Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July - DecemberPlanning and Environmental Commission July 9, 1984 2:00 pm Site Inspections 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 25, 1984. 2. Request for revision to the Bonne Vue earth-sheltered housing project on Lots Ai, A2, A3 Lions~idge Filing 2 and on Lot fi, Block 1, Lionsridge Filing 4 to redesign the housing unit. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Co. 3. Request to rezone Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: David Cole and Daryl Burns. WITHDRAWN 4. Request to rezone Lots 1, 4, 5, and 6, Cliffside Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Rpplicant: Town of Vail 5. Request for exterior alteration to the Vail 21 building in order to remodel the entry of Gore Range Properties. Applicant: Gore Range Properties. 6. Request for revisions to the zoning code regarding outside vending which BLED would allow outside vending only under a special events permit with specific criteria for its location. Applicant: Town of Vail ;~ Planning and Environmental Commission July 9, 1984 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Scott Edwards Kristan Pritz Gordon Pierce Larry ESkwith Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack Will Trout ABSENT Duane Piper Jim Viele The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Gordon Pierce, who was substituting for Duane Piper, chairman, and Jim Viele, vice-chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of June Edwards moved and Rapson seconded to appro 4--0 with Pierce abstaining. . 2. Request for revisions to the Bonne Vue on lots AT, A2, A3 Lionsridge Filing 2 Filing 4 to redesign the housing unit. 25, 1954. ve the minutes. The vote was earth-sheltered housing project and on Lot 6, Block 1, Lionsridge Applicant: Reinforced Earth Ca. Kristan Pritz explained the proposed changes that had been made since the last time this project had come before the PEC and was given final approval. She explained that the revisions affected the overall proposal in such a significant way that it now warranted review again by the PEC to determine if the 40% slope variance was still justified for the project. She showed site perspectives, site plans, sections of the site and cross sections of the units of both the approved proposal and the revised proposal. Pritz stated that staff now felt that the project did have strong visual impacts an other structures in the vicinity. She added that in the previous memos, staff had stated that if the housing were more conventional, the 40% slope variance would not be approved, and the staff felt that the new design was much more conventional, and therefore recommended denial. Peter Jamar, representing Berridge Associates, felt that the redesign was not as significant a factor as the staff seemed to feel that it was; since it was only on the third story, and the major part of the proposal was still earth sheltered. He said that the roofs would be weathered copper. Jamar felt that there that were two issues: 7) whether or not there was the technology to build on a 40% slope, and 2) whether or not there was a visual impact. He wondered if a visual impact had any bearing on granting a hazard variance. (Patten stated that it did.) • PEC 7/9/84 -2- Jamar stated that the applicant could lower the roof peak 3 feet which would lower the pitch, and added that the perspective shown was 3 feet lower than proposed. Jamar added that 13 units could be built an Rl and A2, with 2 on A3, while Lot 6 would allow a duplex of 5,000 square feet, so the applicant was actually reducing the amount of density he would be allowed and volunteering to do earth sheltered structures which stabilized the hillside. Jim Merkel of Reinforced Earth, stated that the project was still as earth integrated as before. Patten asked if the reinforced earth technology was still behind each level and Merkel replied that it was reinforced only behind the lowest and highest levels. Terry Quinn, an attorney representing Wi11 Trout (who sat in the audience throughout this proposal) stated that there was a cloud on the title of lot A3, that Trout still owned this lot. Q~m~n was putting the Town of Vail on notice about this concern and that they could not vacate the lot line without Trout`s permission, and Trout could not give his permission until the title was cleared. Larry Eskwith stated that if a Liz Pendens had been filed, it told all the world that there was a law suit, but not who would win the suit. Eskwith stated that he did not know how to stop the subdivision, since the owner of record was proposing the subdivision. He explained that the Liz Pendens put a cloud on the title, but hasn't said that the land could not be sold. Jamar stated that the applicant preferred to take a risk and proceed with the request. . Donavan felt that the project was too visible and too high on the hill. She felt that it looked toa conventional, and pointed out that one purpose of the hazard regulations was to keep people off the sides of the valley. Rapson felt that there should be more earth sheltered technique used above as well on the sides of each structure. He added that this was nice looking, but was no longer earth sheltered in quality. Edwards felt the DRB should be the ones to decide whether or not the roof should be raised or not. Jamar stated that usually an SDD contains some elements which are jockied around by DRB, Patten answered that if the PEC and Council approved a specific design, the DRB could not violate the approval. Edwards wondered if people were ready to live in caves, and added that he liked the new proposal. Pierce wondered if it was necessary to have the additional roof above the 1st and 2nd levels. He felt that this simply made more roof to look at. Pierce suggested some compromise, suggesting that the roof be lowered to a 2/12 pitch which would enable a sod roof to be built. He was concerned that the project not go "economically bad." Jamar stated that the applicant would like to table for two weeks to try to work out a compromise to lessen the impact of the fascia treatment. Edwards moved and Donovan seconded to-table as per the applicant's request until July 23. The vote was 4 in favor, none against, with Trout abstaining. • PEC -3- 7/9/8 3. Request to rezone Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: David Cole and Daryl Burns. Peter Patten stated that since 7981, 4 or concerning this property, but for the ent all restricted to access from the bottom. explained that lot 3 didn't have the site 2 was a moot point because it was a1 ready approval of rezoning lots 2 and 3. 5 similar proposals had been proposed ire subdivision. Lots 3, 4, and 5 were Patten showed a site plan and conditions that 4 and 5 did, and lot built upon. The staff recommended Dr. Burns, owner of lot 3, showed slides with three main views and explained that his home would not impact the view corridors from the units on Vail Ridge. He added that there were twv problems: 7) the ,zone RG made the lot unbuildable because of the slope restrictions, and also cut down the GRFA, and 2) the use of the upper entry was important to Dr. Burns. Bi71 Post, representing the Ridge at Vail, read from previous Town of Vail corres- pondence to Eagle County that the structures must be kept back so they "peek over the ridge." He stated that the Ridge owners did not mind the use of the upper access to the lot if the same restrictions concerning the height of the structure remained the same as recommended previously by the PEC. Post also wanted to have a restriction that there would be no parking in the cul de sac. Jim Flaum, president of the Ridge Town House Association, wanted to . be sure the same access would not be given to lots 4 and 5. Dave Cale, owner of lot 2, stated that at first it appeared that his home would impact Burns', but found that Burns' view was over Cole's chimney. Cole felt that if Burns would have to access from below, it would be a tremendous infringement upon Burns' rights. Post reminded the board that this was a zone change request. Eskwith stated that since this was a request for a zone change, the PEC could place conditions upon its approval. He added that although the Town could not deprive the applicant the use of his property, the owner of that property was not entitled to the best use of the property.as Dave Cole presented. Rapson was still concerned with the view corridor impact, Donovan was concerned about the narrowness of the road. Patten stated that this was a private drive and was totally controlled by 6 owners, but that the fire access would need to be looked at. Edwards stated that he would like to see some sort of reasonable limitation of height because of the restrictions that had been placed on the Ridge units. Pierce had no problems with the request, but was concerned about lots 4 and 5 using the drive to reach their homes. Patten reminded him that the owners of lots 4 and 5 must came in to the PEC for a zone change. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council per the staff memo. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 5. Request far exterior alteration to the Vail 21 Building in order to remodel the entry of Gore Range Properties. Applicant: Gore Range Properties Kristan Pritz presented the request. John Wheeler, representing Gore Range Properties, stated that he would like to have Duane Piper work out the detailing needed in protection of the glass. Pierce suggested other details where the glass met the paving, such as stone. PEC 7/9/84 -4- Edwards moved and Trout seconded to approve the request far exterior alteration to the Uail 21 Building per the staff memo dated July 5, 7984. The vote was 5-0, unanimously in favor. 6. Request for revisions to the zoning code regarding outside vending which would allow outside vending only under a special events permit with specific criteria for its location. Applicant: Town of Vail Patten asked to table this item. Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to table this item until the next meeting. The vote was 5-0, unanimous. n The meeting adjourned at 4:50. . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: July 5, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for exterior alteration to the Uail 21 Building in order to remodel the entry of Gore Range Properties. Applicant: Gore Range Properties I. PROPOSAL Gore Range Properties, located in the Li.anshead Vail 21 Building, proposes to expand their main entry by enclosing a portion of the existing stairwell with a clear glass roof. The enclousre is approximately 21 feet by 10 feet X210 square feet total}. The structure`s height is an average of 62 feet above the adjacent pedestrian mall. At sidewalk level the structure is 4 feet in height sloping up to 9 feet to the Vail 2l Building. The new space will open onto the existing reception area. An entry stairwell will remain on the east side of the enclosure, approximately 5 feet in width. The applicant's reasons for constructing the addition are as follows: R general premise of Lionshead area expansions and improvements has been the creation of additional one-story building extensions with a degree=of~:'~high transparency." Such additions offer to also "improve pedestrian scale at the base of tall buildings" and to "generate greater pedestrian activity." These design considerations, as a general premise, are our guide for the addition and remodel of Gore Range Properties main entry. While this area is not expressly mentioned in the Sub-Area #8 concept study, it does closely relate. Sub-area Concept 8 states "improve viability of be1ow- grade shops by expanding stair access into broader landings and sunken court- yards. Sun pocket location, landscaping and paving to create attraction. Competitive with grade level shops." Our effort is to, as noted in the guide plan, "improve viability of below grade shops." II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCII ZONE DISTRICT The application is in compliance with the CCII zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There is not a specific sub-area concept that refers to this site. As the applicant mentioned, sub-area concept #8 relates indirectly in that it encourages improvements that add viability to below grade shops. r Gore Range Properties -2- .7/5/84 • IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Staff concurs with the applicant's comments related to each of the following Design Considerations: "Lionshead Design Considerations Height and Massing Structure height is an average of 52 feet above the pedestrian mall level; starting at approximately 4 feet in height and rising to a height of 9 feet at the existing building. Roofs Roof is sloping at approximately 4/12 pitch and is clear glass in material. Frames are bronze in color to match existing store front system. Facades/Walls and Structure No walls are added. Existing wingwa7ls are to remain. Door entry will be slightly recessed to aid in definition. Facades/Transparenc.v • Yes: Very. Decks and Patios None are intended or needed in business function Accent Element Door might be an accent item by use of color and design. Landscape Elements Adjacent planters are adequate for these purposes." V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS The applicant should talk to the Public Works Department to work out a "possible problem with snow plowing since the Town has tv plow next to the glass enclosure." The Town Engineer suggested constructing some type of barrier in front of the glass facade to prevent any breakage. Generally, there is no impact. The real estate office use is allowed on the basement level in CCII. r Gore Range Properties -3- 7/5/84 • VI. RELATED POLICIES IN VATL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN The Community Rction Plan's section on Community Design encourages upgrading and site improvements. This proposal supports the policy. The project also has been reviewed by Steve Patterson, Project Manager far the Lionshead Improve- ment Program. The addition does not conflict with the Improvement Program. UII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the addition contingent upon the applicant resolving the potential snow removal problem with Public Works before final DRB approval. • i f N T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 1984 SUBJECT: Request far a rezoning from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential for Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision. Applicants: Daryl Burns and David Cole I. BACKGROUND On December 12, 1983 the Planning and Environmental Commission heard the third request from the property owners of this subdivision to rezone their six lots from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. As you'll recall, the dispute in this matter has been. over lots 4 and 5 as far as their ability under SFR to impact the ridge.7ine existing at the top of these lots. After the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the rezoning but with staff recommended restrictions on access for lots 4 and 5, the application was withdrawn by the applicant before Town Council appearance. Although the enclosed minutes show that the Planning and Environmental Commission restricted the access to lots 3, 4, and 5 in the December 12 decision, it appears that lot 3 does not possess the same site planning problems related to visual Intrusion on the ridgeline as do lots ~ and 5. Evidence to support this will be presented to you at the hearing on Monday. The staff will proceed to work with the owners of lots 4 and 5 to explore alternative site planning options for those parcels. i At this time, an access or design solution has not been found and the owners of 2 and 3 wish to proceed. Lot 2 is owned by Dave Cole with an existing residence on it. Under the rezoning, as you can see by the attached statistics, this lot can have an additional 325 square feet under Single Family Residential. Lot 3 is a steep vacant lot which, as explained in the attached memorandum dated December 8, 1983, is more suited to Single Family Residential zoning than to Residential Cluster. II. CRITERIA EVALUATION Please refer to the December 8, 1983 memo regarding evaluation of the three criteria used for rezonings. These findings remain the same for the request in front of us today. Basically, Residential Cluster is not the most suitable zoning for these lots, and Single Family Residential allows opportunity for the sensitive site planning of lot 3. III. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the rezoning of the lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision from RC to SFR. Tt appears that the site conditions an lots 4 and 5 which make access from above undesirable are not present on lot 3 (and lot 2 is already developed). The rezoning of lot 3 relieves the slope restrictions imposed by Residential Cluster and this makes sense for the placement of a structure on this difficult parcel. Thus, we feel comfortable in allowing the rezoning on these two properties and find that the rezoning criteria have been met. t PEC -3- 7/9/84 DRAFT Of~LY • 3. Request to rezone Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: David Cole and Daryi Burns. Peter Patten stated that since 1981, ~ or concerning this property, but for the ent a17 restricted to access from the bottom. explained that lot 3 didn't have the site 2 was a moot point because it was already approval of rezoning lots 2 and 3. 5 similar proposals had been proposed ire subdivision. Lots 3, 4, and 5 were Patten showed a site plan and conditions that 4 and 5 did, and lot built upon. The staff recommended Dr. Burns, owner of lot 3, showed slides with three main views and explained that his home would oat impact the view corridors from the Units on Vail Ridge. He added that there were two problems: 1) the zone RC made the iot unbui7dable 'because of the slope restrictions, and also cut down the GRFA, and 2) the use of the upper entry was important to Dr. Burns. Bill Post, representing the Ridge at Vail, read from previous~Town of Vail corres- pondence to Eagle County that the structures must be kept back so they "peek over the ridge." He stated that the Ridge owners did not mind the use of the upper access to the lot if the same restrictions concerning the height of the structure remained the same as recommended previously by the PEC. Post also wanted to have a restriction that there would be no parking in the cul de sac. Jim Flaum, president of the Ridge Town House Association, wanted to be sure the same access would not be given to lots 4 and 5. Dave Cole, owner of lot 2, stated that at first it appeared that his home would impact Burns', but found that Burns' view was over Cole's chimney. Cole felt that if Burns would have to access from below, it would be a tremendous infringement upon Burns' rights. Post reminded the board that this was a zone change request. Eskwith stated that since this was a request for a zone change, the PEC could place conditions upon its approval. He added that although the Town could not deprive the applicant the use of his property, the owner of that property was not entitled to the best use of the property as Dave Cole presented. Rapson was still concerned with the view corridor impact, Donavan was concerned about the narrowness of the road. Patten stated that this was a private drive and was totally contro7Ted by 6 owners, but that the fire access would need to be looked at. Edwards stated that he would like to see some sort of reasonable limitation of height because of the restrictions that had been placed on the Ridge units. Pierce had no problems with the request, but was concerned about lots 4 and 5 using the drive to reach their homes. Patten reminded him that the owners of lots 4 and 5 must come in to the PEC for a zone change. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council per the staff memo. The vote was 5~0 in favor. 5. Request for exterior alteration to the Vail 21 Building in order to remodel the entry of Gore Range Properties. Applicant: Gore Range Properties Kristan Pritz presented the request. John Wheeler, representing Gore Range • Properties, stated that he would like to have Duane Piper work out the detailing needed in protection of the glass. Pierce suggested other details where the glass met the paving, such as stone. t ~ PEC 12/12/83 ~- ~f~r~U ~ ~-; ~ ~"`~ L^ J ~ McCall stated that except during Christmas week, there was no parking problem. ,~~,aj.-. Patten reminded the commissioners that they were merely considering a rezoning, not the approval of the removal of parking. He added that there could not be `r any reduction of parking unless there were excess spaces available on site. • c ,( . ~`,_ Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the_.r-eques-t`_to recommend -rezoning `~y to the Town Council. The vote was 7-0 in~avor. -~ ~ ~ ~ ~? ~~ i~~~~ ~~r ~, e--- . 4. Request to rezone Lots 1 through 6; Cliffside Subd'vision from esidential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Appj_can~ts: Richard N. Brown, Charles Rosenquist, Margaret Rosenquist, David Cole and Daryl Burns. '•~ Peter Patten presented the proposal explaining that the staff felt that single family zoning was more appropriate for this subdivision but only with site restrictions. dingle Family zoning would allow more GRFA, and there would not be any slope restrictions. He showed a site plan and explained that the road from lot 4 to lot 5 was a 16% grade (the Town allows 8%}, and he stressed the concern that there not be any building along the ridge line. George Rosenberg, representing the applicants, read the staff's recommendation in the December 1981 memo, and added that no restrictions were placed at that time. He pointed out that the adjacent owners knew development could take place on the subject property. He maintained that to rezone, an applicant did not need to bring in plans of how he might develop the property. Bill Post, representing the Ridge at Vail property owners stated that it was true that the staff originally recommended rezoning, but that at that time no • notice was given to adjacent property owners. He stated that his clients did not abject to the rezoning as long as 1) the lots would not be accessed from the top, and 2} as long as there was no building visible an the ridge line (since they themselves had not built on the ridgeline, as required by the Tawn. He stated that if the property is zoned Single Family they will have certain rights, and now was the time to place restrictions that were needed. He felt that besides the restriction that the staff had recommended, that of not having any structure, improvement or increase grade occuring at the ridge line, that the lots should not be allowed access from the top ( at least lots 3, 4, and 5). Craig Snowdon, architect for The Ridge, showed some studies that had been done to see what the impact would be if there were single story buildings constructed, including the build-up of the road to have access to Tots 4 and 5. Pierce agreed with the opposition, that if the rezoning were approved, that there be restrictions. Larry Eskwith added that there could be restrictions to protect adjacent property owners as long as they were reasonable. Morgan felt the restrictions should be specific. Viele concurred, adding that without the restrictions, this could be grossly unfair to the adjacent property owners. lie felt that to restrict access so that it came from below was entirely consistent. Donovan asked about the road to Lot 7, and was told that it must remain. Rapson stated that development on lot T would not intrude on the ridge line. Rapson moved to approve the request to rezone per the staff memo. The motion died for lack of a second, After more discussion, Trout moved and Donovan seconded to apRrove the rPq~~es~: with the staff condition and also the condition that lots 3, 4, and 5 be_ accessed from the .lower road. The vote was___5__in favor with Piper and Morgan abstaining. . _ .~ M~MORRNDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Lots 1-6, Cliffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster (RC) to Single Family Residential (SFR). Applicants: Richard Brawn, Charles and Margaret Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl Burns BACKGROUND As some of you know, this is not the first time this item has come up. In fact, this will be the third time the rezoning has come before the Planning and Environ- mental Commission. The only thing different this time around is that Lot 6 is now included, which means we're talking about the entire subdivision of six lots. Basically, the rezoning means Lots 1-5 receive the same number of units (1}, but slight]y more GRFA. Lot 6 would receive two less units (slope calculated on a very approximate basis) and less GRFA under the rezoning proposal. The main advantage to the property owners is the lifting of the slope restrictions by going from RC to SFR. • The bottom line is that Cliffside was a very poorly planned subdivision. The lots are, for the most part, very small and very steep, the accesses to several lots are unworkable, and construction on the top part of lots 4 and 5 will intrude upon the ridgeline. The applicants wish to rezone the subdivision to SFR without restriction, and this is where the controversy comes is. The Planning and Environ- mental Commission and staff, as you can see from the previous memos and minutes, wish to impose restrictions upon the deve]opment an Lots 3, 4 and 5. It is important that you read all of the attached information carefully so you're clear on the past occurrences. Since nothing has really changed in terms of the applicants demonstrating that construction can sensitively take place on lots 3, 4, and 5, our Staff position remains basically the same. CRITERIA EVALUATION The criteria fnr evaluating rezonings are found in the purpose section of Chapter 18.02 General Provisions. 1. Suitability of_Existinq Zoning The RC zone was devised far a townhouse-type development and was never intended to serve as the zone for individual Tot development. The reason RC was designated for Cliffside was the original zoning of West Vail upon annexation didn`t allow for thorough study of each parcel, and Cliffside was surrounded by RC zoning. The slope restrictions of the RC zone basically make several lots in Cliffside unbuildable--and this is not our intention, The existing zoning is not really suited to the property. t ~ ~ Cliffside -2- 12/8/83 2. Is the Rezoning Presenting a Convenient, Workable Relationship A~nonq ~,,-~ E.and ~SeS? _ The Cliffside Subdivision should be zoned the same, as it is a unified neighborhood. No surrounding properties will be injured by the rezoning due to proximity and similar Tand use in the area. 3. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly and Viable Community? The rezoning, with the condition recommended by staff, will provide for sensible and sensitive development of the remainder of the subdivision. The elimination of two units on Lot 6 is a plus for the community. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the rezoning of Cliffside Subdivision from RC to SFR, but only with the following condition: No structure, improvement or increase grade whall occur at a height greater than the existing elevation at any point an the back property line which is the common property line with the Ridge at Vail subdivision. • • i \\ll ~~ ~V r Q ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z~ k n 0 0 - o ~ C ~ ,,.~ . ~ ~~~ a~ ~~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ b ~ o a o ~~.~ o ~~x . ~. 1V ~ ` N ~ ~ ~ W ~ U ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ U~ ~ ~' ~ .~ s 1 . ~~l ,, ~ ~ .~s~d =; 5 T0: Planning acrd Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 5, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for revision to the Bonne Vue project on Lots Ai, A2, A3 Lionsridge Filing 2, and on Lot 6, Block 1, Lions ridge Filing 1 to redesign the housing units. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Company After the June 1]th Planning and Environmental Commission meeting at which the project was given its final approval, the appli-cant submitted a revision to the housing unit design. The staff feels that this revision affects the overall proposal in such a significant way that it now warrants review again by the PEC to determine if the 40% slope variance is still justified for the project. In the staff memo dated June 7, T984, it is stated that "The 40% slope variance request can be made under Section 78.69.060 which states that variances to the master hazard ordinance can be applied for under the usual rules and regulations. Moreover, Section 18.69.060 of the hazard ordinance states that the 'master hazard plans can be altered from time to time to conform with new information or existing conditions.' Thus, it was the intent of the ordinance that it not be a concrete document, that new technologies or changing conditions should be recognized as possible exceptions." A primary factor in the granting of the 40% slope variance was the minimal visual impact of the proposal. Indeed, the following statement made in the EIR on page B-1 addresses this: "The proposed units will be constructed directly into the hillside using the hillside itself as support and insulation. The design is Weil suited for difficult to develop hillsides through the use of proven soils engineering technology, Reinforced Earth, (described in detail in Appendix A.) This technology provides an architectural land form capable of stablizing site conditions and thereby allowing for flexibility in the site plan design." The staff indicated that they felt strongly that this variance would not be a special privilege. "This is a unique proposal for a site which is appropriate for applying the specific technology being proposed. Earth-sheltered housing is increasing in popularity, and other similar proposals would get the same consideration this one has received. Earth-sheltered affords some very significant energy-cost savings and often provides difficult-to-develop sites with a workable solution. If conventional housing were being proposed, the staff would most likely recommend denial." (Memo dated June 4, 1981.) The staff feels that the project now reflects more of a conventional housing concept than the earth-sheltered concept. The following changes have been made to the project (please see the corresponding drawings in the packet): Reinforced Earth -2- 7/5/84 Site Perspective (pages 1 and 2) Notes on changes: ° roofs are highly visible where they were "non-existant" before ° sides of the units are nova visible ° the design and visual appearance of the project na longer follows the contours of the site ° the proposed units are no longer "low profile units, blending into the hillside" and now have a much larger profile very similar to conventional housing Conceptual Site Plan (pages 3 and 4) Notes an changes: ° parking and clubhouse have been moved to the west; parking spaces remain the same ° pool and clubhouse design have been changed and reflect the design of the housing units. Unit Cross Section {pages 5 & 6) ° roofs are highly visible whereas before only a small portion of the fascia was visible ° the sides and the backs of the units' third level is exposed and is no longer earth sheltered Unit Elevations (p. 7 & 8) ° roofs are completely exposed to view ° "chimney terminations" are larger and impact views to a greater extent Sections A ~ B (p. 9 & 1Q) Notes on changes: ° exposed roof is very visible whereas: before the roof was entirely earth sheltered. ° back of the building is exposed, whereas before it was earth sheltered ° units are built into the existing grade using the reinforced earth technology__ however the roof form extends above the existing grade creating a strong visual impact . Due to these changes, the staff feels that the project should be reviewed once again by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Reinforced Earth -3- 7/5/84 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.52.060 of the Municipal Code, The Community Development Department recommends denial of the previously approved variance based upon the following factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Since the beginning of this project, visual and aesthetic considerations have been an important part of the overall project's design. In the Environmental Impact Report far Bonne Uue (on page 28 ), an entire section is devoted to visual and aesthetic considerations. The visual and aesthetic considerations section of the EIR begins by stating how the proposed development will be highly visible from many unobstructed views in the valley, by travelers on Interstate 70, and by skiers riding the Lionshead Gondola and skiing the lower slopes at Lianshead. The following quotation emphasizes why Bonne Vue will be designed to be low- profile units that do not destroy the views from other parts of the v~11ey: "After construction, the Bonne Vue homes are designed to be low-profile units, blending into the hillside, landscaped with a natural mountain setting, and intended to create a visually pleasant residential community. The profile of the units are designed to conform with existing land contours as much as possible, and, as previously stated, have been redesigned tv fit the topography even better than the previous design. Conventional housing units on a smaller slope would have a much larger profi7e...Bonne Vue will be visible to its immediate neighbors." Also, in the June 7, 7984 staff memo in Section VI, Special Development District Request, SDD Design Standards, the project was reviewed against the Building Type and Building Design criteria. Under the Building Type section, the memo states "The building type has been the greatest concern of the project, and the appropriateness of the buildings to the site is the major factor in the success of the development." Under the Building Design section, the memo states "The building design is most appropriate for the site. The orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture a17 blend into the hillside. Ali exterior walls will be of a color to match the earth tone of the site. Maximization of solar exposure is a key factor in the design of the units." The revised project will have much mare of an impact on surrounding structures in the vicinity. The roofs and ends of the buildings will be much more visible to people looking up at the hillside. The original reason for approving the 40% slope was not only because of the technology being used on the project, but also because the project was being built into the hillside creating a low profile and would not impact the views of the hillside. Because the design of the project has changed to such an extent in respect to the design of the housing units, the staff now feels that the project does have strong visual impacts on other structures in the vicinity. • Reinforced earth -4- 7/5/84 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 vicinit.v or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. in the June 7, 7984 memo, as well as in the June 4, 1981 memo, it was stated by staff that if the housing were more conventional, the 40% slope variance would not be approved. Because the project uses more of a conventional housing design that creates visual impacts, staff feels that the relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the 40%.slope regulation is no longer warranted. Due to the feeling that this is much more a conventional unit design, a major precedent could be set by allowing the project to be built on slopes of 40% and above. The fore Valley's floor is basically built out, but such hills_i_de___ _ ^ area is undeveloped. The community will face many challenges to open our hillsides to additional development. Opening the door to 40% slope variances will compound the efforts to keep our hillsides as open space. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. As mentioned in a previous memo June 4, 1981) the only relevant factor ir~.this section is public safety in terms of the hillside stability. The staff has stated previously that the technology seems to be workable far this hillside, and that the stability of the slope will not be a problem, RDCOMMEf~DATION Staff recommends denial of the 40% slope variance request for Bonne Vue. The housing units' proposed design would be appropriate on another site that did not require a 40% slope variance. However, given the fact that the project is located on a highly visible site having 40% slopes, the staff feels that the conventional housing design impacts the project in5uch a way that a 40% slope variance is no longer warranted. r~ MEMORANDUM U T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 7, 1984 SUBJECT: Request to rezone Lot 6, Block T, Lionsridge Filing 4 from Single Family to Residential Cluster and a request for Special Development District 14 for the above lot and Lots Al, A2 and A3; also a request for a minor subdivision in order to combine these 4 lots into one. Also, a request for a variance to the hazard regulations to allow buildings to be located on slopes of 40% and above for lots 6 and R3. This is a revision and expansion of the Architerra-at-Vail project approved in 1981 now to be called Bonne Vue. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Company I. BACKGROUND In June of 1981 the Reinforced Earth Company applied for and received a variance (from PEC.and Council} to Section 1$.fi9.04O {no building allowed on 40% sloe or more) of the Vail Municipal Code which granted approval to construct 13 earth-sheltered dwelling units upon Lots Al and A2, Lions- ridge Subdivision, Filing 1.. The applicants naw wish to revise the previous approval and expand the project. The purpose of this environmental impact report is to present new and updated information regarding expansion of the prevously approved development. This expansion consists of the addition of property adjacent to the development both on the east and west. The results of the expansion are the addition to the development of three (3} dwelling units and a clubhouse/recreational facility containing a manager's unit {applicant has agreed to standard employee unit restrictions}. This facility contains a lounge area, a ski storage and maintenance area, and, ::~ on the lower level a garage area which will help to facilitate service to the project. Adjacent to the recreational building, a swimming pool has been provided {see site plan in Exhibit 1}. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed dwelling units will be constructed directly into the hillside using the hillside itself far support and insulation {see Exhibits 2 and 3). The design is well suited for hillside development and incorporates the same proven soils engineering technology, Reinforced Earth, as did the previously approved Architerra Project. This technology, described in detail in Section V of the EIR provides an architectural land form capable of stablizing hillside conditions. The site plan for Bonne Vue is of units consists of groupings units together. There are two attached (see Exhibit 1}. The arrangement of attached dwellings of two and three unit types; a convex unit and a concave • Bonne Vue -2- fi/7/84 unit. The architectural design contained in the Appendix is typical of both unit types. One of the major changes in the design of the project since its initial approval in 1981 has been the architectural design of the units themselves. The units have been altered accordingly: A. Entrances--the entrances have been changed from the side to the front. Impact: The impact of these changes are: 1. Reduces the excessive sidewall 2. Incorporates structure more effectively into the hill. 3. Lends Itself to mare natural landscaping. B. Greenhouses--the greenhouses have been reduced to small glass enclosures located beneath the parapet. Impact: 1. Reduces visual impact of glass and glare 2. Reduces prob]ems that may be encountered with snow and ice. C. Onit Design-Mthe units have been designed to retain the curved fascia, but with a rectilinear interior design. Impact: 1. A continuous S-curved fascia that fits nicely into the landscape. 2. ~A smaller parapet that reduces the visual impact. ,3. Rectangular roams that are more functional and easier to construct. 4. Sloping sidewalls made with exposed aggregate that blends with ..`~ the natural color of the soil. 5. Outside stairs constructed with stones that blend with landscape. These unit design changes were reviewed by both the Planning and Environ- 3i1~~'~ mental Commission and the Design Review Board in 1982 and endorsed very highly. Construction of the units will take place by excavation of a hole into the hillside extending from the front of the unit to a point beyond the rear wa11 of the unit. The Reinforced Earth metal strips will be set on layers of compacted granular fill which will be placed in the excavation behind the wall. Six or eight structural, strips, in two rows of three or four strips, will support each concrete wall panel, which will be 4 or 6 feet in width and with height as required by the terrain. The Bonne Vue units will incorporate passive solar and earth-integrated concepts. These features will provide for efficient use of energy Bonne Vue -3- 6/7/84 and economical living far the residents. Other benefits to the resi- • dents include physical Isolation, privacy, noise reduction, greater open space and usable land, minimization of the effects of_weather and outside temperature, fire-proof construction, and long projected life. The site plan for the project has been greatly enhanced due to the additional properties acquired on the east and west of the site. The portion of the site which once contained all 13 dwelling units now has only 7 units situated upon it plus the recreational building. This has freed up much of the site for open space and landscaping and minimized much re-grading., of the site. Access to the development will be from Sandstone Drive, and a drive accessing the individual units will traverse the site to both the east and west boundaries. III. ZONIiVG INFORMATION The Bonne Vue site consists of Lots Al, A2, and A3 of Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 1 and Lot 6, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 4. Lots Al-3 are zoned Residential Cluster, and Lot 6 is zoned Single Family Residentia]. The proposal is to re-zone the property to a Special Development District with an underlying zone district of Residential Cluster. An analysis of the Residential Cluster zoning . information is contained in Table 1. TABLF 1 Total Area finder (RC) No. Units _ Lot Area 40% Slope GRFA Allowed Allowed A7, A2I 2.59 ac. 2.2T ac. 24,067 sq ft 13 A3 .944 ac .364 ac 3,964 sq ft 22 6 .727 ac .17 ac 1,848 sq ft 1 + 13 Totals: 29,879 sq ft 16 + l Notes: 1. Lots Al and A2 have been previously combined into one parcel and approved by P~'C. 2. Lot A3 is restricted to a maximum of 2 dwelling units by ordinance. 3. Lot 6, Block 1, Lionsridge 4 was zoned Single Family Residential plus the opportunity to add an employee long- term rental unit under Ordinance l3, 198i (see Exhibit 4). Bonne Vue -4- b/7/84 TABLE 1 Bonne Vue Development Total Number Dwelling Units: 16 Total GRFA: 29,879 Total Site Area: 4.26 acres Total Area Less than 40% Slope: 2.595 acres Total number enclosed parking spaces: 34 TV. 40% SLOPE VARTANCE The following is an excerpt from the June 4, 1981 staff memorandum to PEC regarding the previous request for a 40% slope variance: .:~~~' 401 Slope Variance This is the first request for relief to construct residential units on slopes of 40% or mare in the~Town. The applicant feels that the technology and construction techniques involved in the Architerra/ Reinforced Earth system specifically adapt themselves to very steep slopes and that the finished product actually improves the stabilization of the hillside. I will review this request first addressing the master hazard ordinance and secondly, with regard to the normal factors by which we review variance requests. This request can be made under Section 18.69.060 which states that variances to the master hazard ordinance can be applied for under the usual rules and regulations. Moreover, Section 18.69.060 of the hazard ordinance states that the 1 '~,~'master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to conform with '~~ ew information or existing conditions." Thus, it was the intent of 'f~.he ordinance that it not be a concrete document, that new technologies or changing conditions should be recognized as possible exceptions.' In the same section as the above quote, the ordinance states, 'The purpose of the master hazard plan is to identify and alleviate present and future problems created by the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the Tawn by means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to the understanding of the relationship between the hazards and improvements located within said areas.' • Bonne Vue -5- 6/7/84 yThis points to the potential problems of constructing improvements in 401 slope areas. 40% slope was chosen because the studies the ordinance was based upon generally concluded that that was the point at which potential environmental and site planning problems"occurred. However, these studies were not able to fully study how earth-sheltered housing and its associated technologies wou]d affect these steep slopes. 'The Environmental Impact Report (on Page B-7} for the project states that: 'The proposed units will be constructed directly into the hillside using the hillside itself for support and insulation. ,The design is well suited for difficult-to-develop hillsides through the use of a proven soils engineering technology, Reinforced Earth, (described in detail in Appendix A}. This technology provides an architectural landform capable of stabilizing hillside conditions and thereby allowing far flexibility in the site plan design.' The staff has na reasons to believe that the above c7 aim is not true. The track record is one of success for both Architerra and Reinforced Earth Company. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Community Development Department 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 project whauid not have any negative effects on other properties. _ During construction, the erosion and sedimentation controls proposed ..:~:~ in the EIR should be strictly followed sa that adjacent downhill properties are not adversely affected. 'The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com- patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. This, of course, is the crux of the issue. The staff feels strongly . that granting of this variance would not be a special privilege (refer . to the above discussion addressing the hazard ordinance). This is a unique proposal for a site which is appropriate for applying the specific technology being proposed. Earth-sheltered housing is increasing in popularity, and other similar proposals would get the same consideration this one has received. Earth-shelteredhousing affords some very sig- nificant energy-cost savings and often provides difficult-to-develop sites with a workable solution. If conventional housing were being proposed, the staff would mast likely recommend denial. Bonne Vue -b- 6J7J54 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution, of population, transportation__and traffic facilities, aublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. 'The only relevant factor here hillside stability. Again, we work on that hillside and that problem. 'RECOMMENDATION would be public safety in terms of the feel that the technology involved can stability of the slope will not be a ''The Community Development Department recommends approval of the 4O°/ slope variance request for Architerra at Vail. We feel very positively about the project and feel the developers are a competent group who can make this project work. The ever-changing technologies in the housing construction industry must be recognized. The long term energy problems of our country must be recognized; and we as a staff must be f]exible and open to new ideas. We back with enthusiasm this project." 1954 RECOMMENDATION ON SLOPE VARIANCE We don't feel that anything has changed with the new proposal in relation to the above statements. We recommend approval of the slope variance to be expanded to Lot b and Lot A-3. V. MINOR SUBDIVISION The staff feels that the minor subdivision approval meets the criteria outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations, and we ,~.: recommend approval of the minor subdivision request to make these 4 Tots ~~ into one. VI. SPEGIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRiGT REQUEST A. REASON FOR 5DD REQUEST • The applicants are requesting an SDD because there exists two different underlying zone di$trictson the properties involved {RG and 5FR). l'hey wish to have a uniform underlying zone of RC for the SDD to have consistent development standards and to avoid confusion over the zoning. B. DENSITY PROPOSAL. The density proposed is consistent with the existing allowable on these parcels. No increase in number of units is requested. The ORFA is actually being reduced by 2195 square feet over the total allowable, including the employee/caretaker unit. The SDD provides site planning flexibility and a detailed review and adoption of the development plan, appropriate for this specific proposal. Bonne Vue -7- 6/7/84 C. SDD DESIGN STANDARDS The following is an analysis of how the project meets the design stan- dards criteria (Section 18.40.080) for SDD proposals: i. Buffer Zone The project is basically consistent with the densities of adjacent projects and technically is not a high-density project located adjacent to low-density residential use districts. The topography of the site is such that actual dwelling units are significantly separated bath by distance and by a landscape buffer from the dwelling units across the road to the south. Open space areas are located to the east and north of the site. Single family lots are located to the west of the site and are not negatively impacted by the project due to the low density and a 70 foot setback which has been provided on the western property boundary. 2. Circulation 5,ystem The circulation system has been designed for the type of traffic expected to be generated by the site and the needs of emergency vehicles. 3. Open Space The plan has provided areas of open space for the purpose of landscaping, • preservation of views, snow storage areas, and recreational features. 4. Privacy The needs of individuals, families, and neighbors in terms of privacy have been met. _;~Y 5. Building Type The building type has been the greatest concern of the project, and the appropriateness of the buildings to the site is the major factor in the success of the development. fi. Building Design The building design is most appropriate for the site. The orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture all blend into the hillside. Ail exterior walls will be of a color to match the earth tone o.f the site. Maximizatan of solar exposure is a key factor in the design of the units. 7. Landscaping The landscaping of the total site has been designed to enhance the area and serves several purposes including visual screening C7 Bonne Vue -$- 67(84 of walls, wind breaks, erosion control,, revegetation, and visual enhancement of the area. The area now is currently scarred with various road cuts, and minimal vegetation other than sage exists. The final product will be maintained by a full time an-site manager and will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. d. DEVELOPMENT STANRARDS' 1. Lot Area The lots in the SDD and total acreage shall be as follows: Lots A-1, A-2, and A-3, Block A, Lionsridge Subdivision, according to the plat recorded in Book 215 at Page 648 in the office of the Eagle County Colorado, Clerk and Recorder (Clerk's Records), and Lot 6, Block 1; Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 4, according to the map recorded in the Clerk's Records. The total area of the four lots is 4.267& acres, more or less. 2. Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the development plan, except that there shall be a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Sandstone Drive. 3. Height Maximum height shall be 33 feet. 4. Density Control A maximum of 17 units shall be allowed. One of the 17 units shall -.;:. •~~~'~ be a manager's unit restricted to the regulations prescribed in Section 18.13.080(6) lO(a-d) of the Vail Municipal Zoning Code. No more than 30,QO0 square feet of GRFA shall be allowed. 5. Site Coverage and Landscaping Site coverage and landscaping shall be as indicated on the develop- ment plan. 6. Parking Each dwelling unit shall have an attached two-car garage, plus there shall be a minimum of nine surface spaces within the project as indicated on the development plan. No parking shall be located in a front setback area. Bonne Vue -9- 6/7/84 7. Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses a.. Permitted llses The following uses shall be permitted in the RC district: 1'} Single-family residential dwellings 2) Two-family residential dwellings 3) Multiple-family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings with no more than 4 units in any new building. b. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the RC district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: • 1) Public utility and public service uses 2) !~Pbbl~icf~bu~ildings, g~a!unds- a~rd(facl~it~ies 3) Public or private schools 4} ' Rbb7 i c pa`rk~and recreation foci 7 i ti es 5) Ski lifts and tows 6) Private clubs ~~~~ c. Accessort.Y Uses The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the RC district: 1} Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family, two-family or low-density multiple-family residential uses 2) Nome occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190 3) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof Bonne Vue -10- 6/7/84 VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the various requests for SDD 14. We were disappointed that the original project was not constructed, as we believe it to be a beneficial development to the Town. There is a certain amount of faith in the proposed earth- sheltered housing technology involved with our support, but we feel that these applicants have demonstrated their ability to perform. Earth- sheltered housing is a technology and housing type which is suitable for our energy deficient future. It also blends in aesthetically very well with its surroundings and presents very minimal visual hillside impact once it and the landscaping are completed. We sincerely hope the project will more forward to construction from this point. Conditions of approval: 1. The Environmental Impact Report for Bonne Vue by Berridge Associates, Inc. dated May 4, 1984 shall be ,followed throughout the course of the project. 2. Rockfall mitigation as recommended in Woodward-Clyde Consultants' letter to Ronald A. Todd dated May 9, 1980 (Exhibit 5) be completed {certification of completion as per the letter to be received by the Community Development Department) before a building permit is issued for the project. 3, Sections 18.40.040(C)(C)(E) of the SDD Chapter of the Vail Zoning Code regarding following the development, amendments to the development plan and Design Review Board review shall apply to the project. 4. Section 15.40.100 (A}{B} of the SDD Chapter of the Tawn of Vail Zoning Cade shall apply regarding time requirements for construction of the SDD. .{s l ~)`^` , ~ y r ; ~" ~~~ 19 }}5 s ~ `~ L N ~°~ i~~ ~ ~~ ~. m ~ ~ m~ ~4 i ii °~ i t ~ C '` ~? h .;~~ } ~I• 1 o ~ ~,§~R~f ~~ p °z 7~ ~ -cc ~g 'Lnq m = C fir ~ u,+A ! .r ~ ~~T~~ ~N ~~~~ ~ °' $~,~ o~ $ ~ n z s~ ~s c y ~ b q, e- a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ f J ~~ 1 ~4 ~,~ sf r 1 ,! ~XHI._. B~ 1. o ~ ...~* r r t! ~ ~ -tr ' :1 , ~ , _ r i. ~f' ~i tf fl ~'_ ~! Q t FY r h~ @, ~ S ~~ I(~ r r 1 1 ~~. ~i ~-- 3 ~r~. ,erg 4 4 k ;, rY, i ~ „j ~Y L. :S ~~~ ~" ~ '4~~ r 3' ~~ fi~ ~ ~` 1r ~~ ~` -~1yyr t ~~ , C p ~ { [~~ ~ S. L'9 V ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~1 3 ~~ o, c~ ~~ ` L t ~xHi~.-=-- ~' • f` 5„ i .. "~:~`, . . ; r- - .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c . Fx~zszT ~. .. ' s .~ S"L.i . • JI: '' ~ ~j.. ~. ~J ~~1~•' S.Y. , ~ , •' •y • .~, 'r ~' rtl •. .n •. ~ ,r,•..,, . • ~ 1 • ,, 1, = 7` , ~,• ~, ~.. ~ y. • • F r cfy ~ 1 '1 . J ~ 1'~ ` ' 1 ' ! . yr ~ . r i 4• li i ~t ~,~'' 1. ___ _t - .. ~ ~ ~~1~+'Tu~.'x ~:1 _~~ ~,, .-~~.: '.Is ~ ~Y 1 U • i i 1~ i4t'~1_ ,~1 ii ~r; f.. ~~ .~~ ..~k: , '~.~ '•' -, ;w; ~,. '~ ' .~ ~ A ~. ,'f.'vi ~ 1 .~ t~`• ~. * l~ . i .~ 1 ip. '" f ~' `a ~ti r 1 • ,a •'~~~ -z . .•_e1.''~~`~`(( ~~: ~Y•-'~r r tel. , ~ + .'.'. :~• . ~~ , .,r ,,r.. ~, , ,^r J ~"': i~:: t ~• r : ~ '~~' a •~r'. :y : '.) .~~ep', :: r.l'.'~i.i• ~~ ••tt: ~ ~ ~ 1~~~ • ,~44\\ ~, t~'~{.f_C~t'~4i ~i•w'!a . •. • r N ~ •'~ra .- :~ .~',~.:. :.L- , YT'yr•' r.:{;J- • . ST..~'' `.``. `=~`° !~i.~i~. .3;~,~, i ,.~.G,'. .,1'r. ,~.1 •~-.r .~~~- - .. ~ - ~ EXHIBIT 4 ,. _ - . ~ '. . - ,~ ~ _ ~ (4) Vail zntcrrnc~unt~.in S~vim and Tennis Club. {5) }3riar Patch, Lots G-2, G-5 and G-6 Lionsridge Subdivision Fil~:ng Na. 2. (G} Casa Del Sol Condominiums. .. ~_ • Far any zoning purpose'be~yond the Eagle County Commissioners' appro~rals, agreements ar actions, the developments and parcels of property specified in this subsection {e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster {RC}. a f. Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing IGo. 4, sha1J- Ue subject to the terms of this ordinance. Far any zoning purpose bayond the Eagle County Commissioners' appro~~al, a;rt?ernent or action, this parcel of property shall be zoned Single Family Zone Distract (SFR) with a. speca.al pro-- vision that an employee unit (as defin~:d and restricted in Section 18.3.t of the 'frail riuna.cipal Code) will be'sul~ject to appro~=a1s as per Section 1$.13.080. The secondary unit may nat exceed one third of the total G?•o: s 1:tESidential Floor urea (Gx;-~'A) a1lo~:,ed an the lot as pea' the :~: Sa.ngle Far:~ily Zane Distra-ct Densit~T Central (Section 18.10.000 of the ~ . Vail Municipal Code} and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS}. g. Lot G-4, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, has been the subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Court order has been issued regarding the development of th~.s proportsr. The To~,vn laws further appro~:ed I~esolutian r5 of 1r ~, in regard to a subse-- q~rent agreement with i:he a~~ner. The Res~.dcntia.l Cluster (RC} Zane ll:istrict S~~ill be the ~.pp1 icable zone on this 1-Frope~'ty to guide the future development of the parcel, «~orkina ~~ithin the bounds set by the Court Order and P-.esolution Itio. 5, Series of 1981. ~, - :'; ~' v ' 2909 Ih'esI 7If~ Aven,i~ ' ~ P O box -7036 Den~.er Cniocacto 8020.7 303-573-;882 ~~~ ~~1 May 9, 1980 ~;~,~~ Mr. Ronald A. Architect P.O. Box 1753 Vail, Colorado Tadd 81657 S. . EXHIBIT 5 ~~AY 1 ~ i380 . Re: Engineering Geologic Consultation, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 4, Vail, Colorado. .lob No. 20004-19570 ' Dear Mr. Todd: This letter report will confirm engineering geologic opinions given to you by the undersigned during the course of his geo- logic reconnaissance of Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 4, on Friday, May 2, 1980. Our objective was to evaluate the risk of rockfalls from ledges cropping out across the property and to recommend a means to reduce that risk, if appropriate. Filing No. 4, situated within the SW l/4 SE 1/4, Section 1, T. 5 S., R. 81 W., occupies a sector af.the.northern slope of the Gore Creek Valley between Red Sandstone Creek Valley on the east and Buffer Creek Valley on the west. Ground '". elevation ranges from about $200 feet at the southeastern -- - - corner of the filing to about 9080 feet at the northwestern - corner of the filing. We understand you propose to construct - - single-family residential units within the southeastern third - of this 43-acre parcel. - Geologic conditions across this sector of the northern slope of the Gore Creek Valley are relatively simple. Sedimentary •• rock strata of the Minturn Formation, mainly interbedded sand- ~,,-~'~:~,;~,~•` stones and shales, but including a few limestone units as ~ . well, constitutes bedrock but, for the most part, the strata ~- - _-- are blanketed by morainal soils across the lower quarter of ... the filing, and by slopewash sails across the upper .three - quarters of the filing. Within this filing the bedrock strata C~. ..:~~~ :~ c-~,~,n,x~r; ~,~ . . 01;;:.5 ire G?gK-c G~n~i:,;,s - ~ +~' .. ' ~. _ . ~.- ~ ... =;~.. - . b, Ir"~oodv~rard•Cl~cf o Con$ultan'!w Mr. Ronald A. Todd May 9, 1980 rage 2 r strike north-northeastward and dip about 30 .degrees west-- northwestward thus into, rather than out of, the hillside. Within the filing the hillside slopes generally from north- westward to southeastward at about 1/2:1 to 2:1, although ; variations from that range locally are common. The bedrock strata crop out as one continuous band forming a 5 to~ 15--foot-high cliff approxiz~ately paralleling elevation contour 8950 feet, and as several discontinuous bands forming cliffs 5 to 10 feet high between Elevations 8700 feet and 8470 feet. Far the most part, that rock i~ well cemented, widely jointed sandstones ranging from thick bedded to thin or flaggy~bedded, but locally these sandstones include thin beds of dark gray microcrystalline limestone that is moderately hard but very strong. With rare exception, the rock of these various ].edge-forming rock units appear to be well knit together and have not been appreciably effected by erosional processes that in other areas have resulted in detachment of blocks from similar ledges. We conclude from the evidence we observed that the risk of rockfalls from these ledges, with certain exceptions, is low. We would judge it, moreover, to be.considerably lower than in many other sectors of the Gore Creek Valley. The exceptions to that evaluation are few but are prominent. Four blocks of limestone are loosely perched on the sandstone ledge near the top and at the western boundary of the filing. These blocks are 18 to 24 inches on a side and appear to be balanced precariously, Two of those blocks lie west of your boundary in the neighboring tract, but if they should fa13 they could travel southeastward into your filing. Three other cubical blocks of rock lie loosely on the ground surface to - the west and east of a rock outcrop in Lot 9, and a large slab of rock is balanced precariously on a rock knob near the western boundary of the filing in the vicinity of ~ .~~~ Elevation 8704 feet. Several other loose rock blocks were noted during the course of our reconnaissance but we detached those and let them roll down the hillside where they no longer constitute a rockfall hazard. We would suggest that you follow that practice with the rest of the loose blocks noted above. Once those are removed, the risk of rockfalls should remain low for many years. toe would be happy to help you with that work if you desire. ~' • ' Y • • ~P4!©od~;r2arc~•C[ycle Co~s~ftar~ts ~. i~Sr. Ronald A. Todd i~ay 9, 19 8 0 Page 3 In summary, we believe that the risk of rockfalls across Filing Igo. 4 is generally low but could be improved by the removal o£ S to 10 small blocti.s of rock that appear to be• loosely perched on the hillside. Those constitute a higher level of rockfall hazard but risk int-~erent to those individual . blocks could be eliminated by pushing those blacks from their present sites and allowing them to roll down the hill to a natural resting place. Otherwise, the rock forming the several ledges and cliffs across the filing appears to be stable. You also asked that we comment on the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed 300--foot-long eastern extension of yo~zr project access roads. This road would require a cut no more than 10 feet hiah for a few tens of feet. The logs of test pits excavated in the vicinity by Chen and Associates • earlier this year, and our own observations, indicate that soils, mainly silts and sands, mantling bedrock should be less than l5 feet thick along the access road extension. Those soils should create no unusual cut slope or road founda- tion problems. ;,ar your initial designs, we suggest that you {1) plan for 1:1 cut slopes in the soil; {2) plan for drainage ditches at the taps of slopes to catch water and to route it around the slopes, and plan to revegetate those slopes . immediately, and {3) plan for 1/4:1 slopes in the rock, Revegetatian not only should minimize the visual impact of the road cut, but also should improve cut-bank stability. The road base coarse and surface could be designed to accommodate subsoil conditions evident at the time the work is done. Sti'e have appreciated the opportunity to work with you an this ~~ project. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss any aspects of our report, please feel free to call. Yours truly, ~;f ~% J.f'.i~ s~~ ~. 'r l/ ~~. Robt. dames Irish Senior Associate and Chief, Geology Division R~Tr:Ifc {3 copies sent} ._. iewe by ~' ~ Frank Holliday Vice F esident ' ~' kiEMOltlW DUM 'T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRQi~: Department of Gammunity Development/Peter Patten RE: Variance requested to build residences in 40% slope areas in a Residential Cluster Zane District and review of the Environmental. linpact Report for Architerra at Vail. on lots A-1 and Awl, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 1. DATE: June 4, 1981 - AACKGROUND Arclzitexra at Vail and the Reinforced Earth Company wish to construct a l:a unit earth-sheltered housing project on lots A1, A2 in the }~ionsridge Subdi- vision, Filing 1, above the existing Lionsmane project. 'The description ofr the original proposal is contained in detail in the Environmental lrnpact Report. However, you should note that the tramway, water system and parking structure have all been dropped and the proposal now includes a one-way road looping the project and two--car garages for each unlit. The proposal is a unique one in that it represents Architerra.'s First residen- tiZl project in the UAited States. A 47 unit project in Nice, France was constructed on a steep slope and has proven to be a success. The construction technol,oay and housing design is purposely directed at being cairpatibie with steeply sloping sites. PREVIOUS PEC RRVIE~d 'The P)/C saw a presentation by the Architerra, Reinforced Earth Company group on April 27, 1981. Generally, the PEC had a positive attitude toward the proposal. and the concept with the following comments and concerns: 1. 4Vhy so much o£ the house was not underground? 2. Concern over the timing and amount of landscaping with mention of escrowing funds. 3. Concern about the ability of the situ to 3~andle the road construction in regard to the initial access from Sandstone Drive arzd the cuts and rills recluircd to make the road work. A request was made by P]JC l:o see a detailed grading plan along with profiles and sections of the road. A. A perspective t,~as requested showing t3ie appcaxance of the praject from the Frontage Road. ~r Architorra -2- Juzlc ~k, 1981 ENVIR4NMiiNTATa IMPACT REPORT REVIEW The Staff required an environmental impact report stressing hydrologic, geologic, biotic and visual conditions as they relate to the earth-sheltered housing construction. This has been submitted and the PEC received capies previous to the April 27 meeting. Although the site plan and proposed facilities have significantly changed since the ETR was prepared, the main points covered in the report remain antact. The Staff recommends approval of the EIR far Architerra at Vail with the condition that the fallowing further information be submitted, reviewed and approved by either Staff or I)RB (Whichever is the appropriate approval level): 1. The report spea3cs of pedestrian walkways throughout the project, but Staff has not received a site plazl, at the time of this writing, which shows the walkways, 2. A potential problem exists with shallow subsurface drainage, especially during construction. How will this be mitigated? 3. Retainage of as many trees as possible should be an objective. The EIR states all trees will be removed. 4. Timing of revegation was not addressed in the EIR. 5. The pond near Sandstone i7rive, part of the original proposal, has been __ removed. The E~IR stresses this is a major sourco of sediment control during construction. What is the alternative plan now? 6. Visual conditions with respect to the retaining walls for the road system should be carefully reviewed. 40 PERCEN'T' S1APE~ VARIANCE This is t€le first request for relief to construct residential units on slopes of 400 or more in the Town. The applicant feels that the tech-- ;lology azzd construction techniques involved in the Architcrra/Keinforced Earth system specifically adapt themselves to very steep slopes a.nd that the finished product actually improves the stabilization of the ilillside. 1 will review this request first addressing the plaster TIazard Ordinance and secondly, laitll regard to the normal factors by z~}licll tic review variance x•equcsts. This x•equest can be made under Section 18.G9.0G0 which states that variances to the Tirzster I-Iazard Ordinance can be applied for under the usual variance rules and regulations. 1<9oreovel', Section 18.69.03D of the €€azard Ordinance suites that the "master hazard pl.ins ]nay be altcrecl from tame to time to conform with new information or exi.stang conditions." Thus, a.t was the intent of the ordinance that it not be: a cane=rote do~-unlellt, that new tcc1111olohies or changing conditions should be rGCagniz~~d as possible exceptions. • • •. Architerra -3- J 4, 1981 . In the same sectia3i as the above quote, the ordinance states, "The purpose o£ the master hazard plans is to identify and alleviate present and futuxe problems crcatcci icy the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the town by means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to tl~e understanding of the relation- ship between the hazards and improvements located within said areas." This points to the potential problems of constructing improvements ~.n 404 slope areas. 40% slope was chosen because the studies the ordinance was based upon generally concluded that that was the point at which potential environmental and site planning problems occurxed. However, these studies were not able to fu11y study how earth-sheltered }pausing and its associated technalogies would affect these steep slopes. The i;nvixonmental Impact Report (on Page )3-1}, for the project states that: "The proposed units will be constructed directly into t}te hillside using the hillside itself for support and insulation. The design is well-suited for difficult-ta-develop hillsides through the use of a proven soils engineering technology, Reinforced Earth, (described in detail in Appendix A). This technology provides an architectural landform capable of stabilizing hillside conditions and thereby allowing for flexibility in the site plan design." • The Staff has ro reasons to believe that the above claim is not txue. The track recoxd is one of success fax both Architerra and. Reinforced Earth Company. CRl'l'ER1~1 lWD F1VDINGS Upon review of Criteria and l;indings, Section 18.62.060 of A4unicipal Code, The Department of Community Development reeorruuends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration o£ Factors: "}'lie relationship of the requested variance to othex existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 7'he project should not have any negative effects on other properties. During construction, the erosion and sedimentation contxols proposed in t}ie EIR should be strictly follo,ved so that adj~.icent dotitiTnha.ll properties are not adversely affected. The degree to tivhich relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a sricc:i}`ied_~_c};ulation is necessary to acha.eve cam~ti.bility and iu1:i.Ca~•mit~ of :.re;itn~ent among s~it:es i.n the; vicinity or to attain the objectives o£ this ti.tlc without gr;~nt of special privilege. • This, of ~our.se, is the crux o£ the i.ssiEC. 'T},c Staffi feels strongly th,~t granting oC this vr3riancc would nit be a special ,~rivil.cge (refer to the al~ovc discussion rulclressin~; the }lizard Oi•dinancc) . 'Phis S.s a uniq-le ~~ral~ns.ll for a sate' titi~h:ich :i.s :il~}arapriate far tipl?lying the specific technology b~:irt;; ' ~ Arci~iterra -4- Ju~~ I, 1981 proposed. Earth sheltered housing is increasing in popularity, and other similar proposals would grt the same consideration this one has received. earth-sheltered housing affords some very significant energy-cost savings and often provides difficult-to-develop sites with a workable solution. zf conventional housing were being proposed, the Staff would most likely recommend denial. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facila.ties, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. ` The only relevant factor here would be public safety in terms of the hillside stability. Again, we feel that the technology involved can work on that hillside and that stability of the slope will not be a problem. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and environmental Gommission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will. not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent ~~rith the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the gxaiiting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improv~:- mcnts in the vicinity . That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3ZECOMMENDA'T lON The Community Development Department recommends approval of the 4Qo slope variance request for Architerra at Vail. 39e feel very positively about _._ the project and feel the developers are a competent group tube can make this project work. The ever-changing technologies :in the housing construction industry ~Fiust be recogni.zcd. Tlie long term energy problems of our country must be recognized, and we DES a staff must be flexible and open to new ideas. 31'e back with enthusiasm this project. • Planning and Environmental Commission July 23, 198 1:00 pm Site Visits 2:00 pm Work session on A & B Building at the site 2:45 pm Work session on Vail Athletic Club Hotel condominium conversion 3:00 pm Public hearing T. Approval of minutes of July 9, 1984 2. Request for revisions to the Banne Vue earth-sheltered housing project on Lots Al, A2, A3 Lionsridge Filing 2 and on Lot 6, Block 1, Lionsridge Filing 4 to redesign the housing units. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Company 3, Request fora setback variance and a concurrent density control variance in order to enclose an existing first floor deck area with glass on unit 12, Vail Rowhouses at 303 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Nelson King 4. Request for exterior alterations and for a conditional: use permit for . the Sitzmark Lodge in order to develop commerciial space south of the lodge and to put a new plaza with a swimming pool and rooftop garden above the commercial space. Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge 5. Request far exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in order to remodel the Sunbird Lodge bolding. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge • • Planning and Environmental Commission Juiy 2S, 1954 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gordon Pierce Pete r. Patten Duane Piper Tam Braun Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Will Trout Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele ABSENT Diana Donovan Scott Edwards The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:00 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of July 9, 19$4. The minutes were approved 3 to 0 with Piper and Viele abstaining. 2. Request far revisions to the Bonne Vue earth-sheltered housing project on Lots Al, A2, A3, Lionsridge Fioing 2 and on Lot 6, Block 1, Lions ridge Filing 4 to redesign the housing units. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Company Will Trout removed himself from the commission and sat in the audience. Kristan Pritz showed the submitted changes on elevations, site perspectives and cross sections. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, reviewed the presentation from the previous PEC meeting and added that the three levels were pretty much the same as before with the exception of the top roof. Now the roof was cedar shakes and the only overhang was on the sides. He stated that he felt that the concerns of the PEC had been met. Viele asked why the flat roof concept had been abandoned, and Jamar replied the reason had been economic considerations, that the first presentation would have been difficult to construct, and also they wished to get more volume into each unit. Jim Merkel, engineer for the project, stated that they felt units without the flat roof would sell better, but he felt that the new presentation still reflected earth integrated design. Piper asked to see the original drawings and a drawing to show comparison of reinforced earth on the first and last proposal. Jamar stated that the footprint was the same, Merkel showed drawings with red overlay of the original project. Rapson asked about the design of the planters, and Mark Ware, architect for the project, stated that they would be traditional planters. Rapson asked about maintenance, and Jamar replied maintenance free plants would be used native to the hillside. Piper asked how much lower the roof line would be without the planters, and Ware replied "3 feet.° Piper questioned the merit~of having the planters. Jamar answered that they were not opposed to eliminating them. Pierce agreed with Piper and added that if the plants in the planters were watered, they would look different from those on the hillside. He added that the overall coloration of the project would have a much greater impact. PEC -2- 7/23/84 Viele stated that he preferred the original proposal, and felt that this proposal . was not much different from conventional proposals. Ne felt that looked contrived. He suggested returning to the original propasaT or else using a single pitched roof with soda Vie1e felt that the planter would call attention to the project. Rapson added that he had stated concerns similar to Viele's at the last meeting. ,7amar felt that all the concerns were relative, pointing out that the board was comparing this proposal with the first design, when the board should remember what could be built on the sites. damar then stated that lots Al and A2 could hold 13 units, Lot 6 could have a 3500 square foot duplex, and A3 was allowed 2 units by ordinance regardless of the slope. He concluded that this site design was much better than developing the three parcels without an integrated design. He added that no one wanted to see a project that wasn't successful. Piper replied that the board understood, but were disappointed in the new proposal. Ware stated that the cost factor was not the only concern, but that earth covered roofs presented long term maintenance problems. He added that they also felt that more glazing would present a commercial appearance rather than residential. Pierce felt that the present proposal was an improvement over the proposal presented at the previous meeting. He added that from a distance, the only advantage of the sad roofing was in looking down on the project. Pierce felt that there would be no difference in appearance with the new proposal when driving down the street. He added that there was a much better chance fors successful marketing with the newer proposal. Patten reminded the board that the issue was also the one of the 40% slope M as well as the SDD. Pierce moved and Piper seconded to approve the revised housing design, the 40% slope variance, as well as the request to rezone Lot 6, Block 1, Liansridge Filing 4 from Single Family to Residential Cluster, request for Special Develop- meet District 14 for Lot 6 as well as for Lots Al, A2 and A3, and a request for a minor subdivision in order to combine these 4 lots into one. The vote was 3 in favor, Rapson against, and Trout abstaining. 3. Request for a GRFA variance and side setback variances for Unit 72 of the Vail Rowhouses to construct a glass enclosed addition. Applicant: Nelson King Peter Patten stated that the board had visited the site. He reminded the board that the planning staff was working toward a solution to the GRFA variance problem of no-impact type proposals. He asked the applicant to table this until the ordinance was passed. Nelson King, the applicant, stated that the owners wanted to gv ahead now, and added that the owners wished to revise their requests to increase the size of the enclosure. Craig Snowden, representing the Bridgewaters, neighbors of Unit i2, stated that the Bridgewaters were simply curious to know how the PEC would react to the King proposal, since the Bridgewaters had been asked to reduce the size of their request. King .asked to table to g/13. Rapson moved and Viele seconded to table to 8/13. Vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling. ' PEC -3- 7/23/84 4. Request for exterior alterations and for a conditional use permit for the Sitzmark Lodge in order to develop commercial space south of the lodge and . and to put a new plaza with a swimming pool and rooftop garden above the commercial space. Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge {Piper Teft the table to present this item.) Tom Braun explained the request as Piper showed elevations, site plans and sections. Braun discussed Concepts 24, 25, and 25 of the Urban Design Guide Plan with relation tv the Sitzmark proposal. He then explained how it complied with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village. Piper, architect for the project, stated that the staff had asked him to table this item because he had submitted a new entrance design which was different from that which had been reviewed by the staff. Piper showed photos with overlays that indicated where the addition would be located, and he described the changes to the entry. In answer to the statement in the staff memo concerning views down Gore Creek Drive, he felt that the Clock Tower and the Bell Tower already blocked the views. Bob Fritch, owner of the Sitmark Lodge, stated that the only view at present was the side of a mountain. Rapson would have liked to have seen the edge of the building moved back a~ the corner where the poor was, and indicated this on a drawing. Piper said that they had done some studies, and that moving back that much wouldn't change the results, and that they had already given up 300 square feet to break up the side of the building that included the shops. He added that they were also two feet from the property line, Trout suggested a more open railing, maybe changing to glass. Viele felt that this was a significant improvement to the street, but he was somewhat concerned about the view from Willow Bridge Road. He felt it might be better pulled back slightly. Pierce suggested the placement of trees. Piper asked to table to 8/13. Rapson moved and Trout seconded to table to 8/13. The vote was 4 in favor, none against with Piper abstaining. 5. Request for exterior alteration in Commercial Care II in order to remodel the Sunbird Lodge building. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge Tom Braun stated that he had gone over much of the memo at the site visit, but he explained the general proposal. He stated that the staff recommended tabling the item until there could be a work session. Trout explained that there were 5 areas of concern, and he described the areas. He stated that he wanted. same input to give to the owners. Rapson moved and Pierce seconded to table until 8/13. The vote was 3 in favor of tabling, with Trout abstaining. The board adjourned at 5:00 pm to a work session on the Sunbird. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July T9, 1984 SUBJECT: Work session on Vail Athletic Club Hotel lodge room conversion proposal Due to an error by the Community Development Department, this request did not get legally published for our meeting on Monday, July 23rd. To allow the applicant to get an initial reading from the Planning Commission on this proposal, we have scheduled a short work session to review the proposal to convert the existing accommodation units in the hotel to condominium ownership. As you recall, the entire building received approval last year for converting to condominiums, one of which was the hotel as a whole. This proposal simply wishes to break that condo- minium into further subdivision by allowing individual ownership of each accommoda- tion unit. The proposal would a1 so result in increasing the number of restricted dwelling units over what was previously approved. The employee housing agreement for the four small units an the top floor of the building has not been signed to date, and this will be a requirement before the public hearing on this which is scheduled for August 13th. The applicants have agreed to a1T the restrictions on owner use, etc., far the new accommodation unit condominiums. • • J MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for revision to the Bonne Vue project on Lots A1, AZ, A3, Liansridge Filing 2 and on Lot 6, Block 1, Liansridge Filing 4 to redesign the housing units. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Gampany At the previous Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on July 9th, the applicant decided to table the project and resubmit design drawings far the July 23rd meeting. The staff had recommended denial for the 40% slope variance. The recommendation was denied for two reasons: 1) First, the visual impact of the units would be significantly greater than the impact of the approved unit design, 2) Secondly, because the project reflected-more of a conventional housing design creating visual impacts, the staff felt that the relief from the strict interpreta- tion of the 40% slope regulation was no longer warranted. A primary factor of the granting of the 40% slope variance was the minimal visual impact of the proposal. It was felt that a precedent could be set by allowing the project to be built an slopes of 40% and above. In response to the Planning and Environmental Commission suggestions, the applicant has revised the design of the housing units. The following changes have been made to the design of the units (please see enclosed drawings): REVISIONS TO UNIT DESIGN 1. Change of roof materials from metal to cedar shakes 2. Modification and lowering of roof resulting in flat roof over the master bedroom and incorporation of planter into roof 3. Elimination of major portions of metal roof on the first and second levels. 4. Modification of floor plan due to revised design The fatal GRFA does not exceed the 30,000 square feet allowed. GRFA ALLOWED 30,000 sq ft total - 735 sq ft manager's unit 29,265 sq ft 1,829 sq ft allowed per unit T5 units proposed PROPOSED GRFA 30,000 sq ft total - 735 sq ft manager's unit 29,265 sq ft allowed 29,120 sq ft proposed 1,820 sq ft per unit 16 units proposed Reinforced Earth -2- 7/19/84 . INDIVIDUAL UNIT GRFA Lower level 720 sq ft Upper level 1,100 sq ft 1,$20 sq ft proposed Credits Given: McChdniCal 28 SQ ft Storage 183 sq ft Air Lock 40 sq ft 5. Elimination of large chimney termination It should be noted that the use of reinforced earth technology for the project is the same as at the June 11th Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The staff has received a letter from Reinforced Earth Company from James Merkle, research engineer, that states "The use of reinforced earth on the earth-integrated structures planned for the Bonne Vue project has not changed at all from the previously approved design." Please see the enclosed letter in your packet. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department based upon the following factors: Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Cade, recommends approval of the requested variance Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Visual and aesthetic considerations have always been an important part of the Bonne Vue project`s design. In the E.I.R. it was clearly stated that because this site is very visible, it was important that the units be designed to be law profile units blending into the hillside. In addition, when the project was approved as a special development district, it was reviewed against the SDD design standards. The proposal was reviewed favorably because the buildings were appropriate to the site and the orientation, spacing, materials, colors, and texture of the units blended into the ,hillside. Staff now feels that the revised unit design maintains the design considerations that allowed the project to be approved originally. The visual impact of the revised proposal is now almost as minimal as the first proposal. The applicant has made an effort to respond to the Planning and Environmental Commis- sion's concerns as well as staff concerns by changing the copper roof to a shake roof, adding the planters to the roof areas, decreasing the slope of the roof, and eliminating portions of the roof altogether. The unit design that was presented Reinforced Earth -3~- 7/l9/84 . on July 9 showed approximately 13 feet of roof area above grade. The revised proposal now show 9 feet of roof area above finished grade. A portion of the 9 foot area is also a roof top planter. As was stated in the previous memo dated July 5, the original reason for approving the 40% slope variance was not only because of the technology to be used on the project, but also because the project would be built into the hillside creating a low profile design with minimal negative impacts on the view of the hillside. The staff feels that the applicant has minimized the visual impact to such an extent that it no longer greatly impacts other uses and structures in 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 attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Granting of a 40% slope variance could set major precedents for construction on Vai1's hillsides. The Bonne Vue project was given approval because of the unique technology that was being used on the project. it should be emphasized that the use of reinforced earth technology has not changed at all from the original proposal approved on June 11, 1984. Because of the revised design of the unit and use of the reinforced technology for the entire project, staff feels that the relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the 40% slope regulation is warranted and no special privilege would result if approved. 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 staff has stated previously that the technology seems to be workable for this hillside, and that the stability of the slope wi11 not be a problem. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. . That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Reinforced Earth -4- 7/19/84 • 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 ar 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 Staff recommends approval of the revised housing unit design, 40% slope variance, as well as the previous requests far approval stated in the June 7, 79$4 mama that are required in order for the project to proceed to the Town Council. The applicant' has made a concerted effort to incorporate recommendations made by the PEC and planning staff Staff believes that the integrity of the project has been maintained with respect to visual impact and the use of innovative reinforced earth technology. It is felt that these two primary criteria for grating approvals far the project (visual impact and reinforced earth technology) have been adequately addressed by the applicant. The staff recommendation for approval includes the following issues: 1) request to rezone Lot 6> Block 1, Lionsridge Firing 4 from Single Family to Residential Cluster, 2} request for Special Development District i4 for the above lot and for Lots A1, A2 and A3, 3) request for a minor subdivision in order to combine these 4 lots into one, 4) request for a variance to the hazard regulations to allow buildings to be located on slopes of 40% and above for lots 6 and A3, and 5}request to revise the housing unit design. • • • • • -~,..,° ~ ~ a ~~ ~~~ ca.- I i • ~ ~ n ~ ~` ~- ~~ ~ • ~ ~t U ,~ w, ~ i I. ~ ~ cu ~' _ ; ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~ a ~~ t , S ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, -~~ ~ I ~ ,1j - ,~ °` y ,' ~. n i ;i :E r " ,~ ' ', - - ~'~,~~ a, J:- ~F ~d rs ~ } i { ~ 5i~, - ;~ ;x ^ ,.. k ~ - ~~ a ., I ;` ~~ ti ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~ c~s _ o~ ~}` © ~ ~~? '~ `~" ~I r V ~~~ ~a~ G~~ ~ ~'`}s J S. 1 ~7r E l l' l ~f ~, 71~. ~.v~ f O i~ ~ H ~~,c~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ./ • ~ ' rI © H Q ~ ~, L .~ L L `~, ~ ~ , LJ • • ~~,.. '~~„ ~ ~~ ~~-..~ f~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .~ -~~ .~ a ~~ ~.~ ~. ° ~ ~ u ~J 1 I ~' ~' '~ A ~. a7 '~ 4} 1~ ~,' _ T y ~ n f ~ sa _ .` .. _ '_ b~ ~ ~-; 1 '4 ice' `ar~ _ _, ~ 3•.~~_ ^ t •` _ r`~. T S 4 ~ ,1 ° .J ~ ., r ~~ ~. ti . •i .~f .• ~~ `' -~N-s µ'~ r ~ 1 l [_,', J ~ ~ ~ 1 .-- r 1n Y ~~ ' 31 +{ •'.~.( . 9 f~'L ~ :. y i ~ V~ ~.~ ~~~'1 T <~~~~ ) Y ~ ~ ~ R 7 ~ ~ ~'~'# o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.' ~ `-: I ;~~ • I .., r N C3~ rd Other Offices The Reinforee~# earth Con~ppny Atlanta, Georgia •ROSS1y11 Ceflt@C, 1700 iVO~th iN001'B StrBet, ArihlgtOp, Virglnitl 22209-1960 Boston, Massachusetts it Chicago, Illinois .. ~. Cincinnati, Ohio telephone: 703/527-343A Dallas/Ft, Worth, Texas Denver Colorado telex: sa3o7Q R~~ARTH Acrl~ , New Yark, New York Sacramento, California Seattle, Washington Reply to: ' July 13, 1984 Vail Planning Staff Vail, Colorado Dear Staff Members: • The use of Reinforced Earth® on the earth integrated structures planned for the Bonne Vue project has not changed at all from the previous approved design. Reinforced Earth will be used on both of the lower levels with reinforced concrete block or reinforced concrete on the top wall. This is the same design used on the previous design. ___ Sincerely, James A. Merkel, P. E. Research Engineer JAM:ec • ~~~f~ reinforceq earth Rernforced Eann" aid the Reinforced Earth logo are registeretl trademarks of The Reinforced Earth Company. Berridge Associates, Inc. Planning • Landscape Architecture MEMORANDUM TO: KRISTAN PRl ^WN OF VAIL FROM: PETER JAMA DATE: 7/17/84 RE: AMENDMENT TO ARCHITERRA/BONNUE VUE The fallowing section will revise the the VISUAL AN^ AESTHETIC CONS!©ERATION section of the Banne Vue EiR [pg. 26]. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS The location of Bonne Vue is on the sideslope of the Gnre Valley at elevations of 8,245 tv 8,349 rnsl. As such. the proposed development will be highly visible from many unobstructed views in the valley, by travelers nn U,S. Interstate 70, and by skiers riding the Linnshead Gondola and skiing the lower slopes at Lianshead. During construction, the site will be almost fully cleared, with excavation hales, soils piles, materials and equipment prevalent, creating a visually unpleasant sight. After construction, the Bonne Vue homes are designed to blend into the hillside, landscaped with a natural mountain setting, and intended to create a visually pleasant residential community. The units are designed to conform with existing land contours as much as possible, and have been designed to Fit the topography of the site. Conventional housing units on a similar slope would have a much larger profile. From a distance, the site is typical ^f Gore Valley side-slopes and presents no sensitive or critical scenic views. Hence. the proposed development does not block or intrude upon any such special views. Banne Vue will be visible to its immediate neighbors. However, no scenic views by nearby neighbors will be blacked or intruded upon from the south, east or west, due to the low profile. earth-integrated construction of the project. E=rorn the Bonne Vue residents' point of view, the design of the units will provide an excellent view of the valley, while providing visual privacy from Bonne Vue neighbors. • 245 Vallejo 51. San Francisco, California 94111 {415) 433-2357 P. O. Box 6364 Denver, Colorado 80206. (303) 863-1059 1000 50. Frontage Ftd. West, 5ui1e 100 Uail, Colorado 81657. (303) 476-0851 MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 18, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for GRFA variance and side setback variances for Unit l2 of the Vail Rowhouses to construct a glass enclosed addition. Applicant: Nelson King DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting variances to enable the construction of 76.5 (4,5'x17') square feet of additional floor area to Unit 12 of the Vail Rowhouses. The applicant feels the requested variances are justified due to the fact that it will result in substantial solar gain to the unit to enable him to more economically maintain the unit due to its second home nature. This variance request is very similar to the Bridgewater variance on the unit directly to the west. The Bridgewater request was granted March 72, 1984 by the Planning and Environmental Commission. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Cade, the Community Development Department 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, Rs mentioned above, this request is quite similar to the Bridgewater variance for unit l1 on the Vail Rowhouses. This request was granted this past winter by the Planning and Environmental Commission with some minor alterations to the proposal. The request basically presents no negative impacts upon adjacent properties. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff still feels at this time that the granting of this variance would be a special privilege due to the regulations still in place. As the PEC is aware, the staff is working toward a solution to the GRFA variance problem of no impact type proposals. We have established a time schedule for this important zoning code revision, but feel it would be premature to begin granting KTNG -2- 7/18/84 . approvals before such an amendment is approved. We would request that the applicant consider tabling the request until the amendment is in place the schedule currently would finalize the zoning amendment by late September). 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 proposal would most likely improve the accessibility to sun light in the dwelling unit by providing a greenhouse enclosure on the south elevation. There are no other effects upon the other factors in this criteria. FINDINGS • r~ ~ J 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 ar 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 titre. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that da 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 REGDMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department cannot support this request at this point in time. We feel it is prudent to postpone variance requests of this nature until we may adopt legislation to allow us to grant small GRFA variance requests. At this point in time, we feel the granting of this variance would be a special privilege due to existing regulations. };:`~:,; ;`, MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 1984 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration request to add approximately 3600 square feet of commercial space and a rooftop pool and plaza at the Sitzmark Lodge Applicant: Bob Fritch I. THE PROPOSAL Proposed is a one-floor commercial expansion in front of the Sitzmark Lodge. The commercial space would be built over an area now used for 7 surface parking spaces and would also necessitate the removal of 3 lodge rooms (see accompanying memo}. Atop the proposed addition would be a pool and plaza area. Modification to the entrance to the Sitzmark is also an element of this proposal. IT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE The Commercial Core T district is intended to provide sites and to maintain • the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core T district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public green- ways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. This proposal is in compliance with the purposes outlined for CCI. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VATL VILLAGE This proposal most directly impacts the Guide Plan's Sub-Area #25. Concepts #24 and #26 are also to be reviewed. Sub-area Concept #24 Service/Delivery/Trash zone (screened}. Potential for multi-use as a pocket park. The existing trash area is enclosed, and the delivery area is folly unobstrusive. Potential fora pocket park in this area is not great. 5itzmark -2- 7/19/84 Sub-Area Concept #25 Commercial Expansion--one story to provide active facade to pedestrian street, help reinforce connection of Gore Creek Drive to Willow Bridge Road. Proposed is indeed a 1 story commercial expansion as called out in this concept. The expansion is proposed to extend essentially out to the property line in two places creating a newly defined street edge along Gore Creek Drive. As stated in Concept 25, this proposal will hopefully strengthen the connection between Gore Creek Drive and Willow Badge Road. This would also reinforce the "pedestrian loop" toward Crossroads. Establishing the network of pedestrian "trails"iis a primary objective of the Urban Design Guide Plan for the Village Sub-Area Concept #26 Basement delivery corridor (foot}, to Gore Creek Plaza Building to be preserved, extended east when possible. This corridor will not be disturbed with the proposal. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are physical features of the Village. It i strate that this proposal substantially or that the proposal does otherwise not . hood. How this proposal relates to the R. Pedestrianization identified as the primary form-giving s the burden of the applicant to deman- complies with these considerations alter the character of the neighbor- 9 considerations is summarized below, Gore Creek Drive is a heavily used pedestrian corridor. As mentioned earlier, the Guide Plan encourages the development of an interconnected network of pedestrian ways. This proposal should strengthen the connection between Gore Greek Drive and Willow Bridge Road, thereby improving our existing pedestrian network. While Gore Creek Drive is also used as a delivery area and for vehicular entry into the Village, there should still be ample room left in the road to accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles. B. Vehicular Penetration The commercial space will result in an increase to service deliveries at the Sitzmark. However, this increase should not be significant when compared to the amount of deliveries that take place a71 along Gore Creek Drive. The elimination of the 7 surface parking spaces will, however, reduce vehicular penetration into the Village considerably. Overall, this proposal should have a positive impact 6y reducing the amount of vehicles in the Village. • Sitzmark -3- 7/19/84 • C. Streetscape Framework The existing planter on the east end of the Sitzmark will remain. Additional planter boxes are planned for the building's facia along Gore Creek Drive. A small pocket of open space will be created on the west end of the commercial expansion. However, this area is proposed to be enclosed with a cantilevered roof farm. Pavers used in front of the addition will extend at least to the front property line. The infill of a commercial store front will improve the "walking experience" and give continuity to the pedestrian way. This is a dramatic improvement aver the area as it is now. D. Street Enclosure The existing situation at this site is not goad. Abroad expanse between the multi-story Lodge Promenade and the Sitzmark gives the pedestrian a sense of being unenclosed. This expansion will help to define the areas by creating amore comfortable enclosure for the pedestrian and bring street enclosure more in Tine with the desired 7/2 to 1 ratio. E. Street Edge This proposal is unique in that the store front facades are irregular with much variety (in the form of windows and entryways), while at the same time being tied together with a 3'-4' fascia across much of the addition. While the building "jogs" give visual interest to the facade, they do not provide enough space for functional activity pockets as mentioned by the Guide Plan. The cantilevered roof will also leave these pockets in the shade for much of the day. F. Building Height There is no issue with respect to the height of this proposal. While it will have a flat roof form, the design does not appear incompatible with the existing structure. G. Views The pedestrian is afforded a dramatic view of the Gore Range from Gore Creek Drive. While this view is not significantly impacted from Gore Creek Drive, there is an impact to the pedestrian walking up Willow Road onto Gore Creek Drive. The roof overhang projects out into the view that gradually emerges as one follows a path rounding the corner from Willow Bridge Road onto Gore Creek Drive. The more this roof line could be pulled back, the less the impact will be on this view. There is also a very pleasing short-range view as one follows this course. This view is one of the street edge down Gore Creek Drive, The curvilinear Sitzmark -4- 7/19/84 streetscape formed by bu~ld~ngsalong Gore Creek Drive serve to pull • the pedestrian further down the road just as outlined by the Guide Plan. The roof overhang would obstruct the pedestrians` initial view of this street edge as one rounds the corner onto Gore Creek Drive. D. Service and Delivery The proposal calls for the existing trash hauling to be remodeled with a slightly higher roof. No other plans are proposed relating to service and delivery. I. Sun/shade Located on the north side of the street, this proposal will not impact sun or shade along Gore Creek Drive. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A conditional use permit is required any time a lodge room is removed from CCI or CCII. This proposal will result in a loss of 3 lodge rooms, reducing the number of units in the Sitzmark to 31. See accompanying memo for our recommendation on the conditional use permit. • This proposal is in compliance with all other zoning considerations. One issue that will be addressed is that of parking. The applicant has agreed to pay into the parking fund for the net reduction of spaces on site. These numbers break down as follows: 3600 sq ft commercial addition = 12 additional spaces loss of 7 on-site spaces = 7 spaces 79 total reduction of required parking as a result of eliminating 3 lodge rooms - 2.1 spaces 16.9 or l7 additional spaces STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation of this request is for approval. We are excited that something will happen on this site that will be a positive addition to both the Sitzmark and the Village, while eliminating the existing parking in this area. There are twa issues that we feel merit some discussion by the PEC. These include the potential blockage of views by the roof overhang and the streetedge formrd by the building's facade. While we are generally supportive of the proposal,,~e feel imprdvements could be made in these areas that would result overall in an improved product for the community. 5itzmark -5~ 7/19/84 One condition of approval for the application is that the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when one is formed for this area and that the conditional use permit is approved. No construction (improvements) will be allowed in Town of Vail right-of-way. L~ • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 198 SUBJECT: Application far an exterior alteration and modification for the Sunbird Lodge to expand first level space onto an existing deck, develop a new vehiclular entryway, and change existing uses of space to add commercial space and to accommodate the proposed entryway. Applicant: United Resorts, Inc.- Sunbird Lodge at Vail BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The following is a brief summary of the proposal that has been submitted for your review. New Vehicular Entryway This element of the proposal involves reworking the existing enclosed parking area to accommodate a "turn-around loop" through the building for guest drop- off. As proposed, cars would enter the structure, drop off visitors, and complete the loop by circulating through Vail Associates' adjacent parking structure for the Gondola Building. A landscaped area around this entryway is also a part of this plan. Conversion of Space As proposed, additional commercial space will be added to the basement level of the building by relocating an existing recreation room and workshop area. Approxi- mately 2800 square feet of commercial space will be created by this proposal. An owners` spa, recreation room, and laundry area are proposed for an area now used as parking. Commercial space will be accessible by an internal arcade connecting the Lionshead Mall with the landscaped area on the south end of the property. Expansion of Building This addition would be to enclose a portion of the Cafe de Sol dining deck. The proposed use of this new space is for an owners' club. The addition is 720 square feet and there are no plans to replace the outdoor dining area that presently occupies this space. A portion of this expansion is located on Vail Associates' property. SIGNIFICANT ISS,LIES IN THE PROPOSAL There are presently a number of issues the staff feels must be res'o1ved before this proposal is reviewed by PEC. Most important is that the building addition and the vehicular turn-around are partially on Vail Associates' property. Some time ago it was indicated by the applicant that a previous agreement between the Sunbird Lodge and V.A. gave the Sunbird the right to encroach on V.A. property. While • Sunbi rd -2- 7/19/84 there is in fact an easement agreement between the two parties, after reviewing the agreement it is apparent that it does not allow the Sunbi rd the latitute to proceed with this plan as presented without U.A.'s approval. In addition to this, we do not have a valid property owner's signature from either the lodge or Vail Associates as required for this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Zt is inappropriate for the PEC to consider this item until the issues mentioned above can be resolved. For this reason, staff recommendation is to table this application. Staff considers this to be a very significant proposal with a potential for major impacts on Eionshead. In addition to the two outstanding issues mentioned above, there are a number of aspects pertaining to this proposal that are of concern to the staff. The most significant of these is the reduction of parking spaces from 58 to 10. This is a very key aspect, because of the existing 58 spaces, 47 are enclosed. These are essentially ideal parking spaces that are proposed to be removed. Other issues involve the removal of the loading dock, relationship to the l,ionshead ma71, compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, as well as some zoning considerations. Because of these existing loose ends, we would request that a work session be held prior to any formal review by the PEC. This work session could be scheduled after the applicant addresses the property line issue with V.A. and provides an owner`s signature for the application. • Planning and Environmental Commission •r-~ August 13, 1984 11:00 a.m. Site visits and work session on Vail Woods (Highland Park) 12:30 p.m. Public Hearing 1. Approval- of minutes of July 23 meeting. 2. Request for a setback variance and a concurrent density control variance in order to enclose an existing first floor deck area with glass on Unit 12, Vail Rowhouses at 303 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Robert Galvin 3. A request for side and front setback variances to construct a garage and to enclose an area underneath a deck on Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Richard Heller ~• Request for exterior alterations and for a conditional use permit far the Sitzmark Lodge in order to develop commercial space south of the lodge and to put a new plaza with a swimming pool and rooftop garden above the commercial space. Rpp1icant: Sitzmark Lodge 5. Request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in order to remodel the Sunbird Lodge building. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge 6. A request to amend Ordinance 30, Series of 1977 to increase the number of units allowed to be constructed at 770 Potato Patch Drive, from 30 plus an employee unit to 36 plus an employee unit, located on Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Ed A.Smith 7. A request for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I far the Hill Building on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village lst Filing to add second floor residential space. Applicant: Blanche G. Hill 8. A request for accommodation unit condominium converians for the Phase II addition of the Marriott Mark Resort at 715 West Lionshead Circle, Special Development District 7. Applicant: M-K Corporation 9. A request far accommodation unit condominium conversion of the Vail Athletic Club at 352 E. Meadow Drive. Applicant: 1•he Vail Club TO BE TABLED 10• A request for a minor subdivision in order to realign the lots lines of Lot 6, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing, which contains the Slifer Building. Applicants: Rodney E. Slifer and John McBride 11. A request for a front and side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 11, Block C, Vail dos Schone. Applicant: Travis Beckley 12. A request fora rear setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 3, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Richard DiT1ing Planning and Environmental Commission August 13, 1984 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donavan Peter Patten Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Gordon Pierce Tom Braun Duane Piper Larry Eskwith Jim Vie1e Betsy Rosa7ack ABSENT Scott Edwards The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Duane Piper, chairman. 7. Approval of minutes of July 23 meeting. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes as written. Vote was 5-0. 2. Request for a setback variance and a concurrent densit,~ control variance in order to enclose an existing first floor deck area with class on Unit 1,2,~Vai1 Rawhouse5. at 303 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Robert Galvin .~ Peter Patten reminded the board that this item had been tabled from the last meeting - because the applicant had changed his request by increasing the square footage of the proposed enclosure from 7b2 to 170 square feet. Patten stated that the staff suggested that the applicant wait until the Community Development Department staff, the Council and the PEC arrived at a new system to deal with these types of proposals. Nelson King, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant did not want to wait with the chance of missing the building season this year. Pierce suggested that the applicant do the deck above now, and apply when the new regulations were in p1 ace (taking a chance that he would get the variance then}. The members felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to grant the variance. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to deny the request per the staff recommendation. The vote was 5-0 to deny. 3. A request far side and franc setback variances to construct a garage and to enclose an area underneath a deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Richard Heller Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant wanted to build one single-car garage on the east side of the property and to add an addition to the existing house plus a solarium hallway and new decks and parking in front of the house in the existing right-of-way. This parking area was approved by the DR8 in September 1977 and would partly alleviate the problem of cars parking in the street (and Public Works feels this would also make it easier to plow the road). Pritz reviewed the rest of the memo. PEC 8/13/84 -2- Piper asked for an explanation of the final landscaping, and Richard Heller, the applicant, stated that on the street side there would be terraces with flowers and shrubs. Nelson King, who is the on the project, stated that he would work with the Town engineer. Piper felt that the current berm and landscaping was a nice buffer, and so it was important to know what the new landscaping would be. The height of the terraces was discussed and Patten read Sections 18.58.020 A & B. Nelson King repeated that it would also depend upon what the Town engineer required. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to approve the variance requests because the granting of the variances would not constitute a grant of special privilege, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and the variance was warranted because there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site of the variance that did not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The vote was 5-O in favor. Pierce forwarded to DRB the concern that there should be more accurate drawings, because he felt the scale of the buildings was not accurate. No. 4 on the agenda was to be considered last. 5. Request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core IT in order to remodel the Sunbird Lodge building. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge Tam Braun explained that the staff was recommending tabling until the applicant re-submit a complete application. He added that the applicant had left a phone • message that stated that if he did not get to the meeting, that a work session be schedul ed. Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to table this item until the applicant submitted an application with only one proposal for each area involved, The vote was 5-0 to tab? e . 6. A request to amend Ordinance 30, Series of 1977 to increase the number of units allowed to be constructed at 770 Potato Aatch Drive, from 30 pi us one employee unit to 36 plus one employee unit, located on Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch. Applicant: Ed A. Smith Kristan Pritz explained the request, and stated the applicant`s rationale for the requested 6 additional units. She presented project compar.isans between the approved original project and the proposed project including density, site coverage, height, setbacks, parking, site plans, landscaping, and architecture. Pritz then used variance criteria to analyze the proposal and listed other properties zoned by ordinances that limited the number of allowed units, adding that these properties could make similar requests to increase their number of allowed units if it could be justified by the site plan. Pritz stated that the staff recommended denial because to grant the request would set a precedent, because the revised site p1 an did not warrant the additional units, and it would be a grant of special privilege. PEC -3- 8/13/84 Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, showed a model of the original proposal. He reviewed the background of 770 Potato Patch and reminded the board that when 770 Potato Patch was annexed in 1970, T17 units could have been constructed. In 1977 this was down-zoned to a maximum of 30 units. He added that in the 1977 minutes, reference was made to the fact that this process was an "an-going one, designed to manage growth as opposed to controlling growth." Jamar felt that zoning covered more than just the number of units. he added that in 1977 the applicant saw fit to limit the number of units. The applicant did not have a problem because he intended to build large luxurious units. Jamar pointed out that Phase I was not that successful and it was felt that smaller units would market more successfully, and 37 total could be built within the allowable density and height restrictions. He pointed out that the reduction in GRFA proposed did lessen the mass, the site plan was definitely improved, as was the parking. He stated that the new proposal only added two bedrooms and that ~ more people were really not that significant. Jamar also pointed out that Cascade, the Marriott, and the Sonnenalp all had been awarded increased density. Jamar felt that the new site plan was a definite benefit to the neighbors. Buff Arnold, architect for the new phase, pointed out that there was less mass when the project was viewed as a whole. Ne felt that Phase II was less dense with mare meaningful open space, that even though the buildings were ]anger, in terms of scale were not that significantly different from those in the first phase, and in fact one building in the first phase was larger in mass. Piper read a letter in opposition from John Thomas. Gary Bossow adjacent property owner, and also representing Warter and Grasis, other adjacent property owners, read a letter of opposition in which he stated that they had all purchased their property on the basis of present day zoning, that mare density would reduce property values. Pierce felt that the color of Phase I made the project look larger than it wouid have to. He had a hard time relating to b additional units, but liked the new site plan and the reduction in GRFA. Viele stated that his company did extensive repair to Phase I, but had no financial interest in Phase II. Viele shared Cordon's views regarding the density increase, the appearance of Phase I, the improvement in the site p7 an, increased setbacks and improved parking, but felt generally favorable toward the proposal. Rapson liked the revised plan, especially the idea that some parking was accessible to the public, but wasn't sure it warranted 6 extra units. Donovan felt that the project had a much greater impact from a distance than from up close, that from below the new buildings wouldn`t show at ail, and she felt that the benefits out weighed the disadvantages. She pointed out that there were no requests for variances, less GRFA, less site coverage, an earth covered parking area, and that the project was responding to national economic changes the larger units had been for Mexico City residents who were no longer available}. Donavan was in favor of having a document filed that stated clearly that anyone who bought would be informed that they could not add additional GRFA. Eskwith pointed out that this type of document is easily challengeable in court and possibly would not stand a court test. PAC -4- 8/13/84 Piper stated that he was open to consideration of revisions. He reminded the board that they had made changes to Cascade Village that related to changes in economic conditions. He stated that density control consisted of several parts. The site plan was good as was the change in the location of the access. ~e felt that the condensed units proved themselves well on the site, but was more concerned (as was Rapson) with the massing of the 4 smaller units. Bossow repeated his concerns, and Piper responded that there was knowledge of this property and its potential use when Potato Patch was platted. Jamar stated that they had contacted several residents and had received favorable response. Mike Lauterbach said that he knew of at least 70 units at the Potato Patch Club that were for sale for $400,000 and up, and that it would be beneficial to have smaller units at 770. Jay Peterson stated that he had handled the original zoning, that the number of units was not a magic number. He added that Potato Patch had always been envisioned as for multi-family units as well as for Primary/Secondary zoning. Peterson said that originally they had stated that they would do 30 units, but the Town did not say that they could not build 3fi units. He added today's market was geared toward smaller units. Patten stated that the board needed to focus on the issues. This situation is not unlike others. Many other multi-family sites are partly finished, with others not yet started. Patten said that increasing density was a policy of major importance. Ne asked what was unique about this situation, and added that if the PEC and Town Council feel that changes should be made in the type of zoning system we currently have, the staff would like some direction. To grant more units,, one should look at traffic, utilities, what the area can hold to begin with, and then develop criteria for allowing more units, similar to the proposed Vail Vil]age Study. Jamar stated that if everyone agreed that this was a better plan, the board had the ability to amend the ordinance. Piper asked if the developer could use the revised site plan without the 6 extra units, and Jamar said that it was decided that this number would make a successful project. ponovan asked why the Vail Village Inn project was so different that everything had been changed. She added that in reality when the proposed Phase Ii was built, it would appear smaller than the original proposal Patten stated that this decision would apply to other sites, and if approved someone else would come in with a request to increase their density. Pierce stated that he wanted the project to be successful, and that the PEC should look at each project on its own merits. Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to recommend to the Town Council ao royal of ,the additional 6 units based upon the fact that there was a better site pan, less GRFA, • PFC -5- 8/13/$4 less site coverage, earth covered parking, no variances were requested, and the change in size.. of each unit was in response to national economic changes, with the request that a legaE document be filed so that buyers would know that any additional - GRFA would not be possible. {Eskwith stated that the document mentioned could be filed, but that rights of individuals to come in and request additional square footage could not be taken away.} The vote was ~ in favor with 1 (Piper) against. Piper felt the same improvements could have been achieved without increasing the number of units. 7. A request for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I for the Hill Building on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing to add second floor residential space. Applicant: 8ianche C. Nill Kristan Pritz presented the request explaining that it was in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district, and with the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. The staff recommendation was for approval with 4 engineering concerns to be resolved before a building permit would be issued. The issues include: 1. Drainage will be inside of building, 2. issuance of an improvement survey, 3. issuance of a revocable right-of-way permit for existing improvement in the right-of-way, and 4. the encroachment of roof overhangs must be resolved by an agreement letter of the adjacent property owner. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that an interior drain would be instaT.ied and he talked a little about the fact that the Town of Vail did not plow this area, but that VA and Hili Building owners did. Pierce suggested turning the roof 45°. Donovan didn't like losing the views, Piper pointed out that given the direction from the Council concerning these views, he had no problem with this concern. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to approve the request with the condition that all 4 items of concern listed by Pritz be addressed. The vote was 5-0 in favor,. 8. A request for accommodation unit condominium conversions for the Phase II addition of the Marriott Mark Resort at 715 West Lionshead Circle, Special Deveiopment District 7. Applicant: M-K Corporation Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, requested to table this item indefinitely. Rapson moved and Viele seconded to table to a date to be decided by staff,. The vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling. 9. A request for accommodation unit condominium conversion of the Vail Athletic Club at 352 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: The Vail Club Peter Patten explained that this condominiumization was to further divide the condo- minium conversion proposal approved last year by the PEC by converting each accommo- elation unit within the Vail Athletic Club Hotel into condominiums. He discussed 4 conditions of approval which included: 1. Finalizing and recording the employee P£C -6- $/13/84 ~• ~ housing restrictions related to the 4 units on the top floor of the hotel, 2) Final- izing and recording of the encroachment agreement regarding the underground parking structure onto Town of Vail right-of-way, 3) Appropriate language within the covenants addressing owners` use restrictions for the accommodation units and the 4 dwelling units proposed to be restricted, and 4) Completion, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, of all applicable building and fire code related items. After some discussion, Rapson moved and Vie7e seconded to approve the request per the staff memo with the 4 conditions of approval. The vote was 4 in favor with Pierce abstaining. l0. A request for a minor subdivision in order to realign the lot lines of Lot 6, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing, which contains the Slifer Building. Applicants: Rodney E. Slifer and John McBride (see motion for tabling following item 11.) 11. A request for a front and side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 11, Brock C, Vail dos Schone. Applicant: Travis Beckley Applicants for items 10 and 71 requested tabling to the next meeting. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to table items 10 and 11. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 12. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 3. Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Richard Dilling Peter Patten explained that the staff recommended denial of the request because it appeared that there were several other places on the lot where the garage could be constructed without getting a variance. Dick Dilling, the applicant, stated he feat any other place on the property would block an apartment below the main dwelling unit. He was asked why the garage needed to be so large, and answered that he wanted to put a work bench and snow blower in the garage. It was suggested that perhaps the garage could be designed to be wide rather than deep. Piper suggested that Dilling explore additional options, and Patten stated that the staff would be willing to work with him to find a solution. Dilling asked to table to the next meeting. Rapson moved and Vie1e seconded to table. The vote was 5-0. 4. Request for exterior alterations and for a conditional use permit for the Sitzmark Lodge in order to develop commercial space south of the lodge and to put a new plaza with a swimming pool and rooftop garden above the commercial space. Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge Tom Braun explained changes made to the proposal since the previous meeting. The overhang had been pulled back 3 to 4 feet, a planter added, and Piper, the architect for this project, showed photos indicating where the overhead and entrance canopy would project. Pierce wondered if the Town had plans to put planting a17 the way to Gorsuch, and Patten answered that this was not part of the present plan. Pierce pointed out that this side of the street was very hat and shade trees would help immensely. Bob Fritch, the applicant did not like the condition that he would promise not to remonstrate against an improvement district. After discussion, Pierce moved and Rapson seconded to approve the exterior alteration per the staff recommendation and that the applicant not remonstrate against a special improvement district if one is formed. The vote was 4 in favor with Piper abstaining, Pierce moved and Rapson seconded to approve the conditional use permit. The vote was 4 in favor with Piper abstaining. The muting adjourned at 5:30 pm. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRUM: Community Development Department DRTE: August 8, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for accommodation unit conversion to condominiums for the Vail Athletic Club Hotel. Applicant: Fitzhugh Scott, et al BACKGROUND The applicants wish to further subdivide the condominium conversion proposal approved last year by the PEC by converting each accommodation unit within the Vail Athletic Club Hotel into condominiums. The approval last year allowed the entire hotel to be treated as a single condominium within the overall subdivision of the various areas of the entire building. A work session was conducted on this item at our last meeting with no problems stated by the PEC with regard to the proposal. TWE REQUEST The request is to allow for condominium ownership of the 24 accommodation units in the Vail Athletic Club hotel as well as the restriction of 4 of the 7 dwelling units previously approved as unrestricted (by the Town of Vail) open market condomin- iums. The addition of restricting these dwelling units represents a positive impact upon the potential availability of short term rental units i~or the Town of Vail. The proposal also includes the agreement to complete building and fire code items required under those department' inspections of the building (many of these required items have already been done). Also involved is an agreement between the Town and the applicant regarding an encroachment of the underground parking structure into a right-of-way as well as the finalizing of the previously required employee housing agreement on the 4 units on the top floor of the facility. The application, of course, includes the appropriate restrictions upon the owner's use of all the restricted units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the accommodation unit conversion to condominiums for the Vail Athletic Club HvteT. We feel it is a benefit to receive restrictions on the 4 additional dwelling units previously approved to be be unrestricted. The following conditions of approval shall be complied with before the Town of Vail signs off on the condominium map: 1. Finalizing and recording the employee housing restrictions related to the 4 units on the top floor of the hotel. 2. Finalizing and recording of the encroachment agreement regarding the underground parking structure onto Tawn of Vail right-of-way. 3. Appropriate language within the covenants addressing owners' use restrictions for the accommodation units and the 4 dwelling units proposed to be restricted. 4. Completion, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, of all applicable building and fire code related items. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 7984 SUBJECT: Request for a 10 foot rear setback variance to allow the construction of a garage on Lot 3, Block i, Gore Creek Subdivision Applicant: Richard Dining DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a rear setback variance to allow him to construct a 30 foot by 24 foot garage on the rear of his property. He feels the variance is needed in order to locate the garage in the mast acceptable position on the lot so that the garage does not impact the existing house in terms of blocking the main entry way into the house and the views from the house (see attached site plan). The applicant wishes to go to within five feet of the property line which represents a 10 foot relief from the 15 foot setback requirement in the residential zone district. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As proposed, the garage would impact Tot 7 more than any other property. Lot 7 is owned by Richard and Nancy Caplan and no feedback has been received from them regarding the proposal. The residence on Lot 7 is located up the hill away from the common lot line. However, they have recently contacted the planning staff regarding the construction of a garage for their lot in the same vacinity as the Diliing proposal. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff does not feel a variance for the location of a garage on this lot is necessary. The lot is of substantial size (11,053 sq ft) with a modest two-story House existing on the property. We feel there is plenty of viable alternatives for the construction of a reasonable size garage (note the proposal is for a 30 foot deep garage) on this property. It appears to us that the . applicant has designed and placed the proposed garage in a manner convenient to him without regard to the 15 foot setback regulation. With this in mind, ~, "~OW41 OF V.~4k.. EAGt.E Cout`I~r, G~Lo>~AD7~. .~~L'4CK G - • .v ~= 213°47' ~9'~ i..~ 5Ca.89' ~~ 57 ° ~ ~ . 9.4y E 72.ap~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ t 1 4 79 ~o Ij•1' ~I 1 li p a 4.r ~:,. _ 1 L' ~ ~ ;V XIS ~~ ~ ~X6S r~lll r [~//~f~W~ ~ UO` ANA I _ ~• p~,,Q p_`glrJ /yy ,.~ V' ,~ ~ ~'"aM~ ~~D~ N ~,~.,•l~pG~Y~'~! C~.4~aP~. ~i ~ }y- 1i1 ~~hh d qoe~.~ ~g ~ (~ A ~ 2.2~ ~`a ~ ~ ~ rn 0 Z ~ ~ . l ~ Vti -7 tiff -[ z d' - ~ ~ Trp.osr~/ ~ ~ 573°o4'~S"W 142.00' . ~ tv'T' 7 ~ ~ \ .~ .. V~ I, L7ILLIA:[ E. AR:{FIf3LD, SEI:7G A REGLSTEAL•'S) LA:3D SUP.Vl;YDR L~ TIiF STATE OF CpLORABO, DO L[ERI;BY CEk:TIL~Y Ti1+1'I +l SURVEY 1JA5 itADC iiY FfE Ai7D U:7Dk;R PtY SUI'1:RVISIO:S pF' LOT ~, ISLOCI: I, GORE CREEL SU+3DIVISIO`.7, TO4d~I OF VAIL, COU:7TY dl' r+1GLF., STATi; OF' COLORABp, A;SB I'pU:7D TttE T[d0 STORY FILA:4P; i;UiLDI:IG TO BE LOCATIiB AS S[[pk7:7 0:7 THIS PLAT. Tiil: LOCA'i'IU'.7 A:ID F, ~L~, 1,y~ 2Q DI:[E:35Ip;d5 OF ALL i3U1 .DIiSGS, IiIPROVE:?[li:7TS, L•'A5G`IE,iTS AN1) EtIGiiTS OF WAY Iv EVLI)EaCI: OR 5::7OS723 TO :1E A:SD • =froL]1.ID PiN 15.5933 ENCROAC's1cEE:7T5 iSY Oit flN TkiL' i'RE:IISL•'S ARiS ACCURATELY a 5iip[J:1 TO Tkll LiEST OL' AfY K:fO[dG£DGis- A:7D 3L:LII:F. r ~,~',,~ tdIL~LI,tiI i.'' G~~~).I 1.. ti. ::O.4y14 J'~ ~k b~ ~4l~sv ~ J^~~~~ . ~uF C'~~''` ---- ..~....r M4, • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community lJ DATE: August,8~ Development Department 7 984 SUBJECT: Request for accommodation units conversion to condominiums for the Marriott Mark Resort Phase 2 addition. Applicant: M-K Corporation I. BACKGROUND The M-K Corporation, owner of Phase II addition of the Marriott Mark. which was constructed in 1981-82 wishes to condominiumize the accommodation units as well as some dwelling units located in this latest phase. The Phase II addition was approved with 67 accommodation units and 27 dwelling units ail to be under the short term rental program run by the hotel. At the applicant's request, the 1981 approval included more units with kitchens than ai]awed under the SDD because of the 25 year management agreement with the Marriott which assured 320 hotel rooms in the short-term rental market. In approving the amendment requested to the SDD7 in 1981, there were a number of conditions of approval which accompanied the PEC and Council endorsements of the project. There remain some issues with regard to these conditions of approval which will be dealt with in this condominium conversion request. Ii. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND OWNERS' USE RESTRICTIONS All the submittal requirements including Building and Fire Department inspections, addressing employee housing, agreement to owners' use restrictions as well as agreement to perform the needed Building and Fire Department corrections have been complied with. There is no time sharing proposal involved nor are proposed sale prices at this time due to the intent of the owner not to sell the units at the present time. The prior phases of the Marriott, Mark Resort have been condominiumized, and it was the intention -From the beginning that this last phase follow the same process. ITT. OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELEVANT TO THIS PROPOSAL A. Employee Housing The approval of the Phase 2 addition by the PEC and Town Council in 1981 required that an agreement be entered into with the applicant and the Town restricting the Fa11 Line apartment building to employee housing use for the Marriott Mark for an 8 year term. Such a formal agreement was never entered into and circumstances surrounding the Fall Line facility have changed in the last three years. The Marriott Mark no longer wishes to keep the Fa11 Line as its own employee housing and wishes to dispose of the facility as it relates to the hotel. Fa71 Line apartments are owned by the M-K Corporation (Kaiser Morcus), and he wishes to alter the condition of approval for employee housing so that the facility is not directly related to the Marriott Mark hotel. The proposal at this time is to simply enter into a written agreement with Mr. Morcus restricting the Fall Line apartments for employee housing as per our normal employee housing restriction agreement. This proposal is acceptable Marriott's Mark -2- 8/8/84 to the staff in that it retains the 54 dwelling units as long-term apart- ment rentals available to anyone in the community. B. Recreational Amenities Fee The recreational amenities fee for the Marriott Mark development has not been collected from the develper at this point in time so that a total accounting of the three building permits involved dating back to 1973} could be accomplished. An extensive investigation by the Finance Department has resulted in the conclusion that the recreational amenities fee due to the Town with the original permit was paid and the credit due to the applicant was given to him. Thus, the applicant still owes the Town of Vail a total of $75,x69.00, including credits due him for the 1978 and 1987 building permits. The payment of this sum will be required before the condomium conversion map is signed by the Town-of Vail. C. Gvmpletion of bandscaping and Bicycle Path Connection The 1981 approval of the Phase iI addition contained a condition requiring the applicant to construct a bicycle path which would connect the Marriot Mark development to the proposed Town of Vail bicycle path extension from Lionshead to ~Farest Road. Although this has not been done to date, • the staff and applicant have recently met on the site and agreed to a location for the bike path dispite it not being included in the final landscape plan approved by the Design Review Board. The staff has agreed to allow the construction of the bike path connection when the Town of Vail has completed our portion of the main path. The DRB approved landscape plan has been there are two specific areas where the p Two trees need to be planted directly to structure entrance and, more importantly, very south edge of the property needs to unsightly fill dirt. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION substantially completed;. however, ]an has not been complied with. the west of the new parking the south facing bank on the be seeded to cover the existing The Community Development Department recommends approval of the condominium conversion for the Phase II addition of the Marriott Mark Resort. We feel strongly, however, that the issues discussed above must be resolved as a condition of this approval. Moreover, we would like to see not only the 57 accommodation units restricted to the two week summer--two week winter owners' use, but the 27 units with kitchens approved in the 1981 proposal should be restricted as well. It is important to remember that the applicant made a special request to add more kitchens than the original SDD permitted, J Marriott's Mark -3- 8/8/84 . and the allowance of these extra dwelling units was conditioned upon the information that the Marriott had a management agreement with the M-K corpora- tion for 320 keys to the hotel for a period of 25 years. Thus, the assurance that all the rooms would be under short term rental use was a factor in allowing the extra kitchens. To now allow those roams with kitchens to be removed from the short term rental market of the community is not in keeping with the original reasons for approving the extra kitchens. Thus, we will require that the restrictions apply to the entire Phase II addition. Further conditions of approval are as follows: 1. That the sum of $15,069.00 be paid to the Town of Vail for the recreational amenities fee due before the zoning administrator signs the condominium map; 2. The applicant agree to finishing the landscaping as per the above descrip- tion and that the applicant agree to the construction of the bicycle path connection adjacent to the western tennis court fence when the TOV completes its segment of the path adjacent to the Mark's property. 3. That previous to the zoning administrator's silting the condominium map, a signed agreement be recorded between the Tawn of Vail and the applicant restricting the Fall dine Apartments Building to the standard employee housing restrictions contained in Section 18.13.080 {B) a-d of the Vail zoning code. 4. The applicant complete, to the Community Development Department's satisfaction, the required improvements by the Building and Fire Departments. ,- T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 1984 SUDdECT: Background on the Vail Woods major subdivision and amendment to SDD 17 request for the work session on August 13, 1984 Tt will be helpful for the Planning and Environmental Commission to have some background information regarding the history of planning efforts and approvals on this site. It is important that you read the enclosed Environmental Impact Statement and project submittal for the Vail Woods major subdivision request. Following is a brief history of the planning and development efforts which have gone into this troublesome site. 1. The property owner, Keith Pomeroy (I. K.S. Vail Associates, Inc.), approached the Town planning staff in mid-1980, previous to West Vail annexation, regarding a special development district proposal for lots 26 through 42, Highland Meadows Filing No. 1. The developer was interested in taking the 17 platted duplex lots and abandoning interior lot lines to create a 34 unit townhouse-type project. 2. The planning staff, in December 1980, conceptually endorsed developing the 17 lots as a unified development in an effort to arrive at a superior site plan for this sensitive and geologically fragile site. Much staff time was spent with our consultants and the applicants in arriving at a complete development plan for the proposed Special Development District 11. 3. PEC approved the development plan for SDD11 on May 26, 1981 with Town Council approvalg following in June. In July of 1981, both PEC and Council approved the road relocation and the final subdivision plat for 5DDi1. The project, as approved, is a 34 unit townhouse development consisting of 17 structures containing two units each. Road relocation, detached garages, extensive efforts to protect existing vegetation and minimize cuts and fill as well as responding to as great an extent as possible to geologic constraints where major components of the SDD development plan. These were improvements over developing the site as 77 individual duplex lots. 4. Despite Town of Vail approval abandoning all interior lot lines, the applicant recorded the subdivision plat in August 1981 abandoning only property lines associated with Phase I (12 units out of the 34 total} leaving the remaining 71 duplex lots as originally platted under Highland Meadows Filing 1. 5. Early 1982 a building permit was issued to Sun Tech Builders, then owners of Phase I of the SDD to construct the first 12 units of the project. The first phase construction then proceeded under Sun Tech. Vail Woods -2- 8/8/84 6. Sometime in ]ate 1982 or early 1983, Sun Tech Builders filed for bankruptcy and abandoned Phase I of the Highland Park project. Western Federal Savings purchased the property out of foreclosure and assigned Caicos Contractors the duty of finishing the i2 units, so that they would be saleable. The entire Town of Vail Community Development staff was then involved in working with Calton to rectify the many problems which had resulted from the Sun Tech's lack of responsibility in construction as well as new geotechnical information from the Claycomb study in 7982. 7. The Community Development Department required that further geotechnical information be provided to them before they would issue the temporary certifi- catesof occupancy for the 12 units which Calton successfully finished into quality units. LJ 8. In late 1982 the still-owner of the remaining lots, Keith Pomeroy, hired Dave Peel, local architect to begin to redesign the remaining li lots back to duplex lots for sale individually due to some type of financial difficulty with I.K.S. Vail Associates, Inc. The staff then informed the applicant to conduct further geotechnical studies on the remaining 11 lots to coincide with the further geotechnical information required for certificate of occupancy purposes on the existing Phase I. 9. The staff continued to work with David Peel and Kathy Warren throughout 1983 and early T984 in redesigning the remaining 11 lots of the SDD to individual duplex lots in relationship to~the additional geotechnical information which had been gathered in the past few years. 10. The applicants submitted the proposal now in front of the Planning and Environmental Commission. As you can see from the above history, this site has experienced many trials and tribulations of a project gone awry. While the present proposal represents a conceptual step backward with regard to the previous goal of developing the site under a unified plan by a single developer, we feel that the extensive geotechnical work which has been done on the site in the last several years {since original SDD approval) has been incorporated into the proposal and, thus, represents superior site planning responding to that information. While disappointed that the owner feels it a necessity to go back to individually developed duplex lots, we feel that the project can still be developed under an SDD umbrella using an Area A designation for the existing 12 units and an Area B designation addressing the uniqueness of the remaining portion of the site. The bottom line here is that this most environmentally sensitive site will receive the attention it deserves so that the eventual improvements on the property will be the best we can achieve. We will be conducting a work session on this proposal from 11:00 to 12:00 on Monday, August 13th on the site. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 23, 1984 SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration in CCI to remodel the A & D Building and a concurrent request for a conditional use permit in CCI to remove two dwelling units on the second floor of the A & D Bud ding. Applicant: R.T.S. Capital Services, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal is to conduct a major remodel on the A & D Building (Deli and Liquor Store ), at the corner of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. The applicants wish to increase commercial space in the building by creating a new restaurant on the first and second levels, Revisions to all the elevations of the building as well as the addition of a dwelling unit on a new third level of the building (replacing the two existing dwelling units} are included in the propasa7. Proposed is to "clean up" the Mi71 Creek side of the building and to create a first level dining terrace and activity pocket in this area. Facade improvements to the north side of the building along Gore Creek Drive with the addition of new commercial space on this elevation are included in the remodel • plan. On the Bridge Street side the proposal includes the addition of~2 new commercial spaces, One of these is a very small addition accessing directly from Bridge Street, while the other new commercial space fills an existing outdoor dining area between the A & D Building and the building containing Shades of Vail. Also, the proposal includes a small new office space on the second level which would have its own entrance off of Bridge Street. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OE COMMERCIAL CORE I The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. A & D Bldg -2- 8/23/84 The Community Development Department finds that the proposal is not in compliance with the purpose of the Commercial Core I district. We find that the plan does not meet the design considerations as outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan (as noted below). iII. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS OF THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AFFECTED (See attached plan) A. Sub-Area Concept Na. 6 Entry "gateway" to Village core. Road narrows to one lane exit to discourage counter-flow traffic. "Mill Creek bridge" image, is mechanism for narrowing--reinforces gateway sense, emphasizes creek, and provides pedestrian path separate from roadway (by bridge railings) to further tie Mill Creek Court into pedestrian loop. This concept of narrowing the street in this area as well as the separated pedestrian bridge over the creek has been discussed internally with the Town of Vail departments of Public Works and Fire as well as with the applicants. The Public Works and Fire Department are opposed to any narrowing of the Town of Vail right-of-way in the Village core area due to negative impacts upon snow storage and fire fighting capabilities. The separated pedestrian bridge is an excellent idea for reinforcing the concept that the MITI Creek Court commercial activity and the open space around MITI Creek should be a larger • part of the Vail Village shopping and pedestrian activity zone. However, with relationship to this proposal it is felt that that improvement would be one made under a general Vail Village special improvement district and not one specifically attached to the remade? of the A & D Building. B. Sub-Area Concept No. 15 Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increased facade transparency, entries simplified and oriented to intersection. Facade improvements are being proposed as called for in this sub- area concept. The addition of new retail activity in the northeast corner of the building with the reduced frontage of the rear estate office is a definite improvement in the overall scheme. As well, entry for the restaurant is now oriented toward the intersection with a tremendous amount of transparency taking place near this major Vail Village intersection. C. Sub-Area Concept No. T6 Key intersection in Village core. Feature area paving treatment. While the proposal does include new brick pavers on three sides of the building, the applicant will be required to participate in the improvement district creating future area paving treatment for the intersection. A & D Bldg -3-'8/23/84 V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Pedestrianization Pedestrianization should be greatly improved by this proposal on the east and north sides of the building. The creation of commercial activity on the east and north sides of the building the brick paving treatment to draw pedestrians down to this area will open up a new walking and activity area for the Vail Village pedestrian. However, the proposal could go further on the Bridge Street side to improve the existing pedestrian experience. The concept of pedestrian walkways adjacent to the commercial and retail first level activity separated from the main street by planters and other landscape features such as the remodels of the Casino Building and the Plaza Lodge have not been duplicated on the Bridge Street side of the proposal. The south end of the Bridge Street Frontage does attempt to invite the pedestrian onto the property by the retention of a part of the existing planter, however, the proposal forces the pedestrian back onto the right-of-way by the inclusion of stairways for the second level offices coming within one foot of the property line. Thus, in certain areas of the proposal pedestrianization will be improved. However, the Bridge Street proposal in relationship to pedestrianization does not ga as far as it should in improving the existing situation. B. Vehicle Penetration • The loading zones on the north and will have better definition patterns of vehicle penetration the situation remains basically side of the building will be retained over the existing situation. The into the core will not change and as existing. C. streetscape Framework The staff feels that this is where the proposal falls short of compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan calls for two general types of improvements adjacent to pedestrian walkways which are important to the Village. One of these improvements is infill commercial store fronts in certain areas where called for on the Guide Plan, while the other calls for open space and landscaping. One of the major objectives in the Urban Design Guide Plan is to create a streetscape framework wherein open nodes and plazas are part of the pedestrian experience along walkways. The existing outdoor dining area on the southwest corner of this property is an important and well utilized open space for Vail Village. We disagree with the applicant that this space is a cold unused and unimportant node in Vail Village. We feel the proposal violates the intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan to create a streetscape framework which includes the variety introduced by this outdoor dining area directly off of Bridge Street. • A & D Bldg -4- 8/23/84 Furthermore, the streetscape framework along Bridge Street is com- promised by the proposal by including excess stairways fronting onto Bridge Street to second level office spaces. The staff feels it is excessive and not in compliance with the creation of a desirable streetscape framework to have almost 1/3 of the Bridge Street frontage taken by stairways leading to 2nd floor uses. Proposed on the second level is a new restaurant whose stairway would be accessed internally and this makes sense. However, we do not feel that the new 480 square foot office space located to the far east of the second level requires its own individual stairway fronting on Bridge Street. The consolidation of accesses to second floor office spaces should be a part of this proposal in order to improve the streetscape framework and pedestrian experience along Bridge Street, An example of this is found in the Casino Building where one primary access serves three second floor offices. D. Street Enclosure The street enclosure proposed is approximately one half to one which is the desirable ratio as found in the Urban Design Guide plan. This desirable ratio is achieved by slightly increasing the existing street enclosure which is approximately one quarter to one. E. Street Edge The street edge on the building currently is an irregular one which conforms with the Urban Design Guide Plan's desire to place portions of the building near the right-of-way while pulling back others create activity pockets in an overall irregular edge. The proposal takes the existing situation and creates a street edge of considerable uniformity with the infill of the outdoor patio and the corner fronting on the intersection. The staff feels this is not positive for the street edge along Bridge Street, but that the setbacks on the second level for the restaurant does provide a pleasing street edge orienting to the intersection. F. Buildinq Heiqht The proposal is two and three stories high in keeping with the Design Considerations and it never exceeds 33 feet with habitable space. Two architectural projections will break up the roof line and the new third story condominium is tucked back behind the four-story portion of the Rucksack building to relate to that building's mass. G. Views Ho effect upon any designated major view corridor is proposed. The sensitive placement of the new dwelling unit preserves views from the upper levels of the Casino Building across the street. A & D Bldg -5- 8/23/84 H. Service and Delivery Service and delivery for the building will remain on the north side of the building and the proposed uses for the building may slightly increase delivery service. The provision of brick pavers adjacent to the building allow pedestrians an inviting walkway. Barriers to prevent trucks from infringing upon the walkway is an improvement to the service and delivery aspects of this building. I. Sun/Shade The proposal slightly increases the shade on Gore Creek Drive but should not present any significant problems for snow storage over and above the existing situation. Also proposed is a second level dining deck an the east side of the restaurant. The sun/shade aspects of this deck have been explored and it is evident that sufficient sun during most parts of the year will be available for lunch time dining an this deck. Mid to late afternoon will prove to be cooler for those using the deck, as the sun is lost, but this is not an uncommon situation with many decks throughout Vail. The deck does provide another activity generator for the Mill Greek side of the building, and this is tremendously positive in an attempt to make improvements to the Mi71 Creek area to bring this portion of the Village into better relationship with the overall Village activity area. Vi. ZONING CODE ITEMS The proposal is in compliance with the uses and development standards as outlined for Commercial Care I. Proposed GRFA is 2,050, while they are allowed 5,588 square feet of GRFA. Site coverage a7 lowed is 80% and this is what is proposed. The elimination of two second level dwelling units requires a conditional use permit and is addressed in an attached memorandum as part of the evaluation of this proposal. VII. STAFF' RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department cannot support this proposal due to the streetscape framework and street edge design factors. We feel that the proposal should not encroach in any significant manner upon the existing outdoor dining patio along Bridge Street or create excessive frontage along Bridge Street for second floor stairways. We feel that this part of the proposal is directly opposed to what we are trying to create in Vail Village and that a more positive response to the street edge would utilize the concept along the western side of Bridge Street. While the proposal does have some very positive aspects to it, especially the revisions to the Mill Creek side in an effort to improve this somewhat neglected area of the Village, we cannot endorse the proposal because of the interface with the Bridge Street side. We would encourage the applicant to rethink the proposal is these regards and come back with a more positive response to the streetscape framework. ~~ ~~y "~~~. ~. -y ^~Ir y.a-~ x ~~+~~:. g . ~~~: -_ k w. .p , - r ~ . 4SF~'4~~ ~~~t ~ a#^ ~ tl~,y~ ~ -' ~. f L ! i f ` ~ 3' ,~,. F ~ ' ~ ~ A { ~=1 ~ Y ~ kr -c t ~: y:,~~t ,~. i ,~ •w ~~ ~ 3~~r.~r.S{ Svt'' .'~y ~y~taa2',~+~y~ r rt ''i n° " ~;` ~ ,~! ,.a'i'.S,~xS. ~~'s`'"S'L awl- t"'~.., xR 7:' u ~ y~'+"~r°~T'~~K { ?F ~~ w 1 r i ik ~; - ~''~~ i Iy~~ ~ ~ 1 F~ > ~i '~k! - ~~ ~ r ' ~ ~' ~?- ivy ~ n+ tF i ~ _r '.5 { r t u* ~r..w .-~.~- f ~ ~ .:. ~.: E'' ':';may! ,~,, u'; ~X~~,,_r . -L'.. .. v.'.'Sil e'er , .~f+~-e `~ -.` "1~~.^~~~ A fM ~ _ ~ ~; z ~ a c ,~5. ~,g ~,, 1 ~ di~1G _ ~ 3 , , h, ~. - 4 w! y ,~ x~~ yam, V,• ~„~~ .,~~ r~ ', tti. i2, .. Syr lf-'.' fff!!f~~ "mss ~y '' "~.:~ ~F Y ,, /: _ R. • - T' 'S ~ r , ,.,:.F:e . s ~ - ~• ~i~ V; rf(,,~. ~~~ ~ ter;' ~ ; ~. ' ?, £ ,~ y,i, Ln ~f?s,~i~ ,k ,r.- ~t~ "Yt1- ~..'. llil u1,.'_T~f ~ ~.1i~ ~- X_ ,.~ ~vs ~4.. ,.~a ' ~d~~ r1~,. ~.,~'7.Y"H,.c ~ -~- ~~ ~ - - •s ' 1 '~•~_'=+•;'~:;a!~'-.~'"br:. ~,~-':~~z -^'~ r• per'' a r ~~ ~5= ~~ ~ t~ ~~.'. ~;.5 x^ ~' 3 °.f' `r' ~' °~r F - R'~ -,, ,fy,...e~, pie ~c :a_S,s„ ~_ ~?9~„c h ~''4 'k. k~. V'v.,.r ''~ ~. } ti ~. - o rte'` rs s - :: o">~ `"(`~ ~- ,v s4 c.v'.''t141' .-0A~:~ ~ r ~1 ',~'f -. ii Y~'i+f-0' .4' j1 B ~ Y+c - '4 : S YJ ~ 5 ' ' ~. 1 ~ .?r ? a ~~~ Y~-t`~~~.. ,a,.':~' ~ ~ F~, ry. ~Yi`?~~~t ";-.,~ 'r1 k,~,~.~ sr. ~- ~°.~l ~?~,~~ - -~U~ ~ti,~ '~~s n ~a., ~ ~~ * `~~z,f ~r+tti~=~~ ,~ 3'a." y~~~a 3~ i. ~ ~ y a • ~ ° aw 4ri:t~:.~~y~:~~,+iy" t f. J .:. ~Y c.r~ e~~`r, ~fi~Y kak~htz%~w.-tom w"~.I4 °j~i~ '{-•':~ ~ ~~-, .~~ry :M tf*~ h. x,3s.;-r- ~6 ~~v~ ~ t.._• "~ aL~r ro--~':+'i {!.' ~ i ~'+~•,~~.e .:n~+~~~ ~~ '~ ~ :.~.x~ ~ +' i':r~~3' "s ` ~ 4'' ~~*~'S '?~,.r'-_ ~ , '~ =?~~• _ ;.F~.~;, '•iS~ ,x.r ~.L 1 5- ~>. .._ `,af: y~,~~ _ p,; ': ~~y, '~ '' rl'~ y : -. ovf+s~E,.^s yv.,n ~ ,~,,,.rS~e -y '. 4 ~~~ ~.~.!~4'„w-7'•-y,r.~~.~.1*.+'k'- -. ~^~t _ y.e `? ~ a1v t •S,," Q th~4~'xk~~ "L~`'`"`° ~,..wµ +.+ ~ "y'~rt~~.i ~~ J t. ,~'` ~.~ [~'~ ~~Yri~ya~ rlax ~`a j : i 4 'f"4'~ .~ ~"`~-L~ ' 1 ~ ' '- t_ -,'~~.~F T~ c ~' `~'~~ t ' Pwr~ R'~~r ~ ~1-~-;~`. -,:~.ah~ F~R~t++l~~t ~'". e'T~~4'•~F.•,`~,''~`~}~7;'~~~1j b~~~Y,st~ a:~~ w: Ji *^^yyy~, ~ f#,F~.~G~ ~„~., -_.;~a~.h~~'•,~ e~„ ~~-~k - S.Y Y ~ ;q,~i ~1Wti {'.~~`~ J" w-.,.'j S'5 .~ ~., •. '6-,~ •.~ ''t 'r,4•,~~£. r' v . f 1 r~T ` n~4 '.~~~`~5~. #.~ ~Cti~ fit' ? fi .~'• '.S 'r ~S~' < °~~ r ~,^' _ ,f~M~j4 f~~~rg 'F~. 7i~h~ ~.'"!_ . ~ ",~' ~~` :{i~1°,yiF•f~_..• •s: , :.•, ~ ~+'~ ~Ay .~ w,p~ - ~,.~ ~,r"n i ~. ~~~ ~~Sr:j ~ -'..K,~'~%r,J Z'~ {,!`. -:t -:~:ti,',. l~ f '•a., k ~:~~ _ I ~ .~ r~Y~ ~Ij ~^ S ~ 71r ~4Aki Aj "p ?~,° 1.~-, ,' 'f'+r 'r' .I +~~r.,,+.;j '' n~{`r~ Sy ~y ~a' . "~, ', ti•T f C ['1':~. 4~k -~~ S ~ef (.. _• `'~.; x~S~ ~7 ~',v b-'~~~ ,. I~+L ~4r ~ „Y:.4, )~T-....,'~ ~ { '~- ywy. 'r i~ sa yj ~' .~ ~..5r4~,9t -'t'~ ~, ,; 4~:h~,~Ry~~-'. -~ <w~.: ~` I' t ~ = P. 'i "'' " bQ, ;;+ ~, ~' S 1 ru } r+ ~-{i, r. ? r ~~~~ s;. A'S ri (. s l~<- ~ - ~'~~~',~-dL'~ ~S1S. `S]~~~P ,~ x"~t4 ::F 't'~" '.t(~"S ~~ .. ~ -"fY\ ' F I y ~Yi y L Y~f, ,~Ylr]~ /T~ ..` ~. ,~L t ~- i"~a.4V ~' .~tl a' ~... ( :1-J. 1 - v;l l~° I. 3 ~+k' "x..PSC -. 4_~_r~ ~iyf~tc. 'Yr ~Sl. '~R;Y'ais a~, F. ~ .~ ~, ~~ ~ ~4~ *~ F '~ t an-, .~' ~ k_ s-; sa `4,i'4. ,.. ~ +. ; ~ t r~;~~~~~} ss _ „<r S ~~~ ~ -i~' ~r ~{.,;x~~r~i'~~, ~ ~ `~ ~ 1~~~'r ~,:Y~. ~. ~'~i;%~'+~vy,~'!F t ~..3.r" ~ .~ ~, ~--'/ r ~ r. ~ ?'~,4+' ~ ~ 5'r ~~ ~.` .s,. t k ~~ > r , i ~~':,{ '~ t ~t > ~~~ ~~yi~ ~L~~i~"•~ 6'~ r+Rf~ ~ y .j.~'~ '~ J ? ~'? YtL a a r q~~~..' ~ * ~~ i~ ~~'.~ s t ~^~.ar+~ .4~ s-"C t ~4 ~~ w ~, ~ rf av8 A nT., t ~ ~i 4, # ~ ~{ ~ +°~- ~ i Y,~ -5-~ ;L ~~~ !i - ~ k Si ~y ~ ^' b i -t5a =c ~~~~ f ` ~~~• ~y ~~~''!.-~~x1~"~' ~'Sr ~ ~, ;~ ~~~~~, ys,~{5>NrM ' r ~ r ~r~ t c~~* #~ ~~ ~ .}f. .*• •.,s~'~.~9:a.. ~',~ .~~zs ~'.~'~ '~.,~~'•g.r', Z *ri~dy.:~r ~r '~~.~+ ,n ~' rs?~ r:sa ~~:. .,z+~f. ~ ~ " 7 ~ ~ ~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Communit Develo ment De artment y p p DATE: August 23, 1984 SDBJECT: Conditional use permit request to remove two existing dwelling units on the second floor of the A & D Building Applicant: R.T.S. Capital Services, Inc. I. THE PROPOSAL The proposed A & D Building remodel includes removing two existing dwe1Ting units on the second 1eve1 in order to build a new restaurant. Also included is a proposal to create a new condominium of a little over 2,000 square feet on a new third level of the building. The COI zone district contains its own conditional use factors found in Section 18.24.070. These factors are as follows: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on CCI district B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in CCT district C. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles E. Development of public spaces far use by pedestrians F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in CCI district so as to maintain the existing character of the area G, Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in CCT district so as to maintain the existing character of the area H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of CCI district. II. CRTTERIA EVALDATION The Community Development Department finds that the displacement of the two dwelling units coupled with the creation of a new dwelling unit on the property does not upset the balance and mix of land uses within the CCI district. No additional vehicular traffic into the core, of course, will be created by this proposal and we find that evaluation of the above factors result in no negative impact by the part of the proposal of the building's remodel concerning the elimina- tion of the two second floor dwelling units. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit to remove two existing dwelling units on the second floor of the A & D Building, as we found no negative impacts upon the balance and mix of land uses in the Village area by this proposal. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Request to amend a portion of Special Development District 11 Highland Park and a concurrent request for a major subdivision within SDD 11. Applicants: I.K.S Vail Associates, Inc. I. THE PROPOSAL Proposed is to subdivide the remaining undeveloped portion of the Highland Park Special Development District 11 into eleven lots each containing a building envelope for a duplex structure. The history behind this proposal is found in the attached memorandum which the Planning Commission received at their work session earlier this month. The concept proposed is to eliminate the development of this site as a multi-family townhouse project and to create duplex lots for sale to individuals. The applicants have conducted major research and studies into this site's geologic and geotechnical problems. The request comes to the PEC at this level in the form of a preliminary plan presentation and a major subdivision request which is required due to the previous Town of Vail approvals creating one large mu1ti- family parcel from the original 17 duplex lots. An extremely complete and detailed Environmental Impact Report has been submitted and concentrates itself upon the geologic and geotechnical conditions on the site. The EIR looks at the site as a whole with respect to ground water conditions, grading, drainage and other pertinent factors to the development of this site as individual residential properties. The EIR then goes one step further to actually do a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for each building envelope proposed, and this is critical to the regulation of development upon this most sensitive site. This memorandum will first evaluate the proposal under the major subdivision criteria and then proceed to look at the proposal from a special development district standpoint. Finally, we will give our recommendations for this project. II. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in section 17,16.110 of the regulations and are as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the re~cammendat~ionsmade by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies . relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. SDD 11 -2- 8/23/84 • In looking at the proposal in relation to the intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations, we find that it meets these stipulations. With regard to traffic circulation, utilities, environmental integrity, drainage, etc, the proposal has received a detailed review from the Public Works and Fire departments. The Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District has also reviewed the proposal, and all of the above entities feel that the proposal is workable and indeed a superior one with regard to response to the difficult geotechnical problems on the site. The staff feels quite strongly that the key provision of this proposal is the construction of the subdivision, interceptor drains.to the south of the area .proposed for development., These drains will Intercept ground water which now drains under the site and causes the majority of the soil stability and construction related problems. Thus, the proposed subdivision is-a workable solution for the site which will improve not only the safety of the residents who eventually inhabit the structures on the site, but will preserve the vegetation and minimally disturb the existing environmentally sensitive slopes and other physical features of the site. The most important discovery of the environmental investigations is the existing land slide area in the middle of the site which will be free from any buildings and will be preserved as open space. • Thus, the staff finds that criteria for the creation of a major subdivision proposal has been met and the proposal represents significant improvements in the development of the property. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT To evaluate this proposal as an amendment to the previously approved SDD il, we will evaluate the design standards for special development districts as set forth in the zoning code. A. Buffer Zone This parcel is an isolated one from adjacent properties and natural open space provides buffer zones to the north and east, while Forest Service land is adjacent to the parcel on the south and west. A buffer zone between this parcel and the existing town homes on Phase I of the 5DD is not required in that the duplex structures proposed for this parcel are entirely compatible with the duplex type townhomes existing on Phase I. B. Circulation System As same of you may recall, the roads serving SDD li were redesigned a few years ago upon original approval. These public roads will • SDD 11 -3- 8/23/84 LJ remain the same with private drives accessing each of the building sites for garages and parking areas. The private drives will have easements across other lots to ensure free acess and have been designed to be compatible with the soil stability and ground water conditions upon the site. The Lire Department has reviewed the proposal for emergency vehicle access and finds the situation to be adequate. C. Open Space As stated above, the middle portion of this site will be preserved as natural open space due to it being a landslide area. This open meadow area will serve as an amenity to all who live within this parcel and will effectively break up the areas of development. • D. Housing Type and Densities The proposal creates individually constructed duplex buildings adjacent to multi-family townhouses, but this does not present a conflict situation as mentioned earlier. The existing townhouses are of a duplex nature themselves and the variety of multifamily and duplex structures within a single development area will not be a negative impact in this case. The densities proposed are consistent, not only with the original platted densities, but with SDD 11 in regard to the number of units. The GRFA proposed far the 11 lots is 55,000 square feet fatal and this figure is well under the originally allowed GRFA for this portion of the Highland Meadows subdivision. L. Pedestrian Traffic The pedestrians in the site will utilize the private drives and public roads and it is not necessary to create separated pedestrian paths for this project due to the suseptability for additional cuts and construction on the site. F. Building Design The individual buildings will be reviewed by the Design Review $oard upon each person's wish to construct. Part of the condition of the special development district and major subdivision will be compliance with the recommendations in the EIR for each building site as well as for the overall site. G. Landscaping The landscaping proposal will be reviewed with each individual's construction plans for duplexes and as much of the natural vegetation on the site is being preserved as possible. SDD 11 -4- 8/23/84 The site shall be divided into two areas for the purpose of separating the SDD into appropriate standards for regulations. The existing townhouses will comprise Area A of SDD 11, while the parcel representing the iT lots will make up Area B of SDD 17. Development standards will be as depicted in the residential (straight duplex} zone district for height (33 feet maximum far sloping roofs, 30 feet maximum far a flat roof}. The remaining site development standards are built in to the SDD by adopting the development plan and the EIR as part of the approval. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the major subdivision request and the amendment to SDD 71 to create the Vail Woods subdivision. Although we are disappointed that the sites will not be developed under a single master plan by a single developer, we do feel that this proposal represents a much superior one to the previous SDD with regard to geologic and geotechnical planning. The EIR for the project is an excellent one and is the key element in the development of this parcel of ground. Construction of drainage and grading improvements for this site will insure that development which takes place here is done in a safe and aesthetically pleasing manner. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. That upon PEC approval of the final plat (scheduled for public hearing at PEC on September 24, 1984}, the subdivision plat be ready to be recorded with the exception of the Town of Vail and County Clerk signatures. 2. The EIR as submitted with this project along with all documents in the submittal requirements are adopted as the development plan and must be complied with for the construction of all improvements on this piece of property. 3. It is the developer`s responsibility that purchaser's of lots in the Vail Woods subdivision are aware of the EIR and the regulations which this report imposes upon the property and that compliance with this report is a mandatory part of development. 4. Completion of all interceptor drains, utilities, and other site improvements shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential dwelling. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission ~' FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 23, 1984 SUBJECT: Request to modify a floodplain an the Stephens subdivision, Parcel A, in Vail Intermountain Subdivision REQUEST The floodplain in the Stephens subdivision. has been modified in the past by Mr. Stephens. He now wishes to simply make it safer by building a higher berm (2.5 feet} on Parcel A as drawn on the Johnson Kunkel & Associates plan. presently, one dwelling unit exists an Parcel A. The berm wi17 use river cobbles for rip-rap. Several large pine trees and willows are located on the northern edge of the river bed. Natural grasses will be planted to revegetate the berm when construction is completed. EIR STATEMENT Section 18.69.040(E) of the Hazard Regulations specified the criteria for modification to the floodplain: 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 for review an environmental impact statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work will nat adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. The mini~ElR is attached in the form of letters dated July 5 and August 4, 1983 from John MacKown of Johnson, Kunkel, and Associates to Terrill Knight. The letter dated August 7984, states "...the flow rate will remain basically unchanged, causing no detrimental effect an properties along the stream. It is recommended that any development that occurs should provide far additional freeboard between the first floor elevation and the 100 year floodplain of 2.5 feet." STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the floodplain modification, as we feel the proposal meets the intent of the criteria in 18.69.040 (E). This modifi- cation should provide a safer site for Parcel A while respecting upstream and downstream properties. Approval is contingent on the applicant agreeing to protect the pines and willows along the northern river bank. Revegetation shall also be required once construction is finished. • T z ~ • • r ~ z 0 z z 0 H H } ~"'~ a C/~ z w a w !-- cn •r Lf'7 p N ~i- ~ X N O S- ~- ~ a. 'p ~ N ~ I d D- O L (U ~ ~ Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, inc. LAND SURVEYING CIVIL ENGINEERING • I,M1APPING L July 5, 1983 Terrill Knight Box 1199 .. ~ _ .. __ Eagle, CO - 81631 -~ _ RE: Al Stephens Property at Nest Vail Flood Plain Analysis 83/085 Dear Terrill, At your.request.I have examined the flooding potential from a. 100 year flood far A1.Stephens property located in Section 14, Township 5 South, Range t3lW of the Sixth P.M..in the Town of Vail,. Colorado. ~-_ The anaylsis is based on a.study performed by Hydro--Triad of Lakewood, June 1975_.for. the Town. of .Vail,. Eagle County aid the Colorado Water Conservation Board._ This.studv-was supplemented with field cross-sections performed by Eagle Va_l.ley Engineering Ca. of -Vail, Colorado. _ Flow depth was based on Mannings equation-using a value of N=O.Oo, Q100 = 3,000 cfs and a_slope between i.5~ and 3$. The 100 year flow depth below the bridge at Lupine Street (section 97.45) will spill over the north side Dank and will inundate around the existing structures and area to the west. This inundated area would be considered a low hazard flood area, i.e. velocity and depth would be minimal. Construction of a berm on the existing natural levee will correct the problem. Use of river cobbles (i8"+} for riprap and undulated slopes with natural grasses would make the berm unelectable. 13asirally the berm should run from the bridge abuttment at approximately 2~ to the existing levee wall currently in place. The berm would range from 2 to 5 Yeet in height, thus affording a 2 to 3 foot free board capacity along the north bank. The existing levee and block wall at the easterly structure provides approximately 1/2 foot free board. Just downstream from the house at sta 5 + 19.37 the leevy should be raised to afford additional protection to the westerly structures. 1 P.O. Box 409 1 I3 East 4th SEreet Eagle, Colorado 8] 631 Phone: (303) 328-6368 \_, ' Page 2 of 2 ~, The limits of flooding have been indicated on a base map prepared by Eagle Valley Engineering, #658 from the house on the north side to the bridge at Lupine Street and along the south side rrom the bridge to the westerly property boundary. Should you have additional questions concerning this study please advise. Sincerely, ~%~ ~~ ohn t~~acKown, P.E. ... - ~ - - \ =~ Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, ]nc. K• LAND 5JIAYEYJJ+EG • C1VlJ_ ENGINEERING • MAPPJNG ,, - August 5, 1983 Mr. Terrill Knight Box 947 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: Al Stephens Property in Vail JK/83/085 Floodplain Dear Terrill: ~ - - . At your request I hate plotted the flood limits from _ Station 4+51.49 to Station 7+87.27 at the weste;^n end of the property along the northerly bank. Enclosed is a revision of the earlier map. -~ ~ - ~ - . • Additionally you asked about the possible effects • of the berth on the upstream and downstream. sections of . Gore Creek. The berm will have minimal effects orJ the level of the stream since the velocity within the new --- • channel will be slightly increased. Same overbank storage of the 1.00 year flood peak will be affected, however, the volume again is very small compared to the overall drainage basin,~thus the flow rate will. remain basically unchanged, causing no detrimental affect on properties along the stream. It•is recommended that any development that occurs should provide for additional. freeboard between the first - floor elevation and the 100 year floodplain of 2.5 feet. Should you have any additional questions please advise. Si cerelsy, J n L. MacKown, P.E. ' Enclosures P.O. Box 409 1 l3 East ath Street Eagle, Colorado 81631 -Phone: {303J 328-6368 '~ Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, lnc. LAND SEIRVEYING • CIVIL EPdGINEEERING • MAPPING August 198A~ Terrill Knight Box 947 Eagle, Co. 81631 Re: Al Stephen Property at Vail ~'loodway revision Dear 'Terrill, At your request and that of Al the effects of increasing the Block plus additional Bearing from Sta. 4 near the western end of the property You will find enclosed a revision of these modifications. Stephen, I have examined wall height and length, + 51.49 to Sta. 7 + 87.27 along the northerly bank. the earlier map reflecting You also requested to know the possible effects of the improvements on upstream and downstream sections of Gore Creek. The resuJ.ts will. basically be the same as stated in my letter of 5 August 1983, which indicated that the berm will have minimal effects on the level of the stream since the velocity within the new channel will be slightly increased. Some overbank storage of the 100 year flood peak will be affected, however, t'he volume a ain is ver sma11 compared to the overall drainage basin, ~ us the flaw rate will remain basically un- cnanaen~t~~i nn nn c~Pt.rtimen,t~i a~tect on properties along~ the stream. It is recommended that env development that occurs should provide fob ar1r~~ti~n~1 fr~~hnard between the first ~l nnr P~ F~~7a f•l (")T~ and i-h.C~ 1_(lf1 V'~r f l c~p[~~lain c~fi' 2., 5 f~~t,. Should you have any additional questions, please advise. S i nc rely , y~/~ // ,~ 1 `O~tNu ohn L. MacFiown, P.E. xc Al Stephens w P.O. Box 4Q9 113 East 4th Street Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (3fl3) 328-6368 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 7984 SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance 30, Series of 1977 to increase the number of units allowed to be constructed at 770 Potato Patch Drive, from 30 plus an employee unit to 36 plus an employee unit. Applicant: Ed A. Smith I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting to increase the number of allowed units from 30 plus 1 caretaker unit to 36 plus 1 caretaker unit on Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Potato patch. The 770 Potato Patch Club project was down zoned by Ordinance 30 in 1977 to allow a maximum of 30 units while retaining the MDMF zone district. in October of 1981 the owner requested an amendment to Ordinance 30 to allow one additional employee unit. The amendment was approved. Presently, Phase I of the project has been completed. i6 units plus the caretaker unit have been built. The Or- dinance would allow for an additional i4 units to be constructed for Phase II. The applicant would tike to amend Ordinance 30 to allow an additional 6 units to be built in Phase II without going aver the allowed GRFA. A. Applicant's Rationale for the Additional Six Units The applicant believes that the benefits of the proposed amendment far outweigh any negative aspects. The results of the amendment and thus the approval of the new plan for Phase II are the following: 1. A substantial increase in the amount of open space available for land- scaping. The amount of site coverage has been reduced from the previous Phase II plan by 3,389 sq. ft. The total site coverage of the 770 project will be 22% of the site as opposed to 24 % for the original proposal. The allowed coverage in the Primary/Secondary zone district which is adjacent to the site is 20%, and therefore the revised plan will be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of open space and landscaping. 2. A reduction in the proposed GRFA, The revised plan for Phase II is planned to contain a GRFA of 22,557 sq. ft as opposed to the allowed 24,216 sq. ft. This reduction of 1,659 sq. ft. will result in the project containing less building mass than the previous plan, even though there will be additional dwelling units. 3. The number of bedrooms within the project will increase in Phase II from 42 previously proposed to 44. We do not believe that 2 additional bedrooms will significantly alter any of the aspects of the project. • 770 Potato Patch -2- 8/8/84 ' In summary, i think you will find, if you read the minutes of the meeting at which Ordinance 30 of 7977 was adopted and also the intent of the Ordinance that our request makes good sense and does not do anything to violate or jeopardize the Ordinance. The proposal, in fact, serves to achieve much more conformity and compatibility with the existing neighborhood than did the previous design. In 1977 when the Ordinance placing the unit restriction upon the property was adopted, the Planning Director stated at the time that "the process is an ongoing one, designed to manage growth as opposed to control]ing growth." This indicates that the intent was certainly not to prohibit a certain amount of flexibility and ability for re-evaluation of certain parcels of property through time as is requested with this proposal. We believe that the under- lying MDMF zone district designation allows that flexibility with this site and that the proposal clearly presents some positive results. II. PROPERTY STATISTICS - EXISTING SITUATION Lat Size 3.92 acres 170,755 sf Area over 40% slope .22 acres 9,583 sf Buildable area 3.70 acres 161,172 sf ORD. 30 MDMF ZONE MDMF GRFA 56,410 sf 56,410 sf Total Units allowed 31 units 66 units Phase I existing GRFA 32,T94 sf Phase II allowed GRFA 24,216 sf Total GRFR 56,410 sf Phase I existing units 17 Phase II allowed units 14 Tata1 units 31 n LJ 770 Potato Patch -3- 8/8/84 BACKGROUND ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW 30 UNITS WITH MDMF ZONING FOR LOT 6 The purpose of the Growth Management Project was to identify properties that had inconsistent zoning with the surrounding neighborhood as well as to .remedy previous zoning problems. In 1970, when the property was annexed by the Town, the MDMF zone allowed ll7 units for Lot 6. Originally, the Subcommittee discussed rezoning the property to Residential Cluster. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted far a compromise between the Subcommittee and John Hall (owner) that would maintain the MDMF zoning but limit the unit number to 30. It was felt that the Potato Patch area had a character that reflected more expensive and larger homes. By keeping the MDMF zone, the owner was allowed the needed GRFA to build large units compatible with the surrounding area. III. PROJECT COMPARISONS The following figures compare the original Phase iI to the proposed Phase II. R. DENSITY Original Phase II Proposed Phase II Difference Units 14 units 20 units 6 units GRFA 24,276 sf 22,557 sf 1,659 sf r1 U The new proposal stays within the allowed GRFA and is actually 1,659 sf under the original proposal's GRFA. B. SITE COVERAGE Original Proposed Existing Phase I 22,252 sf 22,252 sf Phase II 18,789 sf T5,4O0 sf Total site coverage 4.1,041 sf 37,652 sf Site Coverage % 24.0 % ± 22.0 The difference between the two proposals' site coverage is 2%. or 3,389 sf. The new proposal's decreased site coverage is achieved by centralizing the building mass in 4~unit buildings rather than dispersing the units throughout the site in a townhouse fashion. Both proposals are well under the allowed MDMF site coverage of 45% or 76,840 square feet. C 770 Potato Patch -4- 8/8/84 G. HEIGHT ~ The original proposal for Phase II had heights that ranged between 20± to 32.5± feet. The units located between Potato Patch Drive and the north interior road had two stories facing Potato Patch Drive. On the side facing the interior road three stories existed with the lower level being built into the ground. The units would also be stepping up the hillside to create a terraced appearance and to minimize the view of the units from Potato Patch Drive. The units located between the two interior roads were to be two story units with a maximum height of 22.5 feet ±. In the revised proposal, the four buildings will have heights ranging between 28.5± to 34.5 ~ ft. The four single units on the northeast end of the project will have heights ranging from 23.5± to 26±. feet. The highest portions of the buildings {in both cases} are on the south sides of the buildings. In respect to impacts of height, the original proposal locates the units closer to Potato Patch Drive. However, the mass of the units is broken up into triplex and duplex units. The revised proposal removes the majority of units away from Potato Patch Drive (20 ft to 950 ft from road) except the single units on the northeast corner of the site. Staff believes that although the hei hts for both buildings are within the allowable heights for the MDMF zone ~35 ft flat roofs, 38 ft sloping roofs), the revised proposal will have a greater height impact due to the centralization of buildings on the site and the greater heights. In the original proposal, the units were terraced into the site. The mass of the buildings was also broken . up into duplex and triplex units. By camparing the site coverage for units in each proposal the difference in massing is further defined. Original Phase II Site Coverage Large triplex 4,465 sf l proposed Triplex 3,54D sf 1 proposed Duplex 2,930 sf 2 proposed Medium Duplex 2,476 sf 1 proposed Small Duplex 2,448 sf 1 proposed Revised Phase II Site Coverage Building 1 6,424 sf 1 proposed Building 2 6,424 sf 1 proposed Building 3 {4 single 2,552 sf l proposed units} The largest triplex in the original proposal has a site coverage of 4,465 s.f, compared to Building One's (the revised proposal} site coverage of 6,424 s.f. The mass must be considered when comparing the two proposals' heights. The difference of 1,959 sf between the two largest buildings for each project is significant enough to indicate that the revised proposal will have greater . height impacts. The buildings will appear to be larger in the revised proposal due to the combined result of massing and heights. 770 Potato Patch-5- 8/8/84 [7 D. SETBACKS The required setback of 20 feet on a71 sides of the property is maintained in each proposal. E. PARKING Original Phase II Proposed Phase II Total Required Parking 28 spaces 40 spaces All 28 spaces for the original Phase II would be garage parking. The proposed Phase II provides 24 garage spaces, 14 earth covered spaces, and 2 surface parking spaces Under MDMF zoning, 50% of the required parking must be located within building(s) or be hidden from public view by a landscaped berm. Both proposals meet this parking requirement. F. SITE PLAN/LANDSCAPING The revised proposal provides approximately 3,389 sf ± of additional open space for the project by massing the new units into 4 gain building groups (condominium style). Extra open space is also achieved by removing an interior road that connects Phase I to Phase II, and by shortening a road leading to the caretaker's unit and service area. The proposed Phase II has a new road cut that provides access into Phase TI on the north side from Potato Patch Drive. The previous road into the project becomes a dead end. Access between Phases I and II in the current proposal is possible only by using the pedestrian walkways. The proposal results in a 37 unit project having three separate access drives off of Potato Patch Drive. The amount of landscaping remains relatively the same in each proposal. Both proposals include a series of ponds that flow through the project near the swimming pool area. Existing aspen groves on the northern edge of the site are also maintained in each site plan. The revised proposal does create a stronger landscaped buffer between Phase I and Phase II. The original proposal establishes a strong, landscaped buffer between the road and the north side of Phase II. • 770 Potato Patch -&- 8/8/84 iV. CRITERIA The variance criteria is being used to analyze this proposal because, although • the applicant is requesting an amendment to Ordinance 30, the related issues are similar to those issues concerning a zoning variance. When the 30-unit re- striction was placed on 770 Pdtato Patch, the impacts of 30 units on the surrounding neighborhood were addressed in depth. Staff feels that the variance review provides an appropriate format for discussing the impacts of the applicant's request. The relationship to other uses and structures in the vicinity. The property is surrounded by Agricultural/6pen space zoning and Primary/Secondary residential properties. The fact that both proposals are close to the 20% site coverage maximum for the surrounding properties (zoned Primary/Secondary} suggests that both proposals would be compatible with the adjacent area. The difference in GRFA of 1,659 sf is negligible. The height of the new proposal~is also greater than the original proposal, The revised proposal will add an extra road cut to the project, decrease internal circulation by taking out an interior road, and centralize building mass in 4 clusters. The revised proposal is different from Phase I in that mass and bulk is greater with the 4-unit condominium buildings as opposed to the approved low-rise townhouse type units. Differences between the two proposals are not felt to be necessarily negative. Both site plans have merits. However, because the. site plan has been revised to allow far 2.0% less site coverage than in the original proposal, it does not warrant the project receiving an extra 6 units. 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. Ordinance 30 was developed with the intent to strive to treat property owners equitably and to manage growth in a reasonable on-going way. The 30 unit limit for Lot 6 was not arrived at in an arbitrary way. Surrounding properties and the fair treatment of the owner's rights were considered when the final 30 unit figure was decided upon by the Town Council in 1977. Given the history of this decision, it would be a grant of special privilege to allow the 6 extra units. After briefly researching other properties zoned by ordinancesthat limit the number of allowed units, it became evident that there are other properties that could make a similar request to increase their number of allowed units.. Examples: 1. Getty Oil Site: 7.02 acres, 44,431 sf (vacant) LOMF Zone: Allowed 9 units Restricted to 8 units, 2 of which must be employee units • 2. Lot 34, Blk 2, Potato Patch: Vacant) 770 Potato Patch-7- 8/8/84 .997 acres, 43,429 sf MDMF zone: Allowed 17 units Restricted: $ units 3. Lot 26, B1k 2, Vail Village 13th: 2.89 acres, 125,932 sf (Built) LDMF Zone: Allowed 26 units Restricted: 16 units • More properties probably exist that are under these same conditions. Many special development districts have these characteristics as well. It is evident that it would be a grant of special privilege to allow one property owner the benefit of 6 additional units and not allow the opportunity to other property owners limited to a specific number of units. In addition, those property owners who have already built out their projects would not be able to take ad- vantage of additional units in most situations. 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 additional road cut would create a safer egress and ingress for cars going to Phase II but at the same time, could complicate ingress and egress to the site by having three separate road cuts. Removal of the internal road connecting PhasesI and iI will provide more landscaped area. However, it creates a situation where visitors to 770 Potato Patch who take the wrong entry into the project will have to turn around, exit onto Potato Patch Drive, and re-enter the site on the upper entrance. Internal vehicular circulation in a 31 unit project is certainly an achievable goal. The removal of the internal road may create some traffic congestion in Phase I occasionally. STAFF RFCDMMFNDATION Staff recommends denial of the request to add 6 units to Phase II of 77D Potato Patch Club. It is felt that the revised site plan does not warrant the additional units. Allowing the 6 units is considered to be a grant of special privilege, as all property owners have restrictions placed on the number of units that they are allowed to build. This is the zoning system which the community has adopted, endorsed and built under for 17 years. If the PLC and Council find merit in studying zoning systems which. allow additional density on multi-family sites for certain trade-offs, then we can proceed toward that end. However, currently we must proceed by treating this application under existing zoning regulations. To grant the six units would set a precedent that would allow all property owners to request to increase the number of units approved for their property. Given these reasons, staff recommends denial of the request. d w z H H Q w ~~ L] ~ ~ L g 5 J s ~~ sue. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for GRFA and side setback variances far Unit l2 of the Vail Rowhouses to construct a glass enclosed addition of 170 square feet. Applicant: Robert Galvin DESCRIPTIO[d OF VARIANCES REQUESTED As the Planning and Environmental Commission may recall, at the last meeting this application was tabled by the applicant to enable him to revise the application to increase the square footage of the proposed enclosure. The enclosure previously was 762 square feet, and it is now revised to be 10 feet by 17 feet representing a total of 170 square feet. The applicant feels the variances are justified due to the fact that it will result in a substantial solar gain for the unit and does not negatively impact adjacent properties. The variances requested are similar to the Bridgewater variance granted by the Planning Commission on March 72, 1984. However, it should be noted this variance request allows the existing first level wa11 to be extended 10 feet to the south, whereas Bridgewater was restricted to a maximum of 6 feet. CRITERIA AND BINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As noted above, the request is similar to the Bridgewater request, however, this applicant is asking for a larger enclosed greenhouse addition. No significant impact upon adjacent properties is anticipated if the variance is 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 or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff feels that the granting of the variance at this point in time represents a special privilege. We are currently working on a proposal to allow small additions to dwelling units even though it would techninally represent a variance situation under today's regulations. We-feel that it is important to respect the deve1oment of the zoning code amendment by not proceeding with approving variances which, under the existing regulations, should not be given until the • Galvin -2- 8/8/84 proposed regulations are in place. To a certain degree, granting this variance . would subvert the efforts of the staff, P>=C and Council to arrive at a new system to deal with these types of proposals. Our current schedule indicates final passage of the new amendment by the Council in early October. 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 proposal would most likely improve the accessibility to sun, light, in the dwelling unit by providing a greenhouse enclosure on the south elevation. There are no other effects upon the other factors in this criteria. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department recommends denial of this variance, as we feel it would be premature and would represent a special privilege to allow the variance while we are developing a system to equitably allow this type of addition throughout the community. u -t-, ~ . -.,`' ..~r.J L j =~. ~.~~ ~: =~~ --- ~ T - - _ - -.'> -~i~ , ~ s-~,t y -f ~_~, ".~ ~_~~ "~'. - -t:"?` .~,.. -mss -: Y L? f3~ ~ "e i [ y, ; y . ~ i .r s: i _ /^ ~ Fi ~-j~ 5 ry .{. {, s -~'j~ 5i•,~Si + J .. ,'~ ~ ~~`~ ~ t.~1 F z ' ~5 1 4 I 5 ai' ~ 11 ' ;,, it - °~`' ~~}47 I ~ ~ t: ; •~ ~~ ~i 3 f _ ' ~ +?~~ ; ~ ~' ,' s} i I , 3 t~ ~{,. -, 3 , , ' ~ ~ _ . i ..~~ , . • . ...... " i.. " _ - - ~' ~•~ I ; I ~.: ~ _ 3 ~' i . ~ - t~ ~~ ~ ', >~'~i ~'P~;~'s~n~' I,"~Zi, ~t ~~~E~f~}~~,~~ xz £ ~+r. y~4'f .~ c~~~a -- ~ , - .. - .• , ~, f.,£..,,ri.,~"r.s~1'F,?~:~'Ft+`.. ~.~_. ...4~'.i ~~ .3. YtSitS.ti ,?_ 'Y.v 35O. .r._. 0...•y_ y. .. v. ., i ~ ,~ ~ _,^ ._ , ref,. 4 ~ _ ` ~` ~ I f << ~~ ~ -• ~~' ~ ~ lF ~..~ ;.t:'~ ~~ t .,4 f 1Y~i'>'Ak Oz2`r +~°' Y ~ ~~.+~ ~ ~ `'r ~~,Y~r ~ a. ~,~`. - -, ~" ~ ~ `~ bty- ~-"1==~j[YY•``F"~°7~`< +'i yy ~ _ .. ~ 'i~;M ~`,~ `~s~Y~~ 9,~~yi~ •-.'~r=r~ f~~~"',i~'~~ r~.k~.Cti } E~ ~': -- ___ _~~psT ~uE.uar.to~ N w~ ~MMaM ~UQI.L o~ ~wt~ ~ 1 - ~ -._. ._.. ~ki5rtl~ _...~._ 1 . s _ ,r ~~. r -` _ _ ~ \, rx~; : ~ ~,A ~ 4 ~~ ~~ , ~ _ • _ _ L _ .__, , t ~ ~ . r, ~ ' ~ ` E ~ ~ - ~ ~ f t~ - _ ~ ~! ~ .'` T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 7, 1984 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration request to add approximately 3GO0 square feet of commercial space and a rooftop pool and plaza to the Sitzmark Lodge Applicant: Bab Fritch BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL This item was reviewed at the July 23rd PEC meeting. A discrepancy in the drawings submitted for review required that the item be tabled. Staff recommendation was for approval of this proposal, although a concern was raised over the blockage of views by the rooftop overhang. Staff opinion was that overall this is a fine proposal, but same changes to the roof form would result in an improved product far the community. Reaction from the Planning Commission was very favora- ble toward this project. There was concern by two of the four commissioners aver the blockage of views. It was suggested that the roof overhang could be pulled back to minimize this impact. REVISED SUBMITTAL There are a number of changes on the revised drawings that should be noted. Foremost among these is that the cantilevered roof has been pulled back from its previous location. Other changes include the entrance canopy that now extends out to the property line, a new planter located adjacent to the entrance to the lodge, and a slight modification to the storefront facades.. These modifica- tions do not adversely affect this proposal's compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan ar Design Considerations. (See attached previous memo') The staff's position on these changes are as follows: Roof Overhang and Entrance Canopy While supporting this project, the staff has expressed concern over the blockage of views by the roof overhang. This concern was also expressed by some members of the Planning Commission during the initial review of the project. In response to this, the overhang has been pulled back approximately 3'-4' on the west end. It was because of the canopy entry that this submittal was tabled from the July 23rd meeting. As proposed, the canopy will extend above the level of the railing on the decktop plaza. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to look at this element c1osely.as we feel the canopy height is excessive if it contributes to this proposal's impact on the views up Gore Creek Drive. Storefront Changes These minor changes have no effect on our previous recommendation. Sitzmark -2- 8/7/84 Planter ~ The staff is extremely pleased to see this addition to the proposal. We would strongly encourage a planter with a design that will accommodate seating as well as plantings. Relative to the planter are the pavers. As proposed, the pavers cut through the planter. If the pavers went around the planter, it would identify the planter as a part of this project. These two issues could be addressed at the DRB level. However, the staff would encourage the Planning Commission to give some direction in this regard• STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation on this proposal is for approval. As previously mentioned, we are concerned that the height of the canopy entry will add to the blockage of views down Core Creek Drive. Staff would recommend that one condition of approval be that the canopy nat exceed the height of the deck railing. A design which would achieve this goal is to "step down" the height of the canopy as it approaches the south property line. With respect to the planter and pavers, the staff would encourage the Planning Commission to provide firm direction if these items are to be left to the discretion of the DRB. As mentioned, the staff would like to see the pavers extend around the planter and the planter be designed to accommodate seating. An additional condition of approval is that the applicant not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when one is formed for this area. . MEMORANDUM ~~ TO: planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit to remove three lodge rooms from the Sitzmark Lodge to allow for a commercial addition DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE This proposal would eliminate three existing lodge rooms as a result of a proposed commercial addition to the Sitzmark Lodge. The units front on Gore Creek Drive at ground level and wiTi be blocked off by the proposed addition. The space will be converted to commercial use if approved by PEC. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.b0, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. ~ The removal of any lodge room in CCI requires approval of a conditional use permit. This request can be considered concurrently with the 5itzmark's exterior alteration request. While the Town does not like to see lodge rooms removed from the Village, we on the other hand, are encouraging the commercial expansion Of th15 site. The removal of the lodge rooms is a necessary evil of this proposal with the overall impact on the Town`s development objectives being a positive one. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation fac~1ities, and other public facilities needs. No effect on the above. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuver- ability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No effect on the above. 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 effect on the above. Sitzmark -2- 7/T9/84 Relationship to Vail's Community Action Plan This proposal represents a definite upgrading of property, something called far specifically by the Plan. The addition of the swimming pool will also con- tribute to the Sitzmark's ability to attract summer and shoulder season guests. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. None FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation on this request is for approval. A trade-off is being made in the loss of lodge rooms for additional retail space, but staff feels this trade-off is a positive one for the Village. i~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: August 6, 1984 SUBJECT: Application for an exterior alteration to the Sunbird Lodge Applicant: United Resorts, Inc. - Sunbird Lodge at Vail BACKGROUND ON PROPOSAL This application was on the Planning and Environmental Commission agenda for the July 23rd meeting. Far that meeting, the staff prepared a memo outlining same of the outstanding issues with the proposal and recommended the item be tabled (see attached memo}. At the meeting the applicant requested a tabling to August 13th. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In a follow-up to the July 23rd meeting, the applicant was sent a letter requesting a revised submittal so the staff could begin their review of the project (see attached letter). This information was requested by August 1st. We have yet to receive any information from the applicant concerning this application. The information needed before this application can be reviewed is the following: 7) valid property owner's signature . 2) a finalized proposal for each element of the proposal 3) a revised written statement addressing how the submittal complies with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan 4} Vail Associates approval (if applicable) The staff met with the applicant on Rugust 2nd to discuss this proposal. In response to that meeting, the staff prepared a letter outlining what are felt to be the key issues relative to this application {see attached letter}. The staff has requested that the applicant consider these issues and resubmit the application. At this time, the staff recommendation is to table this item for an indefinite period. The staff would prefer that this item not be re-scheduled until a complete application has been submitted to our office, • n '~- " MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 7984 SUBJECT: Application for an exterior alteration and modification for the Sunbird Lodge to expand first level space onto an existing deck, develop a new vehicluTar entryway, and change existing uses of space to add commercial space .and to accommodate the proposed entryway. Applicant: United Resorts, Inc.- Sunbird Lodge at Vail BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The following is a brief summary of the proposal that has been submitted for your review. New Vehicular Entrvwav This element of the proposal involves reworking the existing enclosed parking area to accommodate a "turn-around Toop" through the building for guest drop- off. As proposed, cars would enter the structure, drop off visitors, and complete the loop by circulating through Vail Associates' adjacent parking structure for the Gondola Building. A landscaped area around this entryway is also a part of this plan. Conversion of Space t. As proposed, additional commercial space will be added to the basement level of the building by relocating an existing recreation roam and workshop area. Approxi- mately 2800 square feet of commercial space will be created by this proposal. An owners' spa, recreation room, and laundry area are proposed for an area now used as parking. Commercial space will be accessible by an internal arcade connecting the Lionshead Mall with the landscaped area on the south end of the property. Expansion of Building This addition would be to enclose a portion of the Cafe de Sol dining deck. The proposed use of this new space is for an owners' club. The addition is 720 square feet and there are no plans to replace the outdoor dining area that presently occupies this space. A portion of this expansion is located on Vail Associates' property. SIGNIFICANT IBSl1ES IN THE PROPOSAL There are presently a number of issues the staff feels must be resolved before this proposal is reviewed by PEC. Most important is that the building addition and the vehicular turn-around are partially on Vail Associates' property. Some time ago it was indicated by the applicant that a previous agreement between the Sunbird Lodge and U.A. gave the Sunbird the right to encroach on V.A. property. While Sunbird -2- 7/19/84 r' there is in fact an easement agreement between the two parties, after reviewing the agreement it is apparent that it does not allow the Sunbird the latitute to proceed with this plan as presented without V.A.'s approval. In addition to this, we do nat have a valid property owner's signature from either the Iodge or Vail Associates as required for this application. STAFF RECOMNiL[~DATIO~E It is inappropriate for .the PEC ta;consider this item until the issues mentioned above can be.resolved~c~ For this reason, staff recommendation is to table this application.~~Staff considers this to be a very significant proposal with a potential for major impacts on Lionshead. In addition to the two outstanding issues mentioned above, there are a number of aspects pertaining to this proposal that are of concern tv the staff. The most significant of these is the reduction of:parking spaces from 58 to 70. This is a very key aspect, because of the existing 58 spaces, 47 are enclosed. These are essentially ideal parking spaces that are proposed to be removed. Other issues involve the removal of the loading dock, relationship to the Lionshead ma17, compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, as well as some zoning considerations, Because of these existing loose ends, we would request that a work session be held prior to any formal review by the PFG. This work session could be scheduled after the applicant addresses the property line issue with V. A. and provides an owner`s signature for the application: ~~ ~~ lowo of vail 75 south frontage road vail, calorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 ofilce of community development July 24, 1984 Mr. Will Trout Trout Creek Collaborative The Clock Tower Vail, Colorado 81657 " Dear Will, Re: Sunbird Lodge In order to schedule the Sunbird Lodge for the PEC meeting on August 13, we must have a complete submittal by noon on Wednesday, August 1st. This is necessary for the Town of Vail staff to complete their review of this proposal. In addition to a finalized set of plans, w.e..w_i71 require the property owner's signature, a revised written statement addressing how .. the submittal complies with the Lions head Urban Design Guide Plan, and Vail Associates' approval (if applicable). Please feel free to call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, _ ~1 ~~ TaM sRAUr~ Town Planner TB:br 1 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 8, 1984 SUBJECT: A request for exterior alterations for the Hill Building on Lot L, Black 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing to add second floor residential space. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche Hill, is requesting to build a 720 square foot bedroom addition that would create a third level on the existing west end of the Hill Building. She would also like to enclose an existing deck area. The enclosed deck is approximately 370 square feet and is located on the west side of the build.ing,on the second floor. Two decks will also be added onto existing fl al roofs located off the new bedroom. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE. Purpose: The Commercial Care I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate . light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site develop- ment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and archi- tectural qualities that distinguish the village. Phis proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCT district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to the sub-area Concept X14 for the Village Plaza.{now Founders` Plaza}. "Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gare Creek Drive. Major land form/planting in Northwest far quiet corner, with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall Street stairs, with mid-level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade shops." The proposal will obstruct the view of Golden Peak from the Wa11 Street stair area (see view section}. In other respects, the proposal does not conflict with the plan for Village Plaza. • Hill Bldg -2- 8/$/84 i TV. GOMPLTANCE WT~H ORGAN DESIGN CONSTdERATION FOR VATL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the design considerations, A. Pedestrianization: The bedroom addition and deck enclosure will have minimal, if any, impact an pedestrianization. B. Vehicle Penetration: No impact C. Streetscape Framework: Because the additions are located on the second floor, there will be little impact on the quality of the walking experience in respect to landscaping and ground level commercial infill. The quality of the pedestrian experience will be impacted by additional shade on the northwest corner of the build:i:~g on Wall Street and blockage of the view . of the mountain. D. Street Enclosure: The consideration states that "an external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the sppce enclosed." The enclosed deck should not impact the street enclosure negatively. The existing roof (on the west side of the Hill Building) is approximately 24 feet ± high. The pedestrian way varies between 25 feet ± to 35 feet ~. The existing roof is a7 ready greater than the desired ratio. The new roof height, 37.5 feet, will maKe the ratio even greater. However, the consideration states that "in some instances, the 'canyon' effect is even desirable--as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces to give variety to the walking spaces." The new third level will create more of an enclosed pedestrian way that will connect Village Plaza with the open plaza in front of the Gondola building's ticket area. The consideration states that "when exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design considerations should be given to create a well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome n U Hill Bldg -3~ $/8/84 the canyon effect." floor that has many to create pedestrian For these reasons, addition. The Hill Building has a very well defined ground of the elements suggested by the consideration focus--awnings, building jogs, commercial space. street enclosure is impacted positively by the E. Street Edge No impact. All additions are on the second floor. F. Building Height In CCI "up to 60% of the building may be built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of the building may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. The existing heights of the Hill Building are: East side: 34 feet ~-, chimney 38 feet± West side: 24 feet -~, chimney 28 feet± The proposed addition will have a height of 31.5 feet. The height is well within the allowable height. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the same pitch and materials of the lower roof. G. Views and Focal Points The bedroom addition will impact views when looking up at the ski mountain from Village PTaza and when looking back at the Village from the small plaza behind the Hill buiding adjacent to the Golden Peak house. This view is not a designated view to be preserved under the Urban Design Guide Plan. The addition`s impact will take away from the view of the ski mountain to a certain extent. However, due to the overall contribution of the Hill Buirlding to the pedestrian experience the impacts are somewhat offset. H. Service and Delivery No impact I. Sun/Shade The consideration states that "all new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or on the public R.Q.W. The addition will increase the sun/shade shadow between March 21st and September 21st by 7 feet. The additional shade area is approximately 40 square feet and is located in the pedestrian walkway on the northwest corner of the building. The area serves as a pedestrian way, but does not have any sitting areas. Because the space is used only for a pedestrian way, the additional shade should have a minimal impact. • Ni11 Bldg ~4- 8/8/84 V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Project Statistics Minimum Side Area: 8,000 sf Allowed GRFA: 6,400 sf Existing 2nd Flaar 4,082 sf Existing 3rd Floor 696 sf 4,778 sf Stairwell deduction- 372 sf Total Existing GRFA 4,451 sf Bedroom addition 720 sf DecEc enclosure 370 sf Total Proposed GRFA 5,541 sf Allowed GRFA 6,400 sf Proposed GRFA 5,541 sf Remaining GRFA 859 sf • This proposal complies with the GRFA requirements for the property, The two new roof overhangs extend over the property line approximately 2 feet. The applicant has received a letter of agreement from the adjacent property owner. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this proposal contingent upon the applicant meeting the engineering concerns. The view impacts and additional 40 sq ft_ of shade, while not positive for the community, are considered to be minimal impacts. Each project should be reviewed against every consideration. The project either has no or minimal impact or supports the Urban Design Considera- tions. Because the overall project impact is positive, staff recommends approval of the project. All Town of Vail engineering concerns must be resolved before the building permit will be issued. The issues include: 1. Drainage will be inside of .building. 2. Improvement survey 3. Revocable right-of-way permit for existing improvement in the right-af-way 4. Encroachment of roof overhangs will be resolved by an agreement letter of adjacent property owner. • ,.. • i• • (d .~ ~. '~e~~~~~ ;~31; ~s„~ri' ~Y'~ r, r~ ,ip. I~-`~'~ ~, {~~~ Ili. ;~,,. I -:;~"'~ ~ a~~~s III{~ ~~ I f ii ~._44C / f'u ~'ll I i'~~I i Y: /„ .; r4 yf: ~I~~II, II II > ill ~~ ~ ~' ~!i I i ~ ~ t~` '. ~s: ~I Y ,~ ~'~ I >~s. <.~~; i I N ~~ I II IE Ii i ,l! ~~ II I II I ! :~i ~~ •--- •~; ; ~ l I `li vi ~I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a `f I ~ I' iI I i !!'ri~ ~. ~l~ 1 1.~~; ~~ 1-~,. ,-.~ ~Ih Y~ r' j ~~L. ti,~ '--- ,.n.G_. 1:: ir•_r :.~ ,~ i 4. ~ ~ I 1 ~f f~~ ~~ -d u I Y. ~ ~ I~ ,. ~ i,yh ' G;'>;~ ~~",""i71iiIIIfI~III P!`. ~y-„ ., rR~r/Lb+~iay~u r d~~'r7ra ~i7ly~s~o,2`c ~ i S . ~L it P ~- Q ` r . . f ..~ ~., :r :, ~~ ~.., ~~~f -.: ~ ~ _- ~~ = Ij~i ii ~ I~ ~l' i i I fll~~~~ , i I ~~!~i~l~ ? . ll~~~~il~ ~~~~ ~ f f. l ~ ll~ s,r' I. i ~ T' ~':r;.~, N ~I ~I~ ilil ~q; ~ I".k ~ ..:,~5,~ .. ~ i~ Planning and Environmental Commission August 27, ]984 2:00 pm Site visits 3:00 pm Public hearing 7. Approval of minutes of August 13, 1984 2. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 3, Block T, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Richard billing 3. Request far an amendment to Special Development District #71, Highland Park, to subdivide 9.5 acres at the southwest corner of the Highland Meadows. Applicant: T.K.S. Vail Associates 4. A request for exterior alteration in CCT and for a conditional use permit to remove two condominiums in the A & D Building. {Liquor Store Building) and to modify the floodp7ain on Mi77 Creek. Applicant: RTS Capital Services, Inc. 5. Request to modify a flood plain on the Stephens property in Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Al Stephens 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to have a sidewalk sale • from September T5 through September 77, 1984 in front of the Burger King Restaurant at the Crossroads Shopping Center at 743 Meadow Drive. Applicant. The Camera Shop at Crossroads 7. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage on Lot 26, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. Applicant: Jeannine Erickson C~ Planning and Environmental Commission • August 27, 19Hq~ PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Scott Edwards Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Tory Braun Howard Rapson Jim Viele Jere Walters ABSENT Gordon Pierce 1. Approval of minutes of August 13, 798A-. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was unanimous. 2. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 3, Black 1, Gore Creek Subdivision.. Applicant: Richard billing This request was tabled to the September 10th meeting. Motion by Viele, seconded by Walters. 3. Request for an amendment to Special Development District #11, Highland Park, to subdivide 9.5 acres at the southwest earner of Highland Meadows. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates The project was presented by Peter Patten. Patten reviewed the history of the proposal and the request. Patten stated that the SDD amendment proposal meets all the criteria and the amendment has no negative impacts. Site development standards will be in compliance with the duplex zone. Patten stated that the important factor was that once the site was developed, it would be developed according to the informa- tion gained from the E.I. R, The E.I.R. identified key building sites and also delineates the landslide area on the property. The staff .recommendation was for approval of the major subdivision and SDD amendment. Patten said that there were conditions of approval as listed in the staff memo, and also added two more condi- tions of approval. The first condition being that adequate fire Flow and other fire recommendations be followed. The second issue was that the proposal comply with the August 27, 7984 letter from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Distict. Keith Pomeroy, representing I.K.S. Vail Associates, explained further the history of his involvement with the project and wanted to emphasize that this was a new site plan and was not based on the previously approved site p1 an. Dave Peel, architect for the project, gave a brief history on the development of the locations for each building envelope. He stated that the building envelopes had been studied further since the Claycomb report. Further refinement was done on ground water and soil problems. • PEC -2- 8/27/84 • Edwards questioned the GRFA difference between this proposal and the previously approved project. Patten stated that the GRFA for the project when it was originally annexed allowed for 90,000 sq ft. The original SDD allowed for multi-family town homes with a GRFA of 77,000 sq ft. The new proposal would now have 83,000 sq ft of GRFA. Viele questioned Barry Permut, the attorney for the project, if there would be a HUD filing. Mr. ~ermut stated that he would have to check the regulations. He added that he felt that the project would be exempt from a HUD filing because it was located in a municipality that had substantial building and zoning codes. Diana Donovan asked far clarification of point 4 in Patten's memo. Patten stated that all interceptor drains and utilities must be in p1 ace before any construction and that this was not a site by site improvement. Point 4 in the memo was changed to read: "Completion of all interceptor drains and utilities and other subdivision improvements sha11 be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential dwelling." Patten asked the developers of the project if they had spoken to the owners of the existing Phase I about contributing to the construction of the interceptor drains. Keith Pomeroy answered that he had discussed the proposal with the owners of Phase I. He stated that the owners are proposing their own system and will not be involved with Phase II's interceptor drain program. Kathy Warren, architect for the project, requested that the building height be at 392 feet instead of 30 for flat roof to 33 for a sloping roof proposed in the staff memo. Patten stated that the 392 foot building height was used in Phase I of the project due to the steepness of the site and the fact that there were zany existing tall trees that could screen the height of the units. Patten felt that the project should be designed with the site in mind and for this reason felt that i the 30-33 feet height was more appropriate for Phase II. Duane Piper stated that with 17 total units on the site, he preferred to see the 30-33 foot height limit remain. Jim Viele moved to approve the SDD amendment per staff recommendation with the addition of the two points made by Mr. Patten in the presentation. The motion was seconded by Donovan. Paint 4`s wording was changed to read: "Completion of all interceptor drains, utilities and other subdivision improvements shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permit for any residential dwelling. and Paint 5 was added and read: Adequate fire flow per the Fire District request should be provided and an evidence of flow made available. Paint 6 would be: Compliance with the letter of recommendation from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District dated August 27, 7984. The proposal was approved unanimously 6-0. Howard Rapson moved to approve the major subdivision which was seconded by Jim Viele and approved unanimously 6-0. C7 PFC -3- 8/27/84 . 3. A request for exterior alteration in CCI and for a conditional use permit to remove two condominiums in the A & D Building (Liquor Stare Building? Appiica~t. RTS Capital Services, Inc. Peter Patten gave the presentation on this project. He began by reviewing general aspects of the proposal which included an increase of commercial space in the building by creating a new restaurant on the lst and 2nd levels, revisions to all the elevations, the addition of a dwelling unit on a new third level of the building, and the development of the Mill Creek side of the building. He compared the propsal to the purpose of the Commercial Core I district. He stated that the proposal did not comply with the purposes of the CCI district, He pointed out that the proposal did not meet the design considerations as outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan. He listed three sub-area concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan that were affected by this proposal. The first sub-area concept was #6 and related to the gateway to the Village core on the northeast side of the building. proposal was in concert with point 6. Due to the problems presented by the planter narrowing the street and maintaining emergency access as well as allowing far snow " removal, Patten felt that this sub-area concept was not desirable and shouldn't be part of the proposal, The second sub-area concept #T5 emphasized facade improvements. Patten felt that many eyesores were being removed, and that transparency was being added on the north side of the building, In addition, the reduction of real estate office space on the north side of the building in order to add commercial space was also considered an Improvement. Sub-area concept #16 addressed the key intersection in the Village core which in the future will have a special paving treatment. Patten stated that this proposal would respond favorably to this sub-area concept as the applicant would be required to participate in the mini-improvement district for paving treatment. Patten then reviewed the proposal with respect to compliance with the Design Considerations. He stated that the proposal, in many respects, responded favorably to the design considerations. However, in respect to streetscape framework, and street edge the proposal fell short. In respect to zoning code items, Patten stated that the proposa7.was in compliance with the uses and development standards for CCI. The proposed GRFA is 2,050 square feet, while they are actually allowed 5,588 sq ft of GRFA. Patten stated that the Community Development Department recommended denial of this proposal due to the streetscape framework and street edge design factors. He stated that the proposal should not encroach in any signifi- cant manner upon the existing outdoor dining patio along Bridge Street or create excessive frontage along Bridge Street for second floor stairways. Buff Arnold, architect far the project, stated that he felt that the proposal conformed very strongly with the Urban Design Guide Plan as well as with the Design Considera- tions. In respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan and sub-area concepts 6, l5 and 16, Arnold agreed with Patten that the proposal did support: the sub-area concepts. In respect to the Design Considerations, beginning with pedestrianization, Arnold stated that he felt the current building was an affront to the pedestrian due to the maze of planters and stairways. He felt circulation was presently a problem with the proposal. He stated that the Deli area was not particularly positive and that the stairway area had been substantially decreased on the Bridge Street side of the building. He felt that he was trying to encourage pedestrianization along the Mi11 Creek facade. By having a ring of commercial space around the building, Arnold felt that the pedestrian would be drawn around to the east side of the building. PBC -4- $/27/8 In respect to vehicle penetration, Arnold stated that he had tried to improve the pedestrian access and the loading area by trying to provide greater definition as to what was actually the loading zone and what was pedestrian space. Arnold stated that he was willing to work with the Public Works Department to create a functional space for loading as well as a edestrian way, As to streetscape framework, Arnold stated that he felt that the building undulated due to the bay windows and entrances. He felt that the planters in his proposal were useable. He a1 so stated that a coherent sign program was being planned for the entire building. Arnold felt that the Deli patio was not successful except perhaps for 2 to 3 months during the summer. He made the point that there is no prohibition against filling in this area which is visually dead. He felt that the commercial space that will be replacing the patio would add to the street activity and also mentioned that facade ~ relief was still maintained in the new design. Arnold added that the deck on the east side of the building could be considered a trade-off for the loss of the Deli patio. In respect to the stairways, Arnold stated that there was really no basis for criticizing the stairways according to the Urban Design Guide Plan. He felt that the proposal did respond to the Planning and Environmental Commission comments made at the work session to group the stairs. In respect to street edge, Arnold stated that the present building had a very weak and confusing street edge. Arnold also added that the building height was substantially less than the allowed building height. Forty percent of the building could be greater than 33 feet, and the proposal was way below this height limit. Arnold then read several letters of support, one from Bab Parker- with Vail Associates, and another from Jeff Selby, a partner in the Rucksack and Red Lion buildings. 1'he meeting was then opened up for discussion. Otto Stark, owner of the triangular building between the Rucksack and the A & D Building, stated that the new proposal would take away Tight far has building. He also mentioned a 77 foot easement on the east side of the A & D Building that must be maintained. Dave Irish, property owner in the Mill Creek Court Building, stated his support for the project. He felt that the proposal solved many problems on the east side of the building. Arnold added that the actual easement was T7.5 feet and had to be maintained to allow emergency egress and ingress for the Deli eating area. Scott Edwards stated that he had no objections to the stairwells located on Bridge Street, but that he would Tike to see the building cut back in the patio area. He also was concerned about the impact of the proposal on Otto Stark's property. Jim Viele stated that he generally agreed with Scott, but would Tike to see more room for pedestrians in the Deli pocket area. He asked Otto Stark how the patio had been utilized in the past, Otto said that the Deli had provided him with a goad business for approximately 12 years and the desk was frequently used for dining. Viele also asked which stairways were actually required. Arnold stated that a minimum of twa were required for ingress & egress due to the building code. Viele stated tnat he felt many positive things were added by the design. He shared the concerns of the staff, but on balance, felt that the positive outweighed the negative aspects of the proposal. Howard Rapson favored the project, but wondered if Caldwell Banker really needed to have their own access. He welcomed the idea of the upper level dining terrace- but have preferred that it were smaller so as not to shade-the pedestrian, area. Jere Walters questioned who~woul,d actually be using the ground floor dining deck on the east side of the building. Arnold responded that the dining deck would PEC -5- 8/27/84 be used by the Deli. Walters stated that he was not concerned with the planter in front of the building on the Bridge Street side or the additional commercial area in the deli atio area. Diana Donavan stated that she would like to see the Public Works and ire Departments consider what is attractive and not just what is workable regarding the north side loading zone. She wondered if Otto Stark could build above his building. The attorney for the A & D Building said that it was part of a 3-party agreement between the A&D, Rucksack, and Fitzhugh Scott that no building would occur above the ground level. Donovan fe1t:.that the Multiple.. stairways detracted from the buildings. She also felt that the closing of the patio would create ice and snow problems. In general, she felt that the architects had done a goad job and would like to see the negative impacts addressed. Arnold responded by saying that many changes had been made in the building due to the PEC work session and that efforts had been made to address the Planning Commission comments. de cited the addition of planters, the increased step-back of the facade, and the decreased site coverage of 170 square feet. Arnold stated that he felt that they had made an improvement to the building based on the PEC comments. Duane Piper asked if the applicant was satisfied with the Bollard system of removal. Arnold responded that if this was the way that the project needed to be worked out, that they would comply. Arnold emphasized that he wanted to see separation between the pedestrian area and the loading zone year round, not just in summer. Arnold mentioned that the building owners would be willing tv take care of snow removal. Bi1T Andrews, representing the Town Public Works Department, mentioned that it would be important to keep snow removal a high priority because the core area was presently so difficult to plow. Duane stated that the PEC comments had recom- mended not only the consolidation of stairs, but that the double use ~f.stairs should be encouraged. This would then decrease the number of stairs needed for the building. Piper asked if there was a contingency plan for trash if the Slifer compactor proposal was not completed. Arnold answered that they were assuming that the trash compactor would be completed. We added that if the trash compactor proposal was not completed, they would have to locate a trash receptable on the Mi71 Creek side of the building. Piper stated that he felt that the east side of the building was greatly improved, that the dormers on the north side of the building were also a great improvement. He did feel that the stairs were still a problem. In closing the discussion, Patten reiterated several points from the Urban Design Consideration. He cited the reference to the streetscape framework "to improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered. one, open space and landscaping, two, infill commercial store fronts." Secondly he mentioned street edge and quoted the following section: "Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street...where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements could be used to continue the street edge such as low planter walls, raised decks, etc." And lastly he mentioned the section also relating to street edge that emphasizes the importance of "plazas, patios, green areas as focal paints for gathering, resting and orienting, that should be distributed throughout the village." Patten stated that the Guide Plan was serious about preserving the Deli patio area and the Guide P1 an clearly did not label this area as an infill space. • PEC -6- 8/27/8 Patten also stated five points that should be included in the proposal if the project were to be approved. 1. The applicant would not remonstrate against and would participate in a Uail Village improvement district and in addition would also participate in amini-improvement district for the intersection paver project. 2. The applicant would participate in the trash compactor facility or plan for a trash facility prior to building permit. 3. A letter of credit should be requested to insure that the project would be completed. 4. Future approval of floodplain modification by appropriate bodies would be adhered to if this was necessary. 5. Continued discussion would take place on a compromise of the snow removal and the loading zone area on the north side of the building. Viele asked Arnold if he would be willing to make some of the changes to the project that had been suggested by the Planning Commission in respect to the patio area. Arnold enthusiastically asked the developer far the project if he would like to answer this question. Ted VanderwiTt, developer of the project, i ~ stated that he had gone over the proposal many, many times. He didn't know haw much more change could occur. The problems that existed were due to programatic requirements and could no longer be solved by a design solution. Edwards moved to deny the application based on the fact that the removal of the patio and additional retail space did not meet the Urban Design Guide Plan,. The motion died for the lack of a second. dim Viele made a motion for approval per the 4 points outlined by Patten, which was seconded b_y Rapson. Viele excluded the point made by Patten to require a letter of credit. It was felt that this was not an appropriate request for the Planning Commission to make of the applicant. The request was approved with a vote of 5-1 with Diana Donavan voting against the proposal. Her reasons were that the proposal had a very negative impact on Otto Stork's property between the Rucksack and the A & D Building and also that she felt that the loading zone issue should be worked out before final approval was given to the project. Howard Rapson moved to approve the request for the conditional use permit as per the staff memo. Second was by Jim Viele, and PAC gave unanimous approval. PEC -7- 8/29/84 • 5. Request to modify a floodplain on the Stephens property in Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Al Stephens Kristan Pritz presented the staff memo. Stephens wished to extend the flood plain modification that he has done on his property onto Parcel A all the way to the road. The berm would be made of river cobble for rip-rap. Several large pine trees and willows are located on the northern edge of the river bed. Hatura1 grasses would be planted to revegetate the berm when construction is completed. Staff received a letter from Johnson Kunkel and Associates stating that the flow rate would remain basically unchanged and cause no detrimental effect on properties along the stream. Staff recommendation was for approval of the floodplain modification. Approval was contingent upon the applicant agreeing to protect the pines and willows along the northern river bank. Revegetation shall also be required once construction is finished. Terrill Knight, representing the applicant, stated that he would be happy to provide a written agreement that Stephens would protect the willows and spruce trees along the river bank. Gere made the motion for approval per the staff memo, seconded by Rapson. The vote was 5-0 Edwards had left) in. favor. Viele pointed out that the pine tree was actua7l.y a spruce tree. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to have a sidewalk sale in • front of the Burger King Restaurant at the Crossroads Shopping Center from September 15 through September 17. Applicant: The Camera Shop at Crossroads The presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. Howard Rapson questioned whether the request was for an annual sale or just for 1984. It was clarified that the request for the sale was only for 1984. A motion was made to approve the conditional use request by Diana Donovan and seconded by Jere Walters. It was approved 5-0. 7. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage on Lot 26, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. Applicant: Jeannine Erickson Tam Braun presented the staff memo. He stated that the applicant was requesting a variance of 2 feet in order to construct a garage within the side setback. The required setback is 15 feet, which means that this garage would be located 13 feet from the property line. The applicant felt that the garage variance was justified due to the fact that if the variance were not granted, modification of the existing deck on the residence and the removal of a spruce tree would be required to con- struct the garage. Braun stated that the request would not adversely affect either existing or potential uses or structures in the area. He added that changes were made in repsonse to staff concerns. He explained that the proposed location of the garage was tucked in underneath the existing deck as far as possible and will not adversely affect the existing structure. Braun stated that staff recommendation is for approval, the applicant had demonstrated that they had explored various alternatives to siting the garage and the staff feels the location before the :] .~ PEC -8- 8/27/84 commission was a good solution to the problem. Ken Wentworth, architect for the project, added that the proposal actually required a 12z foot setback as opposed to a 15 foot setback. Duane Piper asked Braun what the difference was between the billing request for a garage variance and this proposal. Braun answered that there were actually more site constraints upon this property due to the location of the house and existing spruce tree. Jim Viele made a motion for approval per the staff memo, Walters seconded the motion, It was approved unanimously. i• • ` T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM. Community Development Department DATE. August 22, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage on Lot 26, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. Applicant: Jeannine Erickson DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has requested a variance of two feet in order to construct a garage in the side setback. The required setback in the Primary/Secondary zone is 7~ feet, which means this garage would be located 13 feet from the property line. The applicant contends that the variance is necessary because of s~'te planning problems created by the existing residence an the property. If the garage were to be built within the setbacks, it would require modifying an existing deck on the residence and also may require the removal of a spruce tree. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Communityy Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This request would not adversely affect either existing or potential uses or structures in the area. The only residence that could possibly be impacted by this variance request would be the property to the south of the proposed garage. However, this structure is built approximately 40 feet from the property line and any impact to that property would be negligible. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The application before you today is a revised submittal from the original plans submitted to the staff. Changes were made in response to our concerns that the garage could be pulled back further within the required setbacks. The applicant responded in what we feel to be a very positive manner. There are limiting factors an this site dictating where this garage could be located. The proposed location is tucked in underneath the existing deck as far as possible and will not adversely affect the existing structure. Qonsequently, we feel this request is not a n Erickson -2- S/22/84 . grant of special privilege and there are physical hardships on the lot necessitating this variance. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of poqu1ation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No effect on any of the above. RELATED POLICIES IN UAIL'S COMMDNITY ACTION PLAN Community Design Goal #2. Opgrading and remodeling of structures and site improve- ments should be encouraged. The Community Action Plan encourages the upgrading and remodeling of structures. The addition of this garage certainly is an upgrading of this property and is a gositive response to the goals established in the Community Action Plan. 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 ar 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 Staff recommendation far this request is for approval. The applicant has demonstrated that they have exp1ared various alternatives to siting the garage on this property and we feel the application before you is a goad solution to this problem. The Town encourages the construction of garages and are happy to see this proposal before us. As previously stated, there is a physical hardship on the ]ot and to allow this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. U ~~ •J ',~.] C ~ v~ 's 1 ~.~ - ~~~ s ~_` ~ ti ;, ~~__ -- \ ~~r ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ 1 } ~ ~ ~, \ ! ~ ~ `,, ~ ~ '~~ \ \ '. ~` \ - ~ ~% l~ .~-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- 1~ r; ~ \ w i ", ~ ~ ~, ~ \ ~._ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~~\ ~ ~ ~~\ \~ \ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ f ~ Y ~ T- ~ _ ~ ,. ~ ;, s~ ~ ~~~ .- ~ -~ 'd ~ "- ly i. L / ' 1_ >- ~ J ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ l ;~ '~~ 1 ~~ ~ / ~ ~, >~ i I ~ ,^ 1 r \ \~ ~~ ~\ \ ~ \ I ~~ ~ ~~ ~a .~ / ~ ~~ .~~ ~ ~ I / / f T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: August 22, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to have a sidewalk sale on the patio directly in front of Burger King Restaurant at the Crossroads Shopping Center. Applicant: Camera Shop at Crossroads DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Camera Shop, located in the east wing of Crossroads, is requesting to have a sidewalk sale on the patio directly in front of the Camera Shop belonging to Burger King. The sale would be held from September 15th to 17th. A variety of cameras, photographic accessories, gifts and art work will be sold during normal business hours. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon. the following factors: Consideration of Factors . Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, The sidewalk sale will not adversely impact development objectives of the Town. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transpor- tatian facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,, and other public facilities needs. A walkway will be maintained between the sale area and Burger King's picnic tables. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No impact 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 should not impact the character of the area which is predominantly • Camera Sidewalk Sale -2- 8/22/84 a commercial area. The Commercial Service Center District "is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facil-hies serving . the town." {18.28.010} RELATED POLICIES IN VAiL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN, The proposal relates to the Community Action Plan's section on Economic Considerations point 4 which states: that opportunities for shopping should be identified and promoted. 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 b.v Chapter 18.56. An E.I.R. is not necessary. FINDINGS The Gommunity Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. STAFF REGOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the proposal based on the findings that the sale would be in accord with the purpose of the Commercial Service District and that the sale will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • Planning and Environmental Commission September 10. 1984 T:00 pm Site Visits 2:00 pm Work Session on Spraddle Creek and revisions to GRFA additions 3:00 pm Public Hearing 7. Approval of minutes of August 27, 1984 Withdrawn 2. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 3, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Richard billing 3. A request for front and side setback variances in order to build garages on Lot 11, Block C, Vail dos Schone. Applicant: Travis Beckley 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lat 24, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. App1icants:~ John and Loyette Goodell 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to add to the lift building at the bottom of Chair Lift #12. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. To be 6. A request to modify the flood plain in the area of the confluence of Mill ~ed Creek with Gore Creek. Applicant: Vail Trash Group ~» f, T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 10, 7984 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to allow for a lOq~ square foot expansion to the Chair #12 lift building. Applicant: Vail Associates DESCRIPTION OF FROP05ED USE The facility is presently used to provide locker roams and storage for mountain personnel during the ski season. Vail Associates has proposed expanding this facility because it is presently undersized for their needs. The expansion is 104 square feet and is proposed to be done to match the existing architectural style of the building. This proposal is being reviewed by the PEC because any addition or expansion of mountain buildings in this district (Ski Base/Recreation District} requires a conditional use permit. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends. approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. This proposal does not directly relate to, or impact the development objectives of the Tawn. The proposal will indirectly have a positive impact on the Town because it is being done to facilitate the efficient operation of the mountain. The efficient operation of the mountain is strongly supported by 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 needs. There will be no effect on these factors other than the improved ability of VA to service mountain (recreation) facilities. 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 on any of the above. i• ' ~ Lift Bldg -2- 9/1.0/84 r Bffect 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 addition is in keeping with the scale and bulk of the existing structure. This proposal will not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area nor surrounding uses. 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 b.y Chapter 18.56. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit - be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public heath, 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 RFCOMMFNDATIONS Because this proposal is necessary for the operation of the mountain and will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area, staff recommendation is for approval. r ~ Planning and Environmental Commission U C7 • September TQ, 1984 PRESENT Diana Donovan Scott Edwards Gordon Pierce Duane Piper Howard Rapson Jim Vie1e Jere ~a1ters 1. Approval of minutes of August 27, 1984. STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6 in favor with Pierce abstaining. 2. A request for a real setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 3, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Richard billing Peter Patten stated that this request had been withdrawn, as the applicant had found a way to build his garage without needing a variance. 3. A request for front setback in order to construct two garages on Lot 11, Stock C, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Travis Beckley Kristan Pritz presented the request and explained that because of the location of the house, it would be difficult to locate the two garages in a position that would not require a setback variance. She added that the applicant had located the garages out of the front and east side utility easements as well as the west side drainage easement. She stated that the proposal improves upon the existing situation by removing the existing parking configuation that forced residents to back into the street, making a safer parking area and also enclosed some of the parking. The staff recommended approval. Moward Rapson questioned the number of units in the dwelling, and K7ienman stated that according to the applicant, there were two units. The guest parking in the street right-of-way was discussed. Pritz explained that since this area had been used for parking since before it had been annexed by the Town, parking here was grandfathered. Rapson stated that he would like to see landscaping where guest parking was indicated on the plans. Others felt the same way, and discussion followed concerning the number of units and questioned the need of 8 spaces for 2 units. Edwards moved and Pierce seconded to approve the front setback variance because of the physical restraints with the stipulation that the two guest spaces be replaced b.v landscaping. The vote was 7-0 in favor. . PAC -2- 9/10/84 4. A request far a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on . Lot 24, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. Applicants: John & Loyette Goodell Kristan Pritz explained the request stating that due to the slope and the existence of a shed, this location was the most desirable on the site. She added that this location would not adversely affect other existing uses in the vicinity. Pritz also stated that the Community Action Plan ecouraged the upgrading and remodeling of structures, and added that the staff recommended approval. Loyette Goodell, one of the applicants, said that they would pave the driveway and landscape the south side of the garage. She explained that the west side of the lot had a stream and a hill, the north side sometimes was flooded from the stream, and the east side of the house had wind that caused deep snow drifts. Pierce stated that these were excellent arguments, but that it seemed to him that the garage could be built elsewhere, whether or not it was best. He suggested placing the garage uphill and detaching it from the house. Goodell pointed out that by moving the garage to the east, the requested variance was only 5 feet. Pierce moved and Viele seconded to approve the request of a 5 foot setback variance. The vote was 7~0 in favor. 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to add to the lift building at the bottom of Chair Lift #12. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. • Kristan Pritz explained that this addition would be 104 square feet in size. Joe Macy of Vail Associates added that this additional room for lockers, etc. was badly needed. Donovan asked if snowmobiles would still be arriving in the early mornings, and Macy answered '~~e~" but that this was occurring now. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated September 10, 1984. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 6. A request to modify the flood plain in the area of the confluence of Mi11 Creek with Gore Creek. Applicant: Vail Trash Group Peter Patten stated that the applicants had asked to table this item until the next meeting. Rapson moved and Pierce seconded to table. Vote was 7-0. A work session followed concerning the proposed Spraddle Creek subdivision and the proposed amendment to the zoning code to allow additions of 250 square feet. Amendment to 18.04.130(1,), definition of GRPA from the Town of Uail zoning code: f. An additional 250 sq. ft. shall be allowed over and above the existing square footage or the allowable square footage of the site provided the proposal meets the following criteria: 1. The dwelling unit is a minimum of five years old past the date of building permit issuance. 2. The final certificate of occupancy has been issued. 3. No variances accompany the proposal for the addition (unless those approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission under standard variance procedure). 4. Adjacent property owners (including joint owners of duplex or primary/ secondary units), shall be notified of any application under this section. 5. Conversion of garage or enclosed parking areas will not be allowed unless a new garage is also being proposed. 6. Any increase in parking requirements due to such an addition sha11 be met. 7. A11 proposals under this section shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Properties proposing an addition under this sub- section shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards. General maintenance and upkeep of the subject structure and site shall also be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Amendment to 1$.54.130(2) of the Town of~VaiT zoning code: ,~; ,,, f. An additional 250 sq. ft. of GRER shall be allowed if the following criteria are met. 1. The structure is a minimum of five years past the date of building permit issuance. 2. The final certificate of occupancy has been issued. 3. No variances accompany the proposal far the addition (unless those approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission under standard variance procedure). 4. Notification of adjacent property owners shall be required for any application under this section. • M F 5. Conversion of garage or enclosed parf~ing areas will not be allowed unless a new garage is also being proposed, 6. Any increase in parking requirements due to such an addition shall be met. 7. All proposals under this section shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Properties proposing an addition under this sub- section shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards. General maintenance and upkeep of the subject structure and site shall also be reviewed by the Design Review Board. $• Letter of approval from the condominium association far the proposal as part of the application to the Community Development Department. 9. A Design Review Board review of~the project`s landscaping and other site improvements (i.e, trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) will be required. These landscaping and site elements shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail standards as outlined in the Vail zoning code. This project will take place only once under this system for-each project. 10. Proposals to enclose outdoor balconies for ground level terraces shall meet the design criteria specified for such proposals within the design review criteria in Section 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. 71. Deck enclosure proposals shall be limited an a project basis to a maximum of 33% of the total existing outdoor deck above grade TeveT of the multi-family projects for any building elevation. Rmendment to 18.54.050 Section C of the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines: 14. Deck enclosures for buildings containing more than two dwelling units shall not substantially increase the building's bulk and mass. Deck enclosures shall reflect the original forms of the building so that enclosures do not appear to be an after thought or create a building mass lacking relief. The same or similar architectural design, colors and materials of the existing building shall be used for the deck enclosure. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Deveiapment Department DATE: September T0, T984 SUBJECT: Request for floodpiain modification for the trash compactor project east of the Gallery Building. Applicant: Vail Trash Group This project has continued to have its trials and tribulations even though an enormous amount of time and effort has been spent in negotiations. These negotiations will continue to hopefully came to a cancensus regarding fire lane width and exact siting of the compactor relative to Mill Creek. At this time, the applicants are requesting tabling the issue so these problems can be worked out. As a staff, we wi17 continue our efforts to see that this most important facility is constructed this fa11. n r~ ~- . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 10, 1984 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance in order to construct two garages on ~.ot 11, Block C, Uai7 das Schone Filing No. 1 Applicant: Travis Beckley The applicant is requesting to construct two double car garages in front of his duplex. Presently, the area in front of the house provides seven surface parking spaces. The proposal would provide 4 enclosed spaces and 4 surface spaces. The two garages encroach into the setback approximately 14 feet. The required front setback is 20 feet for the Primary/Secondary zone. Each garage is 440 square feet (22 feet wide x 20 feet long). The garages are 16 feet high. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The request should not create any negative impacts on existing structures in 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 attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the location of the existing house, it would be difficult to locate the two garages in a position that would not require either a side or front setback variance. The applicant has located the garages out of the front and east side utility easements as well as the west side drainage easement. Even if the east garage were moved directly up against the house, it would encroach 5 feet into the front setback. R deck~and hot tub 1~cated on the west side of the hawse make it impossible to position a garage in this area. Staff believes that there are physical constraints on the site that warrant the granting of the variance. • r- i.. • • Beckley -2- 9/10/84 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 proposal improves upon the existing situation by removing the existing parking configuration that forced residents to back into the street. The new parking design allows for exiting within the property. Staff feels that the proposed parking provides a safer parking area. RELATED POLICIES IN VRIL`S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Community Design Goal #2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. The proposal is an improvement to the property as safer ingress and egress is added as well as enclosed parking. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the front setback request. The variance is warranted due to the physical constraints of the site. A • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 5, 7984 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 24, Resubdivision of Buffer Creek. Applicants: John and Loyette Goodell DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order to construct an attached one-story garage on the south side of the existing single family dwelling. The garage is 18 feet in width and 21 feet in length for a total of 378 square feet. The southeast corner of the garage extends approximately 7 feet into the side setback. The required setback for Primary/Secondary zoning is 15 feet. A deck will be constructed on the roof of the garage. The addition is approximately 12 feet high. The applicant states that the variance is warranted for the following reasons: "The proposed addition is the most efficient and economical use of the land area. Although Lot No. 24 is quite large, much of it is steep hillside. The proposed addition is convenient in its design because it is adjacent to the present driveway/ parking area, and would result in the least disturbance to the lot. We believe that this addition will provide the most attractive solution to our need for a garage and storage area." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Cade, 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. This request should not adversely affect other existing uses in the vicinity. The setback encroachment will impact to a degree the adjacent vacant Lot 25 located to the south of the existing house. i• side of the house, The the house. the setback on the site 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. Due to the steep slope on the north the garage on the south side of the locate the garage directly against or backward it would encroach into that there are physical constraints the variance. i• Goode71 -2- 9/10/84 house, it is reasonable tv locate applicant has made an effort to If the garage were moved forward even more than 7 feet. Staff feels which warrant the granting of 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 effect on any of the above. RELATED POLICIES IN VRIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLRN Community Design Goal #2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. The Community Action Plan encourages the upgrading and remodeling of structures. The addition of this garage certainly is an upgrading of this property and is a positive response to the goals established in the Community Action Alan. FINDINGS f 4 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 da 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 Staff recommends approval for the side setback variance. The site has physical constraints which limit the possible locations for the garage. For this reason the granting of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. • F 1 Fn 9ti Pli eel Pin ~a= IB°so'zo" 3p R = 125.00' L = 41.40+ a ch = IV IS°46'48"E 80,92' ~ I' ~ g" ~. +ent i 4 _~ L _...- ..- --- r_ _._~._-'---_-'_..~ ~t"+ Irtl ~ EAGLE 7~L~/~Y D~+TI BY: EJK~NG 7-zo'~ ~ ENGlNEE~ING ~ SU~tV~YINC, Imo. ~~~: ...,,.. ~ ~n.,~,r~~>= unen WEST, SUETE 102 . N W coA- s w ~/a, sec ~z T55 RBiW 6YH P M IBRA55 CAP M~NUMENYI • Planning and Environmental Commission September 24, 1984 2:30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of September l0. 2. Appointment of member to DRB for October, November, and December. Withdrawn 3. Request far a setback variance in order to have an outdoor dining patio at the Haggen Dazs Ice Cream store at 141 fast Meadow Drive in the Crossroads shopping center. Applicant: Haagen Dazs 4. Request for a side setback variance in order to build a garage on Lot 45, Olen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Rick Pirog Tabled 5. Submission of final plat for Vail Woods subdivision, a revision of Special Development District 11 which would divide the remaining area into T1 duplex lots. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates Tabled 6. A request to modify the flood plain in the area of the confluence • of Mill Creek with Gore Creek. Applicant: Vail Trash Group • Planning and Environmental Commission September 24, 1984 PRESEf~T STAFF PRESE~lT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Gordon Pierce Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Howard Rapson Jim Viele Jere Walters ABSENT Scott Edwards The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:00 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of September 10, 7984. Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to approve the minutes as printed. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2. Appointment of member to DRB for October, ~lovember, and December. It was decided that Jim Viele would be the next DRB appointee, with Gordon Pierce backing him up. Diana Donovan volunteered for January, February and March of . 1985. 3. This item was withdrawn 4. Request for a side setback variance in order to build a garage on Lot 45, Glen Lyon subdivision. Applicant: Rick Pirog Kristan Pritz showed a site plan and explained that this foundation had been constructed 3 or 4 years ago and as approved was located within the 15 foot side setback. However, the foundation was laid 2 to 3 feet into the side setback. To complete the residence using the existing foundation wi71 require approval of a variance. The staff felt that this was a self-created error and recommended denial. Rick Pirog, the applicant, stated that an angle on the garage would not complement the project. He felt that the lot was unique, and stated that at the DRB level, he had agreed to heavily landscape this corner. Rapson wondered if the applicant intended to complete the project once it was started, and Pirog stated that he did. Piper questioned the fact that the applicant had gone through DRB before coming to the Planning Commission, and Pirog stated that he didn't discover the problem until the DRB review board process. Piper read into the minutes the fact that he had a letter from the adjacent property owners named Heller, approving the project with the variance. C7 PEC -2- 9/24/84 . Dave Irwin, architect on the project, stated that he had a site improvement survey from Tntermountain Engineering. Pierce stated that on visiting the site, it was evident that there would be little impact on neighbors, and that he would rather see the building squared off rather than have another angle. He added that he would feel differently if this was the original development, Viele felt that this was an extraordinary situation. Viele moved to approve the request with the first two findings listed and the fact that there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances on this site. Kristan Pritz stated that she felt that the owner did have prior knawlege of the encroachment. Irwin stated that when they found out, they redrew the design for DRB. Discussion followed concerning the fact that the applicant chose to go before DRB with the knowledge that he would then have to ask the PEC for a variance. Improvement surveys were also discussed, with the maaarity of the board feeling that an improvement survey should be requested before pouring a foundation. Patten explained that at one time the Council had discussed this, and had decided that since the staff was concerned about the height as well, it would be better to have the improvement survey at the framing stage so that the height would be indicated. Walters suggested that an improvement survey be required both times, and Viele suggested that the building department make a cursory check of setbacks when he does the footing inspection before the concrete is poured. Another suggestion was to require all pins to be in, and Viele said that this was expensive. Pierce felt that it was important far the building department to check the steep lots expecially. The expense of the surveys was explored, and Piper mentioned that builders often complain that each regulation the Town imposed added to the expense of construction. Pierce seconded the motion for approval and the vote was 6-O in favor. 5. Submission of final plat for Vail Woods subdivision, a revision of Special Development District 11 which would divide the remaining area into 11 duplex lots. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates Peter Patten explained that the applicant requested to table this item until October 8. Viele moved and Rapsan seconded to table to 10/8/84. Vote was fi-0 in favor. 6. A request to modify the flood plain in the area of the confluence of of Mi17 Creek with Gore Creek. Applicant: Vail Trash Group Patten stated that the location of the trash compactor had been changed and that there was no longer a need to modify the flood plain, so this item was withdrawn. Patten told the members that there would be a joint meeting of the PEC and Council on Tuesday, October 16 from 12:00 to 2:00 {with those delicious Cheese Shop sandwiches). Rapson stated that he could not attend, and Jere wasn`t certain whether or not he could. Patten asked for suggestions for the agenda. (memo to members--.this meeting is being changed to 10/23, same time) L~ n r T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 24, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence at Lot 45, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Rick Pirog DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Existing on the site is a foundation from previous construction. As approved, this foundation was to be located within the required 15 foot side setback. However, the foundation was laid 2 to 3 feet into the side setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a new design on the existing foundation. Because the founda- tion is in the setback, to complete the residence using the existing foundation will require approval of this variance. 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 lot immediately adjacent to the side setback in question has not been built upon. Consequently, this request would have little impact on existing structures. However, there could be a slight impact on potential development on the adjacent lat. The degree to which relief from the strict or 1itera7 interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformit.v of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The problem with this setback encroachment is a result of a self created error. There has been no claim, nor is there evidence of any physical hardship on the lot than can justify this variance being granted. In the past, the staff has not recom~ mended approval on requests of this type. While there do appear to be extraordinary circumstances surrounding this request, it would none the less be a grant of special privilege to grant it. PIROG -2- 9/24/84 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 effect on any of the above. RE~.ATED POf~ICIES iN UAIL`S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN The completion of construction on this site will undoubtedly improve the existing conditions of the site. This is encouraged by a number of the goals under Community Design of the CAP. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation wou]d deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recognized by the staff that circumstances outside the control of the applicant have resulted in this request. However, we are unable to support it because there is no physical hardship on the site. Human error in siting the foundation, while unfortunate, is not sufficient reason for approval. . Consequently, our recommendation is for denial of this request. Alanning and Environmental Commission October 8, 1984 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of September 24, 1984. 2. Request for a conditional use permit in order to sell Christmas trees in the West Vail mall in the area adjacent to Dairy Queen, the Vail Rthlete and Bullocks. Applicant: Vail's Little Flower Shop To be tabled 3. Request for a final plat review of Vail Woods Subdivision, a revision of Special Development District 11, Highland Park, which would divide the remaining area left into 11 duplex lots. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates 4. Request for exterior alteration for the A&D Building {Liquor Store Building) located on Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: RTS Capital Services, Inc. To be tabled 5• Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a hand gun range at the Vail Town Shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Vail Police Department 6. Request to amend the zoning code, Chapter 18.04, definition of GRFA in order to allow an extra GRFA of 250 square feet to structures five years old ar more, under certain conditions. Applicant: Town of Vail 7. Request for a minor subdivision of the Stephens property in Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Al Stephens • f~ .' Et • • Planning and Environmental Commission October 8, 1984 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Tom Braun Howard Rapson Larry Eskwith Jim Viele Betsy Rosolack Jer Walters ABSENT Scott Edwards Gordon Pierce The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper at 3;10 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of September 24. Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 5-0 in favor. 2. Request for a conditional use permit in order to sell Christmas trees in the West Vail mall in the area adjacent to Dairy Queen, the Vail Athlete and Bullocks., Applicant: Vail's Little Flower Shop It was decided to discuss item 4 first. 4. Request for exterior alteration for the A & D Building (Liquor Store Bui1dina) located on Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates Peter Patten explained the revised proposal showing site plans, elevations and photographs. He stated that the prop©sa1 to have a trash compactor had made great strides. Patten pointed out that the outdoor dining area on Bridge Steet had been raised to street level and the tables in the area would be in the sun. Ile added that although there would be 3 fewer tables, there was an addition of another dining deck on the Mi11 Creek side of the building, so actually the overai7 result was more dining tables available, He pointed out that one stairway on the Bridge Street side of the building had been eliminated, resulting in more transparency and more retail space. Patten reviewed the sub-area concepts and the Design Considerations as well as the zoning code compliance and the conditions of approval. Jay Peterson showed a model and discussed its features. Robert (Buff) Arnold, architect for the project answered some questions. When questioned, Arnold stated that the size of the original building was 9,$00 square feet on two floors and the new proposal would be a total of 13,500 over three floors. Pepi Gramshammer objected to the amount of increase of the building and to the idea of taking trash across the street. Peterson pointed out that Pepi had added onto his building in the past, and that the appearance was good. PEC 10/8/84 -2- Otto Stork, owner of the adjacent building, stated that the building looked OK to him and was an improvement. He asked about deliveries, and was told deliveries to the restaurant and deli would be on the Mill Creek side. Howard Rapson had to leave the meeting, and addressed three concerns: pavers in the loading area (he wanted to see the paving line continued in a straight line), the width of the walkway next to Mill Creek, and the facade on the Rucksack side of the building. Rapson felt that stucco should be carried around on that side as well, and added that this was probably a DRB question. Rapson then left the meeting, but gave his vote by proxy to the chairman. Donovan felt that it was not practical to carry trash from a restaurant so far, and also was concerned about pedestrians walking through the Mill Creek patio. She said that this was illegal with respect to liquor licensing. Donovan felt that the Gore Creek Drive side of the building should have planters to separate pedestrians from trucks, and she questioned the need for more commercial space and whether or not it was proper to build up to the neighbors even though there were no setbacks. Jere Walters suggested keeping the trucks across Mill Creek. Patten answered that this was already a loading zone and there wasn't enough loading space at present. Walters felt that this area could be made into a non-loading zone. Peterson said they would love to do some planting, but were told by the Public Works that they couldn't. Peterson said that the road was wide and it could use vegetation. Walters encouraged elevators for the restaurant. Viele agreed with the concern about the pedestrian way on Gore Creek Drive, and suggested that the Town invest in better equipment and mare man power and include planters to separate the pedestrians from the trucks. • Piper felt that the project was a positive one, but agreed that there should be a separation for pedestrians. Piper added that there were usually two cars instead of trucks in the loading zone. Peterson stated that the liquor license gave them possesion of the whole deck an i~il1 Creek. He added that this was mostly a food operation, not a bar and agreed to try to get a pedestrian pathway next to the creek separated from the patio. Patten stated that a separate pedestrian way was a good idea, but wondered how to get people to use it, since it would not lead to more commercial area. He stated that the staff would check to see haw to get public easement through the back along Mill Greek. Patten pointed out that the trash compactor would serve 5 buildings and this meant that all four sides of these buildings were free of trash. He then suggested that the PEC decide whether or not they wanted to have a public easement along Mill Creek. Peterson stated that the applicant would agree to give public access along the creek. Discussion followed concerning access to Otto Stork's store. Piper felt that condition #3 should be stricken (concerning a letter of credit}, and Donovan disagreed. Viele moved and Walters seconded to approve the request for exterior alteration to the R & D Building per the staff memo dated 70/8/84 with the following modifications: Remove #3 and replace it with a condition to include a pedestrian walkway along the north side of the building subject to approval by the TOV, using more intensive landscaping and a condition to provide a pedestrian ease- ment along Mill Creek. The vote was 4-O in favor with a favorable vote by . proxy from Rapson as-well. PEC 10/8/84 -3- 2. Request for a conditional use permit in order to sell Christmas Trees in the West Vail mall in the area .adjacent to Dairy Queen, the Vail, Athlete and Bullocks.. Applicant: Vail's Little F-lower Shop Tam Braun presented the request and stated that he had a letter of approval from the property owners and added that no adjacent business owners had submittrd objections. After mare discussion Donovan moved and Vie1e seconded to approve the request. The vote was 4-0 in favor. 3. Request for a final plat review of Vail Woods subdivision, revision of SDD11, Highland Park. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates Peter Patten stated that the applicant requested- to table to October 22, Donovan moved and Viele seconded to table to 10/22. Vote was 4-0 in favor of tabling. 5. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a hand qun range, at the Vail Town Shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Uai7 Police Tom Braun requested that this be tabled to 10/22. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table to 10/22/84. Vote was 4-0. 6. Request to amend the zoning code, Chapter 18.04, definition of GRFA in order to allow an extra GRFA of 250 square feet to structures five years old or more, under certain conditions. Applicant: Town of Vail • Tom Braun explained the final draft that was to be recommended to Council. He pointed out that there were two sections, one for SF, P/S, and Duplex R zones, and the other for multi-family buildings. Eskwith stated that the procedure was not spelled out. Patten said that the applicant would go through DRB unless a variance were involved, in which case he would to through PEC. Eskwith suggested making the procedure mare clear when drafting the ordinance. He also pointed out that the ordinance would not be able to prevent one from asking far a variance. Patten aswered Piper's question about the process for multi-unit buildings by stating that each applicant must get approval from the condo association, and the association would have to look at which improvements to landscaping, etc. they would be willing to make. Piper added that the association would have to do an assessment to see if the majority of the owners would approve of the improvements. Walters wandered about the possibility for an association to pool each of the 250 sf and build one large addition. Patten said that this would be taken care of in the writing of the ordinance. Eskwith stated that the purpose clause could be written to interpret this. Donovan felt the DRB should be directed to consider the impact on the whole building, and also i:o consider the impact on the persons adjacent. Piper replied that in a way this would already be done, because the application would have to be presented to the condo association, and Donovan responded that the applicant should have to show the impact on the whole building, because one example was a condo where she was president, and she could sign approval without any of the other condo owners. Braun suggested adding "Any addition shall not adversely affect adjacent property owners." Eskwith pointed out that standard DRB guidelines • ' PEC 10/8/84 -4- ~, ,. would have to be followed. Donovan replied that in considering rowhouse additions, the impact on others had not been considered. Eskwith suggested adding a sentence asking the condominium association to cook at the impacts. Discussion followed concerning whether or not to allow even stadia apartments to add 250 square feet, and Eskwith stated that the Town could not discriminate. One suggestion was to use a percentage of increase rather than exact size of addition, but Fatten replied that this would involve excess staff work to compute the existing size. He added that there was no way to write the ordinance to cover all conditions and reminded the board that an applicant would not receive 250 sq ft automatically. He felt that the biggest single danger was that the PEC would feel that thEy must grant a variance in these cases. Eskwith pointed out that this would allow the PEC to address the hardship issue. Viele velt that the the PEC had been inconsistent with small GRFA's. Piper wondered if there had been any consideration of granting less GRFA for multi-unit buildings, Eskwith felt that if the multi-unit buildings.were to be treated differently, the rationale must be written into the ordinance. Piper felt that one reason was that a larger building could have a larger impact. Discussion followed concerning process, and Donovan asked about an applicant who already had a variance into a setback, and asked to add onto the side of the project that was in the setback. After more discussion, Viele moved and Walters seconded to recommend approval to the Tawn Council to amend the zoning code to allow up to 250 square feet of GRFA over the allowed or existing square footage provided certain conditions were met with the addition of condition #10 that states that multi-unit buildings could not pool the individual additions in order to build one large addition,. The vote was 4-0 in favor.. C~ 7. Request for a minor subdivision of the Stephens property in Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Al Stephens Peter Patten explained the request painting out that the intention of the minor subdivision was to allow one additional dwelling unit on Parcel C, but not to increase the number of units on the other parcels. Terrill Knight, representing the applicant, stated that since the modification of the flood plain, there was additional square footage on the land. He asked that the applicant be allowed additional units. Patten replied that the staff`s position was that the granting of the floadplain was for safety, not to Increase square footage of number of units, and pointed out that others are not allowed to modify a hazard in order to get additional units. Knight stated that he had requested 2 more units, and although he agreed with the concept (of not adding more units), he felt that there would not be any impact, and the zoning was still remaining the same. Piper stated that modification of the flood plain could increase acreage, but not add density. Patten stated that if one is approved, anyone could modify the natural environment and get more density. Vie1e was opposed to setting a precedence as was Donovan. Walters moved and Viele seconded to grant the request per the staff memo (which was not to increase density mare tnan allowing ~ aaa~t~onal unit an Parcel C). The vote was 4-0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm. .n T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Amendment to the definition of GRFA in the Mown of Vail zoning code to a11ow for up to 250 square feet of GRFA over the existing ar allowable square footage of the site provided the proposal meets certai n cri teri a DATE: October 8, 198A~ I. BRCKGROUND ON THIS PROPOSAL • This proposal is an attempt to allow for small residential additions on sites that are presently built out. This action was prompted by a number of variance requests for GRFA over the allowable. While these requests had little or no negative impacts, criteria for granting density variances could not be satisfied. Consequently these requests have generally been denied by the PEC and Council. The staff has been directed by the Council to develop a system to allow for additions up to 250 square feet provided certain criteria are met. Both the PEC and Council have provided staff with input on drafts of this amendment. The following are comments and concerns that were raised, as well as haw we have responded to them. The amendments to the zoning code will be broken up into two sections with one addressing single family, duplex and primary/secondary, the other addressing multi-unit structures. II. ISSUES RELATIVE TO SFR, P/S AND R (TWO--FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Units eligible for additions There was a great deal of discussion by Council as to precisely what type of unit is eligible for this additional GRFA. A concensus was reached that would allow any ~Init in the above zone districts to be eligible for this additional GRFA pro,v i ded. the. criteria . i s .met 4 e~c~~pt~i for units restricted to employee housi ng } . Type of Unit Single Family Duplex P/S {lot size > 15,000 sq ft) P/S {lot size-~ 15,000 sq ft) Amount of Rddition 250 sq ft 250 sq ft/side 250 sq ft/side 25Q sq ft primary side only {~f other side restricted to employee housing} GRFA --2- 10/$/84 Age of Structure This has been changed to require 5 years fi ram the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. Notification of adjacent property owners A concern was raised that those being notified are made aware of any proposal, as well as what action could be taken in response to a proposal. The warding in the ordinance has not been changed. However, the staff will utilize a format similar to the PEC public notice that includes a brief description of the proposal, date and time of meetings, and how more information concerning the request can be obtained. Review by the ORB This provision has also been reworded to be more specific as to when ORB review is required. • III. Issues Relative to Multi-family Buildings Size of addition allowed There was some discussion relative to the size of additions allowed in multi unit projects. The consensus of the Council was that 250 square feet is appropriate and the size of the allowable addition has been left the same. ORB Review There were two criteria addressing ORB review of these proposals. These have been consolidated into one section, Enclosure of outdoor decks There was a great deal of discussion over what potentially negative impacts could arise by allowing any and ail decks of a multi-family building to be enclosed. The concern was with how deck enclosures could affect the archi- tecture of a building. In response to this, the last draft proposal limited the number of decks that could be enclosed, as well as design considerations for these enclosures. At their most recent review of this draft, the Council directed the staff to address this problem by eliminating deck or balcony enclosures from this provision. • GRFA -3- 10/8/84 The staff has given this same consideration and has proposed a compromise revision with respect to deck enclosures. It is apparent that the concern with deck enclosures is that they could negatively impact the appearance of a building. An additional concern at the staff level is that this amendment accommodate as many property owners as passible. Our proposal would allow far deck enclosures provided they are not above ground floor. Staff feels this will protect the design features of a building, while allowing a greater number of properties to be eligible for this additional GRFA. Internal additions (i.e. lofts} would still be allowed. Staff Recommendation Staff is seeking your recommendation The preliminary review by both the RE in drafting this proposal. It is our Vail property owners the opportunity far their benefit as we11 as for the for approval of this amendment as proposed. C and Council has been of great help hope that this amendment will afford to expand and upgrade their property community's. • • GRFA -4- 10/8/84 Amendment to 18.04.130(1), definition of GRFA from the Town of Vail zoning code: f. Any unit not restricted as employee housing in the Primary/Secondary, Two Family Residential, or Single Family Residential distr~i~cts steal-1 be eligible fora maximum of 250 additional square feet of GRFA aver and above the existing square footage or the allowable square footage of the site. Any given-unit will be eligible for this provision only once. In order to apply for this provision., the proposal must Beet the following criteria: 1. A minimum of five years has passed from the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. 2. The final certificate of occupancy has been issued. 3. No variance is accompanying the proposal for the addition unless those approved are by the Planning and Environmental Commission under standard variance procedures. 4. Adjacent property owners (including joint owners of duplex or primary/ secondary units} shall be notified of any application under this section. 5. Conversion of garage or enclosed parking areas will not be a1 lowed unless a new garage is also being proposed. 6. Any increase in parking requirements due to such an addition shall . be met. 7. A71 proposals under this section shall be reviewed with respect to the design Review Guidelines. Properties proposing an addition under this sub-section shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards.as presribed in Section 18.54 of the Vail Zoning Code. General maintenance and upkeep of the subject structure and site, including landscaping, shall be reviewed by the staff at the time an application is made. Amendment to 18.04.130(2) of the Town of Vail zoning code: f, Any unit in a multi-family building shall be eligible for a maximum of 250 addi.tiona1 square feet of GRFA over and above the existing square footage. or allowable square footage of the site. Any given unit wwll be eligible for this provision only once. In ordrr to apply for this provision, the proposal must meet the following criteria: 1. The structure is a minimum of five years old from the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. 2. The final certificate of occupancy has been issued. 3. No variances. accompany the propasa] far the addition unless those approved are by the Planning and Environmental Commission under standard variance procedures. 4. Notification of adjacent property owners shall be required far any application under this section. ' GRFA -5- 70/8/84 5. Conversion of garage or enclosed parking areas will not be allowed unless a new garage is also being proposed. • &. Any increase in parking requirements due to such an addition shall be met. 7. 8. A11 proposals under this section shall be reviewed with respect to the Design Review Guidelines. Properties proposing an addition under this sub-section shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as prescribed in Section 18.54 of the~Vai7 Zoning Code. General maintenance and upkeep of the subject structure and site including the project's landscaping or site improvements (i.e. trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.} shall bereviewed by the staff at the time an application is made. This review will take place only once under this System for each project. A letter of approval from the condominium association will be submitted as part of the application to the Community Development Department. 9. No deck or balcony enclosures above ground floor, or street level as defined in Section 18.24.030 A of the zoning code shall be allowed under this provision. • . , i r~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for exterior alteration in CCI for the A & D Building {revised from previous proposal). Applicant: RTS Capital Services I. BACKGROUND On September ~, 1984 the Town Council unanimously tabled the previous proposal for the A & D Building remodel due to dissatisfaction with the infill of the existing outdoor dining area along Bridge Street as well as the excess frontage of stairways on Bridge Street. Council also indicated that they would like the applicants to explore a second lever dinining deck on the northwest corner of the building as well as more relief to the north facade of the building. Also, a scheme including trash removal facilities on the property was to be submtted in the event the trash compactor project across the street fell through. The applicants have revised the proposal and addressed most of the issues of concern at the Council level. Same other minor revisions have been incorporated into the revised proposal and will be discussed within this review. LJ IT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Uail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environ- ment. The Commercia] Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribed site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The staff feels after reviewing the revised proposal that the project now complies with the purpose section of Commercial Core I zone district. C: A&D Building -2- 10/8/84 . III. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS OF THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN A. Sub-Area Concept No. 6 Entry "gateway to Village core. Road narrows to one lane exit to discourage taunter-flow traffic. "Mill Creek bridge" image, is mechanism for narrowing--reinforces gateway sense, emphasizes creek, and provides pedestrian path separate from roadway Eby bridge railings} to further tie Mi11 Creek Court into pedestrian loop. This concept of narrowing the street in this area as well as the separated pedestrian bridge over the creek has been discussed internally with the Town of Vail departments of Public Works and Fire as well as with the applicants. The Public Works and Fire departments are opposed to any narrowing of the Town of Vail right-of-way in the Village core area due to negative impacts upon snow storage and fire fighting capa- bilities. The separated pedestrian bridge is an excellent idea for reinforcing the concept that the Mill Creek Court commercial activity and the open space around Mill Creek should be a larger part of the Vail Village shopping and pedestrian activity zone. However, with relationship to this proposal it is felt that that improvement would be one made under a general Vail Village special improvement district and not one specifically attached to the remodel of the A & D Building. B. Sub-Brea Concept No. 1b . Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increased facade transparency, entries simplified and oriented to intersection. The facade improvements tailed for in the sub-area concept are being incorporated by removing the eyesores and increasing facade transparencies, etc. However, the Council did ask the applicant for further "breaking up" of this facade to add more visual interest to the elevation. The revised proposal does show an additional entry close to the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Greek Drive which adds a minor amount of visual interest, while the remaining facade is the same as the previous proposal. The staff feels that although more could be done in terms of breaking up this north facade, the improvements called for in this sub-area concept are basically being achieved and realizes that pro- grammatic requirements along with proximity to the property line in this area da not allow for a great deal of flexibility on this issue. C. Sub-Area Concept No. 16 Key intersection in Village core. Feature area paving treatment. While the proposal does include new brick pavers on three sides of the building, the applicant will be required to participate in the improvement district creating future area paving treatment for the intersection. • A & D Bldg -3- 10/8/84 . IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Pedestrianization The staff feels that Pedestrianization has been greatly improved with the recent revisions to the proposal. The revised proposal a1 lows a new route for the pedestrian to enter onto the property between the outdoor dining area and the retail shop. Another major improvement to the Pedestrianization along Bridge Street is the raising of the existing grade in the area of the existing outdoor dining deck to street level and extending the brick pavers southerly to the adjacent property. This will allow a wider, more pleasant walking experience into this area in which the pedestrian will be drawn into by the retail activity as well as the outdoor dining activity. Pedestrianization in the other areas of the proposal basically remain the same as in the previous submittal. B. Vehicle penetration No change from the previous submittal is presented. The loading zone on the north side of the building will remain and no bollards to keep the trucks a certain distance from the building will be installed. The staff is concerned that the existing loading zone which will continue with the remodel will hinder the viability of the new Mill Creek activity on the east side of the building. We have looked at areas for additional . loading zones in the immediate area but have not come up with a viable alternative at this time. We will continue to explore avenues to encourage the pedestrian to move easterly along Gore Creek Drive toward the MITI Creek area. C. streetscape Framework Some major improvments to the streetscape framework are now incorporated into the proposal. Proposed is to retain and upgrade the outdoor dining area along Bridge Street by moving it toward Bridge Street as well as increasing the grade of the deck to street level. The retail shop is smaller than what was proposed previously and is located on the eastern side of the existing outdoor dining area where access to the sun is more limited. The proposal now complies with the Guide Plan in that it is providing the open space node which is called for under the plan and retains and improves the very important function of outdoor dining in the Village core. A second major improvement to the streetscape framework is the reduction of stairways along Bridge Street to those that are absolutely necessary for the functioning of the building. This increases retail frontage and complies with the intent of the Village Core in the Urban Design Plan in that it adds vitality and interest to the guests walking along Bridge Street. A & D Bldg -4- 10/8/84 . D. Street Enclosure The street enclosure proposed is approximately one half to one which is the desirable ratio as found in the Urban Design Guide Plan. This desirable ratio is achieved by slightly increasing the existing street enclosure which is approximately one quarter to one. F. Street Edge Again, the street edge is greatly improved under the revised p7 ans. The street edge is now much more irregular, similar to the existing building and provides added vitality and interest by the allowance of a new pedestrian way between the retail shops and the outdoor dining area, as well as increasing retail frontage along Bridge Street. The street edge is nicely complemented with planters along the Bridge Street frontage. The street edge is a1 so improved along Gore Creek Drive, in the back of the building on the Mill Creek frontage. It is hoped that with signage and other means that the pedestrian will be successfully drawn down Gore Creek Drive to the east toward this new commercial and outdoor dining area. F. Building Height • The proposal is two and three stories high in keeping with the Design Considerations and it never exceeds 33 feet with habitable space. Two architectural projections will break up the roof line and the new third story condominium is tucked back behind the four story portion of the Rucksack building to relate to that building`s mass. G. Views ~o effect upon any designated major view corridor is proposed. The sensitive placement of the new dwelling unit preserves views from the upper levels of the Casino Building across the street. H. Service and Delivery Some great progress has recently been made on the trash compactor project to the east of the Ore House. The staff is 90% certain that this project will move forward and will°~be constructed before ski season occurs. The applicant has submitted an alternative plan to provide trash facilities on the northeast corner of the buiiding. The inclusion of the trash facility in this location would jeopardize in a major way the viability of the new outdoor dining area and commercial activity on the east side of the building. The A & D representatives have attended the recent meetings involving the trash compactor, and there is no opposition to their participation from the other property owners involved. We are positive that the trash facilties far the A & D Building will be able to be located across the street in the new compactor facility. A & D Bldg -5- 10/8/84 • I. Sun/Shade Sun/shade tact dining area no access to the the Mill Creek into this area In exploring t Bridge Street would increase to the buildin i~ this area h VI. ZONING CODF ITEMS ors are improved in this proposal in that the outdoor w comes out much closer toward Bridge Street where the sun is better. Also, the second level dining deck on side has been removed, allowing additional sun to come and make it more attractive to the pedestrian to enter. he second level dining deck along the intersection of and Gore Creek Drive, the applicant discovered that this the shade on the ground level where the major entrances g are located. Thus, this exploration of the dining deck as concluded with the proposal to not construct one. The proposal is in compliance with the uses and development standards as outlined for Commercial Core I. The proposed GRFA is 2,050 square feet, while 5,588 square feet of GRFA is allowed. Site coverage allowed is 80% and this is what is proposed. The conditional use permit required for the elimination of two dwelling units on the second 1eve1 was granted by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1984. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the revised proposal of the A & D Building. We feel very positive about this proposal in that significant improvements have been made addressing our previous concerns. The Bridge Street frontage is greatly improved and will add vitality and interest to the street by retaining the outdoor dining and improving the uses fronting an Bridge Street with the elimination of the excess stairways. We feel the building design overall will be a very positive addition to the Village care in that the creation of an activity node along Mill Creek will begin to highlight that area as one of great potential for the Village. Also, by extending the brick paver walkway to the south to the Shades of Vail property the circulation in this area becomes much more desirable for the pedestrian. The following are conditions of approval for the project: 1. The applicant shall not remonstrate against and shall participate in a Village improvement district if and when formed. LJ 2. The applicant shall participate in a trash compactor facility located to the east of the Ore Nouse, or in the event the compactor facility is not constructed, will provide for the trash facility as alternatively proposed in this submittal. 3. A letter of credit shall be requested to insure that the project will be completed. ~. A & D Bldg -b- TO/8/84 4. Approval of the encroachment upon Town of Vail land along Mill Creek as well as a subsequent approval of a flood plain modification request if necessary. 5. Removal of a section on the north end of the new wall along Mill Creek to facilitate snow removal in this area to the satisfaction of the Town engineer. 6. No additional drainage along Bridge Street or Gore Creek Drive shall occur over the existing situation. • ., . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October $, 1984 SUBJECT: Request fora conditional use permit to operate a Christmas Tree stand at the West Vail mall. Applicant: Vail's Little Flower Shop DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant has proposed using the courtyard area in the West Vail mall for a Christmas tree stand between December 1 and December 30. While the trees would be displayed in this area, sales would take place at Vail's Little Flower Shop located in the West Vail mall. Hours of operation would Coincide with those of the shop. The zoning code requires that any permitted use in Commercial Core IIi that is not conducted entirely within a building must receive conditional use approval. Because the trees will be displayed outside of the walls of the Flower Shop business, the applicant is required to receive approval of this conditional use permit prior to selling Christmas trees this year. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends . approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. No significant impacts would be felt an development objectives of the Town if this application were to be approved. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. This use is proposed fora commercially oriented area. The impact of the Christmas tree sales will have no negative effects on any of the above. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneu- verabilit.y, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The sale of Christmas trees in the West Vail Mall should not have any adverse effect on traffic or circulation in the area. The trees will be positioned at a location so as to not obstruct pedestrian safety or convenience. Any additional traffic generated by the sale of Christmas trees should be able to be accommodated with the existing facilities of the West Vail mail. 10/8/84 -2- Christmas Trees Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. As previously stated, the sale of trees would take place in a commercial area. This activity should have no effect upon the character of the area for which it is proposed. Related Policies in Vail's Community Rction Plan There are no related policies in the Community Action Plan. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved/denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated~or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare~or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation is for approval of this request. There should be no negative impacts in the area as the result of this activity. The staff finds the location to be used for the sale of trees to be very compatible with the existing mall area. The applicant has requested approval for two small signs to be erected on the perimeter of the display area. The staff can support this request provided that they do not exceed 2' x 3' and are mounted on grade in the courtyard. Vail's Little Flower Shap has been selling trees at this site since 1981. Last year the applicant was notified that their Christmas Tree. sales operation was in violation of the zoning code. It was recommended by the staff that if this operation were to take place in 1984, that the shop seek approval for a conditional use permit for this activity. The staff appreciates that the applicant has responded to this request so the Town has an opportunity to review the proposed operation. n U T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 8, 1984 SUBJECT: Realignment of Tot lines for the Stephens Minor Subdivision Applicant: Allen Stephens Mr. Stephens would like to realign the west lot line of Parcel C to gain the additional site area necessary to allow two d~e7ling units on Parcel C instead of one dwelling unit. He is also requesting to straighten the east lot line of Parcel A to allow for a more optimal parcel configuration. The applicant's request states: "No substantive change in use or density is proposed. This amended plat better accounts for the land's inherent characteristics as well as for that which surrounds the property." {Knight letter, 9/27/1984} The grass size in square feet far each of the parcels has changed. The new figures are listed on the attached page. However, the buildable site area, allowed GRFA, and number of dwelling units will remain the same except for Parcel C. Parcel C's gross square footage has increased by 180 square feet. The additional 180 square feet will allow for one more dwelling unit to be constructed on Parcel C. The buildable area will remain the same, 14,300 square feet which • allows for a GRFA of 3,575 square feet. The applicant received approval far a floodplain modification proposal from the PEC on August 29, 1984. The number of units and gross residential floor area shall remain the same regardless of any floodplain modification. The final development statistics are listed an the following page. (Proposed Development Statistics) STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the lot line realignments. A condition of approval for the lot line realignment shall be that a note is added to the revised plat stating: Any floodplain modification that is constructed for the Stephens Subdivision shall not change the approved number of units ar gross residential floor area for each parcel. Essentially the densities remain the same for each parcel except Parcel C. The additional dwelling unit for Parcel C was anticipated when the minor subdivision was initially reviewed. Amore functional parcel layout will be created by the lot line realignment. A17 previous conditions of approval related to the minor subdivision have been completed. For any new construction on these parcels, a detailed analysis of underground conditions and foundation design as per the Summerlee report will be required. C7 z H N O ~ N • d c0 N n M LL. L.L iL 0.' M ~ n . H O r M CD p r C} X Z O d F--+ O O ~ L~ h- ~ M [].. [x ti's C7 F~ O O Ll C} f-r n n X N r--~ w p W N O u7 N d ~ r O i~ M W O r r !.f) I~ (x ~ n n L'7 .J N M M lD d r ~ C!3 . Z p ~--i i F- r- r O O LL N ° I x N W U O ~-.~ Z I cn H h d F-- N z ~ ~ w •p n O - 3 O I..L O r r r Ol ' J O ..J W J } . d W O G7 Z C.'3 Z i F- 'j v d ~ w X u ..t w ¢ 0 w ~ ~ d O 1. i_ l f) O O M d ~ ~ M ~ D' C] cn .....I OD N cr lQ ~I CSC W N H F- t/) LL O r- O d' f~ I.C) M 00 ~ d' ~ ~ ~ ~ (n (n O N N 00 C~ d` Z M N r 00 CS r-~ l.a.t W d a Stephens -2- 10/8/84 00 Q l0 N 1~ M Ca t~ [r.. I..L M L[7 ^ l0 [~ ~ n r ~-+ C3 r M l~ r N © r N C "J' O X Z O O C7 d ~ ~ OD I i. F^ O O O 00 CL ~ VS •• M LL C3 F--~ N r M d x w p Ql W N O I..[7 N Ol ~-' d 3 r O I~ M r In LL O r--- r I.C) f~ I.C) n {~ ~ ,_,~ n n n n N S- d r N r ~ ~ r p ~ • . Z 3 O r--t .~ F- N LL C/3 r .- O CZ N fl.l O ~--~ ~ X ~1-> N w U O 4- ~--~ Z O I-^' C/7 H 1 - 1-- .t... +~ 1-- r~ to r cn ~ ~ - c~ z r- W a ~ ~ •p U d p Lt3 N ~ ~ Li O r-- r N 01 M r w O J r ~C 5 ...I w d 4- "G d O •~- N Z p O l13 vl r t!') ~- O ~ aj p d r a~ c.L' w ~ .ca a ~ rti tL d 3 't3 0 ° o ~ r~ o o ca c~ o o w ~ 0 ~ i ~ o ro 3 d d - « O' Q N cn V7 to ..I M N d' l0 N O +~ ~ ~--~ ~- r c.U O r •r •r O r-' ~ C ~ ~ ~ n O Ql }] r W N I- 3 N ~--+ LL ~ O O LA ~ fSy ~' OCS d' M t!I d1 (n O' ~ M Ol LL") I~ VI U O ~- M 00 l0 O O ~~ d' Z M N r QQ lD lQ - O •r - • C~ i--t r r r ~1-` ~ ~6 RS r-- -{ fn ~ v 3 U d ~ r ~ d m v n Q ~ O V to 0. F- 1-- ~ 1 i~ i• i• Stephens -3- 10/8/84 O `--+ Cn M } 1--1 0 ~. N Z LL.~ a. F.. ~ U ~ ~ O O Z ~--~ O Planning and Environmental Commission October 22, 1984 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 8, 1984. 2. Request for an amendment to the Vail municipal zoning code in order to change the zoning district for Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (the Vail Valley Medical Center) from Medium Density Multiple Family to Public Use District Zoning. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center. Staff Recommendation: Approval TO BE 3. Request for a final plat review of Vail Woads Subdivision, a revision TABLED of Special Development District 11 (Highland Park) which would divide the remaining area to be divided into 11 duplex lots. Applicant: I.K,S. Vail Associates TO BE 4. Request for a side setback variance in order to build an addition on TABLED the Cornice Building. Applicant: Dr. Walter Huttner t t,. Planning and Environmental Commission October 22, 1984 r~ U PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Cordon Pierce Tom Braun Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Howard Rapson Jim Vie1e Jere Walters ABSENT Scott Edwards Duane Piper called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm. T. Approval of minutes of October 8, 1984 It was pointed out that Walters had made the second to approve the A&D Building's exterior alteration. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was 5-D (Pierce had not yet arrived.) Item #2 was to be discussed last because the applicant was not at the meeting yet. 3. Request for a final plat review of Vail Woods Subdivision, a revision of Special Development District 11 (Highland Park}. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates Peter Patten said that the applicant was still not ready, and asked to table this item to 11/26. Donavan moved and Walters seconded to table to ll/26. The vote was 5-~ in favor. 4. Request for a side setback variance in order to build an addition on the Cornice Building. Applicant: Dr. Walter Huttner Kristan Pritz requested to table this item until 11/26. Rapson moved and Viele seconded to table to 11/26. Vote was 5-D. Z. Request far an amendment to the Vail municipal zoning code in order to change the zoning district for Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, (the Vail Valley Medical Center) from Medium Density Multiple Family to Public Use District zoning. Applicant: Vail Va1Tey Medical Center Tom Braun showed a site plan and explained that the existing zoning is not appropriate for a medical center. He added that the request was recognizing • PEC la/zz~a4 -2- existing uses that are incompatible with the zone district, and the rezoning would not preclude the hospital from requesting any new uses or developments that could not already be applied for, but the PllC zoning will require the Planning Commission to prescribe development standards for the site prior to acting on any application for a conditional use permit and any future expansion of the Medical Center would require approval of a conditional use permit. Braun added that the Medical Center was a valuable resource for Vail and it was in the best interest of the community far the center to be able to operate as effectively as possible. The staff recommendation was for approval. After discussion, Rapson moved and Pierce seconded to recommend to Town Council approval of the rezoning. The vote was 6-a in favor. The meeting adjourned at 3:3a. n L.,J C, i. t /~ d T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 22, 1984 SUBJECT: Request to rezone two parcels of land: Tracts F and F, Vail Village Second Filing from Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF) to Public Use District App]icant: Vail Valley Medical Center Background on Request The Vail Valley Medical Center has been in operation at its present location for many years. During this period an inconsistency has always existed with respect to the zoning and the uses on this site. Presently the site is zoned MDMF. The purpose of this zone district is to provide sites for multi-family dwellings at a density not to exceed T8 units per acre. This request is an attempt to bring the zoning more in line with the uses presently on the site. The purpose of the Public Use District is as follows: 78.36.010 Purpose i~ The Public Use district is intended to provide sites far public and quasi- public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot appro- priately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The Public Use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds-and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. Evaluation of This Request There are three sets of criteria necessary to adequately evaluate this proposal. First, a discussion of the rezoning request concerning the suitability/non- suitability of the existing zoning. Secondly, is the proposed rezoning consistent with land uses in the area as we11 as municipal objectives? Finally, does the request foster the orderly and viable growth of the community? 7 Medical Center -2- 10/22/84 ._ 1. Suitability of Existing Zoning As has been discussed, existing zoning on this site is MDMF. While the Medical Center has been in operation with this zoning for many years (and could undoubtedly continue to do so), it is hardly appropriate for this type of use.- The combined area of Tracts E and F is 3.811 acres. Under MDMF zoning, these sites could be allowed up to 65 dwelling units and 58,102 square feet of GRFA. However, when one considers the existing development on the site, it would be extremely difficult for the site to accommodate any residential development. It seems apparent that MDMF zoning is not appropriate for this site. 2. Is the rezoning proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal objectives? As Hated above, this request is actually recognizing existing uses that are incompatible with its zone district. This rezoning would Hat preclude the hospital from requesting any new uses or developments..that could not a1 ready be applied for. However, the PUD zoning will require the Planning Commission to prescribe development standards for the site prior to acting on any application for a conditional use permit, Any future expansion of the Medical Center would require approval of a C.U.P. This will allow the Planning Commission to review an overall master plan of future developments at the Center. The Medical Center is currently investigating future expansions of their facility. 3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderlu and viable community? ---_ It is~an understatement to say that the Medical Center is a valuable resource to Vail. It is in the best interests of the community for ~, the Medical Center to be able to operate as effectively as possible. The re-zoning will not limit the ability of the Center to expand, This rezoning will, in fact, allow for a comprehensive review of any proposed expansion of the facility. <~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is of the opinion that this rezoning will provide a mare workable process for the review of any future expansions at the Center. While the preferred alternative would be to review any proposed expansions concurrently with this request, the Center has not finalized their future development plans. Consequently, , the Center is requesting only the zone change at this time. Staff recommendation an this request is for approval. • Planning and Environmental Commission November 12, 1984 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 22. 2. Choosing of a member for the Ford/Donovan Park Master Plan steering committee. 3. Request for a conditional use permit to expand office space in the Mountain House at 292 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Bradway Enterprises, Inc. Staff rec: approval Work Session on Vail Village Inn Phase IU • Planning and Environmental Commission November 12, 1984 PRESENT STAFF PRE5ENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Tom Braun Gordon Pierce Kristan Pritz Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele Jere Walters ABSENT Scott Edwards The meeting was called to order at 3:05 by Duane Piper, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of October 22. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 2. Choosing of a member for the Ford/Donovan Park Master Plan steering committee. . Kristan Pritz explained that THK Associates had been chosen as consultants, and the staff felt it would be good to have representation on the committee from the PFC. Diana Donovan and Gordon Pierce volunteered to alternate on the committee. 3. Request for a conditional use permit to expand office space in the Mountain Haus at 292 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Bradway Enterprises, Inc. Kristan Pritz reviewed the request and showed a site plan and elevations. She added that the building's appearance should not be negatively impacted by enclosing the decks. John Railton, architect representing the applicant, showed an elevation. Pierce asked whether or not the filing cabinets would show from the outside, and was assured that they would not. He asked if there would be window coverings, and was told there would not be. Donovan asked if the additions were drawn to scale on the site plan and was told that they were. Rapson stated that if this could happen in 3 or 4 other places, he would have a problem with it. Kristan responded that each request would have to be considered on its awn merits, and repeated that she felt there were no negative impacts with this request. Walters moved and Vie1e seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated November 8. The vote was 6-0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned for a work session on Vail Village Inn, SDD6. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 8, 7.984 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to expand office space in the Mountain Haus at 292 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: F3radway Enterprises, Inc. Bradway Enterprises is requesting a conditional use permit to enclose two decks off of their existing office space in units .103 and 105 in the Mountain Haus. Each deck is 50 square feet. The decks are located on the first floor in the northwest corner of the building overlooking the pool. The applicant proposes to use the additional space for plants and filing cabinets. Bradway Enterprises wishes to enclose the decks for the following reasons: 1. Reduce the noise now experienced from the drive and pool areas. 2. Reduce the dirt and dust coming into their space. (They have a greal deal of computer equipment affected by dust.) 3. Improve their maintenance needs by reducing the dust and also the dirt and snow on the decks. . 4. improve the energy consumption of their space by a buffer space and triple glazing. 5. Improve the building appearance with a "greenhouse" type glass system. 6. Provide a more visually attractive space with planting inside glass and file storage rather than the visible exterior storage now on these decks. The Mountain Haus is located in the PA zone. Business offices are permitted as a conditional use if the use complies with the following criteria: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the T•.. +~_.. The PA zone allows offices as long as they are compatible "with the high density lodging character of the district." Staff feels that the additional. 1D0 square feet of office space wi11 . not negatively impact the residential character of the Mountain Hazes. To the staff's knowledge, there have been no complaints concerning the existing office space. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No impact. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No i:r-pact . 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. By enclosing the decks, the building's appearance should not be negatively impacted. The glass will maintain a transparent, greenhouse appearance. The decks can really only be seen when one is standing directly in front of the building {north side). • The fountain and surrounding i t t d pine trees d th screen the decks from e and the Sonnenal brid the an area a jacen o pedestr e covere p. g Related policies in Veil's Community Action Plan Not applicable. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an envionmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Not necessary. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission de;....~ applicable to the proposed use. FINDIDIGS The Cvmtnunity Development Department rec..,~~LL~~ends 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. STAFF RECOIrlMENDATION Staff recommends that the deck enclosures be approved. Findings indicate that the enclosures are in accord with the purpose of the zone district and will nat be detrimental to the public health, safety, or property. ~J law • s P,~sxY_!NC ~UG'~v ~ 1~ M~~~ .t~R,w~• ~j(fST. 'tom _ (~bG~'L~», - Y~,;iu~nnNtlY ~ r- ~~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~c- ~~, ~ i .. ~~ ~~ ` _.... \ ~ od' ~~ Q ~ _~ 1 orar 4 _ -~__ ~ ~ GDS c- i• ?,'`,~ :.. M~ Gam` . aot~N RA'N.~J ~ h,er.~ cr~.,.T ~nx gip..-r~o+~ Via. 8~d.~ -t"~3~a:~,~~~-~~'~~- ,a ~J T~ ~` • ~~- ~V Fes---' ~Y ~~~'~ . _ ~~T~N~ ~lG~ i• ---...--,--__ T ___.__-_ _{~ r i ~ ~ ~x i sT ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ _. ~T~. _~r~du R~'1't.'~t~llf ~. F ~...T ...._...... .~~. ~4V.QN _ ~...~~_ ._...°l~.~ ~3P~ 3~9~-559,x', . r 4 X ~~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ 4~ ~~ . t-~ - . iii ~ ~ ^__W I , ~a~ ~ -. ~ ~ -~ i ! f '~ ~~ E b E ~ !~ l~I ~ } 1~ ~ I I lq G '. ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~' ~~ t ;~ ~_ ti ~3 ! ; ~ ~ i ~ ~, ~, ~a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~--- ~ J ~ 999 I11 4 ... .. i .. . . . . ~' / s i i• i• ~ ~ _ ~. .~~ ~ ---_.__ ._; __._.~ - ~~~-----~ i _~..~_~ ~ ~ ~ --- ~-- k f ~~ ~I ~ ~ j ICI '! ,; ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ li ~{ i ----~ I ~ - ,, ~ ~ ~ ,' '~~~4 ~:~ ~~- ~ ~~~~ ~ u ~L~~ ~ ~. ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 12, 1984 RE: Work session for proposed redevelopment of Phase iV, SDD~6 The work session on the proposed VVI redevelopment is intended to provide the Punning Commission with the opportunity to comment on this plan before your formal review (the first formal review of this proposal is tentatively scheduled for December IOth). There were a number of issues with respect to this project that were raised during the PEC/Council work session last month. This memo Iighlights those, as well as other issues that the staff feels are significant. The staff wouid like to encourage each of you to voice your feelings or questions on any aspect of this proposal as presented to you today. DENSITY The original 5DD~6 allows for 100,000 square feet of GRFA over the entire site. There presently exists 4$,f45 square feet in Phases 1, ll, and III. Proposed for Phase IV is 72,450 square feet of GRFA {this does not include 2,700 square feet of GRFA for 3 employee units). When completed, the SDD would contain a total of 123,295 square #eet of GRFA. The obvious Fssue here is that the proposed GRFA exceeds what is allowed under the original SDD~b. Also proposed for the project are 22,522 square feet of commercial space. These numbers should be kept in mind when considering the other issues outlined in this memo. The density of this proposal is directly related to each of them. HEfGHTS AND MASSING The structures exceed the allowed heights {as outlined in the original SDD), in a number of areas. One result of this is the very massive structure along South Frontage Road. VIEWS The original SDD designated the view from the 4-way as an important view corridor. While this corridor is being maintained, it would be altered as a result of this proposal. LANDSCAPE ZONE The original SDD~6 calls far a landscaped zone at the southwest corner of the site. With this proposal, buildings would be located in this area. • 1 TRAF1= 1 C AND TREICK EGAD 1 NG A traffic study has not been submitted. As proposed, the loading area can accommodate f$-wheel vehicles only if they back in from Vaif Road. AMOCO SITE The staff has yet to see much detail as to how this proposal x111 relate to the existing Amoco Station. Elevations have been requested to demonsatrate how this area is being dealt with. PARKING Parking requirements for SDD~6 are based on the standards prescribed to the parking section of the zoning code. An exception to this amount is being requested. The applicant has submitted calculations for the entire SDD. These calculations are being reviewed by the staff. A preliminary calculation of parking demand has been done for Phase IV. These numbers indicate that parking requFred for Phase IY is approximately 248 spaces. • 22,522 sq ft commercial space ~ 75.07 i65 lodge rooms = 137.91 5150 sq ft meeting rooms = 47.9 260.88 5x multi-use credit - 13.04 = 247.84 This proposal includes 160 underground and l2 surface spaces. The issue to be addressed with respect to parking is the degree to which this proposal wail deviate from the requirements established 1n the zoning code. Hard numbers are not available for today°s meeting. However, a discussion pertaining to what extent the PEC would consider an exception to required parking would be valuable. ISSUES RAISED BY OTHER T.O.V. DEPARTMENTS These are the preliminary comments that have been received from Public Morks, Police, and Fire Departments. Fire Department This department°s concerns relative to PEC review are the following: !. Recommend the buildings be fully sprinkled. • 2. Access be maintained on east end of Amoco Station. it should be noted that the SDD does require a 50' separation between buildFngs. The application has requested that this requirement be waived. 3. IS-wheel vehicles wilt create increased congestion on Yait Road. 4. How is access from Phase Ili to Phase IV going to be handled? Public works t. Are the loading facilities adequate for a building of this size? There is concern over 18-wheel vehicles congesting Vail Road. 2. Other concerns are related mare to DRB review. These included: - snow storage - drainage and utility plans - curb, gutter, and sidewalk detail Police Department 1. Concern over loading zone and impact of 18-wheel vehicles. 2. How viii circulation within the parking facility be deceit with? 3. Very important that adequate parking be provided on the site. 4. Health Club--Is it exclusively for guests, or viii it be open to the public? 5. How is pedestrian circulation being handled? .7 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 1984 SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn Phase IV A work session is scheduled for this application after our regularly scheduled meeting on November i2. The format will be similar to that foll.~.~~:.d during the joint PEC/Council meeting in October. The exception being that after presentations of this proposal are made, you will be asked to give your comments on the proposal. The staff will present what we feel to be the significant issues relative to this project. Recommendations will not be made on these issues at this time. There are a number of submittal requirements that have not been mat. The staff will withhold any formal recommendations until a complete submittal has been made. At this time, formal review by the PEC is tentatively scheduled for December 10, 1984. You will find a copy of the amendments being proposed for the original SDD#6. It provides a general overview of the request that is being made. I would encourage you to look it over before Monday's meeting. The schedule on Monday will begin at 2:45 with a site visit for our agenda item {Mountain Haus}. After this review is completed, we will begin the work session on VVI with a visit to the sate. I would like to encourage you to allow your schedule ample time for this work session. Your comments will be appreciated. • Planning and Environmental Commission November 26, 1984 7:30 to 2:00 pm Site Inspections 2:00 to 3:00 pm Work session on Ford Amphitheatre at Library 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of Minutes of November 12 meeting 2. Request to amend the zoning code by the addition of paragraph 18.22.020C in order to a11ow eating, drinking, recreation or retail in non-conforming multi-family dwellings when the residential portion use of such structure is used primarily for temporary occupancy, whether or not the structure qualifies as a 7ndge under the provisions of the zoning code. Applicant: Bradway Enterprises, Inc. Staff rec:denial 3. Request for a minor subdivision review in order to re-align the lot lines between Lots 20-1 and 20-2 Bighorn Subdivision. Applicants: Bohn D and Darlene A. Sorenson and Ronald Cooper. Staff recommendation: Approval 4. Discussion of re-scheduling December 24th meeting. h sY Planning and Environmental Commission i November 26, 1984 PRESENT STAEE PRESENT Diana Donavan Peter Patten Gordon Pierce Tom Braun Duane Piper Kristan Pritz Howard Rapson Larry Eskwith Jim Viele Betsy Rosolack Jere Walters ABSENT Scott Edwards The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of November 12 meeting. Pierce moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes. Passed unanimously. 2. Request to amend the zoning code by the addition of paragraph 18.22.0200 in order to allow eating, drinking, recreation or retail in non-conforming multi-family dwellings when the residential portion use of such structure is used primarily for temporary occupancy, whether or not the structure qualifies as a lodge under the provisions of the zoning code. Applicant: Bradway Enterprises, inc. Kristan Pritz made the presentation outlining the request of the zoning code amendment. She explained the zoning far Public Accommodation district as it related to commercial type uses, outlined the proposed amendment change and made a key point of distinction between the definition of a Lodge in the zoning code and the fact that there are properties that presently do not conform to this definition. She felt that the staff would have problems enforcing the ordinance as proposed and added that the term "rental pool or some similar means" is nebulous. Pritz felt that the existing zoning did meet the objectives of the Town better than the proposed amendment and that there could be a problem with the development of small pockets of commericial space. Viele asked why the Mountain Haus was non-conforming, and Peter Patten answered that it was built prior to zoning being in effect. Art Abplanalp, representing the client, stated that the building was designed with commercial space on the ground floor and commercial was in the space at one time, but when it was vacated it last its non-conforming status. He added that the use would be accessory to the needs of guests in the lodge and in looking at sites brought up by the staff memo, only the Valhalla would be a problem, because the other sites either already had commercial or the added commercial would not be a problem. Abplanalp added that they were asking for nothing more than what is allowed property owners in the same district, yet they did not meet the definition of a lodge. ~ T. AEC 17/26/8 -2- Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, stated that they were concerned with problems that could be created if the use of properties in the PA zone changes. Piper asked about possible development on adjacent sites and how that relates to this issue. Patten said that the point is that zoning is done with respect to the land. Trevor Bradway stated that there had been a printery, a real estate office and a brass rubbing store in the Tocation, then another real estate office. Viele asked what changed a use to non-conforming, and Pritz replied that it reverted to non-conforming if the space had not been used for more than a year and that the Mountain Raus is not a lodge Eby definition) and is thus, not allowed to have retail. Discussion then centered around the change from condos to a condo-hotel. Viele asked if there was any other vehicle available to allow this use, and Pritz answered that a conditional use might be a more appropriate way and that with a conditional use process the commission could review each application. Viele agreed. Abplanalp responded that if the commission recommended a conditional use process, the recommendation to Council could be amended. • Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to recommend denial of the request to Town Council with the concern that this is inconsistent with the Town's overall develop- ment and would not allow far orderly growth and Donovan saw too manx ramifications, to the zoning code to meet the request of one space. Rapson added that this was not the vehicle to solve the problem. The vote was 5 in favor of denial, and Viele apposed to denial. 3. Request far a minor subdivision in order to re-alia.~ the lot lines between_Parcels C and D of Lots 20-1 and 20-2, a resubdivision of Lot 20, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicants: John and Darlene Sorenson and Ronald Cooper Tom Braun explained that this was merely a housekeeping matter. De showed a site plan and stated that one party had owned both parcels when the deck was added. There was no record of the deck being approved by the Town. Aleta Zwaan of Core Range Properties stated that she sold Parcel F to the present owners and when the improvement survey was done, found the deck encroachment. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minor subdivision per the staff memo. The vote was 5-0 in favor with Piper not participating. 4. Discussion of re-scheduling December 24th meeting. It was decided to have a meeting on January 7 as well as 14 and 28. • T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1984 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE BY THE ADDITION OF PARAGRAPH 18n22~.O20C IN ORDER TO ALLOW EATINGy DRINKING, RECREATION OR RETAIL IN NON-CONFORMING MULTI-FAMILY DNELLINGS KHEN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF SUCH STRUCTURE IS USED PRIMARILY FOR TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY WHETHER OR NOT THE STRUCTURE QUALIFIES AS A LODGE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODEN APPLICANT: BRAD~TAY ENTERPRISESy INCH REQUEST Bradway Enterprises, Inc. is proposing to amend Section 18~.22i.Q20, Permitted Uses, of the Public Accommodation zone to allow eating, drinking, recreation, or retail establishments in a non-conforming multi-family dwelling. The applicant would like to convert a space in the Mountain Haus into a retail space. Under the existing PA zone, retail would not be allowed in the space, as the Mountain Haus does not meet the definition of a "Lodge;." The applicant has written the following additional subparagrap h C that will be added to Section 18i.22~.02C of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Bradway Enterprises, Inc; has also included a statement explaining the reasoning supporting the zoning amendment. "Eating, drinkingy receation or retail establishments in a non- conforming multi-family dwelling, not occupying more than 10~ of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures located on the site, when the residential portion of such structure is used primarily for temporary occupancy, whether or not the structure qualifies as a lodge under the provisions of this code. For purposes of this section a structure shall be deemed to be used primarily f or temporary occupancy. only if one-half or more of the total gross residential floor area shall be made available to the public for rental through a rental pool or similar marketing device Applicant's Justification: t~The Vail Municipal Code presently permits accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail estab- lishments located within a "Lodge" (as defined by the "Code") which is the principal use if those accessory uses do not occupy more than 10~ of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Because of the Town's definition of the term "Lodge," at least one structure, Mountain Haus,is predominantly short-term rentals at this time but does not conform tc the Code because of the presence of kitchens in each of the unitsi. All of the residential condominium units in the Mountain Haus are used for temporary occupancy and all but two residential units participate in the rental poolN Despite .. 2.. the fact that this structure is used by all owners and visitors • ~ for temporary occupancy, the Town's characterization of a "Madge'" as a structure which does not include kitchens in more than one-half of the residential units prevents the owners of the commercial portion of the Mountain Haus from using their commercial space for the four purposes which are permitted accessory uses in structures which qualify under the definition of "Lodge." The only reason the owners of commercial units in the Mountain Haus are not allowed to use their property for eating, drinking, receational or retail establishments is the fact that each room in the Mountain Haus has a kitchen. While the presence ar absence of a kitchen in a lodge may have an effect on the probability that the accommodations will be used far temporary occupancy, the presence or absence of a kitchen has no legitimate relationship to whether a structure which is, in fact, used as temorary accom- modations, even though not meeting the definition of a "Cadge," should or should not be permitted to include eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments in a designated portion of the Moutain Haus for Alain's Restaurant, and the success of that establishment, indicates the lack of any logical relationship between the definition of the term "Lodge" and the prohibition of eating, drinking, recreational and retail estalishments in a multi-dwelling structure used for temporary occupancy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District, in that the amendment would permit visitor-oriented uses in association with and complimentary to residential accommodations for visitors. Tf eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments are related visitor-oriented uses appropriately located in the Public Accommodations district in the case of lodges, such uses are no less properly permitted in the public accommodations district in association with any multi-family structure used for temporary accommodations, although not meeting the Code definition of the term "Lodge." REYIEA OF DEFINITIONS RECITED TO ZONING IMENDMENT Presently, the PA zone section concerning permitted uses reads: 18.22.020 Fermitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the PA district; A;, Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying mare than ten percent of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. BM Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace. Lodges are defined as: -3- 18 r 04 ~.2I0 Lodge ~ "Lodge" means a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities;. The definitions of an accommodation unit and dwelling unit are also related to the statement of what a lodge is: 18.04,.030 Accommodation Unit "Accommodation unit" means any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half of a dwelling unit for purposes of Calculating allowable units per acre. 18~.04~.070 Dwelling iTnit "Dwelling unit" means any room or group of rooms in a two-family . or multiple-family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third of the total floor area of the building. In reviewing this zoning amendment, it is important to analyze the proposed amendment in respect to all properties in PA zones. The attached chart shows existing properties in the Public Accom- modation zone. The chart is broken down into categories that indicate 1) structures that are presently considered lodges, 2) existing lodges that have accessory eating, drinking, recrea- tional, or retail establishments under the proposed zoning amendment Four properties would be allowed to have commercial uses under the amendment: Commercial Sq;.Ft. Presently llZotred 1. First Bank 2,. Talisman 3 ~ ~Itn. Hazes 4r Villa Valhalla 357 1 s84 435 1112 Commercial Sq. Ft~ Max.. Devi. Scenario 1696 1721 An analysis has not been completed to determine if the additional accessory uses could be added and still meet other zoning require- ments for setbacks, site coverage, etc,. However, it should be noted that many properties are opting to use the Special -~- • Development District in tandem with underlying zoning to avoid the strict zoning criteria (setbacks, site coverage, etc.} that are required under a particular zone distriet~ E1~~LUlTION OF THIS REQUEST Ii. Suitability of Existing Zoning Staff believes that the existing zoning maintains the purpose of the PA zone district. 18,.22,.010 Purpose The Public Accommodation district is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development stnadards~ Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with • the high density lodging character of the district, The Public Accommodation district is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty-five dwelling units per acre,. The purpose specifically mentions that "sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors" are to be provided within this zone;. Even though multi-family dwellings exist in this zone, they are not permitted uses and are considered to be nonconforming. Certainly particular non conforming multi--family dwelling structures, such as the Mountain Haul, may be managed as a lodges. however, the proposed temporary occupancy definition would be somewhat difficult to enforce. It would be difficult to insure that one-half or more of the total gross residential floor area would be available tp the public for rental at all times and an onerous task to continually check. With respect to this criteria, staff believes that the existing zoning is enforceable and meets the intent of the zone district more effectively than the proposed zone amendment. 2~. Ts the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal objectives? • It is felt that the zoning amendment does not provide a convenient workable relationship among land uses and is not consistent -5- . with municipal planning objectives. The amendment would allow small commercial pockets to develop that are not consistent with overall commercial land use designations. Most of the commercial areas have been consolidated in the Commercial Cores 1, rr and IIx~~. The amendment would allow small commercial areas to develop outside the core areas and West Vai1~. Impacts on parking and traffic would also increase and not be consistent with parking shoppers in the main structures. As an example, if the Talisman decided it would like to expand {or convert common areas) it could add 1884 square feet of commercial and accessory uses, the .impacts on an already congested area would increase;, The Villa Valhalla may also have the same opportunity to build accessory commercial uses occupying 1112 square feet to 1721 square feet. Once again parking would be a problem. rt is also questionable whether accessory lodge use would be appropriate in this area, as the property surrounding the Villa Vahalla tends to have more of a residential character. This is not to say that the Villa Valhalla is close to other properties in PA zones. For these reasons, staff feels that the zoning amendment is not consistent with municipal objectives to focus commercial development in the core areas and West Vail. 3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? rt is felt that any zoning amendment should be reviewed on its ability to impact the entire zone district and not a particular property in a zone district. The staff does not necessarily feel that additional accessory uses at the fountain Haus would have a serious negative impact on the growth of the community. However, the main point is that other properties will be affected by the amendment;. Staff believes that the amendment has the potential to disperse commercial areas in areas that are already congested and not well suited to the development of commercial pockets" The impacts of the potential commercial have been analyzed only preliminarily but could have a negative impact an the orderly development of the community" Staff believes that the zoning amendment will not provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. STAFF RECOIiHEKb1TrON Staff recommends denial of the zoning amendment based on the concern that the amendment has the potential to allow small commercial pockets to develop outside of the core areas and West Vail that would be inconsistent with the Town's overall commercial land use designations. I "O •t- N L Q~ ~ Z. -p . i a ~ al ~- ~ ~ 3 3 r» ~ - ,.-... ~ O a~ cn 3 ~u a rp O a ~ a i ~ O ~ ~~ 41 O G r b ~r N •r • O U Q1 O_ O cn r- Q1 r O! V1 r r•^- U 'F-~ G •k ~ r O r- U RS ~ Q} [C1 fCf In L ~ Q7 'K Q7 r ~ V1 Q ~ ~"^ ~ rt3 QJ ~#-3 ? Q7 V1 ~ a ~ ~"' ~ ~ r O r • r-- ~ i-~ ~Ci tC{ L i~ ~] ~ >lr r r Crr r Q7 O L U C . O! •1-` O V7 ~ 7 C •r G C QJ •~- C ~ C r aJ U ~ (11 }~ •~ ~ O X rn~ "' C S.. cn O •t7 >` Q1 y, i.. U Q1 X S-. o x S-. t- rti O •~-• G us ns o 4.1 N 0.1 O ~ O O ~ S.. fCf ~2. }' dJ G.1 Q ~ b •1-~ ••- (U Q .~.... ~ 3 ~ !- C U ' ~ .` •N ¢ O r S- d, r [ts Ol •~ U ~ cn ? ^ l0 c}' CO lp r X17 N ~ 00 CV r r N N CS •r- a"+r77 C ? U O O N r •r C aJ Ql ~ ~ Ol Cb I 'c!' O M r !~ ~ •N ~ ~ O Q O S.. C 0. i-~ r I 5. 03 ~ fn ~~ ~ C QJ tl) O v~ Q X X X X O~ VI L ra !1 • r i} ~ N N ~ O- -]--~ ~- t6 ~ to •r N Z. C N VI G }.~ O Q1 •1-~ O O O Q ~ U ~ -G ~ C .O Q1 ~ 6'~ N RS C ~ O ~ ~ i-~ N +~ 4J • L -C •r i-~ i- S- Vl S-. ~ ~ .-. .-r -C ''-' RS L 01 O r O !n N N Sri -W r E O ~ N ~ O -}--~ O RS N O y-- O C O V1 r U ~ V1 Vf V! UI ~ 4- O O O ~ U Vf •p L ~ ~ U G ~ {J {~ .}.~ ~ ~ r.r O ~ dJ O U O rti U ~ ~ 4- 4- 4-- ~ ~ •r L O U N ~ U rG •r E L ~ 5 . L L 3 -{--= O r U i' •1-` O C3' O" Q" O' O' O O O ~ dJ Q 41 RS S.. t/1 In to Vi ~ to v! ff? cq V1 G •[3 O O •+-~ t ~ O O G to ;F- to Uf t!1 •r •r N N ..Q C i-3 U ~ 5.. •r QJ N CY d' OD {~ N O N i, +-~ ~ rL U v1 (} O Lnd' ~ rM U U U L7. ~ O W O ~ ~ r ~J -i-.~ N U O Ca M N l0 t• U U U N 9 L ~ O ~ ~ ~ G O rS5 lS'1 OJ N C~ lQ rti ~ (Lf a -I-~ Q7 i.~ S~ r U•r"a ~ O E d ~ ~ O i ~- ~ r--- ct ~ ~ ~ 5,,, G C to d1 4- G ~-G O [~ [~ •r O r» fLS •{-~ O O O ~ O RS •!-~ ~ -N ~ d! G cq ~ ~+•-• L L r[S ~ ~ a ~ 4- 4- 4- O- 47 G d U ~ t/I •~ •r•' i ~ O Ql ~ fC3 QJ •r L C (i) ~C r O r •F-~ •}-~ O -N ~•.~ ~ p'• r-- r r ~ ~ ~ U ~ C ~ •r ~ G~ Vl lCf C C~ G G G LI ~ b (~ • . a R•r• Ry N •r ~ (n [Cf rLf O 'T •r. •r' O r- S-. U O O to '41 s- +~ a1 ++ 5... ~. S.. i-, •t-- O +-~ -H+ +-~ r O U L Q O O7 i-~ b to U C ~ O ~ ~ .}.~ O G G G ~ O O O • Z7 rLf QJ U Cll rtf ~ rq RS rCi d" 4J Q1 d1 O~ r. r- O 4-- "O 4-- N r•-~ L L r •I-~ O1r p ~ VI VI N Ul S-. ~• O O O a~ ~ •~ a~ a cu a~ ay a U ~ n. o. O Zj $., r -1--~ L _ ¢i o a~ w O O C i-~ ~ Ql ~ C •r ~ i-s 4-• O~ 0.1L X X X X X X X X X ~N ~ C N ~ in •r q.I 'r3 ~ r- N e 'C~ •~- -I-~ .n `t3 O •r J U tLi fA O O r vl G N S. S~ •r- i~7 O ~ II. a--~ r~ III RS ~ •Y In ,~ •r -N N i-~ ~G -i-~ 4- "C7 rCf to S= Q O {.~ .,. O ~ ~ ..O Q! C O E m QJ t~ N O U UJ -O E C3~ •• E ~ ~ r }~ r-- O •L3 .~ C Ql •F3 •r L N - N U i-~ 16 C .,O ~ !~ O ~ ~ E O L •r Cl. G RS V7 r -N 4- O •'"' G "C1 N ~ r Qy [[] •r U •r 41 r V r~ V1 •17 +~ O OJ iT G S QJ G R3 X X X X X X X X O ~•' U G ~~ .N c O r» L N G O d U +~ 4S E 4- •r In [~ U ~ L1 V] O7 O O Ql +~ O V3 O •r b U •t- 5... S.. X O U Q N S` O Tr d tlJ J ¢ ~ U ~ ~ ~. ~ O •r-• G f~ +-~ ~•*^ O O ~ ~ •r- T3 fZ ~ R5 +J Q7 E d Q~ O 4-• ~ +~ 4J L ~ ~ ~ O ~ x- O N G O E Q1 ~+-~ 4- ~ ~ ~ VS O O O r r U C 4S •r- •r fCf U O O S` _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E . ~ ~ . •d 4J +~ i•~ T~ ~.. O •r O •r U O U C 7 rC 't -F-s to C ~ •r ~ te . O 'r' N U r - Q1 u1 "C~ 'O r 4- N ZT .r r..r L G C 41 S` Q! ~ ~ C "C3 •1•~ r~ ~ .r.~ ~ .r., -N O ~ C ~C O N •r• L O O ~~ ~..s rr C J r G r ~F- ~ 4- y L ~ L G +-~ l!1 R3 ~ UI ~ rt3 rti O O O QJ U 4J f •~ ~ U O ~ OO M1S R3 O .fit .r. ~ ~ ~ ~ cq O •!-s QJ •r ~ ~ ¢ Q.7 CU VI O G 41 0-+-' •L7 •i-~ 'O V ? x V1 r !~ Q•J -.~ ~ U r[f Q O ~ •r VI C •r r- •r T7 rLf 0.1 r-- O L ~ O O r S- ILf r-•• C •r ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ O r ~ r• S. 4- fSS F--• z LL.. ~G F-- ~ ~ U F-- ~ CjJ El: •~ * ~ T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: CO1~I~UNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 26y 1984 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A MINOR SIIBDIVISION TN ORDER TD RE-ALIGN LOT LINES BETi~EEN PARCELS C AND D OF LOTS 20-1 AND 2D-2y A RESIIBDTVTSION OF LOT 20y BIGHORN SIIBDTVISTDN BACHGRDUND OF REQUEST This request is to re-align an interior lat Line between two parcels of Lots 20-1 and 20-1~. These parcels are zoned Residential Cluster and 7 units have been approved by the DRBp Owners of both parcels C and D have applied for this request. The owners of this property discovered that decks from the residence on Parcel C encroach onto Parcel D. Re-aligning this property line is the applicant's solution for eliminating this encroachment. Zt should be noted that staff could find no record of this deck being approved by the Town,. IMPACTS OF THIS REQUEST This proposal would reduce the size of Parcel C from 17,267 square feet to 16,000 square feet;. Likewise, Parcel D would . increase in size by 1,28 square feet. The size of these lots would still be in compliance with minimum Town of Vail standards. The allowable GRFA was calculated with respect to all of lots 20-'R and 20-2. While a single family unit has yet to be built (out of the seven approved}, the allowable GRFA is not affected by this proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation of this request is for approval. While it appears that the deck was constructed without Town of Vail approval, there is little cause to make this an issue because there are virtually no negative impacts and both property owners agree to letting it remain4 5 53° 1700" F Y I ,. '~ h'e - - -~ _.--~ ~ .3-:i ~ ~:. ~ [^ U r ~~ ~1.L N a ~~~~ ~~C~~'~ l D4.75 25.10 FOUND K'1TNE'S5 1 GORNER ~. ` ~--,.; rr~~S (~. J C r . .;., I7, 267 SQUARE FEET f EXI STINGI 0.396 ACRES r ~ J ~4} t ~ ~ = -1 I ~~. i ~ ~ D~'CK w ~ I PARCEf.~ E ~- 'J { 956 SQ FT i r~ ~ i ~ } ~= i '', ~ - t ~- 1 1 ~'~ _ PARCEL F •, -. 956 SO F7 i a ---- t„"5r _ ~ ~' { 1 ~1•- ~~ ' ~ V ~~ A,. ,~ ~ ~ ~ti.~ ~ ~Y~ h i 4} ~_ ~ /O t I y ~ D~~;h 14 ,`0 ~_ ` '~.cCn ~ `VI 'r , ` ~_ 0~ ~ r~~ G~~, ~%i ~ n ~, ~ ~; ~ ~ ~Z ~` ~ (~~ ~• 10~ , _ _ ~ ~ _ ` \ /, -S 53°!7`00"E 4 -S 53°17`OQ~~F 4 5.71' \~ a CY V~ _ ~ _. Q I, ;_ O ~: r.. N ~ 0 r Planning and Environmental Commission December 10, 1984 2:00 Site Inspections 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 25. 2. Request for a height and front and side setback variances order to build a residence on Lot 6, Block 8, Intermountain. Applicant: Henry H. Maruyama 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a heli-pad on Tracts E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (the Vail Va17ey Medical Center.) Applicant: Vail Va11ey Medical Center 4. Preliminary review of exterior alterations af: i• a. Lionsquare Lodge - KB Ranch restaurant deck enclosure b. Lionshead Gondola bldg remodel and addition c. Lifthouse Lodge bldg commercial expansion 5. Report from the Park steering committee 6. Discussion of Planning "Open House" January 10. 7. Brief presentation of proposed modifications to the approved development plans for Golden Peak. r Planning and Environmental Commission December ld, 198 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Gordon Pierce Tom Braun Duane Piper Betsy Roso7ack Howard Rapson Jim Viele Jere Walters ABSENT Scott Edwards The meeting was called to order at 2:50 by Duane Piper, chairman, 7. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 26. Duane Piper corrected vote on item three, Sorenson and Cooper realignment of lots lines between Parcels C and D of Lots 20-1 and 20-2, Bighorn. The vote was 5 in favor, 0 against with Piper not participating. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. Vote was 6-0 in favor. n 2. Request far a height and front and side setback variances in order to build a primary/secondary residence and a garage on Lot 6, Block 8, Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Henry ~. Maruyama Tom Braun reviewed the request. (The commissioners had visited the site before the meeting.) Braun pointed out that because of the steep site, the garage could be in the front setback without need for a variance. Ne explained that the applicant felt his request qualified as a hardship because the road was constructed 10 feet or more above the property line over most of its length and because the front property line is 15 feet or more from the road over most of the length of the property line. Braun reported that the staff felt a height variance of such a magnitude (11 feet) would have a negative impact on adjacent structures and would be a grant of special privilege because other properties along Basingdale had not requested height variances. He stated that the staff also felt that the buildings could have been designed in such a way to accommodate the steepness of the site. The staff also felt that granting a front setback variance would be a grant of special privilege. The staff felt that the house could be built further to the east, eliminating the need for a side setback variance. • PEC 12/10/84 -2- . Rich Heinemeyer, representing the architect, Richard Crowther, explained that the applicant had not intended to request a side setback on the west and the architect was prepared to redesign the project so as not to need the side setback variance. He stated that the height was 45 feet, not 44 as indicated in the memo. The reasons far wishing to design the buildings as requested was so that there could be a single level entry, to cut down on the retaining walls, for solar access to the upper level, for the view to the east, and to try fit the building into an open area where trees would not have to be removed. He felt that it was better to have a tall slender structure and that building the house into the hill was not necessarily the best aesthetically on this site. Heinemeyer added that he had not received any complaints from the neigh- bors that he had talked with and had a letter of approval from one neighbor. He was asked if the trees had presented a hardship, and Heinemeyer answered that the trees helped to hide the house, though they did use the location of the trees to decide upon siting. Pierce stated that he could see some advantages to having a pole house, i.e. not having to dig as much slope, but he felt that it still could be stepped down. Pierce informed Heinemeyer that resident elevators were available. He also suggested using trellis to camouflage the piers, driving onto the roof which would require only a small part of the building to be over 33 feet, and added that solar benefits on that lot were minimal. Viele said that he generally concurred with Pierce and felt that mare study of possible alternative design was required. Rapson asked about the uses of the different floors and was told that the top floor was for the owners' main living area, the middle floor for guest bedrooms and the lower floor far the • other unit. Donovan agreed with Pierce and Viele. Piper felt that the height could be mitigated, and suggested that the requirment of entering on the level should be discussed further with the owners to see whether or not a variable could be worked out. Piper felt that it would be difficult to pick up much passive solar except in the summer. Heinemeyer replied that there was actually quite a bit of solar available on the site. Viele explained that the guide lines that the Commission was required to follow were quite narrow, and unfortunately did not include some of Heinemeyer's criteria. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to deny the variances requested per the staff memo dated December 10, 1984. The vote was 6-0 to deny. 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a hell-pad on Tracts E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (the Vail Valley Medical Center}. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center (site visit before meei;ing) Tom Braun explained the request which was to construct a helipad in the parking lot at the Medical Center. He stated that to have the helipad at the requested location would benefit the Medical Center with respect to how they utilize helicopter landings in their operation. Braun stated that the staff felt there were two main reasons to deny the request. One was safety for pedestrians and for surrounding residents and for landing the helicopter and the other was noise and wind which would affect the surrounding • residents. He added that the staff recommended improvements to the existing facility. PEC 12/10/84 -3- Walters asked who was responsible for maintenance of the present helipad and Mike McGee of the Vail Eire Department answered that Public Works plowed the snow, the post office made certain that their vehicles were not obstructing the stairs to the helipad, and the Town of Vail paid the liability insurance. He added that the State Highway department had granted a variance to use the property because it was part of the Interstate right-of-way. Debra Jost, hospital administrator, stated that the main issue was one of patient safety. She added that often the transfer was done under extreme conditions and that the service from the hospital to the helipad was marginal. Jost also stated that the helicopter pilots felt that the present helipad was dangerous because of the location of trees, never knowing whether or not there would be snow on it, and the fact that the pad was uneven. She added that she had no objection to withdrawing the request if the~hospita7 could obtain help in improving the present helipad. Jost added that there was a third alter- native, and that was that the hospital was contemplating expansion and maybe at that time a helipad could be designed into the new addition. Piper asked whether or not a helipad was requested to be in the new addition, and Jost answered that it was not, but that she would request the consultant to consider a helipad. She repeated that the existing helipad was not up to standards because of the trees and being uneven and that the distance to transport the patients was great. Patten stated that he am helipad and wondered why existing facility. Jost • time and didn't know the boom with many high risk more acute. i Mike McGee had been on a committee to create the present the hospital and ambulance district had been behind the stated that she was not at the hospital during that answer, and added that Vail was experiencing a baby babies and that the level of medical care was becoming McGee said that the Eire Department was responsible for the landings, that many agencies developed the pad and that no one agency had been designated to solve problems. Merv Lapin, an adjacent property owner, told the commission that at one time there was a helipad adjacent to the hospital, and that it was moved for safety reasons. He also wondered if the conditional use needed to be approved by the property owners as per the covenants. He was told that the Town did not enforce covenants unless it was a signatory to the covenants. Lapin added that he had the impression that the operation and maintenance of the pad when it was moved was to be the hospital's responsibility. Frank Johnson, manager of the Crest, stated that there were 75 living units on the side of the Crest toward the proposed helipad and that he was concerned about safety, noise and wind but had support far the need far a helipad. • PEC 12/10/84 --~- McGee stated that he had reviewed FAA criteria, and the proposed site • would not meet this criteria. He added that the present site was for medical use only. There was discussion concerning the need for further information, and Jost stated that she was willing to withdraw the application. There was a motion and second to table this item, and then this motion was withdrawn in light of the fact that the applicant withdrew the application. (The following item was taken out of sequence.) 7. Brief presentation of proposed modifications to the approved development plans for Golden Peak Patten explained that there were changes related to function and budget. He added that the neighborhood had not been included in either a formal or informal way, but that Joe Macy and Jack Munn of Vail Associates had requested a discussion with the commission which was granted on the condition that the presentation be informational only. Macy showed site plans which indicated moving the bus stop and changing Mill Creek from an open stream to a culvert. He stated that if the stream were left open, it would have to be very large and would be empty most of the year. VA also wanted to locate the Chalet Road tennis court with the-other tennis courts to the east of Golden Peak. Macy was reminded that the neighbors were quite concerned about the Chalet Road area and needed to be kept informed. 4. Preliminary review of exterior alterations of: a. Lionsquare Lodge - KB Ranch restaurant deck enclosure b0 days b. Lifthouse Lodge commercial expansion - 90 days c. Lionshead Gondola bldg remodel - 90 days The above times are the review periods decided upon for each project. 5. Report from the Park steering committee. Patten reported that John loran-Kates had been added to the committee. Patten showed a flow chart. Donovan stated that there were several members of the committee who felt that the amphitheatre did not belong in Ford Park. Patten stated that the amphitheater was a Master Plan issue. 6. Discussion of Planning "Open Nouse" on January l0. Patten and Braun explained that there were so many projects in the works at the present time that needed public input and which needed to be brought to the public`s attention, that they felt the open house format might serve the purpose. Patten stated that there would be two video tapes made before Christmas to be played on TV to advertise. Then on the 10th there would be a video in the lobby with booths in the council chambers. .., • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Devel~..~..~.~ent Department DATE ; December >_ 0, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a helipad at the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Medical Center has proposed establishing a landing facility for medical helicopters in their existing parking area. Specifi- cally, the location proposed is immediately west of the new ambulance garage (see attached map). Modifications to the parking lot to allow for this landing zone would include lowering existing light fixtures in the parking lot, providing orange lanes around the land zone areas, and constructing safety ropes during landings and take-offs. This helipad would be for the exclusive use of medical emergency flights only. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review ofSection 18.60, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Medical Center is surrounded on the north and east by high density residential uses, and on the south by low density residential development. While the Medical Center is not a residential use, it is fairly compatible with its neighbors. Establishing a helipad at the Medical Center site would, however, create significant impacts on adjacent properties. Most significant among these impacts is the noise and wind created by landings and take--offs of the helicopters. These would be very adverse impacts on the adjacent properties, particularly the Crest Hotel. Directly related to this is the safety aspect of landing hel i- copters in such a close proximity to residential development. This is particularly true when considering the Crest Hotel which is located less than 100 feet from the center of the proposed landing zone. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation . facilities, and other public facilities needs: The most significant effect on these aspects would be that of public facilities. The present landing facilities for emergency i medical landings are accommodated west of the post office. Transporting patients from the hospital to this landing area is time consuming and cumbersome. To allow this landing pad as proposed would provide a much unproved situation for the Medical Center with respect to how they utilize helicopter landings in their operation. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion; automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience; traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of-snow from the street-and parking areas: There is a direct safety problem involved with landing helicopters in a parking lot. There is a great deal of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in this area which would nit be compatible with the helicopter landings. In addition, the proposed landing area would necessitate the elimination of up to 6 parking spaces which would put additional demands on existing hospital parking facilities. Effect upon the character of the area in which-the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. As has been stated, with the exception of the hospital, the • predominant use in this area is residential. This use would have a significant effect on the character of this area as a residential neighorhood. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMN1iJNITY ACTION PLAN There are no policies directly related to this request. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND~CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED USE Additional safety aspects have been brought up by bath the Police Department and the Fire Department concerning this request. It is the consensus of both of these departments that this area is "too tight" for helicopter landing facilities. Adjacent developments, particularly the Crest, create a potentially unsafe situation when considering the impacts of any accidents a helicopter may have when landing or taking off from this site. In the event of an accident, the existing helipad is the preferred location because it is a greater distance from any residential uses. The staff has been informed that a facility of this type would require Federal Aviation Administration approval for operation. The FAA has a number of criteria addressing the design of helipads. One of these is that no obstruction higher than 50 feet within 200 feet from the center of the 1 anding area be al ].owed. The Crest Hotel is obviously within this area, raising the question as to whether this helipad could be approved by the FAA. • FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would not comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance as stated herein. • STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommendation of this request is for denial. It is recognized that the existing helipad adjacent to the post office does not provide an ideal situation for the Medical Center. However, the alternative proposed by the Medical Center would create a number of negative impacts upon the adjacent area as well as create potential safety problems on the site itself. Because of these two reasons, the staff is not able to support this request. The staff and the Fire Department have reviewed the existing helipad with respect to its present condition. This condition is not good. The staff would recommend improvements to the existing facility (i.e. stairs, fence, and maintenance), that could provide same immediate improvement to this existing condition. ~.J --.._ _; • CREST .~ ^' ~ ` LANDING ZONE EAGLE EMS ! f _ f ~~+~.~'R.C; FN'~RANCE ~~ ~ - -- °- / } ~. ~''-\ ` - - L`~Jlf VALLEY MEDICAL r-- {~~~} ' CENTER • x T'~E.ADO~'; DRL~E_-- • ~:~ ::..: , fi , 'x J ~, t - i `j'i7-~%c L A ~'` ~ S A ~._: li, i IlYai YYLII~I',f:4 I IIlIJ6KY. ~ :i.6145iie1 YI4:a!s,ll lwlinua~, J~IIYYIe!„IiEi8Yu.11d,~ i:Ja Julie 11: a I,uY,I !.I IJ li. YuiIJLYIdidAn 11 l.,xil VAIL SECURITfES INVESTMENT, INC. `^ 143 East Meadow Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • Phone (303} 476-5531 TO Town of Vail--Community Development. oAT~ July 31, 1984 Box 100 SUB~E°~ Helipod Vail,CO. 81657 Z wash to oh3ect to a helapod at the Vail Val~.ey Medical center as an unsafe idea near a high traffic area. When the helipod was previously there., 1 had two windows broken on two different occasions. erv Lapin i.I. I.i I. i ~~JAli~ls l~il~..aJJ 'r'IY, I.I'~.I J.!, ~..L,;I a.l llil_1.111i:...I. YYIil1iti,Ilo6lfiW~„4 ni11 L.n Ii~I.LiY,ell ll.lJ~i:li it Je..,I.ii:.LI::~YI,LL:.,l~illn,:ltiAdliil~l iF J:9YW_elY ef~J/~'ejl Y.$IYY38.LIjlLLlLti is4.IL'.III.~YYSYSYIIilil.9lil:I:il!I..YeYY YIYLi,ll.li I kSlull~.~:I:IY9,4,,,,~IJY~.~ em MLhN72 the Drowlnq Ooo~d, Inc , Aox SOS, Do11pl, Trans CALEB B. i-IUfiTT 11205 TACK HOU5E COURT POTOMAC, MARYLAND 20854 I• Mr. Thomas A. Braun, Town Planner Town of Vail Community Deve]opment Department Vail Municipal Building Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Braun: 29 November 19$4 I received today your public notice regarding a Commission meeting on December 10, 1984 which is to consider "Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a hell-pad on Tracts F and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing (the Vail Valley Medical Center} in a Public Use District zone." I own the house at 272 West Meadow Drive or dot 9, Vail Village 2nd filing...directly adjacent to the contemplated he]i~pad. I would like to formally object to this con- templated use for the following reasons: 1) Noise: Helicopters in landing and takeoff conditions utilize considerable power and, hence, create a large amount of noise. 2} Safety: To have helicopters approaching landing zones over residential houses does not provide for increased safety of those who have invested in homes in the area. 3} Other Uses: While I am sympathetic to the need for Vail Medic a1 Center to have helicopter evacuation capability, I feel reasonably certain that wherever this service is provided, its usage would be expanded beyond just critical medical needs to include VIP transit, etc. i strongly object to our providing this luxury service at the expense, comfort and safety of nearby residents. fir. Thamas A. Braun, Tawn Planner Tawn of Vail 29 November 1984 Page Two It is my understanding that an area in the vicinity of the police department is currently used for this purpose. That appears reasonable to me; and, I suggest that such a location continue to be used in the future. Therefore, I urge the Commissionl~ouncil to reject this contemplated use permit. Sincerely, ,, i '` ~ ,. `.. Ip I• i~ TO: Planning and Environmental Cagnmission FROM: Ca~mmunity Developgment Deve1~..~,~....ent DATE: December 10, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for a height variance, a front setback variance and a side setback variance in order to bui]d a residence on Lot 5, Black 8, Intermountain subdivision. Applicant: Henry H. Maruyama DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Henry Maruyama is requesting a height variance, a front setback variance and a side setback variance in order to construct a primary/secondary residence and a garage. The first request is to exceed the al l owabl e height of 3 3 feet by 1 1 feet . The height of the structure is measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive} to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof. In this case, this would make the height of the proposed structure 44 feet above the existing grade. Secondly, a front setback variance of 7 feet is being requested. The southwest corner of the house encroaches into the front . setback. The slopes beneath the house are above 40~. The applicant is also requesting a 6 foot side setback variant e in order to construct a garage for the Primary/Secondary residence. The garage is located in the front setback on the southwest corner o f the 1 of . This 1 acation i s allowed given the .fact that the lot has slopes in excess of 30$. The applicant makes the following statement as to why these variances are being requested: "...because of the unique nature of this site (49~ slope) and more specifically because of two resultant conditions which have worsened the hardship: 1) Th e road has been built 10 feet or more above the property line over most of its length, and 2) the front property line is 15 feet or more from the road over most of the length of the propert y line. These conditions do not exist an several properties further west on 13asingdal a Boulevard. This has allowed those owners to build much closer to the road, eliminating Tong structured driveways and parking and minimizing the problems of having to push the buildings out aver the slope (which create building height problems). The requested variances will not result in the building appearing too close to the road, nor wil l the building appear cal I er than one story above the road. zt's relationship to the road will be closer to that of the nearby properties mentioned. Tt is believed that the property directly to the west of the subject property couxd also benefit from the relief being requested, and that the configuration of all buildings' entrances could then have a more equal and uniform appearance as well as ease of construction." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 1$.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variances based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Height Variance A height variance of such a magnitude will have a negative impact upon adjacent structures in the vicinity. Houses are located on either side of Lot 6. The proposed structure will be buil t on piers ranging in height from 26 feet to approximately I3 feet high . The 1 ots located bel aw Lot 6 are al sa developed . • Views from these units would look up at the proposed piers. Also, view impacts from any vantage paint would be decreased if the house were terraced down the slaps. (Please see attached Section A, Section B and the elevations.) Views from adjacent properties will be negatively impacted by this type of structure. Tn addition, it should be emphasized that the intent of the height ordinance is to construct buildings in relation to the topography of the site. The excessive height. of this structure is in part due to the fact that the structure is not designed with respect to the topography. Certainly, the site is difficult to work with due to the slope problem. However, the structure could be designed in such a way so that the structure would be terraced down the hillside. The height variance has a negative impact an adjacent structures. Front Setback Variance The 7 foot front setback would probably not create a major negative impact as the house would be located 31 feet from the edge of the road. However, it is felt that the house could be designed in a way to eliminate the need for this variance. Side Setback Variance • A side setback variance of 6 feet along the west side of the property would have some impact on the adjacent property to the west. Presently a house does exist on this lot. It is . felt that the garage and house could be moved to the east to eliminate the need for a 6 foot side setback. 'I'he degree to which relief from the strict or 1 iteral interpretation and enforcement of a s~aecified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in th e vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Height Variance The granting of the variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege and would not be necessary to achieve comp a-- tibility or uniformity of treatment among sites. According to Town records, other properties along Basingdale Drive did not request height variances. Most of the sites along Basingdale Drive do have slopes in excess of 30~. The additional height also does not provide any benefit to the neighborhood or cu,-u«anity. Even though the building will be somewhat screened by evergreen trees on the site, the design of the structure should reflect more of an effort to build a house that fits the topography of the sate. For these reasons staff feels that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the II foot height variance. Front Setback Variance The granting of the front setback variance is considered to be a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the house should be moved back out of the front setbck to provide for parking on Lot 6 and to eliminate the variance. The applicant states fiat by placing the house in the front setback "The con- figuration of all buildings' entrances could then have a more equal and uniform appearance" and facilitate construction. Staff believes that each lot requires a unique design solution. It was never the intent of the front setback requirement to create the appearance of uniform entrances along a street. Besides, the house to the east is built below the road with a walkway constructed on the slope to make the unit accessible from Basigndale Road. The ease of construction is not a reason to grant any type of variance. To grant the front setback variance would be a grant of special privilege. Side Setback Variance Staff also feels that it would be a grant of special privi]ege to approve the side setback variance. It appears that the house could be constructed further to the east along with the garage which would remove the necessity of having to have a side setback variance. • The effect of the requested variance on Iaight and air, distribution of population transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No significant impacts. However, the Town Engineer has requested that a revocable right-of--way permit be obtained for the retaining wall s needed for the driveway onto the site which are actual 1 y on public right-of-way property. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental t o the public health. safety, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reason s 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. Th e 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 Height Variance The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested height variance. Tt is felt that the residence could h eve been designed in a way that accommodates the topography of this site. This type of design would have resulted in a height that would be within the height limit or very close to it. The granting of the variance would constitute a granting of a special privilege as other property owners that have built . along Basingdal e Drive have adapted their proposals to the steep topography of this area. Front Setback Variance The Commnity Development Department recommends denial of th e front setback variance, as to grant the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Side Setback Variance The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the requested side setback variance. The structures could be moved further east which would eliminate the need for a side setback variance. The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties along Basingdale Drive. We offer our assistance to the applicant in arriving at a design for the residence which works with the existing sate in a more positive manner. • s,: • v.~ lei V,- { rr . r Ax d e „ -H i r srK Y i.~,'Vt rf a i F'Tr. ~~~ • t ' h _ -r4•~- 1 a 'a- ' i~ ~ d u'W °' 2 'te r, r , ~ _ r } --rte F R 7'1S'- } - 4 ~ . ~ 1 C Y . e : yytt t ~ ~ `~V i f ~l f ,4. OFF y .{ } +. ; ~ F. i l 1 ~/ 1 s- • - •' r -w4t 4~ 'ia ~, •' • r,~ ab~`G `i °~ ! , :t r z i ~"! ,. a ~ ! h ~. ~ ~ r ~ 41 ~ y r •;• , b ~ ~ 'd ~ i h t v ~ r `. s r 7 i ' l ' { ~ c., ar .•, r 1:._ 0. -V t f -5 - r~ ~,~ r ~, 1 K .~. r' ~ { - ~' ykFv ..2 ~ ~o, ~ .~'" :. D - ~' - ,~111N\I - 11,. b .. 1 ._ - ~ . .- -. i.~~ LL ]~ ~~ , r _ ~~. , ~. a 1 , n ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i r~~~ ,.. ,, ~ k C. ~ -1 !!e 3 l... ~ 1 -. .. - 4 - a ~ '.r i 3- -..f a _ +. r- 1~.- ~ r-, .' i "sti ~_ c~. F x r+~. x ~•i) -i r'Y ~l t t - ; *~ ~' F'-5 ~- .r ~Y r y ~ 1- - _ _ ,~ - ~L ; ~ -i c x A tr- 1~, - r ^t t ~ ~~ ~ r + p4~ ~ ~ '~ q h ~ r ''' ~k-~ _ ~r~:+~r Sh y~ ~ ~-t- Y~ 1. '~ A - TtIT n 1 'F' -:` _~ ~ x a-t r i ~ b ~~ I }e t i 1}-. 'y a'1 t k•4 yy /, _~ ", ~ r r~ , ~ r z ~ _ - r`r -..Ci l°i~ _ '!_~ ,, r-S1 ~r-I ~ - r y '-j - r_ z: ? y - 1 kr. ~ti F-3' - .~ ~ i t }~,. -4 3• - a t i - v jd~ ~fi~ ~~~'' rS xF- 11 _•}~~.'. .r~ r 1~r4 ~ ~ ~t'- z~-~~£ 1 ? -rt it ~-- ~:.ar ~ ~ ~ ! rry :`+ - r ~ - ' L \" t.eF~. n '! .4 .~` ,h, by 'i'__ ~_lr1 ,e - *-, .,t G:sv ~, a-"'a•-S 'F _ya „~ c r -. ..F :~ -,t- !.. ~,.- ~~.~~r, [b a~ ~ F :~#~ J +e ~t??}+~3 r t'.?~ -lsl ~ s ''}r.. Fly ~'+ r ti` a r h°. r s - ~ ' r.C'~Y stw~~ 1 y,rr ~`J! t---.i- - Ya °r- ~ r::, rt-, h~ Z ; '.l Y3- ~ r - } -f t ;• } _ r , 7' ~ V -Y 4- Fey - ' ~ ~ ~ y 1 5 ~-.5 qtr 4sr .+ r -r ..{ ~ r~ k- 4 v t,+S` r ., - ,-. _h .. gym- - .'-~ ', 2, J.~, ~ Y. rLA- 1 r F _ -n t - ~~+ Z- - - - t Y ~r}' . 3' ~- ~,~ I.Y~~ ~S-y/ 'F~ r~11 T F wt I i~ d r'r 1 - _ ~' 4 h S ~,r.~~ ' y9 ~'~ri~{i -1 'S ~~~ ~"" ~r h ~ SrS ! S " 't ~'4~ .. r- 7 - A f, ~ 3.~ ~ ~ .P. -t~: „~.sr r t~ :'?,r": ~~~! }4 ;iy- 'r~ _ _{ 2'_- •c ~rJ ;7~ f _ t ~•'a n ~ ^",,1 -z .e~r~4~,~ 0~'~'lk~,. I r - 1 'o'ff t•v r~ : Gi ~~ - t -' sy r r 1 ~ r;r ; r ~~ f ti ~r - +' - .k~' ~~` iC;,~1a~~;•, ( ~,Ek s *~ "3 'r *a• ° ~' .r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~,~h ~ <?~ T a z k'tt ~ S ' > r • ~, - K ~' ~- ~ ~ `~.{.y T- # i '' -- ~~ F ~ ~ 4 a 1k: v:.:_..r ~".~d E "~ ~,, r' s "~ • Sg Rir i,{ '"~~ Y T s - h..F ~,N•~~ ? r+, a~ ,t bs •~}~1G ~rr» •t s -ti. ~f1~t _4 ~ ~ '. 1l..r`t`t' ~t { ''' -~`3.!-'G6 - ~' ,! ' ° c r- f $ !t' P` r "=+i _--?f~s1 S„~t+ iT%,y _ "'S '1 ".7 ' ---y'ar<t''i,~Z~ "-'tea-~- ~`~ ~'~ - s _ •;l~-s~ 7- >a -• .y'~+ r~,- - #, vti 1s'YJ~?~ ~~~,~"~.~ !i~ ,., _ Iv~=; 1 Z~m •1 r f-¢~. -X. ~}+- 3 ~ r t~ •} dm~v b ;- f „t, ~~ {`r ~ t.~.r-. Fi, ~ „rr a,~'4 ~" :S„ .~ r.F ~ ~~~ _ w ~<.Y .~k",£ ~ - yf~ `„ s4-, R~~ti- - i r - r~ t i ~ 1 ~ '- - ~ -- ~, .~ - ~ `!s -~<~: v K `•~~.~ k ? r y 5~~~~~`~ !a c ~.*`' rtc }'iV"~' r 1, y j `1 frS ~ rv' - ° ~ {,, ., ~~ ~.c• r {Y - b~ _ '''h ~" w it r i~ + 2 ,{:. ,;fix! ~~'~ •,`.tas ; iS'wx ~ FM[ +V,'~a nrv~ a - s •Y: s '~7 ~- -n ~a_ ~1• :N,~i ; !1 a~ e C~-~ 4 S ! ~ ~~i~. ~`+P' -.~. k t "' y,,~~ -P 4-1 ?y Sr' i b.1 , _ af.y ~ irr T'• T,; • s ~~ v, Y° - - ~ 1 K`~ ~F' -•ifr~ y .,~',. l' :? ,~ y ~hr. ~ -,~ T. .t~ 4Y'T _ `,il .,'•. T:~y _ dJ' +y k ~'- tr' 4`~ ~ ~l'~ F ~k ~.!`r- ~ ~' .'l F -- 4 -S fy- ~ h+ ; .ry, ~: 'J~Y~+: ,~~• rrrr, .;~c t Ali '~ .~ .~'r}~ °+_ ° ry~i-tiy~ ~~-~--` •~pT~~,1 +~. ~~rr >? .51 .,j --e~-3-~-Y~~' -,7 ~J~'~"#;i.a ~: - e: ~. sy ~~;.~,, U, ~+~,,"*t ~Nn µ~ ( ~' i ~( ,-a -a.. ~- ~,:. 7 a' •~ r,' ~ ~ :Sy- (. ~ ~y,•' 3k, g~ ~ 7s,~.y4 ri'?{ ~~~' ~~~"`*` ~,l.~ bl Sy(±?' '{' +. ;lr•; ..SSI;' k" j bF: ~-,4.iw E [• _ .iF. ~ h ~_ _#'• 5' - ~i'~ i~[. .;4 ,~ ~ is ~ t! q .~P ~~ ~ ~'~ S frs `i .r m' ^x~ t !'Er - _ .~~ ~^ "S:r,?: p4- -- -{. ~._ , s,,1- ; ~y}~';}'{,~' .: ,. ~ .?~- t}~, - ~ -^• P' jt ,r s r, 4 y. ~; ~. ~: x~a r- : r 't P:-.• .::,:`Y .. •.y. F r.'.I.trs3 - . M1~ ~~~ ~~r.~ ~ hS:_- .,.~' Aa -. :~` 1_.._ .~-3~lki, ..~ :r. 4.'?i,ro- .x: .., .: ;*.Fat. iX'S'}.: - :~s..., .. r ..~-. :'k s~ v~~ i- R .~. ~.. 1 tin f .- ,t~~?!Mf~. +S~ -a ~ ~~~~~ Yk~~r ;~w ~'Q e >i .'.s`~~! r~.,~`~n- '..t- X4 ~'a ~~.'."! - vsn.i:_ ~ 4_{t~;`1 r ra ,~.6 ~s;r ~ya w• +, y d t r ~~~~' ` ~ ~"z ~~}}•• :: ~FaY.a"S.}:"~:.... 1 ~,' t _ ' Y - ~ ~ _„- ~ ~ s = s r s.. sl t, t,r ~ - '~ ~; + t~'~~ ~ a.~ s `r 'a -'.i' .,~ ~~ ~k. - ,^i Jt~~;u4+xwY.. - -c ~ 'Y ', .' » r.,.._"b.':,°~=+ ,r r^ r- i' - ~' A '`'~ - 4- ~'r ~ _ { ~' n, s- s 1 ~.y .,--. .~:~~ r, ~; .X:'.'.a. ~, . f .4 -S< `'4k r45'. ~:• ~-,.~ ~i ~ y, ~Y~„' r~,'~r ..~=~x~z,^ _ ..~1~. i-f- '~' ~ ° ~ ~ 4 ~•+ JF``~ ~ a~vs~";C ~t F } 4t ~. 'r 'Xf ~ -1 c. Y ~ ~ - _ r - Sf' 3~ ~ ~ xJ - 9 ~rl' t'- -4 y t ~~ t - _ . - ~y~L~rt' ~s ys ~b t ' r ~ - ~4 _~~ k 1 k ~ ' I:, Wyk ~ ys ~ ~ a, - T : ~ z, ~ 'Mrrn+r~~ L,p ~ f { ~ ~ x #, f ~~ 7~ ' T`~, T t- _y .,s~ ~-,r ~ iR t ''+r~_ '°7 kf~ - r i` r ~yMr.~~ ~.srFt 4 - - ~.i • C 'h`'C~i - j t 5 ~ } ~~aTy,' ~ ~- ^F '~ ~ ~~ _ ..r.... - ~!~' _ ,. rL~ '§ - ~, rr r°aKi `fir' ~ R'' - s ' b, '. -. ~~~$ _ ~' t .ca!"" 7 t r l• ~ kc (,~ y~(~- r :r ~' r Y,'s ~ ~ ` ~ ?3 .~: S i -?,ea -fir 4 / y {, ~ ka}- t - ~ A -'j - _ `~ S -e F;.~: 4 r ~1:~ ~ ~ts~ ; xr ~~ q ~,,.~~ ~. AFC'. ~ " t. ~ r k2• r 3 a tkrfi !4 s - -', r :~ _ f r ~ ~ t .~~s i ~~ P ~h -~+Hk ~.4~~ ~ ~r-,:,` 1 -~., i` `'f ,,~ t`'~s-~~ r~ -''`-t s~ ~ `--T ~ ° ~~'Vt .fit r t ~r >- _ -,zr~R~' ~ },- n-„ ~'~ _ -s~ F - Fw r ~~' t ~ tt.i. ~~:~.~:~ `~-r -~.~ '4„ L=•:.F` by ~~ Y i~ t. ~~~ -~ ~7f -4g-tt std -~,s `°~ dt r. - -.9'•-~+y4_!r. >yf, _ r `3 _~ ^ ~ t i_ ~ti:F,1f- r i' c ~ s 3'~`~~~ s A f t. ~ r .ri x r - ~ i a Y - r ~ y / e ^ s ~ 1 ', Fi - - R ~ ' .r., F ,,~ { r ~ ~ :F r - v, ;:~,Y~~~~ r ' ~y s,.'~,kf{ ! . ~', r - *'~ h -- - ~ ~.: ~ ~~- fi - -,~; ~ s`i w a- - ,_# ~e ~! 7- -i ~.3 6'1# -s, aljc is ~ ,_ ~ >t ~ •7`~r '~ _ _ v'~s~'~. ~~ x ~ .- ? ~rt c ~ .S ~ L s `~' S i} 2 ° d-'Yr.N: w: r~,r ;~' k iE^' { ~ a ~ : ~ r } ; q~~F.k y ~ '.i~' :r-:'~ t - ..: 3~ ti; rt ~ '? t +~~ ~, .n. - 'F - ,r _ ter. ~§~. ..» . ~'1 .YS ~ i r - a - ' ~.-i-4a~ r•P `x t h. 5 s_`~,T A S I - ,~~' '~ ~ ~~ ~'K1E L7'=: :i~ - 1 -fF-- -'~ :t; b ' ~,-l- 1> t 5 ,1M k ..~ -Y r1'+g ~~ 44 kd i. Si~ -4.F '1j, M -` ! ~l k - -mod ~~~~• .~r(~~..~,r'iS.- 1~ eF 's-~~r{ ~'.;;,`,ns ?3t-. a'~r-r Sz sr.~ ~., ~~4~ _ a_a~a;-~.~; '`+S v tti+t'-,,a `'~,~x >, _;'q ^~,~. ~~}~`~~s'~~~k ~.``Fr -}.`;i 5.. ~''r-sa -j~ ',s'L` ~'Xy P f s! ~ti- ~~ w}'S r- Ir~.f' ~~ r.r> •~' r av f~P1 sY}'S' ~~ f3 ~iiu 2`{. .~ ~ 2 t ; 1 sc,! a : ! r z.s - ~. _c '~~ r - o- r -'~d ? r ~ ' ~", s r ' 1- ' b ~ -~ ~ - kf _ 3 3,q,~~~ ~y ~F-t. ~ gF ~c ~ ~ - s .~ p „[ ~- = a ~, '` i ~ _ n a F ~ r - r "-} Y 4+. - - _ ra6f~Fx ~J,A~ I yi, l k --*t -' F` l T ~ ~S - - -'Y ~ A- f. [,~ S C4'' '~,.t r '__l ~"a ~' ~ ~:i. Yt+r ~r' '>n -['-`i - ?. - r-~~ ~;~'~~cM-.i~~ 2 J, ~ r r ~ l r -,F, 'a - ,~ k ~ -,+ k ~iL `F ~ aY-c r ,c"A p Yy, t -)' ~ M y ~i -- 1• h - - - _ 'k k ,~ a ~ - - i? - ~ ,. g, fir., t i F y A. ti ~ -- ~ t' ,rY 'a '~ ' 1 d +}6_3 .~'~ `~' g1 N1 ~',k ~ F fay i ~ -J.~ S~ ~ -1 - -L -l- ~., ~ Jf3 -r S S 4 t• 1 d.th,' i '-"l4 5_ V,y ,4 -~ ~ 1 ~`' . ~(~~ k ~ - fT - } 'f^X r '~ i 'l 1 t- ' S ~ Nf ~~ '[ / -- i ry" ~ -, 2 S y ? W -~ .., r, ct y w /Cy}yi,_ r., 3 _- ~_ -~- } ~~k,.fi ~.~~~,4. tit~~{ ` f-, rf 1 ~"--~ 'r,~h ~ ~-~ ! n.'T~ry _ 1. f~~ 1.r I.' ('1, J k 21 _ C 1 ~~ ~Sr~ 31k' 9 F 1' ~ ~ S '~~ Y'- L - - _ 1, - ~,t l }~K - 1. - - -, ~ „N -~, .~._4 ,,t, `A~ Y},L,1 - - ~'~ f '~4Yk~ F -. `~. ~ tr+~-'`t ,e, a ~~r ~'~ s k.. 7~.' :'w t -r }r, -`qty ~~ ~ ri ~-,. s v~'" rrt 1° ~ ' '?yc~i?}~ -+r .~' Y .X+';cw F~' ~ 'r ~kv - €e: t L : i~:t>~'.._ ^< a ti y ~ J ~',: t ~ >t -a _a\ s ~ 4 r.&e -~ ' ~ t 1. °~r ;,;4:~ra(rf,}S ~ _ _ ~y ,raj ,~i.Sa° "r .:'`~ '~r -,'r _ - ~ z M r ;/: ` { r . F('4 ~," fy, k"4~y 4 - - - ~'~~, t' t^" ~c>! ''~ .~ r ,F' r r^-f ~ti -~ •"~5C -~} r -*R ~-,Stq''~ .i4 t r v° a`~', r.~ -,~ y { y ~ ~ ~p ~.~s xr- - Ls. x -0 - t~ ~- - 'kL "},, .r4- ' A '- ~ t _-r i T j r -_ ~ 4 _ •~ai L f iw 4 x f -A. FT '- A .~ ~ - (i. ~~ ~^'1' l -F. ~rr~~yJ Snr c '~. 's !.'~. '` .ks - x _ a ~5 -, a`~ ~ y r+s y - y ~ 2 - - ris' p ~[ - i i'.' 4 `q'~ - • jYl ~ i' ; .~ ~! - "~~ f i~ - i i{ _ Yr ''s. - kla r}. ~ - 't- - ~rik}t''~,SL~~' -,S <R ,~ z - _ yt e-k ~~t+tiri~'-k~3; ~ `k ~ .t z~.,F~-~ ` ~ ~ n,'~ yf,~'. _ ~ y~s -+y 'r - C -~ w __ R X+'kx -rte r _k - ~a '- ~ ' 7- J/~~ f s r ~;' :r "~~ ~k- ~~^y+ 1"',~,•'~~~'" r ss;; ~f '- -~`1 ~- e '' 43 1. -,chy r ~'-~' y~.s' ~' ~ ° i s'~ ~'a r!s ~~'~e'..#~= } v'r.'-t;i~'C y -.,r ,F!t'.- r f ? ~ -Y ~ YY L ~ a ~ -' 'r F-> ~ s, ,v >r r~ Y # a r ~ ., _ ti -"? 66' ' 3~ s _' '"' " § k~ ¢~ r a r' r .taf r ~ `~ ~ '~ :1 Yw -' : 1 _ .~-}.~;~, - ; °#, s ~ ,.?' , - k 't - _ ~k - y x J ~° sky ''"' fr' x.,~, F~Yyasa ',f ,~i~ -y,. ~ s ~ `~~,.F-,a/e '~ r,''~~'" -t+i3 a :r~ -` r~'... T`s-g 4'~r ..r Ply„ - ~ r";oaf,' "5. ~ r~~~~3~~-hc r"+-- x' ~A7.,r -ri ~' 2'k- xy t~Y~, i"-~{ ' _ `. F1 5k R' , ~ r ' -, ` ~ , t' r -. rAe tt~ , + F ~~' c 'f'.~+t .n ~"x tirt~ r y *! S- k 3f i ' »`:'~ •"gi- -~ SFr 5 - r. c 'i ~ r,: f ' ~ ,ter ~-' }-4 Yi' f sh ~. 'r .' r ti 1 a,. ' ~, s _ b d: - r _ - `~ r4zk r - s~-, .Y _ ~ 5 rt!f - ~ : ,° g -0t 3', - -c ' ;:i ~ s -'f{ „7'- yy ~ h -_ ~ - ~ ,'rl ~ ' ,.: ~, Y ac ' -,~ ,. ''~ ~ ~. r`^' ~ y'".2 --t t i r - 4,, 1 -'?S }K`A "di-z Y r - -_ [' fi' - '~', :_ a ~ y`'f .y~'~j~,_'~-~,.{ 4~ _' r {. rc -a. - ~ r ~ r a ~~ vr,5rlr./IIVI~I ~ ; f 5 - P r ,~.. e r t ~r~ ; Ft rt ~- ~ r - i 4 ~ b y '4 -xi-i„- ~-,t- A .'..1 A ""w r _ _ S,L ~ t ~',i. 1€ - ~$ zS'~ r _ - ~^S f F '.1 Y \;M M ~ _ ,y S ~. - i ~' y~,~R S Cr ~' ~~' +M ~ ,a- ~ u _ ~s~ ~ ~ T +r4, - .5 -. _iS'~k -'.i~~' - `'~, i- r~:'~ .n ~ ~ - ~, ~ is s ~ 'e~' `+<"~' ~.it: w- -di -y ~ 'i _ _ J ~ _ k~~~! „i i. C ,oft ',t {{ ~.~ ~ ~ Syr 'i1 ~ , `. '~ -Z 1 `~' Cty :~., ~.~ '4-' '~, ~~y ~J " i, • ~ :c. , i ..~ sr ~ F i ..rk~ ~ ~ sr LeA .'Yµ$ tip'.. '~ ... - Y 'wrr r i -~ ;~5 YJ r l t ~,~ Y Y ' '7- D. '(-t _i ~ g~t r~` ~i- \ 'r f: ~~-:.~~ ~Yk.~.i it['S ~F,?~T ~.t \ 'y ~~. ~' ' k ~.~.' t~,; s 11~~ - i ,4 ~ c a ;'z ~Ct- ~ ! 71~'~.tk - -,Fe ~~~~ fry T ~"~.i-h ~s~~ri,y,a '~5 ~~~sf ~1P rs' ~ ~E ~4~i~k ~_ _ v ~ ~~ }'s ~ ~ ; 'fin .. k.c. ~.t.~, r 3 ~ ~ 's' s ~ ' -,3ks ay ` ~~ 2 G. ¢ ; ,H9 A - -~ ~ eai., ,y- ~' -. _ - .r ~ ~ ~ j''~ _ ~~ - F - Ju -~-'~,.•--w -r -` cr~}.~"~ - ~i-0s -i s k~~ Ly 5~"~r'Y~l~~ 5 jf ~ 'S I F ~ r ~ ~ C ' F _ . ,r'r - _ { i A - 'va. ,i 1-+ , ~ r a - }~'~ -,.k yr ~S ~ r ~ ~ -T i , `'k -`, c -}~~,n~ Fi , - ! `,~r~, ! a~ -k ~,3~- ~ , r' - '_ . J '~'~ - -4 d..I1e -, s~1 r~ 6 rT __`I' ~~ X15 SI'k T, 2 -~ •..r Y I J{~ - ~'t - - h~ ~' /• '. - - ~' 1 '"rlhr'{ 4 f ~ It[. s ~ is ~t ! ~ } - '~ x - SFr ay~-'Sy ~,x .~ uGq~.~~'t '~ ^ti,~a4 ~ ' ti e~ - t r 7 - Y - ) J !. .rz `1'r s "i t - fi _ y _'~ 2 t';1 ~ _ ~-`J~~ ~h~ F 4~, {~ _ ~ .~ '..~ zd - _ ~.a Si y ~! _ C' its rr- "° _ s. b ~ay,7~. _ ~gtyf €~~y ~ y~ri,: '"tir„~` k~~-~ ~i Icss r ,; r y E r F ~` k `~ x * ~ '! 'fit '~~` "'~` r; w,,z~ 5~'~tr ,t?#+~ {yr~y~~ .Y ', ~ ~• r '- c _ _ ?~ k_ v • ~ P $ ~; -r' S t@ jk,. f l "~' Y'-L 'w ~h•~ Y ~' 'yl~''~~„,~~+r ~r ~~ ~- i - - -r 'S ref ~ - yrf[ S t - fia -t, $Yfi e~~ ~a :h~ -y „r Y ~.,r~Y d~'.:s 1 ~~~~# c 4 5 F' .. r ~•dS ~ `' F .^~q # -- # ~ r ~' ~ ~ - `'~ ~~~.~-F~''~~"~7'~'°Y~ ~ ~' ~~`~~'F~i $-~3'<z' ~ tx~;s ,e _ ` ~t-' r,, r " _ ~~Y~r -~,~~ t~, s r~ p>_-~J- ~ '~`,~~e A"~- -.~ s x ~.« ': e '~"!' - A t -n _ S 3r s'~i-~. - • '~,j .h- r / "F.-, 'e-'?{d xsr tat ?,~ y a-. 'y~`.~ •°~ .. f 5 ~ 'mot- r ' -' s 3 « _ - ~ _ .~', j v _ s y, _ "~- C `yrifs-g~ ~F."~ s F~f,} '4xs ~ ~4, ,; '~' ` 3 1 - f. ~ '' `s-~ 2- . -le ~-~ a. a -n ,ax ~`p- ~#'.r F jti ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~"~~'';k~~ }'Se~ • ~, Y'• ~~*~•;~ ,Y~-~ rr r..S ~~i•~~_~,~~~ ~'L~.~,ff J~yt~r '{1~ ~4~~~"~~i~S~`~~,~y,,~T hty4 f:A~ {': kr ' t ' F ~, k a f ! '1 ~ i ~`rk, ~ iL¢, k 3 ~7" k 'Sd~~E !' r ft ~` ( rr f s f Nc n ~. ar gip' ~~..} _, .-~ f? ` ~~ trt 4 '~t~Y ti °x,~ fa °k 4~ ~k-~~ ~$s~} ~ "" ~~-~ `~~ ~'k '`r ' t ~' + } ' ; ~ - ~z r -,~; '- y n ~'; i' `fir ~y-- ~ix`r k~.~~F~ rs d`~~-~~,'.~r~.' ~ }~~' a ~` - r _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ! - .r j, i ° ~ k . 5 . y> - s ,ir [ ~ ~~a~ ' ~v. ~ is ~,,ZµR d: ` ~f, '~'~`' at '~: 'F ~~ 5- ~ _ . ~ ~fF. { 1 - ~ ~ zz y5 tAx ~,{~i ~, b it ~ +Y,~ ~ -~i t. a•_z 1~; ~'y S 1 ~ k '-~ i t, • ~ -{~ - it -i J ~ W' '~ ~~ Y, w~ ~~ ~ ~Ty~F~, ~:, •~ ~ -y,t ~ Ik s~r~ ~ I. - _ r ~ 'rfs, h Jr.' ' } e. F r ~ - *, ':~~~~ ~ .} +yF"~'~ - ^c° ~ ~. ~ i' I ~ r i .n :: '7 t~ . t - - .:'ate,} .,'y. rh_ r4 ~`- ~~ ., •. , , ~ { r ~•'~ . _ e- ~~ ~ ~ r S ~ srw •. .-s . ~ :C 3r 4! ~'~-.r}i,~i'.,+t~'Gt~`Fid~'`.•' - ' ~~~.~f, ._ 1 f ~r.~ ~ ~ ~ :. ~ '~ / n ~ i ~- ~ S ~ is .~ ~ n L ~ • 1.' ~ 1 ~A4 { iL '~ ~j1 < 'i 777 '~ _ y,f ~ ti• .` ~~ ' '~~t it 4'~.7t 4 ~ ~.+~ C~fi~~ .txi ~`~y t a't. _ ~ ~F l_ ,i - _;-'a ' y.y~ '~ ~Y ~ IJ ~R + 'f ~ ~ 5-e rK, ~J~`s'.]1' J, ,~- 1 r ~ -~ " ~~ ..,.~-.--r 1.3 J1-~~- _ (~ del ~ . •i _ . a ii. .•s`` -_ n~I ~ ~ t~ 'VS n..4..' y \as-:~~~ ~' ~;'`~ E '~I ~~{{'t y,~ ~r; ~y n r`.r x ~ ~ . F.y' } - ~ - ~ ... ~ ^. ~ - i `ti - `~ , +~ ~ ?. : ! t { \ ~.s ~F~aq w `\~ .7y- • : '`~~~ •9: ! ~1~• J' Y~ fJ i.~ e.~i, - l]~: ~t~ t}I t ~. 1 ~ ~ t*t ~ Y'~ 1'~'w,~ \ ` § r' ~{"-'f -.4-'i - ~'+ l7 ~.~~~%e~ ka ~1. 1 ~ 'j.~ _a?; k ~'// l ~ ~• J~ 1~, _ 1~~ ~7 TT;~ ~. ~ti ~~ s`'bc~~,~,~"FY-$a ;';~ ~t ~!. y n -7. ~ _ ~'~ } 1 s i' ~ ?5 P ~ • ~ 'h - 1r.~~ r4 y~'~ __z~' a~.r ~~tr ~.-'` t}tl k ,{[,rr` r{~at C~r57[!{'r,. ~ ~ir ST~#1 St~.~ '-F \~ r~ ~ 4 rE"` ~ -M.i~~ '~;t ~ `'t ~\ sue'.. -~~. "h..~~'F~} $ - 'ti.~ ~ ~~: s ~~ ~ l • ~~ '-ii ~ ~9r4 r,'!P' ~,r ~'{ f's. f; .. ',n~,. x7, ~ F ! +, r1 Y~ ~~ -~ ~ ! `.l ! t L, ~ `-x ~ ~ ,.E ~, i •r, ~ ~ f ~ ~'. r ~ '~` 1'Y: ~`. ~ - ~"'[- ,~ S ~ a ~ ~ S € Y 4sV '}~~P*1~ I ', ~~~a , ` n ~ ~ T`~ {r -T"~ t s-' - 1. r p - i~ r~ f '"i:t z~v\`~~1 ~ C -' 'tT[x1c / r~ 11 {'i 7~t -°.n ~l`~4-~~.~ ~+~,k i~rF~titY' >.:~. f s ~ -; ~. ,,, t _ Y 1~r. rs r t -.r ~ t' ~ K .:.+r? ' t ~ ff ~ ti ~i I 1 d f a t 3• ~` ~';+ ~~'e~ ~ ... _. y., yk A3't'F " ''.?~y 4 p: '31` r .!s'r ik <„r. ' r !'a,m+#r ~ ~ t ~ ;F` .~Sf h,,.t ! ,{ f a5 x- h~~ .y _ S 3 r 1T~ t t-~ ), S~ G., f' 4b ? 5~ 1. _ - i ~. ~''' ~ ! -t s 7 ~ y ijlf' Y"~T1.51 ~~ ~~ :~ ~ r - ~ s/ V f - ~ .`l,i s i ~ ,. ~ ~ r `k~ C y Y'. ~' ~a'F vH _Y ~.~\ !~[ re ~3Vi ]~~~ i [' F t ~~ s4, 4 y i. S~ ~ .r ~ }` ~ ~( t ~r x ..,, ~' .r ~a~~4 ,. a+~.'s 7 -~ a i 7 [.~s r,5 f],- .,~ y -.r ~~ } _ `~.[ t*a, b. ~ y,t} ~. 7k .:yam # u r. +. €. ,~.- t h 1 -`~c `4~r~,.~ j c ~~: rkT ~'. :. ~*. 5`~~ .~' ~~,~~6 ~:- 'X :~ tt ~" F- ~ '~ ~, i.=s--W is fir: of f ~ L.t f `~~y ~ r +~~ x ~'~l 't=t~.._~ ~,; ``.s[ e' t'. P.. _ ! t,# y ~.. ~~ ~-~, 1 r t~~ '~ p. s-~. Pay ~+.r ,;~' ~ ~'i ~ ,'[~i ~r o- ~t~ - ~` +~. 1iy .~ f ~J. '~ ' . I ~ ~ a ^S C 1 -.. ~ 1. ~ `j ~ n ~ ~ J y l S ti ^. L ~f ~ ~ P .~`~~ • i ,`i::M ~ ~ii ~ahi f,'t e1 rt ~-, }~ a r i. ,\y ~P ! ,k ' ~? ¢~r a ~ ~ +~ le: ~~ re}t*..t [ F :~{ ~y ^~~yr .i j~ T tia 7.. ~ I's - x ~~ i rh it "+t1 '1k q x'~ 7 .. ~t ~+~,7~' 1~~ i ~ [f^ 1 ~ y t~ `s'~'L r ~ Y, y ~ ~ ~i.. 'x k - 'c~{' a i' ,~ t #r ' v ,p r f, 3c',p~ s r S~.T' ',.. S` ,~'-{~ . 't 1 ~!4 ' ~ .~ s~ yrs ~ •f a s ~i k +i", .l ~ 2. } y ~~ # : g o t ~, r~ ar 7 ~:V r~! .,, #r 4~~r^+.~a ~'.F _.7~~r~.t" ~~;~ !~ , icr~~ Sii i .' \a' -,, t a i ti ry° 3a ~~' -.` r~" ~~ ~~[ _~i; ~` ~~,~~ f f yrs F 'i ~. ~ r ' t ,f ry r Ss. T f; 'f A -'L t ~ s ;t ! ~~ C till t~ r t {„ = 1 ~ ~ r 1 .[ ~' - ;k~+ `~ y P y 5 K ~~'~. - ~~ } - ~ ~ u ~ n.P~r ~ P '' 4 ~ ~a 1;: 1 i e. 't -'' s -. ~ -..9;+. ~ is~ ~ -~ .~ a .~ ~c _r ~ t o- : tip, ' r1w x, tf ~::. x si 'r ~ q? ~ t y ~ Ssr` of y } r E'ti Fl }-T'..'~` ~~ ~ 4 f c -~ r ~~. ~ ~- r t~.r ~ g.T~~t ~v`. _i rx ~ .~{` Y ^ #'t4~x"~t ~G "5: { ~ Sat s r ; rJ _ r ` r ~ k _ s~ ~ r ~ ~7t ..~ ~. ~' S r s.4' '`p ? r r'S ~ ~"Y . r Ji,~tdy~l _d t ~ frr ~t[ d~.r \~~ ~ y ~if~ ~ ~s~fa~S ~ ~~rs t i~"t a'%t?'"~~ a~~`R ¢° Y .~ f -r~Y'- ~ -[~ rY ~ [ A i' r~ a ty k C{. 1( 7i- si -a a r 71- .f ~~ ^'• ° r l ~ t ~,+~ st, _ ~~ ~ 'F •~~ Y 144a ,~ ~t ~r ' S i' I,~,!Crla •~-~'`~ s ' ° rr` r+ '; a'~'~r a' ~¢~~ $•~` ~ r~ ~ ~ S G J ~ t \ ~ { > ~ i. ` l h;']Y 'tr 1. T 1, ~ ; ~' ' °~ ,~ 'yh {?'~~(~ R 3 1 1 3 ,a 'T.1 ': ~ ~t ~i ' ,.r ~ i f ~ ~f -~ _ 2 Y- /~. ~ r,{~ ~ h Y.'~~ls,rt "-j. ~+7 A. L # 1' ~tiE ~rs~~ r .ctiv, y, s ~ ~ ! r~~ ~.\~ t ~ ~~ ~~ ,~~s .,t y ~, - i 4 t fr ~ ~~ } ' f ~ f w ~' ['~~ s ' {f!~~`-^~ xS 1 ~ . r~ s ~r ,fir f#~.' ~ s r ~ ~ ~ ~ r* y1 I ~ Y w ~ - ! , '`,t ~! a s;,S ,e., ~. s}. ~ if r(1-Y~ ~~ [[ s „Fri pr ~ ~,, ~ i.,.,e$' ~. °!t :. r '~ ~"Yy ~ ~~/ 'g ~ ar, 3~~~sri ~ • r .,..T'* ~Qt, v Fr:~ _ ~* 7~ ~~Y, •:r `. ~!~ira-~'.~`', r~rr.. r'a~t'.°t, .:" e...iY~ ~ "'{ 7 -~f"~ ~~}a~ ~ e4/~a.~ ~YS~~~. i ~ ~ .~. ~r ~r~~~, ,. _,r' ~ ^e'~.fi~~ ~~.. ~, r z "' ' -;~~':~ 5.'o-: +~+'[P r•.,F,,,.%{i>1 '•.L,"-`,' ~ ~ l'~4': } :1 ~3:/:s ~~f,.~_"dipp y -, y ~~ 4'. s ~''~ 1 • ~ .. 1 tt ~.~r=~xy ?'-, . an~r, i Rn~~r+~weey+d,~ 4.cF~ ~ w ' r~ : e ~ 1rT F ~0.f T rR ~ ~1 d_ q_' -4. ~ si ~ ' ' ~ • 2 -jyv • r 4 ~i=r~ .F "HS t ,.,, r ..•B4 - - -.. 5 ~ ~ ~ k x- .r 1 .rr'r~~e ~'~{,. ,} ~ • - z ~~ 'Y3,~~y~ri~g~': i>y~r~~ f~:h~r~~s •s~~'~~~ ~'~••~'~''~-a~%"e~a,~'".,~k`~s3~~ t `„A #~~ i ~lt,~ `y' ~ t •~ l ~. 4 c- ire .Fs .S- sr} 4 ~ V~ r~ ~, y;'9r 4' # 2 !' 'sar- '~. ~ <j 'rJ..7 ~ `FS ~' s ~, s` N s •a ~ r' r-~`a,~`r-s' ~ ~ 6 ~:; .¢"l~'9ii .icy -i` - .-~.~•~;~. .~ -r{~ xM, ~~,-• ~~.4, •r`~fR _ !1, - t ~ y -t -s a ~ ' sa :° ~ ~ ~ 1 ~+ ~ ' r - - Y ,ty w* t fir ~g5 ~~, ~} 'l' ~•. 1 y -' Z C A Ac l~'Y' { ~'~ r t r s. Jp - ~ Fi y r'a e,'~ '~~ il~.c_ ~ ~ 3 ~. `¢ .Z f t 4 ~ -- .~ 1!. 31. ~ - •y s~ .- S ~ a ~ s_~y11 k- •S' < ~ "t '~ ' r ~~ 4 `~ 'a~---~~. i y~ , kl ~. tY~~ ~Y v C ~y '~ 1 ._ ' lea. .; r b 'r ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 3433.{`It s~v,t~A<,. ~ 0. ! A J~ "- [ 'u '~ - - err' '~ Y C'` Pr ^ .~~ 7 J F '~: t r F 'n- "'mo'd ~ir 4 S °x ~ ~ ~yyY'~.~v. ,.yry r Vii,. - ,r ;--~~~' - 7~ i _ * yt ~ + } 'y 5 1; -ice i ~~ ~ - ~ ~~ f5 + htb ~ J" - 'xhPJ- - 'E.' ~ - -~ ~' '~ r } ~ f- _ rw r~r ks -~ ~'y ~'d'arr b' a--.,~, Sow -~4 T ~ r'~~ ~ 'f ti A ~ -.i •-.'~}n~- 'S ~" ~~, ~ h t''t'' ; dY~ -4 ! ~*~ i•v ice- .:+!,1..,'^ ,~. - f; T k_ r~~ ~~ F ~' ~ ~~ ~s~..-- ,1-.. E, .; -,~- r r r ~ - ~ s -'9' µi j -~ ~ ~ ! ~ -e -ty ~At ~ ~ r - c .~+, .i ~,- ~~ r ~ } ~ #dl r to ~ ~ _-r~~ w_~,z'~ ya 7 ~~,~, ~ t c' ~ _~ ~ a }~ 111 _ .~ 3 P S Y h~ 4~S' . r Y. iMIII~~~~ k~, •~~ Yi s, s ~,. .~~ ~ _ y A~, y - ~ ' ~# rat,;', Wiz, ~"~i Y 5t ;~ •~~ !-fir ,~y, - - Y-- S T " 4~-~1 h - ~, 5+~' ' Y ~,' % , r ..' tt~ z - - l . ._-~•~. i `s,~ t;. ur : ,~, x -t d r4 S r >f r~ ~ s n ~ _ - x "~~w _ #• -"'J~ i-~ ~ k ~~~ty' _ + H '. ~ ~.u ' +` v~ 2f ~+ 11'' '-" yY#~; ~ _ e~ ~e.' ~r ,r:( t- ~r - e ~ ~i y, 3 - ~ Jf~_~ - {'~~, ~~~fr Y 1- r ~r :t:Sd rs' +r :jF 1" - a~V•`L'_. _- ~ L, ''-"i "Y - ti, -1 ~' _..,-x z ~ y _ #1~•8 ~s ; s'V -'~'~sf ~'~{E.; F. '~y~; ! 5 ~ ~ - ''-a ..i~~ ~ ~`q•y +„ -~ !~ a ~ '>;r ~r `',f" ~°' sr,,"" M z-, i ~,i~ ~~F---,, y~ A- t o-tv~'•iJf r~ ~~f ,Yyl{~::"^'r'' ti-F ~' ~ c ~• >.- ", i, .~.Yt{.~4Ar~~~ ~`,s ''~- ~~ ri - a{F'2~ q - - ~ -~ .~~+ w_v'~"'`_- ~ /~,;'•~}.i+~1[iFy. F~.'irt,$5~7 ~r-: ~i,'.)•~i.~: ~',r'3 -~ -.t _ :: ;i I~•(( - t~. ,e~ti ,r ,pr'- ~` - ti_ ~ '' Y ~~ '• _ -_~ .3 -~ -t'~'r'~ '~~ - r~ ~' ~ * ` ~' ~ ~'::'. - ~~ t --"~- t } _ `fie. zr - ~~ - ~~•~; ~ ~ ~ ~ t fi G~~Y ~w {_~ ~~ _e ~ ~~ -; 4` .~)~ - r a y -'k M ~. ~~~ J ., } < x~ ~'',` : ~ 'y^"~•'4n a a ~- y c `~y# - ifa - ~{ - s `^`rt - ~ :. 'h.; ~m :~, 14a R `L - -- .~ L 4 l V 3. i~ - ~ ~ ~ _ 9 3 -i sy3' '~~ -41~~ - - h ~ y,~, ~ ~fiT h,¢ - _.~ ' ',~T 4~. '~~ -r:t t _~ ~,-': k' vy ~r y t:-`1,?r2-.i °~,ra ks°a• .: - r k! ~ - r J ~ a;- S i '. ~ - - +r R? !~ 7 a ~~ ~ ~ w F. . >_~ ~ E bb t kvy ~,~' wr :V ,~ s -, - t - r _ - z A ~- ~ -'~ 'r, -. - Sr ~ "yy y - F ~ ~. ar - sy i ~ ~ 1 - ~ _~; ~':.. ~ n .G'".... r - w 's. „ ~_ 1 . -4 ° r 1 ~ - rt a(' kfyr~ r ' ,~ ' r r>.w a r _ ''' ~. _ ~ "X w "?k, ~` j ~qy k= - L'V f c 4F s. ~ ~~ t.s~ -~ ~ ~ '~- y, t. 7k 3[ -- '~y z, 1"' ~ .riZ''y~' t _ ~r ~.,.x.c - r r~ i~^ ;t ~ _ t~- _ 5 ~ -~ -r s t~.-_ Y'.tr`E~. r '~ ' fl r" r' - _ f ~r- ~r` ay. t '~ ~+~ t'- ~ "^ '~ ~ Y ~Y • - ~ P 7-~ - Yz r .i ',' _ -Jy~s~ 4-, „` s t r s,_~~ ~ i 3~. yy, ~`. - _ -4. ~ .7.' ~s . 1 ^ ~ `• x~ e ~ x.,15 °'L ~+ei .,~ ~ r 'r ; ';.° ~ .~ V , - }„ '.~ {~~. Y } ~ rE yc i {1r' .. Y .r "P- tK ~ 'd, •1 - + -, . _ ,.,~ "r s ~ V ~'~ t ryl. M. ^cY y.°`~ 3yi ., ~ _ -~~ _~. a - ~ - ~ _ _ i r' _ °;' - V3r y # Yy-- xa'¢ 3 ~~,i r4'i~ y _ ~ ~ . 2" -4~F~ ~ t~- a ,•. i-L' - --r 's - n Cs~:'li: - -fir ', ~ L~ y-..C,~y~vs`~ ~ ' # 'F i._ r., ai - ~; a ra`m' s '~"', f , " r - # r t -" >. t.i ~• ~, A'3. ,,~ _ x' r ~~~ n -,r~'~ R i . ~. 1:F '.'-" - i : - - ~ _ ..' _,!, x~ y- • ~ f 1, ~- S - f a .' ti." ..• ~> ti -~.: ~: ~>yz ,r t ti,.. :. ' a c ,- -a - ~ ~ ,I f .~Y~,..~K~6a ~ .,_~, -.y'R~r Y'• r~}~,.' , Rii ~•.1` r >R ,.rs +3 xry +~, y .' -~ Y- -; y_`tr 8 Y .S 2~>7Fr `- y•L~..~~~, ~~ ~ mks ~ ~ Y f ~.~ ~ r - < 2 s ~,'r a ' q _ ~ L ~ ., v F ~ #:s ~ t~ „ t -•y .} -~+, a ~-~Hw _ ~,'- -r, - .i ,~ ~ x --s~. t+.I YD.. ?''}~' y. ~ ~. M. - ~>,f C..px r°e 0 .?~'rt -4~ ~- y.-_~-,> ~ 5 - r e tr~~ ',S*-' 1 1 - a 1 rr ~~7yai •_ ~ - .~ - }- 4 r 7 in ~ t ~• 2 ~'r ~ -~ ,i~[V"-r '[ 4A1~ k• + J~~. 1 s~ _ i 14 r"^ - ., fr n'bT y fn r•'§~l i7 f a-1. '~.a~ ~ -~S „k- '~, ~.+7 £~ ^r' E ~ y `r t J ~ r r} ~,~~~..~~y_ ~ .1„ ~ ~.. ~~'lY1r, ,.1 sy p e~ ~ _i:. ~,'ta~y ~~ < aaY..$ f~ p , + aV ~ ,~ t ~. ~,~ x~ i;. ~~~.`~' '~ - ~ ;ir; 11 -~,,~i-r ~ ,r,,, y!-'ry {s, ~~ } .' ~3 5 _ .i y- ~-,r ~- ,~ -' ~ r'~ ~ 3 ~; - v r- ~ - i ~r~//i[~~a='~{~~I~FII!{(a/~~ f ti y '' ~ 4 r~- /1` ~. - -`» e ~ ' --y a ~• fi 7 ~ '' = r~..~ ~,i ~'. t i ~_ -41'r__s /'~'~`~, 1. y..~ r - r' 1.ry ;- yr ~ .r- 'x - '' - '±:'c ~ - y n i~ r k- _ 1. a r ~ k~ rf.k ~V c- ~a (,J ~t,! # r 1., -`~ - ;+-:1{ y .~ ':i_ jl L~ss ~ih. '~ r~ i ~ ~ ~*'V t 'ter, n4 ~~a - c <~~ !~' - .1, rf -i~ r -. - r - V i' {l 1. l 4 < - 4. ~ '- - r ~• - -