The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July - December• • Planning and Environmental Commission July 14, 1986 2:30 PM SITE VISITS 3 :00 PM PUBLIC HEARING 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 23, 1986 2. A request for a Gross Residential Floor Area variance in order to enclose ten balconies in ten different units at the Treetops Condominiums located on Lot 6, Block 1, Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association 3. A request to amend the Ski Base /Recreation District of the Town of Vail to allow outdoor food and beverage cart vending Applicant: Hi Ho Hot Dogs, Lewis Meskimen 4. A request for side, rear and stream setback variances in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: James A. Palmer, Walter Huttner Withdrawn by applicant. 5. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code to repeal and reenact Section 18.13.080A, Density Control, to provide that the secondary unit in the Primary /Secondary zone district shall not contain more than 40% of the total square footage. Applicant: Town of Vail PRESENT Diana Donovan Brian Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 14, 1986 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Tom Braun 1. Approval of minutes of the June 23 meeting: A motion was made by Diana Donovan and seconded by Jim Viele to approve the minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. A request for a gross residential floor area variance in order to enclose 10 different units at the Treetop Condominiums_ located on Lots Block 1, Lionshead 1st Filing.__ Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association Tom Braun explained the request which was to allow for the enclosure of 10 existing outdoor decks on the south face of the building. Five decks are 80 • square feet each and 5 are 53 square feet each with a total additional GRFA requested of 665 square feet. The project is presently 5;129 square feet over the allowable GRFA of 31,240 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the request. It was felt that the request would be a grant of special privilege. It is acknowledged that the density control limitations may impact individual property owners who wish to make small improvements of this nature. However, it cannot be overlooked that this property is substantially over the existing density limitations and to allow additional expansion on this property is inappropriate. Staff felt to approve the decks could be precedent setting. Linda Avarch, representing the Treetops Condominium Association stated that the County Assessor's office already assesses the condominium owners for common areas as well as actual units. The owners are paying for the space that is now a deck which is basically unusable due to the small size of the area. She also pointed out that several condominium associations around Town have enclosed balconies, such as Vantage Point, the Mountain Haus and Crossroads. Brian Hobbs stated that he would like to see some way to allow for these deck enclosures as long as the additions are reasonable. However, he did feel that to approve these deck additions at this time would be a grant of special privilege. Sid Schultz mentioned that he felt the same way Brian did. He also indicated that some of the buildings mentioned by Ms. Avarch had GRFA which is a different situation from a building that is over the allowable GRFA. Diana Donovan stated that once again we are in the Ordinance Four trap. She thought that the request would have to go to Council for their review. Jim Viele questioned if the building was now out of compliance due to a previous downzoning. Tom replied that he was not sure, but that this was probably the situation. Jim Viele also felt the request should go to Council. Peggy Osterfoss questioned what happened to people who build decks without • approval. Tom Braun replied that essentially it was an enforcement issue. The Town staff does try to keep up on people who build additions illegally. If they do have the GRFA for the addition, they are required to go through the building permit process as well as Design Review Board. They are also double charged for their building permit fees. If they do not have the GRFA, they are asked to remove the addition. Duane Piper stated that the examples cited by Ms. Avarch are not a direct comparison given this request. A motion was made by Brian Hobbs seconded by Diana Donovan to deny the request based on the opinion that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the additions. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 3. A request to amend the Ski Base /Recreation District of the Town of VAil to allow outdoor food and beverage cart vending. Applicant: Hi Ho_ Hotdogs, Lewis Meskimen Kristan Pritz presented the memo, explaining how the request was compatible with the neighborhood, existing zoning, and that food and beverage cart vending is compatible with a recreational area. Jay Peterson and Mike Straughton asked if this request would only affect the Golden Peak area, as they had received public notices for the Hill Building and Gold Peak House. They were assured that it was just Golden Peak. Lewis Meskimen stated that he wanted to do beverages and °fruit ices except for occasionally serving hotdogs and hamburgers. He also stated that the surrounding neighbors he had talked to had had no objections. Diana Donovan wondered if we should have a limitation on distance from a restaurant in Golden Peak. Duane pointed out that a conditional use permit would control competition with cart vending. Lew also stated that Vail Associates would control that situation. Kristan pointed out that the conditional use permit regulations can be quite restrictive and specific. Concern over controlling the number of carts on site was expressed by Diana Donovan and Peggy Osterfoss. Peter Patten stated that criteria No. 4 of the conditional use permit regulations would control this. Jim Viele made a motion and Brian Hobbs seconded the motion for approval per the staff memo. The motion was passed 6 -0. 4. A request for side, rear and stream setback variances in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Vall Drive. Applicant: James A. Palmer, Walter Huttner. This application was withdrawn. A new application has been submitted for the July 28th meeting. 0 5. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code to appeal and re -enact Section 18.13.080A Densit y Control to rovide that the secondar unit in the Primary/Secondary District shall not contain more than 40% of the total square footage. Applicant: Town of Vail The motion was made by Brian Hobbs and seconded by Jim Viele to recommend approval to the Town Council of the zoning amendment. Vote was 6 -0 in favor. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to enclose 10 decks on 10 different units at the Treetops Condominiums. APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Assocation I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The requested variance is to allow for the enclosure of 10 existing outdoor decks on the south face of the building. Five of these decks are 80 s.f. each and five are 53 s.f. each with a total additional GRFA requested of 665 s.f. Town records show there is presently 36,369 s.f. of GRFA on this property. This figure is 5,129 s.f. over the permitted GRFA of 31,240. The Treetops Condominium Assocation has applied for this variance representative for the 10 different owners of these units. 0 II. 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: relationship of the requeste ential uses and structures in variance to other existing or The use related to the variance requested is compatible with the exciting and potential uses in the area. In and of itself, the density variance requested would not pose adverse impacts on this or adjacent structures. However, it should be noted that this property is significantly over developed with respect to the allowable density. Approval of this request could become a factor in the future review of similar proposals to expand structures in the vicinity of this project. 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. As The Planning Commission is aware, the two primary issues used in the review of variance requests are physical hardship and special 4 It is very common for the issues of hardship and special privelege to stand in the way of approving variance requests of this nature. Ordinance #4 of 1985 was adopted to allow for small GRFA additions without the need for variance approval. Unfortunatly this ordinance does not provide a means for allowing additions to units in mulit - family buildings. Units of this type were omitted because of concern over the potential impact on the design of multi- family buildings. Legal issues also contributed to the inability of this ordinance to accomodate this type of request. In response to this application the PEC must evaluate it relative to the criteria outlined in this memorandum. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities a utilities and public safety. There are no significant impacts on any of the above mentioned factors. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN • There are no policies outlined in this plan that are directly related to this porposal. uch other factors and criteria as roposed variance. FINDINGS e commission deems anolicabl The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting 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. 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation for this request is denial. While there are no significant impacts resulting from this proposal, the staff feels strongly that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve this request. It is acknowleged that the density control limitations may impact individual property owners who wish to make small improvements of this nature. However, it cannot be over - looked that this property is substantially over the existing density limitions and to allow additional expansion on this property is inappropriate. While the impact of proposed construction would be minimal, Staff feels there could be impacts from a precedent standing point and how this may effect future decision making by the Planning Commission. In evaluation this proposal it is interesting to consider how the enclosure of 10 decks would effect the appearance this structure. As was mentioned, a concern among the Council and Commission was over the design impacts of enclosing decks on multi - family buildings. While there does remain a fair amount of relief on this structure, the proposal demonstrates how a number of deck enclosures can effect the design characteristics of buildings of this type. • • G TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1986 SUBJECT: Ordinance 18, a housekeeping ordinance to correct an error in the zoning code Due to an oversight, Section 18.13.075 A was not changed to reflect a 60/40 division between each of the two units per lot in the Residential Primary /Secondary zone district. The zoning code in this paragraph still reads: "...one of the units shall not exceed one -third of the total allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA)." In the following paragraph, paragraph B of this same section, the second unit reads correctly: "The second unit shall not exceed forty percent of the total GRFA ..." The attached ordinance rectifies this error and corrects paragraph A. • • y • ORDINANCE NO.18 Series of 1986 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.13.080 A., DENSITY CONTROL OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AND PROVIDING THAT THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA DISTRIBUTION RATIO FOR PRIMARY/ SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS BE CHANGED TO ALLOW FOR THE SECONDARY UNIT TO BE NO GREATER THAN 40 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA, AND PROVIDING DETAILS THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council in 1981 in Ordinances 22 and 23, did intend to amend Section 18.13.080A to provide that the secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent of the total allowable gross residential floor area in Primary /Secondary zone district; and WHEREAS, a typographical error resulted in this section being eliminated 0 from these ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 18.13.080A of the Town of Vail Municipal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: Section 18.13.080 A. Density Control A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall be permitted on each site, with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty -five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one ihundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. On any site J - Section 2 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance 1 is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the.Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Cart-inn a The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF 1986, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1986 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1986• Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to enclose 10 decks on 10 different units at the Treetops Condominiums. APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Assocation I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The requested variance is to allow for the enclosure of 10 existing outdoor decks on the south face of the building. Five of these decks are 80 s.f. each and five are 53 s.f. each with a total additional GRFA requested of 665 s.f. Town records show there is presently 36,369 s.f. of GRFA on this property. This figure is 5,129 s.f. over the permitted GRFA of 31,240. The Treetops Condominium Assocation has applied for this variance representative for the 10 different owners of these units. II. 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 re nested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The use related to the variance requested is compatible with the exsiting and potential uses in the area. In and of itself, the density variance requested would not pose adverse impacts on this or adjacent structures. However, it should be noted that this property is significantly over developed with respect to the allowable density. Approval of this request could become a factor in the future review of similar proposals to expand structures in the vicinity of this project. 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. As The Planning Commission is aware, the two primary issues used in the review of variance requests are physical hardship and special nr;vila"a With rpcnar_t to this reauest the aoolicant has It is very common for the issues of hardship and special privelege to stand in the way of approving variance requests of this nature. Ordinance #4 of 1985 was adopted to allow for small GRFA additions without the need for variance approval. Unfortunatly this ordinance does not provide a means for allowing additions to units in mulit - family buildings. Units of this type were omitted because of concern over the potential impact on the design of multi- family buildings. Legal issues also contributed to the inability of this ordinance to accomodate this type of request. In response to this application the PEC must evaluate it relative to the criteria outlined in this memorandum. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. There are no significant impacts on any of the above mentioned factors. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN • There are no policies outlined in this plan that are directly related to this porposal. Such other factors and proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning an ^iteria as the commission deems applicable to the vironmental Commission shall make ntina a variance: folIowin That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. STAFF RFCOMMEN©ATIONS Staff recommendation for this request is denial. While there are no significant impacts resulting from this proposal, the staff feels strongly that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve this request. It is acknowleged that the density control limitations may impact individual property owners who wish to make small improvements of this nature. However, it cannot be overlooked that this property is substantially over the existing density limitions and to allow additional expansion on this property is inappropriate. While the impact of proposed construction would be minimal, Staff feels there could be impacts from a precedent standing point and how this may effect future decision making by the Planning Commission. In evaluation this proposal it is interesting to consider how the enclosure of 10 decks would effect the appearance this structure. As was mentioned, a concern among the Council and Commission was over the design impacts of enclosing decks on multi - family buildings. While there does remain a fair amount of relief on this structure, the proposal demonstrates how a number of deck enclosures can effect the design characteristics of buil.dings of this type. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to amend the Ski Base /Recreation District of the Town of Vail to allow outdoor food and beverage cart vending. Applicant: Hi Ho Hot Dogs, Lewis Meskimen. REQUEST: Hi Ho Hot Dogs, represented by Lewis Meskimen is requesting to amend the conditional use section as well as the location of business_ activity in the Ski Base /Recreation zone district to allow outdoor food and beverage cart vending. Presently, the following conditional uses are permitted in the Ski Base /Receation district and are subject to a conditional use permit review by the Planning and Environmental Commission: Section 18.39.050 conditional uses A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base /Recreation District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: 1. Recreation Room /Minor Arcade 2. Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment 3. Summer Outdoor Storage for Mountain Equipment 4. Redevelopment of Water Storage Extraction and Treatment Facilities 5. Redevelopment of Ski Racing Facilities 6. Redevelopment of Public Parks, Playgrounds 7. Summer Seasonal Community Offices and Programs 8. Public or Private Parking Structures beyond the approved development plan. 9. Seasonal structures to accommodate athletic, cultural, or educational activities 10. Redevelopment of Ski Lifts and Tows The first amendment would add food and beverage vending carts as number 11 to the list of conditional uses. The wording is: 11. food and beverage cart vending. Section 18.39.080 location of business activity presently reads: A. All offices in retail sales conducted in the Ski Base /Recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special events. The second amendment would add food and beverage cart vending to the list of activities that may be located outside a building. The proposed wording for Section 18.39.080 is: A. All offices in retail sale's conducted in the Ski Base /Recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special events and food and beverage cart vending. If the amendments are approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council, the applicant will apply for a conditional use permit for the cart under the new zoning. Please see the enclosed letters of approval from Vail Associates (property owner), and VMRD (Manager of the Tennis Facility.) EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST Criteria No. 1: Suitability of existing zoning. • The purpose for this Ski Base /Recreation district reads: Section 18.39.010 Purpose The Ski Base /Recreation district is intended to provide for the base facilities nessessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi - family residential dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are encouraged to achieve multi- seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for efficient use of the facilities. The Staff's opinion is that food and beverage cart vending is an appropriate use to be associated with recreational uses and facilities that are allowed within the zone district. It is felt that the conditional use section of the code is the most appropriate way to manage this type of use. The conditional use criteria will insure that the cart vending is managed in a way that maintains the integrity of the zone district as primarily a recreational zone. A conditional use permit application is reviewed against the following criteria: 1 Relationship of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2 Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of . population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities' needs. 3 Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability , and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. 4 Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6 The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Staff feels that the conditional use review process provides the tool for insuring that food and beverage cart vending is managed properly for this zone district. Careful review should be given concerning the impacts of food and beverage cart vending on the surrounding neighorhood, and the specific location and numbers of carts. It is feel that through the conditional use permit, staff as well as the Planning Commission may address these important points. Criteria No. 2: Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship among land uses,_ consistent with municipal objectives? Staff believes that by including the food and beverage cart vending under a conditional use review, the amendment is consistent with other zone districts as to how business activity not conducted entirely within a • building is handled. In CCIII (West Vail), the Commercial Service Center (Crossroads), and the arterial Business District, permitted uses not conducted entirely within a building are allowed as long as they receive approval through the conditional use review process. By including food and beverage cart vending under the conditional use section of the Ski Base /Recreation zone district, it is felt that the treatment of this type of use is consistent with other commercial zone districts. The exception is that Commercial Cores I & II require that offices, businesses, and services that are permitted under the code be operated and conducted entirely within any building, except for permitted un- enclosed parking and loading areas, and the outdoor display of goods. These two zone districts also require that the outdoor display of goods must be directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishments own property. Food and Beverage Cart Vending is somewhat different from outside vending as described above the in that the cart vending would not be assciated with an existing business on site. The applicant would like to have the opportunity to have a separate on site business for cart vending to service the recreational facilities. Staff feels that given the conditional use criteria, a workable relationship among all the surrounding uses and uses on site can be maintained through the conditional use review. • U .7 Criteria No. 3: Does the rezoning proposal provide for the_2rowth of an orderly, viable community? It is felt that due to the unique character of this zone district, food and beverage cart vending is a use that will compliment the recreational uses and facilities on site. The conditional use review insures that the cart vending is conducted in a way that will be compatible with the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the zoning amendments. In order to grant approval of a zoning amendment, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. (These are the 6 criteria listed above in the memo.) Staff believes that the zoning amendments do meet the findings listed above. Food and beverage cart vending is a use that often times is associated with recreational uses and facilities. The conditional use review will allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to insure that food and beverage cart vending is conducted in an orderly manner within the Ski Base /Recreation district. T0: Town Council 4. FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 5, 1986 SUBJECT: An ordinance to amend the Ski Base /Recreation zone district of the Town of Vail to allow outdoor food and beverage cart vending. Applicant: Hi Ho Hotdogs, Lewis Ileskimen Hi Ho Hotdogs, represented by Lewis Meskimen, is requesting to —amend the conditional use section-, as %-jell as_the location of business activitI in the Ski ?ase /Recreation zone district to allow outdoor food and beverage car vending. The Ski Base /Recreation zone district is located solely in the Golden Peak development. Presently, the following conditional uses are permitted in the Ski Base /Recreation district and are subject to a conditional use permit review by the Planning and Environmental Commission: Section 18.39.050 Conditional Uses A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base /Recreation district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: 1. Recreation Room /Minor Arcade P/ 2. Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment 3. Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment 4. Redevelopment of water storage extraction and treatment facilities 5. Redevelopment of ski racing facilities 6. Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds 7. Summer seasonal community offices and programs S. Public or private parking structures beyond the approved development plan 9. Seasonal structures to accommodate athletic, cultural, or educational activities 10. Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows The first amendment would add food and beverage vending carts as number 11 to the list of conditional uses. The wording is: 11. Food and beverage cart vending Section 18.39.080, Location of Business Activity presently reads: A. All offices in retail sales conducted in the Ski Base /Recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special events. •� The seco d arnendmcnt would add food and beverage cart vending to the list of ac.tivit-es that pray be located outside a building. The proposed wording for A. All offices in retail sales conducted in the Ski 8a%e /Recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special (7vents and food and beverage cart vending. If the amendments are approved by the Toren Council, the applicant will apply for a conditional use permit for the cart under the new zoning. Please see the enclosed letters of approval from Vail Associates (property owner) and VMRD (manager of the tennis facility). The staff's opinion is that food and beverage cart vending is an appropriate use to be associated with recreational uses and facilities that allowed within the zone district. The conditional use criteria will insure that the cart vending is managed in a way that maintains the integrity of the zone district as primarily a recreational zone. A conditional use permit application is reviewed against the following criteria: 1. Relationship of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities' needs. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The envirormental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Careful review should be given concerning the impacts of food and beverage cart vending on the surrounding neighborhood, as well as the specific locations and nurr,bers of carts. It was felt that through the conditional use permit, staff as well as the Planning Commission may address these important points. In addition, by including food and beverage cart vending under the conditional use section of the Ski Rase /Recreation zone district, it is felt that the treatment of this type of use is consistent with other commercial zone districts. The exception is that Commercial Cores I and II require that offices, businesses and services that are permitted under the code be operated and conducted entirely within any building, except for permitted unenclosed parking and loading areas and the outdoor display of goods. In other coir,;ercial zone districts, conditional use permit is required for the outdoor display of goods. Food and beverage cart vending is somewhat different from • u side vending as described above in that the cart vending would not be a °--c,ociated with an existing business on site. Staff recommended approval of the two zoning amendments. The Planning 0 Co;;-;,ission recommended unanimously for approval of the amendments. The motion was made by Jim Viele and seconded by Byron Hobbs. The vote was 6 -0. Some Planning Commission members were concerned about the numbers of carts and /or location in respect to on -site restaurants. However, it was decided that the conditional use review criteria provided enough guidance to address these coy terns. f Ij • C. � t lum Di Nil I 292 west meadow drive nail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -2040 MEHO TO: Community Development FROM: Pat Dodson DATE: July 10, 1986 SUBJECT: Golden Peak - Hi Ho Hotdog Co. recreation department The Vail i+etropolitan Recreation District discussed food service at the Gold Peak area and has recommended that this service be provided. They are in full support of the Hi Ho Hotdog proposal and we are willing to enter into a contract for this service at the tennis courts. If you require any additional infornation, please let me know. • VailAssociates 11 CR:�rtt lt� and nf \ =ail and P, -avcr ('rcc)- .tune 13, 1986 Peter Patton T��Kn of Vail SOtIth Frontage Road \szl, Colorado 81657 4r Peter; At the request of Lou MesKimen we are writing you to confirm that Ve Im"re agreed to let }ii Ho Hotdog Co. use our patio area around Peak to sell to people from their carts. We have no problem since it provides a service to people during the summer ``'quilt. S- �cerelY, L �Zh ASSOCTATFS, INC. Paul Golden {`'n aging Director Food Services L ��l�imen .. 11'S." F ,\ i - \ai+ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 2:30 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing July 28, 1986 1. Approval of minutes of July 14, 1986 2. A request for setback, parking, and density control variances in order to construct a new building at 362 Vail Valley Drive (Cornice Building). Applicant: Robert Nelson and Dr. Walter Huttner 3. A request for rear and side setback variances to add two additions to an existing residence at Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Eighth Filing. Applicant: John S. Tuschman 4. A request to amend the time table for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: George Gillett PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 28, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Brian Hobbs Tom Braun Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper Sid Schultz ABSENT Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of July 14 1985. Duane Piper's name had been omitted from the list of those present. With this correction, Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 5 in favor, with one Hopkins abstaining. 2. A request for setback (front side, and _rear), density control (GRFA and number of units_, and parking variances in order to construct ea new building on Tract B of Vail Village First Filing (site of the Cornice Buildin . Applicant: Dr. Walter Huttner and Mr. Robert Nelson • Tom Braun explained the request. He stated that the present building would be demolished and a new building with 7 units constructed. At the present time there exists one open market condominium and 3 units restricted to long term employee housing. The property is required to provide 3 long term employee units as stipulated in an agreement signed in 1985 as a result of the 1979 PEC approval. While the density control provisions in this zone district (High Density Multi- Family) allow only 2 units, the existing unit coupled with the employee housing agreement results in a legal nonconforming situation of 4 units being permitted if 3 units are employee housing. The level of development proposed is entirely inconsistent with existing zoning limitations in the vicinity of this site. The density proposed is equivalent to 83 dwelling units per acre, more dense than any in Vail. The staff felt that this level of development would create significant overcrowding and congestion problems on the site and in the vicinity of the site. While the staff felt some consideration for setback variances may be warranted because of the lot size, the opposite is true when considering density control variances. The staff felt that this would be a grant of special privilege. Braun then added that in studying the area for the Vail Village Master Plan, the staff felt that this was an inappropriate site for additional development due to its extremely small size, its awkward location on Vail Valley Drive and impacts of the future parking structure addition. It is felt that 7 units on this site would present negative impacts relative to the potential number of people who could be accommodated in this location. The site has had no on -site parking for a number of years. In 1979 an application was made to the Planning Commission to add 1 surface parking space to this site. Because of concerns r1 LJ over safety and traffic circulation, the Planning Commission denied this request. Braun stated that the staff felt that this development proposal has shown no consideration for existing development guidelines outlined in the zoning code. Mark Donaldson, architect for the project, stated that he agreed with the staff's evaluation, but that economics required 7 units because of the 3 which would remain employee units. He added that the applicant had removed the real estate office and placed parking on site and that the units were modest, and the circulation was kept to a minimum. He asked for feedback on what the Town wanted on the site. Pam Hopkins felt that the added density was the issue and the parking and access were a problem. She asked if the applicant could pay into the parking fund and was told that the code does not allow for this. Hopkins stated that there was a real problem on that road in the winter months. Sid Schultz agreed that the added density was a major concern. He did not see how the board could look at any density over 4 that did not allow for 3 employee units. Diana Donovan felt that the added density was a real problem. For this zone, only 2 units would be allowed- -the extra units were allowed only if 3 were to remain employee units. She reminded Donaldson that this board was not allowed to consider economic issues. Donovan felt that the added height might create more shade, that traffic was a poor situation and should not be further impacted. Donaldson asked if on -site parking was considered a positive feature, and Donovan answered that she had trouble with parking in general, that she did not like to see the problem answered with, "park in parking structure." She did not feel parking for 12 autos should be in the structure, but also did not feel there should be any more impacts on traffic at this corner. Duane Piper stated that he could see some compromise with providing some parking on site and some in the structure. He felt that the site plan was good, but that sometimes the numbers simply don't work. Donaldson answered that obviously they were asking for too much. Robert Nelson, one of the applicants, asked what was on the surface of the road at present and was told it contained an experimental product that would de -ice the road. Hobbs moved and Hopkins seconded to den grant the request would be a__grant of s favor of denial. -2- the request as Rroposed because to cial orivileae. The vote was 6 -0 in 3. A request for rear and side setback variances and a site coverage variance in order to add two additions to an existing residence at lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Aoalicant: John S. Tuschman Kristan Pritz explained the background of the request which included a setback variance of 10 feet for the west and north property lines in June of 1976. She pointed out that in 1976 the staff recommended approval, as the proposal would not impact any adjacent structures, and would also respect view corridors. It was also felt at that time that the location of surrounding residences and the small lot site created a situation that warranted the variances. In May, 1983 the PFC reviewed a second request for a 5 foot side setback encroachment in order to build a bedroom addition on the east side of the existing residence. The staff felt that there were other locations that would allow for the construction of the bedroom within, or at least closer to, the required setbacks and recommended denial. A non - building easement agreement between the owners of Lots 1 and 2 had been arranged in November of 1980. The Planning Commission members felt that this nonbuildable area described in the easement provided adequate separation and low impact between properties and approved the request 5 -0 despite the staff's recommendation. The staff felt that the present request would have no impact on adjacent structures, the lot is small and built to respect view corridors and recommended approval of the request. Pritz added that the staff had reviewed similar requests and found that the variances were reasonable. She stated that • the it was the staff's opinion that as long as the original rationale for granting the setback variances is reasonable and still pertains to the proposal being reviewed, it was not a grant of special privilege to continue the setback encroachments, and was a fair interpretation. The variances are merely extensions of previous variances. To require that the additions jog in and out in order to meet the existing setback requirements was unreasonable. The site coverage variance does not greatly increase the bulk or character of the building nor negatively impact adjacent properties John Railton, architect for the applicants, answered questions. Donovan asked what rationale could be used to grant additional site coverage. Kristan answered that it was the size of the lot and that the added bulk did not create problems. Railton added that without the variances, the house would be forced to be constructed with 3 stories. Piper stated that as long as GRFA beyond that allowed was not being requested, and as long as the height was not being added to, he was in favor of the request. Pritz stated that if the addition were built, the staff would like to make certain the tree by the living room was replanted or replaced. Sid Schultz moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. is 4. A request to amend the time table for Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Peter Patten stated that Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, requested to -3- postpone the originally scheduled zoning of Spraddle Creek. George Gillett . wanted to propose a zone and so the Town agreed to the postponement. Gillett was supposed to submit a zone request today. Jay Peterson stated that Gillett had not actually closed on the property yet and there were many agreements between Gillett and Vail Associates which needed to be processed. He said that they would like to come in August 25th for a work session which would give the PEC time to review their plans before going into expensive engineering plans for the subdivision. Donovan asked if there were any guarantee that Gillett would be the owner by August 25. Peterson answered that there was no guarantee but that he would be working with the staff to show them what they will be presenting. Piper was disappointed that the project was not on track. He asked Patten how far past the deadline for zoning the property the Town was, and Patten replied that the property had been annexed 1 -112 years ago and was originally to be zoned March of 1984. The staff agreed to an extension until January 1986. in January 1986 the applicant applied for an extension. Peggy Osterfoss felt that the board had to agree to an extension as a practical issue, but that eventually even the attorneys in Chicago dealing with this issue should know that the board could not be pushed forever. She suggested zoning the property on August 25. Patten replied that the staff would have to publish the zoning in the August 9 newspaper in time to do the zoning on August 25. He said that the Town could publish on 8/9 the zoning the town had previously proposed, Agricultural and Open Space, which would allow them to take action on 8/25. Donovan stated that someone needed to emphasize to the Chicago attorneys that the board was getting serious. Patten asked if the board would like him to publish on August 9 for the 25th. Piper asked the members how many of them would like to see a work session on the 25th. This was discussed and Patten emphasized that a work session could be held on the 25th as long as the applicant submitted everything needed two weeks before that date. Piper said that if there was a work session on the 25th, he would like to know that they would move forward from that point. Patten explained that if there was a work session on 8/25, a complete submittal must be in by 9/2, which meant that realistically there may be an October date for the zoning, because the submittal would have to go through many Town agencies. Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to have a work session on 8/25 and to have th_ process move forward as quickly as possible. The vote was 6-0. The board was told that there were no items scheduled for the August 11 meeting, but that there was a possibility that there would be a joint meeting with the Council on that date. The board had looked at some projects in West Vail before the meeting, and the County Planning office had asked the Vail Planning Commission to comment on the projects. 1. First Bank of Vail drive- through ATM. This was to be next to the 7 -11 building in Chamonix Corners. Jay Peterson was representing the applicant, and said that he had concerns about the slope in the winter time and would withdraw this from the County agenda if the board had concerns as well. Pam Hopkins felt that there would be a problem if there were more than two cars in the drive lane waiting to use the machine. Sid Schultz -4- 0 felt that in this location, a machine that was accessed by foot would be better. Donovan felt a traffic hazard would be created because of the crisscross of the traffic. Piper felt he would rather see a pedestrian machine, if the 4 parking spots along the side could be marked for short term. Hobbs agreed as did Osterfoss. 2. The Valley Phase III. This project consisted of 10 single family lots, 1600 sq ft each with 5 foot setbacks. Kristan Pritz stated that the staff did not have adequate information for a final review. Duane asked if the PUD might have been considered the preliminary plan, and Pritz answered that it may have been. Donovan was concerned about accessing the road from the lots. She asked if 1600 sq foot lots fit the PUD. After more discussion, it seemed the concerns were: 1. Single Family lots inconsistent with the rest of the PUD. 2. If single family lots will be accepted, they should conform to County regs for single family lots, if not to Town regulations. 3. Information for the proposal is inadequate. Town needs preliminary plan information such as contours, utilities, fire access, drainage, and staked lots. 4. How does east end of road connect to main road? 5. Five foot setback does not provide enough buffer. 6. Tract 3 should be broken down to indicate what portion of this tract is devoted to open space and what portion is devoted to the road. 7. Lot 7 has incorrect total acreage. 8. Need to decide who is responsible for completing and maintaining the road. 9. Road does not conform to existing contours. -5- U Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for setback (front, side, and rear), density control (GRFA and number of units), and parking variances in order to construct a new building on Tract B of Vail Village First Filing (site of the Cornice Building). APPLICANT: Dr. Walter Huttner and Mr. Robert Nelson I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants' proposal would involve demolition of the existing Cornice Building and the subsequent construction of a new structure on the site. A number of variances are required to facilitate the proposed development. The following is a statistical breakdown of the allowable and proposed development features with this proposal: Lot Size: .084 acres or 3,659 sq ft Allowable GRFA: 2,195 sq ft Proposed GRFA: 2,870 sq ft Allowable no. of units: 2 Proposed no. of units: 7 Required setbacks: 20 feet on front, side and rear property lines, Proposed setbacks: front, 9 feet sides, 5 and 9 feet rear, 5 feet Required parking: 12 spaces Proposed parking on site: 4 spaces In addition to the proposed construction, the site plan submitted indicates a number of off -site improvements adjacent to this site. Further clarification should be made at the Planning Commission meeting to determine the extent of improvements being proposed with this application. A number of unique circumstances arise when considering this property with respect to the allowable number of units permitted. At the present time, there is one open market condominium, one real estate office, and three units restricted to long term employee housing. The total number of units on the property is 4. It should be noted that these four units are legal nonconforming units in that they were constructed prior to the existing zoning regulations. In addition, the property is required to provide 3 long term employee housing units as stipulated in an agreement signed in 1985 as a result of the 1979 PEC approval. While the density control provisions in this zone district (High Density Multi- Family), allow only 2 units, the existing unit coupled with the employee housing agreement results in a legal nonconforming situation of 4 units being permitted. This is, of course, with the stipulation that 3 of the 4 units are restricted to employee housing. Ii. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findi Code, the Department of Community requested variance based upon the Consideration of Factors The relationship potential uses an the requested structures in S, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal evelo ment recommends denial of the ollowino factors: ariance to other existing or e vicinity. While this property is surrounded by a variety of uses, the most prevalent use in the vicinity is residential. With respect to uses, the proposal is compatible with structures and uses in the vicinity. The removal of the existing real estate office is considered a positive improvement with respect to this property's relationship to surrounding uses. However, the level of development proposed is entirely inconsistent with existing zoning limitations in the vicinity of this • site. The density proposed is equivalent to 83 dwelling units per acre. This is dramatically more dense than any Tevels of development on adjacent properties, or for that matter throughout the Town of Vail. Staff feels strongly that this level of development will create significant overcrowding and congestion problems on this site as well as in the vicinity of this 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. Because of the extremely small size of this lot, a number of difficulties arise when developing this property in compliance with the development standards outlined in the HDMF zone district. This is particularly true with respect to the required 20 foot setbacks on all sides of this parcel. While the staff feels some consideration for setback variances may be warranted because of the lot size, the opposite is true when considering density control variances. As stated above, the property is permitted 4 units, with 3 of the 4 units restricted to employee housing. A request for 7 units is totally inconsistent with the provisions outlined in the zoning code, and the staff sees no hardship nor cause to justify granting 3 additional units to this property. The same is true with regard to the requested GRFA which is over that • permitted. To approve this request for additional density on this site would, without doubt, be a grant of special privilege. 0 The proposed Vail Village Master Plan recommends certain sites for additional density according to a stringent set of criteria designed to preserve the ambiance, character and functioning of the Village area. The Cornice site was reviewed, and we feel that this is an inappropriate site for additional development due to its extremely small size, its awkward location on Vail Valley Drive (very poor accessibility with the proximity of East Meadow Drive and charter bus lot) and with the impacts of the future parking structure addition. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public _facilities and utilities, and public safety. Residential densities permitted through zoning controls relate directly to distribution of population. As has been stated, the development proposed for this site is significantly greater than what is permitted under existing zoning. It is felt that the 7 units proposed on this site would present negative impacts relative to the potential number of people who could be accommodated in this location. This site has had no on -site parking for a number of years. In 1979 an application was made to the Planning Commission to add 1 surface parking space to this site. Because of concerns over safety and traffic circulation, the Planning Commission denied this request. The proposed driveway is located only 60 to 70 feet from the final curve of the Blue Cow Chute leading onto Vail Valley Drive. Safety considerations resulting from these limited sight lines, compounded by the fact that cars may well be backing out of the parking area onto Vail Valley Drive, raise the question of this site's ability to accommodate on -site parking. This obviously puts the developer in a difficult position with respect to satisfying the parking requirements at a location where on -site parking may not be a wise solution. This, in turn, raises the broader question of attempting to redevelop a property that has existing nonconforming uses and structures on it. III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AN THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Envi findings before grant :TERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO Commission shall make the fol 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff feels strongly that this development proposal has shown no consideration for existing development guidelines outlined in the zoning code. The negative impacts resulting from the additional density requested for the site are numerous. Staff recognizes that this site will be difficult to develop within the existing site development guidelines outlined in the HDMF zone district. These difficulties have been increased through the densities proposed in this project. The staff would be willing to work with the developer to solve the site development problems related to this parcel if a proposal is made in compliance with the allowable densities for this property. However, to consider a development proposal for densities greater than those allowed on this site is unacceptable to the staff. Our recommendation for this application is for denial. is I MANIEWM70 j ��. tar �:l y � � � +• `C,77- x 9f�� a `` y1_ � � .�� •'b , : �1 ' i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for rear and side setback variances and a site coverage variance in order to add two additions to an existing residence at Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. APPLICANT: John S. Tuschman I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a five foot encroachment on the rear setback in order to add a living room addition. He is also requesting a 1.5 foot side setback encroachment in order to add a bedroom addition. A site coverage variance is also necessary. Presently, the existing site coverage is 2,042 square feet. The allowed site coverage for the site is 1,864 square feet which means that the property is already 178 square feet over the allowable site coverage. With the proposed bedroom and living room additions, the total amount of site coverage over the allowable would be 366 square feet. Please see the zoning statistics below: Primary /Secondary Zone District • TOTAL LOT AREA: 9,320 sq ft GRFA: Allowable: 2,330 sq ft Existing: 1st floor 999 sq ft 2nd floor +1,128 sq ft Total 2,127 sq ft Addition for bedroom 6/23/83 + 145 sq ft Addition for window seat 9/10/84 32 sq--ft 2,304 sq ft storage -_ 164 sq ft 2,140 sq ft Proposed liv addition 51 sq ft Proposed bed addition 97.5 sf Total 2,289.5 sq ft storage - 8 New Total 2,281 sq ft Remaining sf after proposed additions = 49 sq ft SITE COVERAGE Allowed: 1,864 sq ft Existing: 2,042 Amt over allowable ^178 sq ft Proposed Addition: Bedroom 104 sq ft liv room 84 Amt over allowable after additions 366 sq ft CREDITS: Allowed Existing Remaining Garage 600 403 197 Mechanical 50 0 50 Airlock 25 0 25 Storage 200 172 28 This residence received a setback variance of 10 feet for the west (side) and north (rear) property lines on June 24, 1976. At that time, the required setbacks were 12' -6 ". The memo states that, "The variance is requested in order to build a single family residence on a very small lot (9,320 sq ft) which respects views of surrounding existing homes. The objectives of the-zoning ordinance have been met in that the house has been designed and located on the site to respect view corridors in one of the most tightly clustered residential areas. A building could be designed for the site which meets every technical requirement of the ordinance, but would have an adverse impact on the adjoining neighbors, which we feel would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. This site is one of less than 10 in the entire Town of Vail of such a small size. Similar variances (Morgan, Carnie) have been granted for new residences where it was not desirable or practical to locate them in compliance with the ordinance." In general, the staff recommended approval, as the proposal would not impact any adjacent structures, and would also respect view corridors. It was also felt that the location of surrounding residences and the small lot site created a situation that warranted the variances. On May 19, 1983, the PEC reviewed a second request for a 5 foot side setback encroachment in order to build a bedroom addition on the east side of the existing residence. Even though staff recognized that there were special circumstances associated with the lot, the staff felt that there were other locations that would allow for the construction of the bedroom within, or a least closer to, the required setbacks. An important factor related to the request was a non - building easement agreement which was arranged between the owners of Lot 2 and Lot 1 in November of 1980. According to the previous memo dated May, 1983: -2- i "The applicant does own an easement for the full and free light to the uninterrupted access, transmission and enjoyment of light and view over and across Lot 2, which is adjacent to the proposed addition. The easement does not completely deny the possibility that further construction will take place on the adjacent property. There is GRFA left on Lot 2, and the easement agreement may be altered to allow an addition to the residence on Lot 2." At the May meeting in 1983, most of the Planning Commission members felt that the non- buildable area described in the easement provided adequate separation and low impact between properties. However, Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, mentioned that the easement could be abandoned, as the easement holder or his successor has control of the easement, as it runs with the land. The PEC approved the request with two members against the variance. II. 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 variances based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variz potential uses and structures in the v' ce to other existi The variances should have no impact on adjacent structures. The lines of the house which were originally approved in June of 1976 are being maintained. The encroachment for the bedroom is less than the existing side encroachment due to the angled line of the house. The living room addition encroaches exactly the same amount as the rest of the house on the rear setback, therefore, the encroachment will have no impact on adjacent properties. The deoree 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. As was stated in the memo of June 1976, the staff supports the previous statements that due to the very small size of this site, the existing site standards are difficult to apply to the property. We also agree "that the house has been designed to respect view corridors and that to require the building to be designed so that it meets every technical requirement of the ordinance would have an adverse impact on adjoining neighbors." (Memo June 1976) Staff finds that the applicant is requesting a "continuance of existing setbacks rather than contorting the house with awkward jogs and corners to conform with setbacks enacted after the house was built." (Railton -3- letter June 1986) Staff has also reviewed similar requests and found • that the variances were reasonable. As an example, Dr. Peterson's residence on Beaver Dam Road was allowed to add an addition which extended a previously approved rear setback encroachment. It is staff's opinion that as long as the original rationale for granting the setback variances is reasonable and still pertains to the proposal being reviewed, it is not a grant of special privilege to continue the setback encroachments. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of 000ulation. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public-safety. The previous variance approvals were based on the fact that the variances maintained separation between adjacent houses and also respected their views. Staff believes that this proposal will have no impacts on the factors above. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting the 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. -4- • VI. CI STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the three variances. It is felt that the setback variances are merely extensions of previous variances that were granted back in 1976. To require that the additions jog in and out in order to meet the existing setback requirements is unreasonable. The site coverage variance does not greatly increase the bulk of the building or negatively impact adjacent properties. The proposal will not be a grant of special privilege, as this type of interpretation has been used with other properties such as the Peterson property. In the June 1976 memo it also states that: "Similar variances (Morgan, Carnie) have been granted for new residences where it was not desirable or practical to locate them in compliance with the ordinance." It is also felt that the existing setback configuration creates an unusual circumstance which warrants the variances. Staff recommends approval of all three requests. 25 June 1986 TO: Town of Vail Planning Department Planning and Environmental Commission RE: Tuschman Residence On belhalf of my clients Mr. & Mrs. John S. Tuschman, I am requesting the Planning and Environment Commission to grant a setback variance. This variance is requested to enable my clients to expand their house with an addition to the living room and master bedroom. This addition is available to them within the GRFA permitted. The additional 250 square feet now available for houses 5 years or older is not requested. The deck addition does not project into the setback more than 1/3 of the setback distance and therefore conforms with the setback requirements. The variance requested for these additions is as follows: (A) Rear Setback (living room addition) The house was constructed on a 10' rear setback line. The current setback requirement is 15'. Had the house been set on the 15' setback line the hardship in expanding the house would not exist. The expansion is restricted by the location of the fireplace, the room layout planning, and other existing construction. The expansion would continue along the original 10' setback line, and continue the architectural lines of the house. The intrusion is approximately 6' -6" x 5' = 32.5 square feet. (B) Side Setback (master bedroom addition) The house was constructed on a 10' side setback line. The current setback is also 151. The expansion would occupy the existing roofed deck and a 3' glass solarium type addition. The current master bedroom is small (14' x 13'). This intrusion over the 1511ine is a wedge shape from 1' -6" to 6" and approximately 7' long = 8.75 square feet. A very small jog in the building would avoid this variance, but I believe would look very awkward. Milburn • Sparn I N C O R P O R A T E D Architecture and Planning Ski Muir Milburn AIA Stephen Sparn AIA Philip McEvoy RA Kermit Wells RA 3300 MITCHELL LANE, SUITE 390, BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 USA 303447 -2646 Addressing your application items 1 through 3: I� 1. The relationship of the requested variance to adjacent houses does not effect existing circumstances. The house is already located off the 15' setback lines and on a 10' setback line. The planning concept of setting this house back from the street. (Approximately 60'and more than twice the 25' front setback required) and its east side neighborhood house forward, and the resulting view corridors is maintained. The house occupies, even with the proposed additions, only 50% of the building envelope. 2. I believe that my clients are not asking for a special privilege. They are entitled to additional square footage for their house. Given the existing plan layout and location on site of the house I believe these proposed additions are planned for the best available locations. We are really requesting a continuance of existing setbacks rather than contorting the house with awkward jogs and corners to conform with setbacks enacted after the house was built. 3. I hope you can agree that the variance will not affect light, air or any of these other matters. A research of the history of this house indicates that the planning cm mission granted a variance to set the house 10' off the rear and side lot lines. The requirement at that time was 12' -6 ". The lot is very small and the commission at that time wished to respect the relative locations of existing adjacent houses and their views, and felt that this was the proper location for the house on this site. I have hoped that my design for the proposed additions is in the spirit of the intentions of the planning department and commission, as conveyed by the history of their past actions. ■ M M i feel I have an obligation to apply for a variance in order to provide for my clients the best answer to their program requirements, and for the community the best site planning and architectural answer. The alternatives that do not require a variance, I consider to be less desirable than this proposal, as they add awkward jogs and lines to the clean and simple architecture of the house, or provide dominant additions forward at the front of the house that disrupts the views from within this house and alter existing landscape, view corridors and street character. Please contact me if I can assist further with your review or answer any questions or concerns that arise. Sincerely, MIL13URN -SPARN IWORPORA'TID John Railton Partner JR/sls • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 25, 1986 1:00 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearin I. Approval of minutes of July 28, 1986 2. Appointment of AEC member to DRB for September, October and November. 1 3. Proposal for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows Applicant: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes To be tabled. 4. Request for a front setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision, 4th Addition. Applicant: William D. Benkelman 2 5. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 5 (Simba Run) in order to pay funds in lieu of constructing a tot lot on the property. Applicant: Simba Run Associates 3 6. Work session on Spraddle Creek 7. Treetops deck enclosure briefing. • L� PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 25, 1985 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of July 28 1986. Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 6 -0 -1 in favor. 2. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for September, October and November. This item was moved to the end of the agenda. 3. Proposal for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows. _ Applicant: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes Tom Braun showed site plans and gave the background of the proposal. He stated that proposed was to subdivide one existing duplex zoned lot into two individual parcels. The existing duplex lot contained a legal duplex structure (Lot 2), and the proposed lot (Lot 3) would have the development potential for an additional duplex. Braun stated that two sets of criteria were to be involved in reviewing a request of this nature. The first was the PEC review criteria as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, the second set addressed issues such as minimum lot size, buildable site area, geologic hazards, access, and utility service. Braun said that the clarification of the easement should be a condition of approval, as well as utility verification by all applicable utilities indicating that service can be provided to the proposed Lot 3 prior to the recording of the subdivision. Tom Allen of Intermountain Engineering said that he would answer questions about the survey. Stan Gillis, a resident of the unit adjacent to the proposed Lot 3 listed several other points to consider. These included the fact that the original request when the subdivision was first planned was for 3 lots, but that the Town saw fit to grant only 2, the lot was too close to I -70 which resulted in vehicles in accidents landing in the area and traffic also made the lot noisy, there was a botanical hazard, as there were many dead aspen trees standing on the lot, and they had a tendency to fall over, there would be a parking problem, and the value of the existing structures would decrease with the added traffic across them. Jane Bemish, one of four owners of one half of Lot 1, stated an objection to the subdivision until she would have more time to review the access agreement. She also agreed with Gillis' objection to added traffic on the property and noise from the Interstate Tom Kiahtipes stated that he would work with his attorney on the easement . agreement. He felt that it was very feasible to add another lot. Sid Schultz asked why the Town did not allow 3 lots originally, and was told . that at the time of the origination of the subdivision, the minimum lot size for duplex lots was 17,500 square feet, but that now it is 15,000 square feet. The parking situation was discussed, and then Diana Donovan asked whether there could be a condition placed upon the approval that stated that a variance could not be requested upon building on this lot. Braun replied that legally, no one could be denied permission to apply for a variance. Jim Viele asked Tom Allen of Intermountain Engineering how the 40% slope had been figured and Allen felt it probably had been measured contour line to contour line which originally had been measured with a plenemeter Viele felt that the measurement would only be as good as the drafting job. Peggy Osterfoss asked where on the site the structure would be placed and was told that most likely it would be placed on the lower part. Peggy pointed out that she lived across the creek and that there had in the past been difficulty with unstable soil in that area. Braun said that the property was not in a debris flow area. Peter Patten speculated that setback variances may have to be given in order to construct the building in a logical location on the lot, and that the PEC could say that they would look very closely at a variance request. Jane Bemish wondered if the request for Lot 3 could be given if the owners on Lot 1 withdrew their access agreement. Diana wondered which group of people should address the fact that that section of I -70 was dangerous, and who should be concerned? Braun suggested that in light of the concern over the access agreement, the commissioners may want to table the item. is Osterfoss moved and Donovan seconded to table this re uest until the easement agreement was resolved and the safety question was addressed. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of tabling. 4. Request for a front setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision, 4th Addition. Applicant: Wm Benkelman Peter Patten stated that the submittal was inadequate in that it did not address the fact that the project would require a variance from a stream setback and the staff was asking to table so that it could be republished with the additional information. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table until it could be published. The vote was 7 -0 to table. 5. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 5 (S Run) in order to pay funds in lieu of constructing a tot lot on the orooerty. Apolicant: Simba Run Associates Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant was requesting to amend Special Development District No. 5 (Simba Run), Development Area B) to exclude the requirement that the owners construct a tot lot. They propose instead to contribute $10,000 to the Town of Vail Recreational Amenities Fund which would be broken down into three equal payments using an interest rate of 10 %. The Simba Run project provides recreational amenities that include 1 indoor swimming pool, 2 racquet ball courts, 3 tennis courts, 2 video games and a pool table. The ordinance creating the special development district required that the approved development plan include a minimum of 5 tennis courts, a bike and -2- PEC 8/25/86 pedestrian path, a swimming pool and a bus shelter that would serve the . Lionsridge area in general. All of these commitments had been met by the developer except for the tot lot. (The two racquet ball courts were to replace two of the five tennis courts.) Kristan explained that at this time the Town had 5 tot lots at Sandstone, Pirate Ship, Booth Greek, Lionshead, and Bighorn Parks and two additional tot lots were being planned at Donovan and Ford Parks. Sandstone Park is located .3 miles from the Simba Run project. It was the staff's opinion that Simba Run provides many activities for users of the project. Due to the close proximity of the Sandstone playground, the users of Simba Run have easy access to the Sandstone facility. She added that it was unfortunate that more up -front design work was not completed at the time that the tot lot was located on the site, because the proposed location was very close to the Frontage Road as well as the turn - around area for the Simba Run. Rather than force the tot lot onto the site, the staff felt that the present proposal to commit $10,000 to the Town of Vail recreation amenities fund provided a much more appropriate solution. Nick Oiancamilli, President of UAP Holdings, stated that UAP wanted to have the option to pay the $10,000 in advance, if they so wished. Diana Donovan suggested setting a due date for the first payment, perhaps the second reading of the Town Council, or October 1. Jim Viele made the suggestion that the $10,000 could be used to fund public restrooms at Sandstone Park, and this was taken under advisement. . Donovan moved and Viele seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council for the amendment to Special Development No. 5 with six_ conditions: 1. A final certificate of occupancy not be issued for the projects until all three payments have been made in full. 2. The responsibility to cover these payments will run with the land and it will be passed on to future owners of ownership changes. 3. The interest rate for the payments will be 10 %. 4. The first payment will be due within 30 days of Council final approval. 5. The outstanding balance may be paid in full at any time without a prepayment penalty with interest thereon. 6. The PEC strongly recommends that the funds be used to construct restrooms at Sandstone Park. r1 U The vote was 7 -0 in favor of recommending approval. -3- PEC 8/25/86 6. A work session on Spraddle Creek followed. . Peter Patten explained that the planners had their first interdepartmental review of the project with other Town departments that morning. They were concerned about road grades and services. Peter showed the site plan. Jay Peterson, representing the owners, was in the audience, as was Roger Tilkemeier and Mark Wentworth of the livery and Bob Poole of the Forest Service. Roger Tilkemeier stated that no questions had been asked of him or Mark. In the original discussion between the Forest Service and Vail Associates, they were not involved. At his request, he finally did meet with Vail Associates and came up with an agreement that VA would physically move and pay for a new location for the livery to the east of Spraddle Creek (Gillett's parcel). He stated that the new location had been approved by the Forest Service. Tilkemeier pointed out that the PEC was a planning entity, not a development commission, and should take a proactive role in deciding what they want. Tilkemeier spoke about sociological changes in Vail. He added that when George Gillett purchased the land, he should have known of the road access, that there should not have been any surprises. Tilkemeier stated that he did not feel that it was in the best public interest to have a paved road through the riding area. He added that the insurance for the livery stable was expensive and would be cancelled completely if the road were paved. He felt the need to work with the Forest Service and George Gillett to come to an agreement. Tilkemeier pointed out that the Town could request certain things of developers such as it did with Simba Run. . Duane Piper asked Tilkemeier if he did not want to relocate to the east and Tilkemeier replied that there must be a very easy access to compensate for decreased visibility. Patten replied that the staff had problems with the areas of the road that were 12 %. Jay Peterson stated that the problem the applicant has now with the agreement Tilkemeier had with VA is that the road no longer extends to the east as far as it did in the previous proposal. He asked Tilkemeier if he would be satisfied if the applicant left part of the road through the livery unpaved. Pam Hopkins stated that she saw many driveways unpaved and that it might be an advantage if the road was steep. Peterson said that a product could be added to the asphalt to help melt snow. Bob Poole of the Forest Service said that the primary concern of the Forest Service was that the public access be provided across public terrain and the impact on the livery stable. Peterson said he was willing to come to an agreement. Poole felt that there was a need for a high degree of coordination to iron out the concerns. He felt the owner and the livery stable should work out the problems and the FS would then consider a change in the plans. Peterson felt there were positive things being proposed by the owner such as upgrading the road, paving the parking area for the livery, relocating the tents and hay, and moving the water supply if necessary. This would all be done in the off season and would include pedestrian, equestrian and snowmobile access. He agreed that a livery was needed by the Town, but felt that perhaps a private entity may not be able to provide it. He felt the owners should help pay to relocate the livery. He reminded the board that the livery's lease was for a -4- PEC 8/25/86 12 month period. . Tilkemeier stated that his business was in jeopardy and he could not allow someone else to decide what was better for him. Poole stated that he did not believe the Forest Service would enter into an agreement that allowed the livery to be moved only on the condition that the developer cover the costs for their parcel of land. Patten said that it was critical that the Forest Service permit issue be resolved now by the Forest Service and the permittee so that the livery can plan on a long term site. He doubted if Poole was in a position to do this today. Poole answered that once negotiations on the land exchange reached a point where it was confirmed that it was going into private ownership, then the FS would look to the new owners to make their position known with regard to the livery, and that it was the new owner's prerogative to make the decision. Peter Patten summarized Poole's statements: The permit was only for year to year, the permit would allow the livery to relocate, but the bottom line was that the new land owner could decide what to do with the livery. Peterson reminded the board that in any case, the permit would be up in 1991. Tilkemeier asked how was planning being done for high demand recreation facilities. Tilkemeier stated that other sites he had looked at did not allow tourists to get out on horseback into undeveloped areas easily. The cost of relocating the stable to the east was discussed, and a very rough estimation of the costs was $150,000. Tilkemeier stated that they were asking the Forest Service to develop the livery site, the same as Simba Run was required to do certain things in order to develop their site. Poole stated that they would have to approve the road design where it crossed Forest Service land, but they could not dictate the right of the new owner. He stated that Roger must make the agreement with the new owner. Roger stated that it was within the Forest Service prerogative to require a new owner as part of the transfer to honor the permit to 1991. Duane Piper felt the board was operating in a vacuum due to the unknown resolution of the land trade, but in the meantime the Town could zone the land Agriculture and Open Space. Patten replied that perhaps this would be an intelligent move. Viele felt that from a technical standpoint, the proposal came closer to satisfying the Town's requirements than did the previous proposal. He felt the board would have to consider the impact the proposal would have on the Town and on the livery stable. Individual building envelopes on each site were discussed and Jay estimated where these would be located. Road maintenance was also discussed, and Jay stated that the owner would take responsibility for this, and it would be recorded to go with the land if there were more owners at a later date. Patten stated that it was a common occurrence that an owner of a private road would later come to the Town and ask that it be taken over by the Town. Donovan felt that this was a very visible site, even with the houses constructed on benches and would like to see adopted a low profile type of architecture for the houses. She felt that the Forest Service was taking a chicken attitude with regard to the stables. She felt that without any restrictions, the land was more valuable to the Forest Service for trading purposes. She felt that the Forest Service had an obligation to do something to protect the stables. Diana also stated that the Town Council had the ability to put pressure on the Forest Service in this regard. -5- PFC 8/25/85 Ir'1 LJ Tilkemeier said that the Town of Vail has the right to put pressure on the developer rather than the Forest Service doing this. Roger added that as with the U.S. Park system, the Town could own the recreation facility and then lease it to private sector. Schultz felt that the problem with the stable could be worked out, but was concerned about the visual impact the road might have and the visual impact of the retaining walls. He felt smaller steps in the design of the retaining walls would have less visual impact. Osterfoss was also concerned about the walls. Bryan Hobbs, who worked for Vail Associates Real Estate, stated a conflict of interest and did not comment on the project. Donovan suggested the Town zone the property Agriculture and Open Space, and Peterson protested, stating that this would not be fair, that the owner wanted to resolve the conflicts. Diana felt that it was important to consider the relation of the proposed zoning for Gillett`s property and how that may affect the future possible development on the Forest Service parcel. Duane Piper suggested more time elapse to allow the resolution of the conflicts for this project. The parties involved agreed to try to work together on a solution. No submittal deadline was suggested. The PEC felt that the proposal and impacts should be resolved in a timely manner. It was felt that the time needed to arrive at reasonable solutions should guide the time line for review of the proposal. 2. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for September, October and November Peggy Osterfoss, Bryan Hobbs and Jim Viele were suggested as potential DRB members. Peggy said she would do it, but could not attend in September. Duane Piper said he would back up Peggy. Treetops deck enclosure briefing Peter told the board that the Council strongly denied the appeal and did uphold the PEC denial of the Treetops deck enclosures request. -6- PEC 8/25/86 Iti r1 U 0 U TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 25, 1986 SUBJECT: Work session on Spraddle Creek development This informal discussion of the Spraddle Creek development has been arranged so that the Planning Commission, Community Development staff, and representatives of the proposal have the opportunity to discuss the various issues related to the development. At this time, the staff has received a preliminary site plan and a brief description of the proposal. The purpose of the meeting is not to indicate approval or denial of the proposal, but instead to encourage discussion of the issues and concerns related to the development. The memo is organized into three parts. The first section will give a brief outline of the decisions that led up to the idea for the work session. The second session will give a general outline of the proposal. The third section will highlight major issues related to the development. I. BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT The following list indicates the dates of important actions related to Spraddle Creek: December 13, 1984 The Town and Vail Associates, Inc. entered into an annexation agreement regarding the annexation zoning of Spraddle Creek. This agreement allowed that "In the event the Town does not zone the property as set forth in this agreement of annexation, Vail Associates, Inc. may elect to de -annex the property from the Town by giving the Town written notice of such intention within 180 days of the date of such annexation, and upon such notice, the Town will take such actions as are necessary or appropriate to cause the property to de -annex from the Town and revert to its previous status within Eagle County." The zoning that Vail Associates, Inc. was requesting was Primary /Secondary Residential. January 15, 1985 The property was annexed into the Town of Vail. July 13, 1985 An amendment to the annexation agreement was signed extending the 180 day notice to January 15, 1986. May 28, 1986 The Planning Commission agenda called for the consideration of initial zoning of Spraddle Creek. The staff explained that in January 15, 1985 the Town had extended the agreement with Vail Associates to change the written notice date to January 1986. To date, the Town had not received notice to de -annex the property. In addition, a letter had been sent to the Town staff from George Gillett, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Vail Associates, asking the Town to table the zoning because he was negotiating to purchase the property. Due to Mr. Gillett's letter, the staff requested that the Planning Commission table the item to the June 9th or at the latest, the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting. The request was approved by the Planning Commission. June 9, 1986 No information had been received at this time. The Planning Commission tabled the item until June 23rd. June 23, 1986 The Town staff requested to table the application of applying zoning to the property until the August 25th Planning Commission meeting. The Town wanted to provide the • opportunity for the new owner, Mr. George Gillett, to submit a complete proposal for ultimate build -out for the Spraddle Creek property. This submittal had to be made to the Planning staff by July 28, 1986 in order to meet the August 25th meeting. If the proposal was submitted by July 28, the Town would withdraw the present application. If the owner failed to submit a complete proposal on July 28, the Town staff would then proceed with the application of Agricultural and Open Space zoning for the property. -2- July 28, 1986 Staff explained that Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, was requesting to postpone the originally scheduled zoning of Spraddle Creek. Jay Peterson stated that Gillett had not actually closed on the property, and there were many agreements between Gillett and Vail Associates which needed to be processed. He requested that they be able to come to the Planning Commission on August 25 for a work session which would give the developers opportunity to get input from the Planning Commission and staff before they began expensive engineering plans for the subdivision. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the representatives of the project understood that the Planning Commission could not continue to delay this proposal forever. The Planning Commission voted to approve the work session recommending that the process move forward as quickly as possible. This review highlights the important dates related to Spraddle Creek's review. After the work session, the Planning and Environmental review of the proposal will be scheduled. The preliminary plan for the major subdivision proposal will be heard simultaneously with the zoning proposal at the first Planning Commission public hearing. The PEC's recommendation on the zoning and the major subdivision will be sent to Town Council for their consideration. Following two readings of the zoning ordinance, the PEC will take the final step in the approval process by reviewing the final plat submittal for the subdivision. II. THE PROPOSAL The applicant has submitted the following description of the proposal: "The basic concept is to provide a high quality, low density residential project on the 39.5 acre Spraddle Creek parcel. Rather than the 18 Primary /Secondary homesites as proposed last year by Vail Associates, the applicant proposes 6 homesites zoned Primary /Secondary." Access will be provided by a private road to be maintained by the owner or by maintenance agreement with the Town. The cost will be borne by the owner. Access by the public by the Forest Service easement will be maintained. -3- L� The following lot numbers, lot areas and buildable square footages are provided . in the table below: LOT AREA BUILDABLE SLOPE LESS THAN 40% LOT NO. SQ FT ACRES SQ FT ACRES 1 52,188 1.20 27,188 .62 2 54,000 1.24 40,425 .93 3 61,012 1.40 38,512 .88 4 125,150 2.87 35,000 .80 5 300,162 6.89 203,662 4.68 6 193,200 4.44 131,950 3.03 Retaining wall cross sections have also been provided which will be presented at the meeting. III. ISSUES • The following is a preliminary outline of significant issues: 1. The Land Use Plan that is in the process of being completed has included the following goal statement under the General Growth and Development section of the Land Use Plan Goals: 115. Development proposals on the hillside should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment." At this time, the Plan is not finalized, but this seems to be the general direction that the community has given to the staff for development on hillsides. The visibility of this project from the valley floor and its sensitivity to the environment need to be carefully studied. Moreover, the Land Use Plan Task Force has preliminarily recommended that the developable portion of this site is suitable for Low Density Residential use. 2. Staff has concerns over granting variances to the Subdivision Regulations regarding maximum road grades. The maximum road grade . for a minor street (including private) is 8% and the proposed road has grades that in many areas are 100. -4- . 3. The impact of the proposal on the livery stable is unresolved at this time. Staff believes that the Environmental Impact Report should address where the livery stable may be relocated, feasibility of relocation, relocation costs, and total impacts on the livery stable. We find it difficult to imagine the livery staying in its present location with a paved road winding through it. 4. The visual impacts of the retaining walls necessary to support the access road are a concern. The retaining wall heights vary from approximately 30 feet to 40 feet and are highly visible from I -70, the Village and the ski mountain. Basically, the staff has many of the same concerns that were outlined when this proposal was originally presented. The requirements for a major subdivision have been enclosed to identify the type of additional information the staff needs to complete a thorough review of the proposal. Please also see the enclosed letters from the applicant and from Roger Roger Tilkemeier. Representatives of the applicant will be present at the meeting on the 25th to answer any questions which may arise regarding this proposal. -5- '17.16.090 Preliminary Plan - Agencies Review The zoning administrator shall inform any of the following agencies that copies of the preliminary plan are available for review and comment. Notification shall be mailed at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date set by the planning and environmental commission for public hearing: 1, The Vail Valley Slater District 2, Department of Public Works 3. Town of Vail Fire Department 4. Town of Vail Police Department 5, Public Service Company of Colorado 6, Holy Cross Electric Association 7, Mountain Bell 8, Cablevision company serving the area 9, National Forest Service 10, Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation,District 11. Other interested agencies when applicable Such agencies shall be required to make recommendations and comments within 15 days from the date of receipt of notification that the preliminary plan is available for review. Failure to make recommendations and /or comments within the prescribed 15 day period shall be deemed approval of the preliminary plan, 17.16.110 PEC Review Criteria 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 recommendations made 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 resel•uticns and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility vJ 0' _16- and water mains. If utilities are not found on the tract, distance is to,- direction of and size and elevations of the nearest utilities should be indicated. f. Contour intervals of no less than two feet if the site is two acres or less; contour intervals of five feet or less if the tract is more than two acres, elevations to be based on USGS datum. g. Drainage conditions on and adjacent to the tract including location and extent of water courses, areas of 100 year flood plain (verified by a registered professional engineer in State of Colorado), perpetual drainage easements and location of natural springs and ground water h. Existing conditions on adjacent land: The area within 200 feet from each subdivision boundary should be included in the preliminary plan to show its zoning, location of physical improvements and land uses, owners of said property, division of property into lots : tracts including subdivision names and any sig- nificant natural features. The objective of showing how the preliminary plan interfaces with all adjoining properties and uses thereof should be- met. i. Existing zoning j. All areas of 40% slope or greater, and avalanche areas indicated as shaded areas. k. Letters from all applicable utility agencies verifying service 1. Indications showing that access to the subdivision is via a maintained public road m. Soil stability analysis -15- 17.16.030 Preliminary Presentation - PEC Consideration of a major subdivision proposal shall be formally considered with' a preliminary plan presentation by the subdivider and /or his representative(s) to the PEC at a regularly scheduled meeting, This preliminary Presentation shall be a public hearing according to Sections 18.66.060 - 18.66.090 of the Vail Municipal Code. The presentation shall reflect the proposed development for an entire same ownership and shall indicate all adjacent lands owned or under option to the subdivider at the-time of subdivision. 17,16,070 Preliminary Plan - Submittal Requirements A, At least 30 days prior to the preliminary plan presentation to the PEC, the subdividershall submit at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet or larger, 12 (twelve) copies of each of the following (exceptions can be granted on individual items by the director of public works or the zoning administrator) to the department of community development: 1. The Environmental Impact Report required 2. A topographic survey with a north arrow, graphic scale, dimensioned to nearest foot prepared and certified by a Colorado registered land surveyor, shall be submitted including the following information: a. Boundary lines b, Preliminary proposed lots and blocks with numbers and sizes c. Easements: location, width and purpose d, Proposed streets, their widths of right -of -way and pavement, approximate grades in percentage and center line radii of curves; areas with cuts and fills exceeding 6 feet and extent thereof e. Utilities on and adjacent to the tract, including their type, location, size and invert elevations of sanitary sewers; storm drainage facilities r OTTO, PETERSON & POST ATTORNEYS AT LAW FREDERICK S OTTO - POST OFFICE BOX 3149 JAY K. PETERSON WILLIAM J, POST - VAM,COLORAI30 815583149 MEMO TO: KRISTEN PRITZ FROM: JAY K. PETERSON DATE: AUGUST 18, 1986 RE: SPRADDLE CREEK Information as per August 12, 1986 letter. VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING .. (303) 476 -0092 EAGLE VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING (303) 949 -5360 DENVER DIRECT LINE (363) 623 -5926 1) Basic Concepts. The basic concept is to provide a high quality, low density residental project on the 39.5 acre Spraddle Creek parcel. Rather than the 18 primary /secondary home sites as proposed last year by Vaal Associates, the applicant proposes 6 home sites zoned primary /secondary. Access will be provided by a private road to be maintained by the owner or by maintenance agreement with the Town. The cost will be borne by the owner. Access for the public by the forest service easement will be maintained. 2) See attached Exhibit for lot numbers, lot areas, and buildable area. 3) See attached cross section for retaining wall heights. 4) The undersigned did meet with Roger Tilkmeier and the following was agreed to: a) Our access across the Forest Service parcel would stay within the 35' current easement except as amended by agreement with the livery stable. A small encroachment into the permit area is currently being proposed which would affect a couple of tents and some hay storage. The applicant at his expense would relocate any tents, hay storage, restrooms, holding tanks or the water supply if necessitated by the encroachment. b) In addition, the applicant agreed to develop and . designate for the stable a parking area for 10 to 12 cars. 0 • • C) Also agreed to was that the applicant would designate a safe crossing area for the horses. d) - Pedestrian, equestrian and snowmobile access to the National Forest would be maintained. e) The upgrade and changes would be completed in a manner as not to interrupt the operations of the stable facility. Since the following was agreed to, Roger Tilkmeier has said it was not agreeable and that he wanted a long term commitment from the applicant for a horse facility. That of course is impossible for us to deliver as the forest service is the grantor of the permit. 5. The lower road connects directly with the existing forest service road and that connection will be maintained. (See Plat) . 6. The lots and road are staked. ay Ij. PeteYson a • 611 BUILDABLE LOO AREA LOT N0. SQ.FT. ACRES 1 52188 1.20 2 54000 1.24 3 61012 1.40 4 125150 2.87 5 300162 6.89 6 193200 4.44 611 BUILDABLE SLOPE (SLOPE LESS THAN 40 %) SQ.FT. ACRES 27188 .62 40425 .93 38512 .88 35000 .80 203662 4.68 131950 3.03 f { i F 1� A SPRADDLE CREEK RANCH.. MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Nail, Dept. of Community Development FROM: Roger Tilkemeier Director, Spraddle Creek Ranch Inc. SUBJECT_ Spraddle Creek Zoning Proposal DATE: August 2 0, 1986 Attention: Kristen Pritz This memo is in response to the zoning application for the Spraddle Greek Parcel (parcel) as submitted in Jay Peterson's memo of 8- 18 -86. Access to the parcel is across U.S. Forest Service land (Spraddle Creek Site), part of . which is under Permit to Spraddle Creek Ranch. A copy of the Permit including a facilities map is enclosed for your convenience. ,A couple of months ago we read in the newspaper that Mr. Gillett had purchased the Parcel from Vail Associates and that Jay Peterson, as his representative, had made a statement treat a new development plan was in the works that. would have no impact on the stable. Since this is our business and a very specialized and important summer visitor amenity, we thought it important that we pass judgement on the development impact rather the developer. Acting at Spraddle Creek President, Marc Wentworth's request and as a Director of Spraddle Creek Ranch Inc., I arranged a meeting with Jay and the developer to review the new plan. That is the meeting referenced in paragraph four (4) of the application letter. Each of the referenced items were discussed and it was agreed with Mike Larsen, who attended the meeting as Mr. Gillett's technical representative, that the items discussed should be written up for review and signature of the principals. Marc and I discussed the meeting later in the clay and determined that we could not accept the proposed plan for the following reasons: It is not in the best long term interest of the Summer 'fail Visitor for whom we provide horseback riding services. It i not in the hest. Business interests of Spraddle Creek Ranch Inc-. Overlooking Vail Village P.O. Box 2996 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476 -6941 . It does not reference the agreement by flail Associates (c p, attached) to pay for and physically move the stable facilities to the new approved site. It does not address the fact that the present facilities plan is an intergai part of the Permit and can only be changed by amendment or for reasons deemed by the Forest Service to be in the best public interest. Contrary to Jay's statement, there was no formal agreement. There was discussion. The decision as outlined above was relayed by phone the morning follox�FAng the meeting at which time a meeting was suggested with the Forest Service and the Town planning staff to work out an agreement in line with the one reached with Flail Associates a year ago. Jay declined and suggested we proceed on our own separate paths. As a result of this decision, contact was made with the District Ranger, the Forest Supervisor and the Regional Office in the names of Dave Starr, Richard Woodrow and Sid Hanks respectively. Dave's response was that we had an agreement a year ago that included the relocation of the stable to an approved new location in exchange for realignment of the road across the present stable Permit and that . until another mutually agreed upon solution was reached that agreement would stand - -- unless of course the developer could prove that it is in the best public interest to change the stable's facility plan. That position received enthusiastic support at the Supervisor and Regional levels. I urge you to call each of those individuals to confirm the above statement. Their phone numbers are: Dave Stark 827 -5715; Richard Woodrow -1 -925 -2521; Sid Hanks -1 -236 -9427. � I* As we all know, the Spraddle Creek site has been approved by the Forest Service for trade and that the Town has appealled that decision. The Forest Service has also taken the position that the Spraddle Creek Permit is an annual terminable permit_ This means that the Permit can be terminated on any December 31 anniversary with proper notice as provided in the Permit and without compensation to the Permitee as would have been provided if the permit was considered to be a 10 year Term Permit. We have taken exception to this ruling based on (1) the intent of the application which included a requirement to file a prospectus or invitation for competetive proposals which is not required for annual permits,Q) language in our application sPecfica117 requesting a 10 year Term Permit, (3) lacy of Forest Service notification of denial of the request,(4) issuance of a Permit with a 10 year termination date, ie; 12 -31- 1991,(5) recent telephone confirmations from then District Ranger Ernie Nunn and then Recreation Ranger Jim Paxon reaffirming the intent of the Term Permit and (6) public testimony by Ernie to that effect in the records of both the Town and County when we applied for and received 10 year Conditional or Special Use Permits from each of those entities. However, it is not our present intent or interest in finding fault with and enuring into lengthy and time consuming appeals to Forest Service decisions, but rather to find simple, equitable and long lasting solutions for protecting a resort oriented, public recreation facility from the blade of the bulldozer- --- and the applicant and Town should be aware that in the event of continued Forest Service ownership, we have been told the Permit is renewable if the permitee is in good standing and there is no higher or better public use for the land. While the Forest Service is reluctant to change the Permit at this stage of the game, presentation of this scenario to Sid Hanks prompted him to say that the Forest Service would probably rewire any new owner of the Spraddle Creek Site to honor the full term of the Permit and /or move the stable to the new site. Any prudent owner would pass these requirements on to the developer of the subject parcel in exchange for an access other than the one historically used. - -- and that brings us back to square one which is "How do we, together, get a new access easement across our Forest Service recognized leasehold interest for Mr. Gillett? • His current solution is regretably unacceptable for the following reasons: We like the present location of facilities and road. alignment. At the time the facility was built the company had free choice, subject tea Forest Service approval. We chose carefully and selfishly to enhance the startup of a new, high risk business - -- and won the approval of the Forest Service, the Town of Vail, Eagle County and the top management of Vail Associates, the then owner of the proposed development parcel. The present setup works and works well. There is no guarantee that the proposed changes will work as well on this site. We have an enviable safety record and our insurance company limes us. Paved roads through the middle of livery stable sites increases risks in an already high risk business and invites nasty personal injury accidents. Town approval could involve them in liability cases and possibly cause our insurance to be cancelled. You are invited to call Joe Bobieh at Insurance Associates to discuss his concerns in detail. 1- 444 -4666 We provide recreational back country horseback experiences for approximately 7,000, mostly very ordinary members of the general public each summer -- about the same number of non pass holders that use the taxpayer prodded tennis facilities. It is t le responsibility of the Forest Service and the appointed and elected officials of the To�Nm to determine whether 6 very exclusive homesites should jeopardize these services to the public. In conclusion, there are two very acceptable and business -like solutions for a person that needs his neighbors leasehold interest in order to acheive maximum value and /or enjoyment from his property: Pap the tennant a fee to vacate his leasehold interest thus making it economically feasible for the tennant to move to another approved site that mill not be adversley impacted by the development. Reach an agreement with the tennant to pay far, upgrade and physically move the facilities to a new approved site as did the previous owner. We feel that these are reasonable alternatives and hope that the Town will support us in our efforts to preserve this very popular and important summer visitor activity. TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department August 25, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows Applicant: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The requested subdivision is to subdivide one existing duplex zoned lot into two individual parcels. At the present time, Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows Subdivision is developed with a legal duplex structure. The subdivision would create Lot 2 (that would include the existing structure) and a proposed Lot 3. At the present time Lot 3 (proposed) is undeveloped and through this subdivision would have the development potential for an additional duplex. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST Two sets of criteria are involved in reviewing a request of this nature. The first of these are the Planning Commission review criteria as outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. This reads: 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 recommendations made 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. The second set of criteria to be used in evaluating the feasibility of a new lot are with regard to the minimum lot standards outlined in the zoning code. These criteria address issues such as minimum lot size and buildable area within the site. III. ISSUES RELATIVE TO THIS REQUEST Minimum Lot Size. Minimum lot size for a two family residential lot is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. Buildable site area includes those portions of the lot not impacted by flood plain, geologic hazards, avalanche zones, or over 40% in slope. The following table outlines the lot sizes proposed for this subdivision: Lot Size Buildable Site Area Proposed Lot 2 21,025 15,000 Proposed Lot 3 25,866 15,200 The above figures have been provided on a topographical survey stamped by a licensed and registered land surveyor with the State of Colorado. Geologic Hazards At the present time, Lot 2 is impacted by a rock fall zone. A site specific study has been completed and submitted to the staff that indicates the rockfall hazard to be on the northerly portion of proposed Lot 2, thereby not impacting the proposed Lot 3. Access Access to Lot 2 is provided with an access easement over Lot 1, located to the west of the subject property. An extension of this access easement is proposed to access Lot 3. Utility Service We have yet to receive verification from the applicable utility companies that service can be provided to this property. A significant issue related to utility service is whether or not the easement shown is appropriate and in fact that service can be provided to the new lot. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the information submitted, the proposed lots satisfy all standards outlined in applicable Town of Vail regulations. Given the duplex development on adjacent properties, the existing zoning on the newly created lot would be compatible with surrounding land uses. With respect to environmental integrity, the staff is somewhat concerned that there would be the potential to construct a home at the most easterly portion of the property. This would place the structure at the uppermost portion of the lot in an area with 40% slopes. It would be far more preferable, particularly from the standpoint of visual impact, to ensure that any development of this lot take place at the lower portion of the parcel. It is felt that the Design Review Board can deal with this issue at the time construction is proposed. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision with the following condition: That a utility verification form be completed by all applicable utilities indicating that service can be provided to the proposed Lot 3 prior to the recording of the subdivision. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • September 8, 2986 2:30 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of August 25, 1986 2. Request for a front setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 16, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: William D. Benkelman 3. Request for front and side setback variances in order to construct a two story garage on Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Tim Drisko 4. Request for a height variance in order to install a satellite dish on the Vail Police Department area of the Vail Municipal Building at 75 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Rescheduled 5. Request to apply Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to 9/22/86 zoning to an unzoned parcel of land located on • the North Frontage Road and bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: Town of Vail • PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Peggy Osterfoss PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 8, 1986 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack Before the meeting, the board visited the Benkelman and Drisko sites. The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:00 PM. 1. Approval of minutes of August 25, 1986. Jim Viele moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. Request for a front setback variance in order to construct an addition on Lot 16, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: William D. Benkelman Rick Pylman explained the request. He said that originally the proposal would have required a setback variance from a stream, but the proposal was changed and moved away from the stream setback. The staff recommended approval of the setback variance due to the configuration of the lot. Peter Looms, architect for the addition, explained that no trees were being removed and that the second floor only intruded slightly into the front setback. Donovan asked why the addition was not connected more strongly to the house and was told that there were windows which interfered. She felt strongly that the addition could have been designed within the setbacks. Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to a2prove the addition per the staff memo 9/8/86. The vote was 5 in favor with Diana Donovap_v_oting_ against approva 3. Request for front and side setback variances in order to construct _a_ two story garage on Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village_ First__Fi_ling._ Applicant: Tim Drisko Tom Braun presented the proposal and showed a site plan. The garage encroached 10 feet into the required 20 foot front setback, and 9 feet into the required 15 foot side setback. Braun felt that existing vegetation between this lot and the neighbor would offset any potential impacts from the construction. Further, historically, the staff has been very supportive of variance requests for garage additions. He mentioned that there was still needed a title report and a sign off by the utility companies concerning the 10 foot utility easement. Braun stated that the staff recommended approval and that two conditions of approval were the sign -off of the utility companies and that the smaller of two pine trees was to be saved if possible. r] • • Bob Benedict, representing the owners, stated that he had arranged a meeting on the site with a local nursery to see what trees could be saved without damaging the roots. Hob 1is oved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request with the two conditions above and in the staff memo of 9/8/86. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 4. Request for a height variance in order to install a satellite receivin dish on the Vail Police Department area of the Vail Municipal Buildin at 75 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Tom Braun explained that the Police Department needed the radio antenna in order to function properly. Curt Ufkes, Chief of Police, stated that the Police Department had not installed the antenna, but were anxious to do so. Diana Donovan suggested the antenna be painted to match the building (to be suggested to the DRB). She stated that she would not approve the antenna for a residence, but since this was for public safety reasons, she would approve the request. Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated 9/8/86. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.- 5. Request to apply Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to an parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road and bonded on sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten explained that there had been a change in process. The Town would remove their proposal to zone the property, and the owner will request to receive zoning and a minor subdivision. The applicant planned to request Parking zoning and have a parking lot for 10 -11 cars. It was announced that there would be a joint meeting with the Town Council on September 30 concerning the Vail Village Master Plan. The review of the Land Use Plan is scheduled for September 22. Diana Donovan asked if the PEC could receive copies of the Land Use Plan by the Friday before the meeting, and was told copies would be delivered then, unless changes were made at a meeting on the 18th. Duane Piper reported that at the last DRB meeting, the DRB denied a design for unconnected primary /secondary units. This was to be appealed at the Council meeting on September 16, with a possible change to the ordinance. The DRB is asking the Council for guidelines. pec 9/8/86 -2- �I TO: Planning and Environmental Commission doFROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 8, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances in order to construct a garage at 325 Forest Road, Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. APPLICANT: Tim Drisko I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED As proposed, the garage encroaches 10 feet into the required 20 foot front setback, and 9 feet into the required 15 foot side setback. The garage has been sited in this location for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is the 15 foot grade change from Forest Road to the buildable area of the lot. A second consideration is that there is development potential for a secondary unit on this lot. The location of the proposed garage would pose the fewest problems with the future siting of an additional unit. A final consideration in the location of the garage is the existence of a driveway bed leading to the property's parking area. This existing driveway would serve as access to the proposed garage. 0 II. 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 variances based upon the following factors: -- Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested to potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed garage addition is only 6 feet from the property line that separates lot 18 from lot 20. It is felt that existing vegetation between these two lots will offset any potential impacts from this construction. While the structure is located only 10 feet from the front property line, it is 23 feet from the existing edge line of Forest Road. The deoree 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 proposed location of the garage is reasonable with respect to minimizing impacts on adjacent properties. Historically, the staff has been very supportive of variance requests for garage additions. This is particularly true in the Forest Road area because of existing road alignments and topographical constraints in the neighborhood. To approve this request would be consistent with previously approved variances and would not be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,_ distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities a utilities, and public safety. There are no significant effects on any of the above mentioned factors. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN. Two goals outlined in the Community Action Plan relate to upgrading and improving properties throughout the Town of Vail. It is felt that this garage addition would provide a fine improvement to this property. IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before ranting the 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. -2- 9/8/86 PEC • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The Department has traditionally encouraged the development of garages and supports this proposal. Any impacts resulting from the setback encroachments are negligible and are far outweighed by the benefits of the garage addition. 0 n U -3- 9/8/86 PEC • � w, to s • J 1 U� TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 8,1986 SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance of 11 feet in order to construct a garage addition to a residence on Lot 16, Bighorn 4th addition. APPLICANT: William Benkelman I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Benkelmans are requesting a front setback variance in order to construct a garage and master bedroom addition adjacent to the existing half of their duplex on Lot 16, Bighorn 4th addition. The existing residence is sited within the required 50 foot centerline stream setback. The proposed addition has been sited in such a way such as to not encroach upon the required stream setback. This siting of the addition, however, does place the footprint within the required 20 foot front setback. The total relief requested from the front setback requirement is 11 feet. H. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS •Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recomm aooroval of the requested setback variances. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity._ The setback variance will not have any negative impacts upon the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The decree 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 qrant of special privilege. Strict application of the front and stream setback requirments would leave this site a strip of developable land 24 feet in width. We feel that this does present some legitimate hardship in developing the remaining available GRFA and adding a garage. We believe that due to the configuration of the lot with regard to the • required setbacks, that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of • population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities_ and utilities and public safety. The requested variance would not have any negative impacts upon this areas of concern. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Statement #2 under the Community Design heading of the Action Plan states "upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged." The Community Development Department has supported the addition of garages in the past and feel that this is a fine improvement. IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. V. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fol_lowin 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: L� 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. -2- Benkelman 9/8/86 40 • STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the setback variance. There are extraordinary circumstances on this site due to the application of the 20 foot front setback and the 50 foot centerline Gore Creek Stream setback. The layout of the lot and the siting of the existing house make it very difficult to present an addition while respecting both of these setbacks. We feel that the applicant is correct in requesting a encroachment upon the front setback and respecting the 50 foot centerline Gore Creek Stream setback requirement. -3- Benkelman 9/8/86 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 40 September 22, 1986 2 :30 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 9/8/86. 2. A request for setback, parking and density control variances to construct a new building at 362 Vail Valley Drive (Cornice Building). Applicant: Dr. Walter A. Huttner 3. Request for a conditionall use permit in order to install landing mats on the upper bench of Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail 4. Presentation of Land Use Plan 5. Reminder of joint meeting with Town Council on September 30. • • PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper, Chairman Sid Schultz Jim Viele PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 22, 1986 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The board first made a site visit to the Cornice Building and Ford Park. The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:00 PM. Approval of minutes of 9/8/86. Donovan moved and _Vi_el_e_ seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. A request for setback, parking and density control variances to construct a new building at 362 Vail Valley Drive location of the Cornice Building. Applicant: Dr. Walter A. Huttner Tom Braun made the staff presentation and showed a site plan, floor plans and elevations, as well as the part of the Village Master Plan study showing this area. He explained that there was on the site at the present time, one real • estate office, one open market condominium and three units restricted to long term employee housing. The 4 units are legal nonconforming units in that they were constructed prior to the existing zoning regulations. In addition the property is required to provide 3 long term employee housing units as stipulated in an agreement signed in 1985 as a result of the 1979 PEC approval. While the density control provisions in this zone district allow only 2 units, the existing unit coupled with the employee housing agreement results in a legal nonconforming situation of 4 units being permitted with the stipulation that 3 of the 4 units are restricted to employee housing. Braun added that the density proposed (5 units) was comparable to 59 dwelling units per acre which was greater than any levels of development through the Town of Vail. The staff felt some consideration for setback variances may be warranted because of the lot size, the opposite is true when considering density control variances or additional GRFA and to approve the request would be a grant of special privilege. Another point discussed was parking. Braun stated that this site had had no on -site parking for a number of years. In 1979 an application was made to the Planning Commission to add one surface parking space. Because of concerns over safety and traffic circulation, the request was denied. Staff feels that it is inappropriate to introduce parking on the site in the manner that is being proposed. Mark Donaldson, architect for the project, stated appreciation for the . additional hearing and added that his client was no willing to modify the proposal. r Pam Hopkins asked if the applicant could pay into the parking fund, and Braun • answered that the Council could allow that as an alternative to on -site parking. Pam asked if the applicant reduced the number of units, what would his alternatives be, and Braun answered that one alternative may be to pay into the parking fund if they are creating a need. If four units are developed, it would depend on the size of the units. If over 500 square feet, the parking demand would be increased. • Sid Schultz felt that the parking would create a dangerous situation at that corner and did not feel he could approve additional density. Jim Viele agreed with the staff with regard to circulation, but would look at the density question again if the Council felt that this area needed more density. Brian Hobbs asked what was in the building originally, and was told there had been 8 employee units. Duane Piper felt there could be some latitude in the setback variances, but was concerned about adding more density and would prefer to see parking placed elsewhere. Braun stated that Mark Donaldson had mentioned the possibility of eliminating the parking, but if the PEC denied this request and the applicant appealed to Town Council, the identical request that was made to the PEC must be made to the Council. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request per the staff memo. The vote was 7 -0 to deny the request. 3 A request for a conditional use on the upper bench of Ford Park Applicant: Town of Vail it in ord andina mats Kristan Pritz presented the request and explained that using the upper bench of Ford Park for a parking area using protective matting had been successfully done in 1985 -6 and the Town was requesting a conditional use permit to once again install matting on the upper bench in a larger area to accommodate 250 cars during the 1986 -7 season. Bus service would be provide to the parking lot and a packed pedestrian path would be maintained from the lot to the covered bridge so that pedestrians could reach Golden Peak. The path would follow along the South Frontage Road. Ford Park is located in the Public Use District in which a public parking lot is considered to be a conditional use. Pritz explained that the test of the parking mats proved that they do not cause any damage to the existing softball field, irrigation system or utilities. The Town has also agreed to repair any damage that may possibly occur due to the parking. The staff recommendation was for approval. Edie Hudson, manager of The Wren, asked how far to the west the parking would extend, and was shown on an aerial photo. The bus service was discussed, and Mike Rose, Vail Transportation supervisor, stated that the same bus route would be followed that existed at present. Peggy Osterfoss felt this sounded like an appropriate solution and felt it was better than parking on the Frontage Road. She felt that the path should go in a direct line to Golden Peak rather than follow the Frontage Road. -2- pec 9/22/86 W n L.J 0 Ron Phillips, Town Manager, stated that matting would also be laid beneath the trail and would be placed in the most direct route. Viele stated that he had used the lot a few times last year and found that it was a shorter walk to Golden Peak than from the TRC to the Vista Bahn. Diana Donovan stated that she still had the same concerns as last year, because the test was too short to really tell what the impact was on the park. She did not feel confident that there would not be damage. She stated that buses did not go past the lot between 10 AM and 2 :00 PM. Sid Schultz also felt that the past season was not a good test because of the lack of snow. Mike Rose stated that as long as the Town waited until the ground was frozen to place the mats, there would not be damage. The configuration of the lot was discussed and improvements were suggested. Diana asked what was meant by "temporary parking area ?" and Kristan explained that the lot would not be used in the summer time. Sid Schultz stated that he would rather see the application approved for the 86 -87 season only, and then if there were no problems, the time could be lengthened. Ron Phillips felt that time was not a factor. He stated that the Transportation Task Force had looked at all aspects of parking and recommended this as one solution. He said that the request was not for just the 86 -87 ski season. Duane Piper stated that concerns were being expressed by the Planning Commission about the length of time. Pam Hopkins agreed with Diana concerning the time element and the lack of bus service between 10:00 and 2 :00. Phillips replied that the intent of the lot was to service day skiers, and was not an in- and -out situation needing bus service in the middle of the day. Diana stated that she was not comfortable approving this permanently, since the solution was not a permanent solution. She felt the solution was a tacky one for a World class resort. She felt that for the future the Town should keep track of all costs related to the parking lot, putting the mats down, taking them up, plowing, etc. to get the actual cost involved. Duane added that the Task Force also asked for the costs. Viele stated that he agreed that the Town should be treated like any other applicant, but felt some issues were still unresolved. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to app_ r season only. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 4. Presentation of land Use Plan the conditional use for the 1986 -87 Peter Patten and Rick Pylman presented the Plan for discussion. Peter explained that the PEC would make a recommendation to Council and Council would approve by resolution. The Land Use Plan would then become part of Vail's Comprehensive Plan. Leslie showed some refinements that had been made. Peter added that the goal statements were 95% pure public input from the three public hearings held on the Land Use Plan. The discussion followed until 6:45 PM when it was decided to continue the discussion on Monday, September 29 at 3:00 PM. -3- pec 9/22/86 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 22, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper, Chairman Sid Schultz Jim Viele Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The board first made a site visit to the Cornice Building and Ford Park. The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:00 PM. 1. Approval of minutes of 9/8/86. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. A request for setback, parking and density control variances to construct a new building at 362 Vail Valley Drive, location of the Cornice Building. Applicant: Dr. Walter A. Huttner Tom Braun made the staff presentation and showed a site plan, floor plans and elevations, as well as the part of the Village Master Plan study showing this area. He explained that there was on the site at the present time, one real . estate office, one open market condominium and three units restricted to long term employee housing. The 4 units are legal nonconforming ° uni °ts' i'n- 'that they were constructed prior to the existing zoning regulations. In addition the property is required to provide 3 long term employee housing units as stipulated in an agreement as a result of a 1979 PEC approval. While the density control provisions in this zone district allow only 2 units, the existing unit coupled with the employee housing agreement results in a legal nonconforming situation of 4 units being permitted with the stipulation that 3 of the 4 units are restricted to employee housing. Braun added that the density proposed (5 units) was comparable to 59 dwelling units per acre which was probably greater than any levels of development through the Town of Vail. The staff felt some consideration for setback variances may be warranted because of the lot size, the opposite is true when considering density control variances or additional GRFA and to approve the request would be a grant of special privilege. Another point discussed was parking. Braun stated that this site had had no on -site parking for a number of years. In 1979 an application was made to the Planning Commission to add one surface parking space. Because of concerns over safety and traffic circulation, the request was denied. Staff feels that it is inappropriate to introduce parking on the site in the manner that is being proposed. Mark Donaldson, architect for the project, stated appreciation for the • additional hearing, added that his client was not willing to modify the proposal, and planned to provide with the plan as proposed. Pam Hopkins asked . answered that the parking. if the applicant could pay into the parking fund, and Braun Council could allow that as an alternative to on -site Pam asked if the applicant reduced the number of units, what would his alternatives be, and Braun answered that one alternative may be to pay into the parking fund if they are creating a need. If four units are developed, it would depend on the size of the units. If over 500 square feet, the parking demand would be increased. Sid Schultz felt that the parking would create a dangerous situation at that corner and did not feel he could approve additional density. Jim Viele agreed with the staff with regard to circulation. Brian Hobbs asked what was in the building originally, and was told there had been 8 employee units. Duane Piper felt there could be some latitude in the setback variances, but was concerned about adding more density and would prefer to see parking placed elsewhere. Braun stated that Mark Donaldson had mentioned the possibility of eliminating the parking, but if the PEC denied this request and the applicant appealed to Town Council, the identical request that was made to the PEC must be made to the Council. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request per the staff memo. The vote was 7-0 to deny the request. • 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to install landing mats on the upper bench of Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz presented the request and explained that using the upper bench of Ford Park for a parking area using protective matting had been successfully done in 1985 -6 and the Town was requesting a conditional use permit to once again install matting on the upper bench in a larger area to accommodate 250 cars during the 1986 -7 season. Bus service would be provide to the parking lot and a packed pedestrian path would be maintained from the lot to the covered bridge so that pedestrians could reach Golden Peak. The path would follow along the South Frontage Road. Ford Park is located in the Public Use District in which a public parking lot is considered to be a conditional use. Pritz explained that the test of the parking mats proved that they do not cause any damage to the existing softball field, irrigation system or utilities. The Town has also agreed to repair any damage that may possibly occur due to the parking. The staff recommendation was for approval. Edie Hudson, manager of The Wren, asked how far to the west the parking would extend, and was shown on an aerial photo. The bus service was discussed, and Mike Rose, Vail Transportation supervisor, stated that the same bus route would be followed that existed at present. Peggy Osterfoss felt this sounded like an appropriate solution and felt it was better than parking on the Frontage Road. She felt that the path should go in a direct line to Golden Peak rather than • follow the Frontage Road. Pam Hopkins asked that the parking arrangement be -2- pec 9/22/86 redesigned so that cars could circulate around the entire parking area without . having to turn around within an aisle to exit. Ron Phillips, Town Manager, stated that matting would also be laid beneath the trail and would be placed in the most direct route. Viele stated that he had used the lot a few times last year and found that it was a shorter walk to Golden Peak than from the TRC to the Vista sahn. Diana Donovan stated that she still had the same concerns as last year, because the test was too short to really tell what the impact was on the park. She did not feel confident that there would not be damage. She stated that buses did not go past the lot between 10 AM and 2:00 PM. Sid Schultz also felt that the past season was not a good test because of the lack of snow. Mike Rose stated that as long as the Town waited until the ground was frozen to place the mats, there would not be damage. The configuration of the lot was discussed and improvements were suggested. Diana asked what was meant by "temporary parking area." Kristan explained that the lot would not be used in the summer time and that the request was only for the 1986 -87 ski season. Sid Schultz stated that he would rather see the application approved for the 86 -87 season only, and then if there were no problems, the time could be lengthened. Ron Phillips felt that time was not a factor. He stated that the Transportation Task Force had looked at all aspects of parking and recommended this as one solution. He said that the request was not for just the 86 -87 ski season. Duane Piper stated that concerns were being expressed by the Planning Commission about the length of time. Pam Hopkins agreed with Diana concerning the time element and the lack of bus service between 10:00 and 2:00. Phillips replied that the intent of the lot was to service day skiers, and was not an in- and -out situation needing bus service in the middle of the day. Diana stated that she was not comfortable approving this permanently, since the solution was not a long -term solution. She felt the solution was a tacky one for a World class resort. She felt that for the future the Town should keep track of all costs related to the parking lot, putting the mats down, taking them up, repairs, plowing, storage, etc. to get the actual cost involved. Duane added that the Task Force also asked for the costs. Viele stated that he agreed that the Town should be treated like any other applicant, but felt some issues were still unresolved. It was also stated that the Town should submit more complete submittals in the future (i.e. show the pedestrian path location, etc.). Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the conditional use for the 1986 -87 season only. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. The staff was also directed to keep track of the costs related to the parking lot as well as costs for the actual mats and to redesign the parking lot to allow for traffic circulation around the end of the parking lot. 4. Presentation of Land Use P1 Peter Patten and Rick Pylman presented the Plan for discussion. Peter explained that the PEC would make a recommendation to Council and Council would approve by resolution. The Land Use Plan would then become part of Vail's • Comprehensive Plan. Leslie Freeman showed some refinements that had been made. Peter added that the goal statements were 95% pure public input from the three public hearings held on the Land Use Plan. The discussion followed until 6:45 PM when it was decided to continue the discussion on Monday, September 29 at 3:00 PM. -3- pec 9/22/86 M 0 • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for setback, (front, side, and rear), density control (GRFA and number of units), and parking variances in order to construct a new building on Tract B of !fail Village First Filing (site of the Cornice Building. APPLICANT: Dr. Walter Huttner and Mr. Robert Nelson I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants' proposal would involve demolition of the existing Cornice Building and the subsequent construction of a new structure on the site. A number of variances are required to facilitate the proposed development. The following is a statistical breakdown of the allowable and proposed development features with this proposal: Lot Size: .084 acres or 3,659 sq ft Allowable GRFA: 2,195 sq ft Proposed GRFA: 2,665 sq ft Allowable no. of units: 2 Proposed no. of units: 5 Required setbacks: 20 feet on front, side and rear property lines Proposed setbacks: front, 9 feet sides, 5 and 9 feet rear, 5 feet Required parking: 10 spaces Proposed parking on site: 4 spaces In addition to the proposed construction, the site plan submitted indicates a number of off -site improvements adjacent to this site. Further clarification should be made at the Planning Commission meeting to determine the extent of improvements being proposed with this application. A number of unique circumstances arise when considering this property with respect to the allowable number of units permitted. At the preFent time, there is one open market condominium, one real estate office, and three units restricted to long term employee housing. The total number of units on the property is 4. It should be noted that these four units are legal nonconforming units in that they were constructed prior to the existing zoning regulations. In addition, the property is required to provide 3 long term employee housing units as stipulated in an agreement signed in 1985 as a result of the 1979 PEC approval. While the density control provisions in this zone district (High Density Multi -- Family) allow only 2 units, the existing unit coupled with the employee housing agreement results in a legal nonconforming situation of 4 units being permitted. This is, of course with the stipulation that 3 of the 4 units are restricted to employee housing. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.51.060 of the Municip 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. While this property is surrounded by a variety of uses, the most prevalent use in the vicinity is residential. With respect to uses, the proposal is generally compatible with other uses in the vicinity. The removal of the existing real estate office is considered a positive improvement with respect to this property's relationship to the surrounding residential character. However, the level of development proposed is entirely inconsistent with existing zoning limitations in the vicinity of this site. The density proposed is equivalent to 59 dwelling units per acre. This is dramatically more dense than many levels of development on adjacent properties, or for that matter through the Town of Vail. Staff feels strongly that this level of development will create significant overcrowding and congestion problems on this • site as well as in the vicinity of this site. The dearee 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. Because of the extremely small size of this lot, a number of difficulties arise when developing this property in compliance with the development standards outlined in the HDMF zone district. This is particularly true with respect to the required 20 foot setbacks on all sides of this parcel. While the staff feels some consideration for setback variances may be warranted because of the lot size, the opposite is true when considering density control variances. As stated above, the property is permitted 4 units, with 3 of the 4 units restricted to employee housing. A request for 5 units is totally inconsistent with the provisions outlined in the zoning code, and the staff sees no hardship nor cause to justify granting an additional unit to this property. The same is true with regard to the requested GRFA which is over that permitted. To approve this request for additional density on this site would, without doubt, be a grant of special privilege. • The proposed Vail Village Master Plan recommends certain sites for additional density according to a stringent set of criteria designed to preserve the ambiance, character and functioning of the Village area. -2- Cornice Bldg 9/22/86 The Cornice site was reviewed, and we feel that this is an inappropriate site for additional development due to its extremely small size, its awkward location on Vail Valley Drive (very poor accessibility with the proximity of East Meadow Drive and charter bus lot) and with the impacts of the future parking structure addition. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Residential densities permitted through zoning controls relate directly to distribution of population.. As has been stated, the development proposed for this site is significantly greater than what is permitted under existing zoning. It is felt that the 5 units proposed on this site would present negative impacts relative to the potential number of people who could be accommodated in this location. This site has had no on -site parking for a number of years. In 1979 an application was made to the Planning Commission to add I surface parking space to this site. Because of concerns over safety and traffic circulation, the Planning Commission denied this request. The proposed driveway is located only 60 to 70 feet from the final curve of the Blue Cow Chute leading onto Vail Valley Drive. Safety considerations resulting from these limited sight lines, compounded by the fact that cars may well be backing out of the parking area onto Vail Valley Drive, raise the question of this site's ability to accommodate on -site parking. Staff feels it is inappropriate to introduce parking to this . site in the manner that is being proposed. In addition, the zoning code requires that parking areas of this type be designed so that it is not necessary for cars to back onto public streets. It would appear that this design does not meet this criteria. This obviously puts the developer in a difficult position with respect to satisfying the parking requirements at a location where on -site parking is not a wise solution. In turn, this raises the broader question of attempting to redevelop a property with additional density that already has existing nonconforming uses and structures on it. III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. IV. 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. -3- Cornice Bldg 9/22/86 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: . The strict or literal specified regulation unnecessary physical this title. • r� interpretation and enforcement of the would result in practical difficulty or hardship inconsistent with the objectives of 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff feels strongly that this development proposal has shown no consideration for existing development guidelines outlined in the zoning code. The negative impacts resulting from the additional density are numerous. Staff recognizes that this site will be difficult to develop within the existing site development guidelines outlined in the HDMF zone district. These difficulties have been increased through the densities proposed. The staff would be willing to work with the developer to solve the site development problems related to this parcel if a proposal is made in compliance with the allowable densities for this property. However, to consider a development proposal for densities greater than those allowed on this site is unacceptable to the staff. Our recommendation for this application is for denial. It should be noted that the site does have approximately 600 square of GRFA remaining. One option available to the owner would be to utilize this GRFA and not increase the existing number of units on site. -4- Cornice Bldg 9/22/86 feet the PG ur y tI .. ' .� ry era �� `X� F iY rr Ji •. �� \_ - 1 - La `3 (b - f, F - .rt7.i' `did_. a+'�� a •i.,` +, ` ) �_, \' s 't _ ti ;!f1 �, . _yam _"� . rs "'r-yJ :�;�' - , k•S7J+. V v W r X 1 df ■t�.., obi li E � will t' ` x V-77 � ti l' =a I, f 1.t 1 �Iqq. LJ VOA 7 O a w MW e C f iy CD IIAL 1J, k P r. 4LI ..... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ...... ..... NO iy CD 1J, k P r. 4LI ..... ... ... i ai o -r.4 0' 1J, r. 4LI ..... ... ... ai o -r.4 0' 1J, 4LI ..... ... ... TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to install a temporary parking area using protective matting on the west end of an existing parking area on the upper bench at Ford Park. APPLICANT: Town of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE On January 13, 1986, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved unanimously the Town of Vail's request to locate a temporary parking area on Ford Park. The approval allowed the Town to test the feasibility of using protective matting for the parking. According to the Public Works Department, "This parking experiment proved to be a success, providing additional needed parking during peak periods without damaging the park's grass surfaces." The use was approved for the 1985 ski season. The Town of Vail is requesting to renew this proposal to again allow free public parking on the top level of Ford Park during the 1986/87 ski season. The landing mats will be installed when the ground is frozen before significant snow fall to minimize damage to the grass. As last year, the • Town will remove the mats and discontinue parking at the start of spring thaw. The Town will repair any damage caused by winter parking in Ford Park (including resodding the grass areas and repairing sprinkler systems, if required) before the softball season begins. The parking area is 540 feet long and 140 feet wide and will be able to handle approximately 250 cars. Bus service will be provided for the parking lot. The Town will also maintain a packed pedestrian path from the parking lot to the access road down to the Ford Park covered bridge so that pedestrians can reach Golden Peak. The Town will be responsible for plowing the parking area. Ford Park is located in the Public Use District. In this zone district, a public parking lot is considered to be a conditional use. Even though a parking lot already exists on this site, a conditional use review is required, as the use is being expanded. II. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. . The Vail Transportation and Parking Task Force evaluated last year's experiment and made a recommendation to the Town Council: "Utilize the existing landing mats and purchase additional mats to extend parking area through the softball infields." The Vail Town Council approved this recommendation on August 19, 1986. The parking experiment provided needed parking during peak periods without creating a problem for winter users of the park or without damaging the softball fields and irrigation system. The proposal supports the development objectives of the Town. 2. 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 test of the parking mats proved that they do not cause any damage to the existing softball field, irrigation system, or utilities. The Town has also agreed to repair any damage that may possibly occur due to the parking. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As mentioned in the previous memo, staff believes that the users of the parking area will have easy auto ingress and egress to the parking lot. The speed limit along the Frontage Road in this area is 35 mph. Visibility is excellent from the parking lot entry. There are also no • adjacent egress and ingress points which would create traffic congestion. Pedestrian safety has also been addressed by locating the packed path on the northern boundary of the park. Staff finds that the proposal has no negative impacts on these particular considerations. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The use will have some impact on views from the east side of the Wren due to the potential for 250 cars to park on the upper bench. The parking has been located close to the Frontage Road so that impacts on the park's natural character are minimized. The proposal will have no effect upon the character of the area during the summer. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN • -2- . IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the temporary parking area. We find that the location of the temporary parking lot and the conditions under which it would be operated are in accord with the conditional use criteria and the purposes of the Public Use District. It is also felt that the proposal is part of the recommendations of the Parking Task Force which has given a lot of thought to the question of how parking should be handled in the Town of Vail. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the temporary parking lot. 0 -3- 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION n 9/29/86 AGENDA: I.. Extension of Gold Peak House exterior alteration review process. 2. Land Use Plan Issues Discussion: Hillside development Areas outside Town boundaries Arterial Business District /Community Office CCIII boundaries Implementation Other • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 13, 1986 NOON Site Visits 1:00 PM Consideration of approval of the Vail Land Use Plan 3:00 PM Public Wearing I. Approval of minutes of September 22, 1986. 2. Request for exterior alteration and for a site coverage variance in order to construct a small addition to the Lodge South condominiums. Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association 3. Request for an amendment to the zoning code in order to add commercial storage under conditional uses and health clubs under permitted uses in Commercial Core III. Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture 4. Request for an amendment to Special Development District #5, Vail Run, in order to add surface parking on the south side • of the building. Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community 5. Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivision for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road and bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: William I. Fleischer 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to change the use of the Old Town Shops located on a part of Tract C, Vail Village Second Filing. New uses would include a weight room indoor recreational activities area and storage. Applicant: Town of Vail 4t • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 13, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Byron Hobbs Tom Braun Peggy Osterfoss Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Rick Pylman Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins (attended the Land Use section) The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, at 1:00 PM. The first item was consideration of the Land Use Plan. Peter Patten and Rick Pylman of the staff, and Leslie Freeman of THK Associates, consultants, presented the draft and plan. This was the fourth draft report, and a time flow chart was shown which indicated all of the steps which had been undertaken to this point. Especially apparent was the public process that had been involved. This meeting was for the purpose of recommendation to the Town Council concerning the Plan. • Peter pointed out that two of the key elements in the development of the plan was involving both the Town Council and the Planning Commission in the public meetings and the vital role the Task Force played. He also applauded the community for the high level of participation. The memo pointed out two issues for which the staff had alternative recommendations. The first was the area north of I -70 from Sandstone to Booth Creek. The staff felt that this area, with the exception of the existing public -type development, should be predominantly open space. It was felt that the area served as a very important open space buffer and density balance to the Vail Village and Lionshead areas especially when viewed from Vail Mountain. The second issue was whether or not there was a need for additional single family residential development. Based on the demand figures and the current surplus of large lots within the community, the staff questioned the need for "Hillside Residential." Aside from these two issues, the staff supported the Land Use Plan as presented after the 4th draft. �a Jay Peterson, representing several clients, felt that hillside development should be allowed with strict guidelines. He challenged the staff's right to make recommendations and felt strongly that the recommendations from the staff should not be passed. Duane Piper pointed out that the document is a community document and that the . staff was part of the community and had the right to a particular opinion and to make recommendations as they do on other issues which come before the commission. Peggy wondered if anyone at the public meetings had looked specifically at the doareas between Sandstone and Booth Creek. Bryan Hobbs wondered at what point skiers on Vail Mountain could see the area in question. Joe Macy, a member of the Land Use Task Force and an employee of Vail Associates, stated that the primary vistas were from the top of Chair 1 and down International Giant Steps, which was mostly for expert skiers, and Joe felt that not many people used the trail. Jim Viele, who was also a member of the Land Use Task Force, stated that he gave general support to the plan and disagreed with the staff on eliminating the proposed Hillside Development zone. Diana Donovan agreed with the staff on the need for open space between Sandstone and Booth Creek and felt that not to have open space here would be a negative impact on the Village. She added that she opposed visible hillside development, and said that the Spraddle Creek homesites would be almost totally visible from the Village. Other comments from Diana was that on Page 47 under the Lionshead Parking Structure, teen centers should be mentioned; on Page 6, Diana had reservations about 1.5 and 1.8. She did not feel these were the desires of the community, but were merely talked about by the Council and PEC and were too permissive. On page 7, she felt that 2.8, c), temporary should not mean seasonal parking. She felt that the base figures (skier projections) used in Chapter 7 were too high and that the model would require regular updating. Diana stated that Chapter did not consist of specific recommendations, except on the Katsos property. Joe Macy replied that the base figures used were Forest Service figures which were higher than VA's figures. He added that the Forest Service used figures from 1984 with a 5% growth forecast. Peter said that Diana had a good point with regard to the figures, and that it was important to continue to look at what the growth actually is. Sid Schultz agreed with Jim Viele regarding the need for the Hillside Development category, and felt that many people would want to build very large single family homes. He added that hillside development could be done tastefully without huge road cuts and keeping density'down. He felt that zoning guidelines for hillside development and that it was short sighted not to address the areas outside of town boundaries. Schultz expressed concern that the Land Use Plan looked like existing zoning and felt the change for hillsides was positively addressing that issue. One suggestion Sid made was that the Town should consider annexing a Forest Service parcel above East Vail which included a "meadow- type" area even though it was not immediately contiguous. Peter mentioned that a "flag pole" annexation possibly could be created to make the annexation possible. Peggy Osterfoss felt that overall the document was helpful, and felt that it was important to include hillside development guidelines for the future. She was in favor of the open space issue as per the staff recommendation, but did not agree that the overall Hillside Residential area should be eliminated. Peggy felt that 2.8 on page 7 should include a reference to cooperation between the ski area and the town concerning creative solutions to day skier needs for parking. She also felt that 3.1 and 3.2 should be combined. -2- PEC 10/13/86 t Duane Piper expressed appreciation for Leslie's help as well as the Task Force • and staff. He stated that he still had a concern that the plan seemed to follow existing land uses but realized that we were, to a large extent, built out. Peter told the board that there were at present at least 80 single family lots over 30,000 sq ft within the Town which had not yet been built upon. He stated that the staff did recognize that the hillsides were really a potential for development, but that open space was a very valuable land use for the community as well. Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to recommend to the Town Council that the Land Use Plan and Neap as presented be adopted with the change that on page 7, 3.1 and 3.2 be combined. It was suggested that 2.8 include the fact that there should-be-joint cooperation between the town and the ski area owners. Viele felt that this was understood and would not need to be addressed. The vote wa 5 -1 with Peggy casting the disse_nting_v_o_te. Her reason for voting against the motion was that the motion did not include the recommendation of the staff concerning open space between Sandstone and Booth Creek. Public hearing: 1. Approval of minutes of September 22, 1986 Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote was 6 -0. • 2. Request for exterior alteration and for a site coverage variance in order to construct a small addition to the Lodge S_outh__condominiums. Aonlicant: Lodae South Condominium Association Tom Braun presented the proposal beginning with the request for exterior alteration. He pointed out that although any proposal that adds or removes square footage to a building in CCI requires review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan sub -area concepts, there were no sub -area concepts relative to this proposal. There also were no direct impacts on any of the Urban Design Considerations resulting from the development due to the relatively minor nature of the improvement as well as the location of proposal. Zoning considerations include parking and site coverage. Two parking spaces would be removed as a result of the development, and cash payment to the parking fund would be made to compensate for this loss. The property is developed over its allowable site coverage at this time. The site coverage would increase .6 %. At one time the Lodge South Condominiums were a portion of the Lodge Properties. A subsequent subdivision of this property followed the development of the lodge South Condominiums resulting in the nonconforming situation. It is felt that this subsequent subdivision has created a physical hardship that justifies the granting of the variance. The staff recommended approval of the site coverage variance and the exterior alteration. The architect of the project answered questions. Hobbs moved and Viele seconded to approve both requests due to the physical hardship. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of ap2roval. -3- PEC 10/13/86 ti • 3. Request for an amendment to the zoning code in order to add commercial storage under conditional uses and health clubs under permitteduses in Commercial Core III. Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Ventures Kristan Pritz explained that the code for commercial storage would include a phrase, "as long as it does not have any existing exterior window display frontage on any public way, street, or mall area and no existing exterior window display frontage on any public way, street or mall area is removed in order to provide commercial storage, and the commercial storage shall be limited to 10% of the gross commercial square footage of the building." :7 n U The staff felt that both the health club and commercial storage uses were very compatible with the intent of Commercial Core III, as long as the commercial storage does not have exterior window display frontage and is limited to 10% of the gross commercial square footage of the building. The easy vehicular access found in this zone district makes it particularly well suited for commercial storage use. Diana Donovan wanted to make sure that a space like the Menu could not be turned into a commercial storage area. Dave Tyrell assured her that that was not the intent of the zoning amendment. He intended to utilize space that was not suitable for retail or other service uses such as basement and perhaps space on the north side of the West Vail Mall. Dave Tyrrell, applicant, answered questions. Jim Viele moved and B amendment to the zoni bbs seconded to approve the _request for the code. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 4. Request for an amendment to Special Development District #5, Vail _Run in order to add surface parking on the south side of the building. Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community Rick Pylman explained that the applicant wanted to add 11 surface parking spaces on the south side of the existing Vail Run Building. He showed a site plan. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, presented four letters in support of the parking. The board asked about the landscaping on Highway right -of -way and were told the approval would have to be contingent upon Highway Department acceptance of the landscaped berm. Jay Peterson stated that it was the intention to keep these spaces for the commercial tenants. Diana felt the lot should definitely be totally screened. Schultz moved and Osterfoss seconded to approve the requested amendment to SDD_5 per the staff memo. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. -4- PEC 10/13/86 • 5. Request to_apply__theParking Zone District and for a minor subdivision for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road and bounded on two _sides _byBrea William I. Fleischer West Condominiums. Applicant: (Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, joined the meeting for this item.) Rick Pylman explained that the board would deal with the zoning first. He added that traditional uses of highway rights -of -way were paths, bikeways and open space. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that he had tried to work with the staff to come up with some appropriate use of the property. He said the applicant had owned the property since 1984, so it had been in the private domain since that time. He mentioned that the applicant had spoken to Mike McGee of the Vail Fire Department about the property, and that therefore the Town did know of the approval to construct an entrance to the property. Peterson reviewed the criteria and stated that parking is allowed on rights -of -ways and mentioned the South Frontage Road as an example. He felt that the second criteria, that of the relationship with adjacent land uses, would support the parking, since there was much parking in the vicinity. Peterson also mentioned the fact that from Sun Vail to Safeway there were 21 road cuts across the bike path, and passed photos to show this. He felt that buffers cannot be guaranteed in all areas. He felt that the staff was not proposing any use, for there was no use on Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone districts. Peterson said in 10/83 the Town approved a landscape plan for Breakaway West which included parking on the subject site, and in 11/83 the . Council also approved it. Peter Patten stated that parking use allowed in the Parking District was up blic parking. He added that the 21 road cuts were in place before the bike path was installed. He added that in every case of sales of rights -of -way, the staff had protested the sale. Further, staff did not support the DRB decision concerning landscaping of Breakaway West, and that staff does not write a memo to DRB concerning items on the DRB agendas. George Rosenberg, representing Breakaway West home owners of 50 units, stated that the zoning should be consistent with the Master Plan and Land Use Plan. He stated that the parcel has been and should remain open space or a compatible ..use. Rosenberg added that Mr. Fleischer should have know the use when he acquired the property. He stressed that the burden of proof to make the appropriate change should be the applicant's rather than the Town's. Rosenberg reminded the staff that Sections 18.34, Parking District and 18.52, Off Street Parking and Loading must be harmonious to some extent. He quoted from 18.34.010 Purpose Section, "...while ensuring adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." He pointed out that one use could be a park. Rosenberg felt that this application tied into the earlier one for Vail Run and stated that each development is required to provide parking on site not off site. He felt the safety issue was paramount, and the situation as proposed was clearly hazardous. He mentioned that large trees as proposed in the landscaped berm would block the view. He mentioned that no provisions had been made for snow storage on the lot. Referring to • Jay's statement that the adjacent lot was not landscaped, Rosenberg pointed out that Breakaway West had recently spent $90,000 to landscape their property. -5- PEC 10 /13/86 Rosenberg felt setting and the space was a use a tot lot. that the disposal of this right -of -way area was precedent staff would see more sales of this type. He added that open and a reasonable use. He added that an alternate use could be Duane Piper stated that the Town had received 38 letters in opposition to the proposed zone. He asked Larry Eskwith whether or not open space was indeed a use, and Larry answered that it was. He added that the Highway Department had violated State statutes by not offering the r.o.w to the local government for first right of refusal and as a result had placed the Town in a difficult position. Larry Eskwith stated that he would like to have more time to deal with the Highway Department and requested the matter to be taken under advisement until the meeting of October 27. Piper asked the board how they felt about tabling, and the board agreed it would be good to learn more, although it would mean the public would have to come back again. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table this request until October 27, 19886_._ The vote was 6 -0 in favor oftabling. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to change the use of the old Town Shops located on a part of Tract C Vail Village 2nd Filin . Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten showed site and floor plans which respected an existing easement to the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation building to the east. The shops are zoned Public Use District, but lie generally within the Arterial Business District. The Town had been leasing the building to a variety of tenants and was now in the process of taking it over for Town of Vail use. The request is to allow recreation facilities and programs on the upper floor as well as storage on the lower floor. Public recreation facilities (other than parks and playgrounds) are a conditional use in the Public Use District. The site contains 30 parking spaces, and the staff felt that this number would be adequate to serve any peak parking demand. Also, the small lot east of the UEVWSD plant would serve as an overflow. The lot is currently used by UEVWSD personnel during the day. Ceil Folz of the Recreation Department explained that the gymnastics program would be moved from the Red Sandstone gym to this building and the gymnastics program could then be enlarged and the space at Red Sandstone could be utilized for other activities. Diana Donovan was concerned about the safety of the children being dropped off and suggested that a drive - through drop off at the upper door be installed before the gymnastics program be allowed to begin. The board also discussed needed landscaping, and were told that DRB would address the landscaping required. • Donovan moved and Osterfoss seconded to approve the request for a conditional___ use permit per the staff memo with the condition that, due to safety, a top level drive - through drop -off be installed before any children were allowed to use the facility and landscaping be done per DRB approval The vote for approval was_ 6 -0. - -6- PEC 10/13/86 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision in order to subdivide a 0.120 acre parcel from the State of Colorado I -70 right -of -way located in the vicinity of Breakaway West on the North Frontage Road. APPLICANT: William I. Fleischer I. THE REQUEST The applicant, William Fleischer, is requesting to subdivide 0.120 acres of State Highway Department right-of -way. This parcel of land was transferred to Mr. Fleischer through a deed dated April 25, 1984. The Town of Vail, however, has no record of this property being legally subdivided. We have, therefore, requested Mr. Fleischer to go through the subdivision process. Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations states the following PEG review criteria: "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 recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, . and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The.PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness with 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." Legally, subdivision regulation is limited to a review of the technical and specific elements of the subdivision code itself. This includes the review of access, minimum lot size, minimum frontage, road grades, physical buildability of the land itself (slope, geological hazards, vegetation, etc). Because the parking district was adopted with no minimum lot size regulation and the fact the Colorado Department of Highways issued an access permit to Mr. Fleischer, the application meets these technical requirements. The applicant is also requesting zoning on this parcel, which will be addressed in a separate memo. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While the staff has a philosophical problem with the concept of transferring State Highway Department right -of -way from public to private ownership, this application does meet the technical requirements as specified through the Town of Vail subdivision regulations. Therefore, we recommend approval of this request. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for zoning of a 0.120 acre parcel previously designated as State Highway right -of -way to Parking District (Section 18.34 of the Town Municipal Code). APPLICANT: William I. Fleischer I. THE REQUEST In April of 1984, the applicant received deed to a 0.12 acre tract of land located adjacent to the Breakaway Condominium project, which previously had been owned by the Colorado State Highway Department and designated as I -70 right -of -way. This property was acquired through purchase from the Colorado Department of Highways. Because the applicant desires to develop a parking lot on this parcel, the Town of Vail has requested the applicant to file a request for both minor subdivision and for zoning. This property, previously being held by a public entity and designated as highway right -of -way, has not previously been designated with a Town of Vail zone district. The minor subdivision request is being addressed under a separate • memorandum. Chapter 18.34 of the Town of Vail municipal code describes the Parking Zone District. Section 18.34.010 of that chapter states the following as the purpose of the Parking zone district: "The Parking District is intended to provide sites for private or public unstructured off - street vehicle parking and conditionally to provide for private or public off - street vehicle parking structures and private or public parks and recreational facilities. The Parking District is intended to provide such facilities while insuring adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas." The applicant states the following in support of this request: "In the present case, the parking would be used for employee parking for Vail Run. Currently Vail Run is 97 spaces short on parking. This zoning application would help alleviate the problem." The applicant has also submitted a site plan detailing design of the proposed parking lot on the site. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Criteria #1. Suitability of existing zoning, The Town of Vail, like most municipalities, has no zone district V C] designation for highway right -of -way properties. Highway right -of -way properties have traditionally contained public highways and streets, pedestrian and bicycle pathways and associated open space buffering those highways and streets from the adjacent private properties. Due to the transfer of this property from public to private entity and Mr. Fleischer's subsequent request to utilize this parcel, the Town of Vail has requested Mr. Fleischer to file for a zone district category for this property. B. Criteria #2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship amongland uses, consistent with municipal objectives? With respect to the physical relationship of this parcel to adjacent land uses and consistency with municipal objectives, the staff has several concerns with this request. The parcel proposed for zoning is extremely small, 0.12 acres for a total of 5,227 square feet. While the Parking District contains no requirements for minimum lot size, we feel that creating a parking lot on a parcel of ground as small as this creates negative impacts which negates the small gain in parking. The proposed parking area, when viewed in conjunction with the parking for the adjacent Breakaway West Condominiums, will create a large, visible asphalt area and will have a high negative view impact from the public right --of -way as well as the immediately adjacent residential units. The creation of this additional parking lot will also create a dangerous interface with both the existing bicycle path and the North Frontage Road. Philosophically, the Community Development Department does not believe that this proposal is consistent with municipal objectives, nor does it present a convenient workable relationship among land uses. The portion of State Highway right -of -way that is not being utilized as vehicle or pedestrian passageways has traditionally been used as a buffer zone and setback area to protect the adjacent private properties. Development all along I -70 within the Town of Vail, especially in this area, is based on the aspect of using that right -of -way as an open space buffer. It is common for private property owners to develop recreational or parking uses right up to their property line. These uses are then buffered from visible and physical aspects of the public by this open space as a part of the State Highway Department system. The existing Breakaway parking areas have utilized this right -of -way land as an open space buffer zone from the bicycle path and from the highway. Another example of this is the current request by Vail Run to develop additional parking on the south side of their building. That parking is being developed right to the property line with the Highway Department right -of -way being utilized as a berm and landscaped area to buffer that parking from both the bicycle path and the highway. . The possibility of the transfer of these properties from highway right -of -way to private land, which prompts development requests, places the development philosophy of utilizing this land as an open space buffer in jeopardy. The staff feels that the highway right -of -way land should remain as open space and should not be developed by either private or public entities for anything other than the uses than have traditionally been found within the highway right -of -way. C. Criteria 43. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth o an order1 v. viable community? The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning proposal does not provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Disposal of property by a public entity within the community makes it extremely difficult to plan and provide for orderly and viable growth. Through research being done on the current Land Use Plan, we have determined that the Interstate 70 right -of -way utilizes 505 acres of land within the community, which is 15% of the total land mass within the Town of Vail. Planning for the disposal of even small portions of this area would be an extremely difficult task, and we would recommend that whether this land designated as I -70 right -of -way is in public or private ownership, that the uses continue only as traditionally found within the highway right -of -way. Those uses being public highways and roadways, pedestrian access ways and open space. • III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposal of zoning this parcel Parking District is for denial. We feel that both physically and philosophically the impacts of zoning this property as Parking District are extremely negative. We make this recommendation due to immediate concerns of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community as well as with regard to the long range planning principles within the community. 7 N � � • �9 • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to allow recreation facilities and programs as well as storage at the old Town Shops, located on a part of Tract C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. APPLICANT: Town of Vail i. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The old Town of Vail Shops are located west of Lionshead adjacent to the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District's plant. The Shops are zoned Public Use District, but lie generally within the Arterial Business District. We are currently in the process of taking over the building (which has been leased to a variety of tenants over the past several years) for our own use. Public recreation facilities (other than parks or playgrounds) are a conditional use in the Public Use District. The building contains two floors and approximately 7100 square feet of floor area. Proposed on the first, or lower level, is about 3900 square feet of storage for the needs of the Town. Six bays of storage are proposed. On the second, or upper level would be recreational facilities for the Town's gymnastics programs and a weight room to be used principally by the Vail Police Department (as well as attendant restrooms, closets and locker facilities), occupying a total of 3200 square feet. The site contains 30 parking spaces while maintaining circulation patterns through the parcel to accommodate access to the UEVWSD site. We feel that this will adequately serve any peak parking demand. However, in the case that additional parking is required, the small lot east of the UEVWSD plant will serve as an overflow. This parking is currently used by UEVWSD personnel during the day. II. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. — - 0 The provision of high quality recreational programs and facilities is an important objective of the Town of Vail. Relocating the Town of Vail Recreation Department gymnastics program to the old Town Shop from Red Sandstone Elementary School will assure the continuation of this high quality program. Also, the proposed storage area on the lower level of the building will provide a much needed facility for the Town to continue to operate efficiently as a municipal government. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, pa and recreation facili_tie_s,__andother public facilities needs. Currently, the Town of Vail gymnastics program is located in the Red Sandstone Elementary School gymnasium. This facility has become inadequate for our program due to the increased useage by the school in the evening hours, general overbooking, and lack of adequate space for storage and equipment. Utilizing a Town of Vail building for the gymnastics program will allow the Town total control of the scheduling of the facility and provide space that is large enough to accommodate the equipment and the size of the program. Concurrently, the removal of the gymnastics program from the school facility has a positive effect on the school's own gymnasium in that they can utilize that for other desired programs. With regard to public facility needs in general, the storage space is badly needed for the Town of Vail to continue an efficient level of operations. 3. Effect upon traffic with earticular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,_traffi_c_flow _ and control, access maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As noted above, the site contains 30 parking spaces which should adequately serve the needs of the building. The Recreation Department has stated that the peak parking demand for gymnastics is usually in the area of 20 -25 cars. Traffic flow will continue to be accommodated through the site for both the users of the building as well as for the access to the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District's plant directly to the east. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. With the removal of the Colorado Mountain Express operation from the site, traffic should actually be reduced overall. A slight increase in traffic could be expected during the hours in the day in which gymnastic programs are at their peak. The improvements to the building that we plan to do will upgrade the structure and have a positive effect upon the character of the area. 0 B. Such other factors_ and criteria_ as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed u environmental im act re ort is required by Chapter 18.55. No EIR required. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. i V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Department of Community Development recommends approval of this proposal. Relocation of the gymnastics program to the old Town Shops will serve to stabilize the program with a more controllable and permanent location. In turn, this allows Red Sandstone Elementary School more flexibility for additional programs in their gymnasium. Storage for the Town of Vail is a use that we need and the Town Shops provide an inexpensive and convenient location. We also find that the site contains adequate parking and circulation to accommodate these uses. • e • LJ n U � o it a. C7 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code in order to add commercial storage under conditional uses and health clubs under permitted uses in Commercial Core III zone district. APPLICANT: Vail Mall Joint Venture I. THE REQUEST The Vail Mall Joint Venture is requesting to amend the Commercial Core III zone district in two areas. First, health clubs would be added to the list of permitted uses in CCIII as 18.27.010 G. Health Clubs. Presently CCIII permitted uses reads: Section 18.27.010 Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core III district: A. Professional offices, business offices, and studios; B. Banks and financial institutions; C. Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the following; . Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Auto parts stores Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises Bookstores Building materials stores without outdoor storage Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Department and general merchandise stores Drugstores and pharmacies Florists Food stores Furniture stores Gift stores Hardware stores Health food stores Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Luggage stores • Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Radio and television stores and repair shops Radio and television broadcasting studios Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Supermarkets Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores D. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barbershops Beauty shops Business and office services Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing Coin - operated or self- service laundries Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair Shop repair Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies E. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants • F. Additional offices, businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.27.010 of this chapter. Second, the applicant proposes to add commercial storage to the list of conditional uses in Section 18.27.030. Commercial storage is considered to third party storage unrelated to an existing retail establishment in the building. As an example, the storage for the Safeway store would not be considered commecial storage. Storage of goods in CCIII for a store in the Village would be considered to be commercial storage. The existing wording Commercial Core III, Conditional Uses, reads: 18.27.030 Conditional Uses be for The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Commercial Core III district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Drive -up facilities; B. Multiple- family dwellings for employees of Upper Eagle Valley... C. Public utility and public service uses; D. Public buildings, ground, and facilities; E. Public park and recreation facilities; F. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; • G. Commercial laundry and cleaning services, bulk plant; H. Major arcade; -2- • n u I. Pet shops J. Any use permitted by Section entirely within a building; K. Massage parlors; L. Outside car wash; M. Dog kennel N. Radio and television signal 18.27.020 which is not conducted relay transmission facilities. The applicant proposes to add the following conditional use: 0. Commercial storage - -as long as it does not have any existing exterior window display frontage on any public way, street, or mall area and no existing exterior window display frontage on any public way, street or mall area is removed in order to provide commercial storage, and the commercial storage shall be limited to 10% of the gross commercial square footage of the building. II. APPLICANT`S JUSTIFICATION "The health club use is requested for the following reasons: A. Commercial Core III and its immediate environs has a dearth of recreational facilities. B. A health club in this location would relieve pressure on core area facilities which receives significant use from seasonal occupancy. C. This use will bring additional traffic to Commercial Core III and enhance business activity for the retail tenants. The commercial storage is requested in order to accomplish the following: A. Utilize areas of the building which are not desirable retail locations. B. Provide a location for storage uses not otherwise available in Commercial Core III (and only minimally available in the Vail Valley). C. The commercial storage function would be limited to not more than 10% of the gross commercial square footage of the building, so that the nature of Commercial Core III would not be significantly altered." III. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST Criteria No. 1. Suitability of existing zoning. The Commercial Core III zone district is intended to provide sites for community shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. The Commercial District is also more oriented toward vehicular traffic than the other commercial zone districts within the Town of Vail. Commercial Core III district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses and to maintain a convenient shopping environment. -3- Staff's opinion is that both the health club and commercial storage uses are very compatible with the intent of Commercial Core III district. Health clubs are compatible with other commercial uses, as they bring people into the shopping center which will have a positive effect on the shops. Commercial Core III also provides a reasonable location for commercial storage which is a use that would be difficult to provide in most of the Town's other zone districts. Criteria No. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient,_workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? In respect to the request for health clubs to be considered as a permitted use, the staff believes that this use is very consistent with the intent of the zone district to provide community commercial facilities. Staff believes that it is appropriate for the commercial storage use to be listed under Conditional Uses for Commercial Core III. Originally, staff was concerned about retail space being converted to storage. The wording of the amendment addresses this concern, as existing exterior window display areas shall not be converted to storage. The conditional use review allows for a thorough review of the proposal to insure that there are no negative impacts on the zone district or surrounding area. The following conditional use criteria will be used to review any commercial storage request: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town; is 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs; 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas; • 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The use is compatible with other Commercial Core III uses, as 'long as the storage space does not have exterior window display frontage and is limited to 10% of the gross commercial square footage of the building. The easy vehicular access found in this zone district makes it particularly well suited for commercial storage use. -4- Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly_, viable community? Both amendments allow for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The health club use is very compatible with the existing permitted uses in the zone district. Commercial storage, given the 10% limitation, will also be compatible with the existing uses in Commercial Core III. The following list shows the commercial storage potential of existing buildings in CCIII: Safeway West Vail Mall Inn at West Vail Chamonix Corner Vail das Schone (includes 8,000 s.f. basement) Approx. Total Commercial Gross Bldg Square Footage 36,000 38,000 16,380 9,282 44,680 144,342 10% Comm. _Storage 3,600 3,800 1,638 928 4,468 14,434 The only other zone district that allows for commercial storage is CCII (Lionshead ). Commercial storage in CCII is allowed as long as the space is at . basement level and has no exterior frontage. Staff believes that commercial storage is appropriate for CCIII, as there are no other zone districts that allow the use except CCII which is very restricted. 4P IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to add health clubs as a permitted use and commercial storage as a conditional use. Staff believes that the zoning amendment meets the criteria as described in this memo. Both uses are frequently associated with commercial areas. The conditional use review will ensure that commercial storage will have no negative impacts on the commercial character of CCIII. -5- • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Area A, Vail Run, in order parking spaces on the south APPLICANT: Vail Run Resort Community I. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST Development District #5, Development to construct an additional 11 exterior side of the building. The applicant, Vail Run Resort Community, is requesting to amend SDD5 to allow construction of 11 exterior parking spaces on the south side of the existing Vail Run building. The Vail Run project was developed within the jurisdiction of Eagle County. Upon annexation, the Town of Vail created and zoned Vail Run SDD5. Ordinance 6, Series of 1976, which establishes Special Development District 5, describes the development plan simply as the existing conditions on site. Those conditions consist of existing building, swimming pool and tennis courts. The ordinance goes on to list permitted and conditional uses. However, it makes no mention of parking requirements or site requirements, such as landscaped areas and exterior parking areas. Because the ordinance establishing the special development district describes the existing conditions as the development plan, any amendment to those existing conditions must require an amendment to the approved development plan of Special Development District #5. The applicant has submitted a parking analysis that details a shortfall of 97 spaces in comparing existing conditions to current Town of Vail parking standards. The applicant has also submitted a portion of a site plan that was apparently submitted to Eagle County as a part of the original development proposal. This site plan, which is not a part of Town of Vail records, shows some parking located in the area of the current proposal. The proposed parking lot 8/20/86, submitted with square feet of existing foot long retaining wall extending from the prope Highway Department right Department will be requi plan. II. EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL design, drawn by Gordon R. Pierce and dated this application eliminates approximately 400 landscaping. The proposed design creates a 100 on the property line with a landscaped berm rty line to the bicycle path, within State -of -way. Permission from the State Highway red in order to complete the proposed landscape Section 18,40.080 of the municipal code provides criteria for evaluation of design within the general Special Development District regulations. The only applicable criteria for evaluation of this proposal is the buffer zone requirement. The Community Development Department feels that this is adequately addressed through the design by the berming and landscaping proposed along the State Highway Department right -of -way. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval. The Community Development Department feels that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated a need for additional on -site parking and we believe that the berming and landscaping will sufficiently screen this parking area from the public right -of -way. While there is a loss of approximately 400 square feet of existing landscaped area, we feel that the introduction of a substantial quantity of large species material could mitigate the impact of this new parking area from the public view. • 17-1 • 0 tie 71,11 S4 A ki 0- fi TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to allow recreation facilities and programs as well as storage at the old Town Shops, located on a part of Tract C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. APPLICANT: Town of Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The old Town of Vail Shops are located west of Lionshead adjacent to the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District's plant. The Shops are zoned Public Use District, but lie generally within the Arterial Business District. We are currently in the process of taking over the building (which has been leased to a variety of tenants over the past several years) for our own use. Public recreation facilities (other than parks or playgrounds) are a conditional use in the Public Use District. The building contains two floors and approximately 7100 square feet of floor area. Proposed on the first, or lower level, is about 3900 square feet of storage for the needs of the Town. Six bays of storage are proposed. On the second, or upper level would be recreational facilities for the Town's gymnastics programs and a weight room to be used principally by the Vail Police Department (as well as attendant restrooms, closets and locker facilities), occupying a total of 3200 square feet. The site contains 30 parking spaces while maintaining circulation patterns through the parcel to accommodate access to the UEVWSD site. We feel that this will adequately serve any peak parking demand. However, in the case that additional parking is required, the small lot east of the UEVWSD plant will serve as an overflow. This parking is currently used by UEVWSD personnel during the day. Ii. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. "" The provision of high quality recreational programs and facilities is an important objective of the Town of Vail. Relocating the Town of Vail Recreation Department gymnastics program to the old Town Shop from Red Sandstone Elementary School will assure the continuation of this high quality program. Also, the proposed storage area on the lower level of the building will provide a much needed facility for the Town to continue to operate efficiently as a municipal government. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities schools a and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Currently, the Town of Vail gymnastics program is located in the Red Sandstone Elementary School gymnasium. This facility has become inadequate for our program due to the increased useage by the school in the evening hours, general overbooking, and lack of adequate space for storage and equipment. Utilizing a Town of Vail building for the gymnastics program will allow the Town total control of the scheduling of the facility and provide space that is large enough to accommodate the equipment and the size of the program. Concurrently, the removal of the gymnastics program from the school facility has a positive effect on the school's own gymnasium in that they can utilize that for other desired programs. 46 With regard to public facility needs in general, the storage space is badly needed for the Town of Vail to continue an efficient level of operations. 3. Effect_ upon traffic with particular _reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience : traffic flow and control access maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As noted above, the site contains 30 parking spaces which should adequately serve the needs of the building. The Recreation Department has stated that the peak parking demand for gymnastics is usually in the area of 20 -25 cars. Traffic flow will continue -- - to be accommodated through the site for both the users of the building as well as for the access to the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District's plant directly to the east. 4. Effect u on the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the _propos ... proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. With the removal of the- Colorado Mountain.-Express.-operation from the site, traffic should actually be reduced overall. A slight increase in traffic could be expected during the hours in the day in which gymnastic programs are at their peak. The improvements to the building that we plan to do will upgrade the structure and . have a positive effect upon the character of the area. s B. Such pother factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. No EIR required. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Department of Community Development recommends approval of this proposal. Relocation of the gymnastics program to the old Town Shops will serve to stabilize the program. with a more controllable and permanent location. In turn, this allows Red Sandstone Elementary School more flexibility for additional programs in their gymnasium. Storage for the Town of Vail is a use that we need and the Town Shops provide an inexpensive and convenient location. We also find that the site contains adequate parking and circulation to accommodate these uses. 1. - , .. . !"" ..- . .. . 6 i ..' =�� }— v 1 ,. �,; U r a.. �. -Z--- 7 l � 1 R a i iN I � � r r ' i A� -a tta � S S I � � r r ' i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the site coverage standards to allow for an enclosed entry to the Lodge South Condominiums APPLICANT: Lodge South Condominium Association I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has proposed a new entryway to facilitate access to lobby and administrative areas that are being added to the Lodge South Condominiums. Site coverage (the area of a site enclosed by a structure) is limited to 80% of a site in Commercial Core I. The existing Lodge South Condominium site is 14,950 square feet. As a result of this proposal, site coverage would increase from 12,969 square feet to 13,052 square feet. This results in an increase from 86.6% to 87.2% site coverage. As these numbers demonstrate, the site is nonconforming at the present time. Increasing this degree of nonconforming requires Planning Commission approval. The area in question is a concrete walkway and the development would result in no loss of landscaped materials. • Ii. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 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 potential uses and structures in the vicini :o other existing or As proposed, the additional development at the Lodge South Condominiums would not adversely affect existing or potential uses and structures in its 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. It is important to consider that the property is developed over its allowable site coverage at this time. The proposed development would increase this situation by only .6% This in itself does not create just cause for granting this variance. However, the Lodge South Condominiums were at one time a portion of the Lodge Properties. A subsequent r subdivision of this property following the development of the Lodge . South Condominiums resulted in a nonconforming situation. It is felt that this subsequent subdivision has created a physical hardship that justifies the granting of this variance. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. None of the above elements are affected by this proposal. III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. IV. 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of this request. It is felt that the additional site coverage being added to the property does not create significant impacts and is not a grant of special privilege when considering the subdivision of this property. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add an enclosed entry to the Lodge South condominiums. APPLICANT: Lodge South Condominium Association I. THE PROPOSAL In order to facilitate the development of lobby and administrative spaces, an enclosure of 83 square feet has been proposed by the Lodge South Condominium Association. The enclosure would allow for access to the new lobby area from the main entrance to the building. Any proposal that adds or removes square footage to a building in Commercial Core I requires review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan. This review process is intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways, public greenways, and to insure continuation of the building's scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. Specific review criteria include the Urban Design Guide Plan, the Urban Design Considerations, and zoning considerations. The following outlines this proposal with respect to these criteria. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan proposes a number of physical improvements to Vail Village. Referred to as sub -area concepts, these improvements are designed to reinforce the pedestrian network and the quality built environment of the Village. There are no sub -area concepts relative to this proposal. III COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of comparing the proposal with these design considerations is to demonstrate how the new development strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Design Considerations include: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. i H. Pedestrianization Vehicular Penetration Street Enclosure Street Edge Building Height Views Service and Delivery Sun /shade w M1 There are no direct impacts on any of these considerations resulting • from the proposed development. This is due to the relatively minor nature of the improvement proposed, as well as the location of the Lodge South Condominiums. Located outside the Village Core and off of any major pedestrian way, the criteria considered in the review of this development are not applicable. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning considerations relative to this project include parking and site coverage. Two parking spaces would be removed from this site as a result of this development. As permitted by the Commercial Core I zoning, cash payment to the parking fund would be made to compensate for this loss. The proposed development does increase the amount of site coverage on this property. A variance is required for this aspect of the development and is covered by the attached memorandum. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is approval. It is felt that the addition will have a positive effect on the structure, while having no adverse effects on Vail Village. r1 L n TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a adoption of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan I. INTRODUCTION Approximately two years ago, the Community Development Department began working toward the completion of an overall Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Vail. An integral element to that Comprehensive Plan was to be the Land Use Plan. Although specific long range planning studies and guidelines have been completed within the Town, this was the first attempt to create a complete Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan, as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, will serve as a guideline for future growth from a land use perspective. The Land Use Plan was prompted in part by issues which the citizens of the community have faced in the recent past, such as the potential development of public lands and redevelopment requests above and beyond the existing zoning currently placed on properties. A major goal of the staff, indeed one that is evident from the initial Request for Proposal through the final document, was that this be a plan ' of the people, a plan that the community has some ownership to. The public process that was utilized through the formation of the plan allowed the citizens of the community to shape both the goals and policies as well as the final map that have now become the Land Use Plan. The attached chart details that puolic process. 'The Land Use Plan, the final product of this public process, upon approval of the Planning and Eno ronmental Commission and adoption by the Town Council (and as periodically modified), will serve to guide growth and development within the community for the next 15 years. The next step for the staff will be to prepare the zoning code to accommodate the goals and objectives of the Plan and to allow implementation of the plan itself. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff has sArved principally as facilitator and project manager of the Land Use Plan. We feel that the process as well as the product is highly successful and commend both the citizens of the community and the members of the task force for the effort that has gone into this document. As with other proposals that come before the Planning Commission, the staff at this point will make their own recommendation to the Planning and Lnvironmental Commission. There are two issues that we have alternate recommendations for. The first issue we would like to address would be the area north of 1 -70 from Sandstone to Booth Creek. We feel that this area, with the exception of the existing public -type development, should be predominantly open space. Not only is the physical terrain conducive to open space, but we feel that this area serves as a very important buffer and density balance to the Vail Village and Lionshead areas when viewed from Vail Mountain. While Vail Mountain is not within the Town of Vail boundaries, it is certainly within our planning area, and the impact of development within the community upon the users of Vail Mountain is of utmost importance and concern. We feel that the view from Vail Mountain of the high density core areas must be buffered by the open space north of 1 -70. We feel that this area is physically suited for open space and provides a very important balance to the view of our community and should be maintained essentially as is (public uses oriented toward outdoor recreation would be appropriate). The second issue in the Land Use Plan that we would like to address is the need for additional single family residential development. The Land Use Plan and map denote a category entitled "Hillside Residential." This category is intended to provide for the potential to develop 'low density single family residential areas. Based upon the demand figures as derived through the model and the current surplus of large lots within the community, we question the need for the inclusion of this category within the Land Use Plan. A 1985 study conducted by this department indicates an inventory of at least 80 lots greiter than 30,000 square feet allowing a minimum floor area on each lot of 7;000 square feet (includes credits). Moreover, study after study has shown . this type of development to be the least cost efficient type of development possible for both owners and local government with regard to provisions of utilities and services, development costs, etc. Trends are definitely in the direction toward the provisions of housing in higher density, infill type and away from low density. We feel the Land Use Plan should be a document to guide future growth according to a projected demand. There is no projected demand for this type of use over the available supply. The Land Use Plan is not intended to analyze specific housing markets (i.e. type of single family, town houses versus condominiums, size of dwelling units, etc.). We feel that it is in appropriate to include within the Land Use Plan provisions for a perceived need within the housing market. As previously stated, we feel that this plan is based on the desires of the citizens of the community, the Land Use Plan Task Foi a and the Community Development Department and would endorse approval and adoption of the plan as presented with the above noted exceptions. The PEC's action is a recommendation to the Town Council. L� L...J L • LAND USE PLAN PROCESS CHART PUBLIC MEETING #I Development of initial goals statements TASK FORCE Development of trends map PUBLIC MEETING #2 Refinement of goal statements Refinement of map TASK FORCE Input and recommendations PUBLIC MEETING #3 Review of goal statements Review of map , I,' TASK FORCE: Recommendations and refinement of final product I PEC 4z STAFF Approval Recommendations TOWN COUNCIL Adoption PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • October 27, 1986 2:15 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of October 13, 1986. 2. Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivision for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road and bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums Applicant: William I. Fleischer 3. Request for rear setback variance in order to construct an addition to a dwelling unit located at 4026 Lupine Drive, Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Gene Williams • ' 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . October 27, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Larry Eskwith Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Bryan Hobbs Duane Piper Jim Viele After site inspections, the meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Diana Donovan. 1. Approval of minutes of October 13, 1986. Peggy Osterfoss corrected the minutes. It was her understanding that the board's interpretation of 2.8 was that it was to be jointly financed by the ski mountain owner and the town. This was suggested when Viele made the motion to approve the Land Use Plan, and Viele said that this was understood and it did not need to be added to the motion. Diana Donovan corrected the motion concerning the Town shop building. The motion should have included the statement that the building was not to be used by children until a drive -in • drop -off was installed. Peggy Osterfoss moved the minutes be approved as corrected and Sid Schultz seconded the motion. The vote was 3 in favor with Pam Hopkins abstaining. 2. Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivis for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road an bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: William I. Fleischer Rick Pylman reviewed the issue as it was presented at the previous meeting. Larry Eskwith stated that he had spoken to the PEC before the meeting and asked the other attorneys to speak. George Rosenberg, representing the opponents of the issue, stated that the basis for not approving the zoning request was that this was not a self inflicted hardship. He stated that Fleischer was aware of the pre - existing use of the property. He mentioned that by Colorado law, the board had the right to turn down requested zoning. Jay Peterson, representing Fleischer, stated that the issue of whether or not the Highway Department should have notified the Town of Vail was an issue between the Town and the Highway Department, not the Town of Vail and the applicant. He mentioned that he had spoken to Bill Powell of the Highway Department who was in charge of the disposition of parcels of land. Powell explained 4 ways the Highway Dept could dispose of land, and he felt that this parcel did not have to be offered to the Town first. Peterson mentioned that in nearly all cases of Colorado law where someone had requested a zone district, a previous zone had existed. In this case there was no zone. He stated that the parcel had highway right of use which included parking, that the applicant had a right to use the property in some way, and that this parcel was already approved for parking when Fleischer bought it. Peterson showed several documents he had found to substantiate his claims which included memos from Trout Creek Architects dated September 1983. He read from one which indicated that Jim Sayre, former planner for the Town, had allowed . Breakaway West to move forward to apply to the DRB. A DRB approval dated October 1983 included the contingency that no building permit would be issued until the property was purchased from the Highway Department. Jay also read other documents which he felt showed the item would not have been required to go through PEC. Peterson said it was apparent to the Town that they knew about the transfer of this land. He stated that this was not a self inflicted hardship. He mentioned that the photos used at the meeting previously should be part of the record. George Rosenberg stated that an error made on the part of the staff in 1983 did not mean the error should be compounded. He stated that if Breakaway West had DRB approval, they still needed PEC approval, and the deal never went through. He added that the first priority must be to on -site parking, not off -site. He felt the applicant knew what he could use the property for. He could have made inquiries before purchasing the property. Larry Eskwith stated that the town was not bound to follow a process in which it had previously made errors, that the process was not "stopped." Eskwith repeated that a self inflicted hardship included the knowledge of what the zone was before purchasing. Jay stated that the applicant did come to the Town to find out what the property could be used for. Peter Patten said the Town did not support the sale of the parcel or the use as parking. The staff remains neutral in DRB issues. Patten pointed out that the condition placed upon the approval stated the problem. He asked if the property was going to be restricted to the private use of Vail Run and Jay • answered that there would be no restrictions upon who could use the lot, although according to the zone code, it could be restricted to private use. Peggy Osterfoss stated that in light of the Colorado law regarding unzoned land, she felt that Fleischer had a right to put parking on the property. Peggy felt that it was an unfortunate use of the property and hoped an appropriate buffer and maximum safety to bikers would be part of any approval. She felt that a hump in the bike path that was made during the construction of the road cut should be corrected. Sid Schultz regretted the piece of land went to the highest bidder, and the Town could not purchase it. He agreed with Peggy about Fleischer's right to use the land and of the need for landscaping. Schultz was concerned about the landscaping blocking the view of bikes and cars. Pam Hopkins also regretted the fact that the Town could not own the land. She felt that landscaping should also be placed between the lot and Breakaway West's property and the bike path smoothed out. Jay stated that the hump in the bike path was made so that cars would not slide back onto the bike path in winter. Diana Donovan stated that she chose to look at the property as a piece of land surrounded by the Town. She felt that the history of the land was not applicable, and the PEC had the right to adopt zoning to a reasonable use, and • felt that parking was a forced use. She pointed out that as proposed by Breakaway West, the access was different, and therefore it was like dealing with a different parcel. The lot is not legally tied to the property it seeks • • to serve. Diana pointed out that landscaping of the lot was necessary, which then made the situation unsafe, especially to the bike path. This parking lot would have a negative impact on both the bike path and the surrounding property. Diana said that when Jay stated that the same number of cars would be accessing the Frontage Road, he did not mention that at present these cars are coming from a main road, not a parking lot. Osterfoss moved and Schultz seconded to recommend approval to Town Council of the request with two conditions: 1. Landscape is required per DRB._ 2. Staff ensure that safety of bikers be considered in the placement of signs, landscaping, etc. The vote was 3 in favor and 1 (Donovan)_ against. Next considered was the request for a minor subdivision of the same property. Schultz moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request per thes_taff memo. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. variance in order to construct an addition to a dwell Request e setback ngunitlocatedat 4026 Lupine Drive, Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision.. Rick Pylman explained the request, pointing out that this was a second flour= addition to the already encroaching first floor, and no increase in encroachment was being requested. Staff recommended approval. Schultz moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request per_the staff memo because of the existing setbacks. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission is FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 27, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for rear setback variance in order to add a second story addition to a residence on lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision APPLICANT: Mr. Gene Williams I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to add a second story to the existing single family residence located on Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision. The existing residence currently encroaches within the required rear setback a distance of up to 5 feet from the rear property line. Although the encroachment is not increasing above and beyond the existing situation, a setback variance is required in order to allow for this addition. The required rear setback is 15 feet. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the Municipal. Code, the Department of Community Development recommends_ denial_ of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested encroachment into the rear setback presently exists with the existing structure. The application is for the addition of a second story on the existing structure. Encroachments due to the addition should not substantially impact adjacent units or property above and beyond the impact of the existing unit. 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 amon sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff feels that due to the siting of the existing residence, it would not be a special privilege to grant the variance for encroachment into the rear setback. The setback encroachment will not be any greater than that which is existing on the site. • . 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 requested variance will have no negative impact upon any of the above mentioned criteria. III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. IV. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Under the heading, "Community Design," statement Number 2 reads: "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged." The Community Development Department staff has long encouraged upgrading of existing units and property within the Town of Vail. This has been done traditionally as long as the zoning and variance criteria could be adequately addressed. IV. FINDINGS iThe Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followi_ng__ 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. -2- V. • U STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the setback variance. The setback encroachments already exist on the property, and the applicants are not requesting any further encroachment. -3- r r DR ( 5O) LUpINE R= 175.00' L = 3493' 127.03 f 0 W S g2° 52 0 E D. REBAR W/ WASHER ^fik -- = LOT 13 ,� f d, . f8 8.0•�w PLANTER 7' 4 LLJ O * r DEC K IMP S O 1 STORY HOU5E t —� WIt� DOW 4.0 �etf J 4 5h1o�G1C 3.4 DECK O_ 14 4715 t N 89 °41 ' 00'F E � DECK CORNER MEASURED O,5. OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE . 17, 963 , } 1 LOT � 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ri LJ October 27, 1986 2:15 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of October 13, 1986. 2. Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivision for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road and bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums Applicant: William I. Fleischer 3. Request for rear setback variance in order to construct an addition to a dwelling unit located at 4026 Lupine Drive, Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Gene Williams • ti • n U n U PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 27, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Pam Hopkins Rick Pyiman Peggy Osterfoss Larry Eskwith Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack ASSENT Bryan Hobbs Duane Piper Jim Viele After site inspections, the meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Diana Donovan. 1. Approval of minutes of October 13, 1986. Peggy Osterfoss corrected the minutes. It was her understanding that the board's interpretation of 2.8 was that it was to be jointly financed by the ski mountain owner and the town. This was suggested when Viele made the motion to approve the Land Use Plan, and Viele said that this was understood and it did not need to be added to the motion. Diana Donovan corrected the motion concerning the Town shop building. The motion should have included the statement that the building was not to be used by children until a drive -in drop -off was installed. Peaay Osterfoss moved the minutes be approved as corrected and Sid Schultz seconded the motion. The vote was 3 in favor with Pam H p kins abstaining. 2. Re nest to apply the Parking Zone District and for a minor subdivis for an unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road an bounded on two sides by Breakaway West Condominiums. Applicant: William I. Fleischer Rick Pylman reviewed the issue as it was presented at the previous meeting. Larry Eskwith stated that he had spoken to the PEC before the meeting and asked the other attorneys to speak. George Rosenberg, representing the opponents of the issue, stated that the basis for not approving the zoning request was that this was not a self inflicted hardship. He stated that Fleischer was aware of the pre - existing use of the property. He mentioned that by Colorado law, the board had the right to turn down requested zoning. Jay Peterson, representing Fleischer, stated that the issue of whether or not the Highway Department should have notified the Town of Vail was an issue between the Town and the Highway Department, not the Town of Vail and the applicant. He mentioned that he had spoken to Bill Powell of the Highway Department who was in charge of the disposition of parcels of land. Powell explained 4 ways the Highway Dept could dispose of land, and he felt that this parcel did not have to be offered to the Town first. Peterson mentioned that in nearly all cases of Colorado law where someone had requested a zone district, a previous zone had existed. In this case there was no zone. He stated that the parcel had highway right of use which included parking, that the applicant had a right to use the property in some way, and that this parcel was already approved for parking when Fleischer bought it. Peterson showed several documents he had found to substantiate his claims which included memos from Trout Creek Architects dated September '1983. He read from one which indicated that Jim Sayre, former planner for the Town, had allowed . Breakaway West to move forward to apply to the DRB. A DRB approval dated October 1983 included the contingency that no building permit would be issued until the property was purchased from the Highway Department. Jay also read other documents which he felt showed the item would not have been required to go through PEC. Peterson said it was apparent to the Town that they knew about the transfer of this land. He stated that this was not a self inflicted hardship. He mentioned that the photos used at the meeting previously should be part of the record. George Rosenberg stated that an error made on the part of the staff in 1983 did not mean the error should be compounded. He stated that if Breakaway West had DRB approval, they still needed PEC approval, and the deal never went through. He added that the first priority must be to on -site parking, not off -site. He felt the applicant knew what he could use the property for. He could have made inquiries before purchasing the property. Larry Eskwith stated that the town was not bound to follow a process in which it had previously made errors, that the process was not "stopped." Eskwith repeated that a self inflicted hardship included the knowledge of what the zone was before purchasing. Jay stated that the applicant did come to the Town to find out what the property could be used for. Peter Patten said the Town did not support the sale of the parcel or the use as parking. The staff remains neutral in DRB issues. Patten pointed out that the condition placed upon the approval stated the problem. He asked if the property was going to be restricted to the private use of Vail Run and Jay • answered that there would be no restrictions upon who could use the lot, although according to the zone code, it could be restricted to private use. Peggy Osterfoss stated that in light of the Colorado law regarding unzoned land, she felt that Fleischer had a right to put parking on the property. Peggy felt that it was an unfortunate use of the property and hoped an appropriate buffer and maximum safety to bikers would be part of any approval. She felt that a hump in the bike path that was made during the construction of the road cut should be corrected. Sid Schultz regretted the piece of land went to the highest bidder, and the Town could not purchase it. He agreed with Peggy about Fleischer's right to use the land and of the need for landscaping. Schultz was concerned about the landscaping blocking the view of bikes and cars. Pam Hopkins also regretted the fact that the Town could not own the land. She felt that landscaping should also be placed between the lot and Breakaway West's property and the bike path smoothed out. Jay stated that the hump in the bike path was made so that cars would not slide back onto the bike path in winter. Diana Donovan stated that she chose to look at the property as a piece of land surrounded by the Town. She felt that the history of the land was not applicable, and the PEC had the right to adopt zoning to a reasonable use, and . felt that parking was a forced use. She pointed out that as proposed by Breakaway West, the access was different, and therefore it was like dealing with a different parcel. The lot is not legally tied to the property it seeks ,y • to serve. Diana pointed out that landscaping of the lot was necessary, which then made the situation unsafe, especially to the bike path. This parking lot would have a negative impact on both the bike path and the surrounding property. Diana said that when Jay stated that the same number of cars would be accessing the Frontage Road, he did not mention that at present these cars are coming from a main road, not a parking lot. Osterfoss moved and Schultz seconded to recommend approval to Town Council of the request with two conditions: 1. Landscape is required per DRB. 2. Staff ensure that safety of bikers be considered in the placement of sign landscaRin2, etc. The vote was 3 in favor and 1 Donovan against. Next considered was the request for a minor subdivision of the same property. Schultz moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the _request per the staff_ memo. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. Reauest for rear setback variance in order to construct an addition to a dwelling unit located at 4026 Lupine Drive, Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Gene Williams Rick Pylman explained the request, pointing out that this was a second floor• addition to the already encroaching first floor, and no increase in encroachment was being requested. Staff recommended approval. Schultz moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo_ because of the existing setbacks. The vote was 4-0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 27, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for rear setback variance in order to add a second story addition to a residence on lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision APPLICANT: Mr. Gene Williams I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to add a second story to the existing single family residence located on Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision. The existing residence currently encroaches within the required rear setback a distance of up to 5 feet from the rear property line. Although the encroachment is not increasing above and beyond the existing situation, a setback variance is required in order to allow for this addition. The required rear setback is 15 feet. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested encroachment into the rear setback presently exists with the existing structure. The application is for the addition of a second story on the existing structure. Encroachments due to the addition should not substantially impact adjacent units or property above and beyond the impact of the existing unit. 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. Staff feels that due to the siting of the existing residence, it would not be a special privilege to grant the variance for encroachment into the rear setback. The setback encroachment will not be any greater than that which is existing on the site. n LJ • The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and Rublic safety. The requested variance will have no negative impact upon any of the above mentioned criteria. III. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. IV. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Under the heading, "Community Design," statement Number 2 reads: "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged." The Community Development Department staff has long encouraged upgrading of existing units and property within the Town of Vail. This has been done traditionally as long as the zoning and variance criteria could be adequately addressed. IV. FINDINGS • The Planning and Environmental Commission shal findings before 2ranting a variance: n LJ 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. -2- • • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the setback variance. The setback encroachments already exist on the property, and the applicants are not requesting any further encroachment. -3- LUPINE D R�\JE ( 50 ) R= 175:00, L = 34.93 427 03 �� W S 82° 52 00 1 }t I JFD REBAR W/ WASHER e 1 O � LOT 13 _ PLANTER LLJ 'BECK .. 74 co o y ao_ w 0 4 X4.7' IMP o S I STORY. HOUSE cn t 0 - DOW WINN 4.0 ri'�u►ilt�f 34.9 24,5 n -.fi J 15 jeE�b�taC 3.4 66 N DECK O, 1 C 3a �. 4 4715 3 t N 89 °41 ' OO" E I ` DECK CORNER MEASURED 0.5' OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINE PIN . 17, 903 LOT 12 - _ `'I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 10, 1986 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 27, 1986 2. Request to amend the Arterial Zone District in order to add as a conditional use, convenience food stores. Applicant: Jay K. Peterson 3. Reminder of special Town Council meeting on Land Use Plan on Tuesday, November 11 at 7:30 PM. n L.J PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele Planning and Environmental Commission November 10, 1986 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Duane Piper. The approval of the minutes of October 22 was tabled to November 24. 1. Request to amend the Arterial Business Zone District in order to add as a conditional use, convenience food stores._ Applicant- Jay K. Peterson Rick Pylman explained that in addition to adding convenience food stores to the list of conditional uses in the Arterial Business District, the following sentence would be added to the introductory paragraph of Section 18.29.0306: "No individual conditional use listed in Section 18.29.030 B may occupy more than 8,000 square feet nor more than 33% of the gross building area of the entire structure, whichever may be more restrictive." Pylman pointed out that the purpose of the ABD zone was to provide sites for mixed use office development and for limited community commercial development. With the exception of service stations, the intention was not to create the development of a single use on any particular site, therefore the size restrictions were appropriate. The staff did feel that convenience food store use is really representative of a combination of uses currently allowed in ABD, and recommended approval. Jay Peterson, the applicant, stated that he had been working for several months with the staff discussing uses and intent of the zone district. He also listed several properties which contained offices which were not filled and felt that strictly office buildings in this zone was not economically feasible. Duane Piper asked the reason for the 8,000 square feet number, and Peter Patten replied that this was the number already in the zone district under permitted uses. Patten felt that the zone district was mainly for office and mixed uses and community commercial rather than tourist commercial. Patten felt the combination of limiting the size of one use as well as the amount in one building would keep mixed use in the district. Peterson pointed out that legally the PEC could restrict convenience stores to this size, but felt a public notice was in order to impose the size on the other uses. Donovan was concerned about the additional traffic that could be using the east bound land in this area with the addition of the 1 -70 exit located next to the zone district. Patten felt that a lot of road improvements were in order on the Frontage Road. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to recommend to Town Council the addition the addition of convenience food stores with the size limitation of 8,000 enimrp fAAt: and nnl v 331/. of the total sauare footaae of the bui 1 di nq it would be in. The vote was 7 -0. day pointed out that if the Council passed an ordinance to this effect, he would still have to come back for a conditional use permit to have a convenience store. The board was reminded of a special Town Council meeting on the Land Use Plan to be held on Tuesday, November 11 at 7:30 PM in the library. They were also told of a special joint meeting with the Council on the Vail Village Master Plan on December 2, tentatively set at 1:00 PM. The Planning Commission was asked to make a site visit to the Town Shops to see if they would approve the use of the bike path as a pull -off in the winter time only for cars dropping off children for gymnastics classes. The board agreed to this and added that landscaping must be installed between the pull -off area and the building. A landscape plan shall be approved by DRB. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 10, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.29.030 B of the Vail Municipal Code (Arterial Business District) to add convenience food stores as a conditional use and to restrict those conditional uses listed under Section 18.29.030 B to a maximum of 8,000 square feet or 33% of the gross building area. Applicant: Jay K. Peterson I. THE RE UEST The applicant is requesting to amend the Arterial Business District in two areas. First, convenience stores would be added to the list of conditional uses in Section 18.29.030 B. Secondly, the following sentence would be added to the introduction paragraph of Section 18.29.030 B: "No individual conditional use listed in Section 18.29.030 B may occupy more than 8,000 square feet nor more than 33% of the gross building area of the entire structure, whichever may be more restrictive." Presently the Arterial Business District conditional uses read as follows: Section 18.29.030 Conditional Uses A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the arterial business district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: Public buildings, grounds and facilities Public park and recreation facilities Any use permitted by Section 18.29.020 which is not conducted entirely within a building Service yards Public utility and public service uses, including screened outside storage Multi - family dwellings for the employees of the upper Eagle Valley as further restricted by Section 18.27.130 of this zone district. B. The following uses shall be permitted on the first (street) level floor within a structure subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and are listed as such due to their potential individual and cumulative impacts of generating traffic in the arterial business district and will receive review under the provisions of Chapter 18.60 with specific emphasis on the criteria of traffic generation: Apparel stores Bakeries and confectioneries Camera stores Furniture stores Hardware stores Health food stores Hobby stores Household appliance stores • Liquor stores Music and record stores Yardage and dry good stores Business and office services Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing • Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair Pet shops Outside car wash Public and private health facilities Theatre Service stations Nursery and garden supply Banks and financial institutions II. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST Criteria No. 1. Suitability of existing zoning. The Arterial Business District is primarily intended to provide sites for mixed use office development serving as a transition area from Lionshead to Cascade Village. A secondary function of the Arterial Business District, as is evident by the list of conditional uses allowed, is to provide for limited community commercial development. The Community Development staff believes that the intent of the district, whether fulfilling either the primary or secondary use, is to create a quality mixed use development. The intent of the district was not to create the development of a single use on any particular site. Therefore, we feel the size restriction on the conditional uses is appropriate. • We feel that this request, along with the proposed size limitations, is compatible with the existing conditional uses and does meet the intent of providing for a limited community commercial development. Criteria No. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship anion land uses consistent with municipal objectives? While we believe that the Arterial Business District should primarily serve as an area for office development, we do feel that the addition of convenience food stores is consistent with the existing conditional uses and is consistent and compatible with municipal objectives. During the public meeting process on the Land Use Plan, many citizens placed an emphasis on the need for additional community oriented commercial facilities. We feel that the addition of convenience food stores as a conditional use with a close review of traffic generation is consistent with the goals of the Land Use Plan and also maintains the integrity of the existing zoning. The purpose section of the Arterial Business District states: "The arterial business district is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, and limited shopping_ and commercial facilities serving the town and Upper Eagle _Valley residents and guests. Multiple- family dwellings for use as employee housing will be appropriate under specific circumstances. Arterial business district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient (limited) shopping, business, service, and residential environment." Criteria No. 3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community The staff believes that the current Arterial Business District allows for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The convenience food store use is really representative of a combination of uses that are currently allowed as conditional uses within the Arterial Business District. We feel that this is a minor amendment to this district and does not impact the structure or integrity of the district as it currently exists. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request. The staff feels that the addition of convenience food stores as a conditional use (under the section emphasizing specific review of traffic impacts), along with the proposed size restrictions per use, will give the Arterial Business District the flexibility to provide some limited community oriented commercial facilities. We feel that this meets a secondary intention of the zone district and provides a positive, workable relationship among the allowable uses within the Arterial Business District. � 0 0 Planning and Environmental Commission November 24, 1986 2:30 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 27 and November 10. 2. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows. Applicant: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow modular buildings at Golden Peak in the Ski Base /Recreation zone district. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 4. A request to apply previous Town of Vail zoning to the following re- annexed areas: Matterhorn Village, Filing #1, . Vail Village West Filing #1 and Filing #2, Spruce Creek Townhomes, Casa Del Sol Condomniums, Humble Oil Tract and an unplatted parcel listed in Book 287, Page 657 of the Eagle County Clerk's records. Applicant: Town of Vail 5. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section 18.08.060, titled, "Property Without a Zone Designation," to read: "Any land, lot, or site within the Town of Vail municipal boundary which, according to the official zoning map, does not have a designated zone district, shall be designated Green Belt and Natural Open Space zone district." Applicant: Town of Vail 6. Appointment of member to DRB for December, January and February. n L-A • V .. PRESENT Byran Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele (later) Diana Donovan ABSENT Duane Piper Pam Hopkins Planning and Environmental Commission November 24, 1986 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by Jim Viele. 1. Approval of minutes of October 27 and November 10. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. Vote was 4 -0. 2. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2 Pitkin Creek Meadows. Applicant: Tom and Nick Kiahti es ID Tom Braun reminded the board that this application was first considered on August 25, 1986, and at that time the board requested further information on how access to the lot would be secured and any information the State Highway Department or State Highway Patrol could provide concerning the safety implications of this lot's location relative to Interstate 70. Braun stated that after meeting with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, and the applicants' attorney, it had been determined that the proposed Lot 3 would have legal access over Lot i based on the previously recorded subdivision plat. As to the safety implications, the Vail Police Department contacted the State Highway Patrol and State Highway Department and neither agency was able to provide any indication that the creation of this lot would be a safety problem. Braun introduced a letter from Donald Hoch, an adjacent property owner, in which he stated concern over increased traffic, noise, and congestion. Arthur Alplanalp, attorney for the applicant, passed copies of a plat proposed in 1977 which showed 3 lots. The applicant had requested these three lots, but the zoning in place at that time required greater square footage for each lot, and he was asked to eliminate one lot. Since that time, the zoning has been changed and a third lot would be allowed. Stan Gellis, who resides in one unit on the lot to be subdivided, expressed concern that the Land Use Plan pointed out that there was an excess of duplex property in the Town. Peter Patten answered that the Land Use Plan was not referred to platted areas, but to unplatted areas, and that the existing and platted areas should be developed first. Peggy Osterfoss stated that it seemed that the two concerns the board had were answered, and the other board members agreed. Sid Schultz moved and Bryan__ Hobbs seconded to approve the request and the vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. A request for a_ conditional use__permit in order to allow modular . buildings at Golden Peak in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. (Diana Donovan arrived.) Peter Patten explained that VA wished to be permitted to have modular buildings to continue on site indefinitely with an annual review. In 1985 the PEC denied a request from VA to continue the seasonal modular building use as well as to add another modular building to accommodate additional day care facilities. This decision was appealed to the Town Council who approved the request for two years with 10 conditions which Peter listed in the memo. The staff recommended denial of the present request, but listed conditions if the PEC did decide to approve the request. Joe Macy of Vail Associates discussed the program offered to children in the modular buildings as did Nancy Nottingham. She stressed the large number of children being served and the anticipated increase. Macy stated that this was a very important service to the community. He added that not until VA reached Phase 4 or Phase 5 of the Expansion Plan, would they be able to do something with a new building. He pointed out that VA had looked at other options and could not find any that worked as well. He added that VA was willing to accept the conditions. Peggy Osterfoss felt VA was doing a good job with the facility. She was concerned that the facility was not on the same level as the service and felt that it was hard to justify granting approval of modulars to one applicant, and not to others. Schultz was opposed to extending the approval for the facility . at Golden Peak. Discussion followed concerning number of children served. Schultz felt the proposal must be treated like any other applicant who is providing a service. He stressed that the proposal originally was an interim proposal. Macy pointed out that there had been other modulars given building permits, such as Valli Hi and Hobbit Hills. He felt that everyone today must look at creative solutions. Diana Donovan was not willing to give permanent approval to a temporary solution. She also felt the notice to the public did not clearly state that the request was for permanent approval for the modulars. Patten said the Town has the right to revoke the conditional use permit. Larry Litchliter of VA explained that the modulars were in place in October of 1985. He added that if everyone felt the Town was being placed in an unfair position, the Town could grant a "rolling approval." Peter Patten read Section 18.60.050 which states: "The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions .... A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, ...." Diana Donovan wondered why VA could not just come back on a yearly basis. Jim Viele agreed with Donovan, and felt that the wrong message would be sent to the community that "modulars are OK." He felt that more could be done to the landscaping to hide the building. He stated that VA should get praise for the operation, but he was uncomfortable giving approval on a permanent basis. Viele pointed out that much could be done with modulars, as the Arrowhead sales office was a modular building for an example, but he felt that this indefinite approval would be a grant of special privilege. PEC 11/24/86 - 2 - • Patten wanted to clarify Joe Macy's statement regarding other modulars in Vail. He stated that prefabs are not necessarily modulars, and that some prefabs have been approved by the DRB. Viele suggested setting a time limit in the application. Osterfoss felt that it would be helpful if the board knew what commitment VA had to constructing a permanent facility. Litchliter stated that VA could not make a commitment as to when they would construct the permanent facility. r1 LJ • Jack Rush, manager of Manor Vail, asked the board why they could not just say "No ?" He felt it would be nice to see a nursery structure. He wondered what the board would say if he had asked for a trailer in his parking 'lot 7 years in a row. He felt that VA should be able to come up with some alternative, since Vail was not known for its modular units. Rush was also concerned about an earlier agreement with Bob Parker, formerly with VA, about a guarantee not to construct any other permanent structures other than the one at the base of Golden Peak. He said that this had not been recorded and wondered if the agreement would still be in force. Patten stated that the only binding agreements between neighborhood and VA were in the covenants and the zoning. Since VA had chosen not to build (after they respresented that they would), the agreement to get rid of the trailers was not binding. Rush was concerned that perhaps a large building would later be built, such as a conference center. Patten stated that with the filing of the subdivision plat, which is part of this application, uses would be spelled out. Macy stated that VA had done all it needed to do to get the plat recorded, and Patten did not quite agree. Diana Donovan moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request for the conditional use permit for the modular buildings for the year 1987 -88 including the staff recommendations with particular emphasis on the condition that a comprehensive landscape be submitted to the DRB to make the buildings look more permanent, and with the understanding that the board is encouraging a permanent solution as soon as possible. The vote was 2 -2 -1 with Hobbs abstaining. A tie vote is a negative vote. Viele reminded Macy that he could appeal to the Town Council. 4. A request to apply previous Town of Vail zoning to the following re- annexed areas: Matterhorn Village, Filing #1, Vail Village West_ Filing No. 1 and Filing #2 Spruce Creek Townhomes Casa Del Sol Condominiums, Humble Oil Tract and an unp1atted parcel listed in Bo 287 Page 657 of the Eagle County Clerk's records. Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz stated that this area had been officially re- annexed in August of 1986 and showed the areas on a map. Diana Donovan moved and PeggyOsterfoss seconded to approve the request to zone the property as shown on the attached map. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. PEC 11/24/86 - 3 - .7 5. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, addin titled, "Property Without a Zone Designation," to "Any land lot or site within the Town of Vail m which, according to the official zoning map, does zone district, shall be designated Green Belt and zone district." Applicant: Town of Vail Section 18.08.060, read: inicipal boundary not have a designated Natural Open Space Peter Patten explained that this was a housekeeping amendment to address situations like the Fleisher property zoning. He stated that it was common to have a caveat to catch anything missed on official zoning maps or to address right -of -ways. He stated that this amendment was consistent with the Land Use Plan recently adopted. Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 6. Bryan Hobbs volunteered to be the PEC alternate on DRB for December, January and February. Osterfoss, Donovan and Schultz volunteered to back him up. Peter thanked the PEC for their hard work spent on the Land Use Plan. The board was reminded of a joint session with the Town Counci -.l from 1:00 to 3:00 on Tuesday, December 12 in the Council Chambers. PEC 11/24/86 - 4 - TO: Planning and Environmental Commission iFROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to apply previous Town of Vail zoning to the following re- annexed areas: Matterhorn Village Filing No. 1, Vail Village West Filing No.1 and Filing No. 2, Spruce Creek Townhomes, Casa del Sol Condominiums, Humble Oil Tract and an unplatted parcel listed in Book 287, Page 657 of the Eagle County Clerk's records. APPLICANT: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND Colorado State Statutes require that zoning be placed on recently annexed properties within 90 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. The Matterhorn Village /Vail Village West Filing 1 and 2 areas were officially annexed into the Town of Vail on August of 1986. The Town proposes to apply the exact same zoning that existed on these parcels before they were de- annexed from the Town of Vail. Enclosed is a map which shows the zone districts that will apply to each of these parcels within this annexation. Staff's opinion is that the existing zoning has been appropriate for these areas and therefore should be reinstated. • II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed zone districts for the recently re- annexed portions of West Vail as per the attached map. TOWN OF VAIL -ZONING LEGEND ® SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Q TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ® TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/ SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT f� HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT L PUBLIC ACCOMODATION DISTRICT ® SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ® PUBLIC USE DISTRICT +'•' COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CORE 2 DISTRICT Kx COMMERCIAL CORE 3 DISTRICT EM COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT O GREENBELT a NATURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT © PARKING ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SKI BASE RECREATION • SEE SHEET 3 MATCH LINE "A 41 0 (f) Fri z.......... t .................. ........... Z, .......... ... ......................... .. .......... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 'Z ..................... ......... Z'ZZ Z 4 r 9 As 6q O o 0 c r Y% cX) r z— 0 o .0 c C (n m noon ZZZl_'_z .......... z ........... Z, ........... .......... oo o ............ ......... . . ........ > r 9 6q O 0 o .0 c > m noon ZZZl_'_z .......... ........... Z, ........... .......... oo o ............ ......... rn OOQ . ............ ............. eon I IN c 'IN," ......... . LA Z- ......... .. 5b 0 0 Q r 9 6q O 0 o .0 c > 6q O 0 o .0 c ................... noon ZZZl_'_z .......... ........... Z, ........... .......... oo o ............ ......... OOQ . ............ ............. eon I IN c 'IN," ......... . LA Z- ......... .. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows APPLICANT: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes I. BACKGROUND ON THIS_REgUEST As the Planning Commission may recall, this application was first considered on August 25, 1986. At that time the Planning Commission requested further information on how access to the lot would be secured and any information the State Highway Department or State Highway Patrol could provide concerning the safety implications of this lot's location relative to Interstate 70. The following are the results of this additional information. II. STAFF FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS A. Access Easement After meetings with Larry Eskwith and the applicants` attorney, it has been determined that the proposed Lot 3 will have legal access over Lot I based on the previously recorded subdivision plat. It has been agreed by both attorneys that the previously recorded subdivision for Lots I and 2 dedicated the access easement as a public street. While the Town does not maintain this street, the language on the plat has resulted in this access easement being open for public use. As a result, access would be available over Lot 1 to the proposed Lot 3. Access over Lot 2 would be accommodated through the access easement proposed with this subdivision. B. Safety Implications The Vail Police Department has contacted the State Highway Patrol and State Highway Department for input concerning the location of this lot relative to Interstate 70. While contact has been made, neither agency was able to provide any indication that that the creation of this lot would be a safety problem. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this subdivision request based on the above findings and the previously submitted staff recommendation (see attached memo dated August 25, 1986). • In addition to the issues addressed in this memo, comments were made by the Planning Commission concerning the metho the square footage of these lots. questions proposed lots are only slightly larger than standards. In a response to this, the staff square footages indicated on the proposed pl ability, it was found that the lots do appea standards. • • dology used in determining were raised because the the minimum development attempted to confirm the ans. Based on our best r to meet the minimum lot TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department November 24, 1986 A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows APPLICANT: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST As the Planning Commission may recall, this application was first considered on August 25, 1986. At that time the Planning Commission requested further information on how access to the lot would be secured and any information the State Highway Department or State Highway Patrol could provide concerning the safety implications of this lot's location relative to Interstate 70. The following are the results of this additional information. Ii. STAFF FINDINGS RELATIVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS A. Access Easement After meetings with Larry Eskwith and the applicants' attorney, it has been determined that the proposed Lot 3 will have legal access is over Lot 1 based on the previously recorded subdivision plat. It has been agreed by both attorneys that the previously recorded subdivision for Lots 1 and 2 dedicated the access easement as a public street. While the Town does not maintain this street, the language on the plat has resulted in this access easement being open for public use. As a result, access would be available over Lot 1 to the proposed Lot 3. Access over Lot 2 would be accommodated through the access easement proposed with this subdivision. B. Safety Implications The Vail Police Department has contacted the State Highway Patrol and State Highway Department for input concerning the location of this lot relative to Interstate 70. While contact has been made, neither agency was able to provide any indication that that the creation of this lot would be a safety problem. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this subdivision request based on the above findings and the previously submitted staff recommendation (see attached memo dated August 25, 1986). 0 In addition to the issues addressed in this memo, comments were made by the Planning Commission concerning the methodology used in determining the square footage of these lots. Questions were raised because the proposed lots are only slightly larger than the minimum development standards. In a response to this, the staff attempted to confirm the square footages indicated on the proposed plans. Based on our best ability, it was found that the lots do appear to meet the minimum lot standards. 0 41 L� TO: 40 FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department August 25, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows Applicant: Tom and Nick Kiahtipes I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The requested subdivision is to subdivide one existing duplex zoned lot into two individual parcels. At the present time, Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows Subdivision is developed with a legal duplex structure. The subdivision would create Lot 2 (that would include the existing " structure) and a proposed Lot 3. At the present time Lot 3 (proposed) is undeveloped and through this subdivision would have the development potential for an additional duplex. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST Two sets of criteria are involved in reviewing a request of this nature. The first of these are the Planning Commission review criteria as outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. This reads: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that 46 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 recommendations made 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. The second set of criteria to be used in evaluating the feasibility of a new lot are with regard to the minimum lot standards outlined in the zoning code. These criteria address issues such as minimum lot size and buildable area within the site. III. ISSUES RELATIVE TO THIS REQUEST Minimum Lot Size. Minimum lot size for a two family residential lot is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. Buildable site area includes those portions of the lot not impacted by flood plain, geologic hazards, avalanche zones, or over 40% in slope. The following table outlines the lot sizes proposed for this subdivision: .y 0. CLot Size Buildable Site Area Proposed Lot 2 21,025 15,000 41 Proposed Lot 3 25,866 15,200 The above figures have been provided on a topographical survey stamped by a licensed and registered land surveyor with the State of Colorado. Geologic Hazards At the present time, Lot 2 is impacted by a rock fall zone. A site specific study has been completed and submitted to the staff that indicates the rockfall hazard to be on the northerly portion of proposed Lot 2, thereby not impacting the proposed Lot 3. Access Access to Lot 2 is provided with an access easement over Lot 1, located to the west of the subject property. An extension of this access easement is proposed to access Lot 3. Utility Service We have yet to receive verification from the applicable utility 1' companies that service can be provided to this property. A significant issue related to utility service is whether or not the easement shown is appropriate and in fact that service can be provided to the new lot. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the information submitted, the proposed lots satisfy all standards outlined in applicable Town of Vail regulations. Given the duplex development on adjacent properties, the existing zoning on the newly created lot would be compatible with surrounding land uses. With respect to environmental integrity, the staff is somewhat concerned that there would be the potential to construct a home at the most easterly portion of the property. This would place the structure at the uppermost portion of the lot in an area with 40% slopes. It would be far more preferable, particularly from the standpoint of visual impact, to ensure that any development of this lot take place at the lower portion of the parcel. It is felt that the Design Review Board can deal with this issue at the time construction is proposed. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision with the following condition: That a utility verification form be completed by all applicable utilities indicating that service can be provided to the proposed Lot 3 prior to the recording of the subdivision. 411 . ■ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 40 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section 18.08.060 titled, "Property Without a Zone Designation" to read: Any land, lot, or site within the Town of Vail municipal boundary which, according to the official zoning map, does not have a designated zone district shall be designated Green Belt and Natural Open Space zone district. APPLICANT: Town of Vail The Town of Vail is requesting this amendment as a housekeeping operation. Recently, several issues have been addressed by the Town staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council which related to properties coming into the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail without an official zone district designation. Land use law related to this issue is unclear. There have been arguments made stating that no zoning means that there are no development restrictions in place, and there have also been arguments made that no zoning means that no development at all is allowed. In researching this issue, both the Community Development staff and the Town Attorney recognized that most municipal zoning codes contain a clause similar to this requested amendment. A& Chapter 18.08 of the Vail municipal code refers to adoption and utilization of the official Town of Vail zoning map. Since this proposed amendment is in reference to both the zoning code and the zoning map, we felt that the addition of this amendment as Section 18.08.060 would be the appropriate place within the Vail municipal code for this language. There are three criteria with which we normally review proposed zoning amendments to the municipal code. The first criteria being the suitability of the existing zoning. The proposed amendment is intended to address zoning on parcels that have had no such previous designation. This amendment, by designating unzoned parcels as Green Belt and Natural Open Space, will allow us to avoid potential legal arguments involved with unzoned property and also will give us a basis with which to evaluate any potential rezoning requests that the involved parcels may be subject to. The second criteria utilized in evaluation of municipal code amendments is whether or not the amendment is presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives. The third criteria relates to whether the proposal provides for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The Community Development staff feels that the proposed amendment does meet both of the above mentioned criteria. The amendment will enable us to review future requests without the confusion associated with zoning requests and development requests on previously unzoned property. While the recently approved Land Use Plan provides advisory uses for all property within and around the Town of Vail, the actual zoning itself becomes a legal perameter for use of 0 property within the Town of Vail. r • • Through this amendment, we will provide zoning on all property that may be within the Town of Vail boundaries. This will avoid the philosophical conflicts that unzoned property has with the criteria described above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request. As we stated previously, we feel this is essentially a housekeeping operation. Through research done involving recent issues, we have learned that most municipal zoning codes contain such a similar clause. We feel that this amendment not only meets our criteria, but will help us evaluate future proposals against that same criteria and therefore encourage the Planning Commission to adopt this proposal. The proposed ordinance is included for your information. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for conditional use permit with an annual review for the continuance of modular buildings for children's ski school operations at Golden Peak. APPLICANT: Vail Associates, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Attached please find a 'letter from Joe Macy describing the request and the proposed use. Also, we have attached a more detailed list of the specific uses proposed for the modular buildings. Basically, Vail Associates is requesting a conditional use permit which would allow the modular buildings to continue on site indefinitely with an annual review to address any problems or concerns regarding the operations contained within the modular structures. In July 1985 Vail Associates received approval from the Town Council to continue the seasonal modular building use as well as to add another modular building to accommodate additional day care facilities. The approval contained the following ten conditions: • 1. Approval lasts two years from the date of Council approval with the stipulation that after one year, Vail Associates gives a status report to Council on their plans for redeveloping Golden Peak and how they intend to handle nursery /day care facilities. 2. No night time use of the modular buildings are allowed. A 6:34 PM closing time will be enforced. 3. There shall be a minimum of 103 public parking spaces on the site. 4. A revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town shall be obtained for landscaping and parking. 5. Sufficient staff must be provided by Vail Associates to adequately enforce the parent drop -off area on the eastern end of the parking lot. 6. Vail Metropolitan Recreation District be fully reimbursed for all damages incurred on the tennis courts due to the modular buildings. 7. Paint the modular buildings to become more aesthetic. The Design Review Board should address this issue. 8. The protective covenants, subdivision plat, etc. are all filed and approved. • • 9. Pave the walkway between the parking lot and upper walkway. 10. Remove the modular buildings from the parking lots within two weeks after coming off the tennis courts. All of the conditions with the exception of No. 8 have been complied with. The subdivision plat and protective covenants have not been filed due to the lack of a maintenance agreement regarding the bus turn - around area. There has been confusion regarding the language on the plat as it applies to the bus turn - around and drop -off area. Clarification of this language and filing of the covenants and subdivision plat will be completed as soon as possible. It should be noted that Vail Associates has completed an extensive renovation project to the Golden Peak base facility. This remodel has provided improved facilities for both VA employees and the skiing public. As represented to the Council this summer in an update on the status of the Golden Peak redevelopment project, Vail Associates has no intention in the near future to do a major redevelopment of the site. They feel that there are higher priorities for improvements on the ski mountain itself. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. As stated in last year's memorandum, we feel that children's ski school and day care facilities are important to the community. These facilities provide an invaluable service to our guests with children and allow for a well rounded family resort. It is important that day care and children's ski school facilities continue to be provided for the skiing public. 2. 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. As stated above, the use proposed provides a needed public facility. The modular buildings are in close proximity to the Town of Vail bus stop at Golden Peak. No negative impacts are foreseen on the other criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. -2- Last ski season, Vail Associates converted the parking lot to a public parking lot. This change has proved to be very successful for not only the general parking problem in the Village area, but also as a convenience to the ski school and day care facilities provided within the modular buildings. Families may now park at Golden Peak for their entire ski day and take care of all their skiing needs at the site. The displaced Vail Associates employees have found other parking arrangements including a formal lease agreement for some 30 spaces at Manor Vail. Moreover, the provision of an additional drop -off area on the eastern side of the main parking lot has proved successful as well. These revisions have improved the accessibility and efficiency of the overall Golden Peak facility. Condition No. 5 of last year's approval regarding sufficient staff to enforce the parent drop -off area has proved to be effective and we would wish that, if approved, the staffing would continue. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. It is in this criteria that the Community Development Department finds fault with the proposal. As stated in the June 1985 memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, modular buildings are not up the quality standards of the Town of Vail's development regulations. We feel that the modular buildings were initially innocuous as a temporary (one to two years) solution to Is a problem in the late 1970's when they first appeared. We do not find modular buildings acceptable as a permanent solution due to the negative effect upon the character of the area in which they are located. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. No EIR required. III. FINDINGS The Planning Commission must make the following findings when granting the conditional use: 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. -3- { IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for a conditional use permit to extend indefinitely the existence of the modular buildings during the winter months at the Golden Peak site. As stated above, we find it unfortunate that a facility that is tremendously in demand such as this one, cannot be accommodated in a fashion consistent with the Town of Vail`s high quality standards for all development. Certainly the conditions of approval help to mitigate both the aesthetic and functional problems which the location of the modulars present. Moreover, the tremendous need and use of these facilities is obvious for a World Class resort. If the request is approved, we would recommend the following conditions: 1. No night time use of the modular buildings are allowed. The 6:30 • -4- PM closing time will be enforced. 2. There shall be a minimum of 103 public parking spaces on the site. 3. Sufficient staff shall be provided by Vail Associates to adequately enforce the parent drop -off area on the eastern end of the parking lot. 4. Vail Metropolitan Recreation District shall be fully reimbursed for all damages incurred on the tennis courts due to the modular buildings including bringing them in and taking them out of the area. 5. Town staff and Vail Associates shall work together to insure that the subdivision plat and protective covenants are filed before January 1, 1987. 6. Remove the modular buildings from the parking lots within two weeks after coming off the tennis courts. 7. Vail Associates will submit a comprehensive landscape plan for the site to the Design Review Board. The approved plan shall be implemented by July 15, 1987. 8. The wind screens on the north and east side of the modular buildings shall be installed before November 15 of each year. 9. Vail Associates shall comply with the Fire Department's requirements for an adequate size water tap to accommodate their sprinkler system. • -4- Vail Associates Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek October 23, 1986 Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter, The purpose of this letter is to formally apply for a new conditional use permit for the modular buildings which are used for the children's ski school operation at Golden Peak. Our application is to request a revised permit which would have no time limit but would require annual review of the operations on June lst. The purpose of the annual review would be to afford the neighborhood, the Town of Vail and Vail Associates the opportunity to review and assess the previous winter's operations, and to identify and implement solutions to any problems uncovered during the review. Vail Associates would work with the town staff to further define the specific elements of the annual review process. Attached is a check for the conditional use permit application fee and a completed conditional use permit application. I look forward to working with the staff on this application. Sincerely, AJoMacy Manager Mountain Planning JM /kl Attachments: check application . cc: Larry Lichliter Larry Mullin Nancy Nottingham Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476 -5601 I. M E M O R A N D U M TO. Joe Macy, Manager of Planning FROM: Fancy Nottingham, Manager of Children's Skiing Centers DATE: November 21, 1986 RE: Modular Children's Ski Center at Golden Peak items to be covered in your report to the Vail Town Council should include: • The concept, and usage, of the combined Children's Centers in the Golden Peak modular was excellent. 1 can't stress enough how wonderful it was for children, parents and staff to have the Small World Play School (nursery),3 1/2 - 6 year olds Ski Center, and the 6 1/2 - 12 year olds Ski Center in the same building. • The response to a nursery facility in Vail was overwhelming! (1.) We had a capacity of 10 infants (age 2 months -- 18 months) and 25 toddlers (age 18 months - 6 years) (2.) Of the 145 days during the ski season, we were over 80% filled on 85 days for the infants and 66 days for the toddlers. (3.) We did accommodate 1,100 infants and 2,589 toddlers (total 3,689) during the 1985 -86 season. (4.) These were "new" children/ families to the Vail Valley as the Beaver Creek Nursery increased 11% over its 1984 -85 enrollment. (5.) We had 539 infants and 464 toddlers (total 1,003) on our waiting lists throughout the season. Some of these children were able to enroll in the nur- sery because of cancellations, but you can see that we do desper- ately need additional nursery space. * We also had 19,566 3 1/2 - 12 year olds in our two ski pro- grams at Golden Peak, This was a 6.57 increase over the pre- vious season. The LionsHead Center decreased .8% (20,775 children) during the same period, so some of the increase was from families moving to the Golden Peak facilities because of the nursery. But 1 feel most of the increase was from new families coming to Vail when they called the VRA and were told that "yes" we now had nursery facilities. * The number of children enrolled at the Golden Peak Center rein- forces the educational usage of the modular. In addition to the children's programs the modular was also extensively used for Vail Associates' training classes, aerobic workout programs and instructor certification clinics. . * 1 am attaching copies of a Vail Trail article and letters about the Golden Peak Nursery. 3j through 12. This service has been requested for several years and should be a positive addition to the Children's Center. The Young Locals ski program will also expand at Golden Peak this season. We are adding mid -week, all day lessons to accomodate the new kindergarten program, and 3j - 6 year -olds to our Saturday Locals. The addition of the paid parking lot at Golden Peak for the 1985 -86 season did benefit our program greatly. Many families commented on the convenience of being able to drive to the facility and park for the day without having to then ride a bus. The families with children in the Play School were especially appreciative as they were carrying their children, toys, diaper bags, etc., etc.! I do feel that the Golden Peak modular building has been an extremely satisfactory interim solution to the need for children's facilities and definitely support its continued use. The Small World nursery has been a critical component of the guests' satisfaction with the Golden Peak Children's Center and it is essential that we continue to provide that service. Vail must have a nursery facility if it is going to continue to attract family business away from other resorts such as Keystone and Copper Mountain. Now is the time for Vail Associates and the Town of Vail to work together to provide children's skiing and nursery facilities at Golden Peak. This can be done by extending the permit for the modular, or by coming up with a creative solution to what we can do with the over 23,000 children that will need to use such a facility. . Vail Associates' children's programs have been growing approximately 3% each year. T feel the growth at Golden Peak this season will be even higher. The early season reservation for the Play School (nursery) are far ahead of this time last year, with a higher percentage of "new" families. I am attaching copies of a Vail Trail article and letters about the Golden Peak Play School from last season. • • 0 j1Y ' waex,xa.r<�.,y to ta, t eae• tS in •Vail' the nurse, 'which handles`'• Infants from -two rnonthsjo.,;,, ',toddlers of . three: years, tof someNng, new! .in Vail at,11- apparendy,:sorely needed.;•. '. Parents'are just thrilled ::."' said: -Lucy Osncss; > lead _ director. of .the `nursery 4 "They've been asking Why'': haven't you had this sooners Since Ski School only,,,. accepts children three years ' old or older, until this year.'. parents skiing in Vail had few r choices for their children who 9 i were loo young to ski. They could get a babysitter. I sometimes hard to do Ina t' strange town, they could take i-4 turns skiing, whlle one spouse' skled; the other babysato they could drive to [leaver Creek and use Its nursery or they i could ski somewhere other' than Val1- _ s.►! _ Seeing a real need fora facility to: handle. yottngstersi _ a • "urtdpr3�tfce;,^Vetf' ASSOCIaMs�".i' :ew.'�r •last summer decided'to ask "`. - ttcyOsriess, thio14ddveciorofVal $Assccwos'Smallwori0plaYSchool helpeihYCnUdreti. sll�t¢ nUrrWryy/ �ththyicluljch.7!]6rturielyc..- Ihe townof VaII fDr permission :x Oco to st Golden Peak ienpen daily from 8.30 a.m. to.4 3D p.M-Ior O3 Iklrere up,1%htee,years to put a modular unit at „ :• �.,;. Y :. �. 4. Golden Peak that would -house along with 25 toddlers ttp to music Ines.lnthemorning, ` r?` g (r a' nursery" The council, g ktiv : -a slei h ride _ "I know there Is areal need appproved .and ':the nutscry,,;:;thrce years old, the 2 -1/2 to 3- year -olds are The children also receive for this Program," she said, hrlty' equipped;'and staffed, It. opens at 8:40 a.m. and _ "gently" Iniroduted to sklinR. .- snacks and lunch; cots are adding that she has received :opened at the' start "oF - the° closesatA3Dp�m;CostIs$28a `. many -compliments from day. "'We show their and explain .',,Available fof naps. parents on the calibre of tho 1985-M ski season:" v The ratio of , children 'to to mess said the toddlers' ski boots and skis and then ' Osne'ss sald'the nursery is facility. adultslsAtolanchildrur'to day is geared toward a pre- .after lunch we go oitt for an full to capacity everyday with a [�. can accommodate 10 Infants school program where the lwurand try them on ;'Osness ;Halting Ilst of five to 14 "Ithinkwetl need toexpand from two months to 17 months children participate in an and Said "Then everyone goes for' children;', next year," she Sald, y� R E j i �•, 9r._s� Y'art ottlw pia lCfr ogFem jp "g !y rnurntivcritg the children -lo skiing 4 he helps Oohnar • (Left) Emilie Margie olo�ee nursery, Katie up the "•_ ''' - y�walkwayto the lop oft�laope, fALOve) Alfenkiing , the children are given a; Golden Peak ilding Is in f.: • 'R •' • r'�+ C�Elelph ride. A rep hack the nu usually order after' - a•,�, y. Rhefresh mou main air xerciae. lRight )NurseryemployeeAmyDoylepute btanket over Hold l Hl Inver whi4 the other children slaw Photos by Mike Rawlings E j i Ad, MoRT AWMAMON 241 E. Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 July 21, 1986 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Town Council: The need for a drop --in child care facility in Vail is an essential service to our winter guests. When the child care program for ages two months to six years opened at Gold Peak for the 1985/86 ski season, the demand for it excelled the space available. In the past, when this service was not available, people changed their destination ski vacation to other ski areas who happily pro- vided child care programs for these ages. We promote Vail as a family ski area and encourage people to come here without their cars. How can we not provide convenient child care for our guests? Sincerely, 'V Wendy M. Gustafson Vail Information Booth WG /lc CENTRAL RESERVATIONS • (303) 476 -5677 MARKETING /CHAMBER SERVICES • (303) 476 -1000 • Denver Line 595 -9488 �xdoit z 2 ee- d7z- Vo Z-e— )Ye-- --4-,A- jo e--C- c,-1<)L Le- 71,:Z .s�aa AJO 7— k1A 62— A-X GAL �C kvc c ✓cam ct, u'� LL�� i a7 r�L 437 &-dar Cake Road -,44ilifteapolis, 114iiatesola 55405 An K ��, � 4 AtIm"Oth. Mark Resort 715 Lionshead Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-4444 Of LL c1t AL Of LL IIn'j �)'�., ,r..l ,'l VIII :'Id 5c.I1 "I'1 !cck- March 13, 1986 Bear Mrs. Fox, Thank you for taking the time to write to Vail Associates about the need for additional nursery space. I can certainly understand your frustration in being unable to get space at the Golden Peak Center. We are currently trying to lease space in the LionsHead area for next season, and hope to have our own new center for the '87 -'88 season. Because of the Colorado child care laws it is difficult to find commercial space that would meet their requirements. We are building a new center at Beaver Creek for next season. The ski school secretary can make reservations, at either center, for next season during the summer. The phone number is 1- 303 -476 -3239. We will also be taking reservations at Golden Peak after Thanksgiving. (Golden Peak number is 1- 303 - 476 - 1088). NN /fh • Sincerely, Nancy Nottingham Administrative Manager Children's Skiing Centers • • Planning and Environmental Commission December 8, 1986 2:15 PM Site Inspections 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of November 24, 1986 2. Consideration of a request for a minor amendment to the Hong Kong Cafe development plans for the location of the alley gate Applicant: The American Ski Exchange /Hong Kong Cafe 3. Appeal of staff decision concerning the interpretation of street level at the Sitzmark Lodge Applicant: Bob Fritch 4. Preliminary review of exterior alteration proposals for the following buildings: a. Clock Tower b. Casino Building C. Plaza Lodge d. Bell Tower e. Lionshead Center f. Sitzmark g. Hong Kong Cafe Uj PRESENT Diana Donovan Byran Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 12/8/86 STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of November 24 1986. A correction was made on item #3. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes with the correction. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 2. Consideration of a request for a minor amendment to the Hon development plans for the location of the alley gate. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe /The American Ski Exchange Tom Braun explained the request. Byran Hobbs moved and Vi.ele seconded to grant the request as long as the Hong Kong restaurant agreed with the request. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 3. Appeal of a staff decision concerning the interpretation of street level_ at the Sitzmark Lodge. Applicant: Bob_Fritch Duane Piper moved to the audience and Jim Viele chaired this item. Peter Patten explained that the Sitzmark wanted to expand an existing office space which the staff believes is a nonconforming use because the space is on the first or street level. He pointed out that there were many situations similar to the one at Sitzmark, such as the Plaza Lodge shops, the east side of the Bell Tower Building and the Fountain Cafe in the Creekside Building. The applicant is appealing the interpretation of street level and feel the office is on the second level. Duane Piper, representing the applicant, felt this was more a consideration of degree. He felt that many of the examples shown to be similar were less extreme than that of the Sitzmark, the greatest difference in grade being 4' as opposed to the 8 feet at the Sitzmark. He added that if this was first floor, then there must be a basement. Piper stated that there needed to be a more definitive explanation in the zoning code, for the street was well below the street level. Sid Schultz said that it was difficult to look at the zoning code and try to apply floor 'levels as therein described. He felt that street levels could be a at a number of different levels in different places, but that the intent of the code was to have retail shops near the pedestrians. With the design of the berm, the intent at the Sitzmark was to get people off of the street. If the berm were removed, and shops placed at berm level, he would see it as street level. Diana Donovan agreed with the staff memo. Byran Hobbs abstained. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she would like to see the code clarified, that technically, if one has to walk up S steps, it would be 2nd level, but she felt that the intent of the code was to interpret this as first level. She repeated that she would like to see a rewording of the definition. Jim Viele agreed that the definition needed to be cleaned up, but in the meantime would go along with the staff interpretation. Diana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to uphold the staff interpretation. The vote was 4 to uphold the staff decision with 2 abstentions. 4. Preliminary review of exterior alteration proposals for the following buildings: BUILDING LENGTH OF STUDY PERIOD a. Clock Tower 60 days b. Casino Building 60 days C. Plaza Lodge 90 days d. Bell Tower 90 days e. Lionshead Center 90 days f. Sitzmark Lodge 90 days PEC 12/8/86 -2- TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to amend a previously approved development plan for Hong Kong Cafe APPLICANT: Hong Kong Cafe /American Ski Exchange I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST One condition placed by the Planning Commission on the approval of the Hong Kong Cafe redevelopment plans was the addition of a gate to screen the 6 foot wide alley created between the new Hong Kong building and the Wall Street Arcade. The gate was seen as an opportunity to improve both the aesthetics and safety /security of this area. Prohibiting access into the alley would prevent this area from becoming a late night gathering spot, and the fence would screen the alley from pedestrians as well. At this time, the gate has been installed as required by the Planning Commission. II. REQUEST FOR RELOCATION A new business (The American Ski Exchange) has been established in the space formerly occupied by the Hong Kong Cafe kitchen and dining areas. The primary use in this location by the Ski Exchange is ski locker storage. The owners of the Ski Exchange are desirous of utilizing the exterior stair well to this space that is accessed through the alley. The present location of the gate effectively eliminates the use of this stairwell. The Ski Exchange has proposed relocating the fence so as to allow for access to the stairwell leading to their basement space. A site visit will be made on Monday to allow the Planning Commission to view the proposed relocation of this fence. Because the condition requiring the gate was made by the PEC, the staff felt that review and approval by the Planning Commission was necessary before the re- location of the gate could be pursued. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1986 SUBJECT: Appeal of staff decision concerning the interpretation of street or first level at the Sitzmark Lodge. APPLICANT: Bob Fritch The owners of the Sitzmark Lodge have submitted an exterior alteration request which includes: 1. Add three lodge rooms, averaging approximately 450 square feet each, for a total area of 1364 square feet. 2. Expand 6 existing lodge rooms from a current size of 350 square feet to an average of 445 square feet each. The total expansion would be 576 additional square feet in area. 3. Expand an existing office space on the second floor to 725 square feet. _ This is an addition of 200 square feet. The applicant is appealing the staff decision that the office space on the west end of the Sitzmark Lodge is on the first floor as opposed to the second floor. • Staff believes that the office space is a nonconforming use, as offices are not allowed on the first floor under Commercial Core I zoning. For this reason, the office space may not be expanded as proposed. The owner contends that the office space is second level as "evidenced by the fact that the floor is 8 feet above the adjacent street" and therefore may be expanded. Please see the enclosed section of the zoning code on nonconforming uses and design drawings. STAFF INTERPRETATION In the zoning code, a first floor is defined as "that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level." (Section 18.24.030) The second floor is defined as "the second floor above grade within a structure." The existing office is clearly at grade. It is true that the street and grade adjacent to the building differ approximately by 8 feet. However, the definition states that first floor is located at grade or street level. There is no floor between the existing grade and the office space to allow this location to be designated as a second floor space. Situations similar to the Sitzmark exist throughout the Village which require pedestrians to walk up several stairs to reach the entrance to a shop. Examples of similar situations include the Plaza Lodge shops, Mill Creek Court Building on the south side, the Covered Bridge Store, the east side of the Bell Tower Building adjacent to the Children's Fountain, and the Fountain Cafe in the Creekside Building. If the Sitzmark office space is considered to be on the second floor, then the other properties cited would also have the potential to 0 convert similar spaces to office use. Staff feels that to interpret the Sitzmark space as second floor would be a misinterpretation of the code's definition that first floor space is "that floor of the building located at grade or street level." In addition the location does not meet the definition of second level space, as it is not on the "second floor above grade within a structure." The space is clearly on the first level at grade. For these reasons, staff recommends that our interpretation be upheld. r1 LJ • • LJ 0 d r �r a M Tl-� n O i Q 1 U 1 , g d 4 rl U t� H 1 L7 �1 L_J x y C7 NO NCONFORMING SITF,S, USES. STRUCTUItI';S their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, Ind their restormtion ,iftcr substantial destruction. ��hile perinitliat� 11011C011lormilig uses. structures. and improvement,; tv COHI I.R!, this chapter is intended to Ina enlargemcrrt, "ItOdtiol), restoration, or replacement which Would increase; the (liscrospan y hetwecn existing, conditions and the developrlleill 'tand,Ards prescrM by this title. MI -d, H(1O 7 3) § M.10t }. ) K61020 Continuance. Nonconl'ornlit,, sites, USCS, Structures, and Site improvements lawndly estabiishecl prior to the cfftctivc date o #' the ordinance codified in this title may continue, subject to the linlilations prescribed ill this chapter. Sites, uses. Structures. alul 40 ;ite IlnprO nlents lawtillly authorized by perrntts or rugulations existing prior to the effective (late of the ordinance c(�dific(I ill this title may continue. subject to such limitations as prescWntl I)'/ such permits or regulations, (Ord. 8(197,3) � 20.200.1 1864030 Sites. `sites lawfully L tahhwwl purstlarlt to rC ,nl,ltions prior to [lie ttlectll'c. date of tll(? ordinance Codriied in [hi" title whi('h do not conform to the nlinirllum lot area and ditnellsioll requirements prescribed h� this title for the district in Which they are situated may he continued ,P)d shall be dccme(I legally established building sites, vul,ject to the site (lcvcic�)nlenl standards prescrihal by this title. No such silc ,hall be further rceluced in area or dimensions, fOrc1. W 1973) ` '1300.1 e 1 8,64.040 Uses. the HSe Of ;l Site OY titrntturt' I;rWlllllV C'StahllshC(i 1111(11' to the effective clot( oi' the cirLlinance cuiliiied ill this title which 11OeS tlOt COntOr111 tO [Ile HsC r�.'�Lil:lllOilS prc,SCribed b1' thk [ill,, for the district in Miie:ll it is siivate'd rna�' he C,11ltrlltc(1, pro\'idCd that no such uonc(lnhglllirl,!: use .11,111 he etll,lr `( (i t,) occupy a _(curer ,ile area lC)r huildin -', door arcs thatl It ,fittlpwd mI the iHk!ctiv(' &0'. i)l Ills !)rd in lllce tO(lihvd III this 'r. A Ill Sllf)tiL` Cill111 IrI 111 1` k iv.,Iv1; :tiy W NONCONFORMING SITES, USES, STRUCTURES J Q5 (64, Xoccupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. ((Ord. 8 1973) ti 20.400.) 18.64.050 Structures and site improvement. Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations. A. Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged, provided that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards: and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards apphcahle to the addition. B. Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged s tructure clues not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. C. Structures or site improvements which do riot conform to requirements I01- ustahle oplen space or landscaping and site +lcvclopmcnt may be :nlarged. provided that the useable open space requircmcnts ,ipplicable to such addition shall be folly sat1s1i+•d.:I11d provided that the nerccntal_,e of the total site +vhit-h k landscap:d shall 110t lie reduced belOW the 111itlillIM11 li`quircment. D. Smictlllk'i of llt 117]p1C(WC111CIIL5 whl'll do not col'i[ornl to thr otl 1.11 1 1):1rl:i11L told 1()adi1W rcduirernents of this title pitwiticd tl :;ll the parkitig mill loading .nfililiurl :;hall he fully satistled and thecxistingoff-street parking 1t S �11�p I+' �landar.s piescrlb,'d by Ehis 18 5 Nall 1 -5-421 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 22, 1986 2:15 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of December 8. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to replace a dwelling unit with commercial space in the Clock Tower. Applicant: Margarethe Christy 3. A request for a minor subdivision and rezoning of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing to create 3 parcels, two Single Family and one Primary /Secondary. Applicant: Michael Tennebaum 4. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6 in order to re- establish approval for Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn for a period of 18 months. Applicant: Vail Village Inn, Inc. 5. Request for a minor subdivision in order to resubdivide Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing to allow access to Lot 1. Applicants: John and Patricia Slevin, Roger and Nancy Anderson 6. Request for a minor subdivision and for zoning of Parcel A of Tract D, Vail das Schone, Filing No. 1 Wend Group Partnership 7. Request for a minor amendment to Special Development District #44, Cascade Village, to expand an existing restaurant in the Colorado Mountain College building in Area A. Applicant: Andy Norris 8. Request to apply previous Town of Vail zoning to the following re- annexed areas: Vail Heights Filing No. 1, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1 and Filing No. 2, Vail Ridge, an uplatted parcel between Vail Heights and Vail das Schone Filings 1 and 2, recorded in Book 281, Page 350. Applicant: Town of Vail i s U I Planning and Environmental Commission December 22, 1986 PRESENT Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins Duane Piper The meeting was called to order by Jim Viele. STAFF PRESENT Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack 1. Approval of minutes of December 8. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to replace a dwellin unit with commercial space in the Clock Tower building Applicant: Marqarethe Christy Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal, outlining the criteria to be utilized in the review of the request. Staff supported the removal of the dwelling unit because the space has been commercial for 10 years and there were no • identifiable negative impacts from the proposal. Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the request. The vote was 5-0-in Favor. 3. A re uest for a minor subdivision and rezoning of Lots 14 and 17 Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing c and one Primary/Secondary zonin Applicant: Michael Tennebaum ate 3 parcels, two Single Family zonin Rick Pylman explained the subdivision request and explained that the staff supported the proposal with conditions. Pylman explained several issues related to the request that the staff felt needed clarification. One was that the amount of density must not be increased. The staff requested that the total GRFA for the three lots be limited to 8,768 square feet so that the minimum standards of GRFA related to site area are met. A second issue was that of parking for the proposed Parcel C. Currently a single family unit located on Lot 14 uses parking spaces on what was proposed to be Parcel B. The staff requested that a legal instrument be created to allow the parking for Parcel C to remain on Parcel B until such time as adequate parking is available on Parcel C. The third issue was that all the lots must meet the minimum site requirements of buildable area, and the fourth was that approval must be contingent upon final zoning approval being granted by the Town Council. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that he had an agreement that all three lots did meet the minimum lot size and will draw up an agreement that stated that Parking for Parcel B would be available on Parcel C until two more spaces are added to A Parcel C. _Bryan Hobbs moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the request for a minor subdivision with the four conditions listed in the staff memo dated December 22, 1986. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Bryan Hobbs moved and Diana Donovan seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council of the rezoning per the staff memo with the map dated 12/22_/8.6_. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 4. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6 in order to re- establish approval for Phase IV of the _Vail Village Inn for a period of 18 months. Applicant: Vail Village Inn, Inc. Tom Braun explained that the action taken by the PEC would be advisory and final decision would be made by the Town Council. The staff supported the request and recommended extension of the approval for 18 months. Diana wondered if any changes had been contemplated. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant planned to look at including the service station in the plan. Bryan Hobbs moved and Pe Osterfoss seconded to recommend approval of the request to the Town Council. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 5. A request for a minor subdivision in order to resubdivide Lots 1 and 2 Block 3 Vail Valley First Filing to allow access to Lot 1. Applicants: John and Patricia Slevin and Roger and Nancy Anderson 40 Betsy Rosolack explained that this was merely a housekeeping request, because the lots were being used at present as requested on the plat. The owners had exchanged quit claim deeds in 1973 to allow this to happen, but had never formally filed a plat. Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minor subdivision. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 6. A request for a minor subdivision and for zoning of Parcel A of _Tract Dz_ Vail das Schone, Filing No. 1. Applicant: Wend Group Partnership Rick Pylman explained that the applicant was requesting to subdivide 1.247 acres from Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing #1. This area is east of and adjacent to the West Vail Texaco service station. Tract D currently contains a total of 4.88 acres and is zoned Primary /Secondary. Through the Land Use Plan, the parcel was shown as having two different potential uses, the upper bench being designated as Medium Density Residential and the lower parcel (the one in question) being designated as Community Commercial. The applicant is requesting to zone the lower parcel Commercial Core III which is the zoning for the commercial area east of the Phillips service station. Byran Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the request for a minor _ subdivision per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Bryan Hobbs moved and Diana Donovan seconded to recommend approval of the proposed zoning to the Town Council per the staff memo. The vote was 5-0 in favor. pec 12/22/86 -2- ► -r 7. A re uest for a minor amendment to Special Cascade Village, to expand an existing res . Mountain College Building in Area A. Applicant: Andy Norris Development District aurant in the Colora Kristan Pritz explained that the applicant wanted to expand the restaurant which was formerly known as Compass Rose and was now to be called C1ancy's. She gave detailed information concerning square footage and stated that the additional commercial square footage would have to be subtracted from the total allowed for the special development district. Andy Norris, the applicant, stated that the upstairs would be offices for the Cascade Club, and was formerly a bar for the Compass Rose restaurant. Diana Donovan moved and Peg.a Osterfoss seconded to approve the re uest. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 8. A request to apply revious Town of Vail. zoning to the followin re- annexed areas: Vail Hei hts Filing o. 1 Vail das 5chone Filing No. 1 and Filin No. 2 Vail Rid e an un latted arcel between Vail Hei hts and Vail das Schone Filings 1 and 2 recorded in Book 281 Pa e 350. Applicant: Town _of Vail Tom Braun showed a map with the proposed zoning on it. He explained that two parcels would be exempted from the zoning. They were a new parcel immediately . Section 14 which is an west of the West Vail Texaco service station and Lot 21, unplatted parcel located west of the developed area of West Vail north of 1 -70. There is an agreement between the Town of Vail and Mr. Albrecht who owns the latter parcel which allows the Town 180 days to apply zoning on this parcel rather than the usual 90 days. The Land Use Plan recommended Hillside Residential zoning for that parcel and the staff is now in the process of developing criteria for this zone district. �re ana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to recommend a roval of the ues ted zonin �jo Town Council er the staff memo dated 12/22/85. The vote s 5 -0 in favo The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM. 0 pec 12/22/85 -3- r: 10 I IR TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District #4, Cascade Village APPLICANT: Andy Norris I. THE REQUEST Andy Norris is requesting to amend Special Development District #4 in order to add additional restaurant space to the restaurant in the Colorado Mountain College building. The restaurant, originally called Compass Rose, is being renamed Clancy's. The total addition is 472 square feet. A portion of the addition expands onto the existing deck in front of the restaurant. Approximately 16 to 20 seats will be maintained on the patio after the addition is constructed. The second level Compass Rose bar is being converted to office space for the CMC staff. Clancy's will not utilize this space for a bar. The restaurant space on the second floor is 720 square feet. The stairway up into the restaurant will be removed and closed off. The office space will gain some square footage due to the removal of the stairway and will have a total of 828 square feet. In respect to parking, the new restaurant space will require 7 parking spaces. The second floor restaurant and bar required 6 spaces, of which 4 must now be allocated to cover the new office space. This results in a net deficit of 5 spaces for the new restaurant expansion. Compass Rose bar, second floor: New CMC office space, second floor: New restaurant expansion for Clancy's: Sq Footage Parking 723 sq ft = 6 spaces 828 sq ft = 4 spaces 2 spaces remaining 472 sq ft or 50 seats 4 spaces /bldg code standards or 7 spaces /restaurant seats* *The Town of Vail code requires "one space per each restaurant seat based on seating capacity or building occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive." In this situation, 7 spaces will be required, as this is the more restrictive requirement. The Clancy's addition will require 5 more parking spaces due to the 2 extra spaces that remain from the original restaurant (Compass Rose). Cascade Village has a basic guide for the development of each specific . building. When additional commercial square footage is added to the project, the area must be taken out of the entire build -out square footage for the project so that the parking and total square footage allocations comply with the Special Development District. The final commercial square footage for Cascade Village is 37,000 square feet. At this time the commercial square footage is approximately 10,220 square feet plus square footage for the Westin's Alfredo's and Cafe restaurants. Andy Norris is proposing amendments to the Special Development District which may affect parking. Staff prefers to address the parking situation at that time. Andy Norris will be at the meeting to explain the overall plan for the development of Cascade Village now that the chair lift has been approved. If, for some reason, the plan is not amended by the developer, then the additional square footage of 472 sq ft will be deducted from the total allowable commercial square footage of 37,000 square feet. I� 10 II. STAFF REC0MMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request. It is felt that the restaurant addition will provide a much more visible facade for the restaurant, while at the same time maintaining a usable outdoor dining deck. * At the time building permit drawings are submitted to the Community Development Department, the staff will measure the square footage for the entire restaurant to confirm the exact total square footage for Clancy's. iT -em P&" 67 ��6 w Ell i0ii a a 'M 4 9i'Tt11 ;�F. wY • y�rr r K' r .� -rte .•� ' i � h� �+�' K{ �: II i y 7 ..L,, it'ji3tF i- � l e D. �G 1 � }y 4 4 �`4 'sp'GC.�'%F'.«4;.• fiON �2Y Cr t� X � +i Y _ yam,, c y � ahr t r _ t •} ! ��; t i t Fh p: X �. Y � � t M� Y Y' �•'f':�.: I g S 4 g At ,Lcri #E rlL 10 -71 I '7�� cs - Z-1 Fl\X Zlz Ll 4z TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to extend an approval of SDD #6 (Vail Village Inn) for a period of 18 months. APPLICANT: Joe Staufer SDD zoning requests are approved with certain time limitations as prescribed in the zoning code. If construction is not commenced within 18 months of final approval of an SDD, the approval may be revoked or amended by the Town Council. Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn received their final approval from the Town Council on March 5, 1985. The applicant has requested review by the Planning Commission in order to formally extend this approval for another 18 month period. Review by the PEC is advisory and final decisions concerning this request will be made by the Town Council. BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL The redevelopment of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn involves the demolition of an existing structure that presently accommodates the Vail Village Inn hotel, the Village Inn Pancake House, and the Food and Deli. The approved structure has 175 accommodation units, approximately 16,000 square feet of retail space, and 324 underground parking spaces. The proposal also involved off -site improvements by providing space for the Colorado Ski Museum in a portion of the new structure on East Meadow Drive. The developer also agreed to fund the demolition of the existing ski museum building and landscaping of the site. These and other specifics concerning this development plan are outlined in the attached ordinance. The plans of the proposed project will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting for the benefit of those commissioners who were not on the board during the original review process in 1985. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports this request and would recommend that the Planning Commission pass along a recommendation to extend this approval for a period of IB months. The applicant has presented the identical plan that was previously approved. As a part of the Vail Village master planning process, the staff has recommended that this site be developed in general compliance with the previously approved SDD. There was a lengthy and extensive review process involved in this project prior to its original approval in 1985. The staff has seen no change in this area that would suggest a need for amending or revoking this approval. ORDINANCE NO. 1 (Series of 1985) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES OF 1976 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; AMENDING THE PURPOSE SECTION OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; ELIMINATING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; CHANGING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOWABLE USES FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE ,.DEN-SITY AND MODIFYING THE BUILDING BULK STANDARDS FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; PROVIDING DIFFERENT PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. FOR PHASE IV OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL of the Town of Vail as follows: Section 1. Legislative Intent. A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the unified and coordinated development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was situated. B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that tic-. Town Council reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the Zcning Code of the Town of Vail. C. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IV and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. D... The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the changes submitted by the applicant and has unanimously recommended that Special Development District No, 6 be so amended. E. The Town Council considers that the amendments provide an even more itnifiA,i anti mnra oleasina development of a critical site within ( t f 4w amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. Ordinarily, a Special Development District will be created only when the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zonirg. Section 18.50.040 Development Plan -- Contents is hereby amended to read as follows: The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II and III, and as supplemented by the exhibits of the development plan and the enviromental impact report as prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, and as given final . approval through passage of second reading of this ordinance by the Town Council on February 19, 1985 for Phase IV. Section 3. Section 18.50.040 E is hereby amended to read as follows: E. For Phases I, II, and III, a volumetric model as amended by consultants Royston, Hanamoto; Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 of the site and proposed development documented by photographs at a scale of 1 inch equals 16 feet ':X larger, portraying the scale and relationship of those phases of the development to the site and illustrating the form and mass of structures in said phases of the development. For Phase IV, a volumetric module as amended by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect of the site and the proposed development at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet, portraying the scale and relationship of the development on Phase IV to the site and illustrating the form of mass of structures in said phase. Section 4. Section 18.50.050 Permitted Uses in SDD6 is hereby repealed and . re- enacted with amendments to read as foll -ows -: 18.50.050 Permitted Ekes. The Permitted Uses in Phases I, II, III and IV of Special Development District 6 shall be in accordance with the approved development plans on file -3 -: - A. A popcorn outside vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. Except, no office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the Plaza level of Phase IV. Section 6. Section 18.50.110 Distance Between Buildings is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.50.100 Distance Between Buildings For Phases I, II, and III the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan but in no case shall be less that 50 feet. For Phase IV, the minimum distance between buildings an adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. Section 7. Section 18.50.120 Height is hereby amended to read as follows: A. For Phases I, II, and III the allowable heights shall be as found on the development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated 3/12/76. B. For Phase IV, the maximum building height shall be as set forth in the approved I development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. Section 8. Section 18.50.130 Density is hereby amended to read as follows: The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of all districts in the Special Development District shall not exceed 120,600 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 175 accommodation unites and 72,400 square feet of GRFA devoted to accomdation units in Phase IV of Special Development District 6. Section 9. Section 18.50.130 Building Bulk is hereby amended to read as follows: . 18 50.130 Building Bulk Building bulk, maximum wall lenghts, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases I, II and III shall be indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1975. For Phase IV, building bulk, • 0 -4- Section 10. Section 18.50.180 Parking and Loading is hereby repealed and re- enacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.50.180 Parking and Loading There shall be no less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet parking spaces as are existing and as provided on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect. Section 11. Conditions of approval for the development plan of Phase IV of SDD6 as submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, shall be as follows: 1. That the developers and /or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the inter- section of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed. 2. That the developers and /or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstrate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phase IV to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site if and when it is developed. 3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department kor ra- configuration of the pull -off area from the frontage road to the entrance to the hotel. 4. The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum and the developers come to agreement on terms for the relocation of the museum in Phase IV of "he Vail Village Inn prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the event that the Ski Museum would vacate its space in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn, the Town of Vail shall be given exclusive rights to assume the Ski Museum's lease of this space. It shall be understood that in the event the Town of Vail does assume the use of this space, all uses in the space shall be public purpose in nature. :7 t 6. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit relating to Phase IV of SDD 6 shall be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is provided the Town of Vail staff that construction financing for the improvements to be constructed as a part of Phase IV has been obtained. Section 12. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses 0 or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 14. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any righ'c which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or re- pealed and reenacr�ea. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless ex- pressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 5th day of February, 1985, • and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th day of February, 1985, at 7:30 p. m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 5t:: uuy o Dcivar'y, 1985. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Cl k INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL This 19th day of Febraury, 1985. I T ST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, To on Clerk C7 `fir i "x. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor r� U • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision in order to resubdivide Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing to allow access to Lot 1. APPLICANTS: John and Patricia Slevin and Roger and Nancy Anderson I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST Each of these lots contains a residence at present. In 1973 the owners of each of the lots exchanged quit claim deeds which divided the property as it is shown on the plat. At that time, no plat was filed. The purpose of the resubdivision was to allow the residents of Lot 1 access to their property along the north side of Lot 2 rather than along the south side of Lot 2 because access along the south side of Lot 2 is very steep. The residents of Lot 1 are presently using a driveway where the access easement is shown on the plat. The request at present is to put onto a plat that which was done by quit claim deed in 1973 and which is, in fact, the way the two properties are being used at present. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations reads: 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 recommendation made 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request for a minor subdivision. The requested division and use of property is presently existing, complies with the intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations, and it is compatible with surrounding land uses. r. rm r,,• ATY kr�F laai�i- k4{�Fy +�,p1♦�- /-� 1 "T'4 �y�_ Orr.. "DIY Yl .. r r ': i F'�K'`,'�y'1j,M - ! •l a #�i" t, V _ fk �+t+�F ' in 4V��13\5 s F 9 C !' _ 1 _ i i%i �, l ' + `` �- -�. cm .;� � r � y..l N �}t.�4�k'� � Et'en,u �A ? �.� "�; • � G7 � � } � �� t K�f: � v� *�'�{ Z C) _ t?�P 4 to - C) M . to m 1` �� p ;° y ,i� y_ ~�„ M{S3'f�� -'�r. f k P <Z - a`' h,_._ tS." dc-: L qtr cc�` Z ._ ,.y ��ii v Ing ..ps s 4.i ` 'yk,��t� '�RL SL' s.. t MLL _ 4 e Ulm 3:m Z #5'.Y�ti4 %t !4 5s 7 A��t•�oO 1��/ s'. 5 cn! }mss_ - s N _ N = V L ! .•.r � f tai ;F le .0 ago "at-"SY'� ss Jer'2 .,:i ��,5 -.tiZ t Yom` u y P•.. 0� �,/ C - s t a .•,�,,..�.��. -,. y:�� Sib � , .�� ,� - .. 5. _ ..��. - -- - - -_ -. _ . �.. Q r t0 1 co W ` ci; Y p 5 y d s< In m W I; P' W w /3 IN sk how 0.0, 88 , a 1z b � � .rte a a � �. 1. m NN OOm .. W a Nkw t �.A_0w s TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to replace a dwelling unit with commercial space in the Clock Tower. APPLICANT: Margarethe Christy I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED US The applicant has requested a conditional use in order to place a beauty shop in the "clock tower" of the Clock Tower Building. The "clock tower" itself consists of floors 2, 3, 4, and 5 and contains approx- imately 1078 square feet. The Clock Tower building was constructed in 1966 with residential use designated for the tower and all but the first floor of the rest of the building which contains the restaurant. About 10 years later the Tower was changed to commercial use, although the kitchen was never removed. The presence of a kitchen is a key factor because it then constitutes a residential unit. There are no records in the Town files to indicate that the change went through the conditional use process. There are, however, records to show that other areas of the Clock Tower building were changed from residential to commercial through the conditional use process. About two years ago, Trout Creek . Architects lived in the Clock Tower as well as had their offices there, thus there was one more change to combined residential and commercial uses. There was no nofification to the Town of this change. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.24.070, Conditional Uses Within Commercial Core I District, the following development factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I The change of use would have little effect upon vehicular traffic because parking in the Village is accommodated in the Vail TRC. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I The change of use would not reduce vehicular traffic. C. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking. The change of use would reduce off - street parking by 0.6 spaces. The total square footage is 1,078 square feet. In order to calculate parking requirements, it is assumed that the total area of 1,078 square feet is divided equally between commercial use and residential use. • • 1,078/2 = 539 sq ft each of residential and commercial use 539/250 = 2.1 spaces required for commercial uses 539 sq ft = 2.0 spaces required for residential uses 4.1 total spaces required at present 1078 / 300 = 3.5 spaces, change of use to personal service 0.6 spaces reduction from change of use D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles. The nearest loading zones are adjacent to the Plaza Lodge and Mill Creek Court Building and deliveries of supplies to the beauty salon will have to be made through the front door. In researching deliveries to other beauty shops, it was found that delivery of supplies can range from two per week to two per month. We feel that this is a very minimal effect upon delivery. E. Development of public spaces for use by edestrians. Not applicable. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public_ uses in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existing character of the area. One development objective of the Vail Village Master Plan (not yet adopted) is to continue the mix of residential and commercial uses in the Village core. In most cases, we would be concerned about changing the residential use to commercial use, especially since much of the rest of the second floor of the Clock Tower has been changed from residential to commerical. However, in light of the fact that the tower has been used commercially for the past eight out of ten years, and then used as a combination of commercial and residential uses for the past two years, the request is not really for a complete change of use. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape des i n in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existing_ character of the area. Not applicable. III. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: • That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the request for the conditional use. We find little or no negative impacts resulting from the location of the beauty shop in the Clock Tower. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision in order to subdivide a 1.247 acre parcel from Tract D, commonly known as the Hud Wirth property adjacent to the West Vail Texaco service station. APPLICANT: Wend Group Partnership I. THE REQUEST The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, is requesting to subdivide 1.247 acres from Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing #1. Tract D as it currently exists contains a total of 4.88 acres and is zoned Primary /Secondary. Through the Land Use Plan, this parcel was shown as having two different potential uses. The upper bench of the property was designated through the Land Use Plan as a Medium Density residential category. The lower parcel along the Frontage Road was identified as Community Commercial designation. The proposed minor subdivision reflects the areas as designated on the Land Use Plan. The requested subdivision, described as Parcel A, is the parcel designated on the Land Use Plan for potential commercial uses. This parcel is east of and adjacent to and approximately the same size as the West Vail Texaco is service station. Section 17.16.110 of the subdivision regulations states the following PEC review criteria: 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 AEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendation made 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. Legally, subdivision regulation is limited to a review of the technical and specific elements of the subdivision code itself. This includes a review of access, minimum lot size, minimum frontage, road grades, physical buildability of the land itself (slope, geological hazards, vegetation, etc.). The applicant is concurrently requesting that this parcel be zoned Commercial Core III. Although this zoning will be addressed in a separate memo, the proposed Parcel A of this subdivision does meet the legal and technical requirements for the subdivision and for the site standards specified in the Commercial Core III zone district. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this subdivision request. The application does meet the technical requirements as specified through the Town of Vail subdivision regulations and also is a step toward implementation of a use that is designated within the Land Use Plan. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for zoning of a 1.247 acre parcel previously designated as Primary /Secondary residential to Commercial Core III. APPLICANT: The Wend Group partnership I. THE REQUEST This application is being submitted concurrently with a minor subdivision request on Tract D, Block B, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. The minor subdivision request, if approved, will create a property that is now known as Parcel A, a 1.247 acre just west of the existing West Vail Texaco service station. The entire tract D, a total of 4.88 acres, is currently zoned Primary /Secondary. The recently completed and adopted Land Use Plan designates the area shown as Parcel A on the subdivision plat as having a potential for commercial development. The two gas stations adjacent to this property are currently zoned Heavy Service District and the property along the Frontage Road from the 7 -11 store to Safeway is zoned Commercial Core III. The applicant feels that this parcel is a logical extension of that commercial use. . It is our understanding that the applicant's desire is to develop a fast food restaurant on this parcel. A restaurant would be a permitted use within the Commercial Core III zone district. The process for developing a restaurant on this parcel should the Commercial Core III zoning be granted would involve submittal to and approval from the Design Review Board, a staff review to insure compliance with zoning regulations, and the issuance of a building permit by the Community Development Department. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Suitability of _Existing Zoning The existing zoning on the entire Tract D parcel is currently Primary /Secondary. This parcel is located between commercial property to the south and low to medium density residential properties to the north. The recently completed Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies two distinct separate uses for this parcel. The area shown as Parcel A on the proposed minor subdivision is designated through the Land Use Plan for Community Commercial zoning. The area shown as Parcel B on the subdivision which is the upper bench closer to the residential neighborhood and separated somewhat by grade from the existing commercial zoning is designated as Medium Density Residential area. We feel that this property would be difficult to properly develop at its present zoning. We feel that the designation of these parcels within the Land Use Plan is correct. M 0 B. Is the amendment presenting a_ within land uses consistent w'. • venient workable relationshi municipal objectives? The proposed subdivision and zoning present a convenient workable relationship between land uses and are consistent with municipal objectives. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan, it presents a piece of commercial property adjacent to the gas station which is zoned Heavy Use and is in line with the rest of the Commercial Core III property which buffers I -70 from the residential uses located to the north. C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? Throughout the Land Use process there was much discussion from residents of the community given to the need for local, community commercial uses. The designation of this area as Community Commercial in the Land Use Plan reflects that desire of the citizens in the community. We view this application as an implementation of that Land Use Plan and in that light feel that it does provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposal to zone this parcel Commercial Core III is for approval. We feel that implementation of this request reflects municipal objectives as well as desires of the citizens of the community as evidenced through their input to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. This application represents implementation of a portion of that Land Use Plan and has full support of the Community Development Department. i cs MATCH-LINE C C °O", CCO°O Ci'g0�`C, ri7 O °c °CtD�O � 0000000 ..c °o °o °o° � 0 V °o 00C�O��q 0 �: .. °co°pc° 0 0 o c °p., - °o° oacV HOC C C l\ CC.k'« CZ l( r n 1 w,))) -< � 1 n m - SE�/SHEET \4 A n r m O C Z 0 GO C 000 C�0 0 0 O 0-p 0 O °00p 0 0100 p. 0 00 o OOH \ \ \ \\ a C C_ p G C \ \ \ \ \\ n0 ti "� c a 0 OQO \\\\\ \\\\ 0 0 „" Gp000 G .:'�t OC 0 O 0 C OO ♦\\\\ \+\ \\\\\\\\ p „C CC O 000 +\\\\ j \\\ \\\\\\\♦ C OCO �C JC" OiO G� x C OC Op-C .,3C p0" �G`_0,0�C 000° G a7C ,, eu O O ♦ + q0 CO ^C �CvGCO OGOC + J0G0�C CpGpC c� a vs V% �CCO X000 D c +�\ \\\\\ }♦\\\� 1� I00 N �flj� Cam, °"` OC�00� 0, -� �O �,' vvvvvvvvv♦ ^^OC nbl vvv+vvvvv n - o a m �co °ECG C�.,..COC O" 0 C,�:m u. n0�Q�00 5� ' ^cn000 ..C0000p„ 00 ,- . GAO O . 000pp,., C00pOpCCCO - C O O O .c0 coacO q: �I o° ,� o cpo _ . z 0� C O/ v�O f y r i cs MATCH-LINE C C °O", CCO°O Ci'g0�`C, ri7 O °c °CtD�O � 0000000 ..c °o °o °o° � 0 V °o 00C�O��q 0 �: .. °co°pc° 0 0 o c °p., - °o° oacV HOC C C l\ CC.k'« CZ l( r n 1 w,))) -< � 1 n m - SE�/SHEET \4 A n r m O C Z 0 GO C 000 C�0 0 0 O 0-p 0 O °00p 0 0100 p. 0 00 o OOH \ \ \ \\ a C C_ p G C \ \ \ \ \\ n0 ti "� c a 0 OQO \\\\\ \\\\ 0 0 „" Gp000 G .:'�t OC 0 O 0 C OO ♦\\\\ \+\ \\\\\\\\ p „C CC O 000 +\\\\ j \\\ \\\\\\\♦ C OCO �C JC" OiO G� x C OC Op-C .,3C p0" �G`_0,0�C 000° G a7C ,, eu O O ♦ + q0 CO ^C �CvGCO OGOC + J0G0�C CpGpC c� a vs V% �CCO X000 D c +�\ \\\\\ }♦\\\� 1� I00 N �flj� Cam, °"` OC�00� 0, -� �O �,' vvvvvvvvv♦ ^^OC nbl vvv+vvvvv n - o a m 6 r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision in order to resubdivide Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Included in this action is a request to rezone the newly created parcels B and C to Single Family Residential. Applicant: Michael Tennebaum I. THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting to resubdivide Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing in order to create 3 lots, one to be zoned Primary /Secondary and two to be zoned Single Family. Currently, both of 14 and lot 17 are zoned Primary /Secondary and each contains a single family residential dwelling. This subdivision decreases the size of the existing lot 17 while still maintaining the technical requirements and minimum standards required for a Primary /Secondary lot. This lot is described on the subdivision plat as Parcel A. Lot 14, then, with the increase in square footage taken from Lot 17, is subdivided into Parcels B and C, each to be zoned Single Family. Both of these parcels meet the site requirement standards for Single Family Residential lots. . For a Primary /Secondary lot, the minimum site area must be 15,000 square feet of buildable area and each site must have a minimum frontage of 30 feet and be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. A Single Family Residential lot must have a minimum site area of 12,500 square feet of buildable area. Each site must have a minimum frontage of 30 feet and shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. II. ISSUES RELATED TO THE EL QUEST While the staff understands and supports the basic concept of this request, there are several issues that need clarification. The allowable GRFA on the combined site of lots 14 and 17 as currently zoned is 7,518 square feet. Due to the nature of our GRFA ordinance and the way it functions upon a graduated scale, the creation of one Primary /Secondary lot and two Single Family lots would result in an increased amount of GRFA available. Part of the reason the staff supports this concept would be that it does not effectively change the density of the site. Four units would be allowed. Four units are being requested. We would request that the GRFA be restricted by condition and also on the plat to a maximum of 7,518 square feet to be divided among the three parcels so that at ]east the minimum standards of GRFA related to site area are met. The second issue of the request would be the parking for the proposed • Parcel C. Currently there is a single family unit located on Lot 14. The parking for this unit is located west of the existing unit. This U] • • parking area is located on what is proposed to be Parcel B. The applicant, in discussions has stated that a garage and parking area will be built on Parcel C to accommodate that unit. Our concern is that in the meantime we are creating a parcel with an existing unit with no legal parking, as the existing parking is located on the proposed Parcel B. We would request a formal easement be granted from Parcel B to Parcel C reassuring that there is a legal existing parking area for the existing unit on Parcel C. The third issue involved in this proposal regards the requirement that the minimum lot sizes be of buildable area. The staff has calculated the slope on this site and has found some slopes exceeding 40 %. As the subdivision is currently drawn, Parcel C does not meet the 12,500 square foot requirement of buildable area. The total site, however, does contain enough buildable area to create these three lots and with some minor reworking of the property line between Parcel B and Parcel C as is currently shown, both of these parcels could meet the minimum requirements. The fourth issue is that of the current zoning request. This subdivision will only work if Single Family zoning is approved for Parcel B and C, otherwise we will be creating non - conforming Primary /Secondary lots. These two actions are dependent upon each other, and we would request that if the Planning Commission were to deny either one of the applications, that both are denied. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the concept of this application and recommends approval. The density currently allowable on the site would be 4 units and the applicant is requesting no more than that. Our recommendation for approval, however, is based on the following conditions: 1. The total GRFA approved for the three parcels not exceed 7,518 square feet and that the GRFA as distributed must meet the minimum requirements for each parcel. 2. A legal instrument be created to allow the parking for Parcel C to remain on Parcel B until such time as adequate parking is available on Parcel C. 3. That the applicant demonstrate that all three lots meet the minimum site requirements of buildable area. 4. That approval of this subdivision is conditional upon final zoning approval being granted by the Town Council. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A request of zoning of two parcels now known as Parcel B and Parcel C, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village list Filing. The current zoning of these parcels is Primary /Secondary. The request is for Single Family Residential Applicant: Micheal Tannebaum I. THE REQUEST The applicant has submitted a concurrent application for resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Purpose of the subdivision is to decrease the size of Lot 17, increase the size of Lot 14, and then create two single family parcels out of the existing lot 14. The minor subdivision request is being addressed under a separate memorandum. The minor subdivision will insure that the proper lot area requirements for Single Family zone district is being met on Parcels B and C and that the requirements necessary for a Primary /Secondary lot are maintained on Parcel A. Currently, both the proposed Parcel A and Parcel C contain single family dwelling units. The final development scenario of this property would then entail a Primary /Secondary structure on Parcel A, a is single family unit on Parcel B and the existing single family unit on Parcel C. II. EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST 1. Suitability of Existing Zoning The Community Development staff feels that the existing zoning in this area of the community is appropriate and does meet the development objectives of the Town of Vail. The request, however, for Single Family zoning on this parcel does not change the densities that are currently approved. It merely changes the configuration in which this property may be built upon. Therefore, we feel that both the existing and proposed zoning are suitable. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationshi among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The proposed subdivision and zoning do not effectively change the concept of the development in this area of the community. Although we will see more separate structures, the effective density and square footage of development on this property does not change, and we feel, therefore, there is no negative impact upon the relationship of this use with the adjacent land uses. 0 � 0 3. Does the rezoning provide for -the growth of an orderly, viable community? The Community Development Department feels that as the subdivision request meets the minimum requirements for the proposed zone district and does not increase density, that the proposal does provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community and creates no negative impact or undesirable precedent for the community. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning is for approval, conditional upon the fact that the related minor subdivision request for lots 14 and 17 is approved and that all parcels meet the minimum site requirements for their proposed zone districts. r1 U nc)GOC�)n0o4 \\ • ,� c?ooU \♦ \\\ • • • n• xx m ;aO DD�P.00 000 ,� \+ \\ • • • • • N 00000000000 ,,, \,\ • O G ♦\♦ •. 0 00()0() 00 \\ \\ o nocoo0c)c o 0 . \. Oo :JC O GOOC a\\ O 00 R 00000 4QOD •; O IC oCY0000OO oD m'�� ^n00000 ) 00 \\ \\ .Ul0 O U 'oc, +\\ 0 '00000 !IZ c =00000 0000 \`\ 0'00000 )Qoo \ 000 DODO \\\ \ ♦ - �':: av�'" 00 D �<. 000000 aDO \ \ \ \\ \ \ C O 00000 Q + + + \ ++ \\ OQ)QO Qq[ 00 JODD 0000 n)$ ♦ \ \, \\ 0O 009 0 O y \ \ \\ \,\ \ \♦ 000000 \ \ \ \ \ +\ \\ \ + o 0000 \\ \\\\\ \\ \ \ \A 0000000 b +, \ \, \,\„\\ + \♦� 00000 ,\\,\\\, \, , \ \,\ -N• D 000 , \,,, \ \ \ \\♦ \ \\'N )000000 '}zr 0000 \\ 4300 \ j[ )0000 Z+0 IN, Z INN D r�g00 . a \� , .m.. D \\\\. \, ,\\\\ 0 0 60 \o0 00 \\\\\,\ \ , N N. 000 000 OOP 00 0 00 0 D aQ0 0 0000 \\ \: ,\ t7 R (y[ \ \.\,DIN U 00 D )O O D OODR M )OOiO ?000 0000 \ �\� ` 000 6 00 OCira G U !)RO -00 000 vy 00 000 ♦ \,\, PO000 00 o 0@1 FE) 00`6Oa QOO 00 O cc) O S O \ \ \\ \\ ` \ \\ \ 000 poo 0000 ;)C \\\\\, IN C 000 0o Doo ° oU Dop 00() 00 oi) Dao 0o0 0C, "• \ \ \ \` \\ \ \♦ J•• 000 0000 C) DOU o0 1.11 11 �:• )O O O 00000 O J \\\\\\. IN OOQ OO 00 fTl ) (700 O fTOD 00v0 DOC DOO Don 000 )000 0o duo \\\\\ \ \ \ ..yam a DD 000 \\\\\ �V r-Ce� �0 ) 00000 00 Q"Pi (O �_....u- �oo \\ — 0 000000 0000 � \,\\ IN \\ r �� O 000 OQQ pOCAp 1e� \+ , 1 • ,• Y .0 q8h 000 \ \\ ♦`\\ Z O f 000 Ub0 0000 D ooa ooato Rno )o 000 00 ♦\ \\ '.�' I k 00 00 QO 010 04 CLO g0 OO 0OO 0s ♦ ~ Otlq DO D�'U DOU 000 • 000 000 000 000 000• .F:, •• \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\ +\+\\\\ \,\ 0000 0000 \ \ \\ \\\\ 00040 \ \ \• \. \\\\ \\ u, \\\\,\ o0 oopQ ` \. 0c - \\\\\\\\\\\\\ 000000 \ \' \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\, U 00000 \ ,\\•• \\ \ \\ \ o d-U \ \ \ \ \ \\ C O GO tit• VAvAvAA ,A O„0 O IN \ \\\\\\ O \ \ \ \ \ \ \• \ \ \\\\ \\\\ vc rn (n > r \., m D C-) r= \\+ • \ �`\\\\ 4 0> I \\ \\ r • y• \\ \ \\\ r Q \ \\ \\\ \ \\ V \ \\\\\\\\\ C7m \\\\\\\\ \\ \,\\ F-� o \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\ �.� ••.� rural •� ) • . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ -� \\\\ \ \ \\ \ \. \ \ \ \\\. \\\ C ..... ... fir' �•Ii D ,\\\\ \\\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\\\j 0 \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \., C o \\\\ \,\,\• \, \\\\\\,\\\\ z n \\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\ e ••• Ian• / ,,'` • \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\ +\+\\\\ \,\ 0000 0000 \ \ \\ \\\\ 00040 \ \ \• \. \\\\ \\ u, \\\\,\ o0 oopQ ` \. 0c - \\\\\\\\\\\\\ 000000 \ \' \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\, U 00000 \ ,\\•• \\ \ \\ \ o d-U \ \ \ \ \ \\ C O GO tit• VAvAvAA ,A O„0 O IN \ \\\\\\ O \ \ \ \ \ \ \• \ \ \\\\ \\\\ vc rn (n > r \., m D C-) r= \\+ • \ �`\\\\ 4 0> I \\ \\ r • y• \\ \ \\\ r Q \ \\ \\\ \ \\ V \ \\\\\\\\\ C7m \\\\\\\\ \\ \,\\ F-� o \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\ NO \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\\\ \ \ \\ \ \. \ \ \ \\\. \\\ C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ D ,\\\\ \\\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\\\j 0 \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \., C o \\\\ \,\,\• \, \\\\\\,\\\\ z n \\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\ e � w I• luj 19 N 00 °23'W 62.78 c r � cn c co (n m CD n ° 14 w cn o m cn m = �] W z m O M n � O m m A o D F w U ° �m D a J o �7 N O rn f D o OD G � , o 5 01 °40'42'W 94.34' co OOL Q O m - g n r px O D - 2 � p 01 ko O m m C 'A _oN AU T m o oz m o m e � m rn o S22 °��4 LY i� m o � o 7 z 9.52 • � r z � rn cn o w A m r- b O o n z a _ Z - y w W 0 w 0 W° = om - a n (- m n - C-) `l) ° O wo 3'.. 4 ! 62 C-O ' 193 . 14' PLAT r• N a. w 0 r N FD C1 Z 0 o N W A N Q N Q 0Q�_ m N Cl -� I� O Ql O (0 Z o N W O -4 - O N 0 cn O o N O � � v C r _ n 19 N 00 °23'W 62.78 c r � cn c co (n m CD n ° 14 w cn o m cn m = �] W z m O M n � O m m A o D F w U ° �m D a J o �7 N O rn f D o OD G � , o 5 01 °40'42'W 94.34' co OOL Q O m - g n r px O D - 2 � p 01 ko O m m C 'A _oN AU T m o oz m o m e � m rn o S22 °��4 LY i� m o � o 7 z 9.52 • � r z � rn cn o w A m r- b O o n z a _ Z - y w W 0 w 0 W° = om - a n (- m n - C-) `l) ° O wo 3'.. 4 ! 62 C-O ' 193 . 14' PLAT r• N a. w 0 n � D -x z cn ° W �Cn0 o, cn v � W -O m 9 W o wm o r° m w m r 7 � � n v, m oa m n P• n n r m o � .=y w 4 n � D -x z cn ° W �Cn0 o, cn v � W -O m TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development DATE: December 22, 1986 SUBJECT: Application of zoning districts on the recently annexed portions of West Vail north of Interstate 70 Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND Colorado State Statutes require that zoning be placed on recently annexed properties within 90 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. Attached please find a zoning map with an outline of the area north of Interstate 70 which was annexed into the Town of Vail effective October 29, 1986. This application represents the Town's request to re -apply the previous zone districts onto the re- annexed area. We feel that with two exceptions, the previous zone districts are appropriate and should simply be re- applied to the individual parcels as depicted on the attached zoning map. The two exceptions are as follows: 1. A new parcel now being requested to be created immediately west of the West Vail Texaco located on Tract D, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. At the December 22nd meeting, an application for a minor subdivision and rezoning of this parcel will be heard. The approvals for this individual parcel looked at specifically in is parcel to that application shall supersede the treatment of that parcel within this application. Basically, we would like to exempt that portion of Tract D from consideration under this application from the Town. Lot 21, Section 14. This is an unplatted parcel owned by Mr. Albrecht located west of the developed area of West Vail north of I -70. There is an agreement.between the Town of Vail and Mr. Albrecht which allows the Town 180 days to apply zoning on this parcel, (rather than the usual 90 days). The Albrecht parcel was recommended in the Land Use Plan to have Hillside Residential land use. The staff is now in the process of creating the Hillside Residential district and we would expect the property owner to apply for that zone district once it is finalized. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed zone districts for the recently annexed portions of West Vail as per the attached map with the above exceptions as noted. • °OQ606,0 ;0poo0c 40 cOOac0°00000DOOOOaop00000 °o a 00 000 '•i; .00020000bpop0popapo °oP 0p 000000002LoOp0o0p000° 0 ^00 °0 °o 0000p0000op°oao °o °o °o °o° o -�.•.. • �t ft .0000000b 0 10000000000000Op 00000000Op0o b 0 00000D 0 0 0 0 m q r .o 009020202020000 0 ' 90000000°0000 f% 0000000000 �1 i' 1 1 i, �, 2, Cm ,000 r'!ft r OD I/� Off_.:'::.- :•' }y ?s F�,�_ rxt. 2m rn # }4rtfiify y3f�tr.� t X l f. ��•• �f tx � t b z �I $ w °I u mz wn H LINE • .11•r ' rFr 'k kFf t�.�`,•r>'1 tIr3�1try 111 f .1 1k�.��. ?,•;str,r�PilA7�1'�!. = ?c�iPy'r C , ly 0 0� o° °o 00 °o °o °o° a.I 1 0 °0200 0°° 0 0°2°'o 6 0 0 0 O O 0 O O o °o °q o 0 00000000/ 0001° 0 00000 00 0 2° °° 0 m r r [m� Q C O r tl a ::::�. It 5 0222 2g ga ° n � a m o % 0000 00000 0 o O ,, \,\\,\♦, \, 20 �\y •�\�� Z Z ,..o 00 D 0 Op pAp w♦�\i.\\, ''�:. "•' .m _- - - - -- � {� 1 � iwoo 00°-00 o ,\• co r ooh ' � : • •H .. •vrG[ (A t •g: 000 �. o 000 r ;'•'¢.:::::: .•• {d {g{ oO O 000 n I CO) •'�': o 0 0 {,��{ I'M ado 000 ZC'1 o °o °R°° !'Y'• " 0 w 000 0 °O °0° { { { { y 0000 000 bg, O °o °o ' {i �l 0000 Nor q b :•;1 :: S•sr 000 00 o � - i 000 0 OObO ••' {{{ { ?t { {�{ O6-O '" 000 ♦ \ \" :::j>:: :•• i{ {Moia,, {ii 000 ,\.,\ ♦\\ ;1 {iIJyi ?. 000 000 O . '...i..��i��♦ .'.7 ¢ • . i + ? { ?q�,?F.1, {y, {{'%,� 0000 ;:.. �6" °' {i4 {ri�•4f��:{?;•.i 0000.0 ♦I \,,,\,\ IN",,, NNN b \\\ \, \ \♦ \ \\, •,•p i { {� { {J { {: 000 IIN In- 0 I�Nlll I N11 o - •-•3 ,t;i {{i {'�,i r { 0000 ,,,.\„\..,,,,, \,\,,\\,,,\\\,\,\ S71. 00 •: ° o � ..:�:z7' � {?{'� ?t %�r ? { {° 000° \,.:::,,\,\„\\,\,,, 00,00 �i:��i:��. dap D '�'�.iq.•: ffi {4� ° �� „��:��: ;. 0 0 0 {r OP OP �j.♦ \\, \\,\\\\v. p 000 \ r \,,,,,,,,,,`• pu N -TI m M x Arn o nx Cf) Fri o yr zOND n N O z C , ly 0 0� o° °o 00 °o °o °o° a.I 1 0 °0200 0°° 0 0°2°'o 6 0 0 0 O O 0 O O o °o °q o 0 00000000/ 0001° 0 00000 00 0 2° °° 0 m r r [m� Q C O r tl a ::::�. It 5 0222 2g ga ° n � a m o % 0000 00000 0 o O ,, \,\\,\♦, \, 20 �\y •�\�� Z Z ,..o 00 D 0 Op pAp w♦�\i.\\, ''�:. "•' .m _- - - - -- � {� 1 � iwoo 00°-00 o ,\• co r ooh ' � : • •H .. •vrG[ (A t •g: 000 �. o 000 r ;'•'¢.:::::: .•• {d {g{ oO O 000 n I CO) •'�': o 0 0 {,��{ I'M ado 000 ZC'1 o °o °R°° !'Y'• " 0 w 000 0 °O °0° { { { { y 0000 000 bg, O °o °o ' {i �l 0000 Nor q b :•;1 :: S•sr 000 00 o � - i 000 0 OObO ••' {{{ { ?t { {�{ O6-O '" 000 ♦ \ \" :::j>:: :•• i{ {Moia,, {ii 000 ,\.,\ ♦\\ ;1 {iIJyi ?. 000 000 O . '...i..��i��♦ .'.7 ¢ • . i + ? { ?q�,?F.1, {y, {{'%,� 0000 ;:.. �6" °' {i4 {ri�•4f��:{?;•.i 0000.0 ♦I \,,,\,\ IN",,, NNN b \\\ \, \ \♦ \ \\, •,•p i { {� { {J { {: 000 IIN In- 0 I�Nlll I N11 o - •-•3 ,t;i {{i {'�,i r { 0000 ,,,.\„\..,,,,, \,\,,\\,,,\\\,\,\ S71. 00 •: ° o � ..:�:z7' � {?{'� ?t %�r ? { {° 000° \,.:::,,\,\„\\,\,,, 00,00 �i:��i:��. dap D '�'�.iq.•: ffi {4� ° �� „��:��: ;. 0 0 0 {r OP OP �j.♦ \\, \\,\\\\v. p 000 \ r \,,,,,,,,,,`• pu y • ll 11 TOWN OF VAIL ZONING LEGEND 3 ® SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ® TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/ SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT © LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT PUBLIC ACCOMODATION DISTRICT ® SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ® PUBLIC USE DISTRICT "•' COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT COMMERCIAL CORE 2 DISTRICT x COMMERCIAL CORE 3 DISTRICT M COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT GREENBELT a NATURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT PARKING ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SKI BASE RECREATION