditional #2 be changed to read "lot 15". The vote was 4-Q in favor. 10. Prelimiriary review of exterior modification proposals in CGI and CCI resulted in the'foilowing designations: Minor Gorsuch Christy Sports Purcell's Lionshead Arcade Village Center Sweet Basil and Major Lodge at Vail A & D Building 67u's Beanery -r • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Department oi: Community Development DATE: June 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for minor of Buffehr Creek. Leighton THE REQUEST subdivision far Lots 15 and 16, Resubdivision Applicants: Randy Guerriero,~Angela and Marie Requested is a relocation of the common lot line between these twv lots. it would be an equal trade-off type of division which would leave each lot the same size it is nvw, but it would bring the lot line more perpendicular with the right of way see enclosure), The purpose of the request relates to Mr, Guerriero's recent request for a side setback variance for an addition which he wishes to construct. The subdivision proposal would open up the southwest corner of the lot so that the addition fits the lot restrictions better. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the minor sub- division request. We do not think there will be negative impacts from the proposal, and it actually improves the layout of the lots with relationship to the street and the existing improvements on lot 15. Conditions of approval: 1. The approval of this requests. That is, the staff far future lots. 2. Parking areas on the well as paved, This re-subdivision has no implications upon future variance approval for re-location of the lot line in no way commits recommendations on other requests concerning these lot shall be clearly defined and physically restricted as should be addressed at Design Review Board. • 9p ~jc9 ! ~~ ~~` ~` /~ TG S.J~ +S+ Y f~ ' ~ f .' a~ f `~ t \ °` ~ f ~ \ ~{ ~ ~ ti ~ ~. ~ ~,. '~ ~'* /d Cs,4~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~` ~ ~ Ag '~ ~ •~ ~~ •,~ ~ ~~ ~~ \ rr \ ~~a `\ ,~ Qr:~ \ ~ ~~ y~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~Ai , ~` 4 ,Q r '~ .' ~' f r 1 i 1 1 ~\ t t ,p~ "~~ f Ly ! t~ ~,q ^. ~~! ~ S~ ~r `- a C~~ c'o 1 mac' '• f~, s~, ~ i ~~ ~ p ~C,~. ~ \ ~ ~4., { . MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 6, 1983 RE: Conditional Use Permit for the Vail Mountain School. Applicant: Vail Mountain School DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Vail Mountain School wishes to amend their conditional use permit in order to allow for the utilization of the Ba1dauf Cabin as a general purpose classroom and small meeting assembly roam. When the conditional use permit was originally approved in 1978, the location of the school building and its activities were restricted to a maximum 10,000 square feet and to the location where the Mountain School building now sits. Also, the Baldauf Cabin was to be restored, however, nothing was mentioned about the use of the cabin, thus the need to amend the conditional use permit to include the use of the cabin, which has been designated as an historic structure and will be renovated. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. No impact. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The use of the cabin will allow a minor expansion in classroom area for the school. The building division of the Community Development Department will assure that the building will be safe for this use. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera- bility, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is not foreseen that the use of the cabin will create any need for an increase . in parking on the site or affect any other factors. Vail Mtn School -2- 6/6/83 Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, • including tfte scale and bu1K of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. No impact. The cabin currently exists and was required to be restored. 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. None required. FINDINGS 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 purlic 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit. We see no problems with the proposed use of the cabin for classroom and meeting space. • 4' MEMORANDUM • TO: planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DRTE: dune 6, 1983 RE: Request for a Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial Core III zone District in Order to Construct a Studio Transmission Link at the KVMT Studio Located in the Chamonix Corners Building, a part of Tract C, Vail dos Schone Filing #1 Applicant: R & L Communications DESCRIPTION 0~' PROPOSED USE R & L Communications is currently constructing a new studio far KVMT within the Chamonix Corners Building in West Vail. The Commercial Core III zone District alluws radio and television signal relay transmission facilities as a conditional use via a recent amendment. The operation and broadcasting of the radio station from this location necessitates the need far transmission of the signal from the studio to the translator at Potato Patch. The STL (Studio Transmitter Link) is proposed to be the following: " Specific Location of Site (Appendix A) (On roof of building) . 70' from the east side of the building and 6 'from the front of the building. i Description of Antenna . 8 foot metal pole supported by tripod device. . At the top of the pole will be a parabolically shaped tubular structure 18" high and 46' across. "Corner Reflector" (Appendix 8) . Approximately 12 below the corner reflector will be a Yagi Antenna; an open television type antenna 27" long and 13" deep (Appendix C). The complete STL is the minimum height necessary to effect good transmission from our studio to our translator at Potato Patch and is a low powered device specifically approved by the Federal Communications Commission for transmission wiohin Radio Bands exclusively allocated by the FCC for use by broadcasters." 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. While the Tawn does not encourage rooftop antennae or above ground utilities, it is important to realize that a quality radio signal is in the public interest. KVMT RELAY -2- 6/6/83 The effect of the use on ii~ht and air, distribution of popuiation, transportation facilities, utilities, Schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. No impact, Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera- bility, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No impact. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The antennae equipment will not intrude into any significant views, public or private, and the scare of the equipment is relatively minor in comparison to surrounding uses and structures. 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. • None required. FINDINGS 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 cond itions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit for the stated reasons. • ~ CA LA CO PO AT ON ,. ... ,. ~osr OFFICE sox a5eo MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 (503) 779-6500 1'. APPLICATIONS: • AURAL BROADCAST STL • TELEMETRY . • POINT-TO-POINT COMMUNICATIONS i Frequency Range: Impedance: Gain (over dipole): Maximum VSWR: Front-to-Back Ratia: Polariza#}on: Terminat}on: _~ F~. Net Dimensions: ~ << Net Weight: Shipping Dimensions: Shipping Weight Wind Load: 1, M F"~~O M~~~~L~V~~~TM ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS 940 to 960 MHz (Broadband) 50 ohms 14 db 1.3:1 23 db V Type N Female (mates with UG-211U) MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS 16" x 18" x 46'/s " 12 pounds 16'/x" x 1$~/z" x 47" tApprox. 8.3 cu. ft.) 16 pounds 137 pounds (100 MPH with ~/~" radial ice) r MENIFLECTORTM fS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF SCALA ELECTRONIC CORPORATION 1 °r60 I `7 e. i f II- + • w Li~ conpOAATION POST OFFICE BDX 4580 MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 {503) 779.6500 ~V'~ C~11~iM~~~W~1 ~~~°~~ ~~~~ 2C ~i Frequency Range: Impedance: Gain (over dipole): V5WR: • Front-to-back Ratio: Input Power Ra#ing: Polarization: Termination: Net Dimensions: Net Weight: Shipping Weight: Wind E-oad: Mounting: '< ELECTRfCAL SPECfFfCATfONS Any specified frequency 216 to 1000 MHz 50 ohms 10 db 1.3:1 maximum at Fc ± 0.6% 1.5:1 maximum at Fc x-1.0% - 18 db 100 watts ' H or V (rear-mount, adjustable} Type N female {mates with UG-21lU) MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS (CA5-450 at 460 MHz) • 27"X13"X5" i 4 pounds T pounds 25 pounds (100 MPH with 114" ice) Attaches to circular support with maximum 2-318" ~. D. 17.86 ~. MEMORANDUM s T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request far'a°~variance -from Section 18.73.080, Density Control, in the Primary/Secondary zone district in order to build a duplex with a 50-50 GRFA split. Applicants: T.K. Turnbull and I.M. Turnbull DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: Section .080 of the Primary/Secondary zone district calls fora 60140 division of allowable GRFA on a duplex lot, with 60 percent of the GRFA allocated to the primary unit and 40 percent allocated to the secondary unit. The Turnbu1ls on Arosa Drive are requesting that the total allowed GRFA be split evenly with their neighbor wha lives in the other half of the duplex, Mr. Don Klinger. The applicants wish to retain equal development rights for both sides of the duplex. Under the 60/40 regulation one owner would be allowed to build approximately 800 square feet while the owner could build 200 square feet. Both owners purchased the . units under County regulations with the expectation that they could divide equally the remaining allowable square footage. The Town's Primary/Secondary 60/40 requirements altered those expectations, and the applicants are turning to a variance fora solution to their problem. (See attached statement.) CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review `of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62,060 of the Municipal.Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Turnbull/Klinger duplex is located on Arasa Drive in West Vail. To the east of the Turnbul7s is a duplex with a split level, to the west is a duplex which could be easily construed as a mirror image, and across the street the residences are charac- terized by asymetrical facades under a single gable, The staff does not see negative impacts upon other structures resulting if the request were approved. 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 ar to attain the objectives of this title without . grant of special'privile~e. The 60/40 regulation is intended to prevent the creation of mirror image duplexes. ATsa, one of the original intentions of 60/40 (form~rTy 66/33) was to have a smaller Turnbull -2- 6/7/83 unit which might result in a caretaker (employee rental) unit. In the case where a mirror image duplex was built under County regulations and subsequently zoned Primary/Secondary, the 60/40 rule can be used to encourage asymetrical remodels. In this case the applicants c7 aim that a mirror image can be avoided using varying orientations of the future garages. But the 60/40 rule is a useful tool which should not be given up even in the case of proposed remodels. To da so would establish a poor precedent, and would undermine the intent of the Primary/Secondary zone. Once this precedent is established, other similar variances will be granted. The construction of garages on the site will undoubtedly help to mitigate the mirror image on this site, but only a 60/40 split will fulfill the objectives of the Primary/Secondary.zane district, which calls for "residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller apartment..." The "physical hardship" in this case is unclear. 1Vo hardship is apparent due to the physical characteristics of the lot. The problem is instead the imposition of a new set of rules, the Primary/Secondary zone, upon an alder set of rules, the County zone. This is not a physical hardship, but a problem shared, at one time or another, by a great many property owners in Vail. There are na exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances applicable to this site which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Not applicable, Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing 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 ar conditions applicable . to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Turnbull -3- 6/7/83 .7 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 same distict. STAE~' RECOMMENDATIONS: This department recommends denial of the proposed variance. To grant the variance would establish a poor precedent and would undermine the intent of the Primary/ Secondary zone district. The characteristics of the lot, in terms of its shape, size and slope, do not constitute a physical hardship, To grant the variance would be a special privilege because other property owners would have to be 60/40 if they remodel. • • s VARTANC;E REQUEST FOR 25J7 AROSA DRIVE Lot 11, Block E, Vail Das Schone Town of Vail. zoning classif`ic€rtian ; primax•y-secondary A variance is requested for the referenced 1o~ts to allnw the owners of two sides o.f a mirror image duplex whic}1 was constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction to add up to 500 square feet of floor area to each side, rather than to add 800 squire feet to one side and 200 square feet to another side to create a. 60~n-40% split as required by the Town's zoning regulations. TPre duplex was built as a mirror image, and the units were sold as equal units. Requiring the unit owners to mare a determination as to which one must take the smaller sized unit causes one property owner to suffer more o#' ~. hardship than another, even though the owners purchased their units with the understanding -that each would have an equal sized unit and that each could add to their unit. One owner wishes to construct an additional bedroom and expand c;xist~.ng rgc~ms, becatrsc~ his three cha.l.dren are too crowded. The owner of the adjacent unit is not planning an addition at this time, but he daes not wash to give up his right i:o add an equal sized acldi#,ion nor d.aes the first owner wish to ask him to do so. TC the gnat of the Town is to prevent mirror images, i.t may be demonstrated that adding an equal number of square feet to each unit does not necessari]_y mean that the errd result wi.l1 be mirror images. j'Vc~ respectfully request #,hat this variance be granted. ~~ . • •~ • • ~... ~. t I~ ~~ ~. ~~., i .. i ~'1 ~ V f • /_ t ~ O. Iii Y M • r .~.r • ~ v f. w. ~ c • s a • . . - ....~~~. _-.-.n._~-~«... ..~.~dr~.. -•---- Y, o. [Ins C-100 ' ~' ; ~ 815? ~ ~ ~ ?-_,~9 , l i r 7 (~!lCltl, Colondn ~A' ~dt;,._.~..- ~" _e_ ~ ~ _ ~ .... ~^ .. \ ._ ----- .-'- ---•-~-' .. __r-- _ _..~-~ ..__ - __ . _~. _~. a ~~~ fit'- ~, ! ~ _3 9 ~c1 "~=_ /d f. v ~ ._..._ ~ ~ / -~~- -~ ~ ....ti ~ fir ~ ~ J ~ _.._.,. ..~ I _ V ti~ ~ U1 ~ ~ ~ ~ : o ~ <~ -~ is . - ,,J{ v r~ Q ; ~ iv.aa' ~sa~~_- ~. r.~.rp. ! ia. ~~ <<!;~ 9 .~.ar•.z°.~r~~a,~.• ;~ i4 '°.-.~., '-•,~. .~ .; ul aka, i~~ ~~~-: ~:~,,,a, ~"~~i c~ t''•_ ` ~' ~ j ~ ~ : ~ oz's' -- ;=3 « _ -~'` '~ ' ~ i~ `~ 'via' d~` ~~ i' ~ ~-"._.- 7~:",.~:.~~._ ~=s ` ~ . ,~> ~ r ~ <l --~-_ .. . __.. _. -__. ,.~~ ~; ~-1~N~~~V~ ~ I~Nr~ ~~._~ ._ ---._- _ _ -.__ ___. ~ a ° ~~ ~~; ._~.__~ -- _ .... ____ _ ~P. ,. May 27, 1983 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail, Colorado RE: Public hearing on June 13, 1983 Gentlemen: We are in receipt of a copy of the Public Notice regarding the hearing in which ten listed items will be discussed. We have comments on two of the items. In regard to item 6, we are aware of the proposed plans of Thomas K. Turnbull and Don Klinger on Lot 11, Block E, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, 2597 Arosa Drive. We are the owners of Lot 1Q, Block E, Vail Das Schone, Filing 1, directly to the east of the Turnbull and Klinger structure and we reside in the primary unit on Lot 10. We feel that the proposed improvements would not be of any detriment to the neighborhood and we have no objections to the proposed improvements. Zn regard to item 4,-we feel that commercial use should not be allowed in a residential neighborhood. We also feel that a potential access problem and traffic problem could be created if this use were permitted. Very truly yours, ~~ Sa l-1en~ a ../ ~~ - Ga y all 2 79 Ax'osa Dx~ e ' , Colorado 81657 Cc - ~~a-w~ ~u~v~Q.~ MEMORRNDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow commercial storage as a conditional use in Commercial Core II in the basement level. Applicants:. Brad Quayle and Michael Arnett PROPOSAL Proposed is to add commercial storage to the conditional uses allowed in Lionshead with a restriction similar to that of beauty and barber shops on street level in Commercial Gore I (no exterior frontage). The following is the wording of the proposed amendment: 18.26,00 Conditional Uses - Generally "G. Commercial storage as long as it is basement level and does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area." . The applicants make the following arguments for the proposal: "To make the Concert Hall space economically feasible, thus maintaining the presence of high quality concerts, theatrical productions, etc., and to add to the artistic integrity of the Vail Valley. T. To fulfill a need for commercial storage space in the GGII area. 2. Commercial storage space can be a compatible use in Lionshead because: a. Certain buildings have an-site loading areas which can accommodate this use. b. It is proposed as a canditiona1 use only so that each request would be considered on its awn merits." RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed amendment. We agree that there are probably some sites in Commercial Core II on which this use could work. The conditional use criteria found in Chapter 18,60 coupled with the criteria of basement level and no frontage should assure a proper review of any specific proposal. • Planning and Environmental Commission June 27, 1983 1:00 pm Site Inspections 2:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Rod Slifer, Mayor 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 13, 1983 3. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04,030, 18.22,090, .and 18.24.130 in order to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodation zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. 4. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a secondary unit on Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain, Applicants: Charles Barnes and David Mauer 5. Request to amend Section 18.64, Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, to include language which will allow for interior expansion of pre existing legal non-conforming uses far additional Gross Residential Floor Area. Applicant: Richard S. Baldwin 6. Request for a conditional use permit to construct a water collection system in Gore Creek immediately below the effluent discharge point of the sewer treatment plant. Applicant: Vail Rssociates, Inc. 7. Request fora conditional use permit in order to install a game parlour on the first floor of the Inn at West Vail. Applicant: James Craddock, Inn at West Vail 8. Application for a condominium conversion project to condominiumize the Vail Athletic CTub building. Applicant: Fitzhugh Scott • L Planning and Environmental Commission June 27, 7983 U PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Peter Patten Diana Donovan Jim Sayre Jim Morgan Larry Eskwith Gordon Pierce Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper Will Trout Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by Dan Corcoran, chairman. 1. Rod Slifer, Mayor Chuck Anderson, representing the mayor, stated that the Town Council was no longer going to send a representative to the PEC meetings. He added. that it was the opinion of the Council that the PEC was doing a good job, and did not need monitoring, and further that the Council members had many meetings that were mandatory that they had .to attend, 2. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 13, 1983. Several typographical errors were corrected, and Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was 4-0 in favor with Morgan, Piper, and Pierce abstaining. 3. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.OA~.030, 18.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial I and the Public Accommodation zone districts.. Applicant: Lodge Properties The Lodge Properties submitted a letter requesting that their item :be tabled until July 11, 1983. Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to table to 7/11/83. The vote was t-0 in favor. 4. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a secondary unit on Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain, Applicants: Charles Barnes and David Mauer, Jim Sayre stated that this was the second time the applicants had been before the board, but that there had been changes since the first time. One change was to move the garage to the northwest and the other ti~as that there was no need for a parking variance because the existing parking area is 27 feet wide, which satisfies tP~e three stall requirement. The staff felt that there was a definite physical hardship. The garage has a1 so been changed so that the roof is two feet lower which would partially mitigage the obstruction of views from the Andersons` lot, lot 8. Corcoran read a certified letter to the board that said: {See attached letter.) Dave Tyre11, representing Mr, Anderson, stated that although there had been an effort PEC -2- 6/27/83 .~-~~' , to mitigate the obstruction of the Anderson's view, the project still presented . a wall appearance. He stated that the Andersons would still like to take the ramp out of the setback. Three more points Mr. Tyre11 made were: 1. The owners of lot 9 would probably also be in to get a variance, because the preferred building area on lot 9 was close to lot 8, 2. He felt that 3 spaces behind 2 spaces did not make 5 spaces, and 3. Parking should not be in the right-of-way. Pierce stated that it has been a precedent to allow parking spaces to be counted even though the spaces were in front of garage doors, but Patten explained that usually when that happened, there was only one dwelling unit involved, Discussion which followed concerned whether or not the ramp was to be considered a structure which would determine whether or not a side setback variance was needed. Viele said that although he respected the staff's opinion, he did feel that there was a~~substantial improvement over the previous presentation. Donovan felt that the property did not lend itself to two units, and that the first unit was built without planning for a second unit, Trout did not feel that the ramp was a structure, and thus did not need a variance. Jim Vie1e moved and Jim Morgan seconded to approve the request for the variance as per the staff memo. Pierce added that the person assigned to DRB be instructed to try to reduce the impact of the garage height. The vote was 5 in favor with Donovan against, and Corcoran abstaining. A discussion followed concerning the definition of a "structure." Trout read the . definition from 18.04.370. It was decided to discuss it at the end of the meeting. 5. Request to amend Section 18.64, Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, to include language which will allow for interior expansion of pre-existing legal non-conforming uses for additional Gross Residential Floor Area. Applicant: Richard S. Baldwin The applicant asked to table the item until July 11 so that he would have time to work with the staff on some changes. Donovan questioned what exactly the staff wanted tabled until September and Patten explained that the staff would present revisions to the non- conforming use. chapter of the code by then but that this amendment should be addressed sooner, Trout moved and Piper seconded to table until July 17. The vote was 6-3 with Donavan voting. against because she felt it was so closely tied in with what the staff would be worKing'o~rtng the September 12, riieeting, it seemed a duplication of effort. 6, Request for a conditional use permit to construct a water collection system, in Gore Creek immediately below the effluent discharge point ~f the sewer plant. Rpplicant: Vail Associates, Inc. The applicant had requested to table the item until July il. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to table to July ll and the vote was 7~0 in favor. FEC -3- 6/27/83 • 7. Request for a conditional use~ermit in order to install a game parlour- on the first floor of the Inn at West Vail. Applicant: dames Craddock, Inn at West Vail. dim Sayre explained that the staff recommends approval with the television monitoring because of the small size of the arcade. Gene Gilbert of the Inn at West Vail said that there would be monitoring 24 hours a day. Morgan asked whether or not liquor would be allowed in the ,arcade, and Gilbert said that there was no way to prevent it, because it would not be violating the liquor license.; Piper asked if there would be someone available if there were trouble, and Gilbert said there was always someone on duty at the front desk. Trout asked if there were any rules concerning' liquor in arcades. Gilbert stated that in a test case it was decided that a minor has the right to go into a public area, though the minor can't be served liquor. Morgan reminded the board that if there were any problems the c.u.permit could be revoked, Pierce felt that this arcade could cause morn problems than the larger ones becaua~ of the type of monitoring and because of the availability of the liquor. Donovan asked if the hours could be limited, and Gilbert stated that they felt that since it could be monitored 24 hours/day, there was no need to set certain hours, Later, he agreed to limit hours if the PEC wanoed them to, Sayre felt that since there were only 5 machines a television monitoring system seemed adequate. Trout wondered if this could be precedent setting, and stated that with the liquor problem he could not support the request. Trout moved and Pierce seconded to deny the request. Donovan asked Gilbert if it would be possible to not have liquor in the room, and Gilbert said that since this was a hotel, it was the nature. of the facility to allow . people to carry drinks to their rooms, or athe~r places, and that it would be difficult, but perhaps a sign stating "No food or drinks in this room" could be placed. The motion was then restated as follows: Trout moved and Pierce seconded to deny the request because the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained woulud be detr imental to the public health, safety, or welfare because there would be no live supervision, The vote to deny was 4 in favor, with 2 (Morgan and Piper) against denial, and Donovan abstaining. Corcoran reminded the applicant that he could appeal to Town Council within 10 days. The reasons for voting for denial: Pierce: liquor and children Viele: major arcades need full time supervisor Corcoran: liquor problem and no direct supervision Trout: children, liquor, and no direct supervision Morgan asked what provisions the Town had for checking numbers bf machines in bars, and was answered that there was no exact provision, and that a number of arcades were grandfathered. - 8. Application fora condominium conversion project to condominiumize the Vail Athletic Club Building. Applicant: .Fitzhugh Scott Peter Patten explained the units of the condominium, stating that the hotel would be one condominium, and would be run like a hotel. H~ stated that the building ~~ had been through many changes, and he had tried to find out what past approvals had been granted, He found a parking variance had been granted far the employee PEC ~4- 6/27/83 housing units. He reviewed the memo, stating that harry Eskwith felt that items 2 and 3 under "Other Requirements for Conversion" needed to go through a variance or amendment procedure, and could be addressed at the July 25 meeting (giving the staff time to publish}, Patten stated that the staff felt that the uses of the building were not being changed, and felt that any major changes would be a detriment, and reviewed the criteria evaluation and the requirements for conversion. Corcoran asked that if the condo conversion met all criteria and was passed, if the applicant could then came back and ask for variances from items 2 and 3. Larry Eskwith answered that economic conditions were not a reason for granting a variance, and that it would be more appropriate to get the section changed to that they could be regulated at the discretion of the board, He suggested that the applicant proposed an amendment at a later date, He asked how this had been handled at earlier condo conversions, and Patten responded that to date only the Inn at West Vail had received approval to condominiumize and that they hadn't completed the requirements yet, either, He added that they had not come in for their final approval, Fskwith repeated that this was a mandatory part of the condo conversion and that the Town could not grant dispensation from these two sections. Tam Scott, son of Fitzhugh Scott, the applicant, stated that he agreed with Eskwith, and felt that, although the applicant did not feel he should have to comply with 2 and 3, it was mort profitable for the applicant to proceed with the application. He added that regarding the condition of approval, i,e. the formalized employee housing agreement, the applicant would be better off if not tied down by those four employee units, but could supply four similar units. Pierce stated that he shared in the authorship of the bud ding and was almost certain that he had presented the rooms as designed to be converted to condominiums. Piper did not feel that there would be much change in use of the building. Viele agreed, and Donovan did also, but added that she felt the condo conversion section of the Town code was written more fora change of use. She wanted to know if the building would still operate under a central system, and.Fitzhugh Scott answered it would, Morgan stated that past history pointed to an aversion to converting accommodation units to condominium dwelling units, Tam Scott pointed out that the hotel section would remain operating as an hotel. Morgan answered that 7 units were being removed, and added that the hotel could be sold and used differently and he felt this could be a reduction of the bed base. Eskwith stated that the new owner of the hotel unit would have to go through a condo conversion to use the hotel section differently, Morgan was concerned that it could be sold to a private club. He reminded the board that the Garden of the Gods had T8 accommodation units and had been denied a change to condominiums because it would have depleted the bed base. He felt that this was a complete reversal of the strong position the Town had had of maintaining a bed base. Tam Scott stated that it was not their intention to reduce the rental units. Eskwith said that the use of a private club is a conditional use. • PEC -5- 6/27/83 Morgan asked if the intention was to sell the employee units, and Tam said "no, that 4 rooms had to remain employee units. Discussion followed concerning numbers, and the final decision was that there were 22 accommodation units plus 2 dwelling units as part of the hotel. Mangan again objected to reducing the bed base, and Corcoran stated that it was the Council that had had a record of reducing the bed case, and gave Pepi's as an example when the Council overturned the PEC 's decision, and allowed Pepi to change 2 accommodation units to office space. Trout moved and Piper seconded to approve the requested condominium conversion with the staff's recommendations with the following exceptions or adjustments; that the applicant be allowed sometime in the future to exchange the units now reserved for employee housing for equal acceptable units and that further the staff be directed to prepare the following amendment for revision by the PEC and Council: a, that the permit fee be an allowed requirement rather than a must requirement b, that the appropriateness of separate meters be considered. The vote was 5 in favor, l (Morgan) against, with Corcoran abstaining. Peter Patten read a letter dated January l9, 1978 to Fitzhugh Scott from Terry Minger, who was the Town Manager at the time in which Minger states that a variance had been granted for 3 parking spaces for 4 employee units with the conditions that the employee units constitute 1,166 square feet on the 6th floor, and that the employee units shall remain as employee units as long as the Vail Club continued in operation., Eskwith felt that the PEC had the power to void those conditions if they so desired, or make any new conditions they wished to make, because it was unsigned. Donovan wanted to know if the condo declarations required that the different elements in the building be inter-related, i.e „ the hotel and condo guests have the use of the spa, and both the condos and hotel rooms are rented through the hotel, etc, Fitzhugh answered that if they didn't, he felt this should be part of the declarations, Donavan replied that if this stipulation existed, then there was really no change in use. Eskwith stated that there must be a single centralized management by definition of lodge, and explained that there must be also a Larger amount of GRFA devoted to accommodation units than to dwelling units. Corcoran stated that these percentages had been discussed with Fitzhugh and Peter Patten, and that each room was measured. Eskwith stated that the whole building had to be a lodge.. Corcoran polled the board to see if they would support an ordinance changing the permit fee and separate meter items to allowed requirements, Pierce felt in favor, and thought the ordinance should clarify whether or not the conversion was;."major or minor.'" Piper stated that he was recently confronted with a similar situation, and felt that separate meters were reasonable unless there was another way to bill. Viele felt that separate meters were a private problem that the Town should not i get involved with, and he felt the fee was redundant. Donovan agreed, but added that if there were fees or taxes that had not existed at the time of construction, they but~di~d now, tney should be paid now. Trout and Morgan agreed,' The meeting was adjourned at 5:15. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Conditional use application to install a major arcade in the Tnn at West Vail, Applicant: James Craddock. DESCRTPTION OF PROPOSED USE The owners of the Inn at West Vail wish to install a major arcade in the Tnn at West Vail. The conditional use application is to install seven machines in the hotel, five machines to be housed in a roam designated for such use, and two machines are to remain in the lobby. The arcade room wi11 be supervised by a television monitoring system. (See attached statement and plans.} CRTTERIP~ I~f~~D FI~~DIPIGS ~~ l~pon revie~~r of Section 18,6OO, the Departrrrent of Com~runity Development recommends ~ approval, with three stipulations,,~of the conditional use permit based upon. the following. factors: Gonsider'atian~ of Factors: Relationship and ~ir~pact..of the use~~on developrnent objectives of the to~~rn. If tho arcade is~ managed properly, the itse 4•rill not contradict the development objectives of the toti•rn, +.•rizich call for the "harmonious developr:unt of the tot~rn" and enhance "its established character as a resort," . the effect of the irse on 1 ipht, air, di>i;ribution of population, transportation factl hies, utilities, SCn0015,~Jar~C5 a-ric recruati nn _i•aci i i tics, and o~c,"rer put~l~ic l=oci i i ties and pubi ~c foci 1 hies reeds. ~~ The arcade -•rill not substantially ~inf7 uence the above. effect` upon traffic frith particular reference i:o congestion, automotive and ~edesti-~an s3fe~ end convenience. t_ra; fie f]rn~r ~n:~ oonCr~oi ,'access, mar~cuverabil ity, and ~-ec~ov~ of sno~~r frorrr i;h~ street end' ~~arkirrc; ~~r;c~as. ~ . the arcade should not substantially increase the demand for parking in file ' Inn at West Vail, ,~ Inn at West Vail -2~ 6/22/83 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. L The arcade will be located in a 150 square foot room off of the lobby at the Inn at West Vail. There are several businesses located near the proposed arcade. Finishing Touch and Farmer's Insurance Group are the nearest. It the noise of the machines is kept at a minimum, the nearby businesses will not likely be disturbed. The arcade room also has a window facing the parking lot at the Inn. The Commercial Core III zone district allows arcades with exterior frontage. 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. Nat applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of .the use is in accord with the purposes of this .. ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. ~` That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. CONDITIONS OF RpPROVAL The conditions of approval are intended to be consistent with the stipulations placed on other major arcades, with the exception here that supervision by personnel is being replaced by supervision by television. In this case, the staff feels the television monitoring system will provide sufficient supervision due to the small number -5- of machines in the arcade room and its proximity to the front desk. Other conditional use applications fora television monitoring system will be judged on their own merit. The stipulations concerning noise and a one year, renewable permit are similar to those pi aced on other arcades. Thus, the staff recommends that the following stipulations be placed upon the conditional use permit: ;. Inn at West Vail ~3- 6/22/83 1, That the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the nearby businesses and guests in the Inn at West Vail. The applicant should keep all the noise volume controls on the machines at a low 1eve1. 2. That the television monitoring system be operational during the hours that the arcade is open. ~~ 3. That the conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to exceed one year from the time the permit is granted. The applicant should return to the Planning Commission in the month of June, 1984 for review of their conditional use. MEMORANDUM • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to vary from the side setback requirement of the Primary/ Secondary Residential district on Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain subdivision. Applicants: Charles Barnes and David Mauer DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants are returning to the Planning Commission to request a side setback variance in order to place a ramp, which leads to the garage, three feet into the required fifteen foot setback. If the variance is granted, the resulting setback will be twelve feet. Since the ramp is an integral part of the proposed garage structure, a variance is required. The staff has determined that the existing parking area is 27 feet wide, which satisfies the three stall requirement, No parking variance is required. I, CRITERIR AND FINDINGS ~ SETBACK VARIANCE . Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The current site plan illustrates that the bulk of the garage has been moved to within the setback line: the ramp leading to the garage remains in the setback. When compared to the variance request of May 23, 1983, the bulk of the garage has moved to the north and west. The movement of the proposed garage will improve, but by no means wholly mitigate, the obstruction of views from the Andersons` lot, lot 8. See the attached letter from the Andersons concerning the current variance request. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation ~s necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this ti tie without grant of special privilege. To grant this setback variance would not constitute a grant of special priviliege. Given the steepness of the lot and the present configuration of the structures on the site, a setback variance for the ramp is justified. There are few other viable alternatives to the proposed garage location. The slope of the lot does constitute a physical hardship. Lot 7, bl k 9, Tnter --2- 6/22/83 • The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu- lotion, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and pub? is safetyy. The new proposal does provide more room for parking between the garage and the right-of-way, thus leaving more room for snow plowing. The staff remains skeptical of the practicality of the parking arrangement for 2 units. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. At the flay 23 meeting there seemed to be a concensus among the Planning Commissioners that the garage should be moved to the west. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. That the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of irhe variance wi11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regula- tion would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circunstances 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 the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECONiMENDATTON The steepness of the site and the configuration of the present structures on the lot do constitute a physical hardship. Although the staff feels there are some negative impacts on the adjacent lot to the east created by this solution, the alternatives are negligible when considering the fact that there is a development right for 2 units on the site. M jC. i 1 r» ~~ /~ , f !` ~ ~ " /' ~` tr I's • l ~ V '~ *w. s ~„ t n~ I ~~ ~°' ~, - ,. ~ / .• ,~ I _. __~__ ~A~.i _ ~ - - ! . _'t-'~',1--- _ '~. 4 y' __.r- 1 r. - •~ ~ J °~ ~ _ f~ ~.. CR J ~ ~_ ~ _ ,i I , . s• .. ~ - r ~ `~a Tvi~T i p _`__~ A ~' ~ s~ ~~ ~ J~ .,~ ~, _ ~4 r. :.: ~ ~ .. - ~ t7 a ~- - ~ (3~ BAR AARk~-'~' _ ~ _ _..... _.~_.._ _~._ Y ----- ~ ~ _ _~.. - .. ...._ ~ ._ I ~ ~` ~. _ E j ~ . ~ ...,,~ .3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~} 9~~ Hawthorne Drive . Carmel, Indiana ~bQ32 June 18, 1883 Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 7j South x'rontage Road Vail, Colorado 81b~7 Dear Sirs { +~ ~F~ ~ /r ~~ ~~~~ ~~ yi~~3 This has reference to the second request by Messrs. Barnes and Mauer for a side setback variance on Lot 7, Block 9, Vail Intermountain on Snowberry Drive as covered by public notice published June 14, 1983. Our letter of May 11, 1983 set forth our objections for any side set- back variance far the above mentioned lot. We are still opposed to any such variance, In fact, after being furnished a line drawing of the proposed. project, we are more strongly opposed. than before. The drawing indicates there will be a "wall" of buildings across Lot 7 completely blocking the westward. view from our lot and looking more like a condominium development than a duplex. The proposed height of the garage is very unattractive and the least that can be expected. is the garage be placed. more to the center of Lot 7 where it can be enjoyed as a view by the owners of Lot 7 rather than from Lot 8. We recognize there are building problems on Lot ?'; however, the buyers of Lot 7 knew this fact when they purchased the lot. We do not feel our property should be depreciated. to save money for the owners of Lot 7. If N;essrs. La.rnes and Mauer desire to build this unsightly project, it can be done without a side setback variance, 4Je appreciate the commissioners denying the variances previously requested and. do hereby request that they again deny the current request for a side setback variance. We further request they suggest the placement of the proposed garage be mare centered an Lat 7. We feel the project as now proposed adversely impacts the desirability and. value of our property in addition to being unsightly, We hereby request this entire letter be read. into the minutes of the meeting. CJ i Planning & Environmental Commission ,Tune 18, 1983 Page 2 ?- We are again requesting Mr. David Tyrrell represent our interest at this meeting as we will be unable to attend. Veryr~ruly yours, ~ ~~- ~, ~ -~~-- Jimmie C. Anderson Shirley J. Anderson 974 Hawthorne Drive Carmel, Indiana ~+6U32 Phone 317-8~b--22$2 317-2&g~~891 JCAssa ces David Tyrrell